What does it mean to graphically indicate syntactic structures. Syntactic constructions in a work of fiction

; rarely - one word form), which is a syntactic unit - phrase, sentence, as well as any relatively complete statement in general.

Syntax is the broadest concept of syntax, covering syntactic structures that are heterogeneous in their characteristics. Among the complexes, there are designs that are minimal in structure, that is, containing the minimum components necessary to construct a given unit (for example, “coniferous forest,” “The children are sleeping,” “He is an engineer,” “There is no strength,” “It is drizzling”); constructions that are more or less common, that is, resulting from the expansion of minimal structures in accordance with their inherent capabilities - complex phrases (for example, “coniferous forests of Russia”), common sentences (simple sentences that include minor members of the proposal, explaining, clarifying the subject and/or predicate or the sentence as a whole; for example, “My brother has been working as an engineer for three years,” “I have no strength,” “It’s drizzling all day”); combined constructions are the result of combining several simpler constructions, for example, combined phrases (“quickly complete the task received”), sentences with isolated phrases [“...Rises slowly uphill / Horse, carrying brushwood to z" (N. A. Nekrasov)], complex sentences[“I’m sad because I love you” (M. Yu. Lermontov)], direct speech constructions [“Where is my friend? - said Oleg, - Tell me, where is my zealous horse y?" (A.S. Pushkin)]. SK is characterized by paradigmatic modifications (see Paradigmatics) - systems of forms determined by modifications of the dominant component (for example, “coniferous forest” - “coniferous forest” - “in a coniferous forest”; “He is an engineer” - “He will be an engineer” - “If only he were an engineer!”).

There is a possibility of dual use of the term “S. k.": in relation to the abstract language model and in relation to the concrete language unit, built according to this model (see. Grammar units).

The signs by which S. to. are opposed to each other are different. For example, based on characteristics of a more general nature, predicative and non-predicative are contrasted (see. Predicativity) S. k., minimal constructions and constructions of a complex type, free and non-free (lexically limited, phraseological) S. k. S. k. differ in more specific characteristics, for example, active and passive constructions (“An authoritative scientist has published a spelling dictionary ” and “The spelling dictionary was published by an authoritative scientist”), infinitive S. k. (“Swimming is prohibited”), S. k. with an address (“-Son, where are you?”), negative S. k. (“I’m nothing to you should not"); the sentence contains a participial construction (“Sailboat, moored in our port y, brought tourists ashore"), participial turnover (« After redoing everything ah, we finally sat down to drink tea"), etc.

The term "S. k.”, as a rule, does not apply to constructions and their parts, which are units smaller than a phrase and a sentence, for example, to some intonationally isolated parts of a sentence (syntagms) that are not phrases, to individual word forms that do not form a sentence. But it is possible to apply this term to prepositional-case combinations (“by the shore”, “behind the forest”), to compounds of homogeneous members of a sentence (“in dictionaries and encyclopedias”).

The set of S. to. is historically variable. For example, during historical development Old Russians disappeared from the Russian language (see. Old Russian language) constructions with the so-called dative independent (“As he entered the gates of the city, and the metropolitan shattered him” ‘When he entered the gates of the city, the metropolitan met him’), with the so-called. second indirect cases [with the second accusative (“I will make a prince for them”, “I will make the young man a prince among them”), the second dative (“he will be a Christian”, “he will be a Christian”)].

Complex syntactic structures. false syntactic constructions are combinations of parts with different types of syntactic connections. Such constructions are very widespread in speech, and are used equally often in works of different functional styles. These are combined types of sentences; they are diverse in possible combinations of parts in them, but with all their diversity they lend themselves to a fairly clear and definite classification.

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

1) with composition and submission. 2) with writing and non-union connection. 3) with subordination and non-union connection. 4) with composition, subordination and non-union connection. Sentences with different types of syntactic connections usually consist of two (at least) logically and structurally distinguishable components or several, among which there may, in turn, be complex sentences. However, as a rule, the main components have the same type of connection - coordinating or non-conjunctive. More often, in such combined sentences there is a division into two components, and one of them or both can be complex sentences. The connection between components can be of only two types - coordinative or non-union. A subordinate relationship is always internal. Such syntactic constructions are subject to two levels of division: the first division is logical-syntactic, the second is structural-syntactic. At the first level of division, larger logical parts of the structure, or components, are distinguished, at the second - parts equal to individual predicative units, i.e. the simplest “building elements” of a complex sentence..

Question 41. Complex syntactic whole. (Types of communication. Paragraph structure. Period).

A complex syntactic whole is understood as a syntactic unit larger than a sentence. This is the largest unit of syntax, representing a structural and semantic unity.

A complex syntactic whole is found in a connected text. This is a combination of several sentences, characterized by the relative completeness of the topic (microtheme), semantic and syntactic cohesion of the components.

Individual sentences as part of a complex syntactic whole are united by interphrase connections, which are carried out using lexical continuity, as well as special syntactic means.

A complex syntactic whole differs from a complex sentence (including polynomial ones) by the less close connection between the parts and their formal syntactic independence.

Structural means of organizing independent sentences as part of a complex syntactic whole are conjunctions in the connecting meaning, anaphorically used pronouns, adverbs; adverbial combinations as determinants, modal words, word order, correlation of types of tense forms of verbs and possible incompleteness of individual sentences; General intonation also plays a significant role. In terms of semantics, a complex syntactic whole is characterized by lexical continuity, the breadth of coverage of the content of the topic being presented, up to its full disclosure (each of the subsequent links of the complex syntactic whole expands and develops the content of the previous ones).

A complex syntactic whole can be built without special connecting elements, only on the basis of lexical continuity, synonymous and lexical repetitions, and commonality of time plan.

A paragraph as a compositional and stylistic unit differs from a complex syntactic whole as an objective structural and semantic unit of the text. There are three types of relationships between A. and SSC:

1) A. coincides with SSC: a) in scientific; b) official business style; c) this feature is a narrative norm of artistic prose;

2) one A. includes several SSCs;

3) one STS can be divided into two or more paragraphs, which allows you to highlight individual links of the general structure and particular details in the description.

A polynomial complex sentence can be organized in a special way and represent a period. This is a polynomial complex sentence, harmonious in its syntactic structure, sharply split into two parts, with a sequential listing of homogeneous syntactic units in each of these parts.

Sentences constructed in the form of a period constitute periodic speech, in contrast to ordinary, abrupt speech. In terms of content, the period is distinguished by its great completeness and completeness of expression of thought; it develops and formalizes the complex argumentation of the position.

The intonation design of the period is definite and invariable: a gradual increase in tone at the beginning, then a deep pause and a decrease in tone. .

Complex syntactic constructions are combinations of parts with different types of syntactic connections. Such constructions are very widespread in speech, and are equally often used in works of different functional styles. These are combined types of sentences; they are diverse in possible combinations of parts in them, but with all their diversity they lend themselves to a fairly clear and definite classification.

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

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

2) with an essay and non-union connection: My direction is to another unit, but I fell behind the train: let me, I think, take a look at my platoon and my lieutenant(Cossack.);

3) with subordination and non-union connection: On a walk in the forest, sometimes, thinking about my work, I am overcome with philosophical delight: it seems as if you are deciding the conceivable fate of all humanity(Priv.);

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

Sentences with different types of syntactic connections usually consist of two (at least) logically and structurally distinguishable components or several, among which there may, in turn, be complex sentences. However, as a rule, the main components have the same type of connection - coordinating or non-conjunctive. For example, in the sentence Mechik did not look back and did not hear the chase, but he knew that they were chasing him, and when three shots were fired one after another and a volley rang out, it seemed to him that they were shooting at him, and he ran even faster(Fad.) four components: 1) Mechik did not look back and did not hear the chase; 2) but he knew that they were chasing him; 3) and when three shots rang out one after another and a volley rang out, it seemed to him that they were shooting at him; 4) and he ran even faster. All these parts are connected by coordinating relationships, but within the parts there is subordination (see the second and third parts).

More often, in such combined sentences there is a division into two components, and one of them or both can be complex sentences. The connection between components can be of only two types - coordinative or non-union. A subordinate relationship is always internal.

1) The greatest pictorial power lies in sunlight, and all the grayness of Russian nature is good only because it is the same sunlight, but muted, passing through layers of moist air and a thin veil of clouds(Paust.);

2) There was one strange circumstance in the Stavraki case: no one could understand why he lived under his real name until his arrest, why he did not change it immediately after the revolution(Paust.);

3) One circumstance always surprises me: we walk through life and have absolutely no idea and cannot even imagine how many greatest tragedies, beautiful human deeds, how much grief, heroism, meanness and despair have happened and are happening on any piece of earth where we live(Paust.).

Such syntactic constructions are subject to two levels of division: the first division - logical-syntactic, second - structural-syntactic. At the first level of division, larger logical parts of the structure, or components, are distinguished, at the second - parts equal to individual predicative units, i.e. the simplest “building elements” of a complex sentence. If we convey these two levels of division of complex syntactic structures graphically, then the diagrams of the given sentences can be presented as follows:

Thus, for more high level division - logical-syntactic - complex syntactic constructions can only have coordinating and non-union connections, as the most free connections, as for the subordinating connection (closer connection), it is possible only as an internal connection between parts of the components, i.e. is found only at the second level of division of a complex syntactic structure.

This is especially clearly revealed when combining two complex sentences into a complex syntactic structure. For example: Tatyana Afanasyevna gave her brother a sign that the patient wanted to sleep, and everyone quietly left the room, except for the maid, who sat down again at the spinning wheel.(P.); That was the time when the poems of Polonsky, Maykov and Apukhtin were better known than simple Pushkin melodies, and Levitan did not even know that the words of this romance belonged to Pushkin(Paust.).

Complex syntactic structures can have extremely common components: Cincinnatus did not ask anything, but when Rodion left and time dragged on at its usual jog pace, he realized that he had been deceived again, that he had strained his soul so much in vain and that everything remained as vague, viscous and meaningless as it had been.(Eb.).

In Russian there is a large number of syntactic structures, but their scope is the same - the transmission of written or oral speech. They sound in ordinary colloquial, business, and scientific language; they are used in poetry and prose. These can be both simple and complex syntactic constructions, the main purpose of which is to correctly convey the idea and meaning of what was said.

Concept of complex structures

Many writers prefer to present the narrative of their works using simple and short sentences. These include Chekhov (“brevity is the sister of talent”), Babel, O. Henry and others. But there are authors who use sentences with complex syntactic construction in order not only to more fully convey the description, but also the emotions that it evokes. They became most widespread among authors such as Hugo, Leo Tolstoy, Nabokov and others.

A complex syntactic structure is a sentence in which there are different types syntactic connections. They can combine:

• Coordinating and non-union connections: “Large snowflakes first slowly fell onto the sidewalk, and then fell faster - the blizzard began.”
• Non-alliancers with subordinates: “In the evening the weather worsened sharply, no one wanted to go for a walk when I finished my business.”
• Mixed type: “All the guests walked into the hall in silence, took their places, and only after that they began to whisper to each other until the one who invited them here appeared at the door.”
• Coordinating and subordinating connections: “The big beautiful one fell at my feet, and I decided to pick it up to put it in a vase at home.”

In order to correctly compose complex syntactic structures, you should know exactly how their parts are interconnected. The placement of punctuation marks also depends on this.

Coordinating connection type

In the Russian language, a complex syntactic structure can consist of parts united by one of 3 types of connections - coordinating, subordinating and non-conjunctive, or all at the same time. Syntactic structures with a coordinating conjunction type combine two or more equal sentences connected by a coordinating conjunction.

It would be possible to put a dot between them or swap them, since each of them is independent, but together in meaning they form a single whole, for example:

• Read this book and you will discover a completely new vision of reality. (You can put a period between two sentences, but the content will remain the same).
• A thunderstorm was approaching, and dark clouds appeared in the sky, and the air was filled with moisture, and the first gust of wind shook the crowns of the trees. (The parts can be swapped, but the meaning of the sentence will be the same).

May be one of the connecting components in complex sentences. There are known examples of its combination with a non-union connection.

Uniting with intonation

A complex syntactic construction often combines a coordinating connection with a non-conjunctive connection. This is the name for parts of which are connected to each other solely by intonation, for example:

“The girl quickened her pace (1): the train, puffing, approached the station (2), and the whistle of the locomotive confirmed this (3).”

There is a non-union connection between the 1st and 2nd parts of the construction, and the second and third sentences are united by a coordinating connection, they are completely equal, and you can put a full stop between them.

In this example there is a combination of coordinating and non-conjunctive connections, united by a single lexical meaning.

Constructions with coordinating and subordinating connections

Sentences in which one part is the main part and the other dependent are called complex sentences. At the same time, you can always pose a question from the first to the second, regardless of where it is located, for example:

• I don’t like (when what?) when people interrupt me. (The main part comes at the beginning of the sentence).
• When people interrupt me, I don’t like it (when?). (The sentence begins with a subordinate component).
• Natasha decided (for how long?) that she would leave for a long time (for what reason?), because what happened had a great impact on her. (The first part of the sentence is main in relation to the second, while the second is main in relation to the third).

Combined into one whole, coordinating and subordinating connections form complex syntactic constructions. Let's look at examples of proposals below.

“I realized (1) that new challenges awaited me (2), and this realization gave me strength (3).”

The first part is the main one in relation to the second, since they are connected by a subordinate relationship. The third is attached to them by a coordinating connection using the conjunction and.

“The boy was ready to cry (1), and tears were already filling his eyes (2), when the door opened (3) so that he could follow his mother (4).”

The first and second sentences are connected by a coordinating connection using the conjunction “and”. The second, third and fourth parts of the structure are connected by subordination.

In complex syntactic constructions, the sentences of which they are composed can be complicated. Let's look at an example.

“The wind rose, growing stronger with each gust (1), and people hid their faces in their collars (2) when a new squall overtook them (3).”

The first part is complicated by the participial phrase.

Types of non-union and subordinating constructions

In the Russian language you can often find non-conjunctive sentences combined with a subordinating type of connection. Such designs may have 3 or more parts, some of which are main for some and dependent for others. Parts without conjunctions are attached to them using intonation. This is a so-called complex syntactic construction (examples below) with a subordinating-union connection:

“In moments of particular fatigue, I had a strange feeling (1) - I was doing something (2) that I had absolutely no soul for (3).”

In this example, the 1st and 2nd parts are connected by a common meaning and intonation, while the 2nd (main) and 3rd (dependent) are a complex sentence.

“When it snowed outside (1), my mother wrapped me in numerous scarves (2), because of this I could not move normally (3), which made it extremely difficult to play snowballs with other children (4).”

In this sentence, the 2nd part is the main one in relation to the 1st, but at the same time it is connected with the 3rd intonation. In turn, the third sentence is the main one in relation to the fourth and is a complex construction.

In one complex syntactic structure, some parts can be connected without a conjunction, but at the same time be part of a complex sentence.

Design with all types of connections

A complex syntactic construction in which everything is used at the same time is rare. Similar sentences are used in literary texts when the author wants to convey events and actions as accurately as possible in one phrase, for example:

“The whole sea was covered with waves (1), which became larger as they approached the shore (2), they crashed with noise against a solid barrier (3), and with a dissatisfied hiss, the water retreated (4) to return and hit new strength (5)".

In this example, the 1st and 2nd parts are connected by a subordinate connection. The second and third are non-union, between the 3rd and 4th there is a coordinating connection, and the fourth and fifth are again subordinate. Such complex syntactic constructions can be divided into several sentences, but when they form a single whole, they carry additional emotional overtones.

Separating sentences with different types of communication

In complex syntactic constructions they are placed on the same basis as in complex, complex and non-union sentences, for example:

• When the sky in the east began to turn gray, a rooster was heard crowing. (subordinate connection).
• A light haze lay in the valley, and the air trembled over the grasses. (complex sentence).
• When the sun's disk rose above the horizon, it was as if the whole world was filled with sounds - birds, insects and animals greeted the new day. (A comma stands between the main and dependent parts of a complex sentence, and a dash separates it from the non-union sentence).

If you combine these sentences into one, you get a complex syntactic construction (grade 9, syntax):

"When the sky in the east began to turn gray, a rooster was heard crowing (1), a light haze lay in the valley, and the air trembled over the grass (2), when the disk of the sun rose above the horizon, as if the whole world was filled with sounds - birds, insects and animals welcomed the new day (3)".

Parsing complex syntactic structures

To spend with different types communication, you need:

• determine its type - narrative, imperative or interrogative;
• find out how many simple sentences it consists of, and find their boundaries;
• determine the types of connections between parts of a syntactic structure;
• characterize each block by structure (complex or simple sentence);
• draw up a diagram of it.

This way you can disassemble a structure with any number of connections and blocks.

Application of sentences with different types of connections

Similar constructions are used in colloquial speech, as well as in journalism and fiction. They convey the author’s feelings and emotions to a greater extent than those written separately. A great master who used complex syntactic structures was Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy.

Various changes are taking place in the syntactic structure of the Russian language, and the most noticeable of them, covering all syntactic levels, is the tendency towards analyticism, manifested in the dismemberment of the utterance, the weakening of syntactic connections and the compression of syntactic structures. Synthetism is manifested in the high development of subordinating syntactic constructions at the level of both phrases and sentences.

Changes in the system of phrases and syntactic connections

Changes in the system of phrases of the modern Russian language are associated with the emergence of a different syntactic orientation within complex phrases consisting of more than two significant words ( apply to court - statement in court), or with a change in syntactic relations within a sentence.

As a manifestation of synthetism, it should be noted the widespread use of control and coordination connections in subordinating phrases, which are based on the activation of nominal inflection - the declension of nouns and adjectives. As a result, phrases with various combinations function in the Russian language subordinating connections significant words: The monument to Pushkin, created long ago by the sculptor Anikushin, on Arts Square in St. Petersburg. This compound phrase, consisting of nine significant words, is organized around a noun monument using syntactic connections of coordination, strong and weak control, adjacency, the result of which is a complex chain of word forms located at different levels of the hierarchy relative to each other.

It is worth noting two main results of changes in the syntactic orientation in word combinations: 1) the formation of compact word forms, reduced in the number of word forms; 2) weakening of syntactic connections. These different aspects of one phenomenon weaken the syntactic chain, reduce the length of sequential subordination and subordination, and make the positions of word forms in a sentence more independent.

Reducing polynomial phrases. Contamination and collapse of phrases

Let us highlight the most noticeable processes here.

1. The process of formation of new word compounds as a result of the collapse of three-term verbal or verb-nominal phrases. For example, V.V. Vinogradov evaluated the phrase tangerines from Georgia as a result of shortening the phrase tangerines, brought from Georgia, where is the word form from Georgia refers to the sacrament. The same can be said about phrases heat from the stove(heat coming from the stove) light from a lantern(light coming from a lantern).

Verbal phrases themselves have always represented a greater variety of models and options in their form and especially in meaning, and have always been more frequently used than substantive ones. The development of nominal phrases from verb-nominal ones can be presented in the following sequence. First, a verbal noun is formed from the verb; constructions where dependent components have local meaning ( from Moscow, With front, at the fountain, in town), and the main component is the “predicative” noun, were the first stage of these syntactic shifts: arrival in Moscow from come to Moscow, letter from the front from write from the front, meeting at the fountain from meet at the fountain etc. Formations of this kind developed in the Russian language a very long time ago. The growth of noun phrases is active, where the core noun can also be an object noun: not only meeting at the fountain, but also tree, area, people at the fountain. The next stage is related to the expansion of semantics dependent word(word forms). These are not only word forms with local meaning, but also with a variety of adverbial meanings that are formed in modern literary language throughout the 19th-20th centuries: release products for next year - products for next year; sell in a store without a salesperson - a store without a salesperson; prepare a solution from lime - lime mortar and so on.

Of course, for every noun phrase of this kind one should not see an expanded verbal-nominal phrase as the initial prototype. Nowadays, noun phrases are formed freely, according to the “noun + prepositional-case form” model.

2. The constructive impact of one phrase on another due to semantic proximity is a phenomenon of analogy and contamination in the development of phrases. A classic example of contamination as a result of the action of analogy is the combination of two phrases in the expression play meaning(from play a role And matter).

In changing the control in a phrase without violating stylistic norms, two chronological layers are distinguished:

• 1) changes in management have long become normative: give someone, how - give to someone, What(cf.: give, give to whom, what); testify that - testify about something(cf.: talk about something); why laugh - what to laugh at(cf.: to mock something); 2) the normativity of management changes fluctuates: pay for travel instead of pay for travel(cf.: pay for what) "blame the massacre of workers instead of commit reprisals against employees(cf.: to mock, to abuse someone); admiration for the artist instead of admiration for the artist(cf.: admiration for someone); shared their impressions instead of shared their impressions(cf.: told about what), etc. Facts of this kind reflect the process of unification of syntax under the influence of lexical semantics, since the similarity of the semantics of control words leads to the same grammatical design of the connection.
• 3. The process of destruction of the phrase itself occurs when only one component remains in a two-term phrase, but the meaning of the phrase “fits” in the remaining one, i.e. there is a kind of compaction, condensation, semantic and grammatical (other names for this phenomenon are known: compression, ellipsis, contraction, inclusion, etc.). Let us note the cases of manifestation of this process:
  • - the attributive phrase breaks up, and its former dependent part remains: Nevsky(instead of Nevsky Avenue), Small(instead of Maly Theater), Crystal(instead of cafe "Crystal") and so on. This is not just a substantivization of an adjective, but a semantic condensation. No new lexeme is created here. With substantivization, it is impossible to substitute nouns as the main component for these former adjectives, and with semantic condensation there is always the possibility of parallel use with the full version of the phrase;
  • - from the remaining part of the attributive phrase a noun is formed: Literary newspaper - Literary - Literature; Public library - Public - Public. The second conversion stage may be missing: Castor oil - castor oil, cooperative apartment - cooperative; same origin of the word prolongation, tension, mineral water, defense industry, runabout, high-rise building, etc.

Some other changes in the field of constructing word combinations have been noted in the literature, but reduction does not mean simplification. The compression of a construction usually concerns its linear extension, reducing the number of word forms in it, but the informative meaning of the simplified construction remains unchanged - its semantic compaction occurs. In addition, in many cases the formation of new phrases does not exclude the use of old ones. They can be used in parallel, forming synonymous series, the members of which differ either in shades of meaning or stylistic coloring: apply to court - sue, department meeting tomorrow - department tomorrow, graduated from university - finished university.