Formal device and semantics of structural schemes of simple proposals. Academy of Sciences Ussrine Institute of Russian Language Grammatics Concept of structural scheme as a grammatical sample of supply

Since in linguistics, the idea of \u200b\u200bdistinguishing the language and speech has been established, the question arose: that in this regard is a proposal, is it only a single unit of speech or also a unit of language? In Slavic linguistics, most syntaxists are considered as a unit and language and speech. This thought was well expressed by V. Mathezius: "The proposal does not belong entirely to speech, but is associated with its usual form with the grammatical language system to which it belongs."

In the sentence, there are also produced and reproducible elements. Reproduced as elements of the proposal structure, and not arbitrarily formed by the speaker forms of constitutive members of the proposal that make up its predicative minimum, which is necessary in order for the proposal to be a grammatically decorated predicative unit, and a wider nominative minimum that is necessary for a semantic organization's organization without which it Could not exist as a message - nominative unit.

In certain speech situations, the proposal may not really contain all constitutive members, the presence of which is assumed to be a formal and semantic organization, but be incomplete and contain only such members that are required by the communicative task of the proposal: - Where did the roadrovka come from? - from the forest, internally(N.); - And how long did he live with you?- i asked again.- Yes since year(L.). But the existence of incomplete proposals does not refute the fact of the presence of reproducible elements in the speech proposal, since, firstly, incomplete sentences exist only under such conditions under which their content is replenished by the context or a speech situation, and secondly, and in incomplete sentences of their cash Members have such a form that they would have in full, so that the forms of cash will signal and the verbally non-pronounced (implicit) components of the proposal, reproduce, although incomplete, one or another sample of supply. So, the offer All weapons on the table!not containing a major member, its cash signals that it is built according to an infinitive offer (Wed: All put weapons on the table),a sentence All weapons on the table!- according to the pattern of the hidden-verb (Wed: All put the weapon on the table).

Thus, the rules of Russian syntax (and it is precisely related to the system of organization of the proposal, and not other syntactic units) require to consume with the hidden form of personal (non-impersonal) verb shape of a noun nouns: He is on dutyand with infinitive - the form of a dutiful case: He is on duty;when approving the availability of the subject - the form of a nominative case: There is paper; There were difficultiesand upon denial - the form of a genitive case: No paper; There were no difficulties.

The task of teaching on the structural proposition scheme is to determine in relation to the proposals of different types of minimum of components, with "which the proposal regardless of the context is capable of performing its functions. Thus, structural proposal scheme It can be defined as a disturbed sample consisting of a minimum of the components required to create a suggestion.

A new type of description of the formal organization of a proposal, based on the concept of a structural propositional scheme, appeared in Russian science at the end of the 60s. It was implemented in relation to all the designs of the Russian proposal in "Grammar-70" and in "Russian grammar" (1980, 1982), discussed in many articles and books on the syntax of the Russian language and the general theory of syntax. The introduction of the concept of the structural scheme of the proposal responded to the general desire for formalization and modeling of linguistic objects, which is characterized by various directions and regions of modern linguistics and which reflects the requests of the century, as well as the objectives of the practical application of the descriptive syntax.

At the same time, it immediately turned out that the new type of description of the formal organization of the proposal is not self-evident. There was a controversy around the concept of a structural scheme. Two understanding of the structural minimum of suggestions have emerged.

Understanding the structural minimum of the proposal put forward by N.Yu. Swedio, addressed to the formal organization of a proposal as a predicative unit. Therefore, it assumes distraction from all that it is not essential for him. On this basis, the components of the proposal appear in the structural scheme, which appeared in it as the sale of communication, organized by the type "Word + Form of the Word", i.e. All requests distributors that implement the syntactic potential of words whose forms form a proposal and are components of the scheme. Including not included in the scheme and mandatory predictable space distributors, without which the proposal cannot be a minimum message independent of the context. In accordance with this understanding, only those components of the proposals that form its predicative minimum are introduced into the structural scheme.

At this level of abstraction, it turns out to be insignificant that so understood structural minimum is far from any lexical filling forms a real proposal that can be the name of the event or the communicative unit. So, in sentences The Rooks Have Arrivedand They found them herefrom the perspective of this understanding, the same structural scheme: "The form of a noupled case of a noun + consistent with it the hidden form of the verb" (N 1 V f). Meanwhile, in the second case, filling only these syntactic positions does not give a real offer. ("They found themselves").

The level of abstraction, asked by this understanding of the structural minimum of the sentence, corresponds to the one that was adopted by the traditional teaching on the main members of the sentence, so the compilation of the list of structural schemes in such an understanding may rely on this teaching (from such positions the whole system of the Russian proposal in "grammar 70 "and in" Russian grammar-80 ", where closed lists of structural schemes are given).

Another understanding of the structural minimum of the proposal was drawn not only to the formal organization of the proposal as a predicative unit, but also to the semantic organization as a nominative unit, and the actual grammatical and semantic adequacy is also taken into account. In this case, the proposal structural scheme includes a greater number of components. So, from the standpoint of this approach, the scheme N 1 V f corresponds only to the offer The Rooks Have Arrived,for offer They found them hereit must be supplemented by the adverbial semantic component of the local value, which, in accordance with the accepted symbolism, can designate ADV Lo C / N 2 ... Loc, where N 2 ... Loc represents any case (proposed-case) form of nouns with a nasal local value (i.e., the value of the place). The morphological properties of this component (actually adolescent or proposed-case form) for the propositional structural scheme is insignificant; Wed: They found themselves at home (at home, in the house, behind the house).

The second understanding of the structural minimum proposal is represented by a large number of works of domestic and foreign scientists. They consider the general principles of separation of structural schemes, the whole system of the Russian proposal in the form of a closed list of structural schemes is not described.

Each researchers implements the central idea of \u200b\u200bthe direction in its own way. But in all realizations of this direction, its overall idea is manifested: the concern to the meaning of the proposal as a nominative unit, the recognition of the relative completion, the integrity of informative maintenance and the obligatory property of the proposal. The structural minimum of the proposal here is understood as the limit of semantic autonomy, suitability for the implementation of nominative function, i.e. To the expression of a certain type of "state of affairs", events, situations.

With this approach to establishing a structural minimum proposal, it is not possible to rely on the traditional doctrine of the main members of the sentence. So, "add-ons, from this point of view, should be attributed to the number of main (that is, the necessary) members of the sentence"; The differences between the subject and additions are insignificant.

The two sentences described above the structural scheme of supply, based on a different idea of \u200b\u200bthe structural minimum of supply, with all the differences between them complement each other, representing different levels of abstraction: greater when orientation to predicative minimum and smaller when orientation to nominative minimum. This allows us to talk about two types of structural schemes of proposals - minimum and extended. Extended schemes are minimal schemes + not constitutive in them, i.e. Significant for the semantic structure of supply, components. Thus, there is an inclusion between minimal and advanced proposal schemes. Thus, the minimum scheme N 1 V F is part of the extended schemes built on its basis, for example, in the schemen 1 V f ADV LOC / N 2 ... Loc, which the proposal is implemented They found them hereor in the scheme N 1 V F N 2 ... OBJ, on which sentences built I remember a wonderful moment(P.); An excellent daughter is proud of an old Kochubey (P.).

Let us explain this formula. Adjectives in the above examples are optional, are not included in the nominative minimum, therefore are not components of the scheme.

Index 2... oBJ. It means that the noun, which he accompanies, can stand in the form of any indirect case with the value of the nearest object of action. What kind of case, it will receive, depends on the combination properties of the verb and for the system of proposals is insignificant; Wed: He Missedus; He worked onarticle; We believed B.victory.

The specifics of the proposal as a syntax unit is that it expresses actualized informative content: gives the name of some situation, at the same time estimating its reality ~ irreality and its location in time relative to the speech act. In accordance with this, the minimum proposal scheme should include such a combination of forms of words (or one word form), which is necessary and sufficient to express this "proposed" value with a certain lexical filling, namely, it is transferred to the informative content that agrees with reality ( Speech situation) in terms of the categories of reality ~ irreality and time.

The minimum proposal schemes include the form of three classes.

1. First of all, these are indicators of predication. In modern language, they are represented by three forms: hidden forms of verb (V f); Hidden Bundle Forms (COP F) - Service Word be,expressing the grammatical meaning of reality ~ irreality and time, as well as the agreed categories of numbers and kinds (persons); Infinitive verb or bundles (INF) transmitting a specific modal value. The hidden forms and infinitives of the verb are the components of the minimum supply scheme. Those of them that stand outside the negotiatory categories, i.e. In which, in the structure of the structural scheme, the number and genus (person) are unimagatative, can one form minimal proposals schemes, since as a result of their denomination, in addition to predicative values, a certain informative content is carried.

This feature is implemented by the forms of the 3rd face of the only number in the suggestions of the type Lights(V s 3 / n); Forms of the 3rd face of a plural number in suggestions of the type Guard!Robby! (V PL 3); infinitive in suggestions Stand!(INF).

The forms of the same bundle cannot be the minimum propositional scheme, as they represent only the means of updating, valid only when connected to certain forms of significant words that carry out the informative content that with the help of actualization means is relevant with reality. Therefore, the forms of bundles are not independent components of the proposal structural scheme. They form a comprehensive component of the scheme, into which as the second element is one of the name forms combined with a ligament; It expresses the nominative content of the complex component of the proposal block diagram. There can be no minimum proposal and the hidden forms of verbs, in which the number and genus (person) in the structure of the structural scheme is variable, since their design for these categories is determined by the forms of those words with which they are consistent.

2. In the minimum proposals schemes, including a bundle, include certain forms of names and adverbs, which in combination with a bunch form a single syntax complex. In modern language, these are forms of the nominative and efficient cases of nouns (N 1 / N 5), as well as free or proposed forms of any indirect case, capable of combining with a bunch (N2 ... PR); forms of the nominative or creatorial case of adjective and suffering communities, as well as briefly forms and comparatives (ADJ 1/5 / F); Advice capable of combining with a ligament (ADV PR); Infinitive.

The predicative carrier (the hidden form of the verb or infinitor) and the complex formed by transmitting predicative values \u200b\u200bof a bunch with a provincial named form make up the predicative center of the proposal, its grammatical core.

In minimal proposal schemes, which include the forms of verb or bundles, variable in terms of agreed categories, include components that define the form of predicatence indicators by number, family (face). In modern language, this is the form of a nominative case of the noun and its substitutes, in particular the combination of quantitative words in various forms with form of the parental case of a noun: It came (came) a few visitors (with a dozen visitors, about a dozen visitors),as well as infinitive. These components are consistent, reactingly reacting to their shape, the hidden form of verb or ligaments, as well as capable of coordinating personal form, combined with a bunch; Wed: He liked the work.- He liked to work; The work was interesting.- It was interesting to work.

The minimum proposal schemes are the result of high abstraction: they include only such components, the presence of which is not determined by the sub-bonds, are fully exempted on accounting for the combination of words and record only the specific facts of the syntactic organization of the proposal. The minimum scheme list demonstrates the formal supply apparatus, so this list is of great value for typological formal-syntactic characteristics of the language.

Minimum proposal schemes can be single-component and two-component. Single-component schemes are equal to the predicative center of the sentence and are formed by its forms that are not variable in the agreed category: forms of the single number of the 3rd person (VS 3 / N\u003e COP S 3 / N), the plural number of the 3rd face (V PL 3, SAT P L 3) and infinitive verb or bundles (INF). Two-component schemes, except the predicative supply center, include another component (the form of a noun or infinitive noun), which defines the form of a predicative center in coordinating categories.

Minimum proposal schemes are combined into three blocks, differing in both the amount of components (single-component and two-component) and in the form of one of the components (nominative and infinitive two-component schemes). At the same time, the structural schemes of verbal (a) and the binder (b) differ in the nature of the predicative center of the sentence. In the class "A" (verb), the predicative center of the sentence is elementary, it is a form of verb (a hidden form or infinitive), which simultaneously expresses its real content and grammatical characteristics; In the class "b" (binder), the predicative center of the sentence is integrated, it consists of a bundle (in a hidden form or in infinitive) expressing only its grammatical characteristics, and a significant element - combined with a bunch of a name, adverb or infinitive, which expresses real Content (Table 9, 10, 11).

Table 9.

I block (two-component nominative)

Table 10.

II block (two-component infinitive)

Table 11.

III block (single-component)

One-component proposals constructed by the INF structural scheme can be or verbal, or bonded, since their only component (predicative center) can be elementary or complex. In the first case, this is an infinitive of the verb (i.e. a significant word), which is carrying at the same time and the real content of the predicative center and its grammatical importance; In the second, this is an infinitive of a bundle expressing only grammatical meaning, and therefore combined, forming a complex component, with a form of a name carrying material content. Wed: Tomorrow I leave; Be this song popular.

A special position in terms of distinguishing the verb and binder structural schemes occupy the proposals of a two-component infinitive unit. The position of the infinitive in them can be filled with or an infinitive of the verb - a significant word (V in F), or a complex component - "infinitives of bundles + progressive element" (COP INF N 5, COP INF N 2 ... PR / ADV PR, COP INF ADJ F / 5): Being a teacher is difficult; Being without a hat was unusual; Being together was rare; To be funny (more fun) it happened infrequently.

Comprehensive component of the supply scheme supply headed by infinitive be,in these proposals is not a predicative carrier: this function here is performed by the rigid form of the verb in the INFV F scheme and the hidden ligament forms in all other schemes; The complex component headed by infinitive be,plays the role of the determinant of the form of the predicative center in the agreed category, i.e. The role of a component similar to the form of a nouns of the noun (subjectable) in two-component diagrams of nominative block. In connection with the above and in accordance with the tradition, it is opposed to verbity and convict only in the position of the predicative supply center, constructed according to the INFV F scheme with the complex component in the position of the infinitive, are considered as verbal, and sentences with a complex component in the infinitive position built according to other two-component positions Infinitive block, like a binder.

With the infinitive of the ligament, not all forms of names, combined with a bundle in the hidden form: infinitives of the bundle does not allow forms of nouns and adjectives with him.

It should be said that in the Infcopinf scheme can be replaced by complex components of both positions: Now be happy to be healthy.The position of the first complex component is the position of the infinitive, which is the determinant of the form of the predicative center in coordinating categories, similar to the form of the form of a nouns of the noun (subjectable), and the position of the second complex component is a position as part of the predicative center of the proposal led by a hidden ligament form. We will make the necessary explanations to the schema list. Recording structural proposal schemes with symbols reflects the essential features of the morphological appearance of their components. When the component form is notified, generalizations based on distracting from some of the facts abstraction are allowed at a given level. Thus, ADJ denotes not only the actual adjective, but also the sacrament for which such a function is possible (ie, suffering); N2 ... PR denotes any reliable (free or proposed) form of nouns (except forms of nominative and efficient cases), capable of forming a comprehensive predicative center with a ligament.

It is also assumed that the symbols denote and possible substitutes of those forms that are expressed by these symbols, and their possible modifications. So v f in the scheme N 1 V F is not only the hidden shape of the verb, but also the verb interomotion (Nagayka.-shchelch)or infinitive, transposive advocating here as expressive equivalent V F (Children cry),and N 1 not only the form of a noun, but also replacing its quantitative combination (About hundreds of cows passed on the meadow)or the form of a genitive case in quantitative value (Delighted guests!; They sucked!).

Special explanation requires the use of the ADJ symbol in one-component scheme Cop s. 3/ n. ADJ. fSN. (It was hot).Type forms hotsuch use is considered as adverbs or allocate in a special part of speech (state category or predicative). But the systematic consideration of the syntactic functions of all classes of word forms in the language leads to to combine them with brief forms of adjectives. Brief forms of adjectives, like the hidden forms of verbs, are always in the function of the predicative center of the sentence; At the same time, similar to the hidden forms of verbs, they or are consistent with the second component of the proposal scheme (in two-component schemes), or take the shape of the single number of medium (in one-component schemes), which, along with the lack of the second component, is a single-component of the minimum proposal scheme.

Accordingly, in the scheme Infcop.ADJ. f. / t. /5 (It was difficult to refuse)ADJ F is a coordinated brief form of adjective: the presence of an average of the middle kind is a reaction to the first component of the first component (INF) in terms of number and family. On the same grounds as agreed to consider the forms of verb (V. f. ) both ligaments (COP F) in all schemes of the II block. Thus, the schemes of stage are qualified as two-component with coordination forms: it is such an interpretation that suggests the consideration of the system relations of these schemes in comparison with the block I blocks.

No SAT symbol in Info Info (He is on duty; not to talk!; Not to know him)it reflects that the modal meaning of infinitive proposals is created directly in the design itself, accompanying the use of infinitive as a predicative center of the sentence. This modal value is modified depending on many conditions, but always retains communication with the sphere of irryality. The use of bundles in infinitive proposals is not always possible, it is not allowed by many modifications of their modal values. The function of the bundle in infinitive proposals is significantly different from its function in proposals based on other structural schemes: no bundle in infinitive proposals does not express the values \u200b\u200bof reality and present and is not its zero form.

The order of symbols in the schemes reflects the most common arrangement of components in general informative, stylistically and expressively neutral statements, but is not among the constitutive signs of the scheme: the procedure for components are insignificant to the formal organization of the proposal and refers to the sphere of its communicative organization.

The list of minimum proposal schemes includes only reference schemes, i.e. Such samples that 1) do not regulate the lexical properties of the filling scheme of words; 2) suggest clear syntactic communication of the components of the scheme.

Meanwhile, there are also frameological schemeswhich regulate not only the forms of components, but also the lexical filling of the positions opened by them and on which offers are being built with fuzzy syntactic bonds between components. The values \u200b\u200bof proposals under the phrase-general schemes are determined by the value of the phraseology, they are unique and, as a rule, expressive. For example, an expressive agreement with the opinion of the interlocutor transmit proposals formed by twofold use of word format, separated by a particle so:- Well, well, - says the master- witch so witch(M. B.); - Further so next- bearing by a careless voice(V. Sh.); Go so go; Stay so stay.

A special place among the phrase-generalized schemes occupy correlation for the approval of ~ negative samples of type proposals There is (it was, it would be) what to doand There is nothing (it was, it would be) to do; There is (it was, it would be) with whom to consult and not with anyone (it would be, it would be) to consult; There is (it was, it would be) where to rushand Nowhere (it was, it would be) to hurry.With signs of phrase-generalized schemes, they are allocated by the fact that they do not belong to the sphere of expressive speech, but are usual for speaking in Russian expressively and stylistically neutral methods of expressing the presence or absence of a generalized conceivable situation.

Syntactic analysis of a simple sentence

Scheme of a simple sentence

1. Agreement of a graphical analysis of the proposal: to highlight the grammatical basis, indicate the method of expressing the subject, the type of faith and the method of its expression; Strip secondary members of the sentence, indicate their discharges and ways of expression.

2. Support the type of proposal for the purpose of the statement (narrative, questioning, prompting).

3. Consider a type of proposal for emotional coloring (exclamation or non-visible).

4.Cow the type of sentence in the number of main members (twisted or monosight); For single suction proposals, determine a variety (definitely personal, uncertainty-personal, impersonal, called).

5. To characterize the proposal for the presence - absence of secondary members (common or unpropered).

6. To characterize the proposal from the point of view of the presence-lack of structurally necessary members of the proposal (complete or incomplete); If incomplete, indicate which member of the sentence is missing.

7. Support is a suggestion complicated (than complicated by: homogeneous, separate members of the sentence, introductory words, appeals) or uncomplicated.

Note. When analyzing a part of a complex proposal as a simple characteristic of the purpose of statements and emotional color should be omitted; It is enough to indicate that this is a simple sentence in a complex.

Sample pavement sample

Our sacredcraft exist Thousands of years (A. Akhmatova).

Proposal narrative, unkonsectative, twisted, common, complete, uncomplicated.

Main members: craft - subject, expressed nouns; exists - Simple verbal faithful, expressed by the verb.

Minor members: craft (what?) Our- the agreed definition is pronouncing; (What?) Sacredexists (how long?) thousands of years- The time circumstance is expressed by a solid phrase.

Where to mefought In this January? (O. Mandelstam)

The proposal is an ample, unkonsectant, single-main, impersonal, common, complete, uncomplicated.

Major dick: fought - Simple verbal faithful, expressed by infinitive.

Minor members: going (where?) where- the circumstance of the place is pronounced by the prisoner nash; to go (who?) me- indirect addition, expressed by pronoun; to go (when?) in january- the circumstance of time expressed by the nouns with the pretext; in January (what?) It- The agreed definition is pronounced.

In the chamber, also illuminated by electric light, despite the morning hour, writingIvan Pavlovich With obvious pleasurebuagvil andi stitched Shelkov paper cord ... (M. Alda-New).

The proposal is a narrative, unkonsectant, complicated, common, complete, complicated by a separate coordinated definition, expressed by the involvement of the trafficking, a separate concession, a pronounced turnover with a pretext despite,uniformly tamed.

Main members: Ivan Pavlovich - subject, expressed nouns; bouville and stitched - Uniform simple verbal fags are expressed by verbs.

Minor members: Ivan Pavlovich (what?) Written- the application expressed by nouns; bouvil and stitched (where?) In the chamber- the circumstance of the place is expressed by the existence with the pretext; in the chamber (which?) Illuminated by electric light- a separate coordinated definition, expressed by the involvement of the turnover; bouvil and stitched (despite what?) Despite the morning hour- a separate concession circumstance, expressed turnover with a pretext despite; Bouvil and stitched (how?) With pleasure- the circumstance of the image of action, expressed by nouns with the pretext; with pleasure (what?) Obviously- the agreed definition is expressed by adjective; bouvil and stitched (what?) Paper- direct addition, expressed by nouns; bouvil and stitched (what?) With a cord- indirect addition, expressed by nouns; cord (what?) Shelkov- The agreed definition is expressed by adjective. Also- Union, a member of the proposal is not.

2. The relationship of the proposal and the statement This problem has become relevant in connection with the study of the functional side of the tongue, i.e. Not only the study of language facts, but the use of them speaking. Different linguistic schools relate differently to this problem, but they all converge in one: on consideration of the offer not from the point of view of its syntactic signs, but from the point of view of communicative use of the proposal (for communication purposes). There are various approaches: - the statement is wider than proposals, as a structural scheme may not be implemented in the statement. * Do you with sugar or without? - without. However, the basis of any statement still lies correlation with any proposal. - The proposal is equal to the statement. This point of view is reflected in scientific grammar. - Saying is the level of language above the sentence (Ir.il. Kovtunova) What is the statement? Offer is a unit of language. The statement is a state of speech, because it is associated with the functioning of the language. Thus, the statement is a speech segment having a communicative orientation, semantic integrity, which is the implementation of the language system (structural scheme), reflecting the norm of the language.

Hello two. She recently wandered through the Internet and came across the textbook in the Russian language. I remembered this school in which I had to go every day and sit pants. Despite the fact that I have always learned well .... Let's not bad, I would not want to repeat this experience. In the textbook found a lesson about how the structure of proposals is properly drawn up. And decided to write about this article so that you, closed by nostalgia at school times, or, suddenly, the need, did not roam in search of textbooks in the Russian language, but came to my blog. And here is the valid to you:

Time limit: 0

Navigation (job numbers only)

0 out of 10 tasks ended

Information

You have already passed the test earlier. You can't run it again.

The test is loaded ...

You must login or register in order to start the test.

You must finish the following tests to start this:

results

Time is over

You scored 0 of 0 points (0)

1. With the answer
2. With a marker

1. Task 1 out of 10

   1 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure [__ and __ \u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d\u003d]

2. Task 2 of 10

   2 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure [│O│, ...]

3. Task 3 of 10

   3 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure [│Vv│, ...].

4. Task 4 out of 10

   4 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure [│- │, x ...].

5. Task 5 out of 10

   5 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure [x, │ by │, ...].

6. Task 6 out of 10

   6 .

   Find among the proposals submitted the structure "[P!]" - [a].

7. Task 7 out of 10

   7 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure "[P .., │O│!] - [a]. - [│Vv│, ... p ..] ".

8. Task 8 out of 10

   8 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure [... ..], and [... ..].

9. Task 9 out of 10

   9 .

   Find among the presented suggestions the structure [... ..], (which ....).

10. Task 10 out of 10

    10 .

    Find among the presented suggestions the structure [... ..], (which ....).

Someone will objected: "The school has long ended, write without schemes." This point of view is quite valid. For those who communicate with the help of SMS and gaming chats. So, today the topic of our occupation sounds like this: "How to make a proposal scheme?" Especially if you are a copywriter or want them to become more than your teacher, knowledge of the proposals schemes, unfortunately necessary.

Procedure for Details

For the compilation of the scheme, graphic designations will be needed. Equal proposals in a complex proposal we denote square brackets. Subordinate with the Union - Round Sheets. The main word from which the question is asked - the cross.

Simple proposal scheme

Consider the example at once. Let's start with the easiest task for elementary school.

This is a simple two-storey offer. There are also a single-point one, when the main members of the sentence are expressed by one subject or one of the fag. Simple proposals are common, as in our case, or unprofitable, for example:

We pay attention to the lean. It may be simple or difficult:

• Simple: " Michael composed ».
• Compound verb: " Misha i wanted to write on the sofa».
• Compound nominal: " Misha was friend for me».

In a simple sentence, there may be an appeal:

Ivan, sit down in the left row. Suggestion offer Next

[│O│, ... ..].

It is important to highlight the appeal to commas as well as introductory words.

Unfortunately, this happened quite often

[│Vv│, ... ..].

Do not forget to find and highlight the height or involvement.

Without tearing off her eyes, looked at her dog

[│Do│, x ...].

The view opened in front of him was similar to the enchanted kingdom of the cold.

[X, │ by │, ... ..].

In literary texts, in texts-reasoning, direct speech is often found.

"Do not come into the yard!" - loudly shouted a stranger.

"[P!]" - [a].

"Hooray, brothers!" He shouted. "It seems that our business begins to go to the lord."

"[P .., │O│!] - [a]. - [│Vv│, ... p ..] ".

So, the teacher in English. Imagine all fives (80 percent), I go to the Red Diploma of Technical School, the Olympics, conferences - everything knows me. And this ... ... well ... Woman puts me rack. I tell her: you are not normal, look at my estimates, what do you create? And nifiga - supposedly the principle. Although what a fucking principle when she put four athletes who did not come at all on the couple and for the bank of coffee raised five. And she said all this, walked to put at least four. In short, tin. Already on the protection of the diploma, the director itself was intervened and she set me 4 after the protection, but the red diploma was lost.

Scheme of a complex sentence.

There are several types of complex suggestions. Consider them in order.

Complexed - these are two simple equal suggestions connected by the writing union.

The walls of the tunnel spread out, and travelers found themselves in a huge fideling grotto.

The scheme here is simple [... ..], and [... ..].

In a complex proposal, one part main, the second obeys, accompanies the first.

Separate columns were so huge that they delivered their vertices to the village itself.

[…..], (what ….).

The surrounding air was much cleaner that he inhaled at home.

[... ..], (which ....).

Submission in such proposals occurs with the help of subordinate unions.

The non-union proposal is similar to the complex, but does not have the Union.

The television studio offered a ridiculously small amount - Miga was angry.

[…..] — […..].

In our example, miga discontent is caused by actions produced in the first part of a complex sentence. But there is no union, it replaces the sign of the dash.

Do not confirm by making up a circuit with different types of communication. To split such proposals, while not having lost the main idea, it is very difficult.

The bottom of the tunnel went down, so it was easy to go and simply: it seemed that someone pushes in the back, and light would soon be lit.

[... ..], (therefore ....): [│Vv│, ...], and [....].

A complex proposal may have several apparent parts arising from one of the other. This is a consistent submission.

The guys reported that tomorrow there will be a holiday that will end in a carnival procession.

(which the ….).

There are also parallel submission. From the main proposal are given different questions to the pressing parts. Pressure parts in this case can be almost unchanged by individual simple proposals.

When the photographer came, the sulfur wrapped the share in the handkerchief to hide it for the sinus.

↓ When? ↓ Why?

(When ....), (To ....).

In Russian, allocate homogeneous submission. This is a listing of simple proposals. They are given the same question from the main part, and they are connected by the same alliance.

Watching the spring for nature, you can see how the birds arrive, as the gentle leaves appear, how the first colors bloom.

↓ What? ↓ What? ↓ What?

(like ....), (like ....), (how ....).

The main types of offers are reviewed. Reading and analyzing the text, carefully view the largest sentences. Allocate the main information. Mentally ask questions from the main word or main part to the apparent or subordinate. This will help to catch the essence and correctly arrange the punctuation marks.

All creative success. Well, find 10 differences on these pictures and write for how much you got it.

find 10 differences

Structural schemes and actual sentence of the offer *

O.A. Krylova.

In the title articles there are two terms, calling such concepts that, at first glance, have nothing to do with each other. The structural schemes of supply "are abstractions distracted from an unlimited set of specific proposals"; They reflect a set of predicative foundations of the proposal, i.e. That combination of word forms (or one word form), which protrude carriers of the predicative value of the sentence - and only, the communicative completion during the allocation of structural schemes is not required. The actual membership of the proposal, on the contrary, is its binary device from the topic and remisses (the topic may be zero), which is specified by the communicative setting of the speaker (writing); Current membership reflects the communicative sense of the proposal, forming a proposal as a communicative syntactic unit. It would seem that structural schemes as "syntactic samples" with relevant membership of the proposal are not connected, and the enclosed list of structural schemes of a simple supply, which is also contained in "RG-80", and in the "brief Russian grammar", was compiled without taking actual membership Proposals. (True, the current membership of simple proposals in the RG-80 is described, but already as various speech transformations of the supply, built according to a certain allocated without taking into account the actual membership, the structural scheme.)

However, between these two parties of the organization's organization, there is a non-historical connection. Not by chance E.N. Shiryaev, considering the proposal "in the grammatical aspect", included "syntactic forms of predicativeness, syntactic forms of the structural scheme and syntactic forms of current membership". In his opinion, these syntactic forms are inextricably linked and organized a "formal-syntactic structure"

* The article is a prof. O.A. Wing "structural schemes and current sentence of a sentence" (first published in: Questions of Culture of Speech, IX. - M.: Science, 2007. -C. 250-259) is of particular interest not only for rusistics, but also for the theory of language as a whole . In this work, the typology of structural circuits of the Russian language is significantly refined, the semantic and functional features of the Russian offer in a dynamic aspect are revealed, the complex characteristic of predicativeness as a grammatical value of the sentence is substantiated. The sentence model, or a structural scheme, is a high-level grammatical abstraction, but its content is not exhausted by grammatical values, and the proposed semantic predicatence category covers a wider range of values \u200b\u200bthan the one that is implemented by the formal syntactic bond. An independent communicative function of the proposal requires a significant refinement of the content of the proposal, which ensures the mechanisms of the actual membership of the proposal. - editorial board.

false, or its "formal semantics". (Along with it, the sentence also contains "informal-syntactic structure", or "informal semantics", which also closely interact with each other.). Leaving aside the question of informal semantics, we show that the device of the predicative foundation (structural schemes) of a simple supply and its current membership interacts that they are inextricably linked and that the allocation of structural schemes without taking into account the actual membership of the proposal is not always possible.

In the list of structural schemes of a simple supply, contained in the "RG-80" and in "KRG", are given among other schemes: (i) "Infinitives - the name noun in the nominative case": work - valor; Find yourself in Lzhizni happiness; Finding friends in old age - loneliness sat; Fly - here is his dream and (2) "Natural name in the nominal case - infinitives": Our commitment is to give excellent products; Discipline is to control itself; Genuine humanism is to help people.

If you compare such two sentences built on these samples, such as: to find yourself in life - it is happiness and happiness - it is to find yourself in life, it is not difficult to see that they differ in exactly the actual membership, because From the first to second, the order of components is changed, but the composition of the theme and remedies changes; In the first sentence, the topic is a component expressed by infinitive (with submissions), a rebel - a noun in the nominal case, and in the second - the theme is a noun in the nominative case, and the remedy is an infinitive with the subsequent distributors. Along the way, we note that the "informal semantics" has changed, saying the words E.N. Shiryaeva: the general meaning of all proposals with the preposition of infinitive is "the relationship between the abstractly represented action or procedural state and its sign - qualifications"; The total value of proposals with the preposition of the noun in the nominal case and the postposition of infinitive like happiness is to find yourself in life - this is "the relationship between the subject state and its sign." Consequently, the change in the current membership (and syntactic semantics) in the allocation of these two structural schemes in the RG-80 and the KRG was taken into account, but it was made only once, - only in this case, as a result of which it was all two different structural schemes: INF N1 and N1 + INF. In the remainder cases, the fact that the change in the actual membership of the proposal, expressed by the change in the order of words, also leads to a change in the structural scheme itself, remained unaccounted.

So, a structural scheme "Quantitative adherence or name in the name of P.P. With quantitative value - noun in the parental case ": many colors; Mass of guests; From children - little help; This person has many advantages. A comparison of the same proposals of the identical lexico-morphological composition, but with various relevant membership shows that the structural scheme underlies in principle and the structural scheme underlying them. So, in the proposal, many colors both components are merged into a single phrase

based on the subordination and between them there is no predicative relationship; The predigative value is transmitted by all phrases in full force: it is it that calls a predicative sign and acts as a rem. The offer is built in accordance with the latent issues: "What does / exist / present (in reality)?". This is a proposal of a statement type with a zero theme. Note that if this predicative feature is "the presence of a large number of colors" - will be attributed to some carrier, the latter will be expressed by determinizing sense members - or as a topic of topics (more often), as in cases of type in the glade // many colors; In the hall // many colors; She has in her hands // many colors, etc., - or in the roles of Remes: many colors // only on stage; Many colors // far from all teachers, etc.). (Sign // Separate the topic from the Rem). However, it is essential that in the presence of such determinants, and in their absence, the predicative center is a holistic verification of the phrase of many colors, between the components of which, of course, there is no predicative relationship. The communicative goal of the speaker in this case is to state the presence (existence) of a large number of anything (in this case - colors). Now change the current membership of the sentence and reflect this by the procedure for the components of the scheme: colors // Many; Colors // Mass; Colors // little; Flowers // was mass. Such proposals serve another communicative goal: report exactly the number of colors - and are built in accordance with other latent issues: "How much (was) colors?" The component in the parental case is the topic, a component with a quantitative value - Rem. But the main thing is that with such a relevant membership of the proposal (and, accordingly, with such a word order), predicative relations arise between the components of the structural scheme.

It means that the ADV Quant (N1 Quant) N2 scheme is one, and the N2 + ADV Quant (N1 Quant) scheme is another, namely, there are no predicative relations between the components of the structural scheme (components form, as noted above, the verification of the phrase) , and in the second - there is a predicative relationship between components of the structural circuit: this is a predicative compound of wordform, in the first case the predicative feature is "many colors"; In the second - a predicative feature is only "a lot, mass, many, little,", i.e. Quantity, and the carrier of this feature is a component in the parental case - colors.

Two-component schemes of the first type we offer to be called dynotion-credient, and the structural schemes of the second type - separate-separation.

So, two-component structural schemes, isolated "RG-80", are fundamentally distinguishable: some structural schemes contain two such components, between which there are no predicative relations, they are merged into a single phrase based on a supervisory connection and in unity is called a predicative feature - these are a fusion scheme ; other structural schemes

sat two components, one of which refers to the carrier of the predicative feature, and the second - this predicative sign itself is separate schemes.

Consequently, the number of free two-component structural circuits should increase in comparison with the available list. So, the proposals built according to the scheme "Natural Noun in the Parental Padege - the verb in the form of 3 individuals": Water decreases; Misfortunes did not happen; Cases enough; The end is not foreseen and under. - built by separate-grade scheme, because The noun in the parental case calls the carrier of the predicative feature, and the hidden form of the verb calls the predicative sign itself. Otherwise in the following cases: water decreases - [it means, the flood will end soon]; Not foreseen end; Enough of his affairs; [He (N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky. - O.K.) Returned to his homeland as if gradually.] Will arrived, arrived of people (D. Granin. Zubr). The statement of the fact (will arrived) is drawn up with a completely remitive proposal (monorblement), which is based on a fusion-catalog structural scheme "The verb in the form of 3 faces. h. + name noun in the parental case. " These two components are merged into a single phrase, in which the main component - the verb word (arrive / arrive) controls the dependent word form; Wed: Will arrived in the bison; Will arrive stopped; Soon will arrive will.

Similarly: Proposals (1) No time; I have no strength; He has no friends built according to a dynet-restrictive structural scheme: "There is no word in combination with the parental case of the noun." The fact that with such a relevant membership and procedure of words, the prediction center of the proposal is organized by a holistic phrase, is confirmed by the fact that the chief component is the word, and not a single word form, i.e. This lexeme is not in the aggregate of all its forms: No / No / Wouldn't / No matter, etc. (and the verification of the phrase and represents, as you know, the word disseminated by the dependent word form); Wed: No time; There was no time; There will be no time; There may not be time; [now he has a vacation]). (2) When communicatively installed on a verifiable message (is there time? Does he have friends? Etc.) actual membership and the design of words change; Wed: no time; There is no time at all; Friends from him, unfortunately, no. Now the "noun in the parental" component has the value of the predicative sign carrier, which is predictated by this feature - "absence": (no / not / not / not / not); There are predicative relationship between components, which was not in the previous case, i.e. In the proposals built according to the structural scheme there is no N2; Consequently, the second type of supply is built on another, namely: separativative - structural scheme: N2 + No.

Introduction to another one - and essential! - classification sign: "The presence / absence of predicative relations between the two components of the structural circuit" - should, in our opinion, not only more adequately identify the body of the structural schemes, but also to organize significantly and simplify their classification.

To prove the latter approval, we give the classification of free two-component structural schemes, which is contained in the RG-80:

This classification suffers from the shortcomings. First, the sign "The presence / lack of the hidden form of the verb" is also assigned too high, i.e. All two-component structural schemes are already on the very first division step are distributed to two large classes on this basis. And as a result, similar structural schemes are far divorced from each other (for example, the lesson ceased and the lesson is terminated; the child is healthy and the child recovered), while completely unrestricted the schemes, on the contrary, approximate (for example, students are engaged and should wait).

Secondly, the classification proposed in RG-80 contains several repeating subgroups in various classes: so, the target and non-subject-to-beatenic schemes are allocated among the structural schemes with the hidden form of the verb, and among the schemes without such a form; At the same time, the sign "The presence / absence of the subject and the fag" does not cover all two-component schemes, while the other solution is subject to a different solution: if there are two components in the diagram, then either they are subject to both of them, or do not receive this characteristic and There is no third.

Finally, in the class of schemes with the hidden form of the verb, the classification feature "The presence / lack of coordination between the subject and tajacem" turned out to be unaccounted: it is assigned only to the subject-mentioned schemes without the hidden form of the verb.

The separation of two-component structural schemes to the fusion-nopted and separation schemes, which suggested, allowed to build a classification, devoid of these shortcomings; Although the number of schemes will increase somewhat (instead of 21 it turns out to be 26), it will adopt a more compact and logically more ordered view: first, due to the fact that the basis of the classification will be a significant feature, and, secondly, due to the fact that each classification feature will be Entered once. Then the classification of all free two-component structural circuits will take the following form:

Free two-component structural schemes

Separations of dynetnopribive

with lexically not with lexically limited

limited component

component

not subject to

tameless tag-like

with coordinated with non-coordinated

subject to the subject

and leaky and tame

with a hidden form without a hidden form

verb verb

We present all 26 free two-component structural schemes allocated on the specified bases and distributed by these classes in accordance with the last table. As illustration, unpropractable proposals are first given, consisting only of the predicative basis, reflected by the structural scheme, and then - proposals with distributors (secondary or / and determinizing). If there is a context, it consists in square brackets.

A. Separational structural schemes

1. Tomable with coordinated subject and fault

a) with a hidden verb form:

N + VF: Students are engaged; Students are engaged in the fifth audience.

b) Without the hidden shape of the verb:

NJ + NJ Father - Engineer: My friend's father is the main engineer at a big construction site.

MJ + ADJJ full: Iron is hot; In my opinion, the iron is too hot for this fabric.

Nj + adjx brief: the task is difficult; This task is too difficult for five-graders.

NJ + Part Brief: Shop is closed; The nearest pharmacy is closed for repairs.

2. Tone-related with non-coordinated subject and fault

INF + NJ: arguing - flour; Argued with him - real flour. Nj + inf: desire to help; My cherished desire is to see him happy.

NJ + N2 ... (ADV): \u200b\u200bPharmacy around the corner; All the most necessary books - on the shelf above the writing table.

INF + ADV: Engage in interesting; Read lying harmful. INF + INF: Lead is to check; Smoke - to harm health. INF + (NEG) VF3S: Do not wait; Wait more than half an hour. INF + PRAED: Help can be; It is not easy to help her, but also need. INF + PRON NEG: complain to no one; There is no need to go there.

3. Not subject to targeted

N2 + (NEG) VF3S: cases enough; Water arrives; I have enough of my worries.

N2 / N4 + (NEG) Praed: Girl is a pity; I am not sorry for classes with a child at all.

N2 + PRAED PART: stocks are typical; Pupies for the holiday are not frozen. N2 + Adv Quant (number QUANT): many people; Narod - Darkness; People on the square - mass.

N2 + No: no time; He has no free time at all. N2 + PRON NEG: Interesting - nothing; Familiar in the hall - no one.

B. SlyNonopribivational schemes

1. With lexically limited components

no N2: No time; I have no free time. No one (nothing, nor the slightest, nor single, none) N2: [entered the hall.] No one familiar. In this book, nothing new. NEG PRON INF: There is no need to argue; [Situation hopeless:] With no one to consult.

2. With lexically unlimited components

Praed inf: It's time to leave; It is necessary to take care of equipment for an expedition.

Praed (NEG) N2 / N4: Sorry baby; I'm sorry for lost time.

Adv (Quant) (N Mountains "Jacket Iron!; In the same way: Our Pskov is stubborn.

Only in the first of the three listed cases, the structural restructuring of the grammatical basis of the proposal occurs, which results in the described increase in the number of structural schemes, not to mention that it is not always a change in the order of components, even in principle; For example, a fump-restrictive block diagram with a lexically limited component "no + noun in the parental case" (no sound) - does not allow the permutation of components.

LITERATURE

Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian. The order of words and the actual membership of the proposal. - M.: Enlightenment, 1976.

Brief Russian grammar / ed. N.Yu. Swedio and V.V. Lopatina. - M.: Russian, 1989.

Krylova O.A. Levels of organization of proposals and their ratio // Inter-level links in the language system: Sat. Scientific Tr. / Answer ed. L.G. Zubkov. - M.: Publishing House of University of Friendship of Peoples (RUDN), 1989. - P. 12-23.

Krylova O.A. Communicative syntax of the Russian language. - M.: Publishing House Rudn, 1992.

Krylova O.A., Maksimov L.Yu., Shiryaev E.N. Modern Russian. Theoretical course. Syntax. Punctuation. - M.: Publishing House Rudn, 1997.

Russian grammar. T. II: Syntax. - M.: Science, 1980.

StructuralSchemes and Actual Division Of A Sentence

The structural scheme of a simple sentence is an abstract syntactic sample by which a separate minimum relatively complete proposal can be built. Structural schemes are distinguished by the collections of the following features: the formal device of the scheme (the forms of words and in the schemes organized by two forms are the ratio of these forms to each other); semantics scheme; paradigmatic properties of proposals built according to this scheme; Regular implementation system; Rules for distribution. Suggestions for one or another structural scheme are combined into a certain type of simple supply.

In this chapter, structural schemes of supply are described in two first of these features; The characteristics of paradigmatic properties, regular implementations and distribution rules are contained in special chapters on proposals of the appropriate type.

The structural scheme of a simple supply is organized by the forms (possibly, and one form) of significant words that are its components; In some schemes, one of the components is a negative particle - one or in combination with a location word.

Note. In specific proposals, the location of the circuit component under certain conditions can be filled with some other form or combination of forms; There are certain types and rules for such substitutions. They are described in chapters dedicated to individual types of simplicity.

The grammatical value, common to all structural schemes of a simple supply (and, consequently, for all types of proposals) is predicative (see § & NBSP). In addition, each structural scheme has its own importance - semantics of the scheme. The semantics of the block diagram of the supply is formed by the mutual action of the following factors: 1) & nbsplay values \u200b\u200bfrom the components in their respect to each other (in one-component schemes - the grammatical value of the schema component); 2) the lexico-semantic characteristics of words for this scheme, in specific proposals occupying its components.

Each proposal, built on a particular structural scheme, has its semantic structure, which, compared with the semantic scheme, is a linguistic value of less distinguished, more specific. In addition, when distributing, significant semantic changes may occur in the proposal. All relevant phenomena are described in special chapters.

In the future, in order to simplicity, the structural scheme will be demonstrated by a specific proposal representing the type; For example: Type Forest shumit - proposals of the scheme N 1 - VF; a type Lot business - Suggestions of the ADV Quant (N 1QUANT) N 2 scheme; a type night - Scheme proposals N 1; a type Lights - proposals of the VF 3S schema; a type Cold; Sad - Propositions of the PRED scheme.

The central concept of syntax, its main unit is the proposal. Sentence- The minimum communicative unit, about something reports and is designed for auditory or visual (on the letter) perception

Predicativity - specificity of the content of the proposal with objective reality. Thanks to predicatence, the meaning of the proposal is interpreted as real, it is possible, desirable. The block diagram of the sentence can be defined as a disturbed sample consisting of a minimum of the components required to create a suggestion.

Structure of sentence - This is his grammatical form that can be inherent in several sentences.

The lexical filling of this structural scheme is always individually depends on the identity of the speech entity, the objectives and objectives of communication, the features of the communication object, etc. Design schemes of proposals are two types: minimum and extended. Extended structural schemes include the minimum and not included in them constitutive, i.e. Significant for communication, components. In other words, there are inclusion relations between minimal and advanced structural schemes, namely the minimum schemes are included in the extended.

Components of the minimum block diagram of supply are:

Predication indicators: Hidden verbs, infinitives, verbs-bundles.

Determined nominal shapes with verb ligaments.

National names Vim.P.

Actual offer - Used in linguistics the principle of separation of proposals for:

the initial, initially given component (what is considered to be known or can be easily understood), called the theme, starting point or base;

a new, approved by the speaker component (what is reported to the initial point of statement), called a remedicle or core;

transition elements.

For example: "He (the topic) was (transition) an excellent teacher (Rem)."

The actual membership of the proposal comes from the expression of a specific meaning in the context of this situation - as opposed to the formal membership of the proposal for grammatical elements.

If the topic precedes the remote, the order of words in the proposal is called objective, otherwise subjective, for example: "Father (theme) goes (Rem)" - if the father is waiting; "Father (Rem) goes (theme)" - if the steps heard.

Actual membership of the proposal may be expressed by the procedure for words, intonation and other means.

The main members of the sentence. Types and forms of the facility. Secondary members of the proposals and the principles of their classification. Syncretic members offer. Determinants. Practical part.

Main members sentences - This is subject to both. They form the grammatical basis of the offer. The main members do not depend on other words in the proposal, and the form of the remaining words in the proposal may depend on the subject or faithful. School of Russian is represented by three species - simple verbal leaky, composite verb and composite nominal.

In the classification of secondary members of the proposal, the method of their morphological expression and the nature of the syntactic relations, which add up in phrases are taken into account.

Recently, the doctrine of the members of the offer is increasingly associated with the teachings on phrases. Attribute, object and circumstantial relationsallocated in subordinate phrases are the basis for allocating and distinguishing secondary members of the sentence. In principle on the syntactic role in the proposal, minor members of the proposal are divided into definition, addition and circumstance.

Syncretism In the system of memberships, this is a combination (synthesis) in one member of the proposal of differential signs of different members of the proposal, different functions.

Syncretism of the membership members could not not attract the attention of researchers, as this is an objectively existing and widespread fact of language and speech.

Determinant [LAT. Determinans (Determinan-Tis) is determining] - a member of the sentence relating to the entire composition of the proposal, spreading it in general and not related to any individual member.