The concept of a structural scheme of a sentence arose in the depths of the structural (constructive) direction of syntactic science. The main idea is that all sentences are built according to certain models, the number of which can be finite, although the number of sentences implemented in speech is infinite.

Structural scheme- an abstract model consisting of a minimum of components necessary to create a proposal.

Structural diagrams can be minimal(CX contains only components grammatical basis) and expanded(in CX, in addition to the gram. bases, they include components that are essential for the semantics of the sentence).

Examples:

Students write lecture notes	N 1 V f→ min. CX	noun in the 1st (Name) case, vb. in conjugated form
	N 1 V f N 4 obj→ extended CX	plus n. in the 4th (V.) p., denoting the object
I remember a wonderful moment	Pron 1 V f	places in the 1st (Name) p.
	Pron 1 V f N 4 obj
The night was quiet	N 1 (cop) Adj 1/5	link in comp. nominal tale; adj. (only as part of a tale) in I. or Tv. p → Compare: The night was quiet
calling is a problem	inf (cop) N 1/ 5	infinitive, link, noun in I. or TV. n. → Wed: Calling was a problem.
It's getting light	V f 3 S	vb. in harness form, 3 l., unit. h → impersonal sentence
I'm cold	Pron 3 Preread	places. in 3 (Dat.) p., predicative (for impersonal sentences).

5. Classification of proposals

There are various types of sentences in Russian.

According to the purpose of the statement :narrative,interrogative and incentive.

By intonation each of the sentences of these three groups can be exclamatory or non-exclamatory.

In relation to reality : affirmative / negative.

By structure : a) depending on the number of grammatical bases - simple and complex;

b) simple sentences are divided into one-component and dvmustache rest, i.e. having one or two main members as organizing centers of supply;

in) articulating and non-segmented ( indivisible sentences do not distinguish either main or secondary members from their composition and cannot be extended by new components. Hello. Thanks . How did you spend the weekend? -Amazing! Do you love classical music? -Undoubtedly . Yes , certainly !

d) according to the presence or absence of secondary members, proposals differ common and uncommon;

e) complete / incomplete(in incomplete sentences, one or more necessary members are omitted due to context);

e) complicated / uncomplicated(the sentence can be complicated by homogeneous members of the sentence, participial and adverbial constructions, introductory and plug-in constructions).

Simple sentence. Formal organization of a simple sentence

Three aspects of considering a simple sentence.

The main members of a two-part sentence:

A) the subject and ways of expressing it;

B) types of predicate.

Principles of classification of secondary members of the proposal.

Syncretic minor members of the sentence.

1. Three aspects of considering a simple proposal

AT modern linguistics The proposal is considered from three sides, or aspects:

– formal (structural);

– semantic (semantic);

- communicative.

Formal(or structural) aspect studies P from the point of view of its construction.

Semantic(or semantic) aspect considers the content side of the P and depends on its lexical content. For example, suggestions: He is sad. - He is sad. - He is sad. - He is sad. - are sentences of different formal classes, and from the point of view of the semantic aspect, they convey the same content.

The formal and semantic aspects consider the sentence as an autonomous, self-sufficient unit.

Communicative aspect considers the sentence not by itself, but as part of the text, in the linguistic and extralinguistic (extra-linguistic, situation-dependent) context in which it exists, i.e. as a unit of communication. So offer Ivan has arrived may be the answer to the following questions: 1) What do you hear about Ivan? 2) Who has arrived? 3) What happened?. The communicative aspect is manifested in actual articulation Suggestions: divide by topic(already known) and bump(new).

To denote the structural essence of the sentence, its minimum, different terms are used - the predicative minimum of the sentence, the sentence formula, the sentence model, the structural basis, the sentence scheme, the nuclear sentence.

The proposal is built according to one or another abstract model - a block diagram. When creating a sentence, O. Jespersen notes, the speaker relies on a certain sample[Jespersen 1958]. No matter what words he chooses, he builds a sentence along those lines. This pattern arises in the subconscious of the speaker as a result of what he heard great amount sentences that have common features. The sentence, emphasizes O. Jespersen, does not appear in the mind of the speaker immediately, but is created gradually in the process of speech. The speaker has to apply language skills to a given situation in order to express what has not been expressed in full detail before. He must adapt his language skills to changing needs.

V.M. Pavlov notes that any linguistic means (here we are talking about a sentence as a system unit of a language) is used in speech not as something absolutely identical to itself, "ready in advance", as if in the form of stockpiled in the required quantity for all subsequent cases of standard instances, but in the order of repeated transformations of a certain "stereotype matrix" in the process of its own reproduction. Repeating itself in the process of its reproduction, such a matrix does not lose the ability to adaptive modifications. A distinctive property of linguistic means, emphasizes V.M. Pavlov, is their regular reproducibility [Pavlov 1985].

The task of the doctrine of the structural scheme of a sentence is to determine, in relation to sentences of different types, a minimum of components, in which the sentence, regardless of the context, is self-sufficient and capable of performing its functions. . Structural scheme can be defined as an abstract sample, consisting of a minimum of components necessary to create a sentence [Beloshapkova 1977].

Formal models are filled with certain lexical material. The interaction of vocabulary and syntax is carried out primarily at the level of the general categorical meaning of parts of speech. Thus, the position of the subject is replaced mainly by words with the general categorical seme "objectivity", i.e. nouns, and the position of the predicate is replaced mainly by verbs, with a categorical seme of a procedural feature.

Scientists note that, as a rule, it is not the semantics of individual words that interferes with the syntax, but the semantics of certain (more or less general categories, for example, for a noun it is animate / inanimate, countable / uncountable, naming parts of the body, etc., for a verb - transitivity /intransitivity, action/state, etc.

Lexical semantics imposes restrictions on the possibility of using a word in a certain syntactic function. Thus, inanimate nouns are rarely used in the function of the subject with a transitive verb: Wind broke a tree; The wind broke the tree.

There are two approaches to determining the minimum of a sentence and, accordingly, to determining the structural scheme of a sentence: 1) a structural scheme is a predicative minimum of a sentence; 2) the block diagram is the nominative minimum of the proposal.

The understanding of the structural scheme of a sentence as a predicative minimum is embodied in Grammar-70. All kinds of Russian sentences are described here in the form of a list of block diagrams. Structural schemes are divided into two classes: two-part and one-part. Within these classes, subclasses are distinguished according to the form of expression of the circuit components.

Structural diagrams in this concept are written in the form of symbolic formulas, in which certain symbols designate components of circuits according to morphological features(part of speech, its form), for example:

N1–Vf Son is studying; (Noun - N, in the nominative case - 1, verb - V, in the personal form - f).

N1-Vf-N4 Father is reading a newspaper;

N1-Vcop-N1/Adj son–student. Boy–smart;(Vcop is a linking verb)

Inf-Vcop-N1 Fly–his dream and etc.

Each language has its own system of such structural patterns. Individual samples in different languages may coincide, but systems as a whole are always different. For example, the Indo-European languages ​​are characterized by the so-called two-component structural patterns containing a predicate, i.e. the verb in the personal form (or the form of another word in the same position), and the subject, i.e. form nominative case name or infinitive (rarely another word form in the same position): The sun is shining; The sun shines; Die Sonne sketch.

The models on which sentences are built, syntactic constructions, are stored in our language memory as a ready-made sample, a template with which an unlimited number of speech messages can be transmitted.

As one of the universal principles in the assimilation of syntactic structures by children, the principle of obligatory subject is noted. However, in some languages ​​the subject is not always realized phonetically. It is believed that languages ​​contain a syntactic subject, but only some of them require its phonetic implementation, i.e. pronunciation. A classic example is the comparison of English and Italian. Subject to English language must be uttered, while in Italian it can remain phonetically empty (empty):

Italian: Ha telefonato. Gianni ha telefonato.

English: * Has telephoned. John has teleptoned.

Called. John called.

The Russian language occupies an intermediate position between Italian and English: the pronunciation of the subject is not necessary in all contexts.

Children learning English often do not pronounce the subject. They pronounce constructions that are unacceptable in English. The role of adult speech is reduced to illustrating grammatically correct constructions in given language. Children gradually master the rule of filling in the position of the subject, even in expressive constructions: it rains: it is late etc.

10 . The structure of the components

Syntactic relationships between words are reflected not only in a hierarchically ordered structure - a dependency tree. In addition to relations between words in a sentence, there is another type of relationship - relations between groups of words, between phrases. This kind of relationship is reflected in a structure of a different type - the structure of components.

A word with dependent words forms a component. Components can be nested one inside the other. A sentence that incorporates all the components can also be recognized as a whole component.

The boundaries of the components are usually denoted by square brackets. Imagine the structure of the components of the sentence First-year students will soon take an introduction to linguistics exam

[first year]

]

[will submit]

[soon [to be handed over]]

[in linguistics]

[introduction [to linguistics]]

[according to [introduction [to linguistics]]]

[exam [ on [introduction [to linguistics]]]]

] [soon [will be taking the [exam [on [introduction [to linguistics]]]]]]]]]

The structure of the components can be represented as a tree, where each node represents a certain component. The offer itself is also a component. It corresponds to the root node of the tree.

Popova Z. D. Minimal and extended block diagrams simple sentence as one-order signs of propositive concepts // Traditional and new in Russian grammar: Sat. articles in memory of Vera Arsenievna Beloshapkova. M., 2001. S. 219–226.

In this article, we intend to consider one of the issues discussed and originally solved by Vera Arsenievna in her textbook - the issue of minimal and extended structural diagrams of a simple sentence.

In the sentence, V. A. Beloshapkova distinguished three syntactic objects: 1) formal arrangement, 2) semantic structure, 3) communicative arrangement<…>.

Communicative structure, in our opinion, refers to the syntax of the text, and in this article we will not discuss it, but will focus on the relationship between the first and second syntactic objects identified by V. A. Beloshapkova.

The concept of a structural scheme of a simple sentence (hereinafter: SSPP) appeared in the 60-70s. our century. Syntaxists have distinguished between an utterance and a sentence, they have learned to distinguish the positional scheme of an utterance (a specific sentence in a specific text with a specific lexical content) from a structural scheme that can underlie a multitude of utterances.

Structural diagram, according to the definition of V. A. Beloshapkova, is an abstract sample that stands behind syntactic construction and is a unit of language<…>. The formal arrangement of the proposal in the understanding of Vera Arsenyevna is its structural scheme. Traditionally, the combination of subject and predicate, as well as main member one-part proposal.

Why has such an understanding of the formal structure of a sentence ceased to satisfy linguists?

In many cases, the combination of the traditionally understood subject and predicate, as shown by V. A. Beloshapkova, turns out to be informatively insufficient, does not express without additional words the predicative attitude that the speaker has established. Wed, for example: He acted (committed an act), He lost, He found himself, He belongs, The apartment consists, Sell, Do not smoke etc.<…>.

The need to study the lexical content of different positions in statements and some adjustment of the doctrine of the structural schemes of the sentence was clearly put on the agenda.

Such an adjustment was proposed by V. A. Beloshapkova, outlining the doctrine of minimal and extended structural schemes of the proposal.

Vera Arsenievna left the minimal structural schemes, traditionally studied in the framework of the school and university curriculum, to the formal structure of the sentence, and extended informatively sufficient schemes, as a completely new object of study, attributed to semantic syntax.

For us, it is absolutely indisputable that Vera Arsenievna attributed to the SSPP such constructions as He could see everything, She had a sore throat, Children are chasing a ball, It's easy to breathe here, They don't smoke here etc.<…>.

Developing this new subject of syntactic science, V. A. Beloshapkova correlated it with the doctrine of proposition already available at that time. Semantic structure, she explains, is what many syntaxists call a proposition or prepositive nomination, a propositive concept.<…>.

We want to show that extended block diagrams, undoubtedly the most important subject of study in syntax, are at the same time not some special subject other than minimal block diagrams. Minimal and extended block diagrams are just different classes of the same set.

We want to show further that two levels are distinguished in the proposition: the proposition of the utterance and the proposition of the SSPP. The proposition of the SSPP is part of the semantics of the predicative relation, it forms its basis, on which the semes of modality, tense and person are already found.

The proposition of an utterance is a set of meanings expressed by the positional scheme of a particular utterance. Despite the infinite variety of concrete propositions, they contain typical propositional concepts. high level generalizations: such as existence, movement, subject-object interaction, etc.

For these propositional concepts, speakers gradually developed formal means of expression - SSPP, which became their signs. A type proposition or a syntactic concept is always thought of as a predicative relation between the subject and the predicate of thought. The predicative relation, of course, contains, as Vera Arsenyevna successfully formulated, "a complex of grammatical meanings, And correlated with the act of speech and always having a formal expression"<…>. But these grammatical meanings (modality, tense, and person) are subordinate components of the predicative relation, serving the typical syntactic concept.

The study of extended structural diagrams through the idea of ​​informative sufficiency inevitably leads to such an understanding of the predicative relation. It is rethought from a purely grammatical category into a semantic-grammatical category.

To illustrate our understanding of prepositive concepts, the signs of which are SSPP, we will give a number of examples. Each proposition is singled out only on the basis of the existence of one or another SSPP (from form to meaning).

The simplest prepositive meaning "existence" can be expressed by two word forms that correspond to the classical scheme: subject (noun in names, case) + predicate (verb of being).

It was night. I have an idea. There will be a holiday.

In such statements, all objects of analysis coincide: both the structural scheme (it is minimal), and the positional scheme (the sign of being + the object of being), and the typical proposition "existence".

Such coincidences are also possible for some other SSPPs. For example, an action proposition can also be expressed by the classical subject and predicate: The brother is working, the bell is ringing, the device is working.

However, the proposition of existence in the Russian language can be expressed in one word form when referring the fact to the present time: Night. Idea! Holiday. And much more often the proposition of existence is expressed in three word forms, since the statement about existence is usually combined with an indication of place and time: The books were in the box Solar eclipse was yesterday. The traditional syntax does not consider the place and time pointers to be part of the block diagram and treats them as minor members. According to the doctrine of extended schemes, these terms should be recognized as components of the SSPP, since without them the statement is informatively insufficient and does not convey the predicative relationship that the speaker wanted to express (that is, the relationship between the object and its location or the time of its existence). The structural role of these components is also obvious from the fact that when the verb is omitted, place and time indicators independently cope with the expression of predicative relations: We are in the forest, Father is at home, Meeting today, Departure in the evening.

The proposition "action" is also much more often expressed by three word forms: The children were banging their mugs, the mourners waved handkerchiefs, Oleg nodded his head. The traditional syntax does not include the word form creat. case into the composition of the main members, that is, in the SSPP, and meanwhile, without this word form, the predicative relation remains unexpressed. The proposition "action" without an indicator of the instrument of action does not receive full expression.

We note, by the way, that traditional grammar, in principle, recognizes three-word structural schemes, which is manifested in the doctrine of compound and complex predicates. Statements such as: He was handsome, She will be a doctor, The weather was sleepy, The journey was long. etc. - are recognized as consisting only of the main members. The formal difference between such SSPPs and the three-component schemes considered above with indirect cases of nouns is only that in the “compound predicate” the forms in the predicative (names, or creative case) vary less. But no one denies the entry into the "predicate" of the third form in the statements: He was out of his mind, they were together, the woman was unconscious etc.

In existential schemes with indicators of locatives or temporatives, dependent forms are more diverse. Perhaps that is why it seems that they are secondary, but meanwhile their position in the SSPP is obligatory and permanent. It's just that the Russian language system gives a rich series of variant forms for the exact designation of a place or time.

We see an urgent need to identify and describe three-component (and occasionally four-component) SSPP on the main obvious correlations with certain typical syntactic concepts. The already mentioned SSPPs with " compound predicates» turn out to be signs of mostly logical propositions<…>- identities, identifications, inclusions in a set, characterizations, etc.

With this approach, the three-component nature of SSPP becomes completely understandable for expressing the proposition of subject-object relations, where there should be a sign of the subject, a sign of the object, and a sign of relations between them. The variety of relations between the subject and the object makes understandable the great variety of corresponding schemes. Although in most cases in Russian the scheme is used: who does what (that is, a scheme with accusative the so-called direct complement), but besides it, there are many SSPPs that differentiate specific relations between the subject and the object: who helps whom, who has entered into what, who has collected what, who is afraid of what, who talks about what, etc.

The prepositive concepts served by such schemes may be more or less abstract. Very specific schemes are also possible. For example, for the concept "playing musical instruments" there is an SSPP "who plays what" (piano, flute, etc.). The proposition "verbal-thinking activity" is based on the SSPP "who is talking/thinking about what".

This proposition dictates to the speakers numerous violations of the culture of speech ("who noticed what", "I will stop about it", etc.). The reality of the existence of such “extended” schemes in the language system is confirmed, in our opinion, not only by such errors, but also by a change in the meaning of the verb used in the scheme that has already been formed and correlated with its proposition. There is, for example, an SSPP for the proposition "hostile action". Its “spatial” origin is quite obvious: “who ran over whom”, “who stumbled upon whom”, “who stepped on whom”. Other verbs with the prefix HA- began to be used in the same way: slandered a neighbor, yelled at employees, wrote to a colleague. In this SSPP, the verbs write, speak, shout get the meaning of hostile verbs. They retain the same value in this scheme even without a prefix: He constantly writes to someone, She screamed at the children.

Extended block diagrams, we believe, are the most important object of study in the theory of a simple sentence. But they are nothing more than a minimal scheme, they only complement the SSPP classification of structural schemes of a simple sentence. Both minimal and extended SSPPs are signs of syntactic concepts, it's just that these concepts are different. Minimal schemas are just as semantic as advanced schemas.

SSPP turns out to be “stronger” than the lexical meaning of the individual word forms included in it.

The semantics of "one's own" SSPP usually corresponds to a group of verbs in the direct nominative meaning<…>. But there is no strict attachment of the verb to a certain SSPP. The verb can move from one scheme to another and at the same time change its meaning. In addition to the already given example with verbs write, speak, shout in SSPP with the hostile action proposition, let's consider a number of other cases.

Verb come in its direct meaning, it is used in NSPP with the proposition "displacement", in which there are positions "to" and "from where": Kolya came home from school. Once in the two-component scheme with the existence proposition, this verb gets the most abstract meaning of "being": The merry month of May has arrived. In other words, in the existential schema, the verb of displacement becomes an existential one.

Wed also changes in the meaning of the verb pass the.

Demonstrators marched along the main street of the city(proposition of displacement).

Tourists passed the right turn(passed by mistake, the situation of the loss of the desired object due to an oversight).

We have passed the whole area(the proposition of overcoming, for which its own SSPP is gradually being developed in Russian: We went through the entire area).

Examples like this should show that SSPPs are determined by the semantics of all its constituents, and not just by the semantics of the verb. Only in the aggregate of all its word forms, SSPP can fulfill its sign function in relation to a certain prepositive concept.

From this it follows that the predicative relation should be understood primarily as a syntactic concept that combines generalized semantic meanings with the grammatical categories of modality, tense and person, and SSPP as a sign of this concept. Obviously, it is necessary to abandon the purely formal definition of SSPP as a combination of subject and predicate or the main member of a one-part sentence. At the same time, the opposition between the formal structure of the sentence and the semantic syntax disappears and is removed.

It remains to consider the differences between the positional schema of the utterance and the proposition of the utterance, on the one hand, and the structural schema of the sentence and its prepositive concept, on the other hand.

The most "extended" SNPP does not have more than four components (for example, SNPP for the proposition "naming" - "who calls whom/what by what/how"). Define and define, forming with the components of the SSPP and composite nominations, they do not have their positions in the composition of the SSPP, just as they do not have them in the positional scheme of the statement<…>.

As for the positional scheme of the utterance, it can be arbitrarily large in terms of the number of components, since it includes both determinants drawn from other SSPPs and optional positions that are not mandatory for SSPPs, but do not contradict it in semantics (for example, the positions of the cause , goals, grounds, conditions, result of the action described in the statement). Consider an example.

In winter, at the parking lot in Mokry Log, tourists successfully sawed a fallen dry tree for firewood.

SSPP are word forms: Tourists sawed a tree (proposition: subject-object relations of impact on the surface of an object with its violation). word forms fast and fallen dry are included in composite nominations and do not occupy independent positions in the schemes. word forms winter and in the parking lot in Mokry Log are the determinants involved in this statement from the SSPP with the proposition of being (it was in winter, it was in the parking lot in Mokry Log). In the utterance scheme there is also an optional position of the intended purpose of the action (for firewood), which is not mandatory for SSPP, but does not contradict it.

A positional scheme is also a sign of a proposition, but it is a speech sign, it is built in the process of speech. His proposition is a concrete denotative situation about which the speaker speaks. Concrete situations are constantly changing, and positional schemes of statements also vary.

SSPP is the sign of a typical proposition, abstracted from a set of concrete propositions. It was her typicality that allowed the speakers to create a stable formal expression for her, which entered the syntactic system of the language.<…>.

Due to the eternal fluidity and variability of positional schemes of statements, new SSPPs are gradually developing. For example, in the Russian language in recent centuries, a special SSPP has been established for the proposition of speech-thinking activity (“who is talking about what’).

Let's summarize.

1. Minimal and extended SSPPs are single-order categories serving different semantic concepts of syntactic relations. They are the same semantically.

2. Predicative relation is not only a grammatical category. It is semantic in its essence, its basis is a syntactic concept, SSPP is “stronger” than the lexical meaning of the word forms included in it, its proposition subjugates the semantics of the words falling into it.

3. The positional scheme of an utterance can formally coincide with the SSPP, but, as a rule, it is wider in terms of the number of components than the SSPP that forms it.

4. The proposition of the utterance is specifically denotative, reflecting the situation of speech. The proposition of SSPP is a typical generalized syntactic concept, singled out by human thinking from millions of specific denotative situations and formally fixed with the help of SSPP.

So, attention to the study of extended SSPPs has led to an understanding of the semantics of all syntax objects and should contribute to the creation of new syntactic concepts.

The supply paradigm

STRUCTURAL DIAGRAM AND CURRENT MEMBER OF THE OFFER*

O.A. Krylova

Two terms are placed in the title of the article, naming such concepts that at first glance have nothing in common with each other. Structural schemes of a sentence "are abstractions abstracted from an unlimited number of concrete sentences"; they reflect a set of predicative sentence stems, i.e. that combination of word forms (or one word form) that act as carriers of the predicative meaning of the sentence - and only, communicative completeness is not required when highlighting structural diagrams. The actual articulation of a sentence, on the contrary, is its binary structure of the topic and the rheme (in this case, the topic can be zero), which is set by the speaker's (writer's) communicative attitude; actual articulation reflects the communicative meaning of the sentence, forming the sentence as a communicative syntactic unit. It would seem that structural schemes as “syntactic patterns” are in no way connected with the actual division of the sentence, and that closed list of structural schemes of a simple sentence, which is contained in both “RG-80” and “Concise Russian Grammar”, is compiled without taking into account the actual division offers. (True, the actual articulation of simple sentences is described in WG-80, but already as various speech transformations of a sentence built according to a specific structural scheme distinguished without taking into account actual articulation.)

However, between these two sides of the organization of the proposal there is an inextricable link. It is no coincidence that E.N. Shiryaev, considering the sentence "in the grammatical aspect", included in it "syntactic forms of predicativity, syntactic forms of the structural scheme and syntactic forms of actual articulation" . In his opinion, these syntactic forms are inextricably linked and organize the "formal-syntactic structure" of pre-

* An article by Prof. O.A. Krylova "Structural schemes and the actual division of the sentence" (first published in: Questions of the culture of speech, IX. - M .: Nauka, 2007. - S. 250-259) is of particular interest not only for Russian studies, but also for the theory of language in general . In this work, the typology of the structural schemes of the Russian language is significantly refined, semantic and functional features of the Russian sentence in the dynamic aspect, the complex characterization of predicativity as the grammatical meaning of the sentence is substantiated. A sentence model, or structural scheme, is a high-level grammatical abstraction, but its content is not limited to grammatical meanings, and the proper sentence semantic category of predicativity covers a wider range of meanings than that realized by a formal syntactic connection. The independent communicative function of the sentence requires a significant refinement of the content of the sentence, which is provided by the mechanisms of the actual division of the sentence. - Editorial board.

proposition, or its "formal semantics". (Along with it, the sentence also contains an “informal syntactic structure”, or “informal semantics”, which also closely interact with each other.) . Leaving aside the question of informal semantics, let us show that the structure of the predicative foundations (structural diagrams) of a simple sentence and its actual articulation interact, that they are inextricably linked, and that the very selection of structural diagrams without taking into account the actual articulation of a sentence is not always possible.

In the list of structural schemes of a simple sentence contained in "RG-80" and in "KRG", two schemes are given among others: (I) "infinitive - noun in the nominative case": To work - valor; Find yourself in life happiness; Looking for friends in old age is the lot of loneliness; Flying is his dream and (2) "nominative noun - infinitive": Our commitment is to give excellent products; Discipline means to control yourself; True humanism is helping people.

If we compare such two sentences built according to these patterns, such as: Finding yourself in life is happiness and Happiness is finding yourself in life, then it is easy to see that they differ precisely in the actual articulation, because from the first to the second, not only the order of the components changes, but the composition of the theme and rheme also changes; in the first sentence, the topic is the component expressed by the infinitive (with verbal distributors), the rheme is the noun in the nominative case, and in the second, the topic is the noun in the nominative case, and the rheme is the infinitive with the verbal distributors. In passing, we note that the “informal semantics” has also changed, in the words of E.N. Shiryaeva: the general meaning of all sentences with the preposition of the infinitive is “the relationship between an abstractly presented action or procedural state and its sign - qualification”; the general meaning of sentences with the preposition of a noun in the nominative case and the postposition of an infinitive of the type Happiness is to find oneself in life - this is “the relationship between the objectively represented state and its sign”. Consequently, the change in the actual articulation (and syntactic semantics) when distinguishing these two structural schemes in RG-80 and KRG was taken into account, but this was done only once, only in this case, as a result of which exactly two different structural schemes were distinguished: Inf N1 and N1 + Inf. In other cases, the fact that a change in the actual division of a sentence, expressed by a change in word order, also leads to a change in the structural scheme itself, remained unaccounted for.

So, the block diagram “quantitative adverb or name in im.p. with a quantitative meaning - a noun in the genitive case ": Many flowers; The mass of guests; From children - little help; This man has many virtues. Comparison of sentences of identical lexico-morphological composition, but with different actual articulation, shows that the structural scheme underlying them also fundamentally changes. So, in the sentence Many colors, both components are merged into a single phrase

based subordination and there is no predicative relationship between them; the predicative meaning is conveyed by the whole phrase in its entirety: it is it that names the predicative feature and acts as a rheme. The sentence is built in accordance with latent questions: "What takes place / exists / is present (in reality)?". This is a statement type sentence with a null topic. Note that if this predicative attribute - "the presence of a large number of flowers" - is attributed to some carrier, then the latter will be expressed by the determining members of the sentence - or in the role of a topic (more often), as in cases like In the clearing // many flowers; In the hall //many flowers; In her hands // many flowers, etc., - or in the role of a rheme: Many flowers // only on the stage; Many colors // not all teachers, etc.). (Using // we separate the topic from the rheme). However, it is essential that both in the presence of such determinants and in their absence, the predicative center constitutes an integral subordinating phrase of many colors, between the components of which, of course, there are no predicative relations. The communicative goal of the speaker in this case is to state the presence (existence) of a large number of something (in this case, colors). Now let's change the actual division of the sentence and reflect it by the order of the components of the scheme: There are many colors //; Flowers // mass; Flowers // few; There were lots of flowers //. Such sentences serve a different communicative purpose: to report exactly the number of flowers - and are built in accordance with a different latent question: “How many (were) flowers?” The component in the genitive case is the theme, the component with a quantitative meaning is the rheme. But the main thing is that with such an actual division of the sentence (and, accordingly, with such a word order), predicative relations arise between the components of the block diagram.

This means that the scheme Adv quant (N1 quant) N2 is one, and the scheme N2 + Adv quant (N1 quant) is different, namely: there are no predicative relations between the components of the structural scheme in the first case (the components form, as noted above, a subordinating phrase) , and in the second case, there is a predicative relation between the components of the block diagram: this is a predicative connection of word forms. In the first case, the predicative feature is "many colors"; in the second, the predicative sign is only "many, mass, many, few", i.e. quantity, and the carrier of this feature is a component in the genitive case - colors.

Two-component schemes of the first type are proposed to be called merged-predicative, and structural schemes of the second type - separate-predicative.

So, the two-component structural schemes identified by 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 on the basis of a subordinating connection and in unity they call a predicative feature - these are fused predicative schemes ; other structural schemes of content

There are two components, one of which names the carrier of the predicative feature, and the second - this predicative feature itself - these are separate predicative schemes.

Therefore, the number of free two-component block diagrams should increase in comparison with the available list. So, sentences constructed according to the scheme “noun in the genitive case - verb in the form of 3 persons singular»: Water decreases; The trouble did not happen; Enough to do; The end is not foreseen and under. - built according to a separate predicative scheme, because the noun in the genitive case names the carrier of the predicative feature, and the conjugated form of the verb names the predicative feature itself. It is different in the following cases: Water is decreasing - [it means that the flood will end soon]; No end in sight; Enough of his affairs; [He (N.V. Timofeev-Resovsky. - O.K.) returned to his homeland, as it were, in stages.] Wills arrived, people arrived (D. Granin. Bison). The statement of fact (the will arrived) is formalized by a completely rematic sentence (monorem), which is based on a continuous predicative structural scheme “verb in the form of 3 persons singular. h + noun in the genitive case. These two components are merged into a single phrase in which main component- the verb word (arrive/arrive) governs the dependent word form; cf .: Will arrived to the Bison; Will ceased to arrive; The will will come soon.

Similarly: sentences (1) No time; I have no strength; He has no friends built according to a fused-predicative structural scheme: “the word no in combination with genitive case noun name." The fact that with such actual division and word order the predicative center of the sentence is organized by a complete phrase is confirmed by the fact that the main component is precisely the word, and not a single word form, i.e. this lexeme is not in the aggregate of all its forms: no / was not / will not be / would not be, etc. (and the subordinating phrase is, as you know, a word extended by a dependent word form); cf.: No time; There was no time; There will be no time; There can be no time; [he's on vacation now]). (2) In the case of a communicative attitude towards a message of a verifiable nature (Is there time? Does he have friends?, etc.), the actual articulation and the word order that forms it change; cf .: There is no time; There is no time at all; Unfortunately, he has no friends. Now the component "noun in the genitive case" has the meaning of the carrier of the predicative feature to which this feature is predicated - "absence": (no / was not / will not be / will not be); there are predicative relations between the components, which was not the case in the previous case, i.e. in sentences constructed according to the block diagram No N2; therefore, the sentences of the second type are constructed according to a different, namely: separate predicative - structural scheme: N2 + no.

The introduction of another - and significant! - classification feature: "presence/absence of predicative relations between two components of the block diagram" - should, in our opinion, not only more adequately identify the corpus of block diagrams, but also significantly streamline and simplify their classification.

To prove the last statement, we present the classification of free two-component block diagrams, which is contained in WG-80:

This classification suffers from a number of shortcomings. Firstly, the feature “presence/absence of the conjugated form of the verb” is assigned too high a rank, i.e. all two-component block diagrams already at the very first step of division are divided into two large classes on this basis. As a result, similar structural schemes turn out to be far separated from each other (for example, the Lesson has stopped and the Lesson is stopped; the Child is healthy and the Child has recovered), while, on the contrary, completely dissimilar schemes are close together (for example, Students are studying and It is necessary to wait).

Secondly, the classification proposed in WG-80 contains several repeating subgroups in different classes: thus, subject-predicative and non-subject-predicative schemes are distinguished both among structural schemes with a conjugated form of the verb, and among schemes without such a form; at the same time, the sign “presence/absence of a subject and a predicate” does not cover all two-component schemes, while another solution naturally arises: if there are two components in the scheme, then either they represent a subject and a predicate, or they do not receive this characteristic, and There is no third.

Finally, in the class of schemes with a conjugated form of the verb, the classification feature "presence/lack of coordination between the subject and the predicate" turned out to be unaccounted for: it was assigned only to subject-predicative schemes without a conjugated form of the verb.

The proposed division of two-component structural schemes into merged-predicative and separate-predicative ones allows us to construct a classification devoid of these shortcomings; although the number of schemes will increase somewhat (instead of 21 it will turn out to be 26), it will take on a more compact and logically more ordered form: firstly, due to the fact that the classification will be based on an essential feature, and, secondly, due to the fact that each classification feature will be entered once. Then the classification of all free two-component block diagrams will take the following form:

Free two-component block diagrams

Separately predicative Fused predicative

with lexically non- with lexically limited-

limited value component

component

subject - not subject -

predicate predicate

with coordinated with uncoordinated

subject subject

and predicate and predicate

with conjugated form without conjugated form

verb verb

We present all 26 free two-component block diagrams, selected for the indicated reasons and distributed among the named classes in accordance with the last table. As illustrations, first, non-spread sentences are given, consisting only of a predicative stem, reflected by a structural diagram, and then - sentences with distributors (verbal or/and determinative). If there is a context, it is enclosed in square brackets.

A. Separately predicative structural schemes

1. Subject-predicate with coordinated subject and predicate

a) with the conjugated form of the verb:

N + Vf: Students are engaged; Students study in the fifth room.

b) without the conjugated form of the verb:

Nj + Nj Father is an engineer: My friend's father is a chief engineer at a large construction site.

Mj + Adjj full: The iron is hot; I think the iron is too hot for this fabric.

Nj + Adjx short: The task is difficult; This task is too difficult for fifth graders.

Nj + Part short: Shop closed; The nearest pharmacy is closed for renovations.

2. Subject-predicate with uncoordinated subject and predicate

Inf + Nj: To argue is flour; Arguing with him is a real pain. Nj + Inf: Desire - to help; My cherished desire is to see him happy.

Nj + N2... (Adv): Pharmacy around the corner; All the most necessary books are on the shelf above the desk.

Inf + Adv: It is interesting to study; Reading lying down is harmful. Inf + Inf: To lead is to check; Smoking is injurious to health. Inf + (neg)Vf3s: Don't wait; You should not wait more than half an hour. Inf + Praed: You can help; It is not only possible to help her, but also necessary. Inf + Pron neg: No one to complain to; There is no need to go there.

3. Not subject-predicative

N2 + (neg) Vf3s: Enough to do; The water is coming; I have enough worries.

N2/N4 + (neg) Praed: Pity the girl; I do not feel sorry for the time for classes with a child.

N2 + Praed part: Stocks prepared; Pies for the holiday are not fried. N2 + Adv quant (No. quant): Lots of people; People - darkness; There are a lot of people in the square.

N2 + no: No time; He doesn't have any free time. N2 + Pron neg: Nothing interesting; There are no acquaintances in the hall.

B. Fused Predicative Schemes

1. With lexically limited components

no N2: no time; I don't have free time. No one (nothing, not the slightest, not a single one, not a single one) N2: [Entered the hall.] No one I know. There is nothing new in this book. Neg Pron Inf: No need to argue; [The situation is hopeless:] there is no one to consult with.

2. With lexically unrestricted components

Praed Inf: Time to leave; You need to take care of the equipment for the expedition.

Praed (neg) N2/N4: Sorry baby; I'm sorry for the wasted time.

Adv (quant) (N mountains "yach iron !; similarly: Our Pskov is stubborn. / Up" ory / our Pskov! [Does not surrender to anyone] (V. Peskov).

Only in the first of the three listed cases does the structural restructuring of the grammatical basis of the sentence occur, which results in the described increase in the number of structural diagrams, not to mention the fact that it is not always possible to change the order of the components even in principle; for example, a continuous predicative block diagram with a lexically limited component "neither + noun in the genitive case" (Not a sound) - does not allow rearrangement of components.

LITERATURE

Kovtunova I.I. Modern Russian language. Word order and actual division of the sentence. - M.: Enlightenment, 1976.

Brief Russian Grammar / Ed. N.Yu. Shvedova and V.V. Lopatin. - M.: Russian language, 1989.

Krylova O.A. Levels of sentence organization and their correlation // Interlevel connections in the language system: Sat. scientific tr. / Rev. ed. L.G. Zubkov. - M.: Publishing House of the University of Friendship of Peoples (RUDN), 1989. - S. 12-23.

Krylova O.A. Communicative syntax of the Russian language. - M.: Publishing house of RUDN University, 1992.

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

Russian grammar. Vol. II: Syntax. - M.: Nauka, 1980.

STRUCTURALSCHEMES AND ACTUAL DIVISION OF A SENTENCE

In this analysis, the researcher asks the question: what is that abstract pattern, that formula or that structural scheme, in accordance with which this sentence is constructed as a communicative predicative unit? The purpose of constructive syntax is to create a finite list of block diagrams of a sentence.

At this level of abstraction, for example, the following sentences will be of the same type:

1) Streams run.

2) This year, the plant will release a new car model.

3) You better shut up!

4) These poems were written by V. Mayakovsky.

Their commonality in the constructive-syntactic aspect is explained by the fact that the abstract scheme on which they are built includes two components connected by predicative relations and expressed by the nominative case of the name (the component with the meaning of the carrier of the predicative feature) and the conjugated form of the verb (the component with the meaning of the predicative feature itself ). Thus, the block diagram that underlies all four proposals can be represented as:

In "Russian Grammar"-80, a block diagram is defined as an abstract pattern, according to which a separate minimal relatively complete sentence can be built. The word “relatively” emphasizes that the components necessary from the point of view of lexical semantics may not be included in the structural scheme, however, the predicative meaning, i.e. the main grammatical meaning of the sentence, will be expressed by it, i.e. really abstract block diagram as a carrier of predicative meaning.

If the block diagram includes one component, it is one-component scheme, if two, - two-component. The components of the scheme are denoted by alphabetic characters corresponding to the Latin names of the corresponding parts of speech or morphological forms:

Vf - conjugated form of the verb;

Vf3s - conjugated 3rd person singular verb

N - noun;

Fdj - adjective;

Pgon - pronoun;

Adv - adverb;

Advo - adverb in -o (cold, hot etc.);

Praed - predicative;

Part- participle;

Interj- interjection;

Neg - negation, negation;

Sor - a bunch;

quant - quantitative (quantitative) value.

With the symbol N, the numbers from 1 to 6 indicate case forms; with the symbol N, the number 2 with an ellipsis (N 2 ...) means "a noun in the form of one of the indirect cases with or without a preposition."

(Adv quant N2) - “A quantitative adverb in combination with the genitive case of a noun” (the number of the noun is not essential here). According to such a formula, the scheme is built, for example, the following sentences; A lot of things, Today I have a lot of things, Tomorrow our whole family will have a lot of things to do. Little time, U You are never enough time for me Enough arguing...

(Inf + Vf3s) - “Infinitive in combination with a conjugated verb in the form of 3rd person singular. numbers." The proposals are structured like this: Smoking is prohibited; Friends, smoking is prohibited in our university; It is impossible to meet; Friends never manage to meet; Will be able to meet etc.

(N1) - "A noun in the form of the nominative case." The proposals are structured like this: Night, Memories, Silent summer night, Dark summer night on the Crimean coast etc.

(Inf cop Inf) - "Infinitive - copula - infinitive." For example: To be friends means to trust.