Non-union complex sentence is a complex sentence in which simple clauses are combined without conjunctions or allied words.
Non-Union means of communication complex sentences(BSP):
1) Semantic connection
2) Intonation connection
3) Arrangement order
4) Forms of tense, aspect and mood of verbs
Semantic connection is expressed in the fact that the parts of the sentence that are part of a non-union complex sentence form a single integral statement.
For example: Evening came, it was raining, and the wind was blowing intermittently from the north.(M.G.). This complex sentence paints a big picture, the details of which are indicated by listing the parts of the sentences.
Intonation connection parts of a complex sentence have a different character:
This could be the intonation of the enumeration.
For example: A mournful wind drives a flock of clouds to the edge of heaven, the broken spruce groans, the dark forest whispers dully.(N.)
Intonation of opposition.
For example: I would be glad to serve, but being served is sickening.(Gr.);
Intonation of explanation.
For example: A terrible thought flashed through my mind: I imagined it in the hands of robbers.(P.)
Intonation of warning.
For example: Suddenly I feel: someone takes me by the shoulder and pushes me.(T.)
Intonation of conditioning.
For example: If you love to ride, you also love to carry a sled.(last) etc.
Arrangement order parts in a non-union complex sentence is a means of expressing semantic relationships between them.
Compare: It became cool: evening came(the cause is indicated in the second part, the effect - in the first; between the parts you can insert causal conjunction because). - Evening came - it became cool(when rearranged, cause-and-effect relationships with a temporal connotation are expressed differently: the cause is indicated in the first part of the sentence, the effect in the second; an adverb therefore can be inserted between them).
A means of connecting parts of sentences also serve as part of a non-union complex sentence forms of tense, aspect and mood of the verb in them. Thus, to denote a temporal or spatial connection between phenomena, homogeneous verbal forms are usually used.
For example: The rain was restlessly knocking on the wood of the boat, its soft noise suggested sad thoughts.(M.G.); In a clear field, the snow is silver, wavy and pockmarked, the moon is shining, the troika is rushing along the highway(P.); To the left was a deep gorge; behind him and in front of us, the dark blue peaks of the mountains, pitted with wrinkles, covered with layers of snow, were drawn on the pale horizon, still retaining the last glow of dawn(L.).
Types of non-union complex sentences
Types of non-union complex sentences
There are two main types of non-union complex sentences: correlatives with conjunctive complex sentences And incompatible with them.
Sentences of the second type are relatively rare, much more common than proposal of the first type, which in turn are divided into two groups:
A) non-union complex sentences of homogeneous composition (with the same type of parts)
b) non-union complex sentences of heterogeneous composition (with different types of parts).
The first group includes sentences that, in terms of the meanings they express and according to some structural features, approach complex sentences: both express temporal relations (simultaneity or sequence of phenomena, events), relations of comparison or opposition of actions, etc. ; both of them are characterized by enumerative intonation, comparison intonation, etc.; for both of them, the parts of the sentence included in their composition usually have homogeneous forms of predicates, etc.
The first group of non-union complex sentences also includes those in which relations of comparison or opposition are expressed, for example: Legs carry - hands feed (last); They shouted a loud cry three times - not a single fighter was moved... (L.).
The second group of non-conjunctive complex sentences is formed by those that are semantically close to complex sentences: between the parts of these non-union proposals there are objective, determinative, cause-and-effect, conditional-effect, etc. relationships.
Syntactic analysis of a unionless complex sentence
Scheme for parsing a unionless complex sentence
1. Determine the type of sentence according to the purpose of the statement (narrative, interrogative, incentive).
2. Specify the type of offer for emotional coloring(exclamation or non-exclamation).
3. Highlight grammatical basics, determine the number of parts ( simple sentences), find their boundaries.
4. Determine the semantic relationships between the parts (enumerative, causal, explanatory, explanatory, comparative, adversative, conditional-temporal, consequences).
5. Parse each part as a simple sentence.
6. Create an outline of the proposal.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS OF A UNION-LESS COMPLEX SENTENCE
1) [His entire skin was trembling from the thirst for battle], [his eyes were bloodshot], [his nostrils fluttered], [the light steam from his breath was blown away by the breeze].(Yu. Kazakov)
[ — = ],[ — = ],[ — = ],[ = ].
The sentence is narrative, non-exclamatory, complex, non-conjunctive, consists of four parts, relations between parts are enumerative (simultaneity). Each part is parsed as a simple sentence.
2) [Everything around him was empty]: [some died], [others left].
[ — = ]:[ — = ],[ — = ].
The sentence is narrative, non-exclamatory, complex, non-conjunctive, consists of three parts; the second and third parts together reveal the reason for what is said in the first (causal relationships); between the second and third parts the relationship is comparative and adversative. Each part is parsed as a simple sentence.
A brief history of the study of non-conjunctive complex sentences in linguistic literature. Differential characteristics of a non-union complex sentence as a special independent structural and semantic unit of language.
The main means of connecting predicative parts in a non-union complex sentence: lexical material How the most important means expression and implementation of syntactic relations between parts of a non-union complex sentence; intonation, its varieties when expressing various semantic-syntactic relations in a non-union complex sentence; other means of communication and expression of syntactic relations in the structure of a non-conjunctive complex sentence. Non-union complex sentences of homogeneous and heterogeneous composition. Non-conjunctive complex sentences with differentiated and undifferentiated relations between their constituent predicative parts: criteria for distinguishing structures with differentiated and undifferentiated relations; private varieties of non-union complex sentences with differentiated and undifferentiated relations; punctuation design of non-union complex sentences depending on the nature of differentiation or non-differentiation of the relationships between their component parts. Studying non-conjunctive complex sentences at school.
A non-conjunctive complex sentence is a phenomenon of the syntactic system, largely unknown to science. This is largely due to the fact that for a long time attention was paid to the facts of codified literary language, which was identified with literary language in general. Meanwhile, the sphere of existence of a complex non-union sentence is predominantly spoken language.
In a codified literary language, the main type of complex sentence is conjunctive. In scientific and business speech, non-union complex sentences are almost never used; only a few of their types are allowed here. More widely non-union complex sentences are presented in fiction, and mainly in such areas that directly imitate spoken language (in dramatic works and in the speech of heroes in fiction), as well as in journalistic works with an emphasis on loose speech. Non-union complex sentences are widely and uniquely used in poetic speech.
In a colloquial language, in many cases, the non-union design of a complex sentence is the norm, while for a codified literary language it represents a deviation from the norm, permissible only in limited speech areas. Thus, non-conjunctive complex sentences corresponding to pronominal-correlative complex sentences of a codified language are consistently and regularly formed in spoken language without conjunctions and correlative words: He walked with us in the forest / will study in his class (cf.: The one who is with us in the forest walked, will study in his class); – Is he sleeping soundly with you? – He is sleeping / impossible to wake up (cf.: He sleeps so soundly that... or He sleeps so that...); It was raining / we were soaked to the skin (cf.: It was raining so much that...)
No one in the colloquial speech sphere of a codified literary language represents the entire variety of non-union complex sentences that exist in spoken language.
There are many examples of them that are realized only in spoken language. These are, for example, non-conjunctive complex sentences, equivalent to complex sentences with a substantive subordinate clause: And this is that doll / did you bring it from the GDR? (= which you brought from the GDR), Give me the shirt / I go to the theater (= the shirt in which...).
The functioning of non-union complex proposals mainly in the field spoken language explained by the specifics of their formal and semantic organization. In non-union complex sentences, the semantic relationships between the parts do not have explicit expression and must be extracted by the addressee of the speech from the content of the parts based on the fund general knowledge the listener and the speaker. In conditions where the speaker and the addressee of speech are in direct contact and the speaker can constantly monitor the understanding of what he said, and, if necessary, correct misinterpretations, non-union complex sentences turn out to be an economical and therefore convenient construction.
Until the 50s of our century, the prevailing view in science was that non-union complex sentences were considered not as a special syntactic structure, but as sentences with “omitted” conjunctions. With this view of non-union proposals, the task of studying them was reduced to subsuming certain non-union proposals under the types of union ones; there was no need for a special study of their structure.
Since the 50s, it has become widespread new look on non-conjunctive complex sentences, which is based on the recognition of non-conjunctive sentences as a special structural and semantic class of a complex sentence. This recognition entailed the abandonment of the traditional assimilation of non-union sentences to allied ones and the development of a classification of non-union sentences based on the specifics of their structure and semantics. The classification of N. S. Pospelov is the most famous.
The division of non-union complex sentences is based on a consistently applied semantic criterion. Among non-union sentences, two main types are distinguished: 1) sentences of homogeneous composition, the parts of which are of the same type in semantic terms and equally relate to the whole they form; 2) sentences of heterogeneous composition, parts of which are of different types in semantic terms and represent different sides the whole they form. Within these types, particular varieties are distinguished, also based on the nature of the semantic relationships between the parts of a complex sentence. Among sentences of homogeneous composition, a distinction is made between sentences with the meaning of enumeration and with the meaning of comparison. Among sentences of heterogeneous composition, sentences with the meaning of conditionality, cause-and-effect, explanatory, explanatory and connecting are distinguished.
This classification is an important step in the study of a non-union complex sentence. However, it is not aimed at studying its formal organization. Meanwhile, non-conjunctive complex sentences are sentences with a specific formal organization, and therefore their classification must be built taking into account formal differences, as is done when classifying conjunctive complex sentences.
In non-union complex sentences, as in allied ones, predicative constructions are combined into one sentence in order to establish certain semantic relationships between these predicative constructions. In allied complex sentences, the main means of combining predicative constructions into one sentence and expressing certain meanings are conjunctions and allied words. In non-union complex sentences there are no conjunctions or allied words. Consequently, in order to understand the syntactic structure of non-union complex sentences, it is necessary to answer the following questions: with the help of what linguistic means are predicative constructions combined, what semantic relations exist between them, how are these relations expressed? The answers to these questions in different linguistic directions have been ambiguous. A. M. Peshkovsky believed that the functions of conjunctions and allied words in non-union complex sentences are performed by a certain intonation. It was argued that by the type of intonation one can distinguish composition and subordination and various kinds of specific meanings in non-union complex sentences: in the sentence Called yourself a milk mushroom - get into the back, the intonation corresponds to the subordinating conditional conjunction if (If you called yourself a load of milk, then get into the back), in the sentence Seven times try on - cut off once, the intonation corresponds to the coordinating adversative conjunction but (Try on seven times, but cut off once).
Another understanding of the syntactic structure of a non-union complex sentence was proposed by N. S. Pospelov. Like A. M. Peshkovsky, N. S. Pospelov believed that intonation in a non-union sentence can express certain semantic relationships between predicative constructions, but these relationships are different from those expressed by conjunctions and allied words. N. S. Pospelov identified non-union complex sentences of homogeneous and heterogeneous composition, which did not coincide with the concepts of composition and subordination in the union type. If for A. M. Peshkovsky the sentence I see: the forest is over was a non-union complex sentence with explanatory relations, then N. S. Pospelov finds explanatory relations in this sentence. In “Russian Grammar”-80 it is proved that intonation cannot at all express certain semantic relationships between predicative constructions. From this it is concluded that in non-conjunctive complex sentences there is no syntactic means of connecting parts, and, therefore, non-conjunctive complex sentences are not a syntactic unit at all, but a simple sequence of sentences in the text.
So, can or cannot intonation express semantic relationships between predicative constructions, combining them into one sentence? Wed. : 1) He went into the bakery: he needed to buy bread and 2) *He went into the bakery: a nightingale was singing in the grove. It is clear that in (1) there are causal relations between predicative constructions. Let us assume that this meaning is conveyed by a special causal intonation. Then it would be logical to expect that in sentence (2) causal relations can be expressed using the same intonation. However, no matter how you intonate this sentence, it is impossible to comprehend the reason in it. In order to establish causal relations in such a sentence, an appropriate conjunction is necessary; Wed : He went into the bakery because a nightingale was singing in the grove. This, of course, is a very strange, unnatural reason, but the union does not allow us to doubt that the predicative constructions are connected by causal relationships. Thus, intonation cannot establish semantic relationships between predicative constructions. This conclusion leads to a new question: how is sentence (1) conceptualized as a sentence with causal relations? These relationships are determined by the very content of predicative constructions, i.e., by their meaning, which is formed by the vocabulary that fills these syntactic structures: the lexical semantics of the words bakery and bread is such that it “suggests” causal relationships. In sentence (2) there are no real, obvious connections between the words bakery and nightingale, so sentence (2) is meaningless.
Does this mean that in a non-conjunctive complex sentence there really are no syntactic devices and, therefore, a non-conjunctive complex sentence is not a syntactic structure? No, it doesn't mean that. Intonation in a non-conjunct complex sentence is still a syntactic means that forms a non-conjunctive complex sentence as a special syntactic unit, only the functions of intonation are not those that were attributed to it by A. M. Peshkovsky and N. S. Pospelov. Which ones? Firstly, intonation connects predicative constructions into one complex sentence. Secondly, intonation is a syntactic signal with the following function: find semantic relationships between predicative constructions in the content of predicative constructions. Naturally, it is possible to use the semantic-syntactic structure of a non-union complex sentence only when the content of predicative constructions allows without special labor discover certain semantic relationships between them.
So, one of the possible definitions of a non-union complex sentence, which we will follow in the future, is this.
A non-union complex sentence is a complex sentence in which, with the help of intonation, two (or more) predicative constructions are combined into one whole with the purpose of intonationally activating the semantic relationships inherent in the content of these predicative constructions.
Depending on the nature of intonation, the degree of activation of semantic relations can be different, which is conveyed in writing by such punctuation marks: semicolon, comma, dash or colon. Compare this series of sentences: The sun has risen. The day begins. - The sun has risen; the day begins. - The sun has risen, the day begins. – The sun has risen and the day begins. This series shows varying degrees activation of semantic relations between predicative constructions: it is zero with a period, weak with a semicolon, medium with a comma and strong with a dash (in other cases - with a colon). Behind each of the signs there is a special intonation: with a period there are two sentences, that is, two predicative constructions with the intonation of completeness; with a comma (and semicolon), most often there is an intonation of incompleteness, but not clearly expressed; with a dash or colon there is a clear intonation incompleteness. The difference in intonation between a period, a comma and a dash (or colon) is clearly heard by every native speaker, distinguished and reproduced in their speech. Only bright intonation can reliably activate semantic relationships between predicative constructions. Therefore, the core of non-conjunctive complex sentences consists of non-conjunctive complex sentences with bright intonation.
The structure of non-union complex sentences can be open and closed. In non-union, as well as allied, complex sentences with an open structure, the number of predicative constructions is quantitatively indefinite; there is always the possibility of continuing this series; Wed : The days have become shorter, the leaves on the trees have turned yellow, it rains often - The days have become shorter, the leaves on the trees have turned yellow, it rains often, the swallows have already flown to warmer climes.
In open, non-union complex sentences there is a special enumerative intonation. Its distinctive feature is the emphasized identical intonation of all predicative constructions, except for the last one, which is pronounced with a descending intonation of completion - the intonation of a period.
Enumerative intonation can manifest itself only in non-union complex sentences with more than two predicative constructions, otherwise the same intonation is not detected, since the last predicative construction is pronounced, as just said, with the intonation of a period. Enumerative intonation makes us discover in the content of predicative constructions that general thought, the idea for the sake of which these constructions are combined into one whole.
It is clear that the given non-union complex sentence activates the thought of the coming autumn. Sometimes the general idea uniting an open enumeration series finds expression in a special predicative construction:
Drive away a living boat with one push
From sands smoothed by the tides,
Rise in one wave into another life,
Feel the wind from the flowering shores,
Interrupt a dreary dream with a single sound,
Suddenly revel in the unknown, dear,
Give life a sigh, give sweetness to secret torments,
Instantly feel someone else’s as your own,
Whisper about something that makes your tongue go numb,
Strengthen the fight of fearless hearts -
This is what only a select few singers possess,
This is his sign and crown (Fet).
In non-union complex sentences with enumerative relations, a coordinating conjunction can be used and:
Sister of flowers, friend of roses,
Look into my eyes,
Bring life-giving tears
And plant a song in your heart (Fet).
The bright enumerative intonation in writing in open enumerative non-conjunct complex sentences is conveyed by a comma.
The structure of closed non-union complex sentences is binary. Bright intonation, which activates the search for semantic relationships in such sentences, is conveyed either by a dash or a colon. The choice of one of these signs depends on the nature of semantic relationships in closed structures and is regulated by the current rules of punctuation.
Semantic relations in non-union complex sentences of a closed structure can be described in different ways, in different terminological systems. One of the possible ways is to present these relations in a terminological system, the basis of which would be the terms used to describe semantic relations in a conjunctive closed type of a complex sentence: adversative, explanatory, causal relations, etc. With this approach, in non-conjunctive complex sentences of a closed type structures must distinguish between two types of semantic relations: differentiated and undifferentiated.
Differentiated relationships are those that require one term to describe them. If this term is common with the one used to define semantic relations in the conjunction type, then it clearly follows that the relations in the conjunction and non-conjunctive complex sentences are identical: cf. : I knew: he wouldn’t come - I knew that he wouldn’t come (explanatory relationships).
Undifferentiated relationships are those that simultaneously require a number of terms to describe them; Wed : The session ends - we’ll go to a sports camp - in this sentence the relationship is temporal-effect-causal (When the session ends, we’ll go to a sports camp; The session ends, and, therefore, we’ll go to a sports camp; Since the session ends, we’ll go to a sports camp ). Such relations are called undifferentiated because in this semantic complex a number of differentiated relations are merged into one undifferentiated whole. It should be emphasized that the identification of undifferentiated relations as a special type is justified only if one relies on a terminological system to describe semantic relations in the union type. Nothing prevents us from choosing another way of description: creating a number of special terms to describe what is here called undifferentiated relations. The advantage of a description highlighting differentiated and undifferentiated relations is that this approach allows us to consider non-union and allied complex sentences in one system and on the same basis.
Non-union proposal- this is a type of complex sentence in which the connection between predicative parts is expressed without the participation of conjunctions or allied words. Communication in a non-union sentence is carried out using punctuation marks, intonation and meaning, which depends on the context.
The teacher fell ill, the lecture was postponed until tomorrow.
IN this proposal there is a sequence of actions that matters.
The lecture was postponed until tomorrow: the teacher was ill.
Explanation.
The teacher fell ill - the lecture was postponed until tomorrow.
Cause-and-effect relationship between sentences.
To make it easier to use, it is customary to use the abbreviation SBP.
Types of complex non-union sentences.
The most widespread classification of types of non-union proposals is according to lexical meaning. In accordance with this, the following SBP are distinguished:
- explanatory SBP:
Something incomprehensible was happening on the street: suddenly an incredible noise was heard.
- SBP with sequence value:
The spring sun peeked out from behind the clouds and it quickly became warmer.
- additional SBP:
He decided to go to work: he needed to go in place of his sick partner.
- SBP with condition value:
When I return home, I’ll kick everyone out.
- SBP with reason value:
There was the sound of the door opening: Vika had returned from school.
- SBP with time value:
The sun rose and the birds chirped happily.
- SBP with mapping value:
Time for business is time for fun.
- SBP with the meaning of the consequence:
The TV is broken: there was a power surge.
Scheme for parsing a complex non-union sentence.
1. Type of sentence (Complex non-union sentence).
2. The number of predicative parts in the SBP (Two, three or more. Highlight the grammatical bases).
3. Type of semantic connection between the parts of a complex non-union sentence.
4. Explain the placement of the selected sign in the sentence.
5. Draw a diagram of the UPS.
General information
A non-union complex sentence is a complex sentence, the predicative parts of which are interconnected in meaning and structure, and are also connected without the help of conjunctions or relative words by rhythmic and melodic means, the order of the parts. They differ:
1) non-union complex sentences of homogeneous composition (with parts of the same type). According to the meanings they express (simultaneity or sequence of events, comparison or opposition of actions, etc.) and according to some structural features (enumerative intonation or intonation of opposition, uniformity of aspectual and tense forms of predicate verbs, the possibility of inserting coordinating conjunctions), sentences of this type can be correlated with complex sentences; compare:
The forest lawn is all saturated with cold dew, insects are sleeping. many flowers have not yet opened their corollas(Priv.).-- It was not wounds, not a diseased lung that tormented him -- irritated by the consciousness of uselessness(Paul.);
2) non-union complex sentences of heterogeneous composition (with different types of parts). According to the meanings they express (relations of conditionality, cause-and-effect, explanatory, etc.) and according to some structural features (intonation, the order of the predicative parts of a single whole, the lexical composition of the first part, etc.), sentences of this type can be correlated with complex sentences; compare: I'm sad: I don't have a friend with me(P.).-- Suddenly I feel: someone takes my hand and pushes me(T.).
Types of non-union complex sentences
Depending on the meanings of parts of non-conjunctive complex sentences and the type of intonation as the most important formal aspect of their construction, various types non-union complex sentences:
- 1) non-union complex sentences with meaning" listings: The snowstorm did not subside, the sky did not clear (P.); The doors and windows are wide open, not a leaf stirs in the garden(Gonch.);
- 2) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of comparison or opposition: Measure seven times - cut once(Ate.); It was not only grief - it was a complete change of life, of the entire future (Sim.);
- 3) non-conjunctive complex sentences with the meaning of conditionality: If you kill, you won't get anything.(L. T.); If you love to ride, you also love to carry sleighs(Ate.). (About non-union proposals like And if it weren’t for me, you would be smoking in Tver, in which conditional-consequential relations are expressed by the presence in the first part of a predicate in the form of an imperative mood;
- 4) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of explanatory relations: With anxiety, I jumped out of the wagon and saw: my mother was meeting me on the porch with an air of deep grief.(P.); I'll definitely tell you: you have talent.(Fad.); Fedor understood: it was about communication(Furm.); Alexey decided: enough delay(B. Pol.). In these examples, the second part denotes an object related to the predicate in the first part, expressed by a verb of speech, thought, perception, etc. The second part can also serve as a subject in relation to the first part: So it is decided: I will not show fear...(P.); It occurred to me: why is mother sleeping so soundly?(Adv.). This type of non-union complex sentences also includes those in which the verbs are broken in the first part look out, look around, listen etc. or an expression like raise your eyes, raise your head etc., warning about further presentation; in these cases, the words can be inserted between parts of a non-union southern sentence and saw that; and heard that; and felt that: I turn around: Grushnitsky(L.); Oblomov looked around, in front of him in reality, not in a hallucination, stood the real, real Stolz(Gonch.); He thought, smelled: it smells like honey(Ch.);
- 5) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of attributive relations: Like all Moscow people, your father is like this: he would like a son-in-law with stars and ranks...(Gr.) ; In my sleep, a persistent thought began to disturb me: the shop will be robbed, the horses will be stolen(Boon.);
- 6) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of cause-and-effect relationships: I couldn’t go out: a boy with white eyes kept spinning in front of me in the darkness.(L.); Sometimes the horses sank up to their bellies: the soil was very viscous(Fad.); The rich man can't sleep: the rich man is afraid of a thief(Seq.);
- 7) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of temporary relations: If we win, we will build a stone house (A.N.T.); I was driving here and the rye was starting to turn yellow. Now I'm leaving back -- people eat this rye(Priv.); They plow the arable land - they don’t wave their hands(Seq.);
- 8) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of comparison: Says a word - the nightingale sings (L.); ...He’ll look and he’ll give you a ruble(N.);
- 9) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of consequence, result, rapid change of events: ... The cheese fell out - there was a trick with it (Kr.); I I'm dying -- I have no reason to lie(T.); Suddenly men with axes appeared -- the forest rang, groaned, crackled(N.), Metelitsa was already very close to the fire --- suddenly horse rye was heard in the darkness(Fad.);
- 10) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of explanation; From early youth, Tatyana was kept in a black body: she worked for two, but never saw any kindness (T.); Everyone assessed Nagulnov’s behavior differently: some encouraged, others condemned, some kept a reserved silence(Shol.);
- 11) non-union complex sentences with the meaning of joining: I already know all this by heart - that’s what’s boring (L.); She sat nearby on a bench under a rickety wooden mushroom - the kind they make in camps for sentries(Paust.); He always loved to chat - I knew that very well(Kav.);
- 12) non-union proposals complex composition. In these sentences, the second part consists not of one, but of several simple sentences: He noticed some special disrepair in all the village buildings: the logs on the huts were dark and old; many roofs were leaky like a sieve; on others there was only a ridge at the top and poles on the sides in the form of ribs (G.); It’s pleasant to lie motionless on the hay after a long walk and deep sleep: the body is luxuriating and languishing, the face is glowing with a slight heat, sweet laziness closes the eyes(T.).
BSP is a joint venture, the parts of which are connected by a non-union connection, that is, the PEs are combined into a single communicative and semantic whole using intonation. BSP as an independent type of joint venture has not yet been sufficiently studied. A.M. Peshkovsky first proposed considering BSP as a certain class of SP; his ideas were later developed by V.V. Vinogradov. But in modern science there is no unity of views on the subject of study. So, in Russian grammars non-union connection is considered separately - not in a row of opposition: coordinating, subordinating and non-union connections. What we call BSP is defined there as a non-union combination of sentences. Nevertheless, from the 50s of the 20th century, the study of BSP began and the first attempts were made to classify structural-semantic types. The most famous is the classification of Nikolai Semenovich Pospelov, who based the division of the BSP into types on the semantic criterion he consistently applied: the scientist called the SP, the parts of which are of the same type in the semantic sense and equally relate to the whole formed by them, sentences homogeneous composition , and a joint venture, the parts of which are of different types in semantic terms and represent different aspects of the whole they form, is, accordingly, a joint venture heterogeneous composition . These terms are already familiar to you, because... they are used in the BSC classification. All criteria for distinguishing SSPs of homogeneous and heterogeneous composition “work” here too (except, of course, those that relate to coordinating conjunctions).
The semantic criterion put forward by N.S. Pospelov, is currently accompanied by a search for formal criteria for the BSP typology.
The most important constitutive feature of the BSP - the absence of a union connection - forces us to analyze additional means of communication: 1) intonation; 2) support words, performing a predictive function in the first part of the sentence; 3) anaphoric and cataphoric pronouns; 4) lexical means; 5) semantics of PE. The idea that intonation is a kind of substitute for a union means of communication belongs to A.M. Peshkovsky. Not all modern researchers agree with this position. The fact is that the same joint venture can have different intonation patterns. Depending on the nature of intonation, the degree of activation of semantic relations can be different, which is conveyed in writing by different punctuation marks. Let's compare: 1) The sun has risen, the day begins; 2) The sun has risen–the day begins. In the first example, the connection of the parts into a single whole is evidenced by the intonation incompleteness of 1 IF. In the second example, there is a clear intonation incompleteness of the first part, a warning pause between parts. Only bright intonation can reliably activate semantic relationships between parts. Therefore, the core of the BSP field consists of types of SPP with bright intonation.
So, all BSPs are divided into two classes.
BSP OF HOMOGENEOUS COMPOSITION and BSP OF HETEROMOGENEOUS COMPOSITION.
BSP OF HOMOGENEOUS COMPOSITION
The first class is small in number - it includes one type: BSP with enumeration-connection relations. The main structural elements are enumerative intonation, correlation between semantics and structure of PU, lexical-semantic uniformity of PU, syntactic parallelism is often used. In this type, two SMS are implemented - the first is flexible, the second is inflexible:
SSM, realizing the meaning of the simultaneity of states of affairs depicted in parts of the BSP: The grass turned yellow and the flowers withered.
SSM, which realizes the meaning of the multi-temporality (following) of states of affairs depicted in parts of the BSP: The bushes began to stir, and a half-asleep bird fluttered up.
BSPs of homogeneous composition are similar to connecting BSPs of the same type, therefore polynomial sentences with allied and non-union connections are possible: The sky was throwing light rain, streams were whispering outside and a cold wind was blowing. As you can see, the parts of this NP are of the same type in semantic terms and equally relate to the whole they form, which does not allow grouping PU into structural and semantic blocks (components).
BSP OF HETEROGENEOUS COMPOSITION
BSPs of HETEROGENEOUS COMPOSITION are divided into two types - BSPs with differentiated relationships between the IFs and BSPs with undifferentiated relationships between the IFs. This opposition was introduced by E.N. Shiryaev. Differentiated relationships are those that correspond to one unit in the metalanguage. BSP with differentiated relations , as a rule, have one specific quasi-synonym - union-type joint ventures. By the way, the presence or absence of a synonym is recognized by some researchers as a basis for dividing BSP into two groups - those with or without analogues among other classes of SP. BSP with undifferentiated relations - these are sentences with diffuse semantics, therefore it is impossible to indicate the relationships between parts using one unit of description metalanguage. SP does not have one specific synonym or quasi-synonym. Let's compare: 1) For myself, I decided a long time ago: this is the only way out; 2) It started to rain - we went home. In the first example, object relations are implemented, in the second – diffuse grammatical relations: temporal, causal, and effectual. Let's compare the presence of quasi-synonyms: 1) For myself, I decided a long time ago that this is the only way out; 2) When...; Because…; …And; ...and therefore... But it should be noted that the broad context of using BSP can remove the undifferentiation of semantics, or, on the contrary, create diffuse (blurred) semantics.
BSP with DIFFERENTIATED RELATIONS between parts are divided into subtypes:
BSP with a supporting word (spread, explained word in the first part). Just as in explanatory-objective NGN, the first part uses lexemes with certain semantics and the first part is characterized by structural-semantic incompleteness, for example: He saw a car approaching the house. The structural element of the model is the presence of a lexeme with the semantics of visual perception, which requires filling in its semantic valence. The structure is inflexible.
BSP with indirect explanatory-object relations. In SMS, the word being explained is eliminated, but it is hinted at by some component of the utterance - in our example it is a verb physical action, the semantics of which suggests an implicational connection with visual perception: He looked around: a car was approaching the house. In the synonymous construction of the NGN, the eliminated lexeme will be restored: He looked back andsaw that a car is approaching the house.
BSPs with explanatory-object relations are built according to two SSMs:
BSP with causal relationships. The main means of communication and expression grammatical meaning intonation becomes: the first part is pronounced with a restless, warning lowering of the voice, between parts there is a pause. Of course, the semantics of PE also participates in the expression of relations. For example: I am sad: my friend is not with me. The structure is inflexible. A quasi-synonym is the causal SPP: I'm sad because (because)...
BSP with comparative relations. In the BSP of this subtype, the states of affairs depicted in parts of the SP are compared. Intonation is characterized by the same phrasal stress in parts of the SP, the first part is pronounced with a slight increase in tone, the second with a decrease. But the intonation pattern may not be so pronounced, which is conveyed in writing by punctuation marks. Let's compare: 1) The dog barks, the nightingale sweats; 2) He is the guest - I am the host. Additional elements of structure: antonyms or lexemes with opposite semes, syntactic parallelism. A quasi-synonym is the comparative BSC. The structure is flexible.
BSP with explanatory relations. Parts of the joint venture report the same thing differently, but in the first part more general information about some state of affairs, and in the second – more specific ones. The first part usually uses words with vague or abstract semantics. The first part is pronounced with a lower tone, before the second part there is a warning pause. For example: 1) I only want from youone : hurry up with your departure; 2) Job he hasit was interesting : he built a dam on the flooded meadows near the Don. The structure is inflexible, just like that of a quasi-synonym - explanatory BSC. It should be noted: a non-union proposal specializes in expressing explanatory relations, therefore not all such BSPs can be transformed into allied SPs.
BSP with comparative relations. The content of the joint venture is a comparison of two situations, actions, processes, etc. The intonation pattern is similar to the BSP with comparative semantics, but the structure is inflexible, for example: Says a word - the nightingale sings. A quasi-synonym is comparative SPP.
BSP with sign relationships. The first part depicts a situation that is interpreted in the second part. The second part uses anaphoric pronouns or lexemes with semantics of meaning, designation ( sign, sign, omen and the like). The main phrasal emphasis is on the second part. For example: 1) The heels clicked again -This Agnes Feodorovna was returning from the depths of the corridor; 2) The leaves on the birch trees have turned yellow - truesign approaching autumn. In the second example, the incompleteness of the second part of the joint venture plays a constructive role. There are no quasi-synonyms.
BSP with investigative relations. This SMS is located in the zone of transition between the BSP and the SSP, since cataphoric words are used between the parts - pronominal adverbs with the semantics of consequence or introductory words. For example: 1) It got darkThat's why it became difficult to get into the forest along untrodden paths; 2) The first semester is coming to an end,hence , the busy time for exams is coming soon. The structure, of course, is inflexible, like that of the quasi-synonym - investigative SPP with the union So.
BSP with UNDIFFERENTIATED RELATIONS between parts are also divided into subtypes:
BSP with conditional-temporal relationships between parts. The first part names the condition for the implementation of the situation discussed in the second part. In addition, situations can be connected by temporal relations of succession. The logical conditionality of situations can also manifest itself in the fact that the content of the second part is a consequence arising from the first situation. The first part is pronounced with a warning lowering of the voice. For example: 1) They go ahead - they don’t spare hair; 2) If you like to ride, you also like to carry sleds. The undifferentiation of relations presupposes the presence of several quasi-synonyms. Wed, for example: When they go ahead, they don’t spare hair; If they go ahead, they don’t spare their hair.
BSP with cause-and-effect relationships. In the 1st part the reason for the situation depicted in the 2nd part is indicated. Accordingly, the 2nd situation is thought of as a consequence arising from the first. The first part is pronounced with a raised voice, and there is a long pause between parts. For example: I am dying - I have no reason to lie (Turgenev). Various complex sentences are imprecise synonyms: I'm dying, so there's no need for me to lie(SPP); I'm dying and so I have no reason to lie(SSP).
BSP with adversarial-concessive relationships. Unlike most proposals of this type, the SMS has a flexible structure. The intonation pattern conveys adversative relationships: both parts have symmetrical logical stress. Additional elements of structure - lexemes with opposite components of meaning, conventional or contextual antonyms, syntactic parallelism. For example: The summer heat was scorching outside - the house was cool. Quasi-synonym of joint venture with a derivative conjunction although….but.
BSP with conditional-investigative relations. In the 1st part, the condition for the existence of the situation depicted in the second part is indicated. The first part is pronounced with a rising tone, the second with a falling tone. For example: If you hurry, you will make people laugh. Conditional-effect relationships can be complicated by the implementation of temporary relationships. For example: If I need you, call me. Characteristic is the incompleteness of PE, as in our second example. There are no exact synonyms; they can be used as quasi-synonyms different types SPP of dismembered structure.
BSP with connection-distribution relations. The second part expands in some way the information contained in the first part. Grammatical semantics is diffuse, and there is no established specific intonation pattern. Important structural element is the use of anaphoric elements in the second part. The structure is inflexible. For example: 1) We stopped at the turnthere there was a police post; 2) My heart didn’t beat –it hid. In the first example, the actual connection-distribution relations are implemented (the 1st IF depicts a dynamic situation, a model with actional semantics is used, and the 2nd part conveys information about being). In the second sentence, causality and sign relations are also added to the adjunctive-distributive relations.
So, we have looked at the main models of BSP. In conclusion, I repeat: the study of BSP is just beginning; there are no generally accepted classifications. Therefore, in university textbooks you will find different classifications. At your leisure, compare the classifications proposed in textbooks edited by P. A. Lekant and in textbooks by V.V. Babaytseva and V.A. Beloshapkova. And also: V.V. Babaytseva proposed to slightly change the traditional terminology - to call this class complex non-union sentences, which will serve to stabilize the naming systems of the main classes and emphasize the specificity of this type of sentences among other types of binomial complex sentences: SSP, SPP and SBP.
Self-test questions:
What proposals are called non-union? What are their specifics?
Why do not all scientists consider BSP (SBP) as one of the classes of SP?
What are the similarities between BSP and other joint ventures - SSP and SPP? What's the difference?
On what basis is the BSP classification based?
