Complex sentences: non-union and union compositional communication. A complex sentence with a compositional, subordinate and non-union connection What is an alliance connection
Complex sentences always include two or more simple ones (they are also called predicative parts), connected by various types of communication: allied compositional, non-union and allied subordinate connection. It is the presence or absence of unions and their meaning that make it possible to establish the type of connection in the sentence.
In contact with
Defining a subordinate relationship in a sentence
Submission, or subordinate relationship- a type of connection in which one of the predicative parts is the main, subordinate, and the other is dependent, subordinate. Such a connection is transmitted through subordinate conjunctions or union words; from the main part to the subordinate clause it is always possible to ask a question. Thus, the subordinate relationship (as opposed to the compositional one) implies a syntactic inequality between the predicative parts of the sentence.
For example: In geography lessons, we learned (about what?) Why there are ebb and flow, where In geography lessons, we learned- main part, there are ebb and flow- a subordinate part, why - a subordinate union.
Submissive unions and allied words
Predicative parts of a complex sentence connected by a subordinate link are connected using subordinate unions, union words... In turn, subordinate unions are divided into simple and complex.
Simple unions include: what, that, how, when, barely, while, if, as if, as if, exactly, for, though other. 
We want all peoples to live happily.
Complex conjunctions include at least two words: because, because, since, in order to, as soon as, while, as long as, in spite of the fact that, as if other. Once the sun rose, all the songbirds woke up.
Relative pronouns and adverbs can act as union words: who, what, who, whose, what, how much(in all cases); where, where, where, when, how, why, why other. Union words always answer a question and are one of the members of the subordinate clause. I took you there, where even the gray wolf did not run!(G. Rosen)
You need to know: what is it, its examples in the literature.
Types of subordination in a complex sentence
Depending on the remedy, connecting predicative parts, the following types of subordination are distinguished:
- union subordination - parts of a complex sentence are connected by simple or complex unions. He opened the doors wider so that the procession could pass freely.
- relative subordination - there is a union word between the predicative parts. After death, people return to the same place from where they came.
- interrogative-relative subordination - parts of a complex sentence are connected through interrogative-relative pronouns and adverbs. In the subordinate clause, a member of the main sentence expressed by a verb or a noun is explained, which has the meaning of a statement, mental activity, feeling, perception, internal state. Berlioz looked around sadly, not understanding what had frightened him.(M. Bulgakov).
Often, one complex sentence contains more than two predicative parts that are dependent on the main one. Due to this there are several types of subordination:
This is interesting: in the rules of the Russian language.
Based on which member of the main sentence the addict explains or spreads, subordinate clauses in some sources are subdivided on subjects, predicates, determinants, additional and adverbial.
- Each, whom he met here, offered him help. The subordinate part spreads the subject of the main part each.
- Never think that you already know everything.(I. Pavlov) The subordinate clause explains the predicate of the main think.
- You should never regret what can no longer be changed. In this case, the subordinate part answers the question of the prepositional case.
A more common classification is that, depending on the questions they answer, the subordinate clauses are divided as follows:
Allied connection
Allied connection
UNION COMMUNICATION... Such a connection between individual words and phrases, which is expressed by unions (see), for example, a table and a chair; I bought two pencils and a box of pens; the door opened and Marya Pavlovna entered; or rain, or snow, or will, or No; in the old, but clean dress; then the sun will hide then shines too bright; the prisoner turned pale when he was clicked; he did not come, because his father died; dad says what he will buy me a horse, etc.
N. D. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary of literary terms: In 2 volumes / Edited by N. Brodsky, A. Lavretsky, E. Lunin, V. Lvov-Rogachevsky, M. Rozanov, V. Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky. - M .; L .: Publishing house L. D. Frenkel, 1925
See what "Union connection" is in other dictionaries:
Allied connection- UNION COMMUNICATION. Such a connection between individual words and phrases, which is expressed by unions (see), for example, a table and a chair; I bought two pencils and a box of pens; the door opened and Marya Pavlovna entered; either rain, or snow, or it will be ... Dictionary of literary terms
The connection of homogeneous members or parts of a complex sentence using unions. see homogeneous members of a sentence, compound sentence. Wed: non-union communication ...
allied bond- Such a connection between individual words and phrases, which is expressed by unions (see), for example, a table and a chair; I bought two pencils and a box of pens; the door opened and Marya Pavlovna entered; either rain, or snow, or it will be, or not; ... ... Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and Linguistic Terms
The connection of homogeneous members or parts of a complex sentence without the help of unions, through one intonation. see homogeneous members of the sentence, non-union complex sentence. Wed: allied connection ... Dictionary of linguistic terms
syntactic connection of parts of a complex sentence, formalized by unions and in a non-union way- In general, non-union is characteristic of colloquial and aphoristic artistic speech. Particularly characteristic for them (and at the same time uncharacteristic for scientific and business styles) are non-union complex sentences of the time (I will learn - I will go to work), the reasons ... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal
SOYUZ, ah, husband. 1. Close unity, connection of classes, groups, individuals. C. democratic forces. 2. Association, agreement for which n. joint goals. Military s. Conclude with. 3. State association. Australian s. S. cantons (in ... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
The language of the Gagauz. Belongs to the southwestern (Oguz) group of Turkic languages. Distributed in the southern regions of Moldova and Ukraine (former Bessarabia), in the North Caucasus, partly in Kazakhstan and Central Asia; outside the USSR in the north ... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Not to be confused with the Aini language. Ainu language Self-name: ア イ ヌ イ タ ク, Aynu itak Countries ... Wikipedia
Stylistic paradigmatics- is a set of multi-level units that make up the stylistic resources of the language and provide the speaker with the opportunity to choose for the implementation of the act of communication in accordance with the goals of communication and the whole complex of extralinguistic ... ... Stylistic Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Russian Language
Ainu language- (Ainu) is one of the languages of East Asia, the relationship of which has not been clarified. It was distributed over most of the Japanese islands (Hokkaido island and the eastern part of Honshu island), in the southern part of Sakhalin island, on the Kuril Islands, on ... ... Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary
1.2. Secondary Alliance Link
The first direction of destruction of the compositional canon is manifested in the absence of syntactic mono-functionality of the composed members, which is compensated by their semantic unidirectionality. This phenomenon has two varieties, differing in whether there is a semantic community of members initially or it appears only in a situation.
The type of constructions most mastered by the language with composed members that have an initial semantic commonality are constructions with pronouns (interrogative, negative, indefinite and generalizing) (Beloshapkova 1977: 23):
(3a) No oneandneveraboutthisnotthought.
(3b.) Whoandonhowlate?
They are adjoined by constructions with a close value type, but expressed in non-pronouns; Wed pronominal combination allandalways and non-local
(4) Manyandoften(comeyetworse).
The common meaning of the composed members can be embodied in their lexical identity (or identity of the root morpheme):
(5a) I saywithpoetandOpoet[example of VZ Sannikov].
(5 B) Fellonicenotwithhorses,awithhorse:bigdifferenceformyequestrianpride(A.S. Pushkin).
(5c) ThoughdecryptionlinearletterswascompletedvEnglandandEnglishman,onhisimagethoughtsMichaelVentrissmallerTotalwas likeon"TypicalEnglishman ".
There are also such constructions in which the semantic commonality of the composed members is not initially specified, but appears only in the situation:
(6a) Bailiff…veryquicklyandvdifferentdirectionsstirredfingers(example from Peshkovsky 1956).
(6b) I thinkmyselfis entitled towriteto youpencil,vbedandthe mosthomemadeletter(A. Blok).
(6c) Foreveryouyou writeletterspencilorvbed.
So, constructions of the type (3) - (6) have the general property that such elements of the sentence are composed in them that relate to the same element, but perform different roles relative to it, and therefore could be subordinate to it. At the same time, constructions (3) - (5) with a "sealed" semantic community of composed genes are more or less grammatical, while constructions of type (6) show the speaker's special intention to indicate the one-sidedness of certain aspects of the situation with some actual at the moment points of view. This side of the matter was clearly described by A. M. Peshkovsky: realizing “certain subordinate members as homogeneous in something, we get the opportunity to unite them in unions, no matter how far they are from each other, both grammatically and logically” (Peshkovsky 1956 : 442). Sentence (6a) differs from the corresponding sentence of the composition in that speed and direction are perceived as one-sided characteristics of movement. In this regard, I would like to draw your attention to constructions with interrogative pronouns of the type (3b) (Kreidlin 1983). In them, the difference from the corresponding sentence without an essay is not limited to an indication of the commonality of the inventive interrogative elements. Let's compare (3b) and (7):
(3b) Whoandonhowlate?
(7) Whoonhowlate?
In (3b), we are dealing with a simple combination of two questions: Wholate?Onhowlate? In (7), only one question is presented - the grandeur of the creation of each of the latecomers, or, more precisely, the compliance between(already known) by the set of latecomers and by the set of time intervals characterizing the magnitude.
The next direction, in which the erosion of the compositional canon takes place, is associated with constructions containing the so-called secondary union connection (Priyatkina 1977, Grammatika 1980: 179):
(8a) Hesings,andnot bad.
(8b) Boywalks,butfew.
(8c) USwas comingshort,butparting.
In these sentences, the union connects elements that are already connected to each other by a subordinate link. Therefore, when the union is removed from the proposal, it does not lose coherence: walks,butfew=> walksfew... Such a union connection is called secondary, since it is, as it were, "superimposed" on the subordinate connection, which constitutes the primary basis of the phrase.
Constructions of type (3) - (7) and constructions of type (8) are usually considered as fundamentally different (Priyatkina 1977, Grammatika 1980, Sannikov 1980). Indeed, there are serious differences between them, on which we will dwell. However, one cannot fail to notice that the constitutive property of the secondary alliance connection - the imposition of a composition on submission - is equally applicable to both types of structures. True, this overlap occurs in slightly different ways. In (3) - (7), the terms connected by the union are subordinate to some third, and in (8) one of them is subordinate to the other. Therefore, by the way, the composed series of the type (3) - (7) can consist of three or more terms, and the series of the type (8) are always binomial.
Thus, somewhat expanding the accepted word usage, we will say that there are two types of constructions with a secondary union connection - constructions with primordial subordination of composed members (conditionally - type A) and constructions with primordial subordination (conditionally - type B). Let's look at the similarities and differences between type A and type B constructions.
Constructions of both types are usually pronounced with a separate logical stress on each of the composed members. Consider the proposal
(9) Vthisyearhewas restingonsouth,butsavage.
If you pronounce it with the first logical stress on combinations onsouth, then the union will connect the elements onsouth and savage, and the construction will be of type A. If the logical stress falls on the verb, then the composed elements will be the combination was restingonsouth and savage, and the structure will fall into type B.
Constructions of both types are contrasted with corresponding constructions without being composed by their own communicative organization. A secondary bond separates a sentence into as many separate statements as there are written members. Related to this is the plurality of logical stresses noted above. It is characteristic that in cases where the subordinate elements each have such a great communicative weight that they are incompatible within the framework of one statement, the essay turns out to be mandatory:
(10a) Heleftfarandfor a long time.
(10b) *Heleftfarfor a long time.
Let us now turn to the differences between type A and type B constructions. The most important of them is what kind of semantic relationship is established between the composed members. Let us return, for example, to sentence (6b) (type A). The speaker informs us that in the described situation he considers the elements "in pencil", "in bed" and "the most homely writing" as one-sided, subsumed, in the words of A. M. Peshkovsky, under the same heading ("informal relations between the author letters and their addressee ").
In example (8a) (type B), the speaker does not at all suggest that we consider the meanings "sings" and "not bad" at least in some sense semantically unidirectional. Union and only turns a single statement “he sings well” into two separate ones - “he sings” and “he does it well”. The difference between type A and type B constructions is well reflected in the terms of V.Z. Sannikov: "semantic-compositional construction" (typeA) vs. "Communicative-compositional construction" (type B).
As example (8a) shows, the semantic components connected by a union in a type B construction are not independent, but are embedded one into another. This explains another difference between types A and B: in structures of type A, we admit the union or(see (6c)), but it is impossible in type B constructions.
(11)*Hesings,ornot bad.
The point here is that the union or in principle, it is able to connect only such statements about which the speaker admits that only one of them can take place, and at the same time it is not known in advance which one. If we say
(12) Tomorrowwelet's govcinemaorvtheatre,
then we assume that each of the possibilities can be realized separately (although, perhaps, we do not exclude the fact that both are realized at once). Otherwise, that is, if the speaker did not allow their separate implementation, he would have to use the union and:
(13) Tomorrowwelet's govcinemaandvtheatre.
It is this property - the independent separate realizability of both alternatives - that is violated in (11). If the second alternative is fulfilled ("he sings well"), then the first one is certainly fulfilled ("he sings").
Now that we have discussed the similarities and differences between constructions of type A and B, we can return to the question posed above - the question of the internal sources of decanonization in these constructions. In order to find them, one should turn to a deeper - semantic - level of presentation of sentences, at which their meaning is revealed more explicitly. From this level, we will require that on it, in particular, the semantic spheres of action of valence words are explicitly presented (but the semantic decomposition of these words themselves is not carried out).
Consider sentences (14a, b) with the union but:
(14a) Hewas restingonsouth,butsavage(type A).
(14b) Hewas resting,butfew(type B).
First of all, it is important to emphasize that in the semantic structure of sentences (14a) - (14b) there is not one proposition, but two. This follows from the very semantics of the union but, which characterizes the relationship between two events: R,butQ= “It is natural to expect that the event R accompanied by the event not-Q; in this case event R accompanied by the event Q '' (Levin 1970: 78). Semantic structure of sentences with union but must explicitly indicate those events R and Q, the relationship between which is described by this union. Reconstructing these events, we obtain structure (15a) for proposal (14a), and structure (15b) for (14b):
(15a) “he rested in the south, but he rested as a savage”;
(15b) "he rested, but he rested little."
Additional evidence in favor of the duality of structures (15a) - (15b) is the fact that on each of the elements connected by the union in (14a) - (14b) there is a logical accent marking individual statements.
Structures (15a) - (15b), obviously, do not contradict the canon of the composition. In them, the union connects units of the same type - whole propositions. On the way from these structures to sentences (14a) - (14b) there should be a transformation that is similar in its tasks to the transformation of the compositional abbreviation, but does not coincide with it in terms of application. Both of these transformations reduce the identical components in the composed propositions. But if the compositional contraction requires that the composed members resulting from the contraction have the same syntactic and communicative functions in the original propositions, then this condition is not met for the transformation that generates constructions with secondary allied connections. In case (14a), the written terms onsouth and savage perform different syntactic functions, although they are semantically matched. In the case (14b), the difference from the compositional contraction is even more significant: in the first proposition of the structure (15b), there is no component at all, semantically associated with the element "little", and, in addition, the abbreviated component was resting performs significantly different communicative roles in the composed propositions (rhema in the first proposition and the theme in the second). However, it is not our task to give a complete formal description of this transformation. It is more important for us to note that it is at the moment when this transformation is carried out that the destruction of the compositional canon occurs.
So, constructions with a secondary allied connection are constructions, the semantic structures of which still possess the properties of a canonical composition, and their surface structures are already losing them.
However, the canon has a certain stability, and incentives of sufficient strength are needed to go beyond it. In type A and B constructs, these stimuli appear to be different.
Type A constructions are based on the speaker's desire to find common ground in different things, to bring heterogeneous phenomena under a single heading, if this meets his communicative needs in a given situation. This factor acts the easier, the easier it is to find commonality in subordinate elements, the more "on the surface" this common lies, the less it depends on the context (compare the chain (3) - (4) - (5) - (6)) ...
Constructions of type B, as we have already noted, do not impose on us a view of the elements connected by a union as one-sided. All these elements have in common is that they perform one and the same communicative role - the role of rhema - in the corresponding propositions of the semantic structure. Here, the actor is responsible for decanonization, requiring the most compact expression of two communicatively independent propositions.
UNION COMMUNICATION... Such a connection between individual words and phrases, which is expressed by unions (see), for example, a table and a chair; I bought two pencils and a box of pens; the door opened and Marya Pavlovna entered; or rain, or snow, or will, or No; in the old, but clean dress; then the sun will hide then shines too bright; the prisoner turned pale when he was clicked; he did not come, because his father died; dad says what he will buy me a horse, etc.
- - signed between Prussia and Russia on 3 Nov. in Potsdam after the surrender of Austr. army near Ulm. To P. s. since Austria joined ...
- - joint activities of the bodies of the Union State and public authorities of the member states, reflecting the political, social and economic interests of the Union State, ...
Emergency Glossary
- - whale. revolutionary. org-tion created by Sun Yat-sen in 1905. See Tunmenhui ...
Soviet Historical Encyclopedia
- - connection of two or more circuits using a common magnetic flux. See Induction Law ...
Marine vocabulary
- - Pondicherry, Puttucchery, a union territory within India. The area is 0.5 thousand km2. Population 0.5 million. ... The administrative center is the city of Pondicherry ...
- - between Russia and Prussia. Signed in Potsdam on October 22 from Russia by Prince A.A. Czartorysky, from Prussia by the state and cabinet minister Baron K.A.
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- - the Chinese revolutionary organization founded by Sun Yat-sen in 1905; see Tunmenhoi ...
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- - in the USSR, a sovereign national Soviet socialist state, voluntarily united in order to provide mutual assistance in the field of economic, political and defense with others ...
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- - secret, between Russia and France. Developed during the negotiations between Alexander I and Napoleon I in Erfurt ...
Great Soviet Encyclopedia
- - between Russia and France, confirmed the Peace of Tilsit in 1807. Napoleon I recognized the rights of Russia to Finland, Moldavia and Wallachia ...
Big encyclopedic dictionary
- - The connection of homogeneous members or parts of a complex sentence using unions. see homogeneous members of a sentence, compound sentence ...
Dictionary of linguistic terms
- - KV-connection / s, ...
Together. Apart. Hyphened. Reference dictionary
- - HF-sv "...
- - KV-sv "...
Russian spelling dictionary
-
Synonym dictionary
- - n., number of synonyms: 1 link ...
Synonym dictionary
"Allied connection" in books
Chapter nine. Allied army
From the book Fifty Years in the ranks the author Alexey IgnatievNovgorod - the sovereign union community
From the book The Course of Russian History (Lectures I-XXXII) the author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichNovgorod - the sovereign union community Novgorod did not have its own permanent princes. In theory, the common property of the princely family, owned in turn by its senior representatives, the grand dukes, he became no one in practice. Choosing princes at will on terms of employment and feed,
Allied diplomacy
From the book World War I the author Utkin Anatoly IvanovichAllied Diplomacy On the evening of January 19, 1915, the Germans carried out their first Zeppelin raid against Britain. The war took on certain contours in the air, on land, at sea and under water. Oddly enough to observe this now, but by the spring of 1915, an optimistic
Allied cavalry
From the book Army of Alexander the Great author Sekunda NickAllied cavalry Greek cities - members of the Corinthian Union - were obliged to supply the expeditionary army with reinforcements in the form of contingents of cavalry and infantry. Nevertheless, obviously, not all of these states had their own cavalry. Diodorus talks about the presence in the army
Allied conference in Sparta (432 BC).
From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. the author Potemkin Vladimir PetrovichAllied conference in Sparta (432 BC). After that, the Corinthians, Potideans and Perdiccas sent embassies to Sparta demanding the immediate convocation of an all-Union conference (syllogos) on the violation of the 445 treaty by Athens. This protest was supported and
Allied diplomacy
From the book Forgotten Tragedy. Russia in the first world war the author Utkin Anatoly IvanovichAllied Diplomacy On the evening of January 19, 1915, the Germans carried out their first Zeppelin raid against Britain. The war took on certain contours in the air, on land, at sea and under water. Oddly enough to see this now, but by the spring of 1915, an optimistic
Allied intervention and white politicians
the authorAllied Intervention and White Politics Allied intervention was both a great success and an exorbitant political burden for white politicians and the military. Back in the spring of 1918, many opponents of the Bolsheviks, it seemed, did not expect anything so impatiently as intervention
Allied intervention and the white army
From the book Provincial "Counter-Revolution" [The White Movement and the Civil War in the Russian North] the author Novikova Lyudmila GennadievnaAllied intervention and the white army Discontent and opposition to the intervention, quite clearly manifested among northern politicians and the public, was perhaps nowhere more evident than in the white army. Conflicts between white officers and allies exacerbated
Union Territory of Chandigarh (238 km north of Delhi) Telephone code (STD) - 172chandigarhtourism.gov.incitco.nic.in Population - about 0.9 million. (2001) Territory - 100 km2 Main languages - Hindi, Punjabi, English. Airport - 11 km south of the city center. Flights to Delhi daily.
Operation Allied Force
From the book The Great War the authorOperation Allied Force Operation Allied Force is a NATO military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 10, 1999. NATO has invaded Yugoslavia before. In 1995, NATO aircraft launched strong air strikes against
Operation Allied Force
From the book Tomorrow will be a war the author Burovsky Andrey MikhailovichOperation Allied Force Operation Allied Force is a NATO military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia from March 24 to June 10, 1999, NATO invaded Yugoslavia before that. In 1995, NATO aircraft launched strong air strikes against Serbs for the first time to
Syntactic links are links that are established between words, parts of complex sentences and independent sentences in the text by means of special connecting indicators (conjunctions, union words, analogs of conjunctions, morphological word qualifiers, intonation, etc.) and serve to express syntactic relations.
At different levels of the syntactic system, there are different types of syntactic connection.
So, in a complex sentence, first of all, a union and a non-union connection are distinguished.
Allied connection- this is a syntactic connection, the formal indicators of which are conjunctions and union words; implemented in simple, complex sentences, as well as at the text level.
Union connection is subdivided into subordinate and compositional.
Writing connection- this is an alliance connection, the formal indicators of which are the compositional unions and which is used to express the compositional relationship. The constructive connection is realized outside the phrases and is established between independent and functionally equal components of syntactic units.
Submissive relationship Is a type of syntactic relationship between the components of syntactic units that are in a one-way dependency relationship and perform different functions. This connection is implemented at the level:
1) phrases: study(what?) syntax; turn(where?) right);
2) a simple sentence from which phrases are extracted: America discovered by Columbus);
3) a complex sentence: When we left the station, a bluish light was already dawning over Feodosia(K. Paustovsky);
4) a complex syntactic whole: What is this light? The lights of restless souls burn over the night swamps with the same pale flame. Of what it is no longer difficult for a person with logical thinking skills to conclude what kind of energy feeds jokes about new Russians(V. Pelevin)
A special connection is established between the subject and the predicate in a two-part sentence, which is called predicative link or coordination since it has a two-sided character: The sky was breathing in autumn, / The sun was shining less often, / The day was getting shorter ...(A. Pushkin) The mutual dependence of the two components is manifested in the possibility of posing a question from one to the other, each component affects the grammatical characteristics of the dependent (coordination of the predicate with the subject in number and gender).
Unionless connection- this is a syntactic connection, which is formed in contrast to a union connection without the help of unions and union words; its indicators are intonation and some other linguistic means; implemented in both simple and complex sentences.
