The sentence structure has two sides. Firstly, these are means of expressing modality, time, face. They belong to the predicative basis - the main members. In Russian, both main members have required forms: subject - nominative case, predicate - conjugated verb or copula. These forms in various variants appear in the predicative basis. If the predicative basis is represented by one main member, then it must have indicators of modality, time, person; for example: the moon has risen; They did not sleep in the house; Midnight. Secondly, the structure of the sentence includes the connection of its members. The main members are formally subordinated and explained by their minor members; a minor member may refer to another minor member; for example: The last dry leaves (A.T.) fell from the bare branches of chestnut trees - the last secondary members, dry leaves are subject to the subject, and from the branches - the predicate fell; bare, chestnuts explain the minor member from the branches. Secondary members do not directly participate in the expression of the grammatical meaning of the sentence.

The main members themselves can constitute a sentence; for example: The weather will be nice (T.); Snow began to fall (Nick.) - these are uncommon sentences. When using secondary members, the sentence is common.

Minor members may be required or optional; for example: Cold rain flooded Paris for the eighth day (A.T.) - the minor member Paris is mandatory, without it the offer is impossible; the rest are optional (optional).

The different structure of the sentence, its predicative basis is reflected in the classifications. The main structural types in Russian are a simple sentence and a complex sentence. A simple sentence has one predicative stem; for example: And soon the sonorous voice of Olya in the Larin family fell silent (P.) - the base voice fell silent. A complex sentence has two (or more) predicative stems, the same number of parts, similar in structure to simple sentences; for example: The clouds began to demolish, the moon appeared (A.T.).

Modern Russian literary language / Ed. P. A. Lekanta - M., 2009

3.2.1. CONSTITUENT ANALYSIS OF THE OFFER

3.2.1.1. Member of a sentence as a basic syntactic unit. The first and necessary stage in the study of the structure of a sentence is its segmentation, i.e. division of the composition of the proposal into components.

The grammatical tradition knows whole line ways of dividing a sentence. Apparently, the fact of the plurality of ways of segmenting the composition of linguistic units in general, observed in connection with the sentence, forced L. Hjelmslev to question the linguistic significance of the problem of dividing linguistic objects into components. Such skepticism is not justified. The division itself, if it is carried out not arbitrarily, but taking into account linguistic reality, is cognitive and constitutes a necessary stage of research. It is typical that many known methods

analysis of the structure of the proposal are named according to the components of the proposal, identified during its segmentation and taken in the relevant theory for the main, basic in the study of the proposal. Compare: analysis by members of a sentence, analysis by phrases, analysis by direct components, chain analysis, syntax analysis, tagme analysis.

Attention to the components of the sentence arises not just from heuristic tasks, but has objective grounds related to the nature of the phenomenon under study: sentences are not given in ready-made native speakers, and each time they are “assembled”, “mounted” by them from words, which are given functional, syntactic meanings in the sentence. Since sentences differ in the complexity of their construction, it is important to establish the upper and lower limits of sentence division, remaining within the limits of which, the researcher will deal with the components of the sentence, and not some other unit.

The upper limit is easy to establish, once the limits of the supply itself are established. This is a predicative unit (in traditional terminology, a sentence as part of a compound or complex sentence, that is, what is called “clause” in English). At first glance, a word may appear as a lower limit. (Perhaps such a decision is largely prompted by our predominant focus on the graphic image of the sentence and text, clearly divided into words). However, it is not. Permissible transformations in the linear organization of the composition of the sentence ‘ I shall never forget the killing of Lord Edgware"- "Never shall I forget the killing of Lord Edgware."(A. Christie), the nature of possible substitutions of the type at the seaside ↔ there, shall forget- forgot etc., the correlation of the constituent elementary semantic configurations of the sentence with the members of the sentence - these and some other points indicate that the member of the sentence is the elementary syntactic unit. The member of the sentence is the lower limit of the division of the sentence. If we continue the segmentation, we enter the area of ​​the component composition of the members of the sentence, which is embodied in words, word forms or morphological components of the word.

A sentence as a unit of language, with the help of which verbal communication is carried out, should, on the one hand, reflect the whole variety of possible, constantly changing extralinguistic situations, and on the other hand, through the generalizing nature of structural schemes and semantic configurations, streamline ideas about them. Only if these requirements are met can language function effectively as a means of communication and a means of mental activity person. It is natural to expect that the member of the proposal, as a constituent of the proposal, cannot be indifferent to these requirements, but, on the contrary, must ensure their fulfillment. It really is.

A member of a sentence, while its functional syntactic nature remains unchanged in the entire countless set of real sentences (subject as a source or object of action, predicate as a predicate to the subject sign, etc.), being expressed lexically in different ways or due to possible different referential reference in terms of identity lexemes, correlates as a component of each new sentence with all new objects, their properties, conditions of their existence, thereby providing reflection in a finite set language tools the infinite variety of the objective world and the worlds created by human intellectual activity. At the same time, the quantitatively limited, historically and socially developed inventory structural formulas sentences with a scheme of sentence members and their groups characteristic of each of them makes it possible to represent each new situation both in terms of the set of participants in the situation and in terms of their mutual relations as something in its very own general properties typical and therefore known. So, in each sentence, the new and the old, the known and the unknown are dialectically combined.

Member of the proposal- bilateral language sign having meaning and form. Its meaning is syntactic function, i.e., that meaningful relationship in which a given syntactic element is located to another as part of a certain syntactic sequence of elements. The form of a sentence member is not only a syntactically significant morphological form of a word, but also characteristics associated with the belonging of a word to a certain part of speech or a category of words within a part of speech, the presence / absence service words, location relative to another element, intonation indicators syntactic connection- in short, everything that allows you to identify a word or a group of words as a carrier of a certain syntactic-functional meaning. In this way, syntactic form, in contrast to the morphological one, is multicomponent.

In the range between the extreme limits of articulation, the upper (predicative unit) and the lower (sentence member), there are intermediate levels of articulation, on which syntactic groups of various components are distinguished. Coordinating groups are characterized by an equal status of each of the elements of the group, while subordinating ones include some element as a central one. The most common among subordinating syntactic groups are those with the word of the significant part of speech as a central element with words directly or indirectly dependent on it. Here are examples of some of the constructions of noun phrases:

N 2 sN 1 ... William's ambition

Num car N 1 p N 2 ... seven men besides William(H.E. Bates)

Prn poss N D A and A Her voice, very low and soft,[...] (H. E. Bates).

The variety of syntactic and semantic configurations of syntactic groups is unlimited. A grammar can only describe the allowed combinations of word classes and the most common configurations. Their real combinatorics in all its diversity belongs to the speech-creative process.

3.2.1.2. The system of sentence members. What elements make up the system of sentence members? Their nomenclature is generally accepted and therefore hardly needs justification. These are subject, predicate, object, circumstance and definition. To some extent, this system is correlative with the system of parts of speech, but only to some extent (even, it would seem, a syntactically monofunctional adverb allows the possibility of adjectival use: the then government, essentially a bachelor). Complete parallelism between one and the other systems is not only undesirable from the point of view of the meaningful tasks and capabilities of the language, but is also impossible in principle, if only because their syntactic polyfunctionality is embedded in the very structural-semantic nature of some parts of speech. So, a noun as an exponent of the meaning of an object can be a subject, an object, a circumstance, an adjectival definition, nominal part predicate.

Traditionally, the members of the proposal are divided into main and secondary. Taking these designations as conditional (the so-called secondary members, like the main ones, can belong to the structural minimum of the sentence; the complement is relative to the subject), it should be recognized that the division established by tradition reflects an important differential property of the members of the sentence, namely their participation / non-participation in the formation predicative core of the sentence, in the expression of the category of predicativity. The practical convenience and advantage of such a division lies in its unambiguity: the subject and predicate are always the main ones, the rest of the sentence is always the secondary members of the sentence.

If we proceed from the role that the members of the sentence play in the formation of the structural-semantic minimum of the sentence, then it turns out that most of the additions and some circumstances (depending on the syntagmatic class of the verb-predicate are just as important and necessary as the subject and the predicate. Elimination of the addition and the circumstance in the sentences below renders them grammatically and semantically unmarked She closed her eyes.(D.Lessing) She was there.(I. Murdoch)

The distribution of sentence members in the system will be different if they are considered based on their role in the actual division of the sentence (for this phenomenon, see 3.3.0). Here it turns out that it is the secondary members of the sentence that are often

communicatively significant (rhematic), while the subject and (in lesser degree) the predicate constitutes the original part of the statement (thematic). In a sentence But she always cries in sequence of sentences "She doesn't move for hours at a time. But she cries always."(S. Maugham) circumstance always is over important part message conveyed by this sentence than the subject.

Thus, the elements of one and the same system are organized differently if they are considered in terms of different properties inherent in them.

Apparently, it would be correct, when establishing a system of sentence members, to proceed from the role of sentence members in the formation of a sentence and from the nature of their mutual relations. In this case, three main groupings of sentence members can be distinguished.

The first will be the subject and the predicate. The status of the subject and predicate is special in comparison with other members of the sentence. Only the subject and the predicate are mutually related to each other and are independent of any other member of the sentence, while all others can be built on the basis of dependency relations to the subject and predicate as the dominant elements. This hierarchy of dependencies is clearly visible when building a dependency diagram. The upper tier in it is invariably occupied by the subject and the predicate. See dependency diagram for suggestion Small white crests were appearing on the blue sea(in it, interdependent elements are connected by a double-directed arrow, dominant and dependent elements - by a unidirectional arrow from the dependent to the dominant element):

The subject and predicate (with the appropriate lexical filling of the positions of these members of the sentence) may be sufficient to form a sentence: Ben smiled.(J. Aldridge)

The second group will be made up of additions and circumstances. Additions and circumstances are invariably dependent members of the proposal. They can be (and even mostly are) verb-oriented, i.e. syntactically they usually depend on the verb. (The object may also depend on the adjective, but again (characteristic!) on the adjective in the predicative position : I am very bad at refusing people who ask me for money.(I. Murdoch) Additions and circumstances may be

"complete", i.e., elements necessary for the structural-semantic completeness of an elementary sentence. Compare the impossibility of omitting both of these sentence members in a sentence She treated Daddy like a child,[...] (A. Wilson).

The third group can be divided into definitions. Constantly dependent, like additions and circumstances, definitions - in contrast to the named members of the sentence - are syntactically connected only with nouns. Their non-verbal syntactic orientation determines their belonging to a different cut in the articulation of the sentence than the one formed by the selection of the verbocentric core from the sentence, i.e. verb and directly related to it left-sided (subject) and right-sided (object / I and / or circumstance / a). Unlike all these elements, the definition is not included in block diagram proposals (for details see 3.2.2.2) 1 .

Difficult is the question of the grounds for differentiation of members of the proposal. Relatively easily, it is solved by distinguishing between the main and secondary members. The category of predicativity is expressed only through the former, while the latter do not participate in its expression. Then the difficulties begin. With a verbal predicate, the differentiation of the subject and the predicate is carried out on the basis of the sign of the morphological nature of the words: the name is the subject, the verb is the predicate. In the case when the predicate is nominal, with a noun as a nominal part, it is not easy to solve the question of what is what in some cases. After all, an inverse arrangement of the subject and the predicate is also possible. These are the cases that deserve special attention, since they allow clarifying the criteria for distinguishing between the subject and the nominal part of the predicate.

What is the subject and what is the predicate in the sentence Gossip wasn't what I meant? Mutual change in the position of the members of the proposal (What I meant wasn't gossip) does not change the content of the sentence in any significant way. It is difficult to qualify the first or second construction, and only it, as inverse, which could help in resolving the issue. It is hardly possible to use quantitative characteristics to determine the syntactic nature of each of the two sentence compositions.

1 The structural and semantic necessity of the definition, the impossibility of its omission in some constructions, for example, in She had blue eyes are determined by non-linguistic properties of the language units that make up the sentence. They are connected with the peculiarities of the relationship that exists between the extralinguistic denotations of words she and eyes, namely: the object denoted by the noun eyes,- the inalienable belonging of each person, therefore, of the person named here she. Native speakers' knowledge of the world makes contentless and communicative empty statements like She had eyes. Precisely" therefore adjective blue in the given example cannot be omitted. It is, however, not included in the structural scheme of the proposal, which for this proposal, as, say, for She had an umbrella remains "subject - predicate-verb of non-prepositional-object orientation (active voice) - direct addition object."

Although it was noted that the predicate group is usually two to four times as large (i.e., the number of words) more group subject, but this is nothing more than a trend, an arithmetic mean, and not a structural regularity, and therefore cannot serve as a criterion for distinguishing in specific cases.

Bringing Pretext ("How do you do, Miss Preyscott," Christine said. "I"ve heard of you." Marsha had glanced appraisingly from Peter to Christine. She answered coolly,"I expect, working in a hotel, you hear all kind of gossip, Miss Francis. You do work here, don't you? "Gossip wasn't what I meant," Christine acknowledged.(A. Hailey) and thereby restoring with greater completeness speech situation, we can install syntax elements gossip and what I meant properties that make it possible to uniquely identify their syntactic content. Noun gossip- non-referential (on reference, see 3.3.5), its meaning is distinguished by indicative content. All these properties are characteristic of nouns in the position of the nominal part of the predicate. Further, the subject of the message (and syntactically it is usually the subject) is what Christina had in mind when she said earlier the phrase I"ve heard of you". This object is predicated on the sign of "non-gossip". Thus the proposal Gossip wasn't what I meant inversely. The corresponding direct word order construction is What I meant wasn't gossip. Returning to the offer Gossip wasn't what I meant, we see that gossip, indeed, logically distinguished. Such a selection is uncharacteristic for the subject in "its" position at the beginning of the sentence. (To highlight the subject syntactic means the sentence must be restructured according to the type identity sentence model It is N who/ that ...). This is another argument in favor of the interpretation gossip as a nominal part of the predicate, a what I meant as subject.

One of the unresolved issues in the theory of members of a sentence is the question of the possible and, most importantly, necessary limits for the internal differentiation of members of a sentence. Should we restrict our division of complements to a few traditional types, or go further? Does the division of circumstances end with the establishment of the circumstances of the place among them, or should the circumstances of the place itself and the circumstances of the direction still be singled out, and, perhaps, further division should be carried out? After all, for example, among the "circumstances of direction" one can single out limiting and non-limiting ones: cf. towards the house and westward. If so, what are the reasons for such a more detailed classification, and how should (and should) the subtypes and "sub-subtypes" of various traditional members of the sentence be related to each other? (The desire to take into account in the syntactic description more wide range syntactic-semantic features inherent in words as elements of a sentence, which is typical, in particular, for syntaxemic analysis).

The practice of linguistic research shows that the limit of differentiation, or, in other words, the level

analysis, which in each case has an objective basis in the laws of the language, is established by the researcher, based on the goals of the research and the capabilities of the researcher. The latter should be understood not as the subjective capabilities of the researcher as an individual (although they are also important), but the state of modern science for the researcher, the totality scientific ideas modern era. Equally valid is the most general description of the same members of the sentence in school grammars, a more detailed and, consequently, more differentiated description of them in scientific grammars and, with even greater detail and differentiation, their analysis in monographic studies. If, moreover, differentiation is not considered only as a "movement down the vertical", i.e. as more consistently, more and more fractional division of the entire corpus of material, but to understand it as accounting, systematization and explanation of any distinctive features (in our case, any distinctive features of syntactic relevance), then the limiting boundaries of such differentiation turn out to be mobile and move wider and wider with the progress of linguistic knowledge.

Finally, cases are possible when the commonality of form and (for secondary members) the commonality of syntactic relatedness in different members sentences make it difficult to qualify a member of a sentence as belonging to one class or another. Such a situation may arise, for example, in the analysis of verbal noun phrases. What is, for example, a prepositional-nominal group across the carriage floor in a sentence William[...] stretched his legs across the carriage floor.(K.Mansfield) - a circumstance of the place? circumstance of the course of action? addition? The circumstance of the mode of action or the addition is the highlighted group in the sentence The meeting ended with a unanimous vote of confidence by the s t r i k e r s in their officers and the hunger strikers.(Morning Star)? These and similar cases show that the boundary between the members of the sentence, allocated to the second group (additions and circumstances), in some cases can be unsteady and even conditional, that individual implementations of the members of the sentence can be syncretic, combining the properties of different members of the sentence. By the way, the closeness of the complement and circumstance found in this testifies to the legitimacy of their association into one group with opposition to the subject, predicate and definition.

3.2.1.3. The status of the subject and the predicate. As stated above, the status of the subject and predicate in sentence structure is unique. It is only through them that the category of predicativity is expressed, this most important structural and semantic feature suggestions. Strictly or formally speaking, predicativity is expressed by the forms of the verb-predicate. Since, however, these forms themselves arise and exist on

On the basis of the unity and at the same time the mutual opposition of the subject and the predicate, we can talk about the participation, albeit indirectly, of the subject in the expression of the category of predicativity. It is significant that in denominative, verbless sentences, the noun takes the form that is inherent in the subject (the nominative case in Russian, the common case in English).

The mutual relations of these two members of the proposal are also unique. In a combination of subject and predicate, there is no dominant and dependent element. The subject and predicate are in a relationship of mutual dependence, or interdependence.

At the same time, all other members of the sentence are directly or indirectly connected with the subject and the predicate by the relationship of dependence. That is why the first and main division of the sentence into direct components, taking into account precisely the relations of syntactic dependence, is the division into the composition of the subject and the composition of the predicate (another terminology, a noun group and a verb group).

The subject and the predicate are the only syntactic units among the members of the sentence that are invariably included in the structural-semantic minimum of the sentence. In English, only two-part verb sentences are possible. In imperative sentences, the subject is usually not named, but it is given in the implication. This pronoun you. Its reality is confirmed by incentive-type constructions with an explicit subject, for example: You stay at home! and also proved by transformational analysis incentive proposals With return forms verb: Wash yourself!

3.2.1.4. Subject. The subject is a syntactic countermember and at the same time a "partner" of the predicate. The subject does two things in the sentence. structural functions: categorical and relative.

The categorical function of the subject is to designate the carrier of the predicative feature transmitted by the predicate. The obligatory two-partness of the English verb sentence makes the subject an essential constituent element of the sentence.

The relative function of the subject is that it is the initial element in the sequential syntagmatic deployment of the sentence, constituting the left-hand environment of the verb-predicate, which opposes its right-hand environment, primarily the addition or additions.

As a member of the sui generis sentence, the subject is formed only in the presence of the predicate. In the absence of the latter, the word form of the nominative case of a personal pronoun or the common case of a noun is not sufficient to assign subject status to the corresponding words. (Components of nominative sentences, for example "Night or Not,- not the subject, but an element that combines the properties of the subject and the predicate).

On the other hand, quantitative value The noun-subject (not its form!) determines the form of the verb as a predicate or its inflected part in relation to number. In the singular form (but the meaning of the divided set) of the subject, the predicate is in the plural. On the contrary, in the form of the plural (according to the meaning of the undivided set) or the plurality of connected writing connection nouns and subject group, interpreted linguistic consciousness as a single referent, the predicate stands in singular. Wed: The staff were very sympathetic about it.(A. J. Cronin) and The bread and cheese was presently brought in and distributed[...] (C. Brontë). Another indicator paramount importance the real, rather than formally designated content of the subject (in the subject itself) can be the choice of the method of agreement between the subject and the predicate in the person in cases where the person of the subject does not have a differentiated expression: "Then it"s not your wife who left you; it "s you w h o" v e left your wife. one(S. Maugham)

3.2.1.5. Predicate. The categorical essence of the predicate is determined by its relationship with the subject. The predicate expresses a predicative sign, the carrier of which is the object transmitted by the subject. The categorical function of the predicate lies in the expression of such a feature.

Along with the categorical, i.e. predicative, or predicate function, the predicate performs a relative connecting function, acting as a mediating link between the subject and the elements of the right-sided verbal environment - the complement and the circumstance. Thus, in the relationship between a proposition in the real and a proposition in passive voice the verb-predicate forms a kind of “axis”, around which the subject and object “revolve”, changing their places in the sentences of the active and passive. Wed:

Four doctors arc looking after them.

They are being looked after by four doctors.(Morning Star) The relative function of the predicate as the name of the relationship between subject and circumstance is less obvious, but it

performed in this case as well. It is precisely because the predicate performs this function that sentences with circumstances expressed quality adverbs, conveying a sign of action that is very conditional in the sense of the reality of existence, as in the sentence The washing flapped w h i t e l y on the lines over patches of garden.(D. Lessing) Formally whitely- a sign of action, but in reality - a substance. Such sentences are especially easily converted into constructions with the corresponding adjective as the nominal part of the predicate. (The washing was white) or definitions (The white washing flapped).

The predicate expresses two types of structural meanings: categorical meaning, i.e., the meaning inherent in the predicate as a specific member of the sentence (= the meaning of the predicative feature), and the meanings associated with the grammatical categories of the personal form of the verb (the meanings of mood and tense, pledge, person and number). The joint expression of the two indicated varieties of meanings in one word is possible only in a simple verbal predicate: Not paused.(H. G. Wells)

Although in grammatical descriptions the verbal and nominal predicates are presented as isolated, not related to each other, in reality they are connected by a correlative connection. Their correlation becomes obvious when comparing constructions in which these two types of predicates have a common lexical-semantic base: the verb (in the verbal predicate) and the nominal part (in the nominal predicate) are connected by word-formation relations: Andrew reddened.(A. J. Cronin) - Andrew we.at/grew red. In two compared predicates, the general conceptual content of the predicated feature, the same structural values, but the latter are distributed differently in each of the two types of predicate.

Thus, the two main types of predicate are verbal and nominal. They are elementary in the sense that they cannot be transformed into simpler, meaningful and formal structures.

The third type adjoins the named two types - the phraseological predicate. Phraseological predicate is expressed by a phrase containing a noun with the meaning of action and transitive verb: Not g a v e a gasp.(S. Maugham)

In connection with the latter type, the question legitimately arises of how justified its allocation is. After all, there are constructions of a phraseological nature among nominal predicates(cf., for example, the use of formations to be under fire, to be at a loss, to be under age and many others. etc. as predicates). Perhaps these and many similar formations should also be singled out as a separate type or included as a subtype in the marked phraseological predicate? This, perhaps, should have been done if the most essential feature of predicates of the type to give a glance was their phraseology. In this case, we are dealing with an unfortunate naming focused on

Introduction

The relevance of the chosen problem is explained by the fact that in modern linguistics a cognitive approach to the study of language units has been established, that is, an approach to language as a means of storing and transmitting knowledge. In the study of syntax, semantics comes first.

The purpose of this work is to study the semantic structure of a sentence with introductory semi-predicative structures.

The goal set required the solution of a number of specific tasks:

1. Consider the concepts of predicativity and modality as integral functional and semantic categories of the sentence.

2. Explore existing methods complication of the predicate.

3. Compare a number of English and Russian sentences.

4. Show the semantic integrity of the sentence with introductory semi-predicative constructions.

The object of this work is the means of expressing subjective modality in English sentences.

The subject of this work is introductory semi-predicative constructions.

Research methods: synthesis, analysis, descriptive, comparative, continuous sampling method.

The work consists of: an introduction, which substantiates the relevance of the topic, defines the goal and formulates the tasks, defines the object and subject of research, as well as research methods; two chapters; conclusions, in; literature list. The first chapter reveals the concepts associated with the sentence and the main sentential categories, as well as ways to complicate the sentence. The second chapter deals with the semantic structure of the sentence with introductory semi-predicative structures.

Complicated sentence structure

Simple sentence structure

The complexity and multidimensionality of the proposal make it difficult to develop its definition. There are many definitions of this syntactic unit, to which more and more new ones continue to be added. An adequate definition should contain an indication of the generic affiliation of the phenomenon being defined, and, at the same time, those of the many inherent properties that determine the specificity of the phenomenon should be noted in it. this phenomenon, thus constituting its essence.

In the history of the development of Russian syntax, one can note attempts to define a sentence in terms of logical, psychological and formal grammatical.

The representative of the first direction F.I. Buslaev defined a sentence as "a judgment expressed in words".

Buslaev also believed that "an exact reflection and expression, logical categories and relations find their expression in the language."

Based on the fact that “a grammatical sentence is not at all identical and not parallel with a logical judgment”, the representative of the second direction A.A. Potebnya considered the sentence as “a psychological (not logical) judgment with the help of a word, i.e. connection of two mental units: explained ( psychological subject) and explanatory (psychological predicate), forming a complex sentence. essential feature sentences, he considered the presence in it of a verb in the personal form.

F.F. Shakhmatov built his theory of sentences on a logical and psychological basis and defined the sentence as follows: "A sentence is a unit of speech perceived by the speaker and listener as a grammatical whole that serves to verbally express a unit of thought." Shakhmatov considered the combination of representations in a special act of thinking to be the psychological basis of the sentence.

The founder of the formal grammatical direction F.F. Fortunatov considers the sentence as one of the types of phrases: “Among the grammatical phrases used in full sentences of speech, those phrases that we have the right to call are dominant in the Russian language. grammar sentences, because they contain, as parts, grammatical subject and grammatical predicate. The members of the proposal by representatives of this direction were determined with morphological point vision, i.e. characterized as parts of speech.

V.V. Vinogradov takes the structural-semantic principle as the basis for defining a sentence: “A sentence is an integral unit of speech, grammatically designed according to the laws of a given language, which is the main means of forming, expressing and communicating thoughts.”

In order to give an operationally applicable definition of a sentence, one should proceed from its formal or functional features.

In academic linguistics we find the following definition of a sentence:

A sentence is one of the syntactic constructions, the central, most important, but not the only one, so we can say that a sentence is a syntactic construction. (In the traditional, most common definition of a sentence, it is not called a "syntactic construction", but a "group of words.") Since any syntactic construction is usually a group of words, the information conveyed in the traditional definition. However, the definition of a sentence as a syntactic construction is more precise: a syntactic construction is a group of words, but not every group of words constitutes a syntactic construction. Having characterized the sentence as a syntactic construction, we named the property that unites the sentence with some other syntactic units, and showed the generic affiliation of the sentence. As for the specific features, since we are dealing with a meaningful sign unit of the language, they should reflect the properties associated with the features of the structure, content and use of sentences - three aspects that characterize each meaningful sign unit language: structure, semantics and pragmatics.

It follows that:

a sentence is a unit of language, but such a unit, which is characterized by a structure that makes it possible for a given language unit to be used as a minimum, i.e., the smallest independent segment of speech, i.e., as a minimum speech product;

The subject-predicate structure makes it possible for a language unit to be used independently in speech. It is this structure that gives the sentence relative independence, expressed in the ability to use independently as a minimum of a speech work;

The subject-predicate structure only makes it possible self use sentences in speech. But this possibility is far from always realized: a sentence can be included in larger formations (complex sentences) and thereby lose its independence and act no longer as a minimum of verbal communication, but as part of a larger statement. From this, however, the sentence does not cease to be a sentence, for its subject-predicate structure is preserved.

A simple sentence as an elementary syntactic construction consists of two forms of words combined with each other by a specific syntactic relation (predicative) that exists only in the sentence, or, more rarely, from one word form. An elementary abstract pattern on which a simple non-proprietary proposal, constitutes its predicative basis, a structural pattern. These samples are classified on different grounds: one-component and two-component, free and limited from the side vocabulary having or not having a paradigmatic characteristic, non-phraseological and phraseological. The sentence can be distributed according to the rules of conditional connections - agreement, control, adjunction, or word forms that spread the sentence as a whole, or participial, participial and other turns, or specially spread word forms, allied combinations, and more.

A complex sentence is a combination of two (or more) simple sentences (or their analogues) by means of conjunctions, allied words or allied particles (in combination with a certain intonation, and often also with the support of vocabulary) into a kind of new syntactic formation, the parts of which enter into each other. with a friend into certain syntactic relations. At the same time, one of the parts may undergo significant structural changes or even have such a formal organization that is not characteristic of a simple sentence.

Predicative units complex sentence, although built according to the models of a simple sentence, are in such close interaction in a semantic and grammatical sense that it is possible to divide complex sentences into separate independent simple sentences for the most part impossible. The parts of a complex sentence are united both structurally, and in meaning, and intonationally. From the combination of two or more sentences, a complex one is compiled, the so-called, in contrast to a simple sentence that is not connected to others.

Thus, having defined the concepts of a simple and complex sentence and highlighting specific features, we have revealed the significance of this syntactic unit as the main unit of the language.

A sentence is a universal (i.e. present in all languages) phrasal category. The syntactic structure of a sentence is determined mainly by the grammatical properties of its constituent words, primarily by their compatibility features. Compatibility features of a word include its semantic and syntactic valencies. The semantic valence of a word is an unfilled part (variable) of its semantic description; for example, the verb to chop has three valences - WHO (actor), WHAT (object of application of the action) and WHAT (instrument) cuts, the semantic valences of the verb catch up are WHO (catching up) and WHOM (catching up). The syntactic valences of a word form those linguistic units that can enter into a relationship of direct syntactic dependence with it. There are syntactic valences that correspond to some semantic valency of the word (its actants), and syntactic valences that do not correspond to any semantic valency (circonstants). For example, in the sentence Now I want you to leave, because it's already late, the subject I and the additional clause so that you leave are actants of the verb want, since they fill out parts of its semantic description (WHO wants WHAT), and the circumstance now and adventitious reasons because it's too late - these are circonstants, since they are not associated with lexical meaning want verb. However, it should be borne in mind that the boundary between actants and circonstants is not always clearly traced.

In the words of the French syntaxist L. Tenier, the sentence is a “little drama”, which includes an action (indicated by the predicate situation), actors (actants) and circumstances (circo-constants). In addition to the fact that each actant in each situation has a certain role inherent in it, there are also “roles” - certain standard semantic roles that act in different situations. These roles include the agent - the animated initiator of the action, controlling it (the boy runs; the boy breaks the table); patient - a participant who is more involved in the situation than others and undergoes the most significant changes in it (the boy falls; the father beats the boy); beneficiary - a participant in the situation, whose interests are affected in it (I give the book to the boy; I praise the boy); experimenter - a carrier of an involuntary feeling or a recipient of information with verbs of perception (a boy sees; a boy likes); tool - an inanimate object with which an action is carried out (write with a pencil) and some others. The most important property predicate words (that is, words for which it is natural to act as a predicate) is that among them there are almost no such in which two actants would perform the same semantic role.

A sentence that contains at least one other sentence is called a compound sentence. The inclusion of sentences in each other can be done in two ways - composition and submission. A proposal that is part of another proposal is called a non-independent proposal. In English grammatical terminology, to denote a non-independent sentence, there is a widely used term clause, which plays in the conceptual apparatus syntactic theory such an important role that in some concepts this concept is considered primary and it is through it that the very concept of a sentence is determined. Some authors try to compensate for the lack of an acceptable analogue of this term in the Russian-language conceptual system of syntactic theory by borrowing - the term "clause" (or "clause") is obtained. A non-independent sentence that has a predicate in a personal form is called a subordinate clause. Relative clauses can be non-union or, more often, introduced with the help of subordinating conjunctions. Alone subordinating conjunctions(what, if, how, so that) are used mainly with sentential actants (expressed explanatory clauses), for example, I think it's too late; There were rumors that he was selling the apartment; such sentences in the domestic syntactic science are called subordinate explanatory clauses. Other conjunctions (how, when, while, if) are used with sentential circonstants. A subordinate clause that acts as a definition to a noun is called a relative clause. It uses allied words that perform the functions of both a union and a member of a sentence: This is the house in which I live; This skipper was that glorious skipper, By whom our earth moved (A.S. Pushkin).

A non-independent sentence headed by an impersonal form of the verb is called a dependent turnover. Such non-personal forms can be infinitives, participles, participles, verbal nouns, etc.

Different morphological forms of words may have different syntactic valencies. Voice constructions are sets (in particular, pairs, if there are only two voices in the language) of sentences that have the same basic meaning, but differ in which participant in the situation corresponds to which member of the sentence. Yes, in active voice the agent corresponds to the subject, and in the passive (passive) - to the addition, and the patient becomes the subject: Workers are building a house - The house is being built by workers.

The offer is minimum unit human speech, which is a group of words (sometimes one word), bound friend with each other grammatically and in meaning.

The composition of the proposal

The words that make up the sentence are divided into main ones (they form grammatical basis) and secondary (serve to explain, supplement, clarify the subject and predicate) members. The main members of a sentence are the subject and the predicate.

Subject serves to indicate the name of the subject, actor, the sign of which is determined by the predicate and answers the questions who? what?. The subject is usually expressed by a noun in the nominative case or by a pronoun:

The book lies. He came over an hour later. Who called?

Predicate serves to designate a sign of an object and answers the questions what to do? what to do? what is he doing? what will he do? what? which the? etc. The predicate is usually expressed various forms verb or adjectives:

The book lies. We will go until sunset. He is motionless.

To minor members sentences include definition, addition and circumstance. Definition serves to explain the word substantive meaning and indicates a sign, quality or property of an object. Answers questions what? which the? whose?. As a rule, the definition is expressed by an adjective or a noun with a preposition:

lies A new book. She came in a skirt.

Addition clarifies a word with the meaning of an action, object or attribute and designates an object in some relation to the action or attribute. It is expressed by a noun in the indirect case:

I will finish work early today.

Circumstance clarifies a word with the meaning of an action or sign and denoting under what circumstances the action or sign took place, or to what extent they were manifested. It is expressed by adverbs, indirect cases of nouns, participles, adverbs:

We'll go fishing tomorrow. We went swimming in the lake.

Thus, each of the members of the sentence carries its own semantic load.

Types of sentences according to the purpose of the statement

There are three types of sentences according to the purpose of the statement: narrative, incentive and interrogative. narrative sentences serve to express a relatively complete thought. In colloquial speech, this is expressed by lowering intonation at the end of a sentence.

I came for a short time to pick up my things.

Incentives sentences serve, as a rule, to get others to perform some action (less often, to demonstrate the speaker's intention to do something). They may contain various shades of expression of will: request, wish, order, prayer, advice, threat, wish, warning, etc.:

Please go and get his signature.

Interrogative sentences, as the name suggests, are used to ask the question: Where did you go after work?

Types of sentences for emotional coloring

By emotional coloring proposals are divided into exclamatory and non-exclamatory. Any of the sentences on the purpose of the statement can become exclamatory, if the speaker gives his words additional emotionality.