b) Structural diagram of a simple sentence

The block diagram of a simple sentence is an abstract syntactic pattern for constructing structurally similar simple sentences. The block diagram represents the basis of the formal organization of simple sentences. Structural diagrams reflect special signs(see) part-of-speech characteristic and necessary formal signs of structurally obligatory (necessary) components of the sentence. Differ minimum proposal structure(mass media extended sentence structure(cm.).

The special signs used in the block diagrams of the sentence are alphabetic signs-symbols indicating the Latin names of the parts of speech and their individual forms: V (Latin verbum) - for the verb, Inf (Latin infinitiv) - for the indefinite form of the verb; N (lat. nomen) - for a noun (this sign is also used for the schematic representation of pronouns-nouns); A (lat. adjectivum) - for the name of the adjective and for the schematic representation of adjectival forms of other parts of speech (participles, ordinal numbers, pronominal adjectives); Adv (lat. adverbum) - for the adverb; cop (copula) - for a link in compound predicates, with a zero link, its sign is enclosed in brackets - (cop). With the sign N (noun), subscripts are used to indicate the case form of the name (numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 - respectively, the case number). With the sign V (verb), subscripts (numbers 1, 2, 3) are used, indicating the shape of the face. An index is used to indicate the forms of a number. s(lat. singularis) – units. hours and index pl(lat. pluralis) - pl. h. To indicate personal, i.e. finite, form of the verb, as well as the short form of the adjective, intended to be a predicate (i.e., perform the function of a finite verb), the index f (from lat. finitum) is used - V f and A f. Examples: The night is dark - N 1 (cop) A f / 1/5 (in the subscript, the sign / “slash” indicates the relationship of variation: either a short form intended to be a predicate, like a finite verb, or a nominative case form, or a instrumental case form. Example : The night is dark / dark / was dark.

The minimum structural diagram of a simple sentence is a structural diagram in which, with the help of special signs, the partial characteristic and formal features of the components are reflected predicative sentence core(subject and predicate of a two-part sentence and the only main member of a one-part sentence).

An extended structural diagram of a simple sentence is a structural diagram that summarizes the nominative minimum of a simple sentence, which includes the predicative core of the sentence in combination with its obligatory distributors. For example: In the evenings I read art history books- N 1 V f N 4 (verbal representation of the scheme: name in the im. case + finite verb, i.e. in conjugated form, + name in the accusative case).

Sentences of a phraseologized structure are simple sentences in which the syntactic links are not motivated, and the lexical content is not free, i.e. is not determined by the laws of construction of meaning, since the meaning of such sentences in each case of use is unique. Sentences of a phraseologized structure belong to the colloquial style, are distinguished by a high degree of expressiveness, are created according to unique schemes: N 1 as N 1: - Forest like a forest; N 1 so N 1 - The house is so the house; N 1 not in N 4 - A holiday is not a holiday;This is N 1 so N 1 - This is news so news; All N 3 N 1 - All news news; No to Inf - No to come; Who better than N 3 Inf - Who better than him to do it.

The semantic aspect of a simple sentence

Structural diagram of the offer- an abstract syntactic pattern, according to which a separate minimal relatively complete sentence should be built.

Each block diagram consists of a certain number of components. Each of the components is indicated by an alphabetic symbol corresponding to the Latin name of the corresponding part of speech or morphological form:

Vf- conjugated form of the verb (lat. verbum finitum);

Vf 3s- conjugated verb in the form of 3 person singular. numbers ( singularis);

Vf 3pl- conjugated verb in the form of 3 persons plural. ( pluralis)

inf- infinitive;

N- noun ( nomen- name, title); numbers from 1 to 6 denote case forms, number 2 with an ellipsis (N 2...) denotes a noun in the form of one of the indirect cases with or without a preposition.

Adj- adjective ( adjectivum);

Pron- pronoun ( pronomen);

Adv- adverb ( adverbum);

Adv-o - predicative adverb for - o (cold, hot etc.);

Praed- predicative ( praedicatum);

part- participle ( participium);

Praed part- participial predicate;

interj- interjection ( interjectio);

neg- negation ( negatio);

cop- link - ( copula);

quant– quantitative (quantitative) value ( quantitas- ʼʼquantityʼʼ, ʼʼvalueʼʼ).

Eg:

Adv quant N 2– ʼʼ Quantitative adverb in combination with the genitive case of a noun ʼʼ (the number of the noun is not essential here). According to this formula, the scheme is built, for example, the following sentences: Many affairs. Today I have a lot to do. Tomorrow our whole family will have a lot to do. Little time. You never have enough time for me. Enough controversy...

Inf + Vf 3 s– ʼʼ Infinitive in combination with a conjugated verb in the form of 3 person singular. numbersʼʼ. The proposals are structured like this: Smoking is prohibited. Friends, smoking is prohibited in our university. There is no way to meet. Friends never get to meet. Will be able to meet and so on.

N 1– ʼʼ A noun in the nominative caseʼʼ. The proposals are structured like this: Night. Memories. Quiet summer night. Dark summer night on the Crimean coast and so on.

Inf cop Inf- ʼʼInfinitive - copula - infinitiveʼʼ. Be friends– means to trust.

When isolating and defining a block diagram, the following principles are used:

1. formal organization sentences - a predicative basis, reflected in the form of symbols.

2. Semantics of the syntactic scheme(the most abstract, abstracted from the lexical content of the sentence).

3. Feature paradigms(change in syntactic tenses and syntactic moods)

4. System regular implementations(modifications of any structural scheme that occur regularly in speech).

5. Rules dissemination(features of the functioning of verbal distributors and determinants).

The concept of the structural scheme of the proposal - the concept and types. Classification and features of the category "The concept of the structural scheme of the proposal" 2017, 2018.

The formal aspect of studying a sentence involves describing its structure. Traditionally, the structure is described through the concept of sentence members. Modern syntactic science considers the structure of a sentence through the concept of a structural scheme, the structural scheme of a sentence can be defined as an abstract pattern, consisting of a minimum of components necessary to create a sentence. (I am reading a book; The rooks have arrived; The grass is green; A dusty country road passed behind the garden) - built according to the following scheme: N 1 V f- (N is the name of the first case, V is the verb being changed). Each sentence has a predicative core (verb + narration), which constitutes the predicative minimum of the sentence. But the minimum is understood in different ways. The first understanding of the minimum refers to the formal structure of the sentence as a predicative unit, and only the predicative minimum is taken into account. Then the sentences (Rooks flew in; They ended up here) - are considered to be built according to one structural scheme. But in the second sentence, filling in the scheme does not give a real sentence (They found themselves). The second understanding of the minimum refers not only to the formal organization of the sentence as a predicative unit, but also to its semantic organization. Both grammatical sufficiency and semantic sufficiency are taken into account. N 1 V f Adv loc /N 2 (Name + Predicate + Adverb - local - places / Name of any case - found themselves at home / at home, etc.). Thus, there are two types of block diagrams: the minimum block diagram, reflecting the grammatical level, the predicative, including the subject and the predicate. And extended, reflecting the nominative level - subject + predicate + components necessary to read the minimum meaning. The extension is governed by different rules. All minor members of the proposal are shared with this so-called. into two classes according to the principle of participation or non-participation in the expansion of the minimum scheme. Constitutive - those that participate in the expansion, which are necessary to understand the minimum meaning. Are divided into two classes: subject names denoting participants in the event, the nearest object, addresses, tools, etc.; non-objective predicate determiners - various case forms with local and temporal meaning. Non-constitutive - optional. Their presence or absence does not affect either the structure of the sentence or its semantics. In the yard, the neighboring children deftly sculpt a snowman (children sculpt a snowman - constitutive members of the sentence). N.Yu. Shvedova described a simple sentence through block diagrams. Minimum schemes according to Beloshapkova (they are quite universal, generalizing the list of all existing types). All block diagrams are represented by three blocks: The first block (two-component, nominative): A) N 1 V f (The rooks have arrived, The garden has become empty, All things are done by people). The second block (two-component, infinitive): A) Inf V f (You should not remain silent, It was forbidden to smoke, It is recommended to walk more). Third block (one-component): A) V f 3s (It was getting dark)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

N1-Vf-N4 Father is reading a newspaper;

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

Inf-Vcop-N1 Fly–his dream and etc.

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

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

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

Italian: Ha telefonato. Gianni ha telefonato.

English: * Has telephoned. John has teleptoned.

Called. John called.

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

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

10 . The structure of the components

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

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

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

[first year]

]

[will submit]

[soon [to be handed over]]

[in linguistics]

[introduction [to linguistics]]

[according to [introduction [to linguistics]]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The concept of a structural scheme of a simple sentence (hereinafter: SSPP) appeared in the 60-70s. our century. Syntaxists delimited the statement and the sentence, learned to distinguish the positional scheme of the statement (a specific sentence in a specific text with a specific lexical content) from the structural scheme, which can underlie many statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's summarize.

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

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

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

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

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

The supply paradigm