Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная
лингвистика
и
лингводидактика
–
Foreign
Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/foreign-linguistics
General linguistics on non-union communication
Guljamila TOLIBAEVA
Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received August 2024
Received in revised form
10 September 2024
Accepted 25 September 2024
Available online
25 October 2024
This article addresses general linguistic concepts such as
asyndetic connections, polypredicative structures, the
relationships between parts, and the syntactic cohesion of
complex units. It also presents the perspectives of well-known
linguists on these topics.
2181-3701
/©
2024 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-3701-vol2-iss4/S-pp1-5
This is an open-access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru
Keywords:
status,
semi-predicative,
interdependence,
interdependence,
composition,
subordination,
compactness,
cohesion,
unification,
function,
non-union,
abstract,
syntactic connection,
classification,
construction.
Umumiy tilshunoslikda birlashmasiz bog’lanishlar
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so‘zlar
:
yarim predikativ,
o‘z
-
aro bogʼliqlik,
tarkib,
ixchamlik,
birlashma,
vazifa sintaktik bogʼlanish,
tasnif.
Ushbu maqolada umumiy tilshunoslikning birlashmasiz
bogʼlanishi,
polipredikativ
shakllanishlar,
bo‘laklarning
bogʼlanishlari va butun murakkab birlikning sintaktik yaxlitligi
haqida so‘z yuritiladi, taniqli tilshunos olimlarning fikr
-
mulohazalari keltirilgan.
1
Karakalpak State University named after Berdakh
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
2
Общая лингвистика о бессоюзной коммуникации
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
полупредикативный,
взаимозависимость,
взаимообусловленность,
композиция,
подчинение,
компактность,
связность,
объединение,
функция,
бессоюзный,
абстрактный,
синтаксическая связь,
классификация,
конструкция.
В данной статье рассматриваются вопросы общего
языкознания,
такие
как
бессоюзная
связь,
полипредикативные образования, соединение частей и
синтаксическая целостность сложного единства. Приводятся
мнения известных лингвистов по этим темам.
INTRODUCTION
In linguistic science, there is a problem with the status of non
–
union complex
sentences (BSP), that is, semi-predicative formations that do not have the main indicator
of connection - a compositional or subordinate union.
Even V.V. Vinogradov [3, 34] noted that in compound sentences there are various
forms and degrees of syntactic interdependence and interdependence of the main parts of
the syntactic whole. Consequently, there are many degrees of dependence on each other
of the structural parts in a complex sentence, and it often seems impossible to draw a sharp
line between composition and subordination. The matter is further complicated by the fact
that the application of the categories of composition and subordination to non-union
complex sentences is usually furnished with such significant reservations that the exact
meaning of the terms "composition" and "subordination" is lost.
A.M. Peshkovsky in the first two editions of his "Russian Syntax" stated: "... non-
union, even if you distinguish shades with it subordination and composition should in any
case be separated from the present union composition and subordination" [4, 422] N.S.
Pospelov, a researcher of the syntactic structure of non-union sentences, also assures that
in non-union sentences the interdependence of parts does not translate into grammatically
expressed subordination [5, 104].
In non-union complex sentences, the connection of parts and the syntactic integrity
of the entire complex unity is expressed by rhythmomelodic means and the correlation of
the structure of their basic structural units. Unionless complex sentences may be
synonymous with allied ones, but the range of relations expressed by unionless complex
sentences does not coincide with the corresponding functions of compound and compound
sentences. They differ from other types of complex sentences by their compactness and
their wide possibilities of coupling and combining simple sentences.
At the same time, it is becoming increasingly clear that lexical elements often play a
very important role in the ways of connecting parts of an unconnected sentence, which are
typed, generalized and act together with intonation as a kind of syntactic means of
combining sentences into an unconnected complex whole.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
3
Some types of non-union complex sentences are characterized by the use of
pronominal words or other types of words of abstract meaning as means of syntactic
communication.
"Thus, when studying complex sentences, one should not get carried away with the
mechanical separation of their different types into the categories of composition and
subordination, but one should strive to fully and comprehensively describe the structural
features of all the main types of complex sentences. It is necessary to focus attention on all
constructive forms of a complex sentence, including intonation, word order, the presence
or absence of words correlating with the union, syntactic functions of typed lexical
elements, and various ways of morphological expression of syntactic connection, for
example, through the forms of the form and tense of the verb, etc." [3, 482]. To this
scientific instruction V. In Vinogradov, we will try to stick to this study.
The general problem of separating non-union complex sentences into a special
structural and semantic type is concretized in two directions:
1) the relation of non-union complex (BSP) sentences to allied ones, their place in
the classification of complex sentences,
2) the relation of unconnected complex sentences to the text (are semi-predicative
formations sentences, constructions, or are they textual formations) [1, 168].
The relation of BSP to allied (to compound and compound). In Russian syntactic
science, the place of BSP in the classification was determined in different ways. Some
researchers (A.M. Peshkovsky) likened BSPs to allied ones and distributed them between
compound and compound sentences. According to Peshkovsky's point of view, with a non-
union connection, intonation compensates for the absence of a union.
Another approach to BSP is contained in the works of N.S. Pospelov and other
scientists who share his point of view (L.Yu. Maksimov, V.A. Beloshapkov, etc.). BSPs are
considered as semi-predicative units represented by special structural and semantic
varieties. In the absence of a union, the role of other formal indicators (not only intonation)
increases. These are pronominal-indicative words (T-words), synsemantic words that
require completion, lexical relations, syntactic parallelism, the ratio of species-temporal
and modal forms of predicate verbs.
The relation of BSP to the text. The extreme point of view is presented in the
"Russian Grammar" [6, 302]: BSP is a text of two or more sentences. In principle, non-union
is not a grammatical connection, intonation types are not a syntactic means of forming a
connection.
But even if BSP is recognized as a special type of complex sentences, there is a
problem of separating BSP from a combination of individual statements. V.A. Beloshapkova
explained the difference between BSP and the sequence of individual statements in this
way: "When separating a complex sentence from a combination of sentences, as an
essential and reliable criterion, it is necessary to accept the presence of a certain structural
scheme, certain restrictive rules in a complex sentence combinations of predicative units"
[2, 204]. Among the unionless polypredicative formations there are those that are
constructions organized according to certain structural schemes.
For example: It was clear: I can't do this job. This structure is created by the
synsemanticity of the word "clear", which requires mandatory subjective completion.
Another example: One thing was clear: I couldn't do this job. Here the structurally
obligatory element is the word "one", which has a cataphorical function, requiring
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
4
specification. Other polypredicative non-union formations do not have structurally
obligatory elements and can be represented as a combination of two independent
statements.
Thus, the problem of the correlation of BSP and text exists, but in the classifications
of BSP, usually all non-union polypredicative formations presented as one utterance are
taken into account. There are two main classifications of BSP, which are based on different
bases. Let us characterize the non-union complex sentences in the classification of N.S.
Pospelov.
The classification developed by N.S. Pospelov is based on the semantic principle
–
in
contrast to the classification of allied sentences. Pospelov divides all BSP into two main
types from the point of view of the relations between the components of BSP: proposals of
homogeneous composition and proposals of heterogeneous composition.
N.S. Pospelov defines homogeneous sentences in this way: "Combinations of
sentences that are homogeneous in syntactic meaning, have lost their communicative
independence and form unity with the meaning of uniformity, i.e. the same attitude to the
whole that they make up" [5, 339]. These are sentences with the meaning of enumeration
and juxtaposition.
In sentences of heterogeneous composition, there is one or another semantic
dependence on each other of the sentences that make up a single whole. These are
conditionality relations, causal, explanatory, explanatory, and connective.
Unionless complex sentences in the classification of V.A. Beloshapkova are based on
a formal syntactic basis. Three principles are consistently applied in this classification. The
most common difference is the openness and closeness of the structure (cf. compound
sentences, which also have this structural opposition). Sentences of an open structure are
open rows: two, three or more components, the number of which is potentially unlimited
(cf. compound sentences with multi-place, repeated conjunctions). Closed structure
sentences are closed two-component structures (cf. compound sentences and compound
sentences with single or double unions).
The second contrast characterizes the BSP of a closed structure and is based on the
presence or absence of a formal indicator of syntactic relations. Accordingly, proposals of
a typed structure (with a formal indicator) and proposals of an untyped structure (without
a formal indicator) are distinguished.
The sentences of the typed structure are divided into three types: a) sentences with
an unsubstituted syntactic position, b) sentences with an anaphoric element in one of the
components, c) sentences with the position of the final correlate particle.
CONCLUSION
So, the question of the non-union connection is debatable in linguistics. When
studying this subject, it is necessary to focus on all constructive forms of a complex
sentence, including intonation, word order, the presence or absence of words correlating
with the union, syntactic functions of typed lexical elements, and different ways of
morphological expression of syntactic connection.
REFERENCES:
1.
Современный русский язык / под ред. В.А.Белошапковой. –
М.: Русский
язык, 1989. –
423 с.
Xorijiy lingvistika va lingvodidaktika
–
Зарубежная лингвистика
и лингводидактика
–
Foreign Linguistics and Linguodidactics
Special Issue
–
4 (2024) / ISSN 2181-3701
5
2.
Виноградов В.В. Основные вопросы синтаксиса предложения // Вопросы
грамматического строя. –
М.: Изд
-
во АН СССР, 1955.
-
482 с.
3.
Пешковский А.М. Русский синтаксис в научном освещении. Изд. 2
-
е. –
М.,
1920.
–
452 с.
4.
Поспелов Н.С. О грамматической природе и принципах классификации
бессоюзных сложных предложений // Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского
языка. –
М.: Учпедгиз, 1950. –
С. 338 –
353.
5.
Краткая русская грамматика / Белоусов В.Н., Ковтунова И.И., Кручинина
И.Н. и др.; Под ред. Шведовой Н.Ю. и Лопатина В.В. –
М.,: Педагогическая книга, 2002
–
726 с.
