Авторы

  • Орифжон Барноев
    Navoi State University

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71337/inlibrary.uz.imjrd.76085

Аннотация

Nominative sentences are among the insufficiently developed issues and are still problematic. This article examines the structural and semantic features of nominative sentences and their types, taking into account the semantic and functional features.


background image

INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL FOR

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

SJIF 2019: 5.222 2020: 5.552 2021: 5.637 2022:5.479 2023:6.563 2024: 7,805

eISSN :2394-6334 https://www.ijmrd.in/index.php/imjrd Volume 12, issue 03 (2025)

308

308

NOMINATIVE SENTENCES OF THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE

Barnoev Orifjon

Navoi State University,

Navoi, Uzbekistan

Abstract

: Nominative sentences are among the insufficiently developed issues and are still

problematic. This article examines the structural and semantic features of nominative sentences and

their types, taking into account the semantic and functional features.

Keywords

: nominative sentences, existential sentences, demonstrative sentences, desirable-

existential sentences.

Nominative sentences are one-member sentences that assert the presence, existence of a

phenomenon or object called the main member of the sentence, which is expressed by a noun in the

nominative case or a quantitative-nominal combination, a numeral or a personal pronoun in the

nominative case [3, p. 211].

Nominative sentences are among the insufficiently developed issues and are still problematic. For

example, we have noted the appropriate reasoning of I.P. Raspopov: "The nominative sentence

"Зима" in its constructive relation can be attributed to the usual scheme of verbal sentences, which

allows us to consider it as one of the variants of such sentences with a zero predicate (for example:

"Зима." - "Была зима"; "Стояла зима"; "Была зима", etc.). However, this is not always possible.

In the case of the sentence " Земская больница. За отсутствием доктора, уехавшего жениться,

больных принимает фельдшер Курятин...", the nominative sentence " Земская больница "

clearly does not fit into the structure of verb constructions [6, p. 70-71].

The main feature of these sentences is their fragmentariness, which at the same time is accompanied

by a significant capacity of the content conveyed. They mention only individual, but significant and

expressive details of the situation, which are oriented towards the experience and imagination of the

listener or reader, allowing him to form a general idea of ​ ​ the described situation or events:

Шум, хохот, беготня, поклоны, галоп, мазурка, вальс…(Пушкин); Выси. Облака. Воды.

Броды. Реки. Годы и века. (Пастернак). In other words, these are phenomena and objects that lend

themselves to visual-sensory perception.

Nominative sentences, as is known, are limited by words that must convey the semantics of being.

In addition to the semantics of being and the nominative case, determined by the grammatical nature

of the main member, nominative sentences are also characterized by other mandatory grammatical

features: 1) the meaning of predicativity is manifested through the ascertaining intonation; 2) these

sentences can only be affirmative, since negation contradicts the very nature of a nominative

sentence associated with the concept of being; 3) nominative sentences have a fixed modal-temporal

meaning - the present tense, do not allow paradigmatic changes in moods and tenses (expressing the

future or past tense makes them two-part: "Была весна"; "Будет весна").

There are also alternative views on this issue: two-partness is not observed in this case, as stated, for

example, by the author of Academic grammar-70,

N. Yu. Shvedova [2, p. 560] and

V.V. Vinogradov [1, p. 135]. According to N. Yu. Shvedova, sentences of the type "Была весна";

"Будет весна" are included in the paradigm of a nominative sentence, representing a variant of the

structural scheme "Весна", since no relationship of a feature and its carrier is established between

the name and the verb, and the verbs была, будет act as an auxiliary syntactic element indicating a

temporal reference or temporal changes: this is a simple statement of a phenomenon in the past and

future.


background image

INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL FOR

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

SJIF 2019: 5.222 2020: 5.552 2021: 5.637 2022:5.479 2023:6.563 2024: 7,805

eISSN :2394-6334 https://www.ijmrd.in/index.php/imjrd Volume 12, issue 03 (2025)

309

309

As we understand, in the future and past tense in sentences of the type "Весна" an auxiliary verb

быть appears, which is lexically discolored and comes as close as possible to a non-notional copula,

therefore such sentences are not syntactically divided into a subject and a predicate.

This concept is debatable. We adhere to the majority opinion on the advisability of classifying

sentences of the type "Была весна"; "Будет весна" is a two-part sentence, since such sentences are

not a syntactic paradigm of the " Весна " type of construction, and the verb denotes the presence of

a phenomenon at a certain time.

While paying tribute to what was done by our predecessors, we nevertheless believe that sentences

like На улице дождь; За поворотом наш дом are nominative sentences that contain an

"existential" meaning, which is a defining feature of nominative sentences with the "where is what"

scheme, and, from our point of view, the presence of a circumstance becomes possible due to the

predicative nature of the main member. Such sentences, as N.D. Arutyunova and E.N. Shiryaev

correctly noted, are a consequence of the incomplete implementation of the structural scheme of

nominative sentences with a zero predicate of being, and form one type of nominative sentences - an

incomplete version of existential sentences. V. Yu. Koprov also defined the above sentences as

actantless nominatives.

Sentences of the above sample are therefore recognized in our dissertation as single-member, the

main member of which is distributed by secondary members - circumstances or additions.

It is worth noting that the localizer (the place of the existing object) may also be absent: Горе;

Тоска;; such constructions, in our opinion, are a consequence of the reduction of two-part sentences:

У меня горе; У них тоска.

In such sentences, the location of the object is determined from the context or consitution, since the

existence of an object is impossible without a localizer: the localizer can be expressed either

explicitly (verbally) - На уроке шум, or implicitly - Шум.

So, what is left unsaid, not expressed in verbal form, cannot be restored in the sentence, because it is

clear from the context or from the sentence itself. The absence of what is left unsaid does not create

the impression of incompleteness, semantic incompleteness; on the contrary, nothing can be added

to the composition of a one-part sentence without changing the structure of the sentence, its content,

its emotional coloring and richness, the stylistic features of its use, etc. In this regard, it is necessary

to clearly distinguish one-part sentences from two-part incomplete ones.

There are several points of view on the issue of varieties of nominative sentences, which can be

reduced to a single classification taking into account semantic and functional features: we

distinguish existential, demonstrative, evaluative-existential, desirably-existential.

Existential sentences denote: 1) the presence of a conceivable phenomenon in time: Ночь; Холод,

туман; Сумерки; Осень; 2) the existence of objects located in space: Тополь; Дом; Машины.

Demonstrative sentences contain semu indications of objects and phenomena, and the indication is

expressed by demonstrative particles вот, вон: Вот твоя сумка; Вон знакомое здание.

Evaluative-existential sentences express the speaker's emotional assessment of an object or

phenomenon that the speaker sees and experiences some emotions from this. The structural feature

of such sentences are the emotionally expressive particles какой, ай да, прямо, ну, то-то, тоже мне,

а еще, что за, etc., as well as the demonstrative particle вот, but in the meaning of an assessment:

Ну уж и праздник! Какой прекрасный день! Что за погода?! Тоже мне гость. Вот какая

ревность! Вот нахал!

However, there were also opposing opinions: some linguists (I.P. Raspopov [5, p. 241], A.M.

Lomov [4, p. 253], L.A. Bulakhovsky ) classify such constructions as incomplete two-part sentences

with a nominal predicate as the main member.


background image

INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL FOR

RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT

SJIF 2019: 5.222 2020: 5.552 2021: 5.637 2022:5.479 2023:6.563 2024: 7,805

eISSN :2394-6334 https://www.ijmrd.in/index.php/imjrd Volume 12, issue 03 (2025)

310

310

We do not share this opinion and believe that it is advisable to consider such sentences as one-part

nominative, since such sentences evaluate actions, and recognizing the predicate as the main

member is unconvincing due to the impossibility of restoring the subject.

Desirable-existential sentences express the desirability of an object with the help of the particles

только бы, если бы, лишь бы: Лишь бы отдых!; Только бы уважение!; Если бы воля!

Nominative sentences are found in all genres of fiction. They are widely used in dramatic works as

stage directions. They are also used in lyrics to describe individual details of the situation being

described:

Ночь, улица, фонарь, аптека,

Бессмысленный и тусклый свет.

Живи еще хоть четверть века —

Всё будет так. Исхода нет

Used literature

:

1.

Виноградов В.В. «Синтаксис русского языка акад. А. А. Шахматова» // ст. в сб.

Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского языка. – М.: Учпедгиз, 1950. – С. 135.

2.

Грамматика современного русского литературного языка / ред. Н.Ю. Шведова.

Москва : Наука, 1970. – С. 560

3.

Казарина В.И. Современный русский синтаксис: структурная организация простого

предложения / В.И. Казарина. – Елец: ЕГУ им. И.А. Бунина, 2007. С. 211

4.

Ломов А.М. Типология русского предложения. Воронеж: Изд-во Воронеж. ун-та, 1994.

- С. 253

5.

Распопов И. П. Основы русской грамматики. – С. 241

6.

Распопов, И.П. Строение простого предложения в современном русском языке. Из лин

гвистического наследия И.П. Распопова. Изд. 3. Либроком, 2013. С. 70-71

Библиографические ссылки

Виноградов В.В. «Синтаксис русского языка акад. А. А. Шахматова» // ст. в сб. Вопросы синтаксиса современного русского языка. – М.: Учпедгиз, 1950. – С. 135.

Грамматика современного русского литературного языка / ред. Н.Ю. Шведова. – Москва : Наука, 1970. – С. 560

Казарина В.И. Современный русский синтаксис: структурная организация простого предложения / В.И. Казарина. – Елец: ЕГУ им. И.А. Бунина, 2007. С. 211

Ломов А.М. Типология русского предложения. Воронеж: Изд-во Воронеж. ун-та, 1994. - С. 253

Распопов И. П. Основы русской грамматики. – С. 241

Распопов, И.П. Строение простого предложения в современном русском языке. Из лингвистического наследия И.П. Распопова. Изд. 3. Либроком, 2013. С. 70-71