COMPLEX FORMS OF ORGANIZING MONOLOGICAL SPEECH
1. A complex syntactic whole (STS) as a structural-semantic unit.
2. Paragraph as a stylistic and compositional unit.
3. Period as a rhetorical figure of speech.
4. Syntactic description of the text. Signs and categories of text.
1. Traditionally, the description of syntax units ends with a complex sentence as the highest syntactic unit in structural and semantic terms. But complex, as well as simple, sentences are realized in the text and, forming it, become a compositional unity. At the same time, they undergo various structural and semantic changes.
A complex syntactic whole is the largest of the structural-semantic units into which a text (or oral statement) is divided. STS consists of several sentences (simple, complex, complicated), combined with the help of intonation and other means of communication and revealing one of the micro-themes (subtopics) of the text (or oral utterance). Unlike a complex sentence, sentences in STS are more independent and communication between them is less close.
A complex syntactic whole (STS) is a structural-semantic unity of several (two or more) separate sentences, grammatically and thematically related, as part of a text.
The main features of the STS: 1) thematic unity of proposals in the group; 2) special ways of connecting independent, intonationally complete sentences with each other: the unity of aspectual-temporal forms of predicates, the use of pronouns, introductory words, particles, the use of repetitions, synonymous substitutions, the incompleteness of communicatively weak sentences, word order, the correlation of the actual articulation of sentences. Thus, there are the following
Means of communication of proposals in the SCS
1. Basic or general – intonation. Independent declarative sentences in its composition are usually pronounced with the same intonation.
All the rest are private means of communication.
2. The unity of aspectual-temporal forms of verbs-predicates of individual sentences.
3. The use of 3rd person pronouns and demonstrative pronouns, for example, the pronoun this indicates the content of the previous sentence as a whole, the pronouns that , this , etc. to the previously designated persons, objects and their qualities.
4. Subordinating and coordinating unions at the beginning of independent sentences, which usually have a connecting meaning.
5. The use of various circumstances, first of all, place and time, related in meaning to several independent sentences.
6. The same word order in sentences.
So, in an excerpt from A.S. Pushkin’s story “The Shot”, a group of four independent complex sentences is united by the theme “the narrator’s farewell to Silvio” (numbers 1 – 8 indicate the predicative parts): (1) Servant T / entered and announced R , / / (2) that the horses are T / ready to R . (3) Silvio T / firmly squeezed my hand R ; // (4) we T / fucked R . (5) He T / got into the cart Р , // (6) where there were two suitcases, one with pistols, the other with this belongings Р . ( 7 ) We T / said goodbye again R , // (8) and the horses T / galloped R .
The unity and development of the theme of the narrative is ensured by the sequence of actional verbs-predicates of the Soviet type past. vr. (entered, announced, squeezed, kissed, sat down, said goodbye, jumped; the exception is the predicate lay in (6), expressed by the verb of localizing meaning, which does not violate the unity of the dynamic change of successive actions of the characters, but only states a separate fact), occupying a position rhemes, while the subjects are in the position of the topic [Zolotova G.A. Communicative aspects of Russian syntax. – M., 1982. S. 162-163].
The grammatical connection of sentences is manifested in the use of pronouns both within independent sentences and between them: (3) Silvio – (3) to me – (4) we; (3) Silvio – (5) he – (6) his (belongings); (4) we– (7) we . These are means of expressing interphrase links within the SCS.
The structure of the SCS is characterized, according to the observations of Sakmara Georgievna Ilyenko, by its initial components. The researcher singled out: firstly, nominative themes; secondly, the infinitive of the theme; thirdly, interrogative sentences. For example: Oh, spring, spring! The whole point, right, is that all this nonsense happened in the spring (I.A. Bunin. Dalekoe); To be an artist… Without bitter, constant work there are no artists… but to work, I thought, looking at his soft features, listening to his unhurried speech , no! You will not work, you will not be able to shrink (I.S. Turgenev. Asya); But what is the use of the plant for its bright petals, its smell, honey glands? At first glance, their significance is exclusively aesthetic … (K. Timiryazev. The life of a plant). Such structures undoubtedly set the theme of STS, but the examples cited by the author were mainly drawn from journalistic texts, which more often than others reproduce stereotyped structures. Taking into account that the form of the beginning in the SCS may not involve specialized constructions, S.G. Ilyenko later suggested that the SCS is in the process of formation, therefore the form of the beginning does not have specialized syntactic constructions [Ilyenko S.G. Syntactic units in the text: textbook according to a special course.–L., 1989. S. 24-39].
More convincing is the view of Natalya Dmitrievna Zarubina, who singled out communicatively strong sentences as the initial components of the SCS: their structure is more diverse than the set selected by S.G. Ilyenko, they are common in texts of all styles of speech. the function of the beginning in a group of thematically close sentences, and the definition of communicatively weak sentences as dependent on the left context, make it possible to linguistically substantiate the allocation of semantic and structural unity of sentences in the text [Zarubina N.D. Text: linguistic and methodological aspects. – M., 1981. C 28-55].
Over the past three decades, aspects of the description of SCS have changed. On the one hand, linguists studied the chain and parallel connections of sentences in the SCS [Solganik G.Ya. Syntactic style (Complex syntactic whole).–M., 1973; 2nd ed. – M., 1991]. On the other hand, depending on this or on the type of speech served by a complex syntactic whole, a typology of STS was created. And finally, we studied the features of word order and the actual division of sentences, predetermined by their inclusion in the SCS.
According to the classification of Grigory Yakovlevich Solganik, based on the structural aspect of the description of the SCS, the selection of the types of SCS is based on the identification of interphrase links between sentences – chain and parallel. At the same time, G.Ya. Solganik, abandoning the purely syntactic term STS and replacing it with the term “prose stanza”, identifies the following types of text units: 1) prose stanzas based on a chain connection; 2) prose stanzas based on a parallel connection; 3) other types of prose stanzas (with a single subject; stanzas built according to the model of the beginning; ring stanzas).
A chain link is an interphrase link characterized by the correlation of the structure of sentences, based on the use of anaphoric pronouns, on synonymous substitutions, lexical repetitions. For example: In two hundred, three hundred years, life on earth will be unimaginably beautiful, amazing. A person needs such a life, and if it does not exist yet, then he must anticipate it, wait, dream, prepare for it, he must see and know more for this than his grandfather and father (A.P. Chekhov) saw and knew. The lexical repetition of the word life is enhanced by the use of a demonstrative pronoun in the second sentence. According to the observations of G.Ya. Solganik, the chain connection is expressed by stable, repetitive syntactic relationships between the members of the connected sentences: subject – object, object – subject, subject – subject, object – object, etc .; pronominal connection, stylistically neutral and characteristic of all styles of speech, unites sentences more closely than connection with the help of lexical repetition or synonyms.
Parallel connection is a connection based on the comparison and opposition of sentences, realized with the help of parallelism of syntactic constructions. For example: (1) The sun / shines brightly, // and its rays, / playing and smiling, bathe in puddles together with sparrows. (2) River / swells and darkens; // she has already woken up and will roar not today or tomorrow. (3) Trees / naked, but already living, breathing (A.P. Chekhov). The connection of these sentences is manifested in the parallelism of the syntactic structure of the sentences: they are two-part with verbs-predicates ness. of the form (with the exception of the second predicative part in sentence (2) and in sentence (3) of the first compound nominal predicate), have the same word order, the actual articulation in them coincides. A parallel connection is characterized by the unity of the aspectual and temporal characteristics of predicates and modality; such a connection can be emphasized by anaphora or epiphora.
This classification has much in common with the typology based on the analysis of the semantic correlation of sentences in the SCS. Anatoly Mikhailovich Lomov singles out the SCS of a parallel, sequential and mixed system [Lomov A.M. Dictionary-reference book on the syntax of the modern Russian language. – M., 2007].
In the SCS of a parallel system, relations of adjacency, juxtaposition are established between sentences, and the whole group serves to reveal the general picture, for example: The room is large, low, with three windows; the walls are smeared with white paint; there is no furniture. There is a bare plain in front of the house; gradually lowering, she goes into the distance; the gray, one-color sky hangs over it like a canopy (I.S. Turgenev). The SCS of a consistent system is organized on continuity in content (compare with a chain connection, according to G.Ya.Solganik), for example: I got yesterday’s paper. Muse grabbed it with her stiff hand, stood a little in front of me, as if about to thank me; but suddenly she shuddered, looked around and, without even bowing, quickly went downhill (I.S. Turgenev). Mixed-type SCS combines a sequential presentation of events with a parallel description of persons, objects, facts, for example: Grandmother took off her glasses and looked at Baburin with a slow gaze from head to toe. He lowered his eyes and only put his hands behind his back. Actually, I was most interested in his beard: it was very clean-shaven, but I had never seen such blue cheeks and chin! (I.S. Turgenev).
The classification of STS based on the semantic relations between sentences within the STS is less syntactic, but allows us to correlate the STS with the type of speech: description, narration, reasoning, which meets the modern tasks of school education.
Among the ways of connecting sentences in the structure of the SCS, along with lexical and grammatical means, the correlation of the actual division of sentences-statements stands out: the order of words and the separation of information according to the degree of communicative significance are subject to a single communicative goal.
The functional-communicative typology of the STS is based not on the characteristics of the types of connection between sentences, but on the identification of the rhematic dominant. Since the rhematic center of a sentence-utterance, as a rule, is a predicate group, this classification takes into account the semantics of predicates in the position of a rheme. On this basis, static, dynamic, mixed STS are distinguished [Nikolina N.A. A complex syntactic whole // Modern Russian language: Theory. Analysis of language units. – Part 2 / ed. E.I. Dibrova. – M., 2001. S. 654-655].
So, the considered example of a parallel connection from the story of A.P. Chekhov is an example of a static STS, and in the STS from the story “The Shot” by A.S. Pushkin, action verbs are the rhematic dominant, i.e. this is an example of a dynamic FSC. Mixed SCS in this typology coincide with the similar type in the classification of A.M. Lomov both in terminology and in the nature of the dominant.
In fact, Galina Alexandrovna Zolotova singled out six rhematic dominants. Static SSCs are characterized by: 1) subject (description of the place); 2) qualitative (characteristic of an object or character); 3) static (description of the state of nature, environment, person) dominant; for dynamic STS – 4) actional dominant (reproduction of the dynamics of action); for mixed STS – 5) static-dynamic (characteristic of the state change) and 6) impressive dominants (transmission of subjective-evaluative perception of reality) [Zolotova G.A. Communicative aspects of Russian syntax. – M., 1982].
Summarizing the above, we define