V.Yu. Apresyan, O.E. Pekelis, 2012
Coordinating conjunctions are conjunctions used to express a coordinating syntactic connection (see the articles Coordination and Conjunction). In the general classification of conjunctions, coordinating conjunctions are contrasted with subordinating conjunctions.
Some coordinating conjunctions in value they are close to particles, cf. I accepted the offer, but he refused(same – particle) vs. I accepted the offer, but he refused(A - union). However, coordinating conjunctions and particles differ in their syntactic properties.
The following are the main syntactic criteria for distinguishing coordinating conjunctions and particles. Firstly, a coordinating conjunction (or one of its parts - for double (see) and repeating (see) conjunctions) always occupies a position between two conjuncts, and cannot, unlike a particle, be part of a conjunct; can't say * I accepted the offer, but he refused.
Secondly, conjunctions, unlike particles, require explicit expression of both conjuncts: cf. Petya or Masha will come(union), if impossible * Either Masha will come(union) and opportunities Masha will come too(particle) [Sannikov 2007]. AND, Unlike or, partially heterogeneous: in some meanings it is a union (cf. The child is cheerful and well-fed), and in some – a particle close in meaning to the particle even (He doesn't go for walks even in good weather.); Wed also an example in the previous phrase.
However, the boundary between a union and a particle is not rigid, and some units have, rather, an intermediate status. So, either... or traditionally classified as repeating conjunctions [Grammar 1980(2): §3136], however, the formal properties of this connector do not allow it to be characterized so unambiguously. On the one hand, the component whether is placed inside the conjunct (cf. (1)), which is characteristic of the particle. Moreover, in some contexts either... or resolves the omission of the second conjunct, and in this exhibits the property of a particle. Wed:
(1) It depends on them whether there will be whether Russia in food bondage or No. ["Agricultural Journal" (2002)]
(2) It depends on them whether there will be whether Russia is in food bondage.
On the other hand, however, in some other contexts the omission of the second conjunct is doubtful - which indicates, on the contrary, the union status either... or:
(3) Russia depends on them whether will be in food bondage or Germany.
(4) ? Russia depends on them whether will be in food bondage.
As can be seen from these examples, the admissibility of omitting the second conjunct depends on the semantics of the indirect question implied by the construction with either... or. If this is an alternative question that requires choosing one of the alternatives as an answer, omission is impossible; if this general question requiring an answer Yes or No- omission is acceptable.
Meanwhile, for an indisputable conjunction such a dependence of omission on semantic factors is uncharacteristic, cf. union or or, which prohibits omitting the second conjunct under any conditions:
(5) Meanwhile or help will arrive, or the hero himself will figure out how to get out. [IN. Belousova. Second Shot (2000)]
(6) *Meanwhile or help will arrive.
An indisputable particle, on the contrary, tends to allow omission regardless of conditions.
Thus, the assignment either... or to conjunctions - adopted, following academic grammars, and in this article - is prompted by tradition and is to some extent conditional.
According to formal criteria, coordinating conjunctions are divided into single, double and repeating, see Conjunction / clause 1.2. If not only coordinating, but also subordinating conjunctions are single and double, then repeating conjunctions are found only among coordinating ones and are discussed separately below, see.
The semantic classification of coordinating conjunctions, traditional for Russian studies and accepted by Academic grammarians, as well as used in this article, distinguishes three groups of conjunctions:
connecting ( and, yes in meaning And, and), cm. ;
adversatives ( ah, but, yes in meaning But), cm. ;
dividing ( or, or), cm. .
This tripartite division is based on two semantic features.
The main semantic feature underlying the classification is the attitude to reality, namely, reality / unreality / possibility of the events described. On this basis, connecting and adversative conjunctions, which indicate that the statement corresponds to reality with respect to both conjuncts, are opposed to divisive ones, which indicate that the statement may correspond to it with respect to both members, but in reality it corresponds only with respect to one. Wed. beautiful and stupid(connective conjunction), beautiful but stupid(adversive conjunction) vs. beautiful or stupid(separation union). The exception is the contexts of so-called conjunctive use or, when the statement is true regarding both terms, which is not consistent with the above definition of separability: It’s easy to read Pushkin or Lermontov, you can’t get through here in spring or autumn[Sannikov 2008: 113]. These are usually contexts of potentiality or recurring events, cf. Also In the evenings we read Pushkin or Lermontov. At the same time, however, the dividing semantics is preserved to some extent: it is assumed that in each specific situation Only one possibility is implemented (for more details, see
The second sign is the opposition/non-opposition of the components. On this basis, connecting and disjunctive conjunctions, which indicate the non-opposition of elements, differ from adversatives, which suggest that the elements are opposed.
Repeating conjunctions are found only among coordinating conjunctions. They are formed by reproducing the same or, less commonly, functionally similar components: and... and, or... or, then... then etc., which are placed before each of two or more equal and formally identical parts:
(7) I always had a dream that someone would appear who or will buy or will give or will give Spivakov a real violin for lifelong use. [WITH. Spivakova. Not everything (2002)]
The exception is the union whether... whether, parts of which are located in the position of the Wackernagel clitic, i.e. after the first full-stressed word:
(8) First of all, your peace is open, think about it; suddenly someone sees us, a dwarf whether, full-length whether household member (T. Mann, trans. S. Apta)
At the union either...or the first part is located in the position of the Wackernagel clitic, the second - in front of the conjunct:
(9) First of all, your peace is open, think about it; suddenly someone sees us, a dwarf whether, or full-sized household member
List of repeating conjunctions: And... And... And; neither... neither ... neither; whether... whether... whether; or... or... or; That... That ... That; either... or... or,Not That... Not That... Not That; or... or... or; be ... be, though... though; That... That... A That; That... That ... A That And; or... or... That whether; or... or... or; That whether... That whether... or; be That... or; or... or... A Maybe be; Maybe... Maybe... A Maybe be; Maybe... Maybe; Maybe... A Maybe be.
Repeating conjunctions deserve detailed consideration because they have common semantic and syntactic features that are typologically relevant. To understand these features, it is important to distinguish a repeating conjunction from a formally similar unit - a repeated single conjunction. The main formal difference between them is that a repeating conjunction is repeated before each, including the first, conjunct, while a single conjunction can only be located between conjunctions, thereby not affecting the position before the first conjunct. Wed. examples with repeating and...and and repeat single And, respectively:
(10) Sounded And requirements, And criticism … ["Weekly Magazine" (2003)]
(11) So that inside you there is peace, and outside there is a lively life, cultural values And boutiques, And trams, And pedestrians with shopping, And small cafes with the aroma of sweet cheesecakes. ["Brownie" (2002)]
Compared to single ones, repeated conjunctions have two common semantic properties that are typologically relevant. In a sentence with a repeating conjunction:
(1) it is emphasized that each conjunction is involved in the composition (see);
(2) each conjunction is considered separately (see).
(51) The theater model with a signature festival is good both for the city and *(for) the theater.["Screen and Stage" (2004)]
(52) Drank tea sometimes with a watchman, sometimes *(with) a watchman. [WITH. Spivakova. Not everything (2002)]
(53) And we must prepare either to death, or *(to) fight. [A. Rybakov. Heavy Sand (1975-1977)]
(54) Nuclear testing neither in Russia nor *(in) the USA didn't stop. ["Izvestia" (2003)]
(55) They are recording the program either on Wednesday or *(on) Thursday. [collective. SpotlightParisHilton (2009-2011)]
This distinguishes a repeating conjunction from a single one, which often does not require a repetition of the preposition:
(56) Mix milk with yolks and salt, pour into flour and knead soft dough. [Recipes national cuisines: Czech Republic (2000-2005)]
The Corpus contains examples of the omission of a preposition and in a sentence with a repeated conjunction, which, however, give the impression of some grammatical carelessness:
(57) He or in Chelyabinsk or Vladimir prison [IN. I. Vernadsky. Diaries: 1926-1934 (1926-1934)]
(58) She takes photographs of her husband, friends, son Mitka, clouds, trees in the window and asks them to “click” her, and her again, sometimes in a strict, sometimes cheeky pose, now in a white dress, now in a pink one... as if he wants to capture every moment of his passing life... [R. Solntsev. Half-life From the life of A. A. Levushkin-Alexandrov, as well as anecdotes about him (2000-2002)]
(59) ... said the French despot, without stopping neither before political nor natural boundaries European states. [P. P. Karatygin. Temporaries and favorites of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries (1870)]
The conjunction that most consistently resists the absence of a second preposition is and...and - no such examples have been found.
The requirement to repeat the preposition has grammatical grounds. In the absence of the second preposition, the first preposition finds itself in a syntactic position in which it controls the case of the noun across the boundary of a prepositional phrase, whereas control usually occurs within the same syntactic group: * mix milk and [with [yolks] IG] PreG and [salt] IG. In the corpus examples above, this situation of non-standard control is avoided, apparently, through ellipsis: the second preposition is not completely absent, but elliptical, therefore at a deep level it controls the second conjunct, cf. or [ in [Chelyabinsk] or [in [Vladimir prison]]. However, the fact that these examples are still on the verge of admissibility suggests that the ellipsis of the second preposition is difficult (a separate open question is why it is difficult). For comparison, in a construction with a single conjunction, this difficulty with control is solved by composing not prepositional phrases, but nominal phrases: mix milk [with [yolks] IG and [salt] IG ] PreG. However, with a repeated conjunction, a similar syntactic interpretation is excluded, because the repeated conjunction marks the boundaries of both conjunctions.
Some repeating conjunctions allow for an asymmetrical arrangement of parts, in which one of the parts is not located on the left periphery of the conjunct, as expected, but appears to be shifted to the left or right:
(60) At Le Mans, during preparation for the competition, it became clear why ceramic brake linings on a road car are bad - unless you shake them properly with one or two sharp stops, they will or ineffective, or will not work at all. ["Autopilot" (2002)]
(61) And you, Lyalya, clear the table, feed the dog and take care of the girl, otherwise she or will break the cradle, or the cradle will crush her! [F. Iskander. Chick Honors Customs (1967)]
(62) That he noticed a crease on his wrist, That dimple in the lower back, That discovered that she dark hair not just one uniform dark brown color, but from the underside, on the neck, behind the ears, they are lighter and softer, as if of a different variety. [L. Ulitskaya. Kukotsky's case (2000)]
Such constructions are syntactically heterogeneous. Some of them allow a double syntactic interpretation. Yes, a proposal First he noticed a fold on his wrist, then a dimple in the lower back can be interpreted as a result of the displacement of one of the parts of the union:
(63) First he noticed a fold on his wrist, then a dimple in the lower back< Он замечал то складочку на запястье, то ямку на пояснице
or it is possible - as a result of the ellipsis:
(64) Either he noticed a fold on his wrist, or he noticed a dimple in the lower back
In other cases, on the contrary, both interpretations are questionable. Wed:
(65) And I am sincerely surprised by the fastidiousness, the fiddling on the part of women who or they're crazy about fat, or, their dog knows what they need (M. Zoshchenko)
It is difficult to talk about displacement here because there is no grammatically acceptable initial sentence (??? either they're crazy, or their dog knows what they want). Ellipsis is excluded because the conjuncts lack the lexically identical elements necessary for creative contraction.
Examples of the latter kind deviate from the canonical composition: they contain different members of the sentence, and such a composition is not reducible to the canonical one through any syntactic operations (see the article Composition). According to I.M. Boguslavsky, this construction is an “emergency technique”, “a way legitimized by the language system to resolve some conflicts that arise during composition” [Apresyan et al. 2010: 269]. Thus, in the example above from M. M. Zoshchenko, the asymmetrical construction reflects the conflict between the initially conceived syntactic construction - the composition of verb groups, and the final author's intention - the composition of a verb group with a clause.
In clausal composition using and... and And no no, conjunctions cannot have the same topics. Wed:
(66) *Neither Petya didn’t drink neither Petya didn't have a bite
(67) Neither Petya didn’t drink neither Vanya didn't drink
(68) AND Petya drank And Petya took a bite - permissible only when interpreted And as a repeated single conjunction, the first conjunction of which is in the pretext; Wed semantic and intonation difference from the following example, where And– repetitive
(69) AND Petya drank And Vanya drank - interpretation is acceptable And as a repeating conjunction
Repetitive And has, in addition, the following property: when composing verb groups and... and usually requires inversion; Wed weirdness ? He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at the university, and is engaged in scientific work.
Apparently, both properties are based on, firstly, the connecting semantics of these conjunctions and, secondly, the general semantic property (1): a repeating conjunction emphasizes that each conjunction is involved in the composition (see). According to connective semantics, and and... and, And no no express that both conjunctions are true. In accordance with property (2), the meaning of ‘both’ is emphasized additionally. Meanwhile, there is no reason to emphasize the meaning of ‘both’ if we are talking about the same thing; hence the ban on matching topics. The topic is prototypically expressed by a noun rather than a verb. Hence the requirement that the initial thematic position in conjuncts be occupied by nouns and not verbs, i.e. requirement of inversion: this emphasizes the difference in topics.
For comparison, repeating conjunctions that do not belong to the class of connectives do not prohibit the coincidence of topics:
(70) In relation to the novel, there are only two policies - either he exists or he doesn’t...[IN. Aksenov. Mysterious Passion (2009)]
(71) Then you leave, then you come, but we don’t eat and we don’t sing. [A. P. Gaidar. A military secret (1934)]
In addition, topic matches are not prohibited by a single analogue and...and, connective conjunction And:
(72) Just because you will be kicked out and You You will never get anywhere in your life - neither into the civil service, nor into other organizations. ["Weekly Magazine" (2003)]
2. Composing the components of a syntactic group for a double conjunction is difficult to approximately the same extent as for a repeating one (see). This restriction applies mainly to the prepositional group and the adjective group; yes, for the union both... and and the case of an adjective group, the only example found in the Corpus is:
(73) This chapter discusses the composition and distribution of ecdysteroids in plants, phylogenetically both close and distant from each other, differing in biomorphological characteristics and habitat. [Phytoecdysteroids (2003)]
The composition of incomplete noun phrases, on the contrary, is quite widely represented:
(74) Today commonplace for all market economies there has become the availability antitrust laws and structures <…>["Rossiyskaya Gazeta" (2003)]
(75) Direct localization in time is limited only very general undifferentiated not so much knowledge as “feeling” that a given event is close because it is relevant, or distant because it is alien. [WITH. L. Rubinstein. Fundamentals of General Psychology (1940)]
3. Repeating a preposition in a construction with a double conjunction is desirable, but this restriction is implemented with less strictness than in the case of a repeating conjunction (see). Yes, double alliance both... and, close in value to the repeating one and... and, unlike the latter, allows the omission of a preposition:
(76) <…>laws that to one degree or another infringe upon the rights and freedoms of individuals are issued both at the federal and regional levels. ["The Lawyer" (2004)]
(77) Revival both externally and internally market is explained by a seasonal factor, notes EuroChem representative Vladimir Torin. (www.rbcdaily.ru)
4. Asymmetrical arrangement of parts of the union resolve unions both... and, not only... but also, rather... than and some others:
(78) The essence of the work was both in hardware and software improvements, - says the general designer of NPO Almaz named after. Academician A. A. Raspletin Alexander Lemansky. ["Aerospace Defense" (2002)]
(79) Until now, training is structured the way a particular teacher wants, although the requirements of the Unified All-Russian Sports Classification have long been in force, which directly states the need to pass a technical exam not only for obtaining a degree (kyu or dan), but also sports categories and degrees in judo. ["Martial Art of the Planet" (2004)]
(80) <…>is a design more like concrete-mixing plant than for an educational institution. [N. Shcherbak. Romance with the Faculty of Philology (2010)]
Connective conjunctions connect two parts that are not opposed to each other, each of which corresponds to reality (for semantic features relevant to the classification of coordinating conjunctions, see).
List of connecting unions: and, yes, and also; both... and, not only that... also, not... but, not... but, not to say that... but, not as much... as, not only... but also, not that... but, rather... than ; and... and... yes... yes; no no; whether... whether; or or; then... then; either... or, not that... not that; or either; be... be, at least... at least; then... then... and then; then... then... and even; either... or... or; either... or... or; either... or... or; be it... or; or... or... or maybe; maybe... maybe... maybe; perhaps... perhaps; maybe... or maybe.
Connective conjunctions according to formal criteria are traditionally divided into single, double and repeating (see Union / clause 1.2); Moreover, the formal classification correlates with the semantic one, so it is retained in this description.
a) single ( and, yes, and also), which are located between two conjunctions: Katya and Masha; cabbage soup and porridge;complex carbohydrates and fatty acids, cm. ;
b) double, the first part of which is located in front of the first of the two conjuncts, and the second - in front of the second ( not only... but also, not so much... as, rather... than, not that... (a), not that... but, how... so etc.): not only Petya, but also Masha; not so much arrogant as shy; more young than old; Not that he's a complete idiot, but a little stupid; not only offended, but slightly upset; both in Moscow and St. Petersburg, cm. ;
c) repeated before each of the conjuncts, the number of which is not limited ( and... and, no no and etc.): and Katya, and Masha, and Petya; neither to yourself nor to people, cm. .
Single connecting conjunctions are located between two conjunctions: Petya and Vasya;cabbage soup and porridge; students as well as teachers.
List of single connecting conjunctions: and, yes, and also.
The meaning of conjunctions is not usually explained in traditional grammars. However, in modern Russian studies there are attempts to interpret different uses of the main single connecting conjunction - the union And. This article (without rather complex analytical interpretations) provides the main uses of the conjunction And in accordance with how they are highlighted in [Uryson 2011]:
And normal consequence (see);
Accurate union statistics And impossible due to homonymy with the particle And, however, the main number of uses is in the conjunction.
In one of its meanings, And"transfers", union And semantics and syntactic properties are similar to conjunctions Yes(its statistics are impossible due to homonymy with more frequent lexemes – adversarial union Yes Yes) And and: Bread and sausage for breakfast; Bread and sausage for breakfast; For breakfast there is bread and also sausage.
AND"transfers" Yes And and usually connect parts of a sentence, but not whole sentences:
(81) I have a certificate of complete secondary education And silver medal [Autobiography (2006)]
(82) His food was bread Yes water (O. Tchaikovskaya)
(83) With mental retardation, there is often a delay in speech development, and fairly persistent phonetic-phonemic disorders and articulation disorders ["Questions of Psychology" (2004)]
There are also differences between them. Yes - obsolete and colloquial conjunction, and - unusable. Besides, Yes And and semantically narrower than a conjunction And: They make a quantitative assessment.
Yes often assumes that what is being enumerated is small:
(84) They talked about Adamovich and his “Paris note”, which had all sorts of followers Chervinskaya and Steiger.(V. Kreid)
(85) It seems that they have climbed into such a wilderness that everywhere there is only bushes and swamps and not a single village (V. Bykov)
(86) Kaltsaty himself seemed homeless, a traveling magician, whose entire luggage was shaving brush and razor(A. Azolsky)
(87) In this small room table and bed were placed (B. Ekimov)
And, on the contrary, often assumes that what is being enumerated is large:
(88) At the plenary and sectional sessions, the round table, speakers psychologists, psychotherapists, teachers, philologists, as well as students and social workers["Questions of Psychology" (2003)]
(89) In the morning after meals, one tablet of multivitamins is enough, which contains B vitamins, nicotinic acid and a complex of microelements: calcium, magnesium, selenium, zinc, and methionine["Health" (1999)]
(90) Along the edges of a round table covered with a tablecloth<…>Small plates with various snacks, cut into slices, are placed, such as: cheese, whitefish, salmon, ham, corned beef, fried game, sausage, as well as lobster, caviar, grated green cheese, grated corned beef, herring, cut into pieces and seasoned with mustard sauce[E. Molokhovets. A gift for young housewives, or a means to reduce household expenses / Table setting and dishes (1875-1900)]
AND“normal consequence” connects sentences or homogeneous members: It started to rain and we went home; She saw him and smiled. Wed. Also:
(91) Small splashes flew high in all directions, and among these splashes a tiny rainbow appeared for a moment. ["Murzilka" (2001)]
AND“comparisons” connects sentences with repeated or semantically similar predicates: Vasya is an excellent student, and Petya is an excellent student; You are a worker and I am a worker. Wed. Also:
(92) I'm a pig And you are a pig, / All of us, brothers, are pigs (S. Marshak)
Double connecting conjunctions are those conjunctions, the first part of which is located before the first of two conjuncts, and the second - before the second:
(93) But this, you see, not so much frustrating, How many encourages [“ Folk art"(2004)]
List of double connecting conjunctions: both... and, not only that... also, not... but, not... but, not only... but also, not so much... as, rather... than, not that... ( a), not that... ah, not to say that... but.
Statistics of all double unions are difficult due to the uncertainty of the distance between the parts of the union.
All these unions are united by common semantics. They assume that the second part of the statement, introduced by the second part of the conjunction, from the point of view of the Speaker, is unexpected for the Addressee or is somewhat less obvious. In this case, the relationship between the first and second parts may be different:
a) they can be equal in terms of compliance with reality ( both...and, little Togo What... more and, not only...but also):
(94) Adobe products, according to company representatives, are designed How for large enterprises, so and for the public sector [Computerworld (2004)]
(95) He was not very happy with his wife, who not only that was a rare bore also walked left and right (O. Zueva)
(96) Taken into account Not only blood type, but also a bunch of all sorts of characteristics (V. Strelnikova)
b) the second part can completely negate the first ( no... ah, no... but):
(97) Actually, it has always been here Not luxury, A means of satiation [Recipes of national cuisines: Scandinavian cuisine (2000-2005)]
c) the second part may correspond to reality to a greater extent than the first ( not only but, not so much... as, rather... than, not that... (a), not that... ah, not to say that... but):
(98) It turned out to be decisive for the writer’s fate not so much critic's opinion, How many"official position" of the authorities (A. Kraevsky)
(99) He's a man quicker skeptical, how enthusiastic (D. Granin)
(100) Then for exactly two weeks I strictly followed the rule “only raw vegetables + 5% lactic acid products + apples + egg” - it was boring and not to say that tasty and satisfying, But tolerant and experienceable [Kim Protasov's Diet (2007-2010)]
(101) Book life in the capital Not really flows in full swing but also does not stand still [Izvestia (2003)]
The last two classes are semantically hybrid cases, because, firstly, they connect parts that are varying degrees correspond to reality (which brings them closer to dividing unions (see)), secondly, to some extent they are opposed (which brings them closer to adversative unions (see)). However, such conjunctions cannot be considered adversative, since, unlike adversatives, they indicate that only one of the conjuncts fully corresponds to reality. Wed. She's beautiful and smart(adversive conjunction, both conjuncts are true) vs. She's not pretty, but she's smart(substitutive conjunction, only the second conjunct is true). Therefore, adversative conjunctions can only connect conjuncts that do not exclude each other (cf. irregularity * She's stupid but smart), and substitutive ones often connect mutually exclusive conjunctions ( She's not stupid, she's smart). Conjunctions of group b) are called substitutive, conjunctions of group c) are called gradational [Sannikov 2008].
Two semantic features of this subgroup of conjunctions - an indication of the surprise of the second situation and the equality of the parts - give another effect, namely, an indication that the first and second situations in total are a lot; compare:
(102) Laws that to one degree or another infringe upon the rights and freedoms of individuals are issued How at the federal so and regional levels ["Lawyer" (2004)]
(103) Not only that Berman was charming, extremely funny and eccentric - he did magnificent tricks in flight (I. Keogh)
(104) Dolls and jewelry were selling out Not only festival participants, but also museums in Russia and neighboring countries [“Folk Art” (2004)]
Due to the presence of the semantic component ‘many’, these conjunctions are not combined with words with the meaning of small quantity: it is impossible to say *He only subscribes to both art and math magazines[Sannikov 2008]; * Not only was he five minutes late, he also gave an excellent report.
Both... and does not connect clauses, but only components of a smaller volume (nominal, prepositional, verbal and similar groups): it is impossible to say?? He both gave a report and wrote an article, *As the sun shines brightly, so does the fresh breeze blow[Sannikov 2008].
Semantically, substitutional conjunctions are close to constructions with a preposition instead of,
indicating the “replacement”, “crossing out” of one situation by another. The pragmatics of substitutive conjunctions is also specific: they assume that the Speaker, knowing the truth, refutes the erroneous ideas that the Addressee has, i.e. They are inherently polemical [Sannikov 2008].
In Russian studies the union no... but and the obsolete union synonymous with it no... but are usually considered not as separate lexical units, but as a combination of corresponding conjunctions with negation. However, [Sannikov 2008] gives the following argument in favor of their autonomy as unions, comparing them with a single union But, taken in the context of negation. In the case of a substitutive union no... but the content of one composed part completely excludes the content of the second (there is a semantic “crossing out”), and in the case of a conjunction But with negation, one part does not exclude the other: cf. He loves English literature, but not Dickens, if impossible * He loves not English literature, but Dickens.
An important syntactic property of substitutive conjunctions no... ah, no... but is that they require a singular verb in case both conjuncts have singular; Wed Both Petya and Kolya came(regular connecting conjunction) vs. It was not Petya who came, but Kolya(substitutive conjunction).
According to the observation of [Sannikov 2008], substitutive conjunctions are limited in the types of speech acts (see Glossary) in which they are used: conjunction no...ah impossible in special questions, where the question word in meaning refers to the verb: cf. irregularity * Where will Petya, not Kolya, go? If the question word in its meaning refers to the entire phrase, then the conjunction no... but possible, in particular, with question words For what And Why: For what<почему>will not Kolya go, but Petya?
Gradational conjunctions indicate the obvious inequality and asymmetry (although not contradictory) of conjuncts and the fact that they correspond to reality to varying degrees. The description of these unions in this article is based on the description of [Sannikov 2008].
The statistics of all these unions, like any double unions, is difficult due to the uncertainty of the distance between the parts of the union.
Union not only but indicates that both conjuncts correspond to reality, as opposed to the expectations of the Addressee, who, in the opinion of the Speaker, could, based on his knowledge of the world or of a particular situation, believe that only the first one corresponds to it:
(105) This dish is typical Not only for Estonian, but also for Finnish cuisine [Recipes of national cuisines: Estonia (2000-2005)]
Unions not that... (a), not that... but And not to say that... but partly closer to concessive conjunctions (see Subordinating conjunctions / paragraph 6). They indicate that the Speaker acknowledges that the first part of the statement is not a completely accurate description of the situation taking place, but believes that the second part of the statement is completely true:
(106) Believe me, over the years of working at school I have seen a lot and I can say that vodka at the age of thirteen is... well Not really normal phenomenon But, in general, it happens [“Dasha” (2004)]
(107) To Nice from Hyères Not really far, but not at hand [V. Craid. G. Ivanov in Hyeres (2003)]
(108) Head not really I was sick A it was kind of completely empty, rattling [Yu. Dombrovsky. Faculty of Unnecessary Things (1978)]
(109) Not really gained weight, A somehow became coarser, defined... [I. Grekova. On Trials (1967)]
(110) Not to say that this performance broke the ice, But the confrontation was somewhat weakened [D. Bykov. Spelling (2002)]
(111) The day before yesterday we placed a comrade in the nervous department of our hospital, not to say that crazy But this comrade was completely out of his mind [V. Pietsukh God in the City (2001)]
Not as much...as indicates that both conjuncts correspond to reality, but the second, contrary to the expectations of the Addressee, to a greater extent than the first: This is not so much my merit as it is luck. Wed. Also:
(112) It seemed that the receiving party wanted not so much show yourself How many look at “these mysterious Russians” for yourself [“Computerworld” (2004)]
Communicatively not as much... as serves to contrast contrasting rhemas (see Communicative sentence structure): She's not so much-smart, how much ¯ educated.
This conjunction connects homogeneous members of a sentence, but not entire clauses, cf. irregularity * It's not so much that she's sick, but that she needs rest.*It's not so much his suit that's outdated, but his boots that need cleaning. if correct She's not so much sick as she needs rest; He doesn’t dress in an old-fashioned way so much as he doesn’t keep his shoes clean. However, when contrasting themes are contrasted, this prohibition is lifted:
(113) Real truth: not so much-I serve you, How many¯ you follow me. [N. S. Leskov. A seedy family (1874)]
(114) Not so much- art reflects human psychology, How many human¯psychology is reflected in art, as well as in other forms creative activity, connecting a person with the world and opening the world to a person. ["Questions of Psychology" (2004)]
Union rather than indicates an even greater difference in the degree of correspondence to reality than not as much... as. According to the Speaker, the conjunction introduced by the component quicker, corresponds to reality almost one hundred percent, and the conjunction introduced by the component how, – only to a small extent; compare:
(115) He is a man quicker skeptical, how enthusiastic [D. Granin. Bison (1987)]
It brings us closer together rather than with substitutive conjunctions (see), which indicate that one of the conjuncts is not true ( more skeptical than enthusiastic ≈ not enthusiastic, but skeptical).
Therefore, in phrases like He is more conservative than liberal, She is more kind than evil union rather than cannot be replaced by a union not as much... as (#He is not so much a liberal as a conservative; #She's not so much evil as she is kind), which presupposes a conjunction of composed terms, impossible with their antonymy.
Unions and... and(accurate statistics are impossible due to homonymy with the union And) And no no close in meaning to the union And“enumeration” (see) without negation and in combination with negation, respectively: cf. meaning of phrases Schoolchildren and students came vs. , Schoolchildren and students did not come vs. Neither schoolchildren nor students came.
According to [Uryson 2011], repeating conjunctions differ in meaning from their corresponding single ones in that they assume that the enumeration is exhaustive: phrase Both schoolchildren and students came indicates that no other groups were expected and the phrase Schoolchildren and students came does not imply this. Wed. Also:
(116) Exhibitions are losing both participants and visitors― information about new products is easy to obtain via the Internet
(117) I don't want anyone neither offend neither insult (E. Grishkovets)
[Sannikov 2008] describes the semantic specificity of repeated conjunctions in comparison with single ones somewhat differently, namely, he sees in them the semantic component ‘more than the norm’: cf. He brought apples and grapes and ice cream vs. He brought apples, grapes and ice cream(the first sentence contains an assessment - apples, grapes and ice cream are a lot, and the second sentence is neutral); He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at universities, and is engaged in scientific work. vs. He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at universities and is engaged in scientific work.(the first sentence contains an assessment - lectures to schoolchildren, teaching at the university and scientific work– that’s a lot, the second sentence is neutral). When composing verb groups using repeated And inversion required; Wed weirdness?? He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at universities, and is engaged in scientific work..
These conjunctions, unlike their corresponding single ones, are impossible with symmetrical predicates, cf. Katya and Petya kiss, Katya and Petya do not kiss vs. impossibility # Both Katya and Petya kiss, #Neither Katya nor Petya kiss with the interpretation of symmetry (see also).
Opposite conjunctions connect two parts opposed to each other, each of which corresponds to reality.
The semantic difference between connective and adversative conjunctions is especially noticeable when the two components being composed are completely identical (example from [Sannikov 2008]): Kolya is red, and Petya is reddish(the similarities are emphasized) vs. Kolya is red-haired, and Petya is reddish.(the difference is emphasized).
List of adversative conjunctions: but yes in meaning but, however, and, on the other hand, and that.
They are divided into three semantic groups:
The main adversative conjunctions are ah, but, yes in meaning But(its statistics are impossible due to homonymy with other lexemes – connecting union Yes and especially the affirmative particle Yes), however(accurate statistics are impossible due to homonymy with the introductory word however), but, in which the value of compensation prevails, and then...(statistics are not possible due to homonymy with the union And in combination with a pronoun That). In academic grammars, adversative conjunctions also include same And yet, however, syntactically these units are particles (the first with an adversative, and the second with a concessive meaning).
Basic uses of the conjunction But:
1. But"abnormal consequence": It was raining, but he didn't take an umbrella. Wed. Also:
(118) The army is mired in corruption, But The military prosecutor's office is keeping its finger on the pulse: no, no, yes, it will lead to clean water another grabber in uniform ["Moskovsky Komsomolets" (2004)]
(119) One should shout: “What a fool you are!” But I was silent... [“Dasha” (2004)]
2. But She's beautiful but stupid[stupidity is more important]; She's stupid but beautiful[beauty is more important] [Sannikov 2008]; Wed Also:
(120) Lavrov, together with his classmates, goes to civil uprising, and then becomes a cadet at the Leningrad Military Air Academy, which allowed him to receive a “chaotic, but fairly complete engineering education” [Computerworld (2004)]
Towards a union But(see) an unusual union is close however. It is used, with appropriate stylistic restrictions, in many contexts similar to But"abnormal consequence" and But"opposite assessment":
1) however"abnormal consequence": She received a good education, but cannot find a job. Wed. Also:
(121) In Russia, a bell under an arch was part of a horse harness, however Not every owner could afford to buy an expensive cast product. ["Folk Art" (2004)]
2) however“opposite assessment” (of the two components expressing the opposite assessment, the one that comes second is more important): She is very capable, but did not receive a good education. Wed. Also:
(122) The young actor’s work is not flawless, however due to its natural organic nature and tendency to create a holistic image<...>he succeeded in the main thing... [“Screen and Stage” (2004)]
Union Yes both semantically and stylistically more limited than But(about the semantics of the union But cm. ) – it has a conversational tone. As [Sannikov 2008] notes, contrary to tradition, Yes cannot be considered a synonymous equivalent But. The most common usage for Yes occurs when the first composed part contains an indication of a hypothetical event, and the second contains an indication of the reason that prevented its implementation: I would go to a restaurant, but there is no money. Wed. also examples from the Corpus:
(123) I would go to visit him, Yes this is just unnecessary worry." [V. Kreid. Georgy Ivanov in Hyeres (2003)]
(124) Everything is nice, I wish I could jinx it, but out of nowhere there’s a “raid” on the oligarchs [“Tomorrow” (2003)]
Moreover, according to the same source, uses similar to But"opposite assessment" ( She's beautiful but stupid) are less common, and uses similar to But"abnormal consequence" ( *It was raining, but he didn’t take an umbrella) are uncharacteristic.
A nasty union A has no exact analogues in other languages and is translated differently in different contexts - for example, into English as but or and. Regarding the semantics of the union A There are many works, but unambiguous rules for its use have not yet been formulated. In [Zaliznyak, Mikaelyan 2005] it is recognized as a linguistically specific word, an indicator of the idea of the Subject’s lack of control over circumstances. This feature is manifested in comparison with the union But, which assumes that the Subject is in control of what is happening. Wed. He was going to go to medical school, but changed his mind, if impossible * , but changed my mind. However, the rule of uncontrollability does not work in all cases: it is enough to expand the context, and the phrase becomes correct: * He was planning to go to medical school, and then changed my mind.
In the work [Uryson 2011: 170–171] the difference A from But described somewhat differently. Both conjunctions introduce an unexpected state of affairs: She was invited, but she didn't come; She was invited, but she didn’t come. However, unlike But, union A indicates the speaker’s ignorance of the factors due to which an unexpected situation still takes place: cf. right She was invited, but she didn't come for a good reason vs. weirdness?? She was invited andshe didn't come for a good reason. Thus the union A as if it captures the surprise of the speaker, in contrast to the more objective But.
This description is close to the description of the difference But from A in progress [ Paducheva 1997]. Union A, Unlike But, has egocentric semantics: in a sentence It was raining, but Kolya didn’t take an umbrella The subject who is aware of the abnormality of the existing state of affairs is the Speaker, while in the sentence It was raining, but Kolya did not take an umbrella it is the Subject of the action himself – Kolya.
Authoritative analysis different meanings union A presented in the works [Kreidlin, Paducheva 1974 a, b] and its subsequent descriptions [Sannikov 2008], [Uryson 2011] to one degree or another rely on these works. Basic meanings of the union A according to [Kreidlin, Paducheva 1974 a, b]:
1) A“non-compliance with the norm”: It's December and still no snow. Wed. Also:
(125) I imagined that<...>it works one way A It turned out that it is structured completely differently. [E. Grishkovets. Simultaneously (2004)]
2) and “comparisons”: Last year the summer was dry, but this year it was rainy. Wed. Also:
(126) But first of all, I must treat the guests. In winter and autumn - mushrooms, in spring - larks, A in summer - cones. ["Murzilka" (2002)]
3) A"accessions": I wait and wait, and time goes by in the evening. Wed. Also:
(127) You are here, and I'm running like crazy and looking for["Screen and Stage" (2004)]
In academic grammars it is also recorded as a colloquial and obsolete conjunction en(in combination with particles Not And No), which is currently quite common both in the Newspaper Subcorpus (1.4 per million) and in the Main Corpus (3 per million):
(128) I should finish my meal here, en no, the traditions of Rabelais are alive on the banks of the Seine [“Brownie” (2002)]
It expresses the following meaning: the Subject had some expectations regarding the situation (reflected in the first of the composed parts), which, unexpectedly for him, are refuted by the opposite expected state of affairs (reflected in the second of the composed parts). At the same time, in the union en there is some pragmatic “schadenfreude” involved - The speaker is often satisfied with the deception of expectations:
(129) So you wanted me not to receive anything, en fair people judged differently (Yu. O. Dombrovsky)
For the union en it is extremely typical to use it in combination with the particle No and other negative words:
(130) It seemed to me that this was done for the sake of art and new acquaintances with girls, en No! (Yu. Trifonov)
(131) I reached the twelfth page, wants to turn it over - en nothing works out. (M. Sergeev)
Unions but And and then(yes even then) combines an indication of the desirability/undesirability of situations. Wherein but– an “optimistic” compensation union, often expressing the idea that a bad situation is compensated by the presence of a good one, and and then (yes even then) - "pessimistic", often expressing the idea that the insufficiency of a good situation is aggravated by further restrictions that make it even less satisfactory:
(132) It’s pointless to think about it all the time, but you can feel [E. Grishkovets. Simultaneously (2004)]
(133) The huge sea lion, a relative of seals, is able to hold its small harem for only about a week, Yes and then through constant battles. ["Knowledge is power" (2003)]
Union compensation but A large literature is devoted [Levin 1970], [Sannikov 1989], [Sannikov 2008]. In this article, its semantics is presented in accordance with the analysis given in [V. Apresyan 2004]. The main semantic idea of the conjunction but -‘the presence of some undesirable situation (first conjunct) is completely balanced by the presence of some more important desirable situation (second conjunct)’: She's lazy, but she's smart. Wed. Also:
(134) My ideas about freedom of speech in Russia and society in general have become much less optimistic, but more accurate. ["Top Secret" (2003)]
The reverse order of situations is not typical; Wed non-standard? She is smart, but lazy. But semantically at the same time comes closer to the conjunction of clause only(which is considered among the concessional ones in the article Subordinating conjunctions / clause 6.4) and is contrasted with it. Only introduces the idea that the presence of some desirable situation (the first conjunction) is partially, but not completely, invalidated by the presence of some less important undesirable situation (the second conjunction): She's smart, just lazy. Reversing the order of attributes is not possible: *She is lazy, only smart. Contrast between but And only especially noticeable when the conjunctions coincide: The dress was narrow, but long[narrowness – negative property, length – positive] vs. The dress was narrow, only long[narrowness is a positive property, length is a negative property].
Union and then(yes even then) also often introduces an indication of the desirability / undesirability of situations, however, the assessment of the general state of affairs that he introduces is pessimistic, because The first, not very good situation, is aggravated by the presence of the second, even worse:
(135) He will arrive only in August, and then for one week; He rarely does his homework and then, as a rule, carelessly, “with your left hand.” ["Dasha" (2004)]
Such usages are most typical for and then(yes even then), however, are not the only ones possible; Wed "optimistic example": There were few mistakes[the situation is not too bad] , and even then through carelessness[this fact makes the situation even less bad] . This indicates that and then conveys a more general meaning, namely ‘Y is even smaller than X’, where the first situation X, already initially strongly limited, is further limited by the second situation Y: The doctor sees only on Mondays, and then from twelve to two; The car is given away for next to nothing - a thousand dollars, and then in installments. Since the component ‘little’ is often interpreted as ‘bad’, in usage and then usually gives "pessimistic" interpretations.
Union and then... formed from a particle And in combination with a pronoun That, and is synonymous with similar combinations available in modern language: They have one car, and it's a bad one.(union) vs. They have one car, and it's a bad one.(particle and pronoun).
Dividing conjunctions connect two parts that are not opposed to each other, one of which corresponds to reality.
List of separation unions: or, or, or else, not that, not that; or... or, either... or; whether... whether, whether... or, at least... at least, what... what, be it... or; or even and, or maybe (maybe) and; not... so, if (and) not... then; and maybe (to be), maybe (to be)... maybe (to be), maybe (to be)... and maybe (to be); not that... not that, or... or; then... then.
In [Grammar 1953], the meaning of disjunctive conjunctions is formulated as follows: they indicate either the alternation of phenomena ( It's cold, it's hot), or the reality of only one of the listed facts or phenomena ( Either Petya or Kolya will come). These traditionally include or, or... or, either, or... or, then... then, not that... not that, either... or. The work [Sannikov 2008] identifies 8 semantic groups of disjunctive conjunctions and up to 30 different lexical units. This article uses the classification of dividing unions proposed by V. Z. Sannikov:
The main meaning of the main dividing union is or(accurate statistics are impossible due to partial homonymy with the repeating conjunction or or) – has been discussed many times in domestic and foreign linguistic literature [Galkina-Fedoruk et al. 1958], [Paducheva 1964], , , [Beloshapkova 1977], [Gladky 1979]. There are two main points of view on its semantics.
In classical Russian studies and in some Western studies, its meaning is usually interpreted as a dividing disjunction, or “mutual exclusion” (only one of the composed parts corresponds to reality), i.e. phrases like - Who's going to come?– Masha or Kolya are interpreted as true if one of the participants in the situation comes, but not both.
In some, mainly formally oriented, studies, its meaning is determined logically - namely, as a non-separating disjunction (i.e., either one of the conjuncts or both may correspond to reality), i.e. phrases like - Who's going to come?– Masha or Kolya are perceived as acceptable even if both participants in the situation arrive.
The language examples allow for both interpretations: Tomorrow I'll be in London or Paris suggests that only one of the possibilities can come true, while phrases like If you have a sore throat or a fever, you should not go for a walk. assume that both possibilities can be realized simultaneously. This article adopts the interpretation of semantics or, proposed in [Sannikov 2008], according to which the expression X or Y means that each of these two situations is possible, but not obligatory [Sannikov 2008: 193]:
(136) During cooking, two or shake the dishes three times. [Recipes of national cuisines: France (2000-2005)]
Phrases like There is a river or lake nearby according to [Sannikov 2008: 193] they mean that “maybe there is a river, but maybe there isn’t; the same should be said about the lake.” Natural interpretations of this phrase imply that either there is a river or a lake, and if they were not there, then the Speaker would present a third option ( There is a river or lake nearby, and if not, then there should at least be a stream). Thus, the semantics itself or does not prescribe an indispensable correspondence to reality of at least one of the conjuncts, but in the absence of a third option, such correspondence is derived from pragmatic laws, in particular the information content postulate of P. Grice.
U or There are a number of non-disjunctive uses that are not discussed in this article ( or adversative ( Stop talking, or I'll kick you out of class.), or explanatory ( transgenic or genetically modified organisms), or connecting ( They sat on sofas, chairs, beds or just on the floor) etc.).
Synonym or - union or, which in [Sannikov 2008] qualifies as rare and bookish. This does not quite correspond to the corpus data (its occurrence is 156 occurrences per one million in the Main Corpus, 176 in the Oral Corpus and 214 in the Newspaper Corpus), on the basis of which it qualifies rather as neutral or colloquial:
(137) In the latter case, he gets the opportunity to “join” the database if he needs it, or“switch off” from it. [“ Information Technology"(2004)]
(138) He noted that those wishing to receive religious education could study in private or in Sunday schools, “a general education school should not carry this idea” [“Lawyer” (2004)]
(139) It was necessary to lubricate everything with a joke or keep silent (F. Gorenshtein)
Unions otherwise, not that And otherwise in the meaning of pure separation - rare synonyms or, and each of them has its own semantic and pragmatic features: Drinks cognac or vodka– there is an alternation of equal situations; Drinks cognac, or vodka– The speaker is not sure which situation is taking place; Drinks cognac, or else vodka– in cases where the first of the situations does not occur, the second occurs.
Statistics of these conjunctions is impossible due to homonymy with significantly more frequent conjunctions of consequence otherwise And otherwise(see Subordinating conjunctions / clause 3.2), as well as with the conjunction A in combination with a pronoun That.
Repeating conjunction or or and its rarer synonym or either differ from single conjunctions of pure separation or And or in that they indicate the obligatory nature of at least one of the components (noted in [Sannikov 2008]); Wed Tanya or Masha will help me, and if they don’t have time, then Natasha, with strangeness? Either Tanya or Masha will help me, and if they don’t have time, then Natasha. Wed. Also:
(140) Or we're putting you in prison or you go into the forest [G. Khirachev (A. Ganieva). Salam to you, Dalgat! (2009)]
(141) For the remaining five years, you listen to the reasoning of your classmates about the meaning of life and imperceptibly become or moralizing pedant, or cynic-egoist [N. Shcherbak. Romance with the Faculty of Philology (2010)]
Semantics of basic conjunctions with the meaning of equivalence of components - whether... whether And either... or assumes that for the situation being described the difference between two possible components is unimportant, and usually the Speaker himself does not know which of the possible components is present:
(142) Is it Russian character, is it historical conditions? influenced here - I don’t presume to decide (P. Kuznetsov)
(143) And since the time of Marx the world - is it bad, is it good- changed (G. Panov)
(144) And now - it is unknown even for what reasons: whether out of cowardice, out of pity, or just out of habit- you start bargaining with this pretty witch and finally make a deal (A. Milchin)
Repeating conjunction either... or should be distinguished from the combination of a question particle whether with a single dividing conjunction or:
(145) And it happened whether someday linings, or even some incidents during your performance? (S. Tkacheva)
As [Sannikov 2008: 206] notes, conjunctions with the meaning of equivalence of components, in contrast to communicatively neutral conjunctions with the meaning of pure separation, gravitate toward the theme (and not the rheme); The glass was broken by Kolya or Petya vs. wrong *The glass was broken by Kolya or Petya; *The glass was broken by Kolya or Petya.
Conversational conjunction I'm sorry, what synonymous with conjunctions whether... whether And either... or(see), however, has a narrower meaning. Usually it indicates not just the equivalence of components, but the equivalence of such components, which under ordinary circumstances should not be equivalent and only due to the special emotional state of the Subject of the situation or the Speaker, namely, his indifference, become equivalent: Whether I live or go to the grave is all the same; It’s either Katya or Masha to him – as long as it’s a woman; Whether in winter or summer, he always walks barefoot. Wed. Also:
(146) After all what Islam, what paganism, what Buddhism- they will all tell you “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” and so on [Correspondence on icq between agd-ardin and Princess (2008)]
As Sannikov notes, unlike whether... whether And either... or, this conjunction is not used when talking about single events: * He either married Masha or Katya - everything is better than alone vs. Whether he married Masha or Katya - everything is better than being alone[Sannikov 2008: 208].
Statistics are impossible due to homonymy with the pronoun What and explanatory union What.
At least... at least– another colloquial conjunction, generally synonymous with the conjunction I'm sorry, what(see), with the peculiarity that it often indicates the consent of the Subject of the situation to any of two or more described options, often with his general interest in something important for him to take place. Thus, this union is to an even greater extent than I'm sorry, what, expresses the personal attitude of the Subject or Speaker to what is happening:
(147) That I don’t care. Though tea, though coffee. If only without your nagging! (E. Orlova)
(148) Zoya and her brother didn’t care about pushing heroin - though Azerbaijani, though Lieutenant Colonel though to the bald devil ["Crime Chronicle" (2003)]
Thus the union though… though is transitional in meaning between disjunctive and concessive (see Subordinating conjunctions / paragraph 6) - expressing the idea that the Subject is ready to concede in something unimportant, if only something important takes place, like a concessive particle though.
Be it... or– a rare book synonym for unions whether... whether, either... or, I'm sorry, what And at least... at least, conveying the idea of choosing between equal options:
(149) Any theory, either space theory or the theory of making cutlets, with the help of its already established adherents, fights to “capture” new adherents and seeks to increase its “coverage” (A. Oslon)
Unions with the meaning of inequality of components - and then, and maybe (maybe) and combine semantic elements of connectiveness (see) and separation. Phrases like His height is 185, or even<а может быть и>190 centimeters indicate the reality of the first of the components (like connecting conjunctions) and the possibility of the second component (like dividing ones). According to observation [Sannikov 2008: 212–123], these unions indicate that the first of the components deviates from the norm, and the second deviates even more strongly in the same direction:
(150) Then their meeting drags on for several hours, or even days (A. Golyandin)
(151) Supporters of the paradigm, calling on political and state institutions for help, sought repression against their opponents, or even their direct destruction (A. Oslon)
(152) Granddaughter is wasting time, and maybe life, with a good-for-nothing guy [Izvestia (2001)]
Unions with compensation meaning not this way(statistics are not possible due to homonymy with the particle Not and adverb So) And if(s) not... then indicate that in the absence of a more significant first component, a second, somewhat significant, but, in the eyes of the Speaker, almost equivalent component is necessarily realized:
(153) Not one hundred thousand, So I can lend you fifty
(154) I think it was right if not mistake, That at least cost (S. Sukhova)
(155) Poems are written at a certain age if not All, That very many (Yu. Rakhaeva)
(6) Unions with the meaning of emphasized uncertainty - maybe (be), maybe (be)... maybe (be), maybe (be)... and maybe (be) are highlighted as separate lexical units in the work [Sannikov 2008]. Their main semantic features are that:
(a) The speaker emphasizes that he does not know the truth;
(b) as described, not only one of the two listed components is possible, but also something third:
(156) A hundred million years have passed, maybe, fifty, or maybe, even less... (A. Zaitsev)
(157) There are two more younger ones, he doesn’t know where they are, - Maybe, at work, Maybe, in prison (V. Astafiev)
(158) “I don’t know,” she said, “ Maybe, moved, or maybe, died. (V. Pelevin)
Their exact statistics are impossible due to homonymy with introductory words Maybe And May be.
Conjunctions with the meaning of “external similarity” - not that... not that(statistics are not possible due to homonymy with the much more frequent combination of particles Not with pronoun That), either... or also indicate the Speaker’s uncertainty about which of the two components is possible as what is being described, and that something third is possible as what is being described. However, they have their own semantic specificity, namely, they assume that the reason for the Speaker’s uncertainty is that what is being described has characteristics of both the first and the second: – Why doesn't she come to help? - Either he’s lazy or he’s shy. Wed. Also:
(159) The presence of officials and semi-officials almost turned the press conference either at a rally, or at some kind of party meeting with analysis of Maltsev’s personal file [“Get Rich” (2003)]
(160) From the first school - at the seminary of St. Rafael's father had to take him away either due to poor academic performance, either due to bad behavior(O. Polyakovsky)
Conjunction with the meaning of alternation in time then... then has the same semantic basis as other disjunctive conjunctions, namely – ‘X is possible as the described one; Y’ is possible, and its specificity lies in the fact that X and Y repeatedly replace each other in time:
(161) He That frowned That moved his lips slightly (A. Solzhenitsyn)
(162) Been on the street That rain, That snow, and only in February frosts began (Yu. Koval)
Conjunctions with a similar set of properties are found in the main European languages (cf. English. both… and, either... or, neither... nor, Germansowohl… als auch, entweder… oder and so on.). However, as can be seen from the examples, the very sign of “repetition”, i.e. the coincidence of parts of the union is not typologically significant.
In some of these unions the second part may be variable: cf. options not only but And not only... but also, not only that... also And not only that.. but also and so on.
Syntactically reference but to adversative and, therefore, coordinating conjunctions, and only- to concessive and, therefore, subordinating conjunctions - a tribute to tradition. In fact, semantically we can talk about some adversative-concessive semantic field, where they both belong. Syntactically, both of these conjunctions are closer to coordinating ones, but at the same time they also have the properties of particles, namely, they can be combined with coordinating conjunctions, which is impossible for full-fledged coordinating conjunctions; Wed She's beautiful, but she's stupid, She's stupid, but, if impossible * They called her, but she didn’t come.
/>480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Dissertation - 480 RUR, delivery 10 minutes, around the clock, seven days a week and holidays
240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday
Zgurskaya Olga Grigorievna. The functioning of syntactic constructions with gradational conjunctions in the modern Russian language: dissertation... Candidate of Philological Sciences: 10.02.01.- St. Petersburg, 2000.- 161 p.: ill. RSL OD, 61 01-10/555-1
Introduction
Chapter 1. Structural and semantic features of Civil Code 11
1. Gradational semantic structure and its aspects 11
1.1. Specifics of gradational semantic structure 11
1.2. Stages of interpretation of gradational semantic structure 13
1.3. Aspects of using gradational semantic structure 20
2. Means of formalizing gradation relations 26
2.1. Specifics of means of formalizing gradation relations..26
2.2. Allied specialized means 31
2.2.1. Standard Allied Weapons 32
2.2.2. Modified Allied Weapons 36
2.3. Phraseologized means 40
3. Intentional types of Civil Code 46
3.1. Pragmatic potential of Civil Code 46
3.2. Intentional displacement type 50
3.3. Intentional extension type 53
4. Structural features of GK 55
4.1. Two-part closure GK 55
4.2. Writing affiliation GK 58
4.3. Gradational connectives as ways of forming connections in a complex sentence 62
4.4. Status of the Civil Code within essay 64
5. Dialogue of the structure of the Civil Code 66
5.1. Conditions and form of dialogization of the structure of the Civil Code 66
5.2. The concept of a support component GK 71
5.3. The main types of someone else's speech and methods of its explication in the Civil Code 74 6. Conclusions 79
Chapter 2. Text functions of the Civil Code (based on scientific, popular science and literary texts) 82
1. Functional potential of the GC in the text 82
1.1. Foundations of the functional potential of the Civil Code 82
1.2. System of text functions GK 86
2. Functioning of the Civil Code in a scientific and popular science style...94
2.1. System of functions of the Civil Code in scientific and popular science texts 94
2.2. Demo function 94
2.3. Structuring function of GK 102
2.4. Identification function 109
3. Text functions of the Civil Code in the novels of F.M. Dostoevsky 111
3.1. The system of textual functions of the Civil Code in the novels of F.M. Dostoevsky Sh
3.2. Situational functions 113
3.2.1. Function of reflecting the subject's views 113
3.2.2. Function of reflecting the emotionally charged attitude of the subject 114
3.3. Aesthetic function of GK 120
3.3.1. Intercharacter contact 120
3.3.2. Dialogical contact within the consciousness of the representations of one character 129
3.3.3. Dialogue between reader and narrator 133
4. Conclusions 142
Conclusion 145
Bnbliography 151
Introduction to the work
Relevance of the research topic, thus determined by the high level of frequency of GCs in texts different styles and significantly
There is an area of unstudied in the structural-semantic and functional nature of these constructions. The need for a comprehensive study of GCs is associated primarily with such a feature as the combination of syntactic homogeneity and communicative inequality of the GC parts. The statement of the non-syntactic nature of the hierarchy makes relevant the question of what is the basis of such a representation. In addition, the Civil Code, as noted by N.V. Maksimova (1995), have significant text-forming potential. It seems important to describe this potential and determine its connection with the semantic features of the GC.
The dissertation examines the structural and semantic features of civil codes and their functioning in scientific and popular science texts, as well as in literary texts (using the example of novels by F.M. Dostoevsky). The features of the Civil Code noted in the dissertation: the ability to express elements of the author’s worldview, the presence of pragmatic potential, as well as text-forming capabilities introduce the problematic of the Civil Code into a wide range of general language problems, such as the study of the systemic functional properties of language (G.N. Akimova, V.A. Be -loshapkova, A.V. Bondarko, G.A. Zolotova, I.N. Kruchinina, T.A. Kolosova, M.I. Cheremisina, M.V. Lyapon, N.S. Pospelov, I.P. Raspopov , N.Yu. Shvedova, E.N. Shiryaev, etc.), study of the anthropocentricity of language (G.N. Bogin, T.G. Vinokur, Yu.N. Karaulov, B.Yu. Norman, Yu.S. Stepanov etc.), pragmatic analysis of linguistic units (Yu.D. Apresyan, N.D. Arutyunova, A. Wierzbicka, Dyck T.A. van, V.Z. Demyankov, J.R. Searle, J. Austin, Yu S. Stepanov), as well as analysis of units and categories of text-linguistics (L.G. Babenko, N.D. Burvikova, V.V. Vinogradov, I.R. Galperin, S.I. Gindin, M.Ya. Dymarsky, K. A. Dolinin, S.G. Ilyenko, K. Kozhevnikova, O.I. Moskalskaya, T.M. Nikolaeva, A.I. Novikov, E.V. Paducheva, E.A. Referovskaya, G.Ya. Solganik, etc.).
The purpose of the study is to highlight and describe the structural and semantic features of the Civil Code, their relationships, as well as to describe the textual functions of the Civil Code in scientific (popular science) works and, in part, works of fiction.
In connection with this goal, the following tasks:
Determine the place of the Civil Code in the system of compositional structures.
Explore and describe the gradational semantic structure, the method of its organization and the nature of its constituent elements.
Analyze the ways of expressing gradational relations, the nature of the explication of the main semantic components, and the types of gradation expressed by these means.
Study and describe two aspects of the use of gradational semantic structure - objective and subjective.
Describe the pragmatic potential of the Civil Code and its implementation in two typical intentions - expansion and actualization.
Characterize the structural features of the Civil Code and the connection of these features with the specifics of the gradational semantic structure.
Explore and describe the text-forming functions of GCs in scientific, popular science and literary texts.
As research material We use our own card index, compiled using the method of continuous sampling from works of art XIX and XX centuries, as well as from scientific and popular science works of the second half of the XX century. The card index contains more than 3000 examples.
Basic provisions submitted for defense. 1. GCs are a product of comparative inference. The gradational semantic structure is a three-level structure
development, in which each subsequent level is more closely related to a specific speech situation than the previous one:
a) comparison of two elements of the presented situation;
b) denial of the limitation of the scope of some representation and
connection reflecting the features of the correlation between the compared
elements;
c) opposition, reflecting the characteristics of relationships
between parts of the Civil Code.
Gradational value can be used in two aspects: objective and subjective. The subjective aspect was designated by N.V. Maximova (1995), however, he was not introduced into opposition with an objective aspect. Meanwhile, the objective aspect is primary in relation to the subjective, since it has a simpler semantic structure and has its source in colloquial speech. The objective aspect is used to present a situation hierarchically. The bases of the hierarchy in this case are objective, not directly related to the addressee’s ideas. The subjective aspect is used in cases where one of the parts of the Civil Code is a reflection of someone else’s word. The interaction of someone else's word with one's own makes the structure of gradational meaning more complex: it includes a component of the addresser's ideas. This aspect is used, as a rule, in book speech to present one’s own point of view in relation to someone else’s.
Typical purposes of using GC are to expand the intended or previously existing scope of a certain representation and shift the substantive emphasis from one element to another. To denote the essence of this role, the concept of “intentional type” is used. Accordingly, two intentional types are distinguished: intensive
national extension type And intentional type of mixing. The pragmatic potential of the Civil Code rests primarily on the second level of the gradational semantic structure. Negation of limitation and connection, on the one hand, determine the possibility of expanding the volume of some object or representation, and on the other, stating the insufficiency of one of the parts, they designate the other as more relevant. The primary implementation of the first function is carried out in the GC of the expansion type, the implementation of the second function - in the GC of the intentional displacement type.
The structural and semantic features of the Civil Code are interrelated. The two-part closedness of these constructions is explained by the comparative basis of gradational semantics. The semantic inequality of the parts of the Civil Code, despite their syntactic homogeneity, is determined by the discrepancy between the compared objects, leading to the qualification of one of them as insufficient. The structure of the Civil Code can be subject to dialogization; this process is due to the use of the subjective aspect of gradation semantics. Civil codes with a dialogized structure are both a reflection of the dialogue between the author’s and non-author’s consciousness and a response to a judgment expressed or implied in the non-author’s consciousness. Such a judgment is a kind of support for the Civil Code and is defined as its supporting component. This component is usually reflected in the weak part of the HA.
GKs with a meaning of a subjective type have voluminous text-forming potential, this is due, firstly, connection between hierarchical interpretation and the author’s ideas, determining the ability to express final, summative judgments, and secondly, such quality as dialogical structure, providing
the ability of a construction to send the perceiving consciousness to other, in some cases very distant from the main text sections of the text
6. Types of implementation of the text-forming potential of the Civil Code to a significant extent
degrees are determined by the stylistic orientation of the text and, first of all,
notably, the associated features of the subject structure. In current
stakh scientific and popular science style there are three types of func
tions of the Civil Code:
a) identification (implemented at the level of utterance);
b) structuring (implemented at the level of a text fragment);
c) demonstration (implemented at the level of the whole text).
The essence of the first type of GC functions is to define a certain representation by indicating its differential features; these signs are introduced into the strong part of the GC. The functions of the GC of the second type are used as a means of organizing a specific text fragment, and the essence of the structuring function largely depends on the position of the GC in this fragment. The demonstration function of the Civil Code in scientific and popular science texts is due to the inclusion of someone else’s voice in the content of the structure. The specificity of this function is determined by the demonstration of one’s own point of view in relation to someone else’s.
7. Features of the subjective organization of classical art
text, in particular in the texts of F.M. Dostoevsky, determine this
the quality of the Civil Code as two-subjectivity. This quality is inherent in the design
tions that formally belong to the consciousness of the character or the narrative
author: such GCs are created that simultaneously reflect two consciousnesses: not only the speaker (character or narrator), but also the author of the work. Such dual subjectivity determines the two-level nature of the purposes of using the Civil Code: directly
The consciousness producing the GC has goals that, as a rule, differ from the goals of the author. This quality of the civil code in a literary text determines the ability of these constructions to perform aesthetic and ethical functions in the text, one way or another connected with the organization of the narrative and the expression of the author’s point of view.
Civil codes are implemented, first of all, at the level of homogeneous members of a sentence (1), less often at the level of polypredicative formations (2), as well as at the level of two independent sentences (3).
1. The study of borrowed vocabulary helps not only etymologists, but also language historians (Yu.V. Otkupshchikov. To the origins of the word).
2. [Karandyshev]: Yes, gentlemen, I not only dare, I have the right to be proud and am proud. (A.N. Ostrovsky. Dowryless woman),
3. Distortions occur not only in the syntax of speech. Even more often they arise due to the incorrect use of words. (L. Uspensky. A word about words).
Among the coordinating constructions, GCs occupy special place. This is primarily due to the fact that in these constructions the syntactic equality of their parts is combined with semantic inequality. This property of the Civil Code, first noted in Russian linguistics by F.I. Serebryannaya (Serebryannaya 1964), was indicated as characterizing in all studies one way or another related to the analysis of HA (Beloshapkova 1987, Degtyareva 1978, Kruchinina 1988, Rogozhnikova 1971, Sannikov 1989, Shuvalova 1988, etc.).
Turning to the foundations of semantic inequality, the researchers pointed to its connection with the meaning of gradational conjunctions: “Gradational conjunctions themselves are characterized by the fact that they express gradation by their lexical meaning (our italics - O.Z.), both its first part and the second, in which often includes intensifying elements" (Serebryannaya 1969:73), and also noted the comparative basis of gradation: "gradational meaning is inextricably linked with comparison..., as a result of which the greater or lesser significance of the presented piece of information is established" (Shuvalova 1988:143). Further analysis of the gradational semantic structure revealed the complexity of its composition and the inclusion of several elements.
The actual method of dividing syntactic semantics into components is not new; it was used earlier, not in connection with the analysis of the Civil Code (Levitsky 1991, Paducheva 1974, Troitsky 1987, Usova 1980, Cheremisina, Kolosova 1987, etc.). For the first time, an orderly division into constituent elements the semantics of gradation unions was presented by N.V. Maksimova: “The semantics of constructions is not only / but also based on the interaction of three meanings: connection (I - meaning), negation (NOT - meaning) and opposition (BUT - meaning)” (Maksimova 1995:127).
Statement of the distinctness of the gradation value - important stage in the study of GC. Isolating simpler elements in this meaning allows, firstly, to determine the grounds for the semantic inequality of the parts of the Civil Code, secondly, to characterize the connection of the semantics of the Civil Code with their pragmatic and functional potential and, thirdly, to more accurately determine the composition of the means of expressing gradational relations. Continuing the planned path of research into the Civil Code allows us to introduce certain clarifications into the proposed interpretation of its semantic composition.
The division of the semantics of the Civil Code, presented by N.V. Maximova, is focused on the means of its expression (although one of the essential elements of gradational meaning - limitation - is not reflected in this version of the structure), the consequence of this approach is that directly unexplicit elements of meaning are not included in its structure. In addition, the unambiguous correlation of the semantic structure with the means of its expression leads to a straightforward interpretation of the relationships of its components.
A more complete and accurate representation of the gradational semantic structure is determined by a slightly different approach. Being the result of a comparative inference, the Civil Code was formed as if in stages; at each stage, gradation semantics is refined and becomes more connected to a specific speech situation; each stage is marked by the inclusion of certain semantic elements.
Thus, it is advisable to present the interpretation of the Civil Code in three stages.
The study of GCs is usually focused on their semantic and structural features. Research attention to the means of expressing gradational relations has manifested itself to a much lesser extent. The most complete list of ways to formalize gradation relations and their more detailed description was given by R.P. Rogozhnikova in the article “Gradational unions in the Russian language” (Russian language at school, 1971, No. 3). This article proposes a characterization of allied and non-allied means of formalizing gradational relations (although such a division is not directly carried out), primarily from the point of view of the presence and essence of semantic elements additional to the traditional ones, introduced into the construction by the means of its formation.
Proposed in in this case the description of the formal means of the Civil Code takes into account the conclusions made in the named article.
The subject of the description is a group of means of expressing gradational relations: some unions and non-union combinations; they are presented in a systematic manner.
This systematization is being fully introduced for the first time; its possibility and necessity are explained, on the one hand, quite big amount means of a different nature available in the author’s card index, and on the other hand, the presence of some experience in describing them (V.A. Beloshapkova, N.G. Degtyareva, I.N. Kruchinina, R.P. Rogozhnikova, F.I. Silver).
The proposed classification of means for formalizing the connection between parts of a civil code is based primarily on the degree of specialization of these means for expressing gradational relations. On this basis, two groups can be distinguished:
1. Allied specialized means;
2. Phraseologized means.
The first group includes five gradational unions:
1) not only / but also
2) not as much / as much
3) not that / a (not that / a)
4) not that/a
5) not just / but also
1) But the proverb was not only evidence of a perspicacious mind, but also an ornament of speech. (S. Narovchatov. Unusual literary criticism),
2) So, Judas is not so much a hypocrite as a dirty trickster, a liar and an empty talker. (M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. Gentlemen Golovlevs),
3) The face of the unexpected guest was not exactly good-natured, but again composed and ready, judging by the circumstances, for any kind expression. (F.M. Dostoevsky. The Brothers Karamazov),
He (Fyodor Pavlovich Karamazov - OZ.) behaved not only more noblely, but somehow more impudently. (F.M. Dostoevsky. The Brothers Karamazov),
4) [Staff Captain Snegirev]. You know, if children are silent and proud, but tears struggle within themselves for a long time, but when they suddenly break through, if great grief comes, it’s not just that the tears will flow, but they will splash like streams. (F.M. Dostoevsky. The Brothers Karamazov).
5) The dictionary does not simply describe vocabulary, but necessarily reflects the philosophy of the era, the totality of the ethical ideas of the people. (V.A. Kozyrev, V.D. Chernyak. The word in the system of Russian language dictionaries).
Being an expression of a complex semantic structure, gradational conjunctions have various modifications; they concern three aspects:
I. - completeness of explication of the conjunction components (gradational conjunctions are two-part, omission is possible only in the second part: but and, a, a and);
The interpretation of the exploits of the defenders of the Fatherland, people's intercessors and other figures of the past in historical songs not only complements, but sometimes corrects the information extracted from official documents of that time. (SI. Lzbelev. Russian historical songs and ballads);
The functional aspect of the consideration of the Civil Code involves turning to the definition of the volume and essence of its textual potentials, as well as a description of the implementation of these potentialities in textual conditions.
The functionality of GCs in the text is determined by their structural and semantic features.
The standard two-part nature of the Civil Code provides the possibility of connecting the construction with different, pro- and retrospective sections of the text; for example: The word “talan” had a different fate: it entered deeply into folk speech, finding a place for itself even in a number of Russian proverbs and sayings.
Here is a partial list of them:
“Whoever has a talent will be an ataman”;
“Our Ivan has no talent anywhere”;
“My talent has gone to the mountains”;
"Khud talan, if your pocket is empty";
“Alien talent is growing soon”;
“Our talent is with a bag in the yards”;
“Talan is not fog, it does not pass by”;
“Not cunning but lucky, unprepossessing but talented”;
"A thief is a thief's talent";
The words “talan” and its derivative “talentless” will enter not only the popular language, but also literature.
Let us recall Lermontov’s “Song about the Merchant Kalashnikov,” which says:
"And the little head is mediocre
She was lying on the chopping block covered in blood”;
lines from the song by A.V. Koltsova: my friend said, admit it:
Don't pull me, let me go, give me free rein,
There again I can live where I want,
Without talent - where is talent,
Young curls are happy.
(B. Timofeev. Are we speaking correctly?).
The ability of PS to implement pro- and retrospective textual connections was noted by N.V. Maximova (1995). This ability, as Maksimova noted, primarily determines the features of the text-forming functions of the Civil Code.
Union– this is a service part of speech that formalizes and clarifies the connections between words, parts of sentences and sentences, expresses grammatical relationship between members of a sentence, parts of a sentence and individual sentences as part of a coherent text.
Unions express relationship between individual words, between homogeneous members in a simple sentence, and also serve to connect complex or complex sentences. If prepositions form a connection in a sentence, then conjunctions identify, clarify And draw up this connection. For example:
AND, conjunction – 1) single or repeated, connects homogeneous members of a sentence, as well as parts of a complex sentence ( Theory and practice, Hopes appeared, and he became cheerful again), 2) opens up sentences of an epic, narrative nature to indicate the connection with the previous one, the change of events (And the morning came, And the battle broke out); 3) internally connects the message with a previous situation that predetermines a positive or negative assessment (And you will still argue?!) .
Each union is the bearer of a certain meanings. According to this criterion, unions are distinguished:
Gradational unions belong to semantic unions and have a syncretic character. Constructions with unions not so much... but; not that... but (but); if not... then, or even... etc. are very widely used in speech. For example:
I experienced not so much joy, How many embarrassment; Everything that used to make his head spin Not really faded but just ceased to exist; He had, if not conviction, That your strong opinion; The guys came on Sundays or even on Saturday someone came running after school. - So, If no obstacles That With God, we could begin to complete the deed of sale,” said Chichikov (N. Gogol).
Gradational the conjunctions are heterogeneous, although they are united by the common function of strengthening/weakening, increasing/declining the significance of the second component of the coordinating series in comparison with the first. In the category of gradational unions there are:
These groups of gradation unions differ not only formally(dismembered/non-divided), but also semantically(i.e. the nature of the expressed relationships).
A special semantic group consists of alternative unions. They express a peculiar type of causality - relationships alternative motivation, based not on establishing a direct causal connection between two phenomena reported in the first and second parts of a complex sentence, but on assuming the proposed third phenomenon, directly not named in the sentence, which could be realized in the event of the non-realization of the phenomenon named in the first part of the sentence, and would be incompatible with the phenomenon named in the second part. There are two types of alternative motivation:
To divide unions into essay And subordinates there are certain semantic And formal grounds. From a semantic point of view, the division is significant depending on the nature of the relationships being expressed: coordinating conjunctions express relationships independent, and subordinates - dependent. Formal indicators are:
Speaking about gradational unions, it is important to note that the union not as much... as used only in sentences with homogeneous members.
The following types are distinguished non-repeating gradation unions:
1) conjunctions that can only appear before the second part of the sentence being connected: or even, plus all correlated particles (well... so...). Wed. sentence where That– demonstrative pronoun - subject, lovely– predicative with gradual semantics:
That And lovely, - he [Vronsky] thought, returning from the Shcherbatskys and taking away from them, as always, a pleasant feeling of cleanliness and freshness, which stemmed in part from the fact that he had not smoked the whole evening, and at the same time a new feeling of tenderness for her [Kitty] for himself love, - That And lovely that nothing was said either by me or by her, but we understood each other so much in this invisible conversation of glances and intonations that now, more clearly than ever, she told me that she loved (L. Tolstoy);
2) comparative union how (more, how), introducing such parts of a complex sentence that can be post- or interpositive, but cannot begin a complex sentence. For example:
Father Fyodor began to brew marble washing soap; made pounds of it, but the soap, although it contained a huge percentage of fat, did not lather and, in addition, cost three times expensive, how“plough-and-Molotov” (I. Ilf, E. Petrov); And how I loved, my God, how I loved him!.. How I loved! And now don't I love him? Not more whether, how before, do I love him? (L. Tolstoy); Blue houses turned green, yellow ones - gray, disappeared from the tower bombs, the fireman no longer walked along it, and the streets were much noisier how Ippolit Matveevich remembered it (I. Ilf, E. Petrov);
3) compound dissected conjunctions of the “framing” type, the first part of which begins a complex sentence, and the second comes before its second part: not only but; not really... but; if not... then. For example:
Suffice it to say that they asked me to give up my examination room, in other words, they forced me to operate on you where I was still cutting up rabbits. In such conditions I not only not Can, but not either I have the right to work (M. Bulgakov);
AND If If technology goes on so pliantly, then people will degenerate into rust from their dubious successes - then all that remains is to crush them with efficient steam locomotives and give the machine free rein in the world; Zakhar Pavlovich wanted to keep Alexander in such a coffin - if not alive, That whole for memory and love; every ten years Zakhar Pavlovich was going to dig up his son from the grave in order to see him and feel together with him; If“He hasn’t died, then I’ll send him,” the clerk decided and went to inform the secretary of the provincial committee about Dvanov (A. Platonov);
- Darling, do you know me? Is not it? I am a man of facts, a man of observation. I am an enemy of unfounded hypotheses. And this is very well known Not only in Russia, but also in Europe (M. Bulgakov).
By location gradational unions are permanent character those. have a strictly fixed place in a sentence and are used in statements with a “rigid” structure. Other conjunctions may not have a strictly fixed place and use a “flexible” structure in statements. For example, the speaker (writer) arranges the components of a coordinating construction with a gradational conjunction in a certain way not only... but. In a declarative sentence subject usually appears in the foreground, and an object comes after because subject is the starting point:
All members of this family, especially the female half, seemed to him covered with some kind of mysterious, poetic veil, and he not only not I saw no flaws in them, But under this poetic veil that covered them he imagined the most sublime feelings and all kinds of perfections (L. Tolstoy).
Rearranging composed elements associated with a given gradational union is impossible, which is due to the situation of speech. The essence gradations in the statement expressed by this gradational conjunction consists in opposition rhemas ( new) – topic (to this). The thought moves from topic to rheme: After this the count Not onlygot my money back but evenwon another three hundred thousand(I. Ilf, E. Petrov). Background knowledge includes the following topics: the count got his money back but the fact that he won another three hundred thousand, - rhema. In a sentence, the first of the homogeneous predicates names the topic, and the second – the rheme.
In constructions with a union not only but(and its variants) do not use more than two equal components, because, apart from the thematic and rhematic, no other is given. Wed: Not onlythat our club didn’t exist, or there were no street lights, but alsothere were only two shops in the whole city(A. Kuprin) // but there were only two shops in the whole city, and not just our club or lanterns on the streets. Detected strict attachment parts of the gradational union to equal components: the first part of the union Not only represents the topic, and the second - ...but and, and, but even – rhema. Such attachment of the parts of the gradational union to one or another of the equal components is determined by the fact that the first part of the union consists of two components - Not And only; component only definitely related to the topic.
Depending on the structures there are unions simple(single word - What; But; or etc.) and composite(non-word ones, for example: while; not only but). Simple conjunctions can be derivatives (while etc.) and non-derivative(but; or etc.). Non-derivative conjunctions have a simple structure. Other conjunctions are a frozen form of either significant or functional words, for example etymologically complex conjunctions so that, but and so on. Compound conjunctions have multiple components and their origins are very complex. Such conjunctions may include both significant and auxiliary parts of speech: because; because of; as soon as; in order to and etc.
By place conjunctions are distinguished in a sentence single And non-single seats. The former occupy a specific place in the sentence, for example, the conjunction only (and) only used at the beginning of a sentence: And as soon as the sky began to light up, / Everything suddenly began to move noisily(M. Lermontov). The latter may occupy different positions. Among the non-single-occupancy ones there are double conjunctions: one part in the main clause, the other in the secondary clause, i.e. in two different parts of the same sentence. These are, for example, unions if... then; although... but and etc.
Semantics alliances depends on context. Some unions are unambiguous (because; Although etc.), others ambiguous(they are called asemantic; a, and, but, what, when, how, yes etc.).
As auxiliary parts of speech unions stand out not so much for their morphological properties, how many syntactic characteristics. A conjunction differs from a preposition in that for it the morphological nature of the connected parts is insignificant, whereas the preposition attaches only names (noun, pronoun-noun, numeral), and, if the name is inflected, it is selective in case. The conjunction connects not parts of speech, but members of the proposal(simple or complex), which can be expressed by word forms of different morphological classes. Compared to prepositions, conjunctions are more autonomous (independent). They not included members of the proposal, and tie up members of a sentence or parts of sentences. For example, union And connects nouns ( Brother Andsister), and adjectives ( inexpensive Anduseful thing)), and adverbs ( left Andon right), and verbs ((girl) got scared Andcrying), and different parts of speech (He is sick Anddoesn't get up; writes beautifully Andno mistakes, came with a friend Andfor a long time).
Depending on the nature of the conjunctions, sentences are divided into actually gradational And amplifiers . Actually gradational sentences are formed by dismembered type conjunctions: not only but; not really... but; not as much... as and so on. Amplifiers sentences form a conjunction yes and , acting as an indivisible complex union expressing relations of accession. Wed:
A! Do you know Sobakevich? - he asked [Chichikov] and immediately heard that the old woman knew Not only Sobakevich, but also Manilov, and that Manilov will be greater than Sobakevich: he will order the chicken to be cooked immediately, and he will also ask for the veal; if you have lamb liver, then and he’ll ask for lamb liver, and he’ll just try everything, but Sobakevich will only ask for something, Yeah but he will eat everything, even try extra for the same price (N. Gogol);
- What is there to offer?.. And then they write, write... Congress, some Germans... My head is swelling. Take it all yes and divide; I am a master's dog, an intelligent creature, I have tasted better life. Yes and what is will? So, smoke, mirage, fiction... The nonsense of these unfortunate democrats... (M. Bulgakov).
Union yes and can attach sentences containing not only additional messages, but also a question (usually rhetorical): I didn't answer anything – yes andwhy did I have to answer? (I. Turgenev).
Scientific discussion
Gradational sentences occupy an intermediate place between connecting and comparative sentences; their originality lies in the fact that one of the compared phenomena is especially emphasized. But this approach to considering such types was not always the case.
Czech grammarians identified an independent group among compounds gradational sentences that are “complex structures that combine the structural features of comparative-adversative... and connecting sentences”, in some cases they are considered as a type of connecting relations. The nature of such proposals is synthesis comparisons And connections phenomena against the background of special gradual semantics: an indication of a more significant or most significant, effective event, an increase in the degree of significance for the speaker of the content of the second part of the sentence compared to the first.
There are three levels of division of complex sentences into categories (and subcategories). At the first level, two categories are distinguished: 1) sentences that allow a second conjunctive element; 2) sentences that do not allow a second conjunction element. According to the semantics of conjunctions, the latter are divided into two subcategories: 1) explanatory(with conjunctions that is, namely) 2) gradational(with conjunctions not only but; yes and; not so much... but; but).
Upon registration gradational connection semi-functional unions (oh, yes, by) such a connection is indicated adverbs And particles type even, also, yet, and besides etc., which, when formulated without unions, perform the function of compound words. Wed:
I can't allow an undocumented tenant to stay in the house, yes even not registered for military service by the police (A. Bulgakov); Another time, Alexandra Stepanovna arrived with two little ones and brought him a cake for tea and a new robe, because the priest had such a robe that was worth looking at Not only I was ashamed but even ashamed; In fact, whatever you say, not only one dead Souls, but also runaways, and only more than two hundred people! (N. Gogol); The old woman thought about it. She saw that the matter, for sure, seemed to be profitable, Yes only it was too new and unprecedented, and therefore she began to be very afraid that this buyer would somehow cheat her; I came from God knows where, yes even and at night (N. Gogol).
Double alliance than... the used in complex sentences with comparative clauses:
I remember this time when he came to me and cried, talking about you, and what poetry and height you were for him, and I know that the more Is he with you lived the higher you are for him was becoming; She saw them with her far-sighted eyes, saw them close up, when they collided in pairs, and how more she saw their, the more convinced I became that her misfortune was accomplished; And so the society has developed that the more they are merchants, landowners, and they will always be working animals (L. Tolstoy); AND how time went on, those the meeting became increasingly impossible and even unnecessary (Yu. Tynyanov).
As additional means of communication in such sentences, symmetrical repetition of comparative degree forms and parallelism of structure are used. Part with the first element of the union how predominantly in preposition. Comparison becomes the general syntactic meaning of sentences of a phraseological structure. The comparative meaning can be complicated by other meanings - cause-and-effect, conditional, etc. Compare: the moreIs he with you lived the higheryou are for him became the moreshe sawtheir, the more convinced I became; the moreThey will work, the more they will profitmerchants. The distinction between the main part and the subordinate part is conditional: AND howthe dew is more abundant, thosetomorrow will be hotter(K. Paustovsky).
Possibility of using conjunctions as if etc. in sentences with the meaning of measure and degree are limited. The union is possible only in those constructions in which this meaning is reduced to an indication of highest degree(intensity) of manifestation of a sign, process, phenomenon, object. Values full – incomplete, sufficient – insufficient And excessive the degrees of a characteristic are not expressed by means of comparison. The formation of intensifying power meaning involves mainly conjunctions with conditional presumptive semantics (as if, as if, as if, as if and etc.). With a supporting word, pronominal adjectives or adverbs with an intensifying meaning are usually used - such, so, to that, to such an extent. Wed:
Some young Starling / So I learned to sing as a goldfinch, / As if if only he had been born a goldfinch (I. Krylov); Village So suddenly it seemed wonderful to him, exactly as if he were able to feel all the delights of the village; ...felt sad like that... exactly as if he wanted to stab someone (N. Gogol); And his gaze with such love, / So looked at her sadly, / As if he regretted it (M. Lermontov).
Union How functions primarily in sentences with high quality or qualifying meaning. In sentences with meaning degrees it is used only in special conditions: when a sign, determined by the degree of manifestation, is thought of as exceptional and such exclusivity is expressed by means denial(sometimes hidden). For example: AND so earlybegan to wake them up every time, / How earlyroosters and haven't sung in a long time(I. Krylov); She got down to business... so persistently, how difficult it wasfrom her expect(A. Kuprin). There are similar cases when a sign is not negated, but significantly limited in any respect: ...everything happened as simple and natural as it can beIndeed(F. Dostoevsky); It was as quiet as it gets
GRADATION UNIONS
Mainly comparative conjunctions with homogeneous members: both components of these conjunctions are located in different parts of the sentence, and the second part has a greater semantic load compared to the first. Not only.. but also, not so much.. as, not so... how, not that... but (a), not that.. but (a), if not.. then, etc. Some researchers they are joined by complex conjunctions yes and, or even and, or not, and etc.
Dictionary of linguistic terms. 2012
Mainly comparative conjunctions with homogeneous members: both components of these conjunctions are in different parts of the sentence, and the second part has a greater semantic load compared to the first. Not only.. but also, not so much.. as, not so... how, not that... but (a), not that.. but (a), if not.. then, etc. Some researchers they are joined by complex conjunctions yes and, or even and, or not, and etc.
Sexological encyclopedia
Large encyclopedic dictionary
Soviet historical encyclopedia
Dictionary of business terms
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron
Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron
Dictionary of linguistic terms
Dictionary of linguistic terms
Dictionary of linguistic terms
Syntax: Dictionary
Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal
UNIONS ZAUMI ACADEMY Founded in Tambov in 1990 by the poet and literary critic Sergei Biryukov. The work of the Academy is carried out in three directions: uniting the creative forces of Tambov; contacts within Russia with contemporary art figures; contacts with foreign
ANTIPODE UNIONS Operating since 2007, the Antipode Association is a non-profit organization created to disseminate and develop Russian culture, and especially literature, in Australia. For this purpose, literary evenings are organized in which
UNIONS LITERARY LOUNGEAssociation of Russian-speaking writers in Austria. Created at the Russian Center for Science and Culture in March 2008. The statutory task is to provide comprehensive support to authors writing in Russian and permanently residing in Austria. In April 2008
RAY UNIONSAssociation of cultural figures of Azerbaijan. Created in 2003 with the aim of uniting writers, scientists, artists, teachers of schools and universities, representatives of the creative intelligentsia of the republic. The Association holds international scientific conferences and seminars,
UNIONS HARMONYInternational Center of Russian Culture. Founded on March 24, 1993 in Yerevan to unite the Russian-speaking intelligentsia of Armenia, implement cultural, social and patronage programs, and work with youth. The organization has about 600 members. President - Aida
UNIONS BELARUSIAN PEN CLUB “Non-governmental, non-political, non-profit organization”, created in November 1989 by the Organizing Committee, which included twenty famous writers, and in May 1990 accepted into the “International PEN Club” writers association. Belorussian
UNIONS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF WRITERS “NEW CONTEMPORARY”German regional branch. In 2007, he held an open literary competition “Oh the Alps and the Rhine and the Blue Danube!” Among the members are Evgenia Taubes, Inga Pidevich, Galina Pedakhovskaya, Anatoly Kutnik. UNION OF RUSSIANS
UNIONS ARIONPushkin Society of Georgia. Operates within the framework of the Russian Cultural and Educational Society of Georgia. Organized by the late Professor Konstantin Gerasimov, the first (nominal) chairman was the famous Georgian poet Mikhail Kvlividze, in
UNIONS JERUSALEM ANTHOLOGY This association unites artists and writers who came mostly from the USSR - CIS, as well as people of other professions who are not indifferent to the problems of cultural development. The purpose of the association is not only to preserve the works of masters whose
UNIONS MUSAGET Public charitable foundation for the development of culture and the humanities. It was formed on the initiative and under the leadership of Olga Markova in January 1998 on the basis of the editorial office of the magazine "Apollinary", published since 1993. Operates with the support of the Dutch
UNIONS MEPHISTOL literary and artistic group. Leader - Karen Dzhangirov. UNION OF WRITERS OF NORTH AMERICAAccording to information posted on the Union of Union of Writers of North America, this is “an association of creative people who write in Russian and live in Canada, the United States of America,
UNIONS BISHKEK PEN CENTERPEN Center of the Central Asian Republics, uniting writers from Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, was admitted to the International PEN Club at the Assembly held in Paris in May 1991. However, already in September 1993
UNIONS ASSOCIATION OF RUSSIAN LITERATORS OF LATVIA Founded under the chairmanship of Y. Maksimov on March 10, 1996. It maintained relations with the St. Petersburg branch of the Russian joint venture, but soon after its founding it actually ceased its activities. Members of the ARL were A. Astrov, V.
UNIONS RusLORussian Literary Association. It was created on the initiative and under the leadership of Alexander Lysov at Vilnius University in November 1996. The members of the association carried out lit. evenings, concerts in Vilnius, Kaunas, Visaginas, Lentvaris. Broken up in 2000
I. Unions of Causality and Unions of Logical Connection The technique we have adopted is extremely simple. On the one hand, we have various records of child language observed in children of different ages over a period of about a month (Part I, Chapter I); we extracted from these records
