Abstract
This article presents the analysis of the homogeneity syntactic category in Russian. It describes the main criteria of homogeneity of sentence members, describes the typical means of homogeneity expression and provides examples of their implementation. The study identifies difficult cases of analysis of sentences complicated by homogeneous narratives and definitions and suggests ways to solve problematic issues. Thus, to justify the homogeneity of definitions it is necessary to check such criteria as: 1) uniformity of the syntactic position, 2) uniformity, 3) uniformity. Simultaneous realization of the given attributes allows to speak about homogeneous or, on the contrary, inhomogeneous definitions, and consequently, promotes competent punctuation registration of the constructions containing them. The homogeneity of the said features also requires: 1) structural commonality; 2) semantic proximity of verbs; 3) coincidence of grammatical forms (voice, modal, temporary, personal). However, in modern linguistics, there are still debates about the monopredicacy or polypredicacy of sentences with homogeneous predicates. It is obvious that the predicate is homogeneous in a simple sentence in the presence of a secondary member of a sentence and a common verbal unit in composite verbal and nominative predicates. Another syntactic problem, also in terms of methodology, is the question of the status of such members of the sentence that are very similar to, but not homogeneous because they do not have all the features necessary for this. These are the so-called single-functional members of the sentence (
Keywords: Syntaxhomogeneity categoryhomogeneous predicatehomogeneous definitions
Introduction
Compound relation is one of the main types of relations between the members of a simple sentence, as well as between the predictive units that make up a complex sentence. The essay's essence is defined on the basis of its opposition to another basic type of connection – subordination: unlike subordination, the work embodies a connection of grammatically equivalent components. For example: C
There are three types of compositional relation in a simple sentence: 1) homogeneous terms, 2) single-functional but heterogeneous terms; 3) constructions with secondary conjunctional (compound) relation.
Problem Statement
This research is topical because the homogeneity category is one of the most difficult in the Russian syntax. There are still unsolved questions about the status of sentences with homogeneous narratives (simple or complex), there are no common criteria in the method of explaining the homogeneity/uniformity of definitions, which, in turn, generates difficulties for students in setting punctuation marks.
Research Questions
The category of homogeneity is a multi-dimensional syntactic phenomenon that represents a compound relation in a simple sentence and requires a functional approach to analysis. It is implemented under a number of conditions and with special means of communication, such as: intonation of enumeration, compositional unions, as well as forms of words that act as a common dependent component or auxiliary component in a compound predicate, prepositions, particles, etc.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the work is to present a complete analysis of the homogeneity category in the Russian syntax, to develop methods for qualification of sentences with homogeneous narratives, and to propose a methodology for applying uniform criteria to identify homogeneity/uniformity of definitions.
Research Methods
The research involved descriptive-analytical, contextual-logic methods, as well as elements of transformational and contextual analysis.
Findings
Homogeneous members – the main type of representation of the compound relations in a simple sentence. The most important features of
Compound members of a homogeneous series are more likely to be
The second type, which implements compound relations in a simple sentence, is
The third type – structures with secondary conjunctional (compound) relation, having mixed character. Their essence is that the subordinate relation, implemented in the word combination, is superimposed on the compound relation, represented by the compound conjunction, for example:
The main
The homogenous members of the proposal may have an conjunctional relation, with the composition unions acting as a means of expressing homogeneity, along with the intonation. Different semantic relations are established between the homogeneous members of the sentence: connective, opposing, separating, gradational, explanatory, causal and temporal. The purpose of penultimate unions is to convey these relations, and this is the functional aspect of various categories of compounds, respectively: connective, divisive, oppressive, connective, comparative unions.
In general, the term "complicated sentence" itself hints at a certain proximity of constructions with complicated elements with complex sentences. For example, Babaytseva ( 2011) speaks about the "transitivity scale" between simple and complex sentences. This term implies a very variegated set of different syntactic forms: here we have sentences complicated by references, introductory and insertive constructions, and sentences with different kinds of separate components, including sentences with different homogeneous members, main and minor ones. Each of these constructions contains a number of problem.
For the first time in Russian linguistics, Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky ( 1989) did not accept the concept of a "compound sentence". Analyzing sentences like
Shakhmatov ( 1908) opposed the study of sentences with several predicate like
Therefore, in syntactic science again and again address this problem, in particular, the problem of homogeneity of the predicate. It is known, for example, that linguists of the Czechoslovak school have put both this concept and the evaluation of sentences containing two or more sentences as simple ones under great doubt. Their arguments are sufficiently strong, and in the works of our scientists, for example, Beloshapkova ( 2008), they have been taken into account: with regard to the provision that any members of a sentence can be homogeneous except for the predicate ones (and the verbs can be predicted, while the name predicate ones are homogeneous), Beloshapkova ( 2008) writes: "The lexical top of a sentence is a hierarchical top of a sentence, therefore, a sentence with several lexical ones is a polypredicative construction, a complex sentence" (p. 38). This provision is also reflected in WG-80, where sentences with several predicate sentences are considered as complex ( Russian Grammar, 1980). This provision is also reflected in WG-80, where sentences with several predicates are considered as complex ( Russian Grammar, 1980). With respect to constructions with named predicate, the following solution is proposed: if the predicate as a whole or a related component are connected by an compound relation, then this is a complex sentence; if only the related name components are connected by an compound relation, then these are monopredicative simple sentences with a common subject. There is also a special kind of predicate – the consequence of different types of syntactic relationships, for example:
Among the proposals containing "transient phenomena" from monopredictivity to polypredictive constructions, the majority of syntaxists agree that the phenomenon of homogeneity should be noted if a number of simple predicate has a common dependent term, e.g.:
Propositions with nonproliferation of verb-subjectives (
Homogeneity of the predicate suggests the following requirements: 1) structural commonality of the predicate; 2) semantic proximity of verbs (these are either synonyms or words belonging to the same semantic group); 3) coincidence of grammatical forms (voiced, modal, temporary, personal).
On the basis of homogeneity / heterogeneity, on the one hand, simple sentences are opposed to a homogeneous set of predicate words having a common distributor, e.g.:
Words
A simple sentence should be characterized by one set of predictive values: one time plan, one objective, one subjective modality. Let us compare the sentences in two groups:
The cars
drove away from the central manor, went to the bridge and soondisappeared around the corner; for a whole month the whole team was puzzling over this riddle and sent outworrying letters to the participants of the meeting; the members of the organizing committee willmeet at the conference in Baku and in a personal conversation will try to solve all these issues.You ate borsh, now finish your tea and go get the newspaper; Vasya flew away yesterday, now sitting in Sverdlovsk, he might be late for a meeting; He was supposed to give his report the day before yesterday, but he wasn't on time for Monday .
In the proposals of Group II the independence of modal-temporal characteristics of prediction is evident. And it is also obvious that it is impossible to characterize these sentences according to the canon developed for simple sentences – each composition of the predicate should be characterized separately, and we get as many setsof attributes as in the phrase of such relations.
So, sentences complicated by simultaneous occurrence of two or more predicative compositions, closed to the common for them subject, cannot be considered simple in its own meaning of this term. They are not complex in their own sense, but they are clearly polypredicative. The characteristic in the face aspect of predictive compositions is common, as these structures are monosubjective. Therefore, it is more correct to qualify such proposals as monosubject polypredicative constructions.
Conclusion
Thus, the category of homogeneity, which implements a compound relation in a simple sentence and represents a complex syntactic phenomenon in Russian, requires a multidimensional functional approach. It is especially relevant for solving transient phenomena from monopredicative to polypredicative constructions with homogeneous narratives. Based on authoritative sources, we have proposed a number of criteria allowing us to qualify the status of such sentences. We have also described the main cases that represent homogeneous and heterogeneous definitions.
References
- Babaytseva, V. V. (2011). The system of sentence members in modern Russian. Flint; Science.
- Beloshapkova, V. A. (2008). Contemporary Russian Language. Syntax. Academy.
- Blok, A.A. (1987). Research and Materials. USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House).
- Chekhov, M. P. (1990). Around Chekhov. However.
- Danilova, E. A. (2018). Syntaxis of a simple sentence (Textbook). Chuvash State Univer.
- Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, D. N. (1989). Literary and critical works in two volumes. Hudozhestvennaya literature.
- Russian Grammar (1980). Syntax. Science.
- Shakhmatov, A. A (1908). History of the Russian annals. M.A. Alexandrov's printing house.
- Shapiro, A. B. (2017). Modern Russian language. Punctuation. ComBook.
- Shvedova, N. Y. (2003). Essays on syntax of Russian colloquial speech. Azbukovnik.
- Skoblikova, E. S. (2012). Modern Russian language. Syntax of a simple sentence (theoretical course). Flint.
- Turgenev, I. S. (1994). Collected works in 5 volumes. Russian book.
- Tvardovsky, A. T. (1987). Autobiography. From early poems (1925-1935). Soviet writer.
- Valgina, N. S. (2003). Contemporary Russian Language: Syntax (Textbook). Higher School.
Copyright information
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
About this article
Publication Date
31 October 2020
Article Doi
eBook ISBN
978-1-80296-091-4
Publisher
European Publisher
Volume
92
Print ISBN (optional)
-
Edition Number
1st Edition
Pages
1-3929
Subjects
Sociolinguistics, linguistics, semantics, discourse analysis, translation, interpretation
Cite this article as:
Danilova, E. A., Yurkina, T. N., Pastukhova, L. B., Yakushkina, Z. N., Denisova, T. V., & Akhvanderova, A. D. (2020). Syntactic Category Of Homogeneity In Russian: Difficult Cases. In D. K. Bataev (Ed.), Social and Cultural Transformations in the Context of Modern Globalism» Dedicated to the 80th Anniversary of Turkayev Hassan Vakhitovich, vol 92. European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences (pp. 1576-1583). European Publisher. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2020.10.05.208