Complex sentences always include two or more simple ones (they are also called predicative parts), connected by various types of connections: conjunctive coordinating, non-conjunctive and conjunctive subordinating connections. It is the presence or absence of conjunctions and their meaning that allows us to establish the type of connection in a sentence.
In contact with
Definition of subordinating connection in a sentence
Subordination or subordination- a type of connection in which one of the predicative parts is the main, subordinating part, and the other is the dependent, subordinate part. Such a connection is conveyed through subordinating conjunctions or allied words; from the main part to the subordinate part it is always possible to ask a question. Thus, a subordinating relationship (as opposed to a coordinating relationship) implies syntactic inequality between the predicative parts of the sentence.
For example: In geography lessons we learned (about what?) why there are ebbs and flows, Where In geography lessons we learned- main part, there are ebbs and flows- subordinate clause, why - subordinating conjunction.
Subordinating conjunctions and allied words
Predicative parts of a complex sentence connected by a subordinating connection are connected using subordinating conjunctions, allied words. In turn, subordinating conjunctions are divided into simple and complex.
Simple conjunctions include: what, so that, how, when, barely, yet, if, as if, as if, for sure, for, although and others. 
We want all peoples to live happily.
Complex conjunctions include at least two words: because, because, since, in order to, as soon as, while, until, despite the fact that, as if and others. As soon as the sun rose, all the songbirds woke up.
Relative pronouns and adverbs can act as allied words: who, what, which, whose, which, how many(in all cases); where, where, from, when, how, why, why and others. Conjunctive words always answer any question and are one of the members of the subordinate clause. I have taken you there, where the gray wolf has never gone before!(G. Rosen)
You need to know: what it is, examples of it in the literature.
Types of subordination in a complex sentence
Depending on the means, connecting predicative parts, the following types of subordination are distinguished:
- conjunctional subordination - parts of a complex sentence are connected by simple or complex conjunctions. He opened the doors wider so that the procession could pass through freely.
- relative subordination - between the predicative parts there is a conjunction word. After death, people return to the same place they came from. they came.
- interrogative-relative subordination - parts of a complex sentence are connected through interrogative-relative pronouns and adverbs. The subordinate part explains the member of the main sentence expressed by a verb or noun, which has the meaning of a statement, mental activity, feeling, perception, internal state. Berlioz looked around sadly, not understanding what frightened him.(M. Bulgakov).
Often one complex sentence contains more than two predicative parts that are dependent in relation to the main one. Due to this There are several types of subordination:
This is interesting: in the rules of the Russian language.
Based on which member of the main sentence explains or extends the dependent one, subordinate clauses in some sources are divided into subjects, predicates, modifiers, additional and adverbial.
- Every, whom he met here offered to help him. The subordinate clause extends the subject of the main clause every.
- Never think that you already know everything.(I. Pavlov) The subordinate part explains the predicate of the main think.
- You should never regret something that can no longer be changed. In this case, the subordinate part answers the question of the prepositional case.
A more common classification is that depending on the questions they answer, subordinate clauses are divided as follows:
Allied communication
Allied communication
UNION COMMUNICATION. Such a connection between individual words and phrases, which is expressed by conjunctions (see), for example, table and chair; I bought two pencils and a box of pens; the door opened and Marya Pavlovna entered; or rain, or snow, or will, or No; in the old But clean dress; That the sun will hide That shines too brightly; the prisoner turned pale When he was clicked; He did not come, because his father died; dad says What he will buy me a horse, etc.
N.D. Literary encyclopedia: Dictionary of literary terms: In 2 volumes / Edited by N. Brodsky, A. Lavretsky, E. Lunin, V. Lvov-Rogachevsky, M. Rozanov, V. Cheshikhin-Vetrinsky. - M.; L.: Publishing house L. D. Frenkel, 1925
See what “Union connection” is in other dictionaries:
Allied communication- UNION COMMUNICATION. Such a connection between individual words and phrases, which is expressed by conjunctions (see), for example, table and chair; I bought two pencils and a box of pens; the door opened and Marya Pavlovna entered; Either it will rain, or it will snow, or it will... Dictionary of literary terms
Connecting homogeneous members or parts of a complex sentence using conjunctions. see homogeneous parts of the sentence, complex sentence. cf: non-union connection...
allied connection- Such a connection between individual words and phrases, which is expressed by conjunctions (see), for example, table and chair; I bought two pencils and a box of pens; the door opened and Marya Pavlovna entered; Either it’s raining or it’s snowing, it’s either going to happen or it’s not;… … Grammar Dictionary: Grammar and linguistic terms
Connection of homogeneous members or parts of a complex sentence without the help of conjunctions, through one intonation. see homogeneous members of the sentence, non-union complex sentence. cf.: union connection... Dictionary of linguistic terms
syntactic connection of parts of a complex sentence, formalized by conjunctions and in a non-union way- In general, non-union is characteristic of colloquial and aphoristic artistic speech. Particularly characteristic of them (and at the same time uncharacteristic of scientific and business styles) are non-union complex sentences of time (I’ll learn - I’ll go to work), reasons... ... Dictionary of linguistic terms T.V. Foal
UNION, ah, husband. 1. Close unity, connection of classes, groups, individuals. S. democratic forces. 2. Association, agreement for what n. common goals. Military village Conclude with. 3. State association. Australian s. S. cantons (in... ... Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary
Gagauz language. Belongs to the southwestern (Oghuz) group of Turkic languages. Distributed in the southern regions of Moldova and Ukraine (formerly Bessarabia), in the North Caucasus, partly in Kazakhstan and Central Asia; outside the USSR in the north... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia
Not to be confused with the Ainyan language. Ainu language Self-name: アイヌ イタク, Aynu itak (Ainu itak) Countries ... Wikipedia
Stylistic paradigmatics- is a set of multi-level units that make up the stylistic resources of the language and provide the speaker with the opportunity to choose to carry out an act of communication in accordance with the goals of communication and the whole complex of extralinguistic... ... Stylistic encyclopedic dictionary of the Russian language
Ainu language- (Ainu) one of the languages of East Asia, the family ties of which are not clear. It was distributed over most of the Japanese Islands (Hokkaido Island and the eastern part of Honshu Island), in the southern part of Sakhalin Island, on the Kuril Islands, on... ... Linguistic encyclopedic dictionary
c) causal conjunctions. Since, because, because, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, in view of the fact that, because, in connection with the fact that, due to the fact that, etc.;
d) alliance of investigation. So;
e) comparative conjunctions. As, as if, as if, exactly, likewise, etc.;
f) conditional conjunctions. If, if, if, if only, once, etc.;
g) concessional alliances. Although, let it be, let it be, despite the fact that, etc.;
h) target alliances. In order to, in order to, then in order to, etc.
investigation union see subordinating conjunctions (in the article union).
union connection. Connecting homogeneous members or parts of a complex sentence using conjunctions. See homogeneous parts of the sentence, complex sentence. Wed: non-union connection.
allied subordination see allied subordination (in the article subordination of sentences),
allied word. A significant word that serves as a means of connecting the subordinate clause with the main one and simultaneously performs the function of a member of the sentence. The role of allied words are relative pronouns who, what, which, whose, which, how many and pronominal adverbs where, where, from, how, when, why, why, why, etc. Cf. homonymous conjunction that and the conjunction word that, the conjunction when and the conjunction word when, the conjunction as and the conjunction word how. I thought that Konovalov had changed from a wandering life (Gorky) (which is a conjunction). - Everything that Evgeniy still knew, he had no time to tell me (Pushkin) (which is a conjunction word as an addition). Grigory smelled of sadness and desolation when, through the fallen gate, he entered the estate’s courtyard overgrown with swan, (Sholokhov) (when - union). - I had to sit, write, listen to stupid or rude remarks and wait for me to be fired (Ch. e x o v) (when is a conjunctive word in the role of a time adverbial). Krainev raised his head and saw a column of cars (Popov) drive through the open gate (as a conjunction close in meaning to the conjunction that was used to draw attention to the action referred to in the subordinate clause). - Everyone watched them unfold. and planes come in from the rear (Fedin) (kak - a conjunctive word with the meaning “how” and in the role of circumstance of the course of action).
special vocabulary. Words and phrases that name objects and concepts related to various areas of human labor activity and are not commonly used. Special vocabulary includes terms and professionalisms.
spirants. Same as fricative consonants.
spontaneous(Latin spontaneus - spontaneous). Independent, unconditional, free. Spontaneous sound changes (not determined by the position of the sound).
way of verb action. Lexico-grammatical category of the verb, interacting with the category of aspect and expressing those meanings that are associated with the process of action (any moment of its implementation, intensity of manifestation, internal division, etc.). The main meanings associated with expressing the mode of verb action are as follows:
4) the meaning of inception in perfective verbs formed using prefixes WHO; vz; for-, for-. To ignite, to flare up, to wave, to scream, to stride, to thunder, to run, to blow;
2) the meaning of limiting action in time, in the fullness of its manifestation in perfective verbs formed with the prefix By- or several consoles. Lie down, dream, cry, swim, jump, whistle, sit, stand, trample, make noise, hold, think;
3) the meaning of effectiveness (completeness of action, completion of process, exhaustion of action) for perfective verbs formed with prefixes about-, from-, y-, from-. Sleep (all night), sit (pants), lie down (arm), load, warm up, have dinner, make noise, get tired, get cold, get wet, wound, cripple, dry up, write up (all the paper);
4) the distributive meaning of perfective verbs with prefixes re-, over- and several attachments. Whitewash, chop, bite, break, wash, spoil, throw, bite, close, open;
5) the value of the intensity of the onset of action for perfective verbs formed using a suffix -Well-.. To thunder, to gush, to laugh;
1.2. Secondary allied connection
The first direction of destruction of the compositional canon is manifested in the absence of syntactic single-functionality of the composed members, which is compensated by their semantic one-dimensionality. This phenomenon has two varieties, differing in whether the semantic community of members exists initially or it appears only in the situation.
The type of constructions most mastered by the language with composed members that have an initial semantic community are constructions with pronouns (interrogative, negative, indefinite and generalizing) (Beloshapkova 1977: 23):
(3a) NobodyAndneveraboutthisNotthought.
(3b.) WhoAndonHow manylate?
They are adjacent to constructions with a similar type of meaning, but expressed by non-pronominal words; Wed pronominal combination AllAndAlways and non-pronominal
(4) ManyAndoften(arrivemoreworse).
The common meaning of the composed members can be embodied in their lexeme identity (or the identity of the root morpheme):
(5a) I'm talkingWithpoetAndOpoet[example of V.Z. Sannikov].
(5 B) FelloniceNotWithhorses,AWithhorse:bigdifferenceFormyequestrianpride(A.S. Pushkin).
(5v) AlthoughdecryptionlinearletterswascompletedVEnglandAndEnglishman,Byto hisimagethoughtsMichaelVentrislessTotalresembledon"typicalEnglishman".
There are also constructions in which the semantic community of the composed members is not initially specified, but appears only in the situation:
(6a) Clerk…VeryfastAndVdifferentdirectionsmovedfingers(example from Peshkovsky 1956).
(6b) I thinkmyselfhas the rightwriteto youpencil,VbedAndthe mosthomemadeletter(A. Blok).
(6c) ForeverYouyou writeletterspencilorVbed.
So, constructions of type (3)–(6) have the common property that they contain elements of a sentence that relate to the same element, but perform different roles in relation to it and, due to this, could be subordinated to it. At the same time, constructions (3)–(5) with a “sealed” semantic community of composed genes are more or less grammaticalized, while constructions like (6) manifest the speaker’s special intention to indicate the one-dimensionality of certain aspects of the situation with some currently relevant points of view. This side of the matter was clearly described by A. M. Peshkovsky: recognizing “certain subordinate members as homogeneous in some way, we get the opportunity to connect them with unions, no matter how far they are from each other both grammatically and logically” (Peshkovsky 1956 : 442). Sentence (6a) differs from the corresponding sentence in the essay in that speed and direction are perceived by the speaker as one-dimensional characteristics of movement. In this regard, I would like to draw attention to constructions with interrogative pronouns of type (3b) (Kreidlin 1983). In them, the difference from the corresponding sentence without a composition is not limited to indicating the commonality of the composed interrogative elements. Let's compare (3b) and (7):
(3b) WhoAndonHow manylate?
(7) WhoonHow manylate?
In (3b) we are dealing with a simple combination of two questions: Wholate?OnHow manylate? In (7) only one question is presented - the magnitude of the lateness of each of the late persons, or, more precisely, about the correspondence between(already known) set of latecomers and set of time periods characterizing the quantity.
The next direction in which the erosion of the compositional canon occurs is associated with constructions containing the so-called secondary conjunction (Priyatkina 1977, Grammatika 1980: 179):
(8a) Hesings,Andnot bad.
(8b) Boywalking,Butfew.
(8c) Uswas comingshort-lived,Butparting.
In these sentences, the conjunction connects elements that are already connected to each other by a subordinating relationship. Therefore, when removing a conjunction from a sentence, it does not lose coherence: walking,Butfew=> walkingfew. Such a conjunction is called secondary, since it is, as it were, “superimposed” on the subordinating connection that constitutes the primary basis of the phrase.
Constructions of type (3)–(7) and constructions of type (8) are usually considered as fundamentally different (Priyatkina 1977, Grammatika 1980, Sannikov 1980). There are indeed serious differences between them, which we will discuss later. However, one cannot help but notice that the constitutive property of the secondary conjunction - the imposition of composition on subordination - is equally applicable to both types of constructions. True, this overlap occurs somewhat differently. In (3)–(7) the members connected by the union are subordinate to some third, and in (8) one of them is subordinate to the other. Therefore, by the way, constructed series of type (3)–(7) can consist of three or more terms, and series of type (8) are always two-term.
Thus, somewhat expanding the accepted word usage, we will say that there are two types of constructions with a secondary conjunction - constructions with the original subordination of the composed members (conditionally - type A) and constructions with original subordination (conditionally - type B). Let us turn to the similarities and differences between type A and type B designs.
Constructions of both types are usually pronounced with a separate logical stress on each of the composed members. Let's consider the proposal
(9) INthisyearHerestedonsouth,Butsavage.
If you pronounce it with the first logical emphasis on combinations onsouth, then the union will connect the elements onsouth And savage, and the construction will be of type A. If the logical stress falls on the verb, then the composed elements will be the combination restedonsouth And savage, and the design will fall into type B.
Constructions of both types are contrasted with the corresponding constructions without composition by their communicative organization. A secondary connection divides a sentence into as many separate statements as there are composed members. The multiplicity of logical stresses noted above is also connected with this. It is characteristic that in cases where subordinate elements each have such great communicative weight that they are incompatible within the framework of one statement, the essay turns out to be mandatory:
(10a) HeleftfarAndfor a long time.
(10b) *Heleftfarfor a long time.
Let us now move on to the differences between constructions of type A and type B. The most significant of them is what semantic relationship is established between the composed members. Let us return, for example, to sentence (6b) (type A). The speaker tells us that in the described situation he considers the elements “pencil”, “in bed” and “the home letter itself” as one-dimensional, subsumed, in the words of A. M. Peshkovsky, under the same rubric (“informal relations between the author letter and its addressee").
In example (8a) (type B), the speaker does not at all suggest that we consider the meanings “sings” and “not bad” to be at least in some sense semantically the same. Union And only turns the single statement “he sings well” into two separate ones – “he sings” and “he does it well.” The difference between constructions of type A and type B is well reflected in the terms of V.Z. Sannikov: “semantic-coordinative construction” (type A)vs. “communicative-compositional construction” (type B).
As example (8a) shows, the semantic components connected by a conjunction in a type B construction are not independent, but are nested within one another. This explains another difference between types A and B: in constructions of type A, a conjunction is allowed or(see (6c)), but in type B constructions it is impossible.
(11)*Hesings,ornot bad.
The point here is that the union or in principle, is able to connect only such statements about which the speaker admits that only one of them can take place, and at the same time it is not known in advance which one. If we talk
(12) TomorrowWelet's goVmovieorVtheater,
then we admit that each of the possibilities can be realized separately (although, perhaps, we do not exclude the possibility that both are realized at once). Otherwise, that is, if the speaker did not allow their separate implementation, he would have to use the conjunction And:
(13) TomorrowWelet's goVmovieAndVtheater.
It is precisely this property – the independent separate realizability of both alternatives – that is violated in (11). If the second alternative (“he sings well”) is satisfied, then the first alternative (“he sings”) is certainly satisfied.
Now that we have discussed the similarities and differences between constructions of type A and B, we can return to the question posed above - the question of the internal sources of decanonization in these constructions. In order to detect them, one should turn to a deeper - semantic - level of presentation of sentences, at which their meaning is revealed more explicitly. From this level we will demand that at it, in particular, the semantic spheres of action of valence words are presented in an explicit form (but the semantic decomposition of these words themselves is not carried out).
Consider sentences (14a, b) with the conjunction But:
(14a) Herestedonsouth,Butsavage(type A).
(14b) Herested,Butfew(type B).
First of all, it is important to emphasize that in the semantic structure of sentences (14a)–(14b) there is not one proposition, but two. This follows from the very semantics of the conjunction But, which characterizes the relationship between two events: R,ButQ= “it is natural to expect that the event R accompanied by an event Not-Q; in this case the event R accompanied by the event Q'" (Levin 1970: 78). Semantic structure of sentences with conjunction But must explicitly indicate those events R andQ, the relationship between which is described by this union. Restoring these events, we obtain structure (15a) for sentence (14a), and structure (15b) for (14b):
(15a) “he rested in the south, but he rested as a savage”;
(15b) “he rested, but he rested little.”
Additional evidence in favor of the two-part structure (15a)–(15b) is the fact that each of the elements connected by the conjunction in (14a)–(14b) has a logical accent marking individual statements.
Structures (15a)–(15b) obviously do not contradict the canon of the work. In them, a conjunction connects units of the same type - entire propositions. On the way from these structures to sentences (14a)–(14b) there should be a transformation that is similar in its tasks to the transformation of a creative abbreviation, but does not coincide with it in terms of application conditions. Both transformations reduce identical components in composed propositions. But if a coordinating reduction requires that the composed members resulting from the reduction have the same syntactic and communicative functions in the original propositions, then for a transformation that generates constructions with secondary conjunctions, this condition is not met. In case (14a) the composed terms onsouth And savage perform different syntactic functions, although they are semantically comparable. In the case of (14b), the difference from coordinating contraction is even more significant: in the first proposition of structure (15b) there is no component at all, semantically comparable to the element “little”, and, in addition, the contracted component rested performs significantly different communicative roles in composed propositions (rheme in the first proposition and theme in the second). However, it is not our task to give a complete formal description of this transformation. It is more important for us to note that it is precisely at the moment when this transformation takes place that the destruction of the compositional canon occurs.
So, constructions with a secondary conjunction are constructions whose semantic structures still have the properties of a canonical composition, and whose surface structures have already lost them.
However, the canon has a certain stability, and incentives of sufficient strength are needed to go beyond it. In type A and type B designs, these stimuli appear to be different.
Type A constructions are based on the speaker’s desire to find commonality in different things, to bring heterogeneous phenomena under a single heading, if this meets his communicative needs in a given situation. This factor works the easier the easier it is to find commonality in subordinate elements, the more “on the surface” this commonality lies, the less it depends on the context (cf. chain (3)–(4)–(5)–(6)) .
Constructions of type B, as we have already noted, do not impose on us a view of the elements connected by the union as being of the same plane. What these elements have in common is only that they perform the same communicative role—the role of rheme—in the corresponding propositions of the semantic structure. Here, the actor is responsible for decanonization, demanding the most compact expression of two communicatively independent propositions.
Syntactic connections are connections that are established between words, parts of complex sentences and independent sentences in the text through special connecting indicators (conjunctions, allied words, analogues of conjunctions, morphological word qualifiers, intonation, etc.) and serve to express syntactic relationships.
At different levels of the syntactic system there are different types of syntactic connections.
Thus, in a complex sentence, a distinction is made, first of all, between a conjunction and a non-conjunction.
Allied communication– this is a syntactic connection, the formal indicators of which are conjunctions and allied words; implemented in simple and complex sentences, as well as at the text level.
The conjunction is divided into subordinating and coordinating.
Coordinating connection is a conjunction, the formal indicators of which are coordinating conjunctions and which is used to express coordinating relationships. The coordinative connection is realized outside of phrases and is established between components of syntactic units that are independent of each other and functionally equal.
Subordinating connection- this is a type of syntactic connection between the components of syntactic units that are in a relationship of one-way dependence and perform different functions. This connection is implemented at the level:
1) phrases: study(What?) syntax; to turn(Where?) right);
2) a simple sentence from which phrases are extracted: America discovered by Columbus);
3) complex sentence: When we left the station, a bluish light was already dawning over Feodosia(K. Paustovsky);
4) a complex syntactic whole: What kind of light is this? The lights of restless souls burn over the night swamps with the same pale flame. Of what it is no longer difficult for a person with logical thinking skills to conclude what kind of energy fuels jokes about new Russians(V. Pelevin)
A special connection is established between the subject and the predicate in a two-part sentence, which is called predicative connection or coordination, since it is two-sided: The sky was already breathing autumn, / The sun was shining less often, / The day was getting shorter...(A. Pushkin). The mutual dependence of the two components is manifested in the possibility of asking questions from one to another; each component affects the grammatical characteristics of the dependent (coordination of the predicate with the subject in number and gender).
Non-union connection- this is a syntactic connection, formed in contrast to the allied connection without the help of conjunctions and allied words; its indicators are intonation and some other linguistic means; implemented in both simple and complex sentences.