Lecture The problem of syntactic connections in traditional grammar

Lecture 6.
The problem of syntactic connections in traditional grammar.
As it is known syntactic analysis of the structure of the sentence in traditional grammars means to determine the primary and the secondary parts of the sentence such kind of syntactic analysis of the sentence played the leading role until in the middle of XX century. In spite of this time has come to workout new approaches to analyse the structure of the sentence, its deep structure and syntaxeme analyses on the syntactic level. (B.C.Xrakovskiy. Концепция членов предложения в русском языкознании XX веке).
About this point A.Nurmanov considered that structural elements of the sentence or syntactic position, propositive structural elements to the attitude to objective real structure isomorphism communicative (actual) structure theme known and time modal structure are studied from the point view of objective and subjective relations (A.Nurmanov Tilshunoslik o`rganish va sintaksisning ayrim munozarali masalalari , O`zbek tili va adabiyoti 1988, 1b)
Really every structure has its possible elements. They are between themselves related on the base of associative and sintagmatic connection only in the given structure. If we take in the consideration the analysis of the sentence in this way some disputable questions in traditional linguistics may be sounded their decisions. In general syntactic analysis of the structure of the sentence traditional is limited by designing primary and secondary parts of the sentence. Such type of analysis is based on formal side of sentence. Logical linguistics are also limited defining logical subject instead of the structural subject and logical “predicate” instead of structural predicate. But in the case the differentative features and likeness between logical subject and 33

logical predicate and structural predicate are remained without defining. For example Russian logic linguist F.I.Buslayv considered that the subject corresponds with the noun in common case… sometimes the subject and predicate can be expressed by other parts of speech but expressing unit of subject expressing the meaning of the noun, expressing predicate expresses the meaning of the verb (Istoricheskaya grammatika russkogo yazika. M. 1968)

So if the subject of the sentence in common case expresses only subject and the verb expresses the predicate then they are alike to each other then why do linguists call the primary parts of sentence with different terms? Besides those the term “predicate” is explained in different ways by linguists.
According to Y.A.Labonova considered the predicate is a sign on ontologic aspect, but on logical aspect it is as function. (Realizasiya predikativ izmeneniya v sovremennogo angliyskogo yazika).
The defender of psychological direction A.A. Shaxmatov wrote: “psychological subject is defined as an idea, according to the sphere it is a doer of the action expressed by the predicate, the object in the structure of the sentence attitude to the verb of the adjective which are combinated with it is considered the grammatical subject. So expressed notion about the object determined by predicate is psychological subject notion about the sign is psychological predicate. According to A.A. Peshkovskiy “the predicate expresses the action which is done by an object the subjeсt expresses an object as doer of the action (Русский синтаксис в научном освещении, М. 2002). In this idea we can see that grammatical predicate doesn’t correspond to logical predicate and grammatical subject doesn’t correspond to logical subject. He tried to prove his notions on the base of impersonal sentence. Some linguists wrote that the centre of content of sentence and syntax structure is predicate. (О.М. Тожиев, Ўзбек тилида от- предикат гапларнинг мазмуний ва синтактик тузилиши. Номзодлик диссертацияси, Т, 1995 ).
The words having lexical meaning may be word in the function of the subject logically. In this case the logical subject can be seen by means of order of words in 34

the structure of the sentence, auxiliaries, phrase stresses or while composing new sentences expressing that idea ( В.Н. Мигран. Отношения между частями речи и членами предложения. НДВШ, Москва,1959,№1).

In this case G.L. Kolshanskiy wrote : “ …the subject in the meaning of notion may be different in decision. Logical subject can be expressed by different parts of speech as syntactic parts of sentence ” (Логика и структура языка, М,1965) .
The predicate explains the content which expressed in logical subject. The predicate, according to its meaning characterizes the logical subject, i.e. in the functions subject-agent or object, in some cases certain number, adjective characteristic features may be loaded. A.A. Potebnia’s consideration “… predicative connection is grammatical form of finite-verb” (Из записок по русской грамматике,М,1958). This means that the verb form can exchange the nоtion of predication.
So, if predicativity is considered as predicate verb, then there is no any difference between logical and grammatical categories. In this case A.A. Shakhmаtov tried to differentiate grammatical and communicative composition, i.e. “стол стоит в комнате” in this sentence the verb “стоит” in the function of predicate, стоит в комнате is a depended communication composition, i.e. in the function of predicate ( Shakhmatov, 1941, 42) . In other types of sentence as “ он высокого роста” the predicate is not taken part in, such kind of state he called a