|
Tilshunoslikdagi zamonaviy yo
‘
nalishlar: muammo va yechimlar
124
2)
to determine the status of a complicated sentence as a "special syntactic
unit of the transitional type in the sentence subsystem";
3)
to substantiate the specificity of the distribution of complicated
sentences on the scale of transition from convergence with a simple, complex
sentence to convergence with complex ones;
4)
to consider such complicating categories as:
a)
homogeneity;
b)
separation;
c)
clarification;
d)
direct address;
e)
category of introduction (вводности) /Dmitrieva, 1981, 6-7/, which in
general the author has done very scrupulously.
Another work in the same direction is devoted to the study of compоsite
sentences with a conjunctive connection in modern Russian, the multicomponential
structure of which can include from four to eight components /Kalashnikova, 1981,
19/.
In her work, G. F. Kalashnikova considers multicomponential composite
sentences with a conjunctive connection as a separate structural type of sentence, she
also made an attempt to identify the main factors that cause the existence and
functioning of such units in language and speech. There are three such factors,
according to the author of the work:
1)
semantic;
2)
structural /named by the author as "internal"/;
3)
extralinguistic (external) /Kalashnikova, 1981, 33/.
Of undoubted scientific and theoretical interest is also the work of G. A.
Zolotova "Communicative aspects of Russian syntax" (1982), in which the author
aims to describe the types of auto-semantic syntactic units, including composite
sentences from the point of view of their communicative-pragmatic functioning in
the language, which is valuable for general linguistics /Zolotova, 1982/.
The work of E. V. Goldina aims to study three-componential compound
sentences in modern Russian. The author chose complex sentences of three-
componential structure only with constructive relations between components as the
object of her research, which makes it different from other works /Goldina, 1989, 3/.
Familiarization with special literature on composite sentences and related
larger syntactic constructions /Yakovlev, 1981; Zenzerov, 1990 and others/ shows
that the theory of large syntactic units close to composite sentences is just beginning
to develop, but there is still no clear distinction between multicomponential
composite sentences and the so-called supraphrasal units, or complicated syntactic
wholes, respectively, there are still no clear, well-founded definitions of composite
Tilshunoslikdagi zamonaviy yo
‘
nalishlar: muammo va yechimlar
125
sentence itself, and related other syntactic constructions. Such state of things
sometimes leads to a mixture of different types of syntactic units, ranging from
simple unextended sentences and up to syntactic constructions that are larger than
composite sentences, therefore, it inhibits the development of the theory of syntactic
units. This state of things is caused, in our opinion, by the fact that researchers
sometimes ignore quantitative parameters directly linked to the qualitative
parameters of composite sentences and other large units close to them, which
prompts the need to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of
the units of typologically different languages under consideration.
Here it is also necessary to take into account the sign qualities of these units,
while the recognition of the sign status of these units will entail the recognition of
their monolithic integrity.
In our opinion, all issues related to substantiating the status of any specific
linguistic units of a bilateral nature should be resolved on the basis of extensive
empirical materials of languages of various systems, which will ensure their validity
and the right to exist in a number of various types of linguistic units and various
approaches to them.
In a row of studies of syntactic units of one language, comparative and
typological research on syntax becomes especially important for the development of
a general syntactic theory of language. They make it possible to identify both
isomorphic and allomorphic features of syntactic units of languages different
systems, contribute to a deep penetration into the essence of syntax, help to
determine the status and nomenclature of its categories in languages, and also to
formulate conclusions of a general linguistic nature revaling, as far as possible,
linguistic universals, as well frequentals, implications, recessives and uniquals. In
addition, on the basis of such studies, it is possible to establish general patterns of
the formation and development of syntactic categories and functions in language.
Analysis of special literature on composite sentences indicates that linguists
in one way or another have considered and described the following most important
issues of composite sentences:
1)
composite sentence as a separate syntactic unit of a multifaceted nature,
which has its own patterns of structural and semantic organization and functioning;
2)
composite sentence and its conceptual and terminological aspect;
3)
taxonomy of composite sentence as to types of syntactic links between
components;
4)
ways and means of connection;
5)
the status of the components of composite sentence in its structure;
6)
equal, main and subordinate clauses as components of composite
sentence;
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
