Syntactic functions of unions. Conjunctions, their semantics and usage

Unions are service words that are used to connect members of a sentence. Are they really that important? Why do we need conjunctions in Russian? Conjunctions are indispensable in our speech, because they connect syntactic units and express semantic connections between words and parts of sentences. Unions have their own grammatical meaning - they indicate the syntactic relationship that exists between units of the language. Depending on this, they are called coordinating and subordinating. Both those and others in Russian combine words or parts of a sentence into a whole, and also express various types of connections between them.

The role of conjunctions in sentences: examples

The union "and" is often used to combine homogeneous members of a sentence: "I saw tigers and monkeys at the zoo."

Coordinating and adversative conjunctions are also used in compound sentences: "Father called, and Sergey came running." The parts of a compound sentence are united by the coordinating conjunction "and". The unions "a" and "but" are used in compound sentences for opposition: "Fyodor acted stupidly, and Victor was able to correct his mistake"; "Larisa knew about his misdeed, but she could not tell anyone about it."

Unions play a very important role in complex sentences, they express various relationships between the main part of the sentence and the subordinate clause.

So, the union can participate in the formation of a complex sentence with an explanatory clause, which explains, reveals in the clause the thought begun in the main one. Examples: "Yana told how she had a rest in the summer" (told about what?); "He decided it was time to look for a job" (he decided what?).

Another example of a complex sentence, in which the union "if" conveys a condition (subordinate clause of a conditional type): "If the weather is bad tomorrow, I won't go for a walk" (I won't go for a walk under what condition?).

And here is a sentence in which the union "when" conveys the temporary nature of the subordinate part: "When the holidays begin, my parents and I will go on vacation abroad" (when will we go on vacation abroad?).

And let's give the last example of a complex sentence in which the union "because" expresses a causal relationship between the main part and the subordinate clause: "She was offended by you because you did bad things to her" (question to the subordinate clause: why was she offended?).

Let's summarize why conjunctions are needed in Russian. Thanks to conjunctions, our speech becomes connected and logical. They are necessary for expressing thoughts orally or in writing. Unions connect words and parts of complex sentences, express various semantic connections between them.

The concept of union

UNION

1. The concept of union.

2. Ranks of unions by function.

3. Groups of coordinating unions by meaning.

4. Groups of subordinating unions by value.

5. Ranks of unions by education and structure.

6. Ranks of unions by use.

7. Unions and allied words.

Unions- these are service words expressing syntactic relations between the members of a sentence, parts of a complex sentence and individual sentences.

You are not more anxious and capricious,

But I surrendered to you for a long time

Because of many, many lives

You know how to merge into one.

Unions indicate certain semantic relationships between the named language units. “Union,” wrote A. A. Shakhmatov, “does not matter in itself, but as an exponent of this or that combination, as a verbal

finding such a combination.

V. V. Vinogradov emphasized that unions, "in essence, are beyond morphology." But they are not isolated from other parts of speech:

1) conjunctions can be formed in a morphological-syntactic way from other parts of speech. For example, I heard what you're back ( what- goes from a pronoun to a union); You are the same, as before ( as- the transition of an adverb into a union).

2) can be substantiated: I do not accept any but.

Unions do not change, are not members of the proposal.

(or by the nature of the expressed relations - Grammar-70)

Depending on the functional meaning, all unions are divided into coordinating and subordinating.

Coordinating conjunctions indicate relative autonomy, equality of connected units: fathers and children, white or black.

Subordinating conjunctions indicate the dependence of one unit on another and are attached to the subordinate part of the sentence:

We are waiting for the harvest from the best vines,

So that beauty lived without fading...

Coordinating conjunctions occupy an autonomous position between the connected units, without entering into any of them. They connect homogeneous members, parts of a compound sentence and sentences in the text:

'Cause somewhere there's a simple life and light.

May someday my name

Children read in the textbook

And having learned the sad tale

Let them smile slyly...

Coordinating conjunctions were formed earlier than subordinating ones and at first they could even be used as subordinating ones.

Subordinating conjunctions are used in complex sentences, linking the subordinate clause with the main one:

I like, what you're not sick of me...

There is no summer in the world if you are away.

L. D. Chesnokova points out that some unions can act as

coordinating, then as subordinating:

- although (though) (and) ... but

He but little, but quite good (coordinative union: connects homogeneous predicates).

Although was late, but we were in no hurry to disperse (connects parts of a complex sentence: a subordinate clause with a concessive meaning and the main thing).

– if... then

If a we'll go to the concert then tickets must be bought in advance (subordinative: connects the subordinate clause with the main clause).

If a on land suffered only partially from artillery fire, then on the ship they were maimed exclusively from exploding shells (coordinative: the comparison matters, can be replaced by the union a).

3. Groups of coordinating conjunctions by meaning

The following groups of coordinating conjunctions are distinguished by meaning:

1) connecting - and, yes (= and), and... and, neither... neither, also, too(express enumeration relations): The stars are fading and go out.

2) adversative - but, but, yes (= but), but, nevertheless, nevertheless, however(relations

contrasts, inconsistencies): I heard a ringing, Yes you don't know where he is.

The song over the house fell silent, but over the pond the nightingale started his own.

3) separating - or, or, or... or, either... or, then... that, not that... not that, either... or(relations of mutual exclusion or alternation):

Why are you, my old woman, silent at the window?

Or howling storms you, my friend, are tired

Or are you dozing under the buzz of your spindle?

4) comparative - like ... so and, not only ... but also, although ... but, if not ... then, not that ... but (but), not so much ... how much(V. V. Lopatin, I. G. Miloslavsky call them gradation). For example: There are many features in Siberia as in nature, so and in human manners.

5) connecting - and yes and yes yes(serve to attach words, phrases and sentences containing additional remarks): Sister cooked well, yes and sewed well.

6) explanatory - that is, namely, or(express relationship explanations): I stayed here for a week, i.e until Sunday or Monday.

Coordinating conjunctions connect components on the basis of their equality, without indicating the dependence of one of the components. According to the expressed relations, coordinating conjunctions are divided into groups:

1) connecting, which express the enumeration relations: and, and., and, neither ... nor, yes (= and), etc .;

2) adversatives, expressing relations of opposition, inconsistency, differences: a, but, yes (= but), however, the same, but, etc .;

3) separating, expressing relations of mutual exclusion, alternation: or, or, whether ... whether, then ... then, or ... either, not that ... not that, etc .;

4) explanatory, expressing relations of explanation: somehow, exactly, namely, that is;

5) connecting, serving to attach words, phrases, sentences containing additional remarks: yes and, and, also, too, and also, etc.

Subordinating conjunctions serve to connect syntactically unequal units, more often parts of the NGN, indicate the dependence of one of the components on the other: The apartment is comfortable, although small. Subordinating unions are distinguished by value:

1) explanatory (showing that the part attached with their help reveals the specific content of the individual words of the other part): what, what if (would);

2) temporary: when, while, while, after, barely, before, before and etc.;

3) comparative: than, rather than, as if, as if, as, as, exactly and etc.;

4) consequences: so;

5) causal: because, since, for, because, in view of the fact that and etc.;

6) target: to; then to; so that;

7) conditions: if, once, if, if;

8) concessions: although despite the fact that and etc.

SPELLING OF UNIONS

1. The union should be distinguished from the pronoun what with the particle: the union to be written in one word, and the pronoun with the particle in two words: what, the particle from the pronoun can be separated and moved to another place, for example: I came to the reading room to read the book I need. What should I read on this subject? What should I read on this subject?

2. The adverbial expression by all means consists of six parts, which are written separately.

3. Unions are also written in one word, and the pronoun and the adverb are written separately with the particle; in the latter case, the particle can be omitted. Very often, with the pronoun then with the particle, the pronoun is what, and with the adverb so with the particle, the adverb is how.

4. Union too semantically equal to the union also, and both equal union and , replacing each other, for example:

1) I too read this book. - I also read this book. - And I read this

book.

2) I read Same , as you. - I have Same gray coat in which you

I was seen last year. - I have then the grayest coat.

3) I know same way , like you. - I know So , like you.

5. The word so, meaning "therefore," acts as a union. It must be distinguished from the combination of the union and with the adverb so, which is written in two words, for example: So, it's all over. (Hence, it's all over.) I fell and bruised my leg so much that I had to see a doctor.

6. The union, on the other hand, is close in meaning to the union, but it is also written in one word; the preposition for with the demonstrative pronoun then is written separately, for example:

1) It was getting colder, but the rain stopped (but = but).

2) Hide behind that tree.

7. Unions and and besides close in value to the expression at the same time and are written in one word; pretext at with pronouns volume and how written separately, for example: Students were given worksheets with tasks. besides They were warned that they had two hours to decide. - Students were given worksheets with tasks. and warned... - The students were given papers and at the same time warned... But: At the same time Attached are the required documents. What does will you stay?

8. Unions are written separately as if, because, because, since, so, as soon as, not that ... not that, that is.

THE DIFFERENCE OF UNIONS TOO, ALSO, TO, BUT FROM HOMONYM WORDS

THE DIFFERENCE OF UNIONS FROM HOMONYMIC WORDS
UNIONS	HOMONYMIC WORDS
you cannot omit or move part of the union; can be replaced by a synonym; play a connecting role are not part of the offer.	you can omit or move part of the union to another place; cannot be replaced by a synonym; are a member of the proposal.
TO (= TO) Example: I came here to(in order to) to see you.	WHAT WOULD (pronoun + particle) (the particle could be omitted or rearranged). EXAMPLE: What else could you come up with? Compare: What else could you think of?
ALSO (=AND) EXAMPLE: - Did you also rest in the Caucasus? And you rested in the Caucasus?	SAME (pronoun and particle) SAME (adverb and particle) (the particle can be omitted or rearranged to another place). Don't do what everyone else does if everyone else is doing it wrong.
AND BECAUSE (meaning "in addition to this"). EXAMPLE: The experiment was carried out successfully, and for the first time. The presentation is informative and, moreover, interesting in form.	AT WHAT (preposition + pronoun) is used in interrogative sentences. What does he have to do with his claims? AT THEREFORE (defines the noun that follows it). At that publishing house there is a small printing house.
ZATO (= BUT) The ascent to the mountain is steep, but the road is beautiful.	FOR THEN (preposition + pronoun) The workers received a bonus for making repairs three days ahead of schedule.

USE OF CONNECTIONS IN A SIMPLE AND COMPLEX SENTENCE

General rules for using prepositions in and on the

Use of prepositions in and on the

Conjunctions form two types of syntactic links - coordinating and subordinating, depending on what they are divided into coordinating and subordinating.

Coordinating conjunctions join together homogeneous members of a sentence or parts of a compound sentence. According to the nature of the expression of semantic relations between homogeneous members of a sentence or parts of a compound sentence, conjunctions of conjugation are divided into connecting, adversative and divisive.

1. Binders /, and, yes (meaning and), neither ... nor, nor ... nor: Generously washed with songs, she went off to reminisce to snow, and the summer stood still, and the shadows lie with fatigue(L. Talalay); Shanuimosya, friends, in a long age and generous we will always be in love, let the children smile at us in turn, flying in dreams at dawn(G. Tkach).

2. Nasty ah but yes(in the meaning of but), however, but, however: Love for the people - this is service to the people, not the idea of ​​service(A. Dovzhenko); Lies, people say you will pass the world, but you will not return back "(G. Kvitka-Osnovyanenko).

3. Dividing or, or, or... or, whether..., then ... then at least. .. although, not that ... not that, or ... then: Here are the creeping green levadas, branched like a tablecloth. In some places, dark green willow bushes are scattered on the yellow-green tablecloth, sometimes round, like balls, sometimes pointed, like a poplar.(I. Nechuy-Levitsky); My son is a robber: either a cat or a dog - he's not afraid of anything climbs to fight (O. Oles).

Subordinating conjunctions connect the contracting part of the contractual sentence with the main one, and they are divided into meanings:

a) z "yasuvalni (what, to, whether, as, as if, as if, as if): Don't you see that the sky is turning blue, the sun smiles lower in the morning, that the whole earth, in some kind of expectation, is wondrous and breathes easier, and looks brighter (A. Oles); Having ventured to ask Vovka Leo to be instructed to serve as a foreman to the sheep ... (L. Glebov);

b) temporary (how, after, as soon as, only ... how, barely, soon, when, bye, bye): As she went home in a rye wreath, everyone joyfully congratulated the slender girl (P. Voronko); When blueberries ripen - start mowing the rye(Gen. creative.);

c) goals (in order to, in order to): Great self-sacrificial efforts should be made by the creative intelligentsia in order to raise the self-consciousness of our contemporaries, to awaken the deep life of the soul, national dignity and honor (A. Gonchar);

d) reasons (because, because, because, then what): As long as God gives me strength and as long as I live, I will do ... Our destiny is to work, because then our rest is endless (A. Kobylyanskaya);

d) conditional (if, if, when, how, so that if): If you successfully choose work and put your whole soul into it, then happiness will find you (Kol. Ushinsky);

e) allowable (although, for nothing, despite the fact that): Although it was only the first half of May, the sun burned mercilessly, like summer (V. Malik);

e) comparative (as if, as if, as if, as if, as if, as if, as if, supposedly, as, what): My soul is open for love, like a field for sweet grain ... (T. Severnyuk).

In the function of unions, full-meaning words can be used, which are called connecting words: who, what, whose, which, where, where, where. Unlike unions, which do not act as members of a sentence, connecting words play the role of the main or minor members of the subordinate part of a complex sentence. For example: / topics perished at the dawn of spring, we were unable to put up crosses in due time. One vespers greets their graves, one vespers their testament(G. Filyansky); / she herself was upset, why had never been with her before (A. Gonchar). In the first sentence, the highlighted allied word is the subject, and in the second - the application.

Conjunctions are related to prepositions. Conjunctions are particles of speech that denote logical-grammatical relationships and connections not only between homogeneous words and phrases as part of a syntagma or sentence, but also between groups of words, between syntagmas, sentences, phrases in the structure of complex syntactic units. Unlike prepositions that express the relationship of syntactic conditionality and dependence of case forms, the relationship of the "defining" name to the "defined" word, conjunctions express various syntactic relations of functionally homogeneous or syntactically matched and connected units of speech. Within the framework of the simplest syntactic units (syntagmas, sentences), all members of a phrase or sentence linked by conjunctions are combined by thought as grammatically homogeneous or lexically and logically comparable elements of speech. The overwhelming majority of conjunctions that establish a connection between words or combinations of words push them into the structure of a larger whole as a coherent unity. “Just as the yoke of the scales simultaneously sums up the forces applied along its edges and transfers them to the fulcrum, so the union simultaneously unites two members and refers them to the same third,” wrote A.M. Peshkovsky (1 ).
Conjunctions do not go into "prefixes" of the word, like prepositions. They have nothing to do with the "prepositional inflections" of the name, to which weak prepositions approach and into which they turn when they lose their real meanings. Conjunctions within a sentence or syntagma are in no way connected or correlated with the grammatical forms of those words that they put into the structure of phrases, syntagmas and sentences (cf. the sharp grammatical difference between combinations like Polkan with Barbos and Polkan and Barbos) (2) . The very circle of relations expressed by conjunctions within syntagmas and sentences goes far beyond the limits of relations indicated by prepositions, and in any case only partially comes into contact with them (3). Unions, writes Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, "serve to create a purely formal (syntactic) perspective within sentences and in their combination, but not perspectives in the very content of the phrase, i.e. not perspectives in space, time and in other respects, as it is make prepositions" (4).
There is a difference in the functions of unions that link "sentences" and unions that serve as bonds for individual words and homogeneous groups of words. The range of relations denoted and expressed by unions when linking a "sentence" is much wider and more diverse than the range of relations expressed by unions in combinations of an intraphrasal type (connective, joining, dividing, enumerative, adversative, etc.). In the meanings of conjunctions that serve the coupling of syntagmas and sentences, one can even notice a partial logical-grammatical parallelism with the meanings of prepositions. Some of the relationships indicated by prepositions within a sentence are expressed by conjunctions in a combination of sentences. Such, for example, are temporal, causal, target, comparative, quantitative, and other similar relationships. But even this type of conjunctions, unlike prepositions, do not directly affect the form of individual words, expressing the semantic relationships and correlations of word groups within complex syntactic units. And this type of unions cannot be compared without reservations with the "prefixes" of phrases (syntagmas) or sentences (5), since the relations they express are mostly bilateral. (Compare “double” conjunctions: if-then, since somehow, once-then, etc.; when-so, only-as, just-like other similar ones; compare a similar system of syntactic relations and relationships in verbal chains according to the scheme: I didn’t have time to do something ..., how ...; it was worth doing something ..., how ... and others like that). It goes without saying that the degree of closeness of connections and the nature of the dependence of one sentence on another are very heterogeneous in allied linkages of different types.
The traditional analogy between the so-called subordinate clauses and the members of a simple sentence, carried out in school textbooks with steady and one-sided straightforwardness, can actually have only a very limited and conditional value.
Thus, conjunctions are, in essence, beyond morphology. "Union," wrote A.A. Shakhmatov, "does not matter in itself, but as an exponent of this or that combination, as a verbal discovery of such a combination" (6).
The development of analytical tendencies in the structure of the Russian literary language was also reflected in the external appearance of the unions. Entire phraseological units, or idioms, are increasingly playing the role of unions. The grammatical functions of conjunctions are more and more associated with their lexical ("etymological") nature.
There is a sharp difference in morphological composition between the old simple, or "primitive" unions and the complex unions of the later formation (cf., for example, the simple unions a, but, and, whether, or, etc., on the one hand, and complex - on the other: nevertheless, for nothing that, like, because, then so that, since, meanwhile, despite the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that others are similar). In this regard, there is a clear parallelism of grammatical development between conjunctions and prepositions (as well as particles).
In addition, in the Russian language, the categories of hybrid or transitional words and expressions are expanding and multiplying, combining the meanings of conjunctions with the meanings of other grammatical categories.
1. Such, for example, are groups intermediate between conjunctions and modal words (and sometimes adverbs): so, on the contrary, finally, after all, nevertheless, at the same time, with all that, besides, nevertheless, true, as if, as if (not in an explanatory sense), exactly, exactly (colloquial), etc.
2. These are the words and particles that are simultaneously subsumed under the categories of conjunctions and adverbs: then, but, for the time being, for now, etc.
3. Even more words that form a transitional type from simple unions to various kinds of particles, for example: after all, here, too, also, and then, only, only other similar ones.
Within the category of conjunctions itself, three morphologically heterogeneous types of particle words collide:
1. Simple, morphologically indivisible particles-unions. Their morphological simplicity and indecomposability are inversely proportional to the semantic complexity and variety of their syntactic functions (cf., the meanings of conjunctions and, a, li, etc.).
2. Compound unions, often having the appearance of phraseological units and idioms. Morphological analysis reveals in the composition of many of these unions traces and living forms of various other parts of speech (cf., for example: after, before, only, etc.). The etymological lining of such unions seems to be visible from under their modern use. An increasing complication of the syntactic relations between the elements of speech, an increasing variety of compositional methods of speech construction come out even in the morphological "appearance" of these compound unions.
The lexical definiteness of the composition of these unions limits the range of their meanings to a strictly defined sphere of logical-syntactic relations. The morphological motivation of their meanings (cf., for example: due to the fact that, since, etc.) closes their use within the narrow limits of one semantic circle of relations.
3. Hybrid unions, combining the meanings of unions with the meanings of other, very diverse categories. This typological classification of unions, of course, does not in the least coincide with their syntactic division according to functions.
Even less connected with the morphological differences of unions is their division into coordinating and subordinating ones, which has become entrenched in the grammatical tradition (7). It is usually said that subordinating conjunctions are more closely merged with subordinate sentences, forming with them "one whole semantic mass" and thereby somewhat approaching the role of syntactic prefixes. Sometimes it is added that with the help of subordinating conjunctions one sentence determines another. On the contrary, coordinating unions are characterized by the fact that they "not only physically, but also in meaning stand between the quantities being connected, without merging in any way with any of them" (8). The closer connection of the subordinating conjunction with the subordinate clause is often illustrated by artificial logical analogies between the "subordination" of sentences and the "subordination" of members within the sentence.
However, from a morphological point of view, the line between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions is very slippery and indefinite (9). It would be more careful, instead of composing and subordinating sentences, to speak (as Academician A.A. Shakhmatov suggested) about different types of sentence chaining and different degrees of their dependence, expressed by conjunctions and other grammatical means: mood forms, relative tense forms, word order, pronominal words, intonation, etc.
Syntactic dependence is most clearly indicated by the union to with the subjunctive mood (to-l, -la, -lo, -li), especially after verbs with negation. Less definitely, but more diversely, it is expressed in the forms of explanatory (through conjunctions what and what), relative and conditional connection.
Particularly free and varied are the links expressed by temporary, comparative, and causal conjunctions.
But even these forms of dependence are easily subjected to syntactic transformation, especially in oral speech. In the styles of colloquial speech, the method of modal neutralization of dependent syntactic relations is common, the method of bringing constructions traditionally recognized as subordinating to the "composition denominator". Many conjunctions expressing syntactic dependence easily turn into modal words (cf .: as if, as if, not that, etc.). In addition, in everyday dialogue, the system of complex sentences with different degrees of allied linkages is generally poorly developed.
The use of many unions is characterized by sharp fluctuations in the degree of tightness and dependence of the syntactic links they express.
The amplitude of these fluctuations is especially great in concessive, temporary and comparative unions. Not without reason, even traditional grammarians (under the influence of Prof. D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky) attributed such concessive conjunctions as although (at least) to compositional ones (11). For example: "Everyone listens to him with his mouth open, even though he carries such game that his ears wither" (Krylov). Compare: "An irresistible, although quiet force carried me away" (Turgenev).
Here, although and although are very close in meaning to the unions a and but. Wed rapprochement, albeit albeit albeit with an alliance, however: “She was dressed in a neat, albeit faded, cotton dress” (Turgenev); "The comparison used by Pavlik, although true and apt, did not cause a smile on anyone's face" (Turgenev).
The use of comparative conjunctions is characterized by a wide semantic extensibility of the syntactic relations expressed by them. In many cases, the addition of syntagmas or sentences of comparison has the character of free associative chaining, carried out without direct grammatical dependence on the main syntactic group. Therefore, both parts of the comparative combination are easily separated and can exist as adjacent, separate syntactic units. For example: "Ellis's hand suddenly moved over my eyes, as if a white fog from a damp valley embraced me" (Turgenev, "Ghosts"); "I was immediately seized by an unpleasant, motionless dampness, as if I had entered a cellar" (Turgenev); "Yesterday's excitement disappeared. It was replaced by heavy bewilderment and some kind of unprecedented sadness - as if something had died in me" (Turgenev, "First Love"); "I love it when you talk. Like a brook murmurs" (Turgenev, "Fathers and Sons"). But compare: “Of all the couples filling the grove, this one was most anxious about the onset of night and rushed to leave her as if she were chasing them on their heels” (Pasternak).
The inseparability of logical-syntactic relations inherent in the structure of colloquial speech is also reflected in the constant mixing of the features of indirect speech with direct speech when transmitting other people's thoughts. Incessant jumps from the syntax of indirect speech to direct or improperly direct speech are a characteristic feature of Russian colloquial speech. Forms of direct dramatic transmission often break into indirect speech and make its structure intermittent and mixed (for example: “You are with the master, he says, scammers, and your master is a rogue. We, he says, have seen such charomists and scoundrels” - Gogol , "Inspector").
A.M. Peshkovsky strenuously argued that “we have not developed forms of indirect speech ... Indirect transmission of speech to the Russian (colloquial. - V.V) language is not characteristic. That is why we constantly jump from indirect speech to the usual direct speech. .. The distinction between direct and indirect speech is at the earliest stage of development with us "(12).