General notes on the multicomponent complex sentences, composed of functionally different components
General notes on the multicomponent complex sentences, composed of functionally different components
Department of Turkish Philology Faculty of Baku State University, Azerbaijan
The article deals with the question of understanding the syntactic status of multicomponent complex sentences in Azerbaijani linguistics. Investigate constitutive setting parameters mentioned structures as syntactic units. Summarizes the different concepts of the study of multicomponent complex sentences. The article considers the matter of compherension of syntactical status of semicomponental compound sentences in general linguistics, as well as the matter of establishment of the constitutive parameters of mentioned constructions as syntactical units. It summarizes various concepts of study of the semicomponental compound sentences in Russian and German studies. The article distinguishes specific semantic-structural properties, differentiating given constructions from stylistic-textual unit.
Key words: Multicomponental sentences; complex sentences; isomorphism, aphorism, construction, semantic structure.
The problem of multi-complex sentences not found its serious and systemic analysis in the general theory of syntax. (1). This aspect of a complex sentence (as well as MCCS) is a multilateral problem.
We are interested aspect of the problem is to secure semantic structural integrity MCCS understanding them as special syntactic units in said plane.
Speaking of different types from a functional point of view of the components naturally have in mind such structures MCCS, the components of which ( "simple sentences") there are different types of speech objectives: here there is the union of declarative sentence with an interrogative sentence (or sentences), imperative sentences with narrative and et al.
Different types of components is also observed on the background of the category in the affirmative, negative modality.
- I have not regretted that has given one bowl of rice when you Brav her armpit, talking about his father's house, did I tell you why you destroy this house? (Vezirov, regret later will not work).
- (Suleiman) You go, you take a wife uneducated, she does not understand a damn thing, and the educated can not say that Rise of here, sit there (M.Ibrahimov, Life, IV picture)
- [Sharif] Now you do not hit, I did not fall, where did this kid? (D.Dzhabbarly, Diamond II picture).
- Whom I did wrong, that happens to me so much trouble, my child so much slander ?! (M.Ibrahimov, Moth. I part, chapter 5).
As can be seen from the examples, like ICP ISCO also the target may be composed of different types of components. However, multi-component and multi-component compound sentences compound sentences in this sense are in a different position: the components (or parts) of the first can maintain its relative individuality: offers "Here you do not hit, I did not fall, where did this kid?" in a relationship works with the previous part, and semantic relations in connection contrast. Functional strength component with a question can not grasp the meaning of the prepositional; For comparison: I agree with what you say, but how did this child? = Almaz Khanum yet betrothed, and the bride is not here, then how did this child?
Those familiar with the content of the play have the ability to more accurately understand the interconnects semantic relationship of these proposals. In fact the overall design can also be given in two separate proposals. Then interrogative sentence remains entirely, and the previous (prepositional) proposal retains its individual sense (the condition, the cause, the possibility). And this, in turn, once again clearly shows the relative weakness of the syntactic and semantic link slozhnosochinennogo (Or multicomponent) proposals to each other.
In designs as complex sentences, we are witnessing another picture: a functional "range" includes the entire structure. If the main interrogative sentence, the compound sentence, too, the whole interrogative; if the main clause interrogative, then neutralized by questioning the meaning of the subordinate clause (I forgot (that) when you come = I forgot the time of your arrival)?and finally if the main clause imperative, the design of subordination in general imperative sense. Go, tell the people that the store was robbed. (S.Ragimov, Caucasian eagle XII chapter) = Go tell the people about the robbery warehouse).
In some cases, it weakens the imperious meaning of the main clause, and is forced to be complicit "interrogative sense of the subordinate clause. The reason for this is the meaning of the sentence "I want to ask," "I ask the question," that is a thematic imperative, interrogative position is subject to a pure question (Rem) meaning; compare:
- (Odzhakkuli) No, let him tell me right now. (That) have each building its own master, or not? (D.Dzhabbarly. Diamond,II Act).
- (Odzhakkuli) Well, here you tell me that there is a master in each building, and the creator of each creation. (D.Dzhabbarly. Diamond, ibid, III act).
If we approach the issue in a principled position in complex or multi-component structures, we need to seriously emphasize that the main component of the proposal is a priority with the grammatical position.
Researchers point to the atypical relationships, combinations of incentive proposals to subordinate clause (or suggestions) emphasize their appearance even in colloquial speech (2); It indicates that commanding sense can not keep its distinctiveness in the organic integrity in unity with interrogative sense, because these meanings can not be together, not combined (ibid). Only in sentences composing component with a commanding sense in conjunction with a component of the meaning of a question can retain its own individual meaning: functional face two simple sentences are stored in the following cases:
- Take the jam, or do not like?
- Berry jam, not really something not to like? etc.
In general, Compound and different design (as their multi derivatives) clearly show a non-identity of its components from the viewpoint of functional homogeneity and inhomogeneity. Due to the lack of hierarchical communication components in compound sentences (in spite of their relationship in form and content), compound sentences do not have an objective modality. This is due to the fact that the total predicativity single compound sentence, and, therefore, complex sentences are formed as a linear (Linear), a collection of separate predicative.
The compound sentence and their multi-modality derivates question is somewhat different nature. So, in these structures due to location of components in a hierarchical syntactic context and relationships, they are in a position of greater unity. Despite the existence of an independent predication in components (in terms of formalities) plans and modalities of predicative structure determines general predicatively and modality of the main clause; the ratio of the content of proposals, with the reality of life is regulated by the main clause, neutralized these characteristic features of the subordinate clause is neutralized.
And function of these structures - the components of complex and compound sentences is defined in terms of this approach.
Therefore, in different designs in terms of functionality connecting form different types of components in relation to the complex sentences are wider: the functionality of complex sentences (in terms of objectives and approval / denial) depends on the functional purpose of the main clause.
Okay, what is the reason, that in relation to Mirza you become Hatem, but when it comes to us, you close your pockets calf lace? (Vezirov, "Ruined hearth", 1st act).
Head of the museum knew a lot about Farhad, but did not understand why this guy is so casually refers to the door of happiness which opened in front of him? (S.Ragimov mother Monument, Part I, IV head).
The first sentence of the whole interrogative, although coming after clauses are built as "declarative sentences." A second proposal is a narrative function, despite the fact that the clause of the form built as interrogative. Delivered at the end of a question mark offers a stylistic point of view is incorrect: The head of the museum ... I do not understand (what?) That man relates with indifference to the door of happiness, which opened before him. Clause cannot make the entire structure of the MCCS-purpose question. Such a possibility has only the main clause.
Grammatical dominance main sentence thus irrespective of the number of components and proves itself in terms of functional purposes. Said quality of the main proposals MCCS system constructed on the basis of both serial communication and parallel communication based on, turns it into a main carrier modal target values. That is why the modal lexical and grammatical elements are not used in subordinate clauses, and often in the lead:
- In short, as we would do better not to disturb the soul of folk artists, and so that the "venerable" joined us from the heart, how to help us? (S.Ragimov mother Monument, VIII chapter).
- Well, it's sort of this says that the husband is not recorded in the farm, and his wife entices? (D.Dzhabbarly. Diamond. I Act).
The main interrogative sentence is usually used in a preposition. In oral conversation, in rare cases, there is the use of the specified component in postposition. Note that the post-positional main proposal is only possible in the development of parallel submission, it is not typical to the MCCS, built on the basis of consecutive subordination: inter positive component interrogative sentence does not occur in the MCCS; it is contrary to the grammatical structure of the multi-component structures:
- If in this position Shalala fall into the fire, if it lashes will fall and it will be sad to go, if the colored garden will turn to her in prison, if I can endure and tolerate even a single moment? (C.Ragimov. Mother's Monument. XIV chapter).
The MCCS, formed on the basis of the communication works and semantic relationships of components are slightly different patterns; and the range of their connection parts is wide with respect to the subordinate structures (3).
For multi-composed structures characterized by open structure (connection list, open an ordinary sequence, etc.).
- What is waiting for me tomorrow, where would I go, how I work, what kind of people will meet, what obstacles come across, whether fulfilled my dreams and desires, what will be my life? (M.Ibrahimov. Moth.II piece 11 head).
The open structure of rows, as seen, the construction of interrogative sentences (components) cannot be the same type, it is stored to some extent the independence of form components. The relative independence of the components are also characterized by closed structures composed; general construction or as a whole is a question purpose (function), or one of the components is a carrier function interrogative sentence:
- [Rustam bey] I I lost Rashid died, what would happen if Mahmud lost? (Vezirov, "The Tragedy of Fakhraddin" The first act).
- [The second hunter]. Then we, too, will be dragged through the courts: You know what this graze Karim, why did not inform the appropriate places? (Vezirov that Deplete the hearth.III Act).
Systematic study of the MCCS, the components of which have a different functionality from the point of view of the objectives and modalities is one of the emerging issues of the Azerbaijan language syntax. Explore the possibilities and limitations of combining the components of a question and narrative, and the narrative imperative meaning in the composition of these structures, grammatical and logical interpretation of the possibilities and limitations of the combination of components through affirmation and negation remains the object of a separate study.
Due to the fact that at the moment we are not able to penetrate deeply into the matter (the general direction of our goal of another), we just made public notes. But the main purpose of our affecting this question, it is a structure called the MCCS, which in terms of one functional (homogeneity) and more functional (heterogeneity) may fix, in our opinion, like a special syntactic unit as a whole functional structure: retentionist logical-dialectical the relationship between the components, functional entity, the appointment of the general design remains one expression "a picture of life."
Single semantic entity establishes the MCCS and its paradigmatic potential:
- [Kerem] Salmanov gather the office, go to a different place, is it possible in this situation, writing center? (S.Ragimov. Wedding. I act, I picture): + imperative sentence motive offer + interrogative sentence;
- Salmanov, you need to collect the office, we have to go to another place, in such a situation it is impossible to write the center; declarative sentence declarative sentence + + declarative sentence;
- Salmanov, can gather the office: you have to go somewhere else, do not you see in such a situation can not write the center ?; motive offer + + declarative sentence interrogative sentence; etc.
The MCCS submission to the real system paradigmatic forms:
Is known then-will, what troubles you brought on our heads, like you ashes on our head? (S.Ragimov Caucasian eagle, the 38th chapter.);
- Then it will be known what trouble you brought us, as you sprinkled ashes on our heads ?;
- Then he must know what troubles you, we are offering as will strew ashes upon our heads ?;
- What kind of trouble do you bring us as going to pour ashes on our head, then we will know;
- Then it will be known, what troubles you, we are offering as will strew ashes upon our heads; etc.
Single modal-target plan, according to our observations, it is formed in the MCCS submission. Despite the relatively "calm" of the structure, in order to say a word about their satisfactory single modal-target plan separate study is needed. In this regard, the focus should be MCCS and the mixed type.
It should also be separately to emphasize the process of "phraseologies" syntactic patterns in the structure of the MCCS submission, which is quite a common case: stable structure of a complex sentence serves as a component of the MCCS. Modal-target function of the basic proposal, free, quiet in terms of syntax, covers the entire structure, it turns out the whole complex sentence:
- [Hasan]. After all, water is still far! God will help, nothing can happen.
- [Peasant]. Do not you know that the first well knit camel, and then commit to the Lord? (Yu.V.Chemenzeminli. Altuntadzh).
"First good Tie camel kneel and then appoint the Lord." (4) Sustainable complex sentence (saying) serves as a component (Rem) MCCS. Main sentence "Do not you know that" exerts its modal-target effects on the entire structure, making it the MCCS, formally composed of three semantically of two components, an interrogative sentence.
The MCCS will be subjected to this kind of a broad analysis of the relevant part of our work.
Here we are content with such a generalization: a) the MCCS, the components, which are different in terms of modal target, is one of the issues waiting for their systems research; such a study would reveal how patterns of connections predicative components used in the composition of the MCCS, their potential or connection limitations, and to clarify certain points in the determination of the main types of variant models and complex sentences on this basis;
b) could determine the degree of "phraseologies" (compared with homogeneous structures) the semantic structure of SMEs and the MCCS.
What up to now we note that at this point, our aim is only to maintain the integrity of the MCCS to this aspect, as a special unit of syntax: MCCS remain valuating and in a multifunctional team.
For all these reasons I would like to emphasize the following:
1.Obrazovanie MCCS multi-language system is not random. Because these types of proposals arise from the two main functions of language and speech - as a communication tool and as a means of formation of speech. Thus MCCS are structures having its particular semantic-syntactic structure in the above system, a "proportion" and "range" in the syntax system. And it would be wrong to look at them only as a rich semantic and stylistic or material point of view options for SMEs. They are the result of the description of features in the best life experiences of people with high thinking.
2. Specific MCCS semantic structure, their existence as a special syntactic unit is proved by several factors: a) combines syntactic units "below" itself in the whole structure, act as elements in buildings (in text) "above" itself. This feature ensures the systemic nature of the analyzed structures; b) at the MCCS has its minimal structure (three-way) and enriched form; c) the component structure of the MCCS is often dependent on the amount of components integrity, fragments of life paintings, described by them, the multilateral structure of this (eg. in aphoristic expressions), that at this moment it is impossible to "shorten" the MCCS and lowering it to the level of SMEs .
3. Multi-language MCCS reality can be proved with psycho physiological point of view is used as the segment "one breath" speech, intervenes in a "tonal structure." This factor clearly shows himself and small genres of folk poetry (Bayati, Sayagyi words, sayings, etc.)
4.Semantical structure MCCS has its own laws, its "propositional" scheme. Mandatory (obligatory), the system of this scheme - the presence of the three components (minimum), at least two of syntactic connection points (one must necessarily flag pole) at points expressing semantic relationships, the nature of the contents structure emanating from the semantic relations, semantic and structural features It consists of a separation of opportunities "nodes", similar to SMEs.
5. The originality MCCS further shows itself in the plane (in aspect) isomorphism; nominative reality language syntactic units (phrases) "low level" is undeniable. The semantic structure of these units finds their analogy to the MCCS level. So, the MCCS on the syntactic field are in the system due to units of a different level and these relations are the proof of concept multi-linguistic reality of both units.
6. Syntax reality MCCS is also proved by the possibility of their component composition be more functionalism. In this regard, these structures have their own internal laws of association (combinatorial possibilities), and this question remains open for a broad study.
7. The ability of the MCCS to act as part of a simple sentence as a single "closed-a" member of the sentence, could reflect their functional and semantic integrity.
Valimova G.V. Functional types of compound sentences in modern Russian. Rostov-on-Don, 1967.
_____________ Functional types of compound sentences in modern Russian. Rostov-Don, Ed. RSU 1967, 73 p.
Andrusenko A.V. Multi-complex sentences with a parallel subordination of the modern Russian language. PhD. thesis. Moscow, 1973.Schtsseynzadya Ya.Sch. Atalar sozu. Baki, Yazychy press, 1985, 250 p