Usage
Or a coordinating union. But the union

Or a coordinating union. But the union

One of the important elements of speech in Everyday life are unions. In Russian, it is very difficult to communicate without them: after all, they are the connecting elements in any text. With them, speech becomes more beautiful and varied.

Let's see what is meant in our language by this term. What words can be attributed to them, what are their functions.

Consider what types and categories of this part of speech are, find out the main features. Let's draw up a plan for parsing these words as a specific category of speech and make an analysis using a specific example.

Definition and functionality

Russian language is rich different types helper words. One of these basic categories of speech are unions.

The essence of this term is as follows: they can be called words that connect various repeating elements in a passage, its segments, several different sentences.

These are kind of linking words.

It's important to know: words of this category do not change and should not be elements (members) of the sentence!

Union types

The classification of such terms occurs, as a rule, in 3 directions. Let's consider each separately.

According to syntactic

These words connect fragments of complex or complex sentences. Let's look at each type separately.

writing

They are also called compound words. These words can only be used when linking equal fragments of a complex sentence.

There are groups of coordinating words, some of them are given in the table.

Subordinating

They are used as follows - one fragment of a complex sentence is subordinate to another. These segments are considered subordinate.

The following groups of such words are distinguished.

Sometimes the elements of the 7th subspecies can easily be confused with the explanatory and other categories of this service category speech. To avoid confusion, clarifying questions should be asked.

According to morphological features

They are divided as simply as the previous type into:

simple (in one word) - a, and, but, etc .;
compound (several words) - not only, but also; and others.

Moreover, the latter are also divided into 2 categories: double and repetitive. Most often, the second type is a subtype of the first.

Double can be attributed: if ... yes, when ... then ...; and to repeating - this ... that, neither ... nor ...

By word formation

According to how they are formed, they can be divided into:

non-derivative - occurred independently of other categories;
derivatives - formed from words of other categories.

There are such types of the last variety of words:

a combination of several words of this category of the 1st type;
decree. word ch. sentence member + simple union;
word of this category + generalizing link;
historical education.

Algorithm for parsing a union as a part of speech

How to find and determine the nature of unions in any text is written either in a reference book, or in a textbook or collection.

An example of parsing according to the specified plan

We prepared a scene to perform well in the regional competition theatrical art. To there was a variety, we included dance, literary, game and musical numbers. Hope, what we'll do well.

For clarity, the search terms are highlighted.

Union - connects members of the NGN;
Subordinating, simple, derivative.

Union - connects members of the NGN;
Subordinating, compound, derivative.

Union - connects one. members of the SPP;
Compelling, simple, non-derivative.

Union - connects members of the NGN;
Subordinating, simple, non-derivative.

Conclusion

We learned what types of unions are divided into, how the coordinating ones differ from the subordinating ones, what subspecies they are divided into. The result will be a table characterizing this part of speech.

By syntactic functions, unions are divided into coordinating and subordinating.

Coordinating conjunctions connect homogeneous members of a sentence, as well as parts of compound sentences. According to their meaning, these unions are divided into connecting ones: and, yes (in the meaning of and); and...and, neither...nor; comparative: not only ... but also, both ... and; adversative: a, but, yes (meaning but), however, the same, but; dividing: or, or ... or, either, or ... either, then ... then, not that ... not that, either ... or; connecting: yes and, also, too.

Subordinating conjunctions usually connect parts of complex sentences, although sometimes, relatively rarely, they can also be used in simple sentence to connect the members of the proposal. For example: He is known as a good foreman; She is like a song to me.

Some subordinating conjunctions can break into two parts, for example, because, since and others: one part forms a correlative word in the main part of the sentence, the other - a union in the subordinate clause.

Subordinating unions are divided into temporary (when, barely, only, so far, for the time being, as long as, only, since), causal (because, because, because, due to the fact that), target (in order to, in order to ), consequences (so), conditions (if, if, if), concessive (although, let it be, despite the fact that), comparative (as, as if, as if, as if), explanatory (what).

The difference between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, both morphologically and syntactically, is not stable. So, the union, although (at least) can connect homogeneous members and parts of a complex sentence: He fired quickly, although not accurately (Cupr.); Although the eye sees, the tooth is numb (Kr.).

In the function of unions, pronouns and pronominal adverbs can be used, which in this case are called allied, or relative, words. Fulfilling the role of unions, i.e. serving as a means of communication, allied words, unlike unions, are members of the subordinate part of the sentence. Cf .: What you sow, you will reap (last) (which is a relative word, addition); I am stupid that I got angry (P.) (which is a union).

Valgina N.S., Rosenthal D.E., Fomina M.I. Modern Russian language - M., 2002.

Subordinating conjunctions according to their meaning, they are divided into two groups: functional-syntactic and semantic.

Functional-syntactic unions indicate the syntactic dependence of the subordinate clause on the main one, without specifying the nature of this dependence. Valgina N. S. emphasizes that this is with indefinite semantics, i.e., can be used in various types subordinate clauses, these include unions what, to, how .

He didn't hear
How a greedy wave was rising. (Addendum explanatory.)
(A. S. Pushkin)
Why arapa
Young loves Desdemona
How the moon loves dark nights? (A comparative clause.)
(A. S. Pushkin)
His desert corner
Rented out how deadline has expired. (Addendum of time.)
(A. S. Pushkin)

Semantic conjunctions serve not only for formal attachment subordinate clause to the main thing, but also to express certain semantic relationships.

Semantic subordinating conjunctions are divided into the following groups:

1. Temporary alliances: how, when, barely, bye, only, only, once, before, after, since. They express the temporal relationship of two events, situations.

Nicely, when There are people in the world who want to help.
(P. A. Pavlenko)
When hurry up, the road always seems longer.
(D.N. Mamin-Sibiryak)
As soon as I entered the edge of the forest, how immediately stumbled upon boars ...
(V.K. Arseniev)

2. Explanatory conjunctions: what, to, how, as if. Express relationship explanations.

I told the boys what got lost, and sat down with them.
(I. S. Turgenev)
I want,
so that to the bayonet
equated pen.
(V. V. Mayakovsky)
The children feel who loves them.

Galkina-Fedoruk E. M., Raspopov I. P. and Lomov A. M. do not include explanatory conjunctions in the group of semantic ones (Rosental D. E. and Telenkova M. A. consider them to be semantic).

3. Target alliances: to, if only, if only, so that(outdated), to, so as to, for the purpose of. Transfer target relationships. The subordinate clause explains the content of the main part of the complex sentence.

To love music, you must first listen to it.
(D. D. Shostakovich)
Everyone was silent to hear the rustle of flowers.

4. Causal unions: because (then), because, for, because the, due to the fact that, thanks to, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, because of, because of, because of. Express causal relationships. The basis or motive is indicated in the subordinate part, in the main part - the consequence.

BUT because upset mother was silent, then Chuk and Gek were also silent.
(A.P. Gaidar)
Because of the clouds almost touched the tops of the birches, it was quiet and warm on the ground.
(K. G. Paustovsky)

5. Conditional unions: if, if, if, once, if only, when, how soon. The conditional relations indicated in the subordinate part are transmitted, in the main part - the result is shown.

How well all the people in the world could live, if if only they wanted if If only they understood!
(A. A. Fadeev)
When two people quarrel - always both are to blame.
(L. N. Tolstoy)

6. Concession unions - although, let, let, otherwise, for nothing that, while, although , as well as pronominal conjunctions no matter how much, no matter how - express concessive relations. The subordinate clause describes a situation or event in spite of which another event occurs.

This morning in the steppe it was quiet, cloudy, although the sun has risen.
(L. N. Tolstoy)
No, you won't be enough for everyone
Though what general are you?
(A. T. Tvardovsky)
Though he could not look more diligently,
But also the traces of the former Tatyana
Could not find Onegin.
(A. S. Pushkin)

7. Comparative unions: how, how, as if, as if, like, exactly, than, as if, similar to. Comparative relations are transmitted through a complex sentence, which describes the similarity of two events, situations - real and supposed.

Similar to an impatient young man is waiting for the hour of a date, I was waiting for the hour of the night.
(M. A. Bulgakov)
Cool summer has come
as if a new life has begun.
(A. A. Akhmatova)

8. Investigative Alliances: so. The subordinate part conveys relations expressing the consequence, result, conclusions, while the main part expresses the cause, foundation.

The house stood on a slope so the windows to the garden were very low from the ground...
(S. T. Aksakov)
Rain stopped, so we can go for a walk.

Many linguists tend to believe that investigative relations are transmitted only by a single union so (Lekant P.A.). Meanwhile, V. V. Babaitseva, L. Yu. Maksimov, V. V. Vinogradov, the union before that .

And before that I suddenly felt ashamed what Tears literally ran down my cheeks...
(F. M. Dostoevsky)

), which is used to express the syntactic (composing or subordinating) connection of units of different nature and volume, from clauses ( Research continues and hypotheses multiply["Knowledge is power" (2003)]) to phrases ( Apples and prunes are traditionally served with goose[Recipes national cuisines(2000-2005)]) and even word components ( two and three storey houses). Unions are divided into coordinating and subordinating. Subordinating conjunctions prototypically connect clauses (although a connection between a word and a clause is possible ( The decisive argument was the fact that the Germans in 1940 did the same in relation to the French[“Domestic Notes” (2003)]) and words with the word ( Petya is smarter than Vasya)), and coordinative - any homogeneous components (word and word, word and clause, clause and clause). Unlike a preposition that is functionally close to a subordinating conjunction, the conjunction does not attribute a case.

Conjunctions are classified according to a number of formal and semantic grounds: according to their formal structure, according to their syntactic and semantic properties, according to their ability to be used illocutionally (see Illocutionary Uses of Unions):

Classification of unions according to formal structure (I)

Classification of unions according to formal structure (II)

Classification of unions according to syntactic and semantic properties

Classification of conjunctions according to their ability to be used illocutively

Etymologically, many Russian conjunctions come from prepositional-pronominal and prepositional-nominal phrases ( because while), less often - from participle forms of the verb ( although) Many conjunctions are polysemic and sometimes belong in other meanings to other parts of speech, primarily to particles ( yes, and, though, barely) and pronouns ( what how); sometimes significant parts of speech are used in the function of conjunctions ( truth), which significantly complicates their statistics.

In some cases, a word traditionally referred to unions (see lists of unions below) has in one sense or another intermediate properties (conjunction and particle, union and preposition, coordinating and subordinating union, simple and compound union). In these cases, in the absence of more detailed research, the assignment of a word to unions or to one or another class of unions should be recognized to some extent as conditional.

Unions should be distinguished from the so-called. allied words (pronominal words that connect parts of a complex sentence and are members of the sentence).

The lists of conjunctions in this article are from Academic Grammar 1954 [Grammar 1954: 665–673] and Academic Grammar 1980 [Grammar 1980: §§1673–1683].

The term "union" is a tracing paper from the Greek. syndesmos and lat. conjunctio.

1. Formal classes of unions

Unions are traditionally divided into simple (see) (consisting of one word) and compound () (consisting of more than one word). This division, although in most cases there are purely orthographic conventions behind it, is also given in this article.

By how many conjuncts the union connects and which of them are marked by the union indicator, the unions are divided into:

1.1. Simple vs. compound unions

1.1.1. Simple unions

Simple conjunctions consist of one, usually one- or two-syllable word.

List of simple conjunctions [Grammar 1980: §1673]: but, anyhow, already, an, good, be, as if, like, yes, so that, even, barely, if, if, then, then, but, and, for, or, so, if only, how, when, if, if, whether, or, only, rather than, but, for now, for now, for now, because, moreover, moreover, let, let, once, unless, exactly, that is, as if, so, also, too, only, exactly, at least, although, than, purely, that, in order to, slightly, allegedly.

1.1.2. Compound or compound unions

Complex, or compound, unions consist of two or more words that semantically represent one unit. Most constituent unions are formed by:

Some complex conjunctions, such as because, because, due to the fact that, in connection with the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, then that; despite the fact that, despite the fact that; as, after, since, as, in case, in order to and some others allow different punctuation - a comma is placed either before the whole union or before the word what / how / to / if:

(1) Almost all gardeners, although this was not officially allowed, a strip of land about two meters wide was plowed in front of the fence from the side of the street, and potatoes grew on it. [BUT. Varlamov. Kupavna (2000)]

(2) <…>many issuers from list A could fly out of it and pension funds would have to sell these securities although they are reliable and promising. [BUT. Verzhbitsky. Pensioners' assets will be preserved (2010)]

In the terminology of the AG-80 [Grammar 1980(2): §2949] the first variant is called "undivided", the second - "partitioned" .

Different punctuation reflects a certain semantic difference between the divided and undivided variants: in the first case, the meaning corresponding to the main clause is included in the meaning of the complex sentence as a presumption. Accordingly, this meaning does not fall within the scope of various kinds of modal operators. Wed:

(3) a. Shekhtel came to Moscow because

b. Perhaps Shekhtel ended up in Moscow because

By including (3a) in the scope of the modal word Maybe the meaning of ‘Shekhtel came to Moscow’ remains unaffected by the epistemic modality expressed by this word, i.e. (3b) does not imply ‘it is possible that Shekhtel ended up in Moscow’.

For a similar sentence with undivided because this statement is false:

(4) a. Shekhtel came to Moscow, because his mother was a housekeeper at the Tretyakovs. [Izvestia (2002)]

b. Perhaps Shekhtel ended up in Moscow, because his mother was a housekeeper at the Tretyakovs.

1.1.2.1. Simple unions as part of compound

The following are the main simple unions, with the participation of which complex unions are formed. At the same time, the lists of complex conjunctions are not exhaustive, their purpose is to demonstrate the mechanism of word formation.

With the participation of the union what compound unions formed due to the fact that, anyway, no matter what, then that, in spite of the fact that, not that, because, because, on the condition that, unless, so, all the more so, even more so, just now.

With the participation of the union how compound unions formed no matter how, while, before, as if, as if, suddenly, as if, as, for example, as soon as, meanwhile, before, as, as, as, after just like, because, just like, just like, almost like, just like, just like, exactly like, just like, since, since, then like, just like.

With the participation of the union to compound unions formed without not, instead of, in order to, so that, not that, for the sake of, in order to.

With the participation of the union if unions formed if, if not, as if, in case.

With the participation of unions how, than unions formed whatever, earlier than, before; before.

With the participation of unions only, only unions formed as soon as, as soon as, as soon as, barely, just, barely, just, just a little.

1.1.2.2. Prepositions in compound conjunctions

Unions are formed with the participation of prepositions due to the fact that, instead of, in spite of the fact that, in relation to the fact that, up to the fact that, in contrast to the fact that, in contrast to the fact that, as a result of the fact that, like that, in connection with the fact that, due to the fact that that, due to the fact that, in comparison with the fact that, due to the fact that, on the basis of the fact that, except that, on the basis of the fact that, along with the fact that, about the fact that, despite the fact that, not like , regardless of the fact that, in spite of the fact that, regarding the fact that, under the guise of that, like, under the pretext of that, as, in addition to the fact that, about the fact that, because, because, after as, in comparison with the fact that, in addition to that, according to the fact that, judging by the fact that.

1.1.2.3. Particles in compound unions

With the participation of particles would, no, really unions formed as if, good, if, if, if, as if, as if, as if, when, if, if only, as if, if only, if only, what would, and not, what would, as if not, not yet, not yet, not yet, not that, but not that, not that, if, when, if, if.

1.1.2.4. Adverbs in compound conjunctions

With the participation of adverbs, unions are formed: for nothing that, Suddenly, as soon as, before, just like, as well as, earlier than, just like, especially, Nonetheless, exactly-in-just like.

1.1.2.5. Pronouns in compound conjunctions

With the participation of a pronominal noun then formed the following unions: otherwise, and then, and then, not that, yes and that, not that, I mean, that is, whether, due to the fact that, thanks to, similar to, while, although, especially since, while, before as. With the participation of a pronominal adjective then union formed since.

1.2. Single, double and repeated alliances

1.2.1. Single unions

The vast majority of unions in the Russian language are single, they are found among both coordinating and subordinating ones. Single unions are located between the connected parts of the text or are positionally adjacent to one of them:

(5) She came a he left; He left, because she came; He is tired and gone; Because the she came, he left.

List of simple single unions (see also the list of Simple unions (see)): but, anyhow, already, an, good, be, as if, like, yes, so that - even, barely, if, if, but, then, and, for, or, so, if, like, like that, when, if, if, whether, or, only, than, but, for now, for now, for now, because, moreover, moreover, let, let, once, unless, exactly, that is, as if, so, also, too, only, exactly, at least, though, than, purely, what, so that, slightly, supposedly.

List of compound single unions: and not that, but that, and that, and that and, and not, and not that, without not, due to the fact that, as if, be it, in view of the fact that, instead of, despite the fact that, in in relation to the fact that, up to the fact that, as opposed to that, as opposed to the fact that, as a result of the fact that, like the fact that, it doesn’t matter how, it doesn’t matter what, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that , in case, in comparison with the fact that, while, and even then, for nothing, in order to, it would be good, until, until, until, just, barely, if only, if would, if, if not, due to the fact that, then what, then so that, proceeding from the fact that, as if, as if, as if, as if not, as suddenly, as if, as for example, as- then, as soon as, when, when, if, if, if, as soon as, except that, if only, only, meanwhile, on the basis of the fact that, along with the fact that, in case, about that that, despite the fact that, unlike how, regardless of the fact that, despite the fact that, n that, not that, not that, but not, regarding the fact that, because, before, under the guise of that, just as, under the pretext of that, until, until, until, as long as since, besides, about the fact that, on account of the fact that, after, compared with that, because, because, before, before, on the condition that, just like, just like, just like -so how, as well as, in order to, perhaps, since, earlier than, in addition to that, as if, depending on the fact that, just like, since, in order to, judging by the fact that, since, so that, so that, all the more so, the more that, that is, while, that is, if only, if only not, just, just, exactly like, at least, than to, whatever, not to, just a little, just a little.

Unobvious from the point of view of the formal classification of conjunctions is a construction like Masha and Petya and Vanya where, on the one hand, coordinative conjunction and labels more than one conjunct, and on the other hand, it labels not all conjuncts. The first circumstance would seem to rule out this and from among single unions; the second - excludes it from the number of repeating ones (see).

In this article, the interpretation is adopted, according to which in the construction of the type Masha and Petya and Vanya featured a repeat of a single and. This interpretation is justified by the fact that the specified construction, in its semantic and syntactic properties, is close to a single and, but not with repeating and... and. Yes, repetitive and... and, unlike a single one, is not used with a symmetrical predicate (for more details, see Coordinating conjunctions / p. 2. Repeating conjunctions), and this restriction does not apply to the construction under discussion. Compare: * And Spanish, and Italian, and French are similar vs. Spanish and Italian and French are similar.

1.2.2. Double alliances

Double conjunctions are found among both coordinating and subordinating conjunctions. They consist of two parts, each of which is located in one of two connected syntactically or semantically unequal parts.

Subordinating double unions are characterized by syntactic disparity - one of the clauses is the main one (see Glossary), and the other is dependent (see Glossary):

(6) If a the sauce won't be hot enough then you can add red ground pepper [Recipes of national cuisines: Scandinavian cuisine (2000-2005)];

(7) I only guessed that if I would save this woman then would be rewarded with some magical reward. [E. Grishkovets. Simultaneously (2004)]

(8) But barely he threw back the pillow how discovered a cigarette case made of dark red transparent plastic [A. Solzhenitsyn]

At the same time, the second part of the union if...then may be omitted, especially in colloquial speech, provided that each of the clauses contains a subject:

(9) However, if you are tired and want to relax, we have such places here, like cafes, restaurants. ["Screen and Stage" (2004)]

(10) If a the sauce is not spicy enough, you can add red ground pepper

(11) *I only guessed that if If I had saved this woman, I would have been rewarded with some magical reward.

For coordinating double unions, the semantic inequality of conjuncts is characteristic: usually the second conjunct is more unexpected for the Speaker: He's not so much tired as upset; He was more angry than offended.. In this way, double coordinating conjunctions differ from recurring ones, which presuppose the equality of parts: He is tired and upset(for details, see Coordinating conjunctions / p. 3.2. Double alliances, Coordinating unions / p. 2.1. Repeating unions: Semantics, Coordinating unions / p. 2.3. Repeating vs. double coordinating unions).

Coordinating and subordinating double alliances have their own characteristics.

Double coordinating unions usually connect not whole clauses, but homogeneous members, and consist of two parts, the first of which is placed before the first of the compared members, the second before the second: He is equally well versed in both the theoretical and practical aspects of the matter.

Double subordinating conjunctions consist of two parts, the first of which is placed before the first clause, the second before the second: As soon as she entered, he got up and left.

List of double alliances: enough ... to, barely ... how ..., if ... then, if ... then, if we talk about ... (then), if not ... then, how ... so, and, moreover, ... (also), not ... ah, not ... but, not to say that ... (but), not so much ... how much, not only ... but also, not that ... but rather ... than, it was worth ... how, only ... how, than ... it would be better, as for ... (that), at least ... otherwise.

1.2.3. Recurring alliances

Repeating conjunctions are found only among coordinating ones. They are formed by reproducing the same or, less commonly, functionally close components: and...and, or...or, then...then etc., which are placed before each of two or more equal and formally identical parts:

(12) I always had a dream that someone would appear who or will buy or give, or will give Spivakov a real violin for life use. [FROM. Spivakov. Not Everything (2002)]

The exception is the union whether... whether, whose parts are located in the position of the Wackernagel clitic, i.e. after the first full-stressed word:

(13) First of all - your rest is open, think about it; suddenly someone sees us, dwarf whether, full-length whether household member (T. Mann, trans. S. Apta)

Union whether ... or the first part is located in the position of the Wackernagel clitic, the second part is in front of the conjunct:

(14) First of all - your rest is open, think about it; suddenly someone sees us, dwarf whether, or full size household

List of repeated unions: and ... and ... and; neither ... neither ... neither; whether ... whether... whether; or ... or ... or; then ... then ... then; or ... or ... or,not that ... not that ... not that; or ... or ... or; be ... be, though ... though; then ... then ... otherwise; then ... then ... and then; or ... or ... either; or ... or ... or; either ... either ... or; whether ... or; or ... or ... maybe; maybe ... maybe ... maybe; Maybe ... Maybe; Maybe ... maybe.

Repeating conjunctions deserve detailed consideration because they have common semantic and syntactic features that are typologically relevant. To understand these features, it is important to distinguish a repeated union from a formally similar unit - a repeated single union. The main formal difference between them is that the repeating union is repeated before each, including the first, conjunct, while the single union can only be located between the conjuncts, thereby not affecting the position before the first conjunct. Wed repeating examples and... and and repeat single and, respectively:

(15) Sounded and requirements, and criticism … ["Weekly Magazine" (2003)]

(16) So that inside you - peace, and outside - lively life, cultural values and boutiques, and trams, and shopping pedestrians, and small cafes with the aroma of sweet cheesecakes. ["Brownie" (2002)]

2. Semantic-syntactic classes of unions

In this section, two types of conjunctions are considered - coordinating and subordinating, in accordance with the two types of relations between the syntactic units that the union expresses - composition (coordination) and subordination (subordination).

2.1. Writing vs. subordination

Composition and subordination are two fundamental types of syntactic relations that have a variety of manifestations in different languages.

For example, in German composed clauses require a different word order:

(17) Ergeht nach Hause, denn er ist krank – ‘He is going home because he is sick, lit. is sick’

(18) Ergeht nach Hause, Weil er krank ist– ‘He is going home because he is sick, lit. sick eat’

Even though composing and subordinating basic concepts grammar, there is no single generally accepted approach to their definition (see Composition, Submission, Composition and submission). Along with the traditional syntactic approach, according to which the elements of a coordinating construction are characterized by the same syntactic function, and the elements of the subordinating construction are characterized by different syntactic functions, [Beloshapkova 1977], there are also semantic and pragmatic-communicative approaches.

With all the differences in approaches, the generally accepted idea is that the compositional relations are characterized by symmetry, and the subordinating - asymmetry. The symmetry of the composition manifests itself at different levels of the language: morphological (cf. * smoking and reading lying down is harmful; *he was handsome and smart), syntactic (usually the same members of a sentence are composed), lexico-semantic (cf. when and where did it happen vs. *yesterday and at five o'clock).

In the Russian grammatical tradition, the question of distinguishing between composition and subordination and the question of distinguishing between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions are equated to each other. Strictly speaking, however, these are different issues. But the difference is significant, first of all, for those languages where the union is not the main means of polypredicative connection. For the Russian language, where the allied way of framing the dependent predication dominates, the indicated difference, somewhat coarsening, can be neglected. Typical examples of composing conjunctions in Russian are - and, but, or, or, typical examples of subordinating conjunctions - because, when, so that, as a result of which, if, although.

Within the class of subordinating conjunctions, in addition, the following distinction is significant: unions that usually introduce actant (subject or object) clauses, and unions that usually introduce circus constant clauses. In Russian terminology, the first roughly correspond to explanatory conjunctions (what, to, as, as if etc.), and the second - all other subordinating unions ( because though, if, when and etc.). In the typological literature, for conjunctions leading an actant clause, the term is adopted complementizer, for unions heading a circumstantial clause - the term adverbial subordinator. English term complementizer wider than the Russian term explanatory conjunction: Complementizers include, in particular, the interrogative particle whether heading the actant clause.

It should be borne in mind that conjunctions that introduce actant and circumstantial clauses do not necessarily form two non-overlapping groups. So, in Russian, unions to, as if, as if can serve both functions. Wed:

(19) <…>Kazbich imagined as if Azamat, with the consent of his father, stole his horse, at least I believe so. [M. Y. Lermontov. Hero of Our Time (1839-1841)] – the clause fills in the object valency of the main predicate

(20) The snakes busily studied the situation, as if figured out where to start ... ["Criminal Chronicle" (2003)] - the clause does not fill the valency of the main predicate

The distinction between actant and circus constant clauses - and in the case when both types of clauses can be introduced by the same union, as in (18) - (19), and the distinction between unions - is based on a number of formal grounds (see the article Subordination for more details). For example, the removal of an interrogative pronoun is permissible from an actant, but not from a circo-constant clause, cf. examples (20) and (21) respectively:

(21) a. Do you want to be paid a million?

b. How do you want to be paid?

(22) a. Did you come to get paid a million?

b. ??? How did you come to get paid?

2.2. Coordinating conjunctions

Coordinating conjunctions are traditionally divided into three semantic groups:

connecting unions: and, yes, and also; like ... and, not only that ... also, not ... but, not ... but, not to say that ... but, not so much ... how much, not only ... but also, not that ... but, rather ... than;and... and... and; Yes Yes Yes; neither... nor... nor; whether... whether... whether; or... or... or; then ... then ... then; either ... or ... or, not that ... not that ... not that; either ... or ... or; be ... be, at least ... at least; then ... then ... and then; then ... then ... and then; either ... or ... either; either... either... or; either ... or ... or; be it... or; or... or... or maybe; maybe... maybe... maybe; maybe... maybe; maybe... or maybe;
opposite unions: but yes in meaning but, however, but, but, and then;
dividing unions: or, either, otherwise, not that, not that; or... or, either... or; whether ... whether, whether ... or, at least ... at least, what ... what, whether ... or; and then, and maybe (be); not... so, if (and) not... then; maybe (be), maybe (be) ... maybe (be), maybe (be) ... or maybe (be); not that ... not that, either ... or; then... then.

2.3. Subordinating conjunctions

Subordinating conjunctions are divided into the following semantic groups:

(1) causal conjunctions ( because, because, since, because, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, due to the fact that, because, then that);

(2) conjunctions of consequence ( so, and then, and not that);

(3) target unions ( so that, so that, so that, so that, so that, so that);

(4) conditional conjunctions ( if, if, if, if, once, whether, as soon as, if (if), if, if);

(5) concessive alliances ( although, at least; for nothing; if only, if only; despite the fact that, despite the fact that; at least, at least, let, let; while, meanwhile, while; it would be good, let it be; only truth);

(6) temporary alliances ( barely, barely, as soon as, as, when, only, only, as soon as, after, since, until, until, until, until, until, until, before, before than, just, just, a little, a little, a little, before, while);

(7) comparative conjunctions ( as, that, as if, as if, as if, as if, as if (like), like, exactly, exactly (like), than, rather than).

(8) explanatory conjunctions ( what, what, as if, how);

3. Illocutionary use of conjunctions

An illocutionary conjunction is such a use when it expresses a connection between the propositional content of one clause in a compound sentence and the illocutionary modality of another:

(23) Yes, and until forgot, give them a coin. [BUT. Belyanin. Ferocious Landgrave (1999)]

Bye expresses here the temporal connection between the propositional meaning of the subordinate clause and the illocutionary modality of the request included in the content of the main one. Wed with non-illocutionary conjunction bye(see Subordinating unions / clause 7.1. Temporary unions) :

(24) Knead the dough until bye it not will become brilliant and will not lag behind the fun. [Recipes of national cuisines: Czech Republic (2000-2005)]

Conjunctions are capable of illocutionary use because the, because, once, if, bye, to, otherwise, otherwise, not that, so, for and some others. Wed examples:

(25) Because the we don't know each other, let me introduce myself: Vasily Ivanovich Stepanenko. ["Science and Life" (2007)]

(26) A once so, on what to test combines? [BUT. Azolsky. Lopushok (1998)]

(27) You brat, cut yourself short, not that lie in your grave! [M. Gigolashvili. Ferris Wheel (2007)]

(28) Rejoice, nothing was asked, so rest! [SMS messages from senior students (2004)]

4. Statistics

The statistics of groups of unions is given for the Main Corpus with unresolved homonymy, because the check shows that in the Corpus with removed homonymy, the homonymy of conjunctions with particles and pronouns is not removed. Thus, the data for the much smaller, dehomonymized Corpus are not more accurate. In addition, many unions are polysemantic and are included in several classes at once. Any accurate statistics of many unions, especially frequent, multi-valued, double ones, often turns out to be completely impossible. The data presented below reflect, therefore, far from a complete picture. In general, unions, like other auxiliary parts of speech, quite evenly permeate the most diverse registers of speech, so that their diachronic analysis, as well as analysis in different language registers, is relatively uninformative, especially in relation to entire classes and subclasses of unions.

More informative is the statistical analysis of some individual unions, namely, those that are unambiguous and not homonymous to other parts of speech. This is usually characteristic of compound (see), while not double (see) and not repeating (see) unions, such as similar to. Such an analysis makes it possible to correct the descriptions of some conjunctions existing in dictionaries and grammars as bookish, obsolete or rare. Compare, for example, alliances so that, single or and some others that have returned to modern language as colloquial or frequent newspaper texts. The statistics of some individual unions for the Main and Newspaper Corps is given.

Some unions are given with incompletely removed homonymy, but only in cases where their statistics are still relatively representative. For example, for the union and homonymy with a particle is not removed and. However, since the allied lexeme is much more frequent, statistics on and, however, is of interest. For some unions, individual filters were developed, which made it possible to partially remove homonymy - for example, for a comparative union how only contexts were taken into account comparative degree.

Table 1. Frequency of the main semantic-syntactic classes of conjunctions

	Main building
coordinating conjunctions (% of all words)
subordinating conjunctions (% of all words)
Total
classes of coordinating conjunctions (% of all conjunctions)
connecting
adversative
separating
substitution	statistics not possible
classes of subordinating unions (% of all unions)
causal
consequences
targeted
conditional
concessions
temporary
explanatory
comparative alliances (% of all alliances)

Table 2. Frequency of main conjunctions in percentage (of the total number of words)

		Union	Main corpus with unresolved homonymy	newspaper building
coordinating unions	connecting	1. as well as 3. and...and(with a distance of three words) 4. like...and 5. not so much... how much 6. not only but 7. not that ... but<но> 8. not that ... but 9. no no 10. rather than
	opposite	2.en(in conjunction with not and No) 3.but 5.but
	separating	1.and then 2.be it...or 3.if not...then 4.or 5.or or 6.whether ... or 7.Lily 8.or 9.or either 10.maybe... maybe 11.not that... not that 12.then ... then(with two word spacing) 13.or ... or
subordinating unions	causal unions	1.thanks to 2.due to the fact that 3.due to the fact that 4.due to the fact that 5.due to the fact that 6.then what 7.for 8.because of 9.because the 10.because 11.because
	conjunctions of consequence	1.otherwise 2.not that 3.so
	target alliances	1.so that 2.to 3.then to 4.so as to 5.so that 6.to
	conditional alliances	1.if 2.if 3.if only 4.if 5.if only 6.if 7.as soon as 8.once
	concession unions	1.while 2.for nothing that 3.kindly 4.if only 5.while 6.despite the fact that 7.although 8.whereas 9.although
	temporary alliances	1.barely 2.once 3.when 4.just 5.bye 6.until 7.until 8.as 9.after 10.before 11.earlier than 12.since
	explanatory conjunctions	1.as if 2.how 3.what 4.to
	comparative conjunctions	1.as if 2.than 3.similar to 4.like 5.how

Notes on Tables:

1) homonymy with particles and pronouns has not been removed;

2) homonymy between single and double / repeated unions has not been removed;

3) homonymy between unions of different groups has not been removed;

4) parts of double and repeated unions are given with a distance of up to 4 words, unless another distance is indicated.

Bibliography

Beloshapkova V.A. Modern Russian language. Syntax. M. 1977.

Grammar 1980 - Shvedova N.Yu. (Ed.) Russian grammar. M.: Science. 1980.

Rosenthal D.E., Dzhandzhakova E.V., Kabanova N.p. A guide to spelling, pronunciation, literary editing. M. 1999.

Sannikov V.Z. Russian syntax in the semantic-pragmatic space. M.: Languages Slavic cultures. 2008.

Testelec Ya.G. Introduction to General Syntax. M. 2001.

Cristofaro S. Deranking and balancing in different subordination relations: a typological study // Sprachtypologie und Universalienforschung, 51. 1998.

Dik S.C. Coordination: its implications for a theory of general linguistics. North Holland, Amsterdam. 1968.

Haspelmath M. Coordination // Shopen T. (Ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II. Cambridge. 2007. P. 1–57.

Main literature

Apresyan V.Yu. Concession as a backbone meaning // Questions of Linguistics, 2. 2006. P. 85–110.

Gladky A.V. On the meaning of the union "if" // Semiotics and informatics, 18. 1982. P. 43–75.

Grammar 1954 - Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Institute of Linguistics. Grammar of Russian language. v.2. Syntax. part 2. M. 1954.

Jordan L.N. Semantics of the Russian Union once(in comparison with some other unions) // Russian Linguistics, 12(3). 1980.

Latysheva A.N. On the semantics of conditional, causal and concessive conjunctions in Russian // Bulletin of Moscow State University, 5, ser. 9. Philology. 1982.

Lyapon M.V. The semantic structure of a complex sentence and text. On the typology of intertext relations. M. 1986.

Nikolaeva T.M. Although and though in a historical perspective // Slavic etudes. Collection for the anniversary of S.M. Tolstoy. M. 1999. S. 308–330.

Nikolaeva T.M., Fuzheron I.I. Some observations on the semantics and status of complex sentences with concessive conjunctions // Nikolaeva T.M. (Editor-in-chief) Verbal and non-verbal supports of spaces of interphrase links. M. 2004. S. 99–114.

NOSS 2004 – Apresyan Yu.D., Apresyan V.Yu., Babaeva E.E., Boguslavskaya O.Yu., Galaktionova I.V., Grigorieva S.A., Iomdin B.L., Krylova T.V. , Levontina I.B., Ptentsova A.V., Sannikov A.V., Uryson E.V. New explanatory dictionary of Russian synonyms. Second edition, corrected and enlarged. Under the general guidance of Academician Yu.D. Apresyan. M. 2004.

Pekelis O.E. Two-place coordinating conjunctions: experience of system analysis (based on corpus data) // Questions of Linguistics, 2. 2012. P. 10–45.

Pekelis O.E. Semantics of causality and communicative structure: because and because the// Questions of linguistics, 1. 2008. P. 66–85.

Peshkovsky A.M. Russian syntax in scientific coverage. Sections XXVII-XXVIII. M.–L. 1928.

Sannikov V.Z. About the meaning of the union let / let// Borunova S.N., Plotnikova-Robinson V.A. (Ed.) Fathers and children of the Moscow Linguistic School. In memory of Vladimir Nikolaevich Sidorov. M. 2004. S. 239–245.

Sannikov V.Z. Russian writing constructions. Semantics. Pragmatics. Syntax. M. 1989.

Sannikov V.Z. Semantics and pragmatics of the union if// Russian language in scientific coverage, 2. 2001. P. 68–89.

Teremova R.M. The semantics of concession and its expression in modern Russian. L. 1986.

Testelec Ya.G. Introduction to General Syntax. Sections II.6, IV.6. M. 2001.

Uryson E.V. Experience in describing the semantics of unions. Languages of Slavic cultures. M 2011.

Uryson E.V. Union IF and semantic primitives // Questions of Linguistics, 4. 2001. P. 45–65.

Khrakovsky V.S. Theoretical analysis of conditional constructions (semantics, calculus, typology) // Khrakovsky V.S. (Ed.) Typology of conditional structures. SPb. 1998, pp. 7–96.

Shmelev D.N. On “connected” syntactic constructions in Russian // Shmelev D.N. Selected works on the Russian language. M. 2002. S. 413–438.

Comrie V. Subordination, coordination: Form, semantics, pragmatics // Vajda E.J. (Ed.) Subordination and Coordination Strategies in North Asian Languages. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 2008. P. 1–16.

Haspelmath M. Coordination // Shopen T. (Ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II. Cambridge. 2007.

Rudolph E. Contrast. Adversative and Concessive Relations and their Expressions in English, German, Spanish, Portuguese on Sentence and Text Level. Walter de Gruyter. Berlin–New York. 1996.

See also [Rosenthal et al. 1999: section 108] about punctuation in compound subordinating conjunctions and the conditions for their division. “The conditions for dismembering a complex union include: 1) the presence of negation before the union not; 2) the presence of amplifying, restrictive and other particles before the union; 3) the presence of an introductory word before the union, 4) the inclusion of the first part (correlative word) in a series of homogeneous members.

Conjunctions with a similar set of properties are found in the main European languages (cf. English. both… and, either… or, neither… nor, German. sowohl… als auch, entweder… oder etc.). However, as can be seen from the examples, the very sign of "repeatability", i.e. the coincidence of parts of the union is not typologically significant.

Hello, dear members of Gramota. Thank you for your work! I read the answers every day and learn something new every day. My question is about the answer to question no. 276365. There you give the correct version of the sentence:
They also remembered how they wandered through this forest for days on end, forgetting about everything else.
But isn't this a complex sentence, where the main one is one-part? The circumstance "forgetting about everything else" is difficult to attribute simultaneously to both parts of this sentence. Therefore, I do not understand why there is no comma before "and"?

Thanks for the kind words!

In a complex sentence, a comma between the main part and the subordinate clause, attached by a simple union or allied word (in our case - how), not put if a subordinating conjunction or an allied word is preceded by a coordinating conjunction and.


	Question #274782

Hello. The text caught the union THAT IS. That this is a creative union - I have no doubts. In school practice, coordinating conjunctions are divided into connecting, adversative and divisive. To what category should the union THAT IS be attributed? (Connective, explanatory?)