§ 3153. The basis of gradational relations is comparison or contrast in degree of significance: what is communicated in one part of the construction is presented as in one way or another more significant, effective or convincing compared to what is said in the second part.

Comparison in this case, as a rule, is complicated by a subjective evaluation component. In the design of gradational relations, two-place conjunctions of the type not only... but also are widely used; if not... then at least; not to say that... but. Depending on the meaning of the conjunction and the rules for the arrangement of its components, the gradation can be ascending (increasing significance) or descending (decreasing significance).

Three types of gradational relationships are distinguished: 1) what is reported in one part is presented as more important, more significant in one aspect or another; gradational relations, as a rule, cover predicative features; 2) what is reported in one part is assessed as more true, more reliable; 3) what is communicated in one part is assessed as more consistent with the essence of what is being designated; The basis of the gradational comparison here is the distinction between the form of the message and its essence.

§ 3154. Gradational relations between the more significant and the less significant are presented in sentences with two-place conjunctions (and their one-place analogues): 1) not only... but also (and and; but even; and also; and besides); not only not... but (but rather, rather; on the contrary, on the contrary); not only; 2) not that... but (a; just; even, not even); not even... not that; not even... not even that; not even... much less; 3) not only that... also; not only that... also; little of; moreover, more than that; worse than that; or even...

1) I hastened to assure him that not only do I not smoke, but I don’t even like to see ladies smoking (A. Dostoevskaya); It should be noted that not only was there no fish, but the rod didn’t even have a fishing line (M. Sadovsky); I was not indifferent to her, but not only did I not dare tell her about it, but I was even afraid that she would not notice my tender feelings (Shalyap.); The novel “The White Guard” is not only talented prose, but also a very interesting document of the era (Simon.); “Hard circumstances” not only do not cancel philanthropy, but, on the contrary, create opportunities for its manifestation (journal).

2) Not to mention getting up, it seemed to him that he could not open his eyes (Bulg.); I was born on “Evdokia”, but on that day not only did the chicken have nowhere to drink, but even, my mother said, the sparrows froze in flight (Sholokh.); I couldn’t even turn around, let alone break through this living wall (gas); The archaeologist didn’t even tell us what kind of flowers were in Tutankhamun’s tomb, especially since he didn’t count the petals on them (Soloukh.).

3) I was happy about her. Moreover, on the same day I announced my intention, not to Vera Nikolaevna, as one would expect, but to Eltsova herself (Turg.); “Tell me,” I asked, “you’re with me all the time, you were at rehearsal for no more than half an hour, or even don’t go at all, so you know “The Demon”?” (K. Korovin); Not only did he work himself, he also gave his mother and Nastya instructions on what to do (Plat.); I have a shack right on the shore. Sometimes a wave will reach the threshold, or even wash through my window (Paust.); Be that as it may, my discovery of Antarctica took place; Moreover, my name (V. Sanin) may appear on the map of the ice continent.

§ 3155. Gradational relations between the more true (reliable) and the less true are represented in constructions with two-place conjunctions and their one-place analogues: if not... then at least (then in any case); if not; if not to say; not to say; not really... but; Not really; not that... but; not so much; not to say that... but; one cannot say that; quicker; rather the opposite.

He is not that cruel, but he is too active in character (L. Tolstoy); With a few more boys I find myself in a not so big room; rather, on the contrary, it is a small room and even narrow, though with three windows (Olesha); Ulanova is not generous with emotional outpourings; rather, she is characterized by stinginess with feelings (Yu. Zavadsky); Scientists have learned, if not to control the hereditary code, then at least to purposefully influence its individual links (journal); Shukshin belonged to Russian art in that tradition, due to which the artist not only humiliated himself, but did not notice himself in the face of the problem that he raised in his work (Zalyg.).

§ 3156. The gradational relations between that which is more consistent with the essence of the signified, and that which corresponds less to it, are presented in constructions with allied analogues more correctly, more precisely, more accurately, more accurately speaking, in other words, it’s not enough to say, it’s better to say.

I remember that even before I started shaving, I trimmed my mustache with scissors - or rather, not a mustache, but what grew on my upper lip (Olesha); He vaguely remembered his mother - or rather, it seemed to him that he remembered her (Paust.); It’s not enough to say that Levitan loved music. She dominated him as crushingly as poetry (S. Prorokova); Even in Bykov’s old stories one can sense a tinge of pity, perhaps, for the hero. More precisely, the main task there was to show a living person in the war (journal); In contrast to his moments of bitterness, he showed himself to be an easy-going fellow, or rather, that’s what it seemed to his comrades at the time (gas).

For gradation-comparative constructions, see § 3098.

More on the topic SENTENCES WITH GRADATIONAL MEANING:

1. § 87. Compound sentences with connecting conjunctions
2. § 89. Compound sentences with adversative conjunctions
3. MEANS OF CONNECTING PARTS IN COMPLEX SENTENCES
4. Module 6. “Syntax of a complex sentence of minimal structure.”
5. Principles of classification of complex sentences. Structural and semantic characteristics of types of complex sentences. The place of complex sentences with connecting and gradational conjunctions in the complex sentence system. Question about complex sentences with explanatory conjunctions.

Union

Union– this is a service part of speech that formalizes and clarifies the connections between words, parts of sentences and sentences, expresses grammatical relationship between members of a sentence, parts of a sentence and individual sentences as part of a coherent text.

Unions express relationship between individual words, between homogeneous members in a simple sentence, and also serve to connect complex or complex sentences. If prepositions form a connection in a sentence, then conjunctions identify, clarify And draw up this connection. For example:

AND, conjunction – 1) single or repeated, connects homogeneous members of a sentence, as well as parts of a complex sentence ( Theory and practice, Hopes appeared, and he became cheerful again), 2) opens up sentences of an epic, narrative nature to indicate the connection with the previous one, the change of events (And the morning came, And the battle broke out); 3) internally connects the message with a previous situation that predetermines a positive or negative assessment (And you will still argue?!) .

Each union is the bearer of a certain values. According to this criterion, unions are distinguished:

• A) essay, including:
  • – connecting (and, a);
  • – dividing (or, roofing felts);
  • – adversarial (and, but);
  • – explanatory (that is, namely);
• b) subordinates, in particular:
  • – explanatory (what, to);
  • – temporary (since; when);
  • – conditional (if; if, what; if, then);
  • – causal (as; because);
  • – concessional (despite the fact that; although);
  • – comparative (so, how; with what, with that);
• V) gradational(not only... but also; yes and) .

Gradational unions belong to semantic unions and have a syncretic character. Constructions with unions not so much... but; not that... but (but); if not... then, or even... etc. are very widely used in speech. For example:

I experienced not so much joy, How many embarrassment; Everything that used to make his head spin Not really faded but just ceased to exist; He had, if not conviction, That your strong opinion; The guys came on Sundays or even on Saturday someone came running after school. - So, If no obstacles That With God, we could begin to complete the deed of sale,” said Chichikov (N. Gogol).

Gradational the conjunctions are heterogeneous, although they are united by the common function of strengthening/weakening, increasing/declining the significance of the second component of the coordinating series in comparison with the first. In the category of gradational unions there are:

• A) composite dismembered,not only but...; not that..., but..:,
• b) unarticulated: yes and; yes and even then.

These groups of gradation unions differ not only formally(dismembered/non-divided), but also semantically(i.e. the nature of the expressed relationships).

A special semantic group consists of alternative unions. They express a peculiar type of causality - relationships alternative motivation, based not on establishing a direct causal connection between two phenomena reported in the first and second parts of a complex sentence, but on assuming the proposed third phenomenon, directly not named in the sentence, which could be realized in the event of the non-realization of the phenomenon named in the first part of the sentence, and would be incompatible with the phenomenon named in the second part. There are two types of alternative motivation:

• 1) motivation from the opposite, when gradational relations are expressed by conjunctions not that; or else; otherwise in function otherwise, otherwise: Don't get off at stops otherwise (not this, not that, otherwise, otherwise) you can fall behind the train,
• 2) straight motivation when gradational relations are expressed by a conjunction and then.

To divide unions into essay And subordinates there are certain semantic And formal grounds. From a semantic point of view, the division is significant depending on the nature of the relationships being expressed: coordinating conjunctions express relationships independent, and subordinates - dependent. Formal indicators are:

• A) scope of use; coordinating conjunctions express relationships between homogeneous members and between parts of complex sentences; subordinating conjunctions - various kinds of relationships between parts of a complex sentence (less often, subordinating conjunctions are used in a simple sentence, connecting homogeneous members);
• b) place conjunction in a complex sentence.

Speaking about gradational unions, it is important to note that the union not as much... as used only in sentences with homogeneous members.

The following types are distinguished non-repeating gradation unions:

1) conjunctions that can only appear before the second part of the sentence being connected: or even, plus all correlated particles (well... so...). Wed. sentence where That– demonstrative pronoun - subject, lovely– predicative with gradual semantics:

That And lovely, - he [Vronsky] thought, returning from the Shcherbatskys and taking away from them, as always, a pleasant feeling of cleanliness and freshness, which stemmed in part from the fact that he had not smoked the whole evening, and at the same time a new feeling of tenderness for her [Kitty] for himself love, - That And lovely that nothing was said either by me or by her, but we understood each other so much in this invisible conversation of glances and intonations that now, more clearly than ever, she told me that she loved (L. Tolstoy);

2) comparative union how (more, how), introducing such parts of a complex sentence that can be post- or interpositive, but cannot begin a complex sentence. For example:

Father Fyodor began to brew marble washing soap; made pounds of it, but the soap, although it contained a huge percentage of fat, did not lather and, in addition, cost three times as much expensive, how“plough-and-Molotov” (I. Ilf, E. Petrov); And how I loved, my God, how I loved him!.. How I loved! And now don't I love him? Not more whether, how before, do I love him? (L. Tolstoy); Blue houses turned green, yellow ones - gray, disappeared from the tower bombs, the fireman no longer walked along it, and the streets were much noisier how Ippolit Matveevich remembered it (I. Ilf, E. Petrov);

3) compound dissected conjunctions of the “framing” type, the first part of which begins a complex sentence, and the second comes before its second part: not only but; not really... but; if not... then. For example:

Suffice it to say that they asked me to give up my examination room, in other words, they forced me to operate on you where I was still cutting up rabbits. In such conditions I not only not Can, but not I have the right to work (M. Bulgakov);

AND If If technology goes on so pliantly, then people will degenerate into rust from their dubious successes - then all that remains is to crush them with efficient steam locomotives and give the machine free rein in the world; Zakhar Pavlovich wanted to keep Alexander in such a coffin - if not alive, That whole for memory and love; every ten years Zakhar Pavlovich was going to dig up his son from the grave in order to see him and feel together with him; If“He hasn’t died, then I’ll send him,” the clerk decided and went to inform the secretary of the provincial committee about Dvanov (A. Platonov);

- Darling, do you know me? Is not it? I am a man of facts, a man of observation. I am an enemy of unfounded hypotheses. And this is very well known Not only in Russia, but also in Europe (M. Bulgakov).

By location gradational unions are permanent character those. have a strictly fixed place in a sentence and are used in statements with a “rigid” structure. Other conjunctions may not have a strictly fixed place and use a “flexible” structure in statements. For example, the speaker (writer) arranges the components of a coordinating construction with a gradational conjunction in a certain way not only... but. In a declarative sentence subject usually appears in the foreground, and an object comes after because subject is the starting point:

All members of this family, especially the female half, seemed to him covered with some kind of mysterious, poetic veil, and he not only not I saw no flaws in them, But under this poetic veil that covered them he imagined the most sublime feelings and all kinds of perfections (L. Tolstoy).

Rearranging composed elements associated with a given gradational union is impossible, which is due to the situation of speech. The essence gradations in the statement expressed by this gradational conjunction consists in opposition rhemas ( new) – topic (to this). The thought moves from topic to rheme: After this the count Not onlygot my money back but evenwon another three hundred thousand(I. Ilf, E. Petrov). Background knowledge includes the following topics: the count got his money back but the fact that he won another three hundred thousand, - rhema. In a sentence, the first of the homogeneous predicates names the topic, and the second – the rheme.

In constructions with a union not only but(and its variants) do not use more than two equal components, because, apart from the thematic and rhematic, no other is given. Wed: Not onlythat our club didn’t exist, or there were no street lights, but alsothere were only two shops in the whole city(A. Kuprin) // but there were only two shops in the whole city, and not just our club or lanterns on the streets. Detected strict attachment parts of the gradational union to equal components: the first part of the union Not only represents the topic, and the second - ...but and, and, but even – rhema. Such attachment of the parts of the gradational union to one or another of the equal components is determined by the fact that the first part of the union consists of two components - Not And only; component only definitely related to the topic.

Depending on the structures there are unions simple(single word - What; But; or etc.) and composite(non-word ones, for example: while; not only but). Simple conjunctions can be derivatives (while etc.) and non-derivative(but; or etc.). Non-derivative conjunctions have a simple structure. Other conjunctions are a frozen form of either significant or functional words, for example etymologically complex conjunctions so that, but and so on. Compound conjunctions have multiple components and their origins are very complex. Such conjunctions may include both significant and auxiliary parts of speech: because; because of; as soon as; in order to and etc.

By place conjunctions are distinguished in a sentence single And non-single seats. The former occupy a specific place in the sentence, for example, the conjunction only (and) only used at the beginning of a sentence: And as soon as the sky began to light up, / Everything suddenly began to move noisily(M. Lermontov). The latter may occupy different positions. Among the non-single-occupancy ones there are double conjunctions: one part in the main clause, the other in the secondary clause, i.e. in two different parts of the same sentence. These are, for example, unions if... then; although... but and etc.

Semantics alliances depends on context. Some unions are unambiguous (because; Although etc.), others ambiguous(they are called asemantic; a, and, but, what, when, how, yes etc.).

As auxiliary parts of speech unions stand out not so much for their morphological properties, how many syntactic characteristics. A conjunction differs from a preposition in that for it the morphological nature of the connected parts is insignificant, whereas the preposition attaches only names (noun, pronoun-noun, numeral), and, if the name is modifiable, it is selective in case. The conjunction connects not parts of speech, but members of the proposal(simple or complex), which can be expressed by word forms of different morphological classes. Compared to prepositions, conjunctions are more autonomous (independent). They not included members of the proposal, and tie up members of a sentence or parts of sentences. For example, union And connects nouns ( Brother Andsister), and adjectives ( inexpensive Anduseful thing)), and adverbs ( left Andon right), and verbs ((girl) got scared Andcrying), and different parts of speech (He is sick Anddoes not get up; writes beautifully Andno mistakes, came with a friend Andfor a long time).

Depending on the nature of the conjunctions, sentences are divided into actually gradational And amplifiers . Actually gradational sentences are formed by dismembered type conjunctions: not only but; not really... but; not as much... as and so on. Amplifiers sentences form a conjunction yes and , acting as an indivisible complex union expressing relations of accession. Wed:

A! Do you know Sobakevich? - he asked [Chichikov] and immediately heard that the old woman knew Not only Sobakevich, but also Manilov, and that Manilov will be greater than Sobakevich: he will order the chicken to be cooked immediately, and he will also ask for the veal; if you have lamb liver, then and he’ll ask for lamb liver, and he’ll just try everything, but Sobakevich will only ask for something, Yeah but he will eat everything, even try extra for the same price (N. Gogol);

- What is there to offer?.. And then they write, write... Congress, some Germans... My head is swelling. Take it all yes and divide; I am a master's dog, an intelligent creature, I have tasted a better life. Yes and what is will? So, smoke, mirage, fiction... The nonsense of these unfortunate democrats... (M. Bulgakov).

Union yes and can attach sentences containing not only additional messages, but also a question (usually rhetorical): I didn't answer anything – yes andwhy did I have to answer? (I. Turgenev).

Scientific discussion

Gradational sentences occupy an intermediate place between connecting and comparative sentences; their originality lies in the fact that one of the compared phenomena is especially emphasized. But this approach to considering such types was not always the case.

Czech grammarians identified an independent group among compounds gradational sentences that are “complex structures that combine the structural features of comparative-adversative... and connecting sentences”, in some cases they are considered as a type of connecting relations. The nature of such proposals is synthesis comparisons And connections phenomena against the background of special gradual semantics: an indication of a more significant or most significant, effective event, an increase in the degree of significance for the speaker of the content of the second part of the sentence compared to the first.

There are three levels of division of complex sentences into categories (and subcategories). At the first level, two categories are distinguished: 1) sentences that allow a second conjunctive element; 2) sentences that do not allow a second conjunction element. According to the semantics of conjunctions, the latter are divided into two subcategories: 1) explanatory(with conjunctions that is, namely) 2) gradational(with conjunctions not only but; yes and; not so much... but; but).

When making gradational connection semi-functional unions (oh, yes, by) such a connection is indicated adverbs And particles type even, also, yet, and besides etc., which, when formulated without unions, perform the function of compound words. Wed:

I can't allow an undocumented tenant to stay in the house, yes, even not registered for military service by the police (A. Bulgakov); Another time, Alexandra Stepanovna arrived with two little ones and brought him a cake for tea and a new robe, because the priest had such a robe that was worth looking at Not only I was ashamed but even ashamed; In fact, whatever you say, there are not only dead souls, but also runaways, and in total more than two hundred people! (N. Gogol); The old woman thought about it. She saw that the matter, for sure, seemed to be profitable, Yes only it was too new and unprecedented, and therefore she began to be very afraid that this buyer would somehow cheat her; I came from God knows where, yes, even and at night (N. Gogol).

Double alliance than... the used in complex sentences with comparative clauses:

I remember this time when he came to me and cried, talking about you, and what poetry and height you were for him, and I know that the more Is he with you lived the higher you for him became; She saw them with her far-sighted eyes, saw them close up, when they collided in pairs, and how more she saw their, the more convinced I became that her misfortune was accomplished; And so the society has developed that the more they are merchants, landowners, and they will always be working animals (L. Tolstoy); AND how time went on, topics the meeting became increasingly impossible and even unnecessary (Yu. Tynyanov).

As additional means of communication in such sentences, symmetrical repetition of comparative degree forms and parallelism of structure are used. Part with the first element of the union how predominantly in preposition. Comparison becomes the general syntactic meaning of sentences of a phraseological structure. The comparative meaning can be complicated by other meanings - cause-and-effect, conditional, etc. Compare: the moreIs he with you lived the higheryou for him became the moreshe sawtheir, the more convinced I became; the moreThey will work, the more they will profitmerchants. The distinction between the main part and the subordinate part is conditional: AND howthe dew is more abundant, topicstomorrow will be hotter(K. Paustovsky).

Possibility of using conjunctions as if etc. in sentences with the meaning of measure and degree are limited. The union is possible only in those constructions in which this meaning is reduced to an indication of highest degree(intensity) of manifestation of a sign, process, phenomenon, object. Values full – incomplete, sufficient – insufficient And excessive the degrees of a characteristic are not expressed by means of comparison. The formation of intensifying power meaning involves mainly conjunctions with conditional presumptive semantics (as if, as if, as if, as if and etc.). With a supporting word, pronominal adjectives or adverbs with an intensifying meaning are usually used - such, so, to that, to such an extent. Wed:

Some young Starling / So I learned to sing as a goldfinch, / As if if only he had been born a goldfinch (I. Krylov); Village So suddenly it seemed wonderful to him, exactly as if he were able to feel all the delights of the village; ...felt sad like that... exactly as if he wanted to stab someone (N. Gogol); And his gaze with such love, / So looked at her sadly, / As if he regretted it (M. Lermontov).

Union How functions primarily in sentences with high quality or qualifying value. In sentences with meaning degrees it is used only in special conditions: when a sign, determined by the degree of manifestation, is thought of as exceptional and such exclusivity is expressed by means denial(sometimes hidden). For example: AND so earlybegan to wake them up every time, / How earlyroosters and haven't sung in a long time(I. Krylov); She got down to business... so persistently, how difficult it wasfrom her expect(A. Kuprin). There are similar cases when a sign is not negated, but significantly limited in any respect: ...everything happened as simple and natural as it can beIndeed(F. Dostoevsky); It was as quiet as it gets

V.Yu. Apresyan, O.E. Pekelis, 2012

Coordinating conjunctions are conjunctions used to express a coordinating syntactic connection (see the articles Coordination and Conjunction). In the general classification of conjunctions, coordinating conjunctions are contrasted with subordinating conjunctions.

1. Introduction

1.1. Boundaries of the class of coordinating conjunctions

Some coordinating conjunctions are similar in meaning to particles, cf. I accepted the offer, but he refused(same – particle) vs. I accepted the offer, but he refused(A - union). However, coordinating conjunctions and particles differ in their syntactic properties.

The following are the main syntactic criteria for distinguishing coordinating conjunctions and particles. Firstly, a coordinating conjunction (or one of its parts - for double (see) and repeating (see) conjunctions) always occupies a position between two conjuncts, and cannot, unlike a particle, be part of a conjunct; can't say* I accepted the offer, but he refused.

Secondly, conjunctions, unlike particles, require explicit expression of both conjuncts: cf. Petya or Masha will come(union), if impossible * Either Masha will come(union) and opportunities Masha will come too(particle) [Sannikov 2007]. AND, Unlike or, partially heterogeneous: in some meanings it is a union (cf. The child is cheerful and well-fed), and in some – a particle close in meaning to the particle even (He doesn't go for walks even in good weather.); cf. also an example in the previous phrase.

However, the boundary between a union and a particle is not rigid, and some units have, rather, an intermediate status. So, either... or traditionally classified as repeating conjunctions [Grammar 1980(2): §3136], however, the formal properties of this connector do not allow it to be characterized so unambiguously. On the one hand, the component whether is placed inside the conjunct (cf. (1)), which is characteristic of the particle. Moreover, in some contexts either... or resolves the omission of the second conjunct, and in this exhibits the property of a particle. Wed:

(1) It depends on them whether there will be whether Russia in food bondage or No. ["Agricultural Journal" (2002)]

(2) It depends on them whether there will be whether Russia is in food bondage.

On the other hand, however, in some other contexts the omission of the second conjunct is doubtful - which indicates, on the contrary, the union status either... or:

(3) Russia depends on them whether will be in food bondage or Germany.

(4) ? Russia depends on them whether will be in food bondage.

As can be seen from these examples, the admissibility of omitting the second conjunct depends on the semantics of the indirect question implied by the construction with either... or. If this is an alternative question that requires choosing one of the alternatives as an answer, omission is impossible; if this is a general question that needs an answer Yes or No- omission is acceptable.

Meanwhile, for an indisputable conjunction such a dependence of omission on semantic factors is uncharacteristic, cf. union or or, which prohibits omitting the second conjunct under any conditions:

(5) Meanwhile or help will arrive, or the hero himself will figure out how to get out. [IN. Belousova. Second Shot (2000)]

(6) *Meanwhile or help will arrive.

An indisputable particle, on the contrary, tends to allow omission regardless of conditions.

Thus, the assignment either... or to conjunctions - adopted, following academic grammars, and in this article - is prompted by tradition and is to some extent conditional.

1.2. Classification of coordinating conjunctions

According to formal criteria, coordinating conjunctions are divided into single, double and repeating, see Conjunction / clause 1.2. If not only coordinating, but also subordinating conjunctions are single and double, then repeating conjunctions are found only among coordinating ones and are discussed separately below, see.

The semantic classification of coordinating conjunctions, traditional for Russian studies and accepted by Academic grammarians, as well as used in this article, distinguishes three groups of conjunctions:

connecting ( and, yes in meaning And, and), cm. ;

adversatives ( ah, but, yes in meaning But), cm. ;

dividing ( or, or), cm. .

This tripartite division is based on two semantic features.

The main semantic feature underlying the classification is the attitude to reality, namely, reality / unreality / possibility of the events described. On this basis, connecting and adversative conjunctions, which indicate that the statement corresponds to reality with respect to both conjuncts, are opposed to divisive ones, which indicate that the statement may correspond to it with respect to both members, but in reality it corresponds only with respect to one. Wed. beautiful and stupid(connective conjunction), beautiful but stupid(adversive conjunction) vs. beautiful or stupid(separation union). The exception is the contexts of so-called conjunctive use or, when the statement is true regarding both terms, which is not consistent with the above definition of separability: It’s easy to read Pushkin or Lermontov, you can’t get through here in spring or autumn[Sannikov 2008: 113]. These are usually contexts of potentiality or recurring events, cf. Also In the evenings we read Pushkin or Lermontov. At the same time, however, the dividing semantics is preserved to some extent: it is assumed that in each specific situation only one possibility is realized (for more details, see

The second sign is the opposition/non-opposition of the components. On this basis, connecting and disjunctive conjunctions, which indicate the non-opposition of elements, differ from adversatives, which suggest that the elements are opposed.

2. Repeating conjunctions

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

(7) I always had a dream that someone would appear who or will buy or will give or will give Spivakov a real violin for lifelong use. [WITH. Spivakova. Not everything (2002)]

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

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

At the union either...or the first part is located in the position of the Wackernagel clitic, the second - in front of the conjunct:

(9) First of all, your peace is open, think about it; suddenly someone sees us, a dwarf whether, or full-sized household member

List of repeating conjunctions: And... And... And; neither... neither ... neither; whether... whether... whether; or... or... or; That... That ... That; either... or... or,Not That... Not That... Not That; or... or... or; be ... be, though... though; That... That... A That; That... That ... A That And; or... or... That whether; or... or... or; That whether... That whether... or; be That... or; or... or... A Maybe be; Maybe... Maybe... A Maybe be; Maybe... Maybe; Maybe... A Maybe be.

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 repeating conjunction from a formally similar unit - a repeated single conjunction. The main formal difference between them is that a repeating conjunction is repeated before each, including the first, conjunct, while a single conjunction can only be located between conjunctions, thereby not affecting the position before the first conjunct. Wed. examples with repeating and...and and repeat single And, respectively:

(10) Sounded And requirements, And criticism … ["Weekly Magazine" (2003)]

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

2.1. Repeating conjunctions: semantics

Compared to single ones, repeated conjunctions have two common semantic properties that are typologically relevant. In a sentence with a repeating conjunction:

(1) it is emphasized that each conjunction is involved in the composition (see);

(2) each conjunction is considered separately (see).

2.1.1. Property (1): each conjunction participates in the composition

(51) The theater model with a signature festival is good both for the city and *(for) the theater.["Screen and Stage" (2004)]

(52) Drank tea sometimes with a watchman, sometimes *(with) a watchman. [WITH. Spivakova. Not everything (2002)]

(53) And we must prepare either to death, or *(to) fight. [A. Rybakov. Heavy Sand (1975-1977)]

(54) Nuclear testing neither in Russia nor *(in) the USA didn't stop. ["Izvestia" (2003)]

(55) They are recording the program either on Wednesday or *(on) Thursday. [collective. SpotlightParisHilton (2009-2011)]

This distinguishes a repeating conjunction from a single one, which often does not require a repetition of the preposition:

(56) Mix milk with yolks and salt, pour into flour and knead into a soft dough. [Recipes of national cuisines: Czech Republic (2000-2005)]

The Corpus contains examples of the omission of a preposition and in a sentence with a repeated conjunction, which, however, give the impression of some grammatical carelessness:

(57) He or in Chelyabinsk or Vladimir prison [IN. I. Vernadsky. Diaries: 1926-1934 (1926-1934)]

(58) She takes photographs of her husband, friends, son Mitka, clouds, trees in the window and asks them to “click” her, and her again, sometimes in a strict, sometimes cheeky pose, now in a white dress, now in a pink one... as if he wants to capture every moment of his passing life... [R. Solntsev. Half-life From the life of A. A. Levushkin-Alexandrov, as well as anecdotes about him (2000-2002)]

(59) ... said the French despot, without stopping neither before political nor natural boundaries European states. [P. P. Karatygin. Temporaries and favorites of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries (1870)]

The conjunction that most consistently resists the absence of a second preposition is and...and - no such examples have been found.

The requirement to repeat the preposition has grammatical grounds. In the absence of the second preposition, the first preposition finds itself in a syntactic position in which it controls the case of the noun across the boundary of a prepositional phrase, whereas control usually occurs within the same syntactic group: * mix milk and [with [yolks] IG] PreG and [salt] IG. In the corpus examples above, this situation of non-standard control is avoided, apparently, through ellipsis: the second preposition is not completely absent, but elliptical, therefore at a deep level it controls the second conjunct, cf. or [ in [Chelyabinsk] or [in [Vladimir prison]]. However, the fact that these examples are still on the verge of admissibility suggests that the ellipsis of the second preposition is difficult (a separate open question is why it is difficult). For comparison, in a construction with a single conjunction, this difficulty with control is solved by composing not prepositional phrases, but nominal phrases: mix milk [with [yolks] IG and [salt] IG ] PreG. However, with a repeated conjunction, a similar syntactic interpretation is excluded, because the repeated conjunction marks the boundaries of both conjunctions.

2.2.4. Asymmetry of the parts of the union

Some repeating conjunctions allow for an asymmetrical arrangement of parts, in which one of the parts is not located on the left periphery of the conjunct, as expected, but appears to be shifted to the left or right:

(60) At Le Mans, during preparation for the competition, it became clear why ceramic brake linings on a road car are bad - unless you shake them properly with one or two sharp stops, they will or ineffective, or will not work at all. ["Autopilot" (2002)]

(61) And you, Lyalya, clear the table, feed the dog and take care of the girl, otherwise she or will break the cradle, or the cradle will crush her! [F. Iskander. Chick Honors Customs (1967)]

(62) That he noticed a crease on his wrist, That dimple in the lower back, That I discovered that her dark hair was not one even dark brown color, but from the underside, on the neck, behind the ears, it was lighter and softer, as if of a different variety. [L. Ulitskaya. Kukotsky's case (2000)]

Such constructions are syntactically heterogeneous. Some of them allow a double syntactic interpretation. Yes, a proposal First he noticed a fold on his wrist, then a dimple in the lower back can be interpreted as a result of the displacement of one of the parts of the union:

(63) First he noticed a fold on his wrist, then a dimple in the lower back< Он замечал то складочку на запястье, то ямку на пояснице

or it is possible - as a result of the ellipsis:

(64) Either he noticed a fold on his wrist, or he noticed a dimple in the lower back

In other cases, on the contrary, both interpretations are questionable. Wed:

(65) And I am sincerely surprised by the fastidiousness, the fiddling on the part of women who or they're crazy about fat, or, their dog knows what they need (M. Zoshchenko)

It is difficult to talk about displacement here because there is no grammatically acceptable initial sentence (??? either they're crazy, or their dog knows what they want). Ellipsis is excluded because the conjuncts lack the lexically identical elements necessary for creative contraction.

Examples of the latter kind deviate from the canonical composition: they contain different members of the sentence, and such a composition is not reducible to the canonical one through any syntactic operations (see the article Composition). According to I.M. Boguslavsky, this construction is an “emergency technique”, “a way legitimized by the language system to resolve some conflicts that arise during composition” [Apresyan et al. 2010: 269]. Thus, in the example above from M. M. Zoshchenko, the asymmetrical construction reflects the conflict between the initially conceived syntactic construction - the composition of verb groups, and the final author's intention - the composition of a verb group with a clause.

2.2.5. Unions and... and, neither... nor: ban on a general topic

In clausal composition using and... and And no no, conjunctions cannot have the same topics. Wed:

(66) *Neither Petya didn’t drink neither Petya didn't have a bite

(67) Neither Petya didn’t drink neither Vanya didn't drink

(68) AND Petya drank And Petya took a bite - permissible only when interpreted And as a repeated single conjunction, the first conjunction of which is in the pretext; cf. semantic and intonation difference from the following example, where And– repetitive

(69) AND Petya drank And Vanya drank - interpretation is acceptable And as a repeating conjunction

Repetitive And has, in addition, the following property: when composing verb groups and... and usually requires inversion; cf. weirdness ? He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at the university, and is engaged in scientific work.

Apparently, both properties are based on, firstly, the connecting semantics of these conjunctions and, secondly, the general semantic property (1): a repeating conjunction emphasizes that each conjunction is involved in the composition (see). According to connective semantics, and and... and, And no no express that both conjunctions are true. In accordance with property (2), the meaning of ‘both’ is emphasized additionally. Meanwhile, there is no reason to emphasize the meaning of ‘both’ if we are talking about the same thing; hence the ban on matching topics. The topic is prototypically expressed by a noun rather than a verb. Hence the requirement that the initial thematic position in conjuncts be occupied by nouns and not verbs, i.e. requirement of inversion: this emphasizes the difference in topics.

For comparison, repeating conjunctions that do not belong to the class of connectives do not prohibit the coincidence of topics:

(70) In relation to the novel, there are only two policies - either he exists or he doesn’t...[IN. Aksenov. Mysterious Passion (2009)]

(71) Then you leave, then you come, but we don’t eat and we don’t sing. [A. P. Gaidar. Military Secret (1934)]

In addition, topic matches are not prohibited by a single analogue and...and, connective conjunction And:

(72) Just because you will be kicked out and You You will never get anywhere in your life - neither into the civil service, nor into other organizations. ["Weekly Magazine" (2003)]

2.3. Repetitive vs. double coordinating conjunctions

2. Composing the components of a syntactic group for a double conjunction is difficult to approximately the same extent as for a repeating one (see). This restriction applies mainly to the prepositional group and the adjective group; yes, for the union like... so and the case of an adjective group, the only example found in the Corpus is:

(73) This chapter discusses the composition and distribution of ecdysteroids in plants, phylogenetically both close and distant from each other, differing in biomorphological characteristics and habitat. [Phytoecdysteroids (2003)]

The composition of incomplete noun phrases, on the contrary, is quite widely represented:

(74) Today, a common place for all market economies has become the presence antitrust laws and structures <…>["Rossiyskaya Gazeta" (2003)]

(75) Direct localization in time is limited only very general undifferentiated not so much knowledge as “feeling” that a given event is close because it is relevant, or distant because it is alien. [WITH. L. Rubinstein. Fundamentals of General Psychology (1940)]

3. Repeating a preposition in a construction with a double conjunction is desirable, but this restriction is implemented with less strictness than in the case of a repeating conjunction (see). Yes, double alliance both... and, close in value to the repeating one and... and, unlike the latter, allows the omission of a preposition:

(76) <…>laws that to one degree or another infringe upon the rights and freedoms of individuals are issued both at the federal and regional levels. ["The Lawyer" (2004)]

(77) Revival both externally and internally market is explained by a seasonal factor, notes EuroChem representative Vladimir Torin. (www.rbcdaily.ru)

4. Asymmetrical arrangement of parts of the union resolve unions both... and, not only... but also, rather... than and some others:

(78) The essence of the work was both in hardware and software improvements, - says the general designer of NPO Almaz named after. Academician A. A. Raspletin Alexander Lemansky. ["Aerospace Defense" (2002)]

(79) Until now, training is structured the way a particular teacher wants, although the requirements of the Unified All-Russian Sports Classification have long been in force, which directly states the need to pass a technical exam not only for obtaining a degree (kyu or dan), but also sports categories and degrees in judo. ["Martial Art of the Planet" (2004)]

(80) <…>is a design more like a concrete plant than an educational institution. [N. Shcherbak. Romance with the Faculty of Philology (2010)]

3. Connecting unions

Connective conjunctions connect two parts that are not opposed to each other, each of which corresponds to reality (for semantic features relevant to the classification of coordinating conjunctions, see).

List of connecting unions: and, yes, and also; both... and, not only that... also, not... but, not... but, not to say that... but, not as much... as, not only... but also, not that... but, rather... than ; and... and... yes... yes; no no; whether... whether; or or; then... then; either... or, not that... not that; or either; be... be, at least... at least; then... then... and then; then... then... and even; either... or... or; either... or... or; either... or... or; be it... or; or... or... or maybe; maybe... maybe... maybe; perhaps... perhaps; maybe... or maybe.

Connective conjunctions according to formal criteria are traditionally divided into single, double and repeating (see Union / clause 1.2); Moreover, the formal classification correlates with the semantic one, so it is retained in this description.

a) single ( and, yes, and also), which are located between two conjunctions: Katya and Masha; cabbage soup and porridge;complex carbohydrates and fatty acids, cm. ;

b) double, the first part of which is located in front of the first of the two conjuncts, and the second - in front of the second ( not only... but also, not so much... as, rather... than, not that... (a), not that... but, how... so etc.): not only Petya, but also Masha; not so much arrogant as shy; more young than old; Not that he's a complete idiot, but a little stupid; not only offended, but slightly upset; both in Moscow and St. Petersburg, cm. ;

c) repeated before each of the conjuncts, the number of which is not limited ( and... and, no no and etc.): and Katya, and Masha, and Petya; neither to yourself nor to people, cm. .

3.1. Single unions

Single connecting conjunctions are located between two conjunctions: Petya and Vasya;cabbage soup and porridge; students as well as teachers.

List of single connecting conjunctions: and, yes, and also.

The meaning of conjunctions is not usually explained in traditional grammars. However, in modern Russian studies there are attempts to interpret different uses of the main single connecting conjunction - the union And. This article (without rather complex analytical interpretations) provides the main uses of the conjunction And in accordance with how they are highlighted in [Uryson 2011]:

And normal consequence (see);

Accurate union statistics And impossible due to homonymy with the particle And, however, the main number of uses is in the conjunction.

3.1.1. AND"transfers" Yes, and

In one of its meanings, And"transfers", union And semantics and syntactic properties are similar to conjunctions Yes(its statistics are impossible due to homonymy with more frequent lexemes – adversarial union Yes Yes) And and: Bread and sausage for breakfast; Bread and sausage for breakfast; For breakfast there is bread and also sausage.

AND"transfers" Yes And and usually connect parts of a sentence, but not whole sentences:

(81) I have a certificate of complete secondary education And silver medal [Autobiography (2006)]

(82) His food was bread Yes water (O. Tchaikovskaya)

(83) With mental retardation, there is often a delay in speech development, and fairly persistent phonetic-phonemic disorders and articulation disorders ["Questions of Psychology" (2004)]

There are also differences between them. Yes - obsolete and colloquial conjunction, and - unusable. Besides, Yes And and semantically narrower than a conjunction And: They make a quantitative assessment.

Yes often assumes that what is being enumerated is small:

(84) They talked about Adamovich and his “Paris note”, which had all sorts of followers Chervinskaya and Steiger.(V. Kreid)

(85) It seems that they have climbed into such a wilderness that everywhere there is only bushes and swamps and not a single village (V. Bykov)

(86) Kaltsaty himself seemed homeless, a traveling magician, whose entire luggage was shaving brush and razor(A. Azolsky)

(87) In this small room table and bed were placed (B. Ekimov)

And, on the contrary, often assumes that what is being enumerated is large:

(88) At the plenary and sectional sessions, the round table, speakers psychologists, psychotherapists, teachers, philologists, as well as students and social workers["Questions of Psychology" (2003)]

(89) In the morning after meals, one tablet of multivitamins is enough, which contains B vitamins, nicotinic acid and a complex of microelements: calcium, magnesium, selenium, zinc, and methionine["Health" (1999)]

(90) Along the edges of a round table covered with a tablecloth<…>Small plates with various snacks, cut into slices, are placed, such as: cheese, whitefish, salmon, ham, corned beef, fried game, sausage, as well as lobster, caviar, grated green cheese, grated corned beef, herring, cut into pieces and seasoned with mustard sauce[E. Molokhovets. A gift for young housewives, or a means to reduce household expenses / Table setting and dishes (1875-1900)]

3.1.2. AND"normal consequence"

AND“normal consequence” connects sentences or homogeneous members: It started to rain and we went home; She saw him and smiled. Wed. Also:

(91) Small splashes flew high in all directions, and among these splashes a tiny rainbow appeared for a moment. ["Murzilka" (2001)]

3.1.3. AND"comparisons"

AND“comparisons” connects sentences with repeated or semantically similar predicates: Vasya is an excellent student, and Petya is an excellent student; You are a worker and I am a worker. Wed. Also:

(92) I'm a pig And you are a pig, / All of us, brothers, are pigs (S. Marshak)

3.2. Double alliances

Double connecting conjunctions are those conjunctions, the first part of which is located before the first of two conjuncts, and the second - before the second:

(93) But this, you see, not so much frustrating, How many encourages ["Folk Art" (2004)]

List of double connecting conjunctions: both... and, not only that... also, not... but, not... but, not only... but also, not so much... as, rather... than, not that... ( a), not that... ah, not to say that... but.

Statistics of all double unions are difficult due to the uncertainty of the distance between the parts of the union.

All these unions are united by common semantics. They assume that the second part of the statement, introduced by the second part of the conjunction, from the point of view of the Speaker, is unexpected for the Addressee or is somewhat less obvious. In this case, the relationship between the first and second parts may be different:

a) they can be equal in terms of compliance with reality ( both...and, little Togo What... more and, not only...but also):

(94) Adobe products, according to company representatives, are designed How for large enterprises, so for the public sector [Computerworld (2004)]

(95) He was not very happy with his wife, who not only that was a rare bore also walked left and right (O. Zueva)

(96) Taken into account Not only blood type, but also a bunch of all sorts of characteristics (V. Strelnikova)

b) the second part can completely negate the first ( no... ah, no... but):

(97) Actually, it has always been here Not luxury, A means of saturation [Recipes of national cuisines: Scandinavian cuisine (2000-2005)]

c) the second part may correspond to reality to a greater extent than the first ( not only but, not so much... as, rather... than, not that... (a), not that... ah, not to say that... but):

(98) It turned out to be decisive for the writer’s fate not so much critic's opinion, How many"official position" of the authorities (A. Kraevsky)

(99) He's a man quicker skeptical, how enthusiastic (D. Granin)

(100) Then for exactly two weeks I strictly followed the rule “only raw vegetables + 5% lactic acid products + apples + egg” - it was boring and not to say that tasty and satisfying, But tolerant and experienceable [Kim Protasov's Diet (2007-2010)]

(101) Book life in the capital Not really flows in full swing but also does not stand still [Izvestia (2003)]

The last two classes are semantically hybrid cases, because, firstly, they connect parts that correspond to reality to varying degrees (which brings them closer to dividing conjunctions (see)), and secondly, they are to some extent opposed (which brings them closer to opposing conjunctions (see)). However, such conjunctions cannot be considered adversative, since, unlike adversatives, they indicate that only one of the conjuncts fully corresponds to reality. Wed. She's beautiful and smart(adversive conjunction, both conjuncts are true) vs. She's not pretty, but she's smart(substitutive conjunction, only the second conjunct is true). Therefore, adversative conjunctions can only connect conjuncts that do not exclude each other (cf. irregularity * She's stupid but smart), and substitutive ones often connect mutually exclusive conjunctions ( She's not stupid, she's smart). Conjunctions of group b) are called substitutive, conjunctions of group c) are called gradational [Sannikov 2008].

3.2.1. Unions with equal parts: both... and, fewthat... also, not only but

Two semantic features of this subgroup of conjunctions - an indication of the surprise of the second situation and the equality of the parts - give another effect, namely, an indication that the first and second situations in total are a lot; compare:

(102) Laws that to one degree or another infringe upon the rights and freedoms of individuals are issued How at the federal so regional levels ["Lawyer" (2004)]

(103) Not only that Berman was charming, extremely funny and eccentric - he did magnificent tricks in flight (I. Keogh)

(104) Dolls and jewelry were selling out Not only festival participants, but also museums in Russia and neighboring countries [“Folk Art” (2004)]

Due to the presence of the semantic component ‘many’, these conjunctions are not combined with words with the meaning of small quantity: it is impossible to say *He only subscribes to both art and math magazines[Sannikov 2008]; * Not only was he five minutes late, he also gave an excellent report.

Both... and does not connect clauses, but only components of a smaller volume (nominal, prepositional, verbal and similar groups): it is impossible to say?? He both gave a report and wrote an article, *As the sun shines brightly, so does the fresh breeze blow[Sannikov 2008].

3.2.2. Substitute conjunctions: no... ah, no... but

Semantically, substitutional conjunctions are close to constructions with a preposition instead of,

indicating the “replacement”, “crossing out” of one situation by another. The pragmatics of substitutive conjunctions is also specific: they assume that the Speaker, knowing the truth, refutes the erroneous ideas that the Addressee has, i.e. They are inherently polemical [Sannikov 2008].

In Russian studies the union no... but and the obsolete union synonymous with it no... but are usually considered not as separate lexical units, but as a combination of corresponding conjunctions with negation. However, [Sannikov 2008] gives the following argument in favor of their autonomy as unions, comparing them with a single union But, taken in the context of negation. In the case of a substitutive union no... but the content of one composed part completely excludes the content of the second (there is a semantic “crossing out”), and in the case of a conjunction But with negation, one part does not exclude the other: cf. He loves English literature, but not Dickens, if impossible * He loves not English literature, but Dickens.

An important syntactic property of substitutive conjunctions no... ah, no... but is that they require a singular verb if both conjuncts are singular; cf. Both Petya and Kolya came(regular connecting conjunction) vs. It was not Petya who came, but Kolya(substitutive conjunction).

According to the observation of [Sannikov 2008], substitutive conjunctions are limited in the types of speech acts (see Glossary) in which they are used: conjunction no...ah impossible in special questions, where the question word in meaning refers to the verb: cf. irregularity * Where will Petya, not Kolya, go? If the question word in its meaning refers to the entire phrase, then the conjunction no... but possible, in particular, with question words For what And Why: For what<почему>will not Kolya go, but Petya?

3.2.3. Graduation unions: not only... but also, not so much... as, rather... than, not that... (a), not that... ah, not to say that... but

Gradational conjunctions indicate the obvious inequality and asymmetry (although not contradictory) of conjuncts and the fact that they correspond to reality to varying degrees. The description of these unions in this article is based on the description of [Sannikov 2008].

The statistics of all these unions, like any double unions, is difficult due to the uncertainty of the distance between the parts of the union.

Union not only but indicates that both conjuncts correspond to reality, as opposed to the expectations of the Addressee, who, in the opinion of the Speaker, could, based on his knowledge of the world or of a particular situation, believe that only the first one corresponds to it:

(105) This dish is typical Not only for Estonian, but also for Finnish cuisine [Recipes of national cuisines: Estonia (2000-2005)]

Unions not that... (a), not that... but And not to say that... but partly closer to concessive conjunctions (see Subordinating conjunctions / paragraph 6). They indicate that the Speaker acknowledges that the first part of the statement is not a completely accurate description of the situation taking place, but believes that the second part of the statement is completely true:

(106) Believe me, over the years of working at school I have seen a lot and I can say that vodka at the age of thirteen is... well Not really normal phenomenon But, in general, it happens [“Dasha” (2004)]

(107) To Nice from Hyères Not really far, but not at hand [V. Craid. G. Ivanov in Hyeres (2003)]

(108) Head not really I was sick A it was kind of completely empty, rattling [Yu. Dombrovsky. Faculty of Unnecessary Things (1978)]

(109) Not that gained weight, A somehow became coarser, defined... [I. Grekova. On Trials (1967)]

(110) Not to say that this performance broke the ice, But the confrontation was somewhat weakened [D. Bykov. Spelling (2002)]

(111) The day before yesterday we placed a comrade in the nervous department of our hospital, not to say that crazy But this comrade was completely out of his mind [V. Pietsukh God in the City (2001)]

Not as much...as indicates that both conjuncts correspond to reality, but the second, contrary to the expectations of the Addressee, to a greater extent than the first: This is not so much my merit as it is luck. Wed. Also:

(112) It seemed that the receiving party wanted not so much show yourself How many look at “these mysterious Russians” for yourself [“Computerworld” (2004)]

Communicatively not as much... as serves to contrast contrasting rhemas (see Communicative sentence structure): She's not so much-smart, how much ¯ educated.

This conjunction connects homogeneous members of a sentence, but not entire clauses, cf. irregularity * It's not so much that she's sick, but that she needs rest.*It's not so much his suit that's outdated, but his boots that need cleaning. if correct She's not so much sick as she needs rest; He doesn’t dress in an old-fashioned way so much as he doesn’t keep his shoes clean. However, when contrasting themes are contrasted, this prohibition is lifted:

(113) Real truth: not so much-I serve you, How many¯ you follow me. [N. S. Leskov. A seedy family (1874)]

(114) Not so much- art reflects human psychology, How many human psychology is reflected in art, as well as in other forms of creative activity that connect a person with the world and reveal the world to a person. ["Questions of Psychology" (2004)]

Union rather than indicates an even greater difference in the degree of correspondence to reality than not as much... as. According to the Speaker, the conjunction introduced by the component quicker, corresponds to reality almost one hundred percent, and the conjunction introduced by the component how, – only to a small extent; compare:

(115) He is a man quicker skeptical, how enthusiastic [D. Granin. Bison (1987)]

It brings us closer together rather than with substitutive conjunctions (see), which indicate that one of the conjuncts is not true ( more skeptical than enthusiastic ≈ not enthusiastic, but skeptical).

Therefore, in phrases like He is more conservative than liberal, She is more kind than evil union rather than cannot be replaced by a union not as much... as (#He is not so much a liberal as a conservative; #She's not so much evil as she is kind), which presupposes a conjunction of composed terms, impossible with their antonymy.

3.3. Repeating conjunctions

Unions and... and(accurate statistics are impossible due to homonymy with the union And) And no no close in meaning to the union And“enumeration” (see) without negation and in combination with negation, respectively: cf. meaning of phrases Schoolchildren and students came vs. , Schoolchildren and students did not come vs. Neither schoolchildren nor students came.

According to [Uryson 2011], repeating conjunctions differ in meaning from their corresponding single ones in that they assume that the enumeration is exhaustive: phrase Both schoolchildren and students came indicates that no other groups were expected and the phrase Schoolchildren and students came does not imply this. Wed. Also:

(116) Exhibitions are losing both participants and visitors― information about new products is easy to obtain via the Internet

(117) I don't want anyone neither offend neither insult (E. Grishkovets)

[Sannikov 2008] describes the semantic specificity of repeated conjunctions in comparison with single ones somewhat differently, namely, he sees in them the semantic component ‘more than the norm’: cf. He brought apples and grapes and ice cream vs. He brought apples, grapes and ice cream(the first sentence contains an assessment - apples, grapes and ice cream are a lot, and the second sentence is neutral); He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at universities, and is engaged in scientific work. vs. He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at universities and is engaged in scientific work.(the first sentence contains an assessment - lectures to schoolchildren, teaching at the university and scientific work - this is a lot, the second sentence is neutral). When composing verb groups using repeated And inversion required; cf. weirdness?? He lectures to schoolchildren, teaches at universities, and is engaged in scientific work..

These conjunctions, unlike their corresponding single ones, are impossible with symmetrical predicates, cf. Katya and Petya kiss, Katya and Petya do not kiss vs. impossibility # Both Katya and Petya kiss, #Neither Katya nor Petya kiss with the interpretation of symmetry (see also).

4. Opposing alliances

Opposite conjunctions connect two parts opposed to each other, each of which corresponds to reality.

The semantic difference between connective and adversative conjunctions is especially noticeable when the two components being composed are completely identical (example from [Sannikov 2008]): Kolya is red, and Petya is reddish(the similarities are emphasized) vs. Kolya is red-haired, and Petya is reddish.(the difference is emphasized).

List of adversative conjunctions: but yes in meaning but, however, and, on the other hand, and that.

They are divided into three semantic groups:

The main adversative conjunctions are ah, but, yes in meaning But(its statistics are impossible due to homonymy with other lexemes – connecting union Yes and especially the affirmative particle Yes), however(accurate statistics are impossible due to homonymy with the introductory word however), but, in which the value of compensation prevails, and then...(statistics are not possible due to homonymy with the union And in combination with a pronoun That). In academic grammars, adversative conjunctions also include same And yet, however, syntactically these units are particles (the first with an adversative, and the second with a concessive meaning).

4.1. Neutral adversative conjunctions: but, yes (= but), however

4.1.1. Union But

Basic uses of the conjunction But:

1. But"abnormal consequence": It was raining, but he didn't take an umbrella. Wed. Also:

(118) The army is mired in corruption, But The military prosecutor's office has its finger on the pulse: no, no, and it will bring out another grabber in uniform ["Moskovsky Komsomolets" (2004)]

(119) One should shout: “What a fool you are!” But I was silent... [“Dasha” (2004)]

2. But She's beautiful but stupid[stupidity is more important]; She's stupid but beautiful[beauty is more important] [Sannikov 2008]; cf. Also:

(120) Lavrov, along with his classmates, joins the people’s militia, and then becomes a cadet at the Leningrad Military Air Academy, which allowed him to receive a “chaotic, but fairly complete engineering education” [Computerworld (2004)]

4.1.2. Union however

Towards a union But(see) an unusual union is close however. It is used, with appropriate stylistic restrictions, in many contexts similar to But"abnormal consequence" and But"opposite assessment":

1) however"abnormal consequence": She received a good education, but cannot find a job. Wed. Also:

(121) In Russia, a bell under an arch was part of a horse harness, however Not every owner could afford to buy an expensive cast product. ["Folk Art" (2004)]

2) however“opposite assessment” (of the two components expressing the opposite assessment, the one that comes second is more important): She is very capable, but did not receive a good education. Wed. Also:

(122) The young actor’s work is not flawless, however due to its natural organic nature and tendency to create a holistic image<...>he succeeded in the main thing... [“Screen and Stage” (2004)]

4.1.3. Union Yes

Union Yes both semantically and stylistically more limited than But(about the semantics of the union But cm. ) – it has a conversational tone. As [Sannikov 2008] notes, contrary to tradition, Yes cannot be considered a synonymous equivalent But. The most common usage for Yes occurs when the first composed part contains an indication of a hypothetical event, and the second contains an indication of the reason that prevented its implementation: I would go to a restaurant, but there is no money. Wed. also examples from the Corpus:

(123) I would go to visit him, Yes this is just unnecessary worry." [V. Kreid. Georgy Ivanov in Hyeres (2003)]

(124) Everything is nice, I wish I could jinx it, but out of nowhere there’s a “raid” on the oligarchs [“Tomorrow” (2003)]

Moreover, according to the same source, uses similar to But"opposite assessment" ( She's beautiful but stupid) are less common, and uses similar to But"abnormal consequence" ( *It was raining, but he didn’t take an umbrella) are uncharacteristic.

4.1.4. Unions with a lack of control component: a, an

A nasty union A has no exact analogues in other languages ​​and is translated differently in different contexts - for example, into English as but or and. Regarding the semantics of the union A There are many works, but unambiguous rules for its use have not yet been formulated. In [Zaliznyak, Mikaelyan 2005] it is recognized as a linguistically specific word, an indicator of the idea of ​​the Subject’s lack of control over circumstances. This feature is manifested in comparison with the union But, which assumes that the Subject is in control of what is happening. Wed. He was going to go to medical school, but changed his mind, if impossible * , but changed my mind. However, the rule of uncontrollability does not work in all cases: it is enough to expand the context, and the phrase becomes correct: * He was planning to go to medical school, and then changed my mind.

In the work [Uryson 2011: 170–171] the difference A from But described somewhat differently. Both conjunctions introduce an unexpected state of affairs: She was invited, but she didn't come; She was invited, but she didn’t come. However, unlike But, union A indicates the speaker’s ignorance of the factors due to which an unexpected situation still takes place: cf. right She was invited, but she didn't come for a good reason vs. weirdness?? She was invited andshe didn't come for a good reason. Thus the union A as if it captures the surprise of the speaker, in contrast to the more objective But.

This description is close to the description of the difference But from A in progress [ Paducheva 1997]. Union A, Unlike But, has egocentric semantics: in a sentence It was raining, but Kolya didn’t take an umbrella The subject who is aware of the abnormality of the existing state of affairs is the Speaker, while in the sentence It was raining, but Kolya did not take an umbrella it is the Subject of the action himself – Kolya.

An authoritative analysis of the different meanings of the union A presented in the works [Kreidlin, Paducheva 1974 a, b] and its subsequent descriptions [Sannikov 2008], [Uryson 2011] to one degree or another rely on these works. Basic meanings of the union A according to [Kreidlin, Paducheva 1974 a, b]:

1) A“non-compliance with the norm”: It's December and still no snow. Wed. Also:

(125) I imagined that<...>it works one way A It turned out that it is structured completely differently. [E. Grishkovets. Simultaneously (2004)]

2) and “comparisons”: Last year the summer was dry, but this year it was rainy. Wed. Also:

(126) But first of all, I must treat the guests. In winter and autumn - mushrooms, in spring - larks, A in summer - cones. ["Murzilka" (2002)]

3) A"accessions": I wait and wait, and time goes by in the evening. Wed. Also:

(127) You are here, and I'm running like crazy and looking for["Screen and Stage" (2004)]

In academic grammars it is also recorded as a colloquial and obsolete conjunction en(in combination with particles Not And No), which is currently quite common both in the Newspaper Subcorpus (1.4 per million) and in the Main Corpus (3 per million):

(128) I should finish my meal here, en no, the traditions of Rabelais are alive on the banks of the Seine [“Brownie” (2002)]

It expresses the following meaning: the Subject had some expectations regarding the situation (reflected in the first of the composed parts), which, unexpectedly for him, are refuted by the opposite expected state of affairs (reflected in the second of the composed parts). At the same time, in the union en there is some pragmatic “schadenfreude” involved - The speaker is often satisfied with the deception of expectations:

(129) So you wanted me not to receive anything, en fair people judged differently (Yu. O. Dombrovsky)

For the union en it is extremely typical to use it in combination with the particle No and other negative words:

(130) It seemed to me that this was done for the sake of art and new acquaintances with girls, en No! (Yu. Trifonov)

(131) I reached the twelfth page, wants to turn it over - en nothing works out. (M. Sergeev)

4.1.5. Conjunctions with a desirability/undesirability component: but,and then(with option yes even then)

Unions but And and then(yes even then) combines an indication of the desirability/undesirability of situations. Wherein but– an “optimistic” compensation union, often expressing the idea that a bad situation is compensated by the presence of a good one, and and then (yes even then) - "pessimistic", often expressing the idea that the insufficiency of a good situation is aggravated by further restrictions that make it even less satisfactory:

(132) It’s pointless to think about it all the time, but you can feel [E. Grishkovets. Simultaneously (2004)]

(133) The huge sea lion, a relative of seals, is able to hold its small harem for only about a week, Yes and then through constant battles. ["Knowledge is power" (2003)]

Union compensation but A large literature is devoted [Levin 1970], [Sannikov 1989], [Sannikov 2008]. In this article, its semantics is presented in accordance with the analysis given in [V. Apresyan 2004]. The main semantic idea of ​​the conjunction but -‘the presence of some undesirable situation (first conjunct) is completely balanced by the presence of some more important desirable situation (second conjunct)’: She's lazy, but she's smart. Wed. Also:

(134) My ideas about freedom of speech in Russia and society in general have become much less optimistic, but more accurate. ["Top Secret" (2003)]

The reverse order of situations is not typical; cf. non-standard? She is smart, but lazy. But semantically at the same time comes closer to the conjunction of clause only(which is considered among the concessional ones in the article Subordinating conjunctions / clause 6.4) and is contrasted with it. Only introduces the idea that the presence of some desirable situation (the first conjunction) is partially, but not completely, invalidated by the presence of some less important undesirable situation (the second conjunction): She's smart, just lazy. Reversing the order of attributes is not possible: *She is lazy, only smart. Contrast between but And only especially noticeable when the conjunctions coincide: The dress was narrow, but long[narrowness is a negative property, length is a positive property] vs. The dress was narrow, only long[narrowness is a positive property, length is a negative property].

Union and then(yes even then) also often introduces an indication of the desirability / undesirability of situations, however, the assessment of the general state of affairs that he introduces is pessimistic, because The first, not very good situation, is aggravated by the presence of the second, even worse:

(135) He will arrive only in August, and then for one week; He rarely does his homework and then, as a rule, carelessly, “with your left hand.” ["Dasha" (2004)]

Such usages are most typical for and then(yes even then), however, are not the only ones possible; cf. "optimistic example": There were few mistakes[the situation is not too bad] , and even then through carelessness[this fact makes the situation even less bad] . This indicates that and then conveys a more general meaning, namely ‘Y is even smaller than X’, where the first situation X, already initially strongly limited, is further limited by the second situation Y: The doctor sees only on Mondays, and then from twelve to two; The car is given away for next to nothing - a thousand dollars, and then in installments. Since the component ‘little’ is often interpreted as ‘bad’, in usage and then usually gives "pessimistic" interpretations.

Union and then... formed from a particle And in combination with a pronoun That, and is synonymous with similar combinations available in modern language: They have one car, and it's a bad one.(union) vs. They have one car, and it's a bad one.(particle and pronoun).

5. Dividing unions

Dividing conjunctions connect two parts that are not opposed to each other, one of which corresponds to reality.

List of separation unions: or, or, or else, not that, not that; or... or, either... or; whether... whether, whether... or, at least... at least, what... what, be it... or; or even and, or maybe (maybe) and; not... so, if (and) not... then; and maybe (to be), maybe (to be)... maybe (to be), maybe (to be)... and maybe (to be); not that... not that, or... or; then... then.

In [Grammar 1953], the meaning of disjunctive conjunctions is formulated as follows: they indicate either the alternation of phenomena ( It's cold, it's hot), or the reality of only one of the listed facts or phenomena ( Either Petya or Kolya will come). These traditionally include or, or... or, either, or... or, then... then, not that... not that, either... or. The work [Sannikov 2008] identifies 8 semantic groups of disjunctive conjunctions and up to 30 different lexical units. This article uses the classification of dividing unions proposed by V. Z. Sannikov:

5.1.1. Union or

The main meaning of the main dividing union is or(accurate statistics are impossible due to partial homonymy with the repeating conjunction or or) – has been discussed many times in domestic and foreign linguistic literature [Galkina-Fedoruk et al. 1958], [Paducheva 1964], , , [Beloshapkova 1977], [Gladky 1979]. There are two main points of view on its semantics.

In classical Russian studies and in some Western studies, its meaning is usually interpreted as a dividing disjunction, or “mutual exclusion” (only one of the composed parts corresponds to reality), i.e. phrases like - Who's going to come?– Masha or Kolya are interpreted as true if one of the participants in the situation comes, but not both.

In some, mainly formally oriented, studies, its meaning is determined logically - namely, as a non-separating disjunction (i.e., either one of the conjuncts or both may correspond to reality), i.e. phrases like - Who's going to come?– Masha or Kolya are perceived as acceptable even if both participants in the situation arrive.

The language examples allow for both interpretations: Tomorrow I'll be in London or Paris suggests that only one of the possibilities can come true, while phrases like If you have a sore throat or a fever, you should not go for a walk. assume that both possibilities can be realized simultaneously. This article adopts the interpretation of semantics or, proposed in [Sannikov 2008], according to which the expression X or Y means that each of these two situations is possible, but not obligatory [Sannikov 2008: 193]:

(136) During cooking, two or shake the dishes three times. [Recipes of national cuisines: France (2000-2005)]

Phrases like There is a river or lake nearby according to [Sannikov 2008: 193] they mean that “maybe there is a river, but maybe there isn’t; the same should be said about the lake.” Natural interpretations of this phrase imply that either there is a river or a lake, and if they were not there, then the Speaker would present a third option ( There is a river or lake nearby, and if not, then there should at least be a stream). Thus, the semantics itself or does not prescribe an indispensable correspondence to reality of at least one of the conjuncts, but in the absence of a third option, such correspondence is derived from pragmatic laws, in particular the information content postulate of P. Grice.

U or There are a number of non-disjunctive uses that are not discussed in this article ( or adversative ( Stop talking, or I'll kick you out of class.), or explanatory ( transgenic or genetically modified organisms), or connecting ( They sat on sofas, chairs, beds or just on the floor) etc.).

5.1.2. Union or

Synonym or - union or, which in [Sannikov 2008] qualifies as rare and bookish. This does not quite correspond to the corpus data (its occurrence is 156 occurrences per one million in the Main Corpus, 176 in the Oral Corpus and 214 in the Newspaper Corpus), on the basis of which it qualifies rather as neutral or colloquial:

(137) In the latter case, he gets the opportunity to “join” the database if he needs it, or“switch off” from it. ["Information Technology" (2004)]

(138) He noted that those wishing to receive religious education could study in private or in Sunday schools, “a general education school should not carry this idea” [“Lawyer” (2004)]

(139) It was necessary to lubricate everything with a joke or keep silent (F. Gorenshtein)

5.1.3. Unions otherwise, not that, otherwise

Unions otherwise, not that And otherwise in the meaning of pure separation - rare synonyms or, and each of them has its own semantic and pragmatic features: Drinks cognac or vodka– there is an alternation of equal situations; Drinks cognac, or vodka– The speaker is not sure which situation is taking place; Drinks cognac, or else vodka– in cases where the first of the situations does not occur, the second occurs.

Statistics of these conjunctions is impossible due to homonymy with significantly more frequent conjunctions of consequence otherwise And otherwise(see Subordinating conjunctions / clause 3.2), as well as with the conjunction A in combination with a pronoun That.

5.1.4. Unions or or And or either

Repeating conjunction or or and its rarer synonym or either differ from single conjunctions of pure separation or And or in that they indicate the obligatory nature of at least one of the components (noted in [Sannikov 2008]); cf. Tanya or Masha will help me, and if they don’t have time, then Natasha, with strangeness? Either Tanya or Masha will help me, and if they don’t have time, then Natasha. Wed. Also:

(140) Or we're putting you in prison or you go into the forest [G. Khirachev (A. Ganieva). Salam to you, Dalgat! (2009)]

(141) For the remaining five years, you listen to the reasoning of your classmates about the meaning of life and imperceptibly become or moralizing pedant, or cynic-egoist [N. Shcherbak. Romance with the Faculty of Philology (2010)]

5.1.5. Unions whether... whether and... or

Semantics of basic conjunctions with the meaning of equivalence of components - whether... whether And either... or assumes that for the situation being described the difference between two possible components is unimportant, and usually the Speaker himself does not know which of the possible components is present:

(142) Is it Russian character, is it historical conditions? influenced here - I don’t presume to decide (P. Kuznetsov)

(143) And since the time of Marx the world - is it bad, is it good- changed (G. Panov)

(144) And now - it is unknown even for what reasons: whether out of cowardice, out of pity, or just out of habit- you start bargaining with this pretty witch and finally make a deal (A. Milchin)

Repeating conjunction either... or should be distinguished from the combination of a question particle whether with a single dividing conjunction or:

(145) And it happened whether someday linings, or even some incidents during your performance? (S. Tkacheva)

As [Sannikov 2008: 206] notes, conjunctions with the meaning of equivalence of components, in contrast to communicatively neutral conjunctions with the meaning of pure separation, gravitate toward the theme (and not the rheme); The glass was broken by Kolya or Petya vs. wrong *The glass was broken by Kolya or Petya; *The glass was broken by Kolya or Petya.

5.1.6. Union What... What

Conversational conjunction I'm sorry, what synonymous with conjunctions whether... whether And either... or(see), however, has a narrower meaning. Usually it indicates not just the equivalence of components, but the equivalence of such components, which under ordinary circumstances should not be equivalent and only due to the special emotional state of the Subject of the situation or the Speaker, namely, his indifference, become equivalent: Whether I live or go to the grave is all the same; It’s either Katya or Masha to him – as long as it’s a woman; Whether in winter or summer, he always walks barefoot. Wed. Also:

(146) After all what Islam, what paganism, what Buddhism- they will all tell you “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” and so on [Correspondence on icq between agd-ardin and Princess (2008)]

As Sannikov notes, unlike whether... whether And either... or, this conjunction is not used when talking about single events: * He either married Masha or Katya - everything is better than alone vs. Whether he married Masha or Katya - everything is better than being alone[Sannikov 2008: 208].

Statistics are impossible due to homonymy with the pronoun What and explanatory union What.

5.1.7. Union though…though

At least... at least– another colloquial conjunction, generally synonymous with the conjunction I'm sorry, what(see), with the peculiarity that it often indicates the consent of the Subject of the situation to any of two or more described options, often with his general interest in something important for him to take place. Thus, this union is to an even greater extent than I'm sorry, what, expresses the personal attitude of the Subject or Speaker to what is happening:

(147) That I don’t care. Though tea, though coffee. If only without your nagging! (E. Orlova)

(148) Zoya and her brother didn’t care about pushing heroin - though Azerbaijani, though Lieutenant Colonel though to the bald devil ["Crime Chronicle" (2003)]

Thus the union though… though is transitional in meaning between disjunctive and concessive (see Subordinating conjunctions / paragraph 6) - expressing the idea that the Subject is ready to concede in something unimportant, if only something important takes place, like a concessive particle though.

5.1.8. Union either... or

Be it... or– a rare book synonym for unions whether... whether, either... or, I'm sorry, what And at least... at least, conveying the idea of ​​choosing between equal options:

(149) Any theory, either space theory or the theory of making cutlets, with the help of its already established adherents, fights to “capture” new adherents and seeks to increase its “coverage” (A. Oslon)

5.2. Unions with the meaning of inequality of components: or even and, or maybe (maybe) and

Unions with the meaning of inequality of components - and then, and maybe (maybe) and combine semantic elements of connectiveness (see) and separation. Phrases like His height is 185, or even<а может быть и>190 centimeters indicate the reality of the first of the components (like connecting conjunctions) and the possibility of the second component (like dividing ones). According to observation [Sannikov 2008: 212–123], these unions indicate that the first of the components deviates from the norm, and the second deviates even more strongly in the same direction:

(150) Then their meeting drags on for several hours, or even days (A. Golyandin)

(151) Supporters of the paradigm, calling on political and state institutions for help, sought repression against their opponents, or even their direct destruction (A. Oslon)

(152) Granddaughter is wasting time, and maybe life, with a good-for-nothing guy [Izvestia (2001)]

5.3. Unions with the meaning of compensation: not... so, if (and) not... then

Unions with compensation meaning not this way(statistics are not possible due to homonymy with the particle Not and adverb So) And if(s) not... then indicate that in the absence of a more significant first component, a second, somewhat significant, but, in the eyes of the Speaker, almost equivalent component is necessarily realized:

(153) Not one hundred thousand, So I can lend you fifty

(154) I think it was right if not mistake, That at least cost (S. Sukhova)

(155) Poems are written at a certain age if not All, That very many (Yu. Rakhaeva)

5.4. Unions with the meaning of emphasized uncertainty: and maybe (maybe), etc.

(6) Unions with the meaning of emphasized uncertainty - maybe (be), maybe (be)... maybe (be), maybe (be)... and maybe (be) are highlighted as separate lexical units in the work [Sannikov 2008]. Their main semantic features are that:

(a) The speaker emphasizes that he does not know the truth;

(b) as described, not only one of the two listed components is possible, but also something third:

(156) A hundred million years have passed, maybe, fifty, maybe, even less... (A. Zaitsev)

(157) There are two more younger ones, he doesn’t know where they are, - Maybe, at work, Maybe, in prison (V. Astafiev)

(158) “I don’t know,” she said, “ Maybe, moved, maybe, died. (V. Pelevin)

Their exact statistics are impossible due to homonymy with introductory words Maybe And May be.

5.4.1. Conjunctions with the meaning of “external resemblance”: not that... not that, or... or

Conjunctions with the meaning of “external similarity” - not that... not that(statistics are not possible due to homonymy with the much more frequent combination of particles Not with pronoun That), either... or also indicate the Speaker’s uncertainty about which of the two components is possible as what is being described, and that something third is possible as what is being described. However, they have their own semantic specificity, namely, they assume that the reason for the Speaker’s uncertainty is that what is being described has characteristics of both the first and the second: – Why doesn't she come to help? - Either he’s lazy or he’s shy. Wed. Also:

(159) The presence of officials and semi-officials almost turned the press conference either at a rally, or at some kind of party meeting with analysis of Maltsev’s personal file [“Get Rich” (2003)]

(160) From the first school - at the seminary of St. Rafael's father had to take him away either due to poor academic performance, either due to bad behavior(O. Polyakovsky)

5.5. A conjunction with the meaning of alternation in time then... then

Conjunction with the meaning of alternation in time then... then has the same semantic basis as other disjunctive conjunctions, namely – ‘X is possible as the described one; Y’ is possible, and its specificity lies in the fact that X and Y repeatedly replace each other in time:

(161) He That frowned That moved his lips slightly (A. Solzhenitsyn)

(162) Been on the street That rain, That snow, and only in February frosts began (Yu. Koval)

Bibliography

• Apresyan V.Yu. ‘Compensation’ and ‘reservation’ in the Russian linguistic picture of the world // Krysin L.P. (Ed.) Russian language today, 3. Problems of Russian lexicography. M. 2004. pp. 15–22.
• Zaliznyak Anna A., Mikaelyan I. 2005. Russian Union A as a linguistically specific word // DIALOGUE 2005. Proceedings of the international conference. 2005.
• A
• Kreidlin G.E., Paducheva E.V. (b) Interaction of associative connections and actual division in sentences with conjunctions A // NTI, Ser. 2, 10. 1974. pp. 32–37.
• Levin Yu.I. About one group of conjunctions of the Russian language // Machine translation and applied linguistics, 13. M. 1970. pp. 64–88.
• Paducheva E.V. Experience in logical analysis of the meaning of a conjunction or// Scientific Dokl. Higher school Philol. Sciences, 6. 1964. pp. 145–148.
• Sannikov V.Z. Russian syntax in the semantic-pragmatic space. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic cultures. 2008.
• Grice H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation // Cole P., Morgan J.L. (Eds.) Syntax and semantics: Speech acts, Vol. 3. NY: Academic.1975. P. 41–58.
• Hurford J.R. Exclusive or inclusive Disjunction // Foundations of Language, 11(3). 1974, pp. 409–411.
• Wierzbicka A. Lingua Mentalis. Sydney etc. 1980.

Main literature

• Gladky A.V. About the meaning of the union or// Semiotics and Informatics, 13. M. 1979. pp. 196–214.
• E.V. Paducheva. Egocentric semantics of the conjunctions “A” and “BUT” // Nikolaeva T.M. (Responsible editor) Slavic composing unions M. 1997. pp. 36–47.
• Kreidlin G.E., Paducheva E.V. (a) Meaning and syntactic properties of the conjunction A// NTI, Ser. 2, 9. 1974. pp. 31–37.
• Nikolaeva T.M. Coordinating Conjunctions A,But, And: history, similarities and differences // Slavic writing unions. M 1997.
• Sannikov V.Z. Russian compositional structures. Semantics. Pragmatics. Syntax. M. 1989.
• Uryson E.V. Experience in describing the semantics of conjunctions. M.: Languages ​​of Slavic cultures. 2011.
• Haspelmath M. Coordination // Shopen T. (Ed.) Language typology and syntactic description, vol. II. Cambridge. 2007. P. 1–57.
• Lakoff R. If "s, and"s and but"s about Conjunction // Studies in Linguistic Semantics. N.Y. Etc. 1971. P. 114–149.
• Lang E. The Semantics of Coordination. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 1984.
• Moravcsik, Edith. 1971. On disjunctive connectives. Language Sciences, 15, 1971, pp. 27–34.

Conjunctions with a similar set of properties are found in the main European languages ​​(cf. English. both... and, either... or, neither... nor, Germansowohl… als also, entweder… oder and so on.). However, as can be seen from the examples, the very sign of “repetition”, i.e. the coincidence of parts of the union is not typologically significant.

In some of these conjunctions the second part may be variable: cf. options not only but And not only... but also, not only that... also And not only that.. but also and so on.

Syntactically reference but to adversative and, therefore, coordinating conjunctions, and only- to concessive and, therefore, subordinating conjunctions - a tribute to tradition. In fact, semantically we can talk about some adversative-concessive semantic field, where they both belong. Syntactically, both of these conjunctions are closer to coordinating ones, but at the same time they also have the properties of particles, namely, they can be combined with coordinating conjunctions, which is impossible for full-fledged coordinating conjunctions; cf. She's beautiful, but she's stupid, She's stupid, but, if impossible * They called her, but she didn’t come.

/>

Release:

Bibliographic description of the article for citation:

Miroshnikova M. G. Functional and semantic features of the gradational union not so much (what)/but (a) in the texts of D. Bykov the publicist // Scientific and methodological electronic journal “Concept”. – 2017. – T. 31. – P. 961–965..htm.

Annotation. In this article, based on the material of journalistic texts by D. Bykov, the semantic, functional and stylistic features of complex sentences with a gradational union are analyzed, not just (that), but (a). The frequency of choice of this gradation union allows us to talk about it as one of the specific syntactic features of the author’s linguistic personality.

Article text

Miroshnikova Marina Grigorievna,

Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg [email protected]

Functional-semantic features

gradation union not so much (what)/but (a)

in the texts of D. Bykov - publicist

Annotation. In this article, based on the material of journalistic texts by D. Bykov, the semantic, functional and stylistic features of complex sentences with a gradational union are analyzed, not just (that), but (a). The frequency of choice of this gradation union allows us to talk about it as one of the specific syntactic features of the author’s linguistic personality. Key words: gradational conjunctions, stylistic figures, colloquial syntax, expressiveness, text syntax.

Gradational conjunctions included in syntactic constructions are of undoubted interest in both structural, logical, semantic, and communicative aspects. The complexity and inconsistency of gradational conjunctions is associated with the difference in the significance of the parts of simple and complex sentences they connect and the uncertainty of their syntactic relationships. Despite the heterogeneous composition, structurally gradational conjunctions in most examples are united by the presence of grammatical negation in them - a mandatory component in the constructions under consideration is the presence of the negative element not. I would like to note that there is still no clarity in determining the status of gradational conjunctions. Traditionally, they are considered as additional relations in various coordinating connections. However, recently more and more works have appeared that distinguish gradational unions from the group of comparative ones and point to certain independent relationships in their composition. The semantics of gradational relations in the modern Russian language includes more than three dozen grammatically designed means of expressing gradational relations, heterogeneous in their composition. These are gradational unions and a fairly wide range of phraseological constructions. The greatest difficulty in determining the meaning and communicative content, in our opinion, is caused by the gradational union not so much (that), but (a), which has a certain modal meaning associated with the “gradation of opinions” of the speaker: uncertainty, doubt, some reluctance to speak or incomplete knowledge of the subject of discussion. The structural variability of a two-component conjunction - the possibility of using in the second part two adversative conjunctions but/a, which are different in their semantics, the presence of the main modal element so and its variant that, the frequency of occurrence of the conjunction in question in parceled constructions in oral speech - all this complicates both the understanding of the semantic meaning of the conjunction and and the rules of its use. When teaching certain syntactic structures of expressive colloquial speech (among which one of the most striking expressive markers are gradational conjunctions), they most often rely on examples obtained from texts of fiction and journalism, since these are precisely the functional varieties of the modern Russian language largely reflect the specifics of oral storytelling, its expressiveness and dialogic nature. The texts of D. Bykov, a publicist, are a successful combination of artistic and journalistic speech and are of interest both from the standpoint of spoken language and from the standpoint of written speech, since most of the author’s texts are constructed according to the type of dialogical nature, even if the text before us formally looks like a monologue ( for example, literature reviews by D. Bykov). An analysis of D. Bykov’s journalism shows that the number of sentences that do not have one or another expressive content is negligible. Bright expressive coloring is characteristic of all the author’s works without exception. Creating the intonation of a “conversation”, reminiscent of a lecture, the desire to share an opinion with the reader (listener) on a particular issue, to emphasize partial disagreement, at times to express sharp rejection, even indignation - all of the above determines the set of expressive linguistic means at all levels of language, including and syntactic. Along with parcellation, rhetorical questions, specific forms of expressing motivation, the modality of relaxed communication with the reader is created through the introduction of stable syntactic constructions of refusal of the proposed point of view or mild disagreement with the position of the interlocutor. Similar constructions include constructions with a gradational conjunction not so much (that), but (a). According to formal (syntactic) characteristics, the conjunction not so much (that), but (a) refers to the means of expressing a coordinative connection, in its semantic meaning, the conjunction in question refers to the means of expressing antonymic gradation and, according to Sannikov’s definition, represents a “gradation of opinions”

the author’s opinion is divided into three unequal parts, one of which is only implicitly present in the text: © Andrey Zvyagintsev was not offended by my review, but responded deeply unkindly to it” [D. Bykov. Mimo. New Newspaper. No. 4 dated January 19, 201]. From the above example it is clear that the author is not satisfied with the current situation, he does not agree with the position expressed, it causes some resistance and requires a more intensive assessment of the situation. If you look at the location of the conjunction not so much (what), but (a) on the intensity scale of the attribute, then it is in the part of the increase (strengthening) of the sign: “They call me from several TV channels a day, and from such TV channels where it’s not only impossible to show me personally, but it’s not even recommended to mention books” [D. Bykov. Echo of Moscow. “Bilzho is my friend.” 12/21/2016]. In such cases, gradational conjunctions often include an additional marker, even enhancing the expressiveness of the phrase; in d you should pay attention to the structural differences of the conjunction. The choice of the coordinating element a/nov in the composition of the gradational conjunction is determined by the general rules of use: “but” includes the semantics of “deceived expectation” or has a “metatextual” meaning, indicating a change in the narrative. Partially agreeing or accepting the point of view of the interlocutor, the author, without going beyond one sentence, clearly and clearly formulate his own point of view.

I would like to draw attention to this feature in most examples selected from the texts of D. Bykov, the adversative component a connects homogeneous members of a simple sentence, expressed by such parts of speech as nouns or adjectives, while no connects the verbal forms of the predicate. However, this remark requires more detailed research. The choice of using what and so as part of a gradational conjunction is traditionally associated by researchers with the difference in the combination of parts of a sentence. So Danilevskaya T.A. in his article devoted to coordinating constructions with a stable prepositive part, he writes: © the construction, not only, © is used only in a simple sentence, while not only, but thanks to the modal particle, it is always used only with predicative units. It is difficult to agree with this statement, since the analysis of numerous examples does not confirm such an assumption. We can only say with certainty that the gradational union is not only (that), but most often serves to connect the gradational series of predicates of a simple sentence and the predicative parts of a complex one. The modal component so that in the prepositive part is associated only with the strengthening of the subjective modal meaning of uncertainty, doubt, and disagreement of the speaker with the proposed assessment of the statement. In many studies, the gradational union considered in this report is usually described from the criteria of necessity and sufficiency, where the prepositive part is necessary for understanding the message as a whole, but insufficient for the speaker to achieve the assigned communicative task. In other words, the informational value of the components connected by the conjunction is not just (that), but (a) is not equivalent. Semantic components, syntactic constructions with gradational conjunctions indicate the inequality of parts of a complex sentence: the prepositive part is less significant, it serves only as a connecting link that supports the given topic of conversation. It is the second, postpositive, component of the entire structure that expresses the speaker’s position, most often including the argumentation of a particular opinion or a reference to sources confirming the author’s point of view. For a gradational conjunction, not so much, but the strength is unequal, the postpositive part expresses a stronger attribute compared to the preposition: “As for “The Grapes of Wrath,” it seems to me that it’s not that someone overshadowed him (the author), but she (the book) a little archaic, it’s a little too pretentious” [D. Bykov. One EM 04.12.2015]. The parallelism of syntactic structures with the gradational union is not exactly but (a) in D. Bykov’s work is often supported by the satellite trope. In the given example, this is the use of anti-emphasis - a contextual expansion of the meaning of the word. The occasional combination of an intensive lexeme and grading adverbs is a little too pretentious - it leads to the erosion of the main semantic meaning of the words, but at the same time enhances the expressive intensity of the entire utterance. It should be noted that anti-emphasis is one of the author’s favorite stylistic devices. Sentences with a conjunction are not exactly, but they belong to the most common gradational structures with an intentional type of displacement, i.e. by stating the informational insufficiency of one of the parts and updating the second: © I served in the army with the Donetsk conscription…. There were quite a lot of Ukrainian Russians there. It’s not that none of them complained about oppression; they felt completely legitimately that they were citizens and, in many respects, masters of the region. [D. Bykov. Special opinion. EM.04.06.2014]. However, one can also find examples with equal components, in which the author is only trying to find more precise words to explain his own position. In such cases, in the second part of a complex sentence there is no adversative conjunction, and the expressiveness of the statement is emphasized by the parallelism of the syntactic structure and the inclusion in the sentence of the author’s lexeme with the intense suffix “sensibility”: “Should the writer be smarter than the reader? Yes. I'm very sad, but yes. Or rather, he should not only be smarter, he should be more visual. A writer is not a philosopher, he is not a disseminator of teachings, he is such a sensitive person. He should feel more clearly than you” [Bykov. EM. One.12/27/2017]. In the given example, the rhythmic organization of the phrase is set not only with the help of a gradational union, but also thanks to the technique of combining several stylistic figures in one phrase, characteristic of D. Bykov’s journalism: syntactic parallelism, reinforced by anaphora with an inserted element.

In the texts of the publicist D. Bykov, the conjunction is not so much, but, occupying an initial position, it is always located in statements with a direct order of components. It is this that is the main linguistic means of forming a syntactic pause and indicates a certain rhythmic organization of the sentence. The rhythmization of the phrase due to the gradational union is not so much, but it helps the reader to feel the dynamism of what is happening, the passion of the author, the strength of his emotional conviction. Any journalism is polemical, and the journalism of Dmitry Bykov is doubly polemical. The author, who has considerable erudition and deep knowledge of the subject of conversation or topic of discussion, in most cases enters into an argument with the reader or interlocutor. Bykov's opinions are quite categorical and lead to a conclusion that can be difficult to dispute. The author's conviction is recorded in the text using various syntactic means. These are question-answer unities (Why....? Because...), and complex explanatory sentences with the main part, including linguistic means of expressing categorical certainty, and sentences calling for sharing the writer’s point of view. All of them, to one degree or another, are means of artistic expression of D. Bykov’s texts. Many written texts by D. Bykov, a publicist, are written analogues of his oral speeches. That is why the author often emphasizes his conviction by repeating certain words or parts of a sentence. The inclusion of a syntactic construction with a conjunction, not so much, but a reduplication technique, highlights the entire phrase from a large piece of text, thereby drawing attention to the most significant remark of the author. Often a construction with a gradational conjunction is introduced by editors as a quotation and is presented in a certain graphical way on the page of the electronic version of his oral speeches. It should be noted that the expressive function of the gradational union is enhanced due to not only contact reduplication, but also the repetition of words at the junction of parts of sentences: © You don’t have to love everyone. Why should you force yourself to love this village? Be more complex and people will be drawn to you. Don't try to corrupt them with a pie. You better make them reach out to you, because you are unavailable, you are closed. Try to become a desired object. This is a very important and difficult thing. Because with good you can not only corrupt, but with good you can devalue yourself” [D. Bykov. One. EM. 03/18/2016].

Providing a structural-semantic connection, the gradational conjunction in question also carries an active intensifying-excretive function, which is emphasized by the absence of an adversative component in the second part of the sentence and the reverse word order of the gradational structure itself. Due to the gradational construction with the conjunction, not only, but a certain emotional tonality of the author’s involvement in the topic of the conversation, his interest, a great desire to share his knowledge and impressions with the reader (listener). Considering gradational sentences with a conjunction, not really, but I would like to dwell on such a stylistic figure as the chiasmatic arrangement of individual elements, which is built on the basis of reverse syntactic parallelism: ©After all, his (Murakami’s) last trilogy passed here, in my opinion, not so much unnoticed, but already noticed by a narrow circle of fans. He repeats himself, his techniques are more or less the same.” [D. Bykov, Odin, EM, 14.01.2016]. It should be noted that in addition to the expressive function, the use of such a stylistic figure should also be considered from the perspective of theme

rhematic division of the sentence. The communicative division of the sentence, the promotion of information from the already known reaction to the release of the new trilogy to a new assessment of this trilogy by fans of Murakami’s work contributes to the author’s highlighting of the second part of the gradation structure. The parallelism of the gradational structure (both direct and reverse) sets a clear rhythm for the entire phrase. There are examples when the appearance of a graded conjunction, not exactly new in Dmitry Bykov’s journalism, may be associated with the author’s desire to soften the categorical tone of the statement. In such cases, the conjunction acquires additional semantic meaning - it is a way of expressing the semantics of an indirect apology. Analyzing the syntactic structure of D. Bykov’s texts, all researchers note the author’s active use of inserted constructions. A statistical study conducted by A. Turanova indicates that the share of inserted constructions in D. Bykov’s written speech prevails over parceled constructions. Syntactic structures with a conjunction, not so much, complicated by an insertion, are no exception: ©Here it’s not even half-knowledge, but the command of English as a foreign language that played a bad joke on AinRand (she, as you remember, is our compatriot, Petersburger), because “shrugged “-this still means “shrugged his shoulders”, and not “straightened his shoulders”” [D. Bykov. One. EM.03.07.2015]. The arrangement of parts of the gradational structure, broken by the author's remark, refers to a strong syntactic means of conveying dialogicity in writing - direct appeal to the interlocutor who has the same knowledge as the author. At the same time, the rhythmic pattern of the entire phrase slows down, which leads to an even stronger actualization of the reasoned the position of the author, located in the second part of the statement. We have not identified cases of the use of syntactic structures with the analyzed gradational conjunction in D. Bykov’s journalism as part of parceled constructions. The variety of expressive syntactic structures in D. Bykov’s prose discourse is of undoubted interest for the study of the linguistic personality of the author: “a personality expressed in language (texts) and through language, a personality reconstructed in its main features on the basis of linguistic means.” The frequency of use of the conjunction is not so much, (that) but (a) in the texts of D. Bykov, the publicist, in comparison with other gradational conjunctions allows us to do the conclusion is that this is another characteristic syntactic feature of the writer’s linguistic personality.

Links to sources 1. Sannikov V.Z. Russian syntax in the semantic-pragmatic space. M. Languages ​​of Slavic cultures. P. 297 –317.2. Kuznetsova O.M. Functional-semantic field of gradation in modern Russian language (syntactic aspect). Author. for the job application uch. candidate degree in philology. Sciences. Novosibirsk. 2010. P. 53. Danilevskaya T. A. Coordinating constructions with a stable prepositive part. VSU Bulletin. Series: Linguistics and intercultural communication. 2007, No. 2, part 1. P 78 4. Zgurskaya O.G. Functioning of syntactic constructions with gradational conjunctions in modern Russian. Author. for the job application uch. candidate degree in philology. Sciences. Saint Petersburg. 2000. 5. Karaulov Yu. M. Russian linguistic personality and the tasks of its study // Language and personality. M. Science. 1989. P. 6 –31.6. Turanova A. Yu. Features of the use of expressive syntactic structures in oral and written speech D. Bykova. Philological sciences. Questions of theory and practice. Tambov: Certificate, 2015. No. 12(54): in 4 parts. Part II. S. 187194.7.EM –©Echo of Moscow.” Information and conversation station. Print version. http//www.echo.msk.ru

GRADATION UNIONS

Mainly comparative conjunctions with homogeneous members: both components of these conjunctions are in different parts of the sentence, and the second part has a greater semantic load compared to the first. Not only.. but also, not so much.. as, not so... how, not that... but (a), not that.. but (a), if not.. then, etc. Some researchers they are joined by complex conjunctions yes and, or even and, or not, and etc.

Dictionary of linguistic terms. 2012

See also interpretations, synonyms, meanings of the word and what GRADATIONAL UNIONS are in the Russian language in dictionaries, encyclopedias and reference books:

• UNIONS
  PROFESSIONAL - see PROFESSIONAL...
• UNIONS in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
  PAYMENT - see PAYMENT UNIONS...
• UNIONS in the Dictionary of Economic Terms:
  ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNATIONAL - see INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE UNIONS ...
• UNIONS
  Greece. Outside the boundaries of their native city, the ancient Greeks did not enjoy any rights and could not count on the patronage of foreign officials...
• UNIONS in the Big Russian Encyclopedic Dictionary:
  "UNIONS OF STRUGGLE FOR THE LIBERATION OF THE WORKING CLASS", the first citywide. Social-Democrats org-tions in the 1890s. in St. Petersburg (see St. Petersburg "Union of Struggle for...
• UNIONS
  ? Greece. Outside the boundaries of their hometown, the ancient Greeks did not enjoy any rights and could not count on the patronage of officials...
• UNIONS OF WORKERS AND PEASANTS YOUTH
  workers' and peasants' youth, organizations of proletarian youth that arose after the February Revolution of 1917 in Russia. From the first days of the revolution, a widespread...
• in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  Since the founding of universities, students have been united into unions, or nations (see University). Little by little, circles of fellow countrymen also emerged - fraternities, which...
• WORKERS' UNIONS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  voluntary, more or less long-term, organized associations of hired workers, with the goal of counteracting the decline and promoting the improvement of the social position of their ...
• in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  Until 1905, professional and political unions were possible in Russia only as illegal unions, therefore, extremely sparsely populated and devoid of...
• UNIVERSITY CORPORATIONS AND UNIONS in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  ? Since the founding of universities, students have been united into unions, or nations (see University). Little by little, circles of fellow countrymen also emerged? fraternity...
• WORKERS' UNIONS in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  ? voluntary, more or less long-term, organized associations of hired workers, with the goal of counteracting the decline and promoting the improvement of the social situation ...
• PROFESSIONAL AND POLITICAL UNIONS IN RUSSIA in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  ? Until 1905, professional and political unions were possible in Russia only as illegal unions, therefore, extremely sparsely populated and...
• UNION in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms:
  Function words used to connect homogeneous members of a sentence, parts of a complex sentence and independent sentences. Classification of unions: 1) by ...
• UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLIC in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  Soviet Socialist Republic, Ukrainian SSR (Ukrainian Radyanska Socialistichna Respublika), Ukraine (Ukraine). I. General information The Ukrainian SSR was formed on December 25, 1917. With the creation ...
• TELEVISION TEST CHART in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  test table, test table, serves to control parameters characterizing the quality of the television image. T. and. etc. is performed on a special card, on a transparency, ...
• YOUTH MOVEMENT in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  movement, the struggle of young people to satisfy their socio-economic and political demands, as well as their participation in the general political struggle. In M. d....
• CINEMA TELEVISION EQUIPMENT in the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, TSB:
  nameOCRUncertain129> Cinema and television technology, methods of recording and transmitting images, for the implementation of which a combination of technical means of cinema and television is used. K.t....
• LEGAL AND INDIVIDUALS in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  differentiate in law due to the fact that it is not always possible in each individual case to distinguish between the rights and responsibilities of people who are truly...
• SYNDICATES in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  In everyday language, this term refers to various types of unions that create a community of material interests between the contracting parties and do not belong to...
• WORK QUESTION in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  The R. question is the question of the economic, legal and social situation of hired workers and its improvement. It forms the main part of modern...
• SOCIETIES in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  I Contents of the article: General overview. — O. Anthropological. - Oh. Astronomical. - Oh. Biblical. — O. Geological and mineralogical. — …
• MISSOURI, STATE OF NORTH AMERICAN UNION in the Encyclopedic Dictionary of Brockhaus and Euphron:
  (Missouri) is the central state of the North American Union, bordered on the north by Iowa, on the east by Illinois, the Mississippi River, Kentucky...
• LEGAL AND INDIVIDUALS in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  - are distinguished in law due to the fact that it is not always possible in each individual case to distinguish between the rights and responsibilities of people...
• FINANCE in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  (financial law, financial science, financial science). ? The word "finance" originates from the medieval Latin term finatio, fоnancia, used ...
• FACTORY LEGISLATION in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  ? In our country, this name, not entirely correctly, means the entire department of legislation, which in the West bears a more appropriate name...
• INSURANCE in the Encyclopedia of Brockhaus and Efron:
  Theory S.? Insurance policy. ? History of insurance. ? History of insurance in Russia. Syndicate agreement of fire insurance companies. ? ...