Tilshunoslikdagi zamonaviy yo
‘
nalishlar: muammo va yechimlar
125
sentence itself, and related other syntactic constructions. Such state of things
sometimes leads to a mixture of different types of syntactic units, ranging from
simple unextended sentences and up to syntactic constructions that are larger than
composite sentences, therefore, it inhibits the development of the theory of syntactic
units. This state of things is caused, in our opinion, by the fact that researchers
sometimes ignore quantitative parameters directly linked to the qualitative
parameters of composite sentences and other large units close to them, which
prompts the need to combine quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of
the units of typologically different languages under consideration.
Here it is also necessary to take into account the sign qualities of these units,
while the recognition of the sign status of these units will entail the recognition of
their monolithic integrity.
In our opinion, all issues related to substantiating the status of any specific
linguistic units of a bilateral nature should be resolved on the basis of extensive
empirical materials of languages of various systems, which will ensure their validity
and the right to exist in a number of various types of linguistic units and various
approaches to them.
In a row of studies of syntactic units of one language, comparative and
typological research on syntax becomes especially important for the development of
a general syntactic theory of language. They make it possible to identify both
isomorphic and allomorphic features of syntactic units of languages different
systems, contribute to a deep penetration into the essence of syntax, help to
determine the status and nomenclature of its categories in languages, and also to
formulate conclusions of a general linguistic nature revaling, as far as possible,
linguistic universals, as well frequentals, implications, recessives and uniquals. In
addition, on the basis of such studies, it is possible to establish general patterns of
the formation and development of syntactic categories and functions in language.
Analysis of special literature on composite sentences indicates that linguists
in one way or another have considered and described the following most important
issues of composite sentences:
1)
composite sentence as a separate syntactic unit of a multifaceted nature,
which has its own patterns of structural and semantic organization and functioning;
2)
composite sentence and its conceptual and terminological aspect;
3)
taxonomy of composite sentence as to types of syntactic links between
components;
4)
ways and means of connection;
5)
the status of the components of composite sentence in its structure;
6)
equal, main and subordinate clauses as components of composite
sentence;
Tilshunoslikdagi zamonaviy yo
‘
nalishlar: muammo va yechimlar
126
7)
composite sentence and its place in the syntactic system;
8)
aspects of the composite sentence;
9)
classification of composite sentence according to existing syntactic
relations between its components;
10) composite sentence and its textual nature and others.
Despite this complex sentence, as well as a compound one, representing the
subtypes of composite sentence which has a specific structure and semantics and at
the same time is addressed with its various sides to other syntactic units, it remains
one of the most difficult and vexed sections of general syntactic theory and, as a
subject of research, is still of primary interest /see: Maximov, 1971, 3/. This is due
to the fact that although considerable progress has been achieved in the study of
composite sentences both in domestic and foreign syntactic science, there are a
number of topical problems in the study and description of composite sentences from
the standpoint of general and typological syntax.
So, firstly, the special literature available for the study of composite sentences
in special, comparative and typological linguistics needs to be generalized, which
would contribute to the definition of the general linguistic nature of SP as a large
type of syntactic unit characteristic of any natural language, although certain types
or subtypes of SP are not equally common in languages of different systems.
Secondly, the conceptual and terminological apparatus of the composite
sentences itself needs a serious streamlining, clarification and generalization, and if
necessary, rethinking and unification, because a huge number of concepts and terms
have accumulated in modern syntactic science.
Secondly, the conceptual and terminological apparatus of the SP itself needs
serious ordering, clarification and generalization, and, if necessary, rethinking and
unification, because in modern syntactic science a huge number of concepts and
terms have accumulated, with which linguists operate in the study of composite
sentences, and which for the most part are of a particular language in nature due to
the well-established terminology tradition of each specific language. Moreover,
these terms and concepts themselves are very vague and ambiguous / compare:
complex sentence - period /Mukhin, 1968, Vardul, 1974/, complex sentence -
polypredicative sentence /SSPP, 1980/, complex sentence - hyper-complex
(polynomial) /Zakiev, 1983/, multicomponential composite sentence /Admoni,
1982, Kalashnikova, 1981, Gamidov, 1977/, polypredicative composite sentence -
polypredicative unit /Ukhanov, 1981/ complex sentence - composite sentence of
complicated structure, /Gavrilova, 1981/, a complex sentence, a compound sentence,
a complex sentence, the main clause - subordinate clause, the main subordinate
components of a composite sentence - predicative units /Iofik, 1965/, a whole
sentence, an elementary sentence /Admoni, 1982/ etc. - in Russian studies; qo‘shma
|
