PLAN:

1. Introduction.

2. History of modern punctuation.

3. Punctuation marks in modern Russian.

4. Principles of modern punctuation.

Logical

Syntactic

Intonation

Introduction

P Unctuation (from Latin punctum ‘dot’) is a set of punctuation marks and a system of developed and established rules for their use.

Why is punctuation needed? Why are the letters of the alphabet not enough to make what is written clear to the reader? After all, words are made up of letters denoting the sounds of speech, and speech is made up of words. But the fact is that pronouncing individual words one after another does not mean making what is spoken understandable. Words in speech are combined into groups, between groups of words, and sometimes between individual words, intervals of varying lengths are made; in word groups or over individual words, the tone is raised or lowered. And all this is not accidental, but is subject to certain rules: intervals, and rising and falling pitches (the so-called intonation) express certain shades of meaning of speech segments. The writer must firmly know what semantic connotation he wants to give to his statement and its individual parts and what techniques he should use for this.

Punctuation, like spelling, forms part of the graphic system adopted for a given language, and must be as firmly mastered as the letters of the alphabet with their sound meanings, in order for the letter to accurately and completely express the content of the statement. And in order for this content to be equally perceived by all readers, it is necessary that the meaning of punctuation marks be firmly established within the boundaries of one national language. It does not matter that the appearance of punctuation marks in different languages may be the same, but their meaning and, therefore, their use are different. It is important that all those who write and read in a particular language understand in exactly the same way what this or that punctuation mark expresses.

History of modern punctuation

Russian punctuation, in contrast to spelling, developed relatively late - by the beginning of the 19th century and in its main features is similar to the punctuation of other European languages.

In Old Russian writing, the text was not divided into words and sentences. Punctuation marks (dot, cross, wavy line) divided the text mainly into semantic segments or indicated the situation in the scribe’s work. In some 16th century manuscripts they are not widely used. Question marks, parentheses, and colons gradually come into use. The introduction of printing was of great importance for the development of punctuation. The placement of punctuation marks in printed works was primarily the work of typographical craftsmen, who often did not take into account what the author's handwritten text represented in terms of punctuation. But this does not mean that authors, especially writers and poets, did not have any influence on the formation of the Russian punctuation system. On the contrary, their role in this regard has become increasingly stronger over time, and modern Russian punctuation should be considered as the result of a long and complex interaction between the punctuation system that was established in a number of European languages (including Russian) after the introduction of printing, and those techniques for using signs that were developed by the best masters of Russian literary speech over a long period from the 18th century to the present.

The system of punctuation marks, which had formed in its basic outlines by the 18th century, also required the development of certain rules for their use. Back in the 16th and 17th centuries, the first attempts to theoretically understand the placement of punctuation marks that existed at that time were observed (Maxim the Greek, Lavrenty Zizaniy, Melety Smotritsky). However, the general and specific principles of punctuation marks in their main features developed during the 18th century, when the formation of the foundations of the modern Russian literary language ended.

The scientific development of Russian punctuation was started by the brilliant representative of grammatical science of the 18th century, M.V. Lomonosov, in his work “Russian Grammar”, written in 1755. Lomonosov gives an exact list of punctuation marks used by that time in Russian printed literature, sets out in a system the rules for their use, formulating these rules on a semantic and grammatical basis, i.e. For the first time in Russian grammatical literature, he provides a theoretical foundation for practically existing punctuation: all rules for the use of punctuation marks are reduced to a semantic-grammatical principle.

The rules of punctuation were very thoroughly set out by Lomonosov’s student, Moscow University professor A. A. Barsov, in his grammar, which, unfortunately, was not published, but came to us in handwritten form. Barsov's grammar dates back to 1797. The rules of punctuation are placed by Barsov in the section called “Proclamation of Laws”, and are thereby put in connection with the rules of reading. This is explained by the fact that Barsov’s definition of punctuation and its rules cover various aspects of written speech, including methods of oral pronunciation of written and printed words.

The greatest merit in streamlining Russian punctuation in the 19th century belongs to academician J. K. Grot, whose book “Russian Spelling” - the result of many years of research into the history and principles of Russian writing - became the first academic set of rules of spelling and punctuation in Russia and went through 20 editions to 1917. Grotu sets out in detail the history and principles of Russian writing, difficult cases of spelling, and provides a scientifically systematized and theoretically meaningful set of rules for spelling and punctuation. The rules for the use of punctuation marks formulated by him are valuable in that they summarize the searches in the field of punctuation of previous authors. Grotto's ordered punctuation, as well as spelling, rules entered into the practice of schools and publishing houses and, at their core, with minor changes, are still in effect today. The set of “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation” in 1956 only clarified some contradictions and ambiguities and formulated rules for previously unregulated cases.

In the first half of the 20th century, A.M. Peshkovsky, L.V. Shcherba and some other linguists paid attention to punctuation issues in their small works in this area; in the middle and second half of the 20th century, fundamental research on punctuation appeared by A.B. Shapiro . However, to this day, the theory of punctuation is at a low level of development and does not correspond to the general theoretical level of Russian linguistic science. Until now, linguists working in the field of punctuation do not have a common point of view on the foundations of modern Russian punctuation. Some scientists adhere to the point of view that Russian punctuation is based on a semantic basis, others on a grammatical basis, still others on a semantic-grammatical basis, and still others on an intonation basis. However, despite the theoretical disagreements among scientists, the fundamental principles of Russian punctuation remain unchanged, which contributes to its stability, although individual punctuation rules are periodically clarified and specified in connection with the development of Russian grammatical theory and the Russian literary language in general.

Punctuation marks in modern Russian language

Punctuation marks in the modern Russian language, differing in their functions, purpose, and place of their placement in a sentence, enter into a certain hierarchical dependence. According to the place of placement in a sentence, punctuation marks are distinguished between the end and middle of a sentence - final and internal marks. All separating terminal marks - period, question and exclamation marks, ellipses - have greater force than internal marks.

The so-called internal punctuation marks - semicolon, comma, dash, colon, parentheses - are heterogeneous in their use. The most “strong”, hierarchically senior separating punctuation mark within a sentence is the semicolon. This sign, designating the boundaries of homogeneous members of a sentence or predicative parts in a complex sentence, is capable of conveying a meaningful pause in oral speech. The other four internal punctuation marks (comma, dash, colon, parentheses) differ in their informative load, functional range, and duration of pauses when “reading” them. The hierarchy of their pause values begins with a comma and ends with parentheses.

The difference in content between the four internal punctuation marks under consideration is expressed, on the one hand, in different amounts of information load and, on the other hand, in different degrees of specificity of meanings that they can record in writing. Of these signs, the comma is the most polysemantic, the dash is somewhat narrower in meaning, the colon is noticeably narrower, and the most concrete sign in terms of content is the parentheses. Consequently, the least degree of specificity of meaning is inherent in the comma and the greatest in parentheses. Thus, the hierarchy of increasing the degree of specificity of the meanings of the indicated four punctuation marks corresponds to the noted hierarchy of pausal values and the hierarchy of their functional range.

Based on the hierarchical dependence of punctuation marks, the features of their compatibility when found in a sentence are established. In some cases, punctuation marks are combined when they meet, in others, a sign of lesser strength is absorbed by a stronger sign. One of the two elements of a paired, separating sign may occur with a separating sign or with an element of another paired sign. An encounter with a separating sign is usually observed if the construction being distinguished is at the beginning or end of a sentence (the predicative part of a complex sentence) or on the border with homogeneous members. The meeting of elements of distinguishing marks occurs in cases where one distinguished syntactic construction follows another distinguished construction, for example, an isolated member, or a comparative phrase, or a participial part after another isolated member, a subordinate clause after another isolated member, a subordinate clause, an introductory or insertive design, etc.

Only a comma or a dash can be absorbed as part of a paired, highlighting sign. They are always absorbed by a period, a question mark, an exclamation mark, an ellipsis, a semicolon, a subsequent closing parenthesis, or subsequent closing quotation marks as marks of greater meaning. Symbols of the same name are also absorbed by one another: a comma by a comma, a dash by another dash, a closing bracket or quotation marks by another closing bracket or quotation marks.

When a comma and a dash meet, different punctuation options are possible: these signs can be combined as equal in strength, or one of these signs can be absorbed by the other.

Principles of modern punctuation

The stability of the Russian punctuation system is explained primarily by the fact that the principles that define it make it possible to convey in writing the semantic, syntactic, and, to a large extent, intonation structure of speech. Punctuation marks in most cases divide the text into syntactic units that are related in meaning and intonationally designed. For example: Terkin - who is he? Let's be honest: he's just an ordinary guy. However, the guy is good. There is always a guy like this in every company, and in every platoon.. In this text, a question mark and dots indicate the boundaries of independent syntactic units - sentences expressing in each case a relatively complete thought. These punctuation marks also characterize the purpose and intonation of the statement and indicate long pauses at the end of the sentence. The dash in the first sentence connects the nominative topic (Terkin) with the second developing part of the sentence (who is he?) and indicates a warning intonation and a pause between parts of the sentence. A colon connects the second part of a complex non-union sentence with the first, and indicates explanatory intonation and explanatory semantic relationships between the parts of the sentence. The comma highlights the introductory word, however, and corresponds to the pause and intonation that accompanies the introductory words. The comma in the last sentence separates the connecting structure (and in each platoon) and also corresponds to a pause.

The principles on which the entire system of punctuation rules is based were comprehended gradually. Thus, V.K. Trediakovsky believed that “punctuation is a division of words, members and entire speeches, depicted by certain signs, in reading to the concept of content and serving as a rest, and also indicating the order of composition.” In other words, V.K. Trediakovsky saw the purpose of punctuation (“punctuation”) in the semantic, intonational and syntactic division of speech. M.V. Lomonosov emphasized the semantic and syntactic functions of punctuation marks: “Lowcase marks are placed according to the strength of the mind and its location to conjunctions.”

In Russian linguistics, there are three main directions in understanding the principles of punctuation: logical(semantic), syntactic And intonation .

Supporters logical directions consider the main purpose of punctuation to be the semantic division of speech and the transmission of semantic relationships between the dissected parts. These include F. I. Busulaev, D. N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, P. N. Sakulin.

F.I. Busulaev, in the question of the use of punctuation marks, wrote, “Since through language one person conveys thoughts and feelings to another, then punctuation marks have a dual purpose: 1) promote clarity in the presentation of thoughts, separating one sentence from another or one part from the other, and 2) express the sensations of the speaker’s face and his attitude towards the listener.”

Syntactic we find an understanding of punctuation words in J. K. Grot and S. K. Bulich, who believed that punctuation makes the syntactic structure of speech clear.

In Groth's works, it is important to point out the connection between the punctuation system and the general nature of the syntactic structure of sentences and written speech. He draws attention to a noticeable tendency in contemporary literature towards the abandonment of “overly complex or common sentences” and the use of “more abrupt speech.” “An abrupt speech consists of expressing yourself in as short sentences as possible for greater simplicity and clarity of presentation and thus allowing the reader to pause more often. In relation to the use of punctuation marks, this means: between two points, do not accumulate too many sentences that are mutually dependent or closely related to each other, and, moreover, arrange them so that they can be determined from one another by at least a semicolon or colon. An excessive set of subordinate clauses between main clauses confuses and obscures speech.”

Grot outlined the punctuation rules with punctuation marks: for each sign all cases of its use are indicated; each rule is illustrated by one or more examples from works of the late 18th century and the first half of the 19th century, but due to Grot’s dislike of authors of a later period, some of his rules became outdated by the end of the 19th century.

And yet, Grot’s rules of punctuation, together with his spelling rules, as mentioned above, entered the use of the school, and through it into the practice of printing. For everyday use, they turned out to be quite clear and convenient, since they were based on the syntactic structure of sentences, which the writers learned in the school grammar course. But in fact, all writers, in addition to the rules of punctuation known to them, are also guided when placing punctuation marks by some indications of rhythm and melody, coming from oral pronunciation. The writer mentally (and sometimes out loud) pronounces a sentence or part of it in order to understand which punctuation mark should be used in a particular case. Since pauses and intonation of oral speech in many cases really express the relationships contained in a sentence, turning to these indicators is quite natural.

Broadcast intonation aspects of speech seems to be the main task of punctuation to A. Kh. Vostkov, I. I. Davydov, A. M. Peshkovsky, L. V. Shcherba.

Punctuation is closely related to intonation. However, it cannot be argued that punctuation is subordinate to intonation and that intonation is the main basis of punctuation, although some Russian linguists supported this opinion.

Considering the issue of the relationship between punctuation and intonation, we narrow the concept of “intonation” to pauses and speech rhythm, taking into account, first of all, the presence or absence of intonational pauses, their duration, raising or lowering the tone, and the place of logical or phrasal stress. In this understanding of sentence intonation, we share the point of view of scientists who believe that intonation is a grammatical means of expressing meanings in oral speech (along with the structural features of a sentence), and on this basis we distinguish intonations of enumeration, comparison, contrastive opposition, warning, explanation, conditionality etc.

Punctuation in written speech and intonation in oral speech serve the same purposes - meaningful reading of the text; they give speech a meaningful character. Pronouncing the same expressions with different intonations, as well as different punctuation, can radically change their semantic meaning.

In cases where the choice of punctuation mark is determined by the differentiation of semantic connections between words or semantic relationships between parts of a complex sentence, there are punctuation options, which in oral speech correspond to various intonation features of the statement. In such situations, punctuation marks in written speech and intonation in oral speech are interconnected and have the same function - they perform a meaning-distinguishing function.

However, the meaning of the statement is inextricably linked with the grammatical structure and intonation of the sentence. This explains the fact that the rules for placing punctuation marks in force in modern Russian writing cannot be reduced to any one of the listed principles, and individual punctuation marks in each specific case of use emphasize either the logical, or syntactic, or intonation structure of speech or are syntactic - simultaneously divide the text into semantic and syntactic segments, characterize its semantic and intonation structure, etc.

Returning to the historical aspects of this issue, we will consider the works of A. M. Peshkovsky and L. V. and Shcherba, which are of undoubted value in the field of punctuation. Although these works are not scientific research based on the study of a significant number of literary texts of various genres and styles, they still represent interesting attempts to understand the punctuation norms existing in our writing and contain original thoughts regarding the construction of a new punctuation system for the Russian literary language.

A. M. Pleshkovsky’s first speeches on punctuation issues, which determined his views in this area, as well as in a number of other areas related to the teaching of the Russian language, took place during the years of the highest rise of pre-revolutionary Russian social and pedagogical thought, immediately preceding the revolution of 1917 of the year. We are talking about the report “The Role of Expressive Reading in Teaching Punctuation Marks,” read at the All-Russian Congress of Secondary School Russian Language Teachers, held in Moscow in December 1916 - January 1917, and the article “Punctuation Marks and Scientific Grammar.”

It should be borne in mind that Pleshkovsky, as a theoretical scientist and as a methodologist, was a convinced and ardent supporter of that trend in Russian linguistics, which put forward the position on the need to strictly distinguish between oral speech and written speech in scientific research and, accordingly, when teaching language at school, placing emphasis on first place live, sounding speech. This was constantly and tirelessly spoken about in their university lectures and public reports by such major Russian linguists as Fortunatov and Baudouin de Courtenay and their followers and students, who raised the study of phonetics, both general and Russian historical, to unprecedented heights until then. and for the first time put applied disciplines - spelling and spelling - on a strictly scientific basis.

Punctuation marks in the vast majority of cases reflect “not the grammatical, but the declamatory-psychological division of speech.” Rhythm and intonation are auxiliary syntactic means only because in certain cases they can acquire meanings similar to those created by the forms of words and their combinations. “But at the same time, these signs can at every step contradict the actual grammatical signs, because always and everywhere they fundamentally reflect not the grammatical, but only the general psychological element of speech.”

To master the ability to put punctuation marks, one should always consciously read the signs, i.e., “connect one or another pronunciation figure ... with one or another sign,” as a result of which “a strong association of each sign is formed with the corresponding pronunciation figure (or figures, if a sign has several of them) – an association that flows, of course, in both directions.” Coordination between expressive reading and grammar measures will be required just to master existing comma rules.

For Peshkovsky, such a formulation of the question of punctuation and the methodology of teaching it was part of a common big problem - the relationship between written and living oral language. Therefore, he ended his report “The Role of Expressive Reading in Teaching Punctuation” with the following words: “I will also note that such a rapprochement between expressive reading and punctuation will benefit not only punctuation alone. Mentally hear what you write! After all, this means writing beautifully, vividly, uniquely, it means becoming interested in what you write! How often is it enough for a teacher to read a student’s awkward expression from the pulpit for the author to be horrified by his own expression. Why did he write it? Because I didn’t hear when I wrote, because I didn’t read myself out loud. The more a student reads himself aloud, the better he will understand the stylistic nature of the language, the better he will write. The reunification of the written tip of the linguistic tree with its living oral roots always gives life, but cutting off always deadens.”

L.V. Shcherba was partly close to the position of A.M. Peshkovsky. He also saw the role of punctuation in indicating the rhythmic and melodic side of speech. “Punctuation is the rules for the use of additional written characters (punctuation marks),” he wrote, “which serve to indicate the rhythm and melody of a phrase, otherwise phrasal intonation.” But while Pleshkovsky believes that all punctuation marks, with the partial exception of the comma, indicate first of all and directly only the rhythmic and melodic side of living speech, Shcherba, looking into the essence of the rhythmic melody itself, does not limit himself to what has been said, but adds: “Since there is one rhythm and melody speeches express the division of the flow of our thought, and sometimes this and that connection of its individual moments and, finally, some semantic shades, since we can say that punctuation marks actually serve to indicate all this in writing. This determines the dual nature of any punctuation: phonetic, since it expresses certain sound phenomena, and ideographic, since it is directly related to meaning.” Shcherba further points out that “the division of speech-thought, and to an even greater extent the connection between its individual parts and their different semantic shades, are expressed in speech not only intonation, but also in individual words, word forms and word order, and if true, that division and affective shades always find expression in intonation (although this is not always indicated in writing), then the connection between individual parts of speech is only very briefly expressed intonation, and their logical shades are very rarely expressed.” In some cases, as Shcherba points out, intonation acts as the only indicator of both the division and the nature of the connection between the individual parts of the sentence.

Modern Russian punctuation is built on semantic and structural-grammatical foundations, which are interconnected and determine each other, so we can talk about a single semantic-grammatical basis of Russian punctuation. Punctuation reflects the semantic division of written speech, indicates semantic connections and relationships between individual words and groups of words, and various semantic shades of parts of a written text. But certain semantic connections between words and parts of the text find their expression in a certain grammatical structure. And it is no coincidence that the formulation of most of the rules of modern Russian punctuation is based simultaneously on the semantic features of the sentence (the semantic basis), and on the features of its structure - features of the construction of the sentence, its parts, the presence or absence of conjunctions, ways of expressing the members of the sentence, the order of their arrangement, etc. etc., which forms the structural and grammatical basis of punctuation.

Conclusion

Without the ability to put punctuation marks, it is impossible to master written speech as a whole, which is why it is so important to know punctuation - a branch of the science of language that talks about their use. And without mastering written language, thanks to which human knowledge and experience are passed on from generation to generation, it is impossible to even imagine life today.

One witty writer said that there are fifty ways to say a word, and there are not five hundred ways to say a word, but in order to write these words there is only one way.

With the help of punctuation marks, the written word is perceived and mentally pronounced by the reader, if not in fifty or five hundred ways, then, in any case, not in one, but in several. Thus, punctuation marks make it possible to say much more in writing than can be written down in letters. They help express the different meanings of words and the feelings that color them. Signs, like words, speak, and we read them along with the words. And sometimes... even instead of words.

The fact of such “wordless” correspondence is known. The French writer Victor Hugo, having completed the novel Les Misérables, sent the book manuscript to the publisher. He attached a letter to the manuscript, in which there was not a single word, but only the sign: “?” The publisher also responded with a letter without words: “!”

Words written down on paper cannot express everything that is contained in living human speech, which is conveyed by intonation, rate of speech, gestures and facial expressions. However, the writer and reader have at their disposal not only words, but also additional means - punctuation marks. They help to more fully and accurately express the meaning of written speech. “Signs are placed according to the power of the mind,” wrote the founder of Russian grammar M.V. Lomonosov.

Punctuation marks arose from the need to divide written text into segments of greater or lesser independence in accordance with the semantic structure of speech. The first and most reliable basis for such division of the corresponding oral utterance is through pauses. Thus, the first punctuation marks indicated pauses of greater or lesser duration within a written text. It goes without saying that writers could be satisfied with such primitive punctuation only during the initial stages of using writing. And indeed, as writing developed, and especially after the introduction and spread of printing, the system of punctuation became more complex and deepened, until in a relatively short period it reached a state that remains in its basic features in modern European languages. But since the process of development of punctuation proceeded almost spontaneously, only occasionally and only in relation to its particular rules being subject to mandatory regulation, the currently existing punctuation does not reflect any unified, consistently implemented system. Nevertheless, our modern punctuation, on the whole, satisfactorily serves the most important practical needs of writers seeking to express in the text certain semantic relationships and shades, as well as the interests of the reader, who needs the most accurate and complete perception of the latter.

Modern science is characterized by a logical-syntactic understanding of the basics of punctuation, which is reflected in an increasing number of scientific, educational and educational works in this area. Intonation is not considered as the basis of the modern punctuation system, since punctuation marks do not always have a correspondence in intonation. Often, pauses in oral speech in writing do not correspond to punctuation marks, or pauses do not correspond to punctuation marks. It is in these cases that students make the largest number of punctuation errors, so the teacher should know at least the most typical of them.

The principles of punctuation are interrelated and in the same punctuation fact we can find a combination of different principles, although the leading one is syntactic (structural). Modern Russian punctuation is based on meaning, structure, and rhythmic-intonation division of the sentence in their interaction. Therefore, Russian punctuation is quite flexible and, along with mandatory rules, contains instructions that allow punctuation options.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

1. L. P. Demidenko I. S. Kozyrev T. G. Kozyreva “Modern Russian language”.

2. G. G. Granik S. M. Bondarenko “Secrets of punctuation.”

3. A. N. Naumovich “Modern Russian punctuation.”

4. A. B. Shapiro “Modern Russian language. Punctuation".

5. I. E. Savko “Russian language. Tutorial".

6. Ivanova V. F. “History and principles of Russian punctuation.”

7. Baranov M. T. “Russian language: reference materials:

textbook for students."

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Plan

Introduction

1. History of modern punctuation

2. Punctuation marks in modern Russian language

3. Principles of modern punctuation

Bibliography

Introduction

Punctuation (from the Latin punctum “point”) is a set of punctuation marks and a system of developed and established rules for their use.

1. History of modern punctuation

Russian punctuation, in contrast to spelling, developed relatively late - by the beginning of the 19th century and in its main features is similar to the punctuation of other European languages.

In Old Russian writing, the text was not divided into words and sentences. Punctuation marks (period, cross, wavy line) divided the text mainly into semantic segments or indicated the situation in the scribe’s work. In some 16th century manuscripts they are not widely used. Question marks, parentheses, and colons gradually come into use. The introduction of printing was of great importance for the development of punctuation. The placement of punctuation marks in printed works was primarily the work of typographical craftsmen, who often did not take into account what the author's handwritten text represented in terms of punctuation. But this does not mean that authors, especially writers and poets, did not have any influence on the formation of the Russian punctuation system. On the contrary, their role in this regard has become increasingly stronger over time, and modern Russian punctuation should be considered as the result of a long and complex interaction between the punctuation system that was established in a number of European languages (including Russian) after the introduction of printing, and those techniques for using signs that were developed by the best masters of Russian literary speech over a long period, from the 18th century to the present.

The beginning of the scientific development of Russian punctuation was laid by the brilliant representative of grammatical science of the 18th century M.V. Lomonosov in his work "Russian Grammar", written in 1755. Lomonosov gives an exact list of punctuation marks used by that time in Russian printed literature, sets out in a system the rules for their use, formulating these rules on a semantic and grammatical basis, i.e. For the first time in Russian grammatical literature, he provides a theoretical foundation for practically existing punctuation: all rules for the use of punctuation marks are reduced to a semantic-grammatical principle.

The rules of punctuation were outlined very thoroughly by Lomonosov’s student, Moscow University professor A.A. Barsov in his grammar, which, unfortunately, was not published, but came to us in handwritten form. Barsov's grammar dates back to 1797. The rules of punctuation are placed by Barsov in the section called “Proclamation of Laws”, and are thereby put in connection with the rules of reading. This is explained by the fact that Barsov’s definition of punctuation and its rules cover various aspects of written speech, including methods of oral pronunciation of written and printed words.

The greatest merit in streamlining Russian punctuation in the 19th century belongs to academician Y.K. Grot, whose book “Russian Spelling” - the result of many years of research into the history and principles of Russian writing - became the first academic set of spelling and punctuation rules in Russia and went through 20 editions until 1917. Grotu sets out in detail the history and principles of Russian writing, difficult cases of spelling, and provides a scientifically systematized and theoretically meaningful set of rules for spelling and punctuation. The rules for the use of punctuation marks formulated by him are valuable in that they summarize the searches in the field of punctuation of previous authors. Grotto's ordered punctuation, as well as spelling, rules entered into the practice of schools and publishing houses and, at their core, with minor changes, are still in effect today. The set of “Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation” in 1956 only clarified some contradictions and ambiguities and formulated rules for previously unregulated cases.

In the first half of the 20th century, attention was paid to issues of punctuation in A.M.’s small works in this area. Peshkovsky, L.V. Shcherba and some other linguists, in the middle and second half of the 20th century, fundamental research on punctuation by A.B. Shapiro. However, to this day, the theory of punctuation is at a low level of development and does not correspond to the general theoretical level of Russian linguistic science. Until now, linguists working in the field of punctuation do not have a common point of view on the foundations of modern Russian punctuation. Some scientists adhere to the point of view that Russian punctuation is based on a semantic basis, others - on a grammatical basis, still others - on a semantic-grammatical basis, and still others - on an intonation basis. However, despite the theoretical disagreements among scientists, the fundamental principles of Russian punctuation remain unchanged, which contributes to its stability, although individual punctuation rules are periodically clarified and specified in connection with the development of Russian grammatical theory and the Russian literary language in general.

2. Punctuation marks in modern Russian language

Punctuation marks in the modern Russian language, differing in their functions, purpose, and place of their placement in a sentence, enter into a certain hierarchical dependence. Depending on the placement in a sentence, punctuation marks are distinguished between the end and middle of a sentence - final and internal marks. All separating terminal marks - period, question and exclamation marks, ellipses - have greater force than internal marks.

The difference in content between the four internal punctuation marks under consideration is expressed, on the one hand, in the different volume of information load and, on the other, in the different degrees of specificity of the meanings that they can record in writing. Of these signs, the comma is the most polysemantic, the dash is somewhat narrower in meaning, the colon is noticeably narrower, and the most concrete sign in terms of content is the parentheses. Consequently, the least degree of specificity of meaning is inherent in the comma and the greatest in parentheses. Thus, the hierarchy of increasing the degree of specificity of the meanings of the indicated four punctuation marks corresponds to the noted hierarchy of pausal values and the hierarchy of their functional range.

When a comma and a dash meet, different punctuation options are possible: these signs can be combined as equal in strength, or one of these signs can be absorbed by the other.

3. Principles of modern punctuation

The stability of the Russian punctuation system is explained primarily by the fact that the principles that define it make it possible to convey in writing the semantic, syntactic, and, to a large extent, intonation structure of speech. Punctuation marks in most cases divide the text into syntactic units that are related in meaning and intonationally designed. For example: Terkin - who is he? Let's be honest: he's just an ordinary guy. However, the guy is good. There is always a guy like this in every company, and in every platoon. In this text, a question mark and dots indicate the boundaries of independent syntactic units - sentences expressing in each case a relatively complete thought. These punctuation marks also characterize the purpose and intonation of the statement and indicate long pauses at the end of the sentence. The dash in the first sentence connects the nominative topic (Terkin) with the second developing part of the sentence (who is he?) and indicates a warning intonation and a pause between parts of the sentence. A colon connects the second part of a complex non-union sentence with the first, and indicates explanatory intonation and explanatory semantic relationships between the parts of the sentence. The comma highlights the introductory word, however, and corresponds to the pause and intonation that accompanies the introductory words. The comma in the last sentence separates the connecting structure (and in each platoon) and also corresponds to a pause.

The principles on which the entire system of punctuation rules is based were comprehended gradually. So, V.K. Trediakovsky believed that “punctuation is a division of words, members and entire speeches, depicted by certain signs, in reading to the concept of content and serving as a rest, and also indicating the order of composition.” In other words, V.K. Trediakovsky saw the purpose of punctuation (“punctuation”) in the semantic, intonation and syntactic division of speech. M.V. Lomonosov emphasized the semantic and syntactic functions of punctuation marks: “Lowcase marks are placed according to the strength of the mind and its location to conjunctions.”

In Russian linguistics, there are three main directions in understanding the principles of punctuation: logical (semantic), syntactic and intonational.

Supporters of the logical direction consider the main purpose of punctuation to be the semantic division of speech and the transmission of semantic relationships between the dissected parts. These include F.I. Busulaev, D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, P.N. Sakulin.

F.I. Busulaev, in the question of the use of punctuation marks, wrote, “Since through language one person conveys thoughts and feelings to another, then punctuation marks have a dual purpose: 1) contribute to clarity in the presentation of thoughts, separating one sentence from another or one part from another, and 2) express the sensations of the speaker’s face and his attitude towards the listener.”

We find a syntactic understanding of punctuation words in Y.K. Grota and S.K. Bulich, who believed that punctuation makes the syntactic structure of speech clear.

Conveying the intonation side of speech seems to be the main task of A.Kh.’s punctuation. Vostkov, I.I. Davydov, A.M. Peshkovsky, L.V. Shcherbe.

Returning to the historical aspects of this issue, we will consider the works of A.M. Peshkovsky and L.V. Shcherby, which are of undoubted value in the field of punctuation. Although these works are not scientific research based on the study of a significant number of literary texts of various genres and styles, they still represent interesting attempts to understand the punctuation norms existing in our writing and contain original thoughts regarding the construction of a new punctuation system for the Russian literary language.

The first performances of A.M. Pleshkovsky on punctuation issues, which determined his views in this area, as well as in a number of other areas related to the teaching of the Russian language, took place during the years of the highest rise of pre-revolutionary Russian social and pedagogical thought, immediately preceding the revolution of 1917. We are talking about the report “The Role of Expressive Reading in Teaching Punctuation Marks,” read at the All-Russian Congress of Secondary School Russian Language Teachers, held in Moscow in December 1916 - January 1917, and the article “Punctuation Marks and Scientific Grammar.”

To master the ability to put punctuation marks, one should always consciously read the signs, i.e., “connect one or another pronunciation figure with one or another sign,” as a result of which “a strong association of each sign is formed with the corresponding pronunciation figure (or figures, if the sign has several of them) - an association that flows, of course, in both directions.” Coordination between expressive reading and grammar measures will be required just to master existing comma rules.

L.V. Shcherba was partly close to the position of A.M. Peshkovsky. He also saw the role of punctuation in indicating the rhythmic and melodic side of speech. “Punctuation is the rules for the use of additional written characters (punctuation marks),” he wrote, “which serve to indicate the rhythm and melody of a phrase, otherwise phrasal intonation.” But while Pleshkovsky believes that all punctuation marks, with the partial exception of the comma, indicate, first of all, and directly only the rhythmic and melodic side of living speech, Shcherba, looking into the essence of the rhythmic melody itself, does not limit himself to what has been said, but adds: “Since rhythm alone and the melody of speech express the division of the flow of our thought, and sometimes this and that connection of its individual moments and, finally, some semantic shades, since we can say that punctuation marks actually serve to indicate all this in writing. This determines the dual nature of any punctuation: phonetic, since it expresses certain sound phenomena, and ideographic, since it is directly related to meaning.” Shcherba further points out that “the division of speech-thought, and to an even greater extent the connection between its individual parts and their different semantic shades, are expressed in speech not only intonation, but also in individual words, word forms and word order, and if true, that division and affective shades always find expression in intonation (although this is not always indicated in writing), then the connection between individual parts of speech is only very briefly expressed intonation, and their logical shades are very rarely expressed.” In some cases, as Shcherba points out, intonation acts as the only indicator of both the division and the nature of the connection between the individual parts of the sentence.

Modern Russian punctuation is built on a semantic and structural-grammatical basis, which are interconnected and determine each other, so we can talk about a single semantic-grammatical basis of Russian punctuation. Punctuation reflects the semantic division of written speech, indicates semantic connections and relationships between individual words and groups of words, and various semantic shades of parts of a written text. But certain semantic connections between words and parts of the text find their expression in a certain grammatical structure. And it is no coincidence that the formulation of most of the rules of modern Russian punctuation is based simultaneously on the semantic features of the sentence (the semantic basis), and on the features of its structure - features of the construction of the sentence, its parts, the presence or absence of conjunctions, ways of expressing the members of the sentence, the order of their arrangement, etc. etc., which constitutes the structural and grammatical basis of punctuation.

Conclusion

One witty writer said that there are fifty ways to say a word, and there are not five hundred ways to say a word, but in order to write these words there is only one way.

Punctuation marks arose from the need to divide written text into segments of greater or lesser independence in accordance with the semantic structure of speech. The first and most reliable basis for such division of the corresponding oral utterance is through pauses. Thus, the first punctuation marks indicated pauses of greater or lesser duration within a written text. It goes without saying that writers could be satisfied with such primitive punctuation only during the initial stages of using writing. And indeed, with the development of writing, and especially after the introduction and spread of printing, the system of punctuation became more complex and deepened, until, for a relatively short period, it reached a state that remains in its basic features in modern European languages. But since the process of development of punctuation proceeded almost spontaneously, only occasionally and only in relation to its particular rules being subject to mandatory regulation, the currently existing punctuation does not reflect any unified, consistently implemented system. Nevertheless, our modern punctuation, on the whole, satisfactorily serves the most important practical needs of writers seeking to express in the text certain semantic relationships and shades, as well as the interests of the reader, who needs the most accurate and complete perception of the latter.

Bibliography

1. L.P. Demidenko, I.S. Kozyrev, T.G. Kozyreva. "Modern Russian language".

2. G.G. Granik, S.M. Bondarenko "Secrets of punctuation."

3. A.N. Naumovich. "Modern Russian punctuation."

4. A.B. Shapiro. “Modern Russian language. Punctuation".

5. I.E. Savko. "Russian language. Tutorial".

6. Ivanova V.F. "History and principles of Russian punctuation."

7. Baranov M.T. "Russian language: reference materials: a textbook for students."

Russian language norms

Norma (derived from the Latin norma - literally “square”, figurative meaning - “rule”) is a generally accepted mandatory order. All sections of the language are controlled in a certain way. Modern Russian language is guided by various rules. These are spelling and punctuation standards. They are orthoepic (phonetic) and phraseological, morphological and syntactic, stylistic.

For example, spelling norms regulate the choice of graphic spelling of a word. Punctuation determines the choice of punctuation marks, as well as their placement in the text.

Punctuation standards

A punctuation norm is a rule indicating the use or non-use of certain punctuation marks when writing. The study of punctuation norms determines mastery of the literary language. These principles define the whole. Correct use of punctuation should ensure mutual understanding between the writer and the reader of the written text.

The use of punctuation marks is fixed by the rules. The punctuation norm regulates the choice of sentence construction options. It also controls the speaker’s speech. True, the assessment of “true - false” in relation to a punctuation norm largely depends on the subject. Russian punctuation is extremely flexible.

Punctuation meaning

It is not for nothing that the Russian language is called great and powerful. But it is not frozen and unchanging. Russian speech is saturated with neologisms and words that come from other languages. Likewise, punctuation norms are adopted in an attempt to reflect the process of integration. But we must never forget about respect for the language as a heritage, honed by the centuries-old history of our people.

Annual work in Russian language

Scientific adviser:

Russian language teacher Titova G.V.

Lipetsk - 2013

Introduction

1.1 Punctuation as a language system. Basics of punctuation theory

Conclusions on the first chapter

II. Brief analysis of the punctuation system

2.3 Main trends in the use of punctuation marks (semicolon, colon, dash)

2.3.1 Specifics of using colons in Russian

2.3.2 The importance of the dash in the punctuation system

Conclusions on the second chapter

III. Punctuation in fiction (using the example of analysis of the works of M. Sholokhov)

3.1 Specifics of the punctuation system in classical literature

3.2 Functions of using a comma in artistic style of speech

3.2.2 Semantic-syntactic isolation

3.2.3 Special uses of the comma

Conclusions on the third chapter

Conclusion

List of analyzed sources

List of used literature

Introduction

The punctuation system is one of the most important systems of the language. Despite the fact that a number of scientists deal with punctuation issues, for example A.B. Shapiro, L.I. Zilberman, G.I. Abramova, N.S. Valgina, its nature and functions have not been sufficiently studied. There is no theory of punctuation that would correspond to the theoretical level of the science of language. [L.I. Zilberman, G.I. Abramov].

This implies the relevance of the topic of our research, that is, a theoretical review of punctuation.

The scientific problem in this study is the need for theoretical generalization, analysis of existing information about the nature of punctuation as a system, trends, rules and patterns in the use of basic punctuation marks.

The purpose of the study is a theoretical analysis of the punctuation system of the Russian language, a generalization of trends in the use of basic punctuation marks in general and in the works of M. Sholokhov in particular.

The object of the study is modern punctuation as a historically established system, its principles and specifics, rules, functions, patterns in the use of basic punctuation marks.

The subject of the study is basic trends, rules, functions, patterns in the use of basic punctuation marks.

In accordance with the purpose, subject, object, the following tasks were set:

Analyze the specifics of the punctuation system, its principles and main features;

Summarize and consider trends, rules and patterns in the use of basic punctuation marks: commas, semicolons, colons and dashes;

Emphasize the features of punctuation in the works of M. Sholokhov;

Show the complexity and significance of this aspect of the problem based on identifying and analyzing the functions of using basic punctuation marks in the works of M. Sholokhov.

The research hypothesis is the statement that the comma is a basic element of modern punctuation as a whole, performing various semantic and syntactic functions, serving the purposes of communication in its various manifestations.

This work in its structure consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, an appendix, a list of analyzed sources and a list of references.

The first chapter contains information about the essence of the punctuation system as a whole.

The second chapter is devoted to the analysis of trends, functions, and rules for the use of basic punctuation marks in the Russian language.

The third chapter reveals the specifics of punctuation in the works of M. Sholokhov as a whole and emphasizes its complexity based on an analysis of the functions of using punctuation marks.

Finally, the appendix reflects the most valuable statistical facts regarding the frequency of use of basic punctuation marks in the Russian language.

I. Theoretical foundations for the study of modern punctuation as a historically established system

1.1 Punctuation as a language system. Basic theories of punctuation

The term punctuation means a set of punctuation marks used in written speech, as well as a collection of rules for their placement. Punctuation marks, along with letters, are part of the graphic system of every language. The use of punctuation marks is determined by the syntactic structure of the language, the semantic division of the statement and the rhythmic-intonation system of speech. The role of punctuation as a system is extremely important, since, being an integral part of writing, punctuation is designed to serve the purposes of communication between the writer and the reader, ensuring a two-way communication process.

Punctuation is a means through which the writer expresses certain meanings and shades, and the reader, on their basis, perceives the meanings and shades expressed by them. Often, punctuation marks indicate shades of meaning that cannot be expressed lexically or grammatically; in other cases, they are an additional means of expressing various semantic and grammatical meanings.

In the history of Russian punctuation, three directions have emerged on the issue of its foundations and purpose: logical, syntactic and intonational. The theorist of the logical, or semantic, direction was F.I. Buslaev. In his opinion, punctuation marks have a dual purpose: 1) promote clarity in the presentation of thoughts, separating one sentence from another or one part of it from another, and 2) express the feelings of the speaker’s face and his attitude towards the listener. The first requirement is satisfied by a comma, semicolon, colon and full stop, the second requirement is satisfied by exclamation and question marks, ellipses and dashes. To the logical (dividing) function of the first group of punctuation marks, Buslaev adds a stylistic function: the basic rules for their use are determined by the rhetorical analysis of periodic and abrupt speech. (F.I. Buslaev).

In modern linguistics, the semantic understanding of the basics of punctuation has found expression in the works of S.I. Abakumov and A.B. Shapiro. The first of them considered the main function of punctuation to indicate the division of speech into parts that are important for expressing thoughts in writing. Shapiro saw the main role of punctuation in designating those semantic relationships and nuances that, while important for understanding a written text, cannot be expressed by lexical and syntactic means. (S.I. Abakumov, A.B. Shapiro).

The syntactic direction in the theory of punctuation, which has become widespread in the practice of teaching it, proceeds from the fact that punctuation marks are intended, first of all, to make the syntactic structure of speech clear, to highlight individual sentences and their parts. The most prominent representative of this trend, J.K. Grot, believed that through basic punctuation marks an indication of the greater and lesser connections between sentences, and partly between members of sentences, which serves to facilitate the reader’s understanding of written speech.

Representatives of the intonation theory of punctuation believe that punctuation marks serve to indicate the rhythm and melody of a phrase, otherwise phrasal intonation (L.V. Shcherba), that in the vast majority of cases they reflect not the grammatical, but the declamatory-psychological division of speech (A.M. Peshkovsky ) and are needed to convey the melody of speech, its tempo and pauses (L.A. Bulakhovsky).

Despite the significant divergence of views of representatives of different directions, what they have in common is the recognition of the communicative function of punctuation, which is an important means of formatting written speech; punctuation marks indicate the semantic division of speech.

At the same time, to a large extent, Russian punctuation is built on a syntactic basis. In some cases, Russian punctuation is also associated with intonation. All this gives the Russian punctuation system greater flexibility; along with mandatory rules, it contains instructions that are not strictly normative in nature and allow punctuation options associated not only with the semantic side of the written text, but also with its stylistic features [D.E. Rosenthal].

1.2 Principles of the modern punctuation system

Consistency in relation to punctuation is a quality that is most clearly manifested in the two-way functional significance of punctuation: “punctuation from the writer” (direction from meaning to signs) and “punctuation for the reader” (direction through signs to meaning) [N.S. Valgina]. Ultimately, we are talking about encoding and decoding text through signs. It is clear that both processes are possible only if the meanings carried by the signs coincide for the writer and the reader. And, therefore, the signs must naturally and consistently reveal the same qualities in the same positions. Modern punctuation undoubtedly reveals such systemic qualities. Understanding them is associated with the search and approval of the basics of punctuation, the principles of text division. One of the main principles of modern punctuation is the structural principle. (for examples, see Chapter II).

Signs determined by the structure of a sentence and its syntax are conventionally called structural. These cannot be optional. This is the foundation on which modern punctuation is built. This is, finally, the necessary minimum of using signs, without which unhindered communication between the writer and the reader is unthinkable. Structural signs are currently quite regulated, their use is stable. Such signs divide the text into structurally significant parts, help establish the correlation between parts of the text, and indicate the end of the presentation of one thought and the beginning of another. Such signs are present in a text of any style (in an official document, in a scientific essay, and in an artistic or journalistic work). The syntactic division of speech ultimately reflects the logical, semantic division, since structurally significant parts, as a rule, coincide with logically significant ones; moreover, they serve to express them and punctuation marks fix the boundaries of these parts.

On the other hand, the semantic division of speech subordinates the structural division; those. the specific meaning dictates the only possible structure. The structure of the sentence is, as it were, programmed with a given meaning. If it is necessary to convey a different meaning, a sentence with the same set of words is constructed differently [N.S. Valgina].

According to N.S. Valgina, a very important principle in modern punctuation is the semantic principle. (for examples, see Chapter II).

Punctuation marks help the writer draw the reader's attention to important details. The direct meaning of the statement can depend on the placement of punctuation marks, and the semantic and psychological depth, tension and exclusivity of the manifestation of the attribute can be conveyed. The shades recorded in a sentence can vary, and therefore in punctuation, based on a semantic principle, there is always something subjective and individual. Skillful placement of punctuation marks increases the semantic significance of written speech and condenses the semantic capacity of the statement.

However, the variability in the use of signs does not at all indicate their optionality, optionality: the desired meaning is fixed only by one punctuation option, another meaning requires a different design, and the only possible one.

It is also important to note that different meanings conveyed using different punctuation formats inevitably affect the structure of the text or a separate sentence.

It is impossible not to mention the importance of the intonation principle of punctuation. Modern punctuation has a large arsenal of means of reflecting intonation (placing a period at the site of a large decrease in voice and a long pause; question and exclamation marks, intonation dashes, ellipses). However, the intonation principle acts as a secondary principle and often does not operate in its pure form.

This means that any intonation stroke (for example, a pause), although fixed by a punctuation mark, is ultimately itself a consequence of the given semantic and structural division of the sentence.

Noting the role and importance of intonation when arranging punctuation marks, one cannot help but dwell on the question of the various functions of intonation in our speech. Intonation can act as a means of conveying semantic meanings, but can only convey the emotional qualities of speech. In the case when intonation conveys the semantic significance of speech, the intonation principle in the arrangement of signs is used as an accompaniment to the semantic one, superimposed on it, and thereby is reflected in the structure of the text. When intonation is an indicator only of the emotional coloring of speech, then the intonational principle operates, so to speak, in its pure form. Such intonation-based signs convey emotional tension, rapidity of speech, i.e. reflect her expressiveness, special expressiveness.

Intonations that convey the semantic significance of speech are socially fixed, they contain a large percentage of objectivity, they are reproducible and therefore amenable to description and inventory as certain types.

Intonations of a purely emotional nature in their particular manifestations are extremely subjective, and their recording in a written text with the help of signs is entirely connected with the individuality of the writer: I couldn’t walk for a long time; I couldn’t walk for a long time (D.E. Rosenthal).

So, we can say that the currently existing punctuation is systematically organized. According to N.S. Valgina, the firmness and stability of punctuation is determined by its structural principle, and the ability to convey the richness and variety of semantic shades and emotions is determined by the principles of semantic and intonation. So the impact of the text on the reader, given the unconditional talent of the writer, can become extremely strong.

Overall, punctuation is one of the most complex and significant language systems.

1.3 Flexibility of modern punctuation

It is generally accepted that the punctuation rules in force in the modern Russian language are, for the most part, optional. This is precisely what is considered the main property of punctuation, which makes it possible to achieve a high degree of accuracy and expressiveness in written speech [N.S. Valgina; D.E. Rosenthal]. There is no doubt that such a statement has a serious basis, since indeed certain punctuation marks are very often chosen depending on the specific tasks of organizing the content, and sometimes even the emotional and stylistic side of the text, i.e. Punctuation marks can vary when these tasks change and, therefore, the writer is free to use them.

Without questioning the very concept of optional signs, we would only like to clarify the content of this concept, determine for which unit of speech this concept exists, how wide the scope of its distribution is and how this concept is related to the action of punctuation.

The term “optional signs” is meaningfully polar to the term “mandatory signs”. If we talk about optionality and obligatoryness in relation to the operation of the principles of punctuation, then, apparently, it should be recognized that “structural” signs should be obligatory, and “semantic” and “intonation” signs should be optional, since they are individualized by the author’s use. However, “structural” signs are not always strictly obligatory, because the structural division of a sentence in a text, as well as semantic and intonation, is subject to the will of the writer.

Structural signs may not be purely structural. Since a new structure, possible with a given lexical content, gives a new meaning and a different intonation design, these signs can be optional. The concept of optionality, therefore, applies to punctuation marks based not only on semantic and intonation principles, but also on structural ones.

However, it is important not only to establish the ability of punctuation to be optional (this is well known), but also to determine the unit of text that is the object of the possible distribution of this property of punctuation. Optional signs can be found in individual statements taken from the text.

Reflecting on the optionality of punctuation in general, we can come to the conclusion that it exists only as a supra-textual concept used in teaching punctuation, when a separate sentence is chosen as the object of application of the rules for the placement of signs, when this sentence does not exist as a component of the text and is not considered from the point of view a given meaning and, thus, all possible options for its interpretation are revealed. At an early stage of learning, this is quite legitimate and useful. When analyzing the punctuation of a coherent text, the problem of optionality, as a rule, does not arise, since the choice of signs is based on specific semantic connections of a number of syntactic structures, united by a unity of thought, a general emotional-expressive orientation, and the author’s desire to convey the meaning as he perceives it.

With this understanding of the use of punctuation, the influence of context is taken into account, which is seen either in cases of resistance of lexical material, or without it, in the presence of a special author’s task (with possible options in the distribution of word connections). It would be more accurate to call the case of the so-called optional use of signs contextual, and the signs themselves - contextual, not optional.

The social essence of punctuation is revealed in the attachment of common functions and meanings to signs, in the stability and regularity of their reproduction.

But it is precisely the social significance of punctuation that conceals rich possibilities for the use of signs, taking into account their semantic and stylistic functions in the text.

So, we perceive the text according to the signs placed in it, because these signs are readable, they carry certain information known to us, therefore, they are burdened with meaning, and the meaning historically accumulated in the practice of printing. This meaning can have different degrees of generalization: with higher degrees of generalization we talk about the general functions of signs, with lower degrees we talk about specific meanings. For example, a sign performs the function of a meaning distinguisher when conveying the meanings of cause, effect, explanation, opposition, etc., in particular, signs in a non-union complex sentence; Expressive-stylistic functions appear in signs when they are emotionally loaded, i.e. when their basic meanings are complicated by additional ones associated with special stylistic tasks. The most generalized functions of signs are functions denoted in terms such as separating signs and separating signs. Regardless of the degree of generalization, any functions reflect the purpose of punctuation: punctuation marks fulfill their social purpose thanks to certain functions and meanings that are assigned to them.

Conclusions on the first chapter

1. Modern punctuation is a very complex and rich system. The greatest achievement of modern punctuation is its systematic organization. Punctuation is fraught with great possibilities: it helps the writer in conveying not only thoughts, but also emotions. All this is possible thanks to the reflection in it of the systemic interaction of structural, semantic and intonation principles.

2. It is the combination of principles that is an indicator of the development of modern punctuation, its flexibility, which allows expressing the subtlest shades of meaning and structural diversity. It expresses the relationship between form and content.

3. From the point of view of the basics of punctuation, the structural principle is recognized as the leading one, since most of the rules are based on it. The rules are built taking into account, first of all, the syntactic structure of speech, since it is here that the largest percentage of objectivity, so necessary for stable rules, is laid down. From the point of view of the purpose of punctuation, the leading principle is the semantic one, since the meaning is contained in a certain syntactic form, or the grammatical structure is subject to a given meaning. Syntactic units are created to convey thoughts and emotions. The combination of the three principles of punctuation becomes obvious.

4. The property of punctuation - to obey the context - gives it such a remarkable quality as flexibility, manifested in variability. Punctuation, when used creatively and competently, turns into a powerful semantic and stylistic tool.

In the second chapter we will talk about the specifics of the Russian punctuation system and trends in the rules and patterns of using basic punctuation marks.

II. Brief analysis of the Russian punctuation system

2.1 The comma as the main semantic-syntactic signal and the basic element of the modern punctuation system

The role of the comma as a semantic-syntactic signal is significant and very complex in most modern European-type languages.

L.I. Zilberman, G.I. Abramova also note that many distributional features in language, punctuation signals, and specifically the presence or absence of a comma as a sign of a certain syntactic structure or actual division of a sentence, are often not absolute, but probabilistic, frequency in nature, which, however, does not deprive them of significant methodological values in teaching reading. The meaning of the value of studying the comma as a semantic-syntactic signal is that it is a powerful additional means of orientation in the syntactic and semantic structure of the Russian text [L.I. Zilberman, G.I. Abramov].

2.2 Similarities and differences in the system of rules and patterns of comma use in English and Russian

The system and functions of punctuation marks in the Russian language...

Let's start by looking at the comma in a simple sentence. It has been established that all kinds of isolated expressions are separated by commas. This is also explained by the specificity of such expressions.

Isolated members of a sentence form a syntagma separate from the element being defined, pronounced in lower tones than the other syntagmas in the sentence (in writing, this intonation design is usually marked with a comma). Segregation can be used for different purposes. Isolated members can denote additional accompanying features of certain concepts. An isolated element (usually placed at the beginning of a sentence) can also be correlated in meaning with the rest of the sentence.

The main types of isolated members of sentences in Russian are definitions, applications, circumstances.

A separate definition can refer to both a noun and a pronoun, expressing additional accompanying characteristics of a person or object.

A separate definition is characterized by correlation with a proper name, which is only in rare cases combined with a non-separate definition.

Application is a special type of postpositive isolated definition, expressed by a noun or substantivized phrase. The application gives a person or thing a different name. It is expressed by homogeneous nouns, as well as a noun with a prepositive or postpositive definition, which in turn can be expressed by an infinitive, a participial construction, a prepositional phrase, or even a whole subordinate clause:

The petitioner, staff captain Kalinina, asked for the impossible and stupid (L.N. Tolstoy).

The shepherd, a decrepit old man with one eye and a crooked mouth, walked with his head hanging (A.P. Chekhov).

Speaking about the isolation of circumstances in the Russian language, it should be noted that the same types are found in it as outside the isolation [L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Stehling; T.A. Barabash].

These, as you know, are circumstances of external conditions (time, cause, mode of action, accompanying phenomena), conditions, concessions, comparisons, expressed by conjunctions, adverbs and prepositional combinations:

Despite the passage of time, I still remembered my infant loneliness (I. Bunin).

Their one-year-old daughter remained there, in Grodno, near the war (K. Simonov).

In Russian, this construction is represented by an adverbial phrase, which is isolated to express circumstances:

Kasyan, throwing away his cigarette, walked briskly, putting on a dry shirt as he walked (E. Nosov).

Arriving in Glupov, the first thing they decided to do was take a walk (M. Saltykov-Shchedrin).

The comma plays a significant role in isolating the introductory members of a sentence - introductory words, phrases, introductory sentences. The introductory members of a sentence, as a rule, are isolated. They give additional characteristics to the content of the sentence, being modal, adjunctive or explanatory in nature. Various parts of speech and combinations of words are used as introductory members, such as: modal words, adverbs, prepositional combinations, infinitive and participial constructions:

It seemed as if the pond had fallen asleep. (I. Turgenev)

Apparently, this job was not easy for him. (V. Rasputin)

An independent participial phrase is always separated by a comma. In Russian, such phrases have equivalents in expanded subordinate clauses, in which the subject coincides with the subject of the main one:

An independent participial phrase can also stand at the end of a sentence, separated by a comma and playing the role of accompanying circumstances. [L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Stehling; T.M. Novitskaya, N.D. Kuchin]

In a complex sentence, parts can be connected to each other without the help of conjunctions or allied words. In a non-union connection, the elements of a complex sentence are separated by a comma and, often, a semicolon:

Accordingly, they are divided into subject, predicative, additional, attributive and adverbial sentences. In addition, the sentence may contain introductory clauses. Subject, predicative and additional clauses are treated as nominal clauses and are not separated by a comma from the main clause.

So, in general terms, we have summarized and analyzed the basic rules and patterns of using the comma. In the next part of the chapter we will pay attention to the main trends in the use of other punctuation marks.

2.3 Main trends in the use of punctuation marks: semicolon, colon, dash

Of the variety of punctuation marks that exist in modern language, in our work we will consider in detail the trends in the use of semicolons, colons and dashes. Of all the punctuation marks, the fate of the semicolon seems to be the most interesting. This sign, in the past extremely common and polysemantic, has now clearly consolidated its position in sentences with very common homogeneous members or complex sentences of a homogeneous composition (complex or non-union with enumerative relations). Semicolon is a sign whose functions were undifferentiated and unclearly delimited from the functions of other characters - comma, colon.

The activity of the semicolon was observed throughout the 19th century in the Russian language. So, for example, in classical Russian literature, the semicolon was often used in adversative and adjunctive relations, conveyed the meaning of causes, consequences, clarification and explanatory, and was used before a construction of an additional intercalary nature:

Maybe Bazarov is right; but, I confess, one thing hurts me; I hoped now to become close and friendly with Arkady (I. Turgenev).

I called my servant; I called him Filka (I. Turgenev).

At present, observations show that the main tendency in the use of semicolons is the desire to narrow the scope of distribution to clearly defined positions: these are syntactic homogeneity, enumerative relations. This tendency is closely related to another - the liberation of the sign from the fixation of other meanings and, consequently, functional convergence with the comma. At the same time, and at the same time, there is also a tendency to differentiate the functions of semicolons and commas: punctuation as a whole and its elements strive for clarity in fixing meanings. In this regard, the semicolon seems to increase its qualitative differences from the comma and strengthens its semantic-distinguishing properties.

A semicolon, in comparison with a comma, separates syntactically equal parts that are less closely related in meaning. The functional difference between a comma and a semicolon is clearly manifested at the junction of a complex sentence: in the first case (there is a comma), the parts are closely related in meaning, they are united by a description of the same object; in the second (semicolon) - a transition to the characteristics of new objects is planned. In particularly complicated sentences, semicolons define large, basic parts, while commas signal the internal division of these parts. In this case, semicolons help clearly define the boundaries of the main parts and thereby reveal their structural significance.

Semicolons most often stand at the junction of parts of a complex sentence, but they can, with a certain complexity of the sentence, be used between homogeneous members of a simple sentence.

Here is an example of placing a semicolon at the junction of parts of a complex sentence:

The gray strip of road went away from the river into the depths of the steppe; she was somehow mercilessly direct, dry and depressing (M. Gorky).

If commas were used, this junction would not be immediately visible, since within each part there are already or may be commas placed on a different basis. This use of the semicolon is now the most typical.

A rarer case is the differentiation of homogeneous members of a sentence using this sign. By the way, as a rule, these are predicates, complicated by various additional members and circumstances dependent on them, which, in turn, are explained by all sorts of separate groups of words. Such sentences are structurally very close to complex ones and sometimes represent transitional constructions from simple to complex: the predicates here are either homogeneous with a common subject, or independently used with subjects omitted due to conditions and context. A semicolon in such cases facilitates the perception of thought and unites logically related details.

It should be noted that the interchangeability of a comma and a semicolon is quite possible, but is by no means absolute, since the functions of these signs, despite their formal similarity, also contain quite noticeable differences. A semicolon is a sign of more limited use than a comma. A certain pattern can be identified: where there is a semicolon, you can always put a comma (of course, such a sign may be less expressive, but quite acceptable), but not every comma can be replaced by a semicolon.

In general, the semicolon is currently a fairly definite sign and limited in terms of the conditions of its use (limitation is understood here as a small set of syntactic conditions for the functioning of the sign). The semicolon has lost a number of positions, dissociating itself from other characters (colon, comma). According to its purpose in speech, a semicolon stands as if between a comma and a full stop, especially from the point of view of reflecting intonation - the sign denotes a pause of medium duration. However, such a purely quantitative difference is a fading phenomenon; trends in the use of semicolons show an increase in the sign of semantic indicators, i.e. qualitative changes. The sign is increasingly used as a fixator of semantic breaks in the text; it separates parts of sentences that are thematically distant from each other, and helps to redistribute the semantic and grammatical connections of words.

A semicolon placed in one place or another gives the sentence a single reading, while a comma allows for different interpretations. In other cases, a semicolon can help avoid a logical or semantic error. All this confirms the importance and significance of the semicolon in the modern punctuation system [N.S. Valgina]

A semicolon is used to separate common homogeneous members of a sentence, if there is a comma inside one, they are preceded by a generalizing word with a colon, if homogeneous members of a sentence are separated into separate clauses.

2.3.1 Specifics of the use of colons in Russian.

Another important and rather complex punctuation mark is the colon. N.S. Valgina emphasizes that the modern use of the colon in the Russian language is characterized by an explanatory function. The colon warns of such an explanation.

The explanatory function is represented by the following meanings: causality, justification, disclosure of content, specification of the general concept.

Causality and the meaning of justification are conveyed using a colon in non-union complex sentences; it is the colon that signals the following semantic relationships between the parts of the sentence:

It was impossible to set such an example for Razmetnov: he himself is a widow, he has only one old mother (M. Sholokhov).

Ignatievna treated young children for hunger: she gave them mushroom tincture half and half with sweet grass, and the children calmed down peacefully with dry foam on their lips (A. Platonov).

Explanatory relationships are emphasized in the following examples:

Varvara listened: she heard the noise of the evening train (A. Chekhov).

Ilka has long known: this nickname follows his fellow villagers like a black shadow (V. Astafiev).

Using a colon, the general meaning of the word is specified:

With the second fist, the matter is clear: the hundred and seventh article is on him, and that’s it (M. Sholokhov).

The specification of the meaning of a general concept is fixed by a colon in sentences with generalizing words:

Strangers now live and spend the night in these small apartments: workers of foreign institutions, soldiers and commanders of Red Army units (A. Fadeev).

On winter evenings, he sometimes made unnecessary things: towers made of wire, ships made of roofing iron, paper airships, etc. - solely for his own pleasure (A. Platonov).

The function of the colon in sentences when combining someone else’s and the author’s speech is close to the explanatory function. A colon is placed after words introducing direct speech (verbs said, thought, objected, exclaimed, etc.).

Punctuation- this is, firstly, a collection of rules for placing punctuation marks and, secondly, a system of punctuation marks (graphic images) used in written speech to indicate its division. The punctuation system of the Russian language is built on a syntactic basis; almost all punctuation rules are formulated depending on the structure of the sentence. Although the Russian language has many rules for mandatory punctuation, Russian punctuation has great flexibility: there are various punctuation options that are associated not only with the meaning, but also with the stylistic features of the text. Functions of punctuation marks. Punctuation marks indicate the semantic division of the text; they also help to identify the syntactic structure of the text and its rhythm and melody. Types of punctuation marks:· emphases (their functions are to designate the boundaries of syntactic constructions that complement and explain the members of a sentence; intonation and semantic highlighting of parts of a sentence, constructions containing an address or the speaker’s attitude to his statement): two commas and two dashes (single paired signs), parentheses , quotes; · signs of separation (their functions are designation of boundaries between separate independent sentences, between homogeneous members of a sentence, between simple sentences as part of a complex one; indication of the type of sentence according to the purpose of the statement, according to emotional coloring): period, question and exclamation marks, comma, period s comma, colon, dash, ellipsis; · a special punctuation mark is the red line (indicates the beginning of a new turn in the narrative). Punctuation marks can be single or paired. Paired punctuation marks indicate that the placement of the first punctuation mark requires the placement of the second. These include two commas and two dashes (as single characters), parentheses and quotation marks. Along with punctuation regulated by rules, there is punctuation is unregulated. The latter represents various deviations from general norms. Deviations in the use of punctuation marks can be caused by various reasons, including the originality of the author's writing style. In general, unregulated punctuation unites different phenomena, among which the actual author’s punctuation is isolated, i.e. directly related to the personality of the writer. Unregulated punctuation is often found in the punctuation of colloquial speech. Imitation of spoken speech in written speech leads to division of the text based on live pronunciation, with numerous pauses and intonation nuances. The intermittency of speech, and often its difficulty, is conveyed by signs, and their choice is dictated not by the structure of the sentence, but by the purely intonation side of speech: To begin with... such... formal questions (V. Shukshin); How long ago did this... go into a turn? (V. Rasputin). Such punctuation cannot be considered the author’s, since there is no individual use of punctuation marks: only the intermittent nature of live speech is conveyed, and it is virtually impossible to provide for positions where speech is interrupted. They are unpredictable. Modern Russian punctuation, used in press practice does not always comply with the Code of Rules of 1956, and therefore meaningful and typical “violations” of the rules cannot be considered as a manifestation of illiteracy. In them, “violations,” one can see natural trends that reflect the search for adequate ways to design the significantly updated syntactic and rhythmic-stylistic structure of a written text. In general, as has been shown, speech is becoming increasingly dynamic and fragmented, especially in the mass press, and in many cases this is achieved through the use of signs. Naturally, in texts with a narrower, special purpose, traditional spellings are more stable. The renewal of the practice of using signs is associated with the reflection of situational norms, not so rigid, characterizing the flexibility, variability of modern punctuation, its ability to increase the informational and expressive qualities of a written text. Deviations from the rules, resulting in certain trends, are evidence of the movement of Russian punctuation towards functional and semantic significance. And this is possible only with a sufficient degree of development of the punctuation system itself as a whole. 46.

Modern punctuation. Principles of modern Russian punctuation. Principles of Russian punctuation

PLAN:

Introduction

History of modern punctuation

Punctuation marks in modern Russian language

Principles of modern punctuation

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Russian language norms

Punctuation standards

Punctuation meaning