Keywords: metalanguage, syntactic relation, predicative, subordinate and complex connection, logic relationship, symmetry, transitivity, reflexivity, extraposition, differential feature


From the very beginning of its appearance as an object of scientific research, the syntax was in the competence of rhetoric and only a little more than 200 years ago (at least in Russian), began to be qualified as a linguistic discipline itself, and accordingly, as a section of grammar. And due to objective reasons, scientists, maybe, have not yet gained enough, as, it is said, in morphology, lexicology, and even in phonetics, material and practical experience of studying and describing of various speech circuits. Hence, the relevance of the proposed article, associated with a number of problems related to the syntax meta-language, to the fact that almost there are no fundamental concepts of syntax, including syntactic relations, have clear and generally accepted definitions.

The purpose of the article is to consider one of the options for constructing a fundamentally different meta-language for describing of the syntactic links of words in terms of mathematical logic relations.

The purpose of the article is to show the possibility of using a more rigorous theory of the connection of words in the text.

The object of the analysis is the syntactically interconnected components of a certain speech construct. The subject is a logical relationship between them.

In the article, using the example of such a subordinate syntactic connection as agreement, it is shown that the most diverse semantic-grammatical relations between words of a text can be reduced to four relations of mathematical logic: symmetry (if a = c, then b = a; with reference to syntax - if a agrees with b, then agrees with a), transitivity (if a = b and a = c, then a = c) and on the definition of the relationship itself – to reflexivity as the ratio of the first two (each the element of the set is in relation to yourself, that is, when any object, attribute or phenomenon is equal to itself), and extraposition (when the scope of concepts, denoted by the words a, b, c, excludes each other, and at the same time, they do not reflect all the subjects of the studied area, as is the case, for example, when the general system of secondary members of a sentence, each of which has its own scope of concept, its own content, some of them, say, addition, circumstance or determinant, are not included. The description of the syntactic relations of words in terms of logical connection makes it possible to avoid a number of contradictions in the definition of matching and all its varieties, to choose a single and more rigorous basis for classifying different syntactic links and defining the matching itself without regulating its typicalness and without limiting this connection as it is practiced in many reference books.

Our study allows us to conclude that these relations, denoted by the symbols C, T, P, B, respectively, can be qualified as differential features of one or another syntactic connection, the totality of which determines both the linguistic and the general scientific essence of the corresponding grammatical phenomenon.

Prospects for the proposed research we can see in the possibility, along with the use of the traditional meta-language of the syntax, to apply to more rigorous categories of communication associated with a certain kind of logical relationship between the components of a text as speech education.

Author Biography

I.I. Menshikov, Oles Honchar Dnipro National University,Ukraine

Doctor of Science (Philology), full professor



1. Александров Н. М. Проблема второстепенных членов предложения в русском языке. Учёные зап. ЛГПИ им. А. И. Герцена.1963. Т. 236. С. 3-391.
2. Ахманова О. С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. Москва : Сов. энцикл. 1966. 608 с.
3. Грамматика современного русского литературного языка. Под ред. Н. Ю. Шведовой. Москва : Наука. 1970. 768 с.
4. Загнітко А. П. Теоретична граматика української мови. Синтаксис. Донецьк : ДонНУ. 2001. 662 с.
5. Кондаков Н. И. Логический словарь. Москва : Наука. 1971. 638 с.
6. Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь. Под ред. В. Н. Ярцевой. – Москва : Сов. энцикл. 1990. 685 с.
7. Ломов А. М. Словарь-справочник по синтаксису современного русского языка. Москва : АСТ: Восток – Запад. 2007. 416 с.
8. Матвеева Т. В. Полный словарь лингвистических терминов. Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс. 2010. 563 с.
9. Меньшиков И. И. Избранные труды по лингвистике. Днепропетровск : «Новая идеология». 2012. 400 с.
10. Меншиков І. І. Синтаксичні зв’зки слів у сучасній українській літературній мові. Дніпропетровськ : РВВ ДНУ. 2001. 90 с.
11. Попова И. С. Фундаментальні категорії українського синтаксису (одиниця, зв’язок, модель) Дніпропетровськ : ДНУ. 2009. 432 с.
12. Русская грамматика: в 2 т. Москва : Наука. 1980. Т. 2: Синтаксис. 710 с.
13. Селіванова О. О. Лінгвістична енциклопедія. Полтава : Довкілля. 2011. 844 с.
14. Стариченок В. Д. Большой лингвистический словарь. Ростов н/Д : Феникс. 2008. 811 с.
15. Українська мова. Енциклопедія. За ред. В. М. Русанівського, О. О. Тараненка. Київ : Укр. енцикл. 2000. 752 с.
16. Шапиро А. Б. К учению о второстепенных членах предложения. Вопр. языкознания.1957. № 2. С. 16-24.
How to Cite
Menshikov, I. (2019). THE EXPERIENCE OF SYNTACTIC CONNECTIONS DESCRIPTION BETWEEN WORDS IN TERMS OF LOGICAL RELATIONS. Linguistics. Lingvoculturology, 13, 115-129. Retrieved from