Complex sentences with relative pronouns. Structural-semantic classification of complex sentences

Pronoun-correlative and pronominal-union clauses are similar in everything, only their means of communication are different.

Pronoun-correlative clauses	Pronominal-associative clauses
Conditional sentences undivided structure, where the connection between predicative units is based on the ratio of two semantically close pronouns or pronominal adverbs: that ... that, that ... who, such ... what, so much ... how much, there ... where, there ... where etc. The first word in this pair is in the main clause and is demonstrative, the second word is in the subordinate clause and is an allied word. The demonstrative word in such sentences is obligatory, the subordinate clause is attached directly to it. The index word cannot be removed. Example: I'm the one, whom nobody likes . That- this is a demonstrative word, a subordinate clause applies to it, it cannot be removed.	The pronominal-conjunctive clause differs from the pronominal-correlative one in that the subordinate clause is joined not by an allied word, but by a subordinating conjunction.
Depending on the type of allied word or subordinating conjunction and the function of the subordinate clause, the following subtypes of pronominal-correlative and pronominal-conjunctive clauses are distinguished: A) Substantive subtype: the clause refers to pronoun-noun in the main part. Couples: that ... who, that ... that, all ... that. For example: Everything that interests you, read in this textbook. B) Adjective subtype: the subordinate clause refers to pronoun-adjective from the main part: Couples: such ... what, such ... what. For example: The forest is as I remember it from childhood. C) Adverbial subtype: the clause refers to pronominal adverb. Couples: there ... where, there ... where, so much ... how much. For example: Everything went as planned. At school, there is no need to study these types of clauses, since they can be easily subsumed under explanatory, attributive and adverbial clauses.

Controversial issues characterizing complex sentences

I. Separation of NGN from PP:

1 -BUT. Simple sentences with phraseological turns containing particles homonymous with subordinating conjunctions and allied words . Though gouge out the eye, that was the strength and etc. Zakusilich God sent . This is PP, so no comma is needed.

1-B. Simple sentences that include lexicalized units with relative pronouns and pronouns (anywhere, anything, who knows what). Child throws things anywhere (PP).

2 . NGN should be distinguished from mere sentences with comparative turnovers . The comparative turnover is devoid of predicativity (that is, it does not have an independent basis), therefore, the comparative turnover is an element of a simple sentence. A.P. Chekhov: crimson crimson rose, gloomy, exactly sick(PP with comparative turnover). The last part of the SIS is framed as a comparative turnover. Compare: 1 crimson crimson rose, gloomy, 2 exactly her woke someone up at the wrong time(SPP).

3 . SPP should be delimited from PP phraseologized structure built according to certain structural models: phraseologized construction (for example, as for me) + noun/place in R.p., then… For example: As for me (phraseological construction), then I love learning syntax. Only and said what about work. The proposal is similar in form to SPP, but is not.

II. SPP:

1) Classified differently in NGN grammar , built according to models [there ...], (where ...); [there...], (where...). For example: We stopped where the fire burned. We ask a question from the word there: where exactly? Therefore, the connection is conditional.

BUT) school option: adverbial clauses, word there- demonstrative, it can be removed from the main sentence. And through this indicative word, the subordinate clause explains the GO of the main part, therefore the connection is determinant, the structure is dissected, and we have before us the subordinate circumstance of the place.

B) Word there– demonstrative, subordinate clause explains its semantics. Then this is a word connection, an undivided structure, and this is a pronominal-correlative clause of the adverbial subtype.

2) Comparative characteristic subordinate explanatory and attributive

Aspects of analysis	Explanatory clause	Attributive clause
1) Semantic aspect	Reveals content or meaning key word in the main part	Concretizes knowledge about the subject, phenomenon due to the indicative characteristic
2) Structural aspect	a) The presence of a conditional subordination
b) Refers to a synsemantic word (a word with the meaning of speech, thought, feeling) c) Means of communication - unions or allied words	b) Refers to an autosemantic word, to a noun that needs an indicative characteristic c) Means of communication - only allied words
3) Functional aspect	Reveals inner content object or phenomenon	transmitted outward sign object, event
Examples	a) Tatyana Afanasyevna signaled to her brother that the patient wanted to sleep(Which sign?). Word connection, undivided structure. Let's assume that this is a relative attributive, what – subordinating union. But in attributive clauses only allied words are possible. So, you need to ask the question differently: a sign of what? Conclusion: This is an explanatory clause. Can be substituted.about that. b) The aunt had a terrible dream that a janitor with a broom was chasing her.* in) The fear that by dusk we would not find water gave everyone energy(V.K. Arseniev).	a) The thought that alarmed me yesterday has not left me today.(Thought what?). What = which. Definitive adjective. b) There are moments when (=in which) not a single sound can be uttered(I.A. Bunin).

III. Communication facility in NGN

1) There is a trend in the use of particles in the function of allied means . The question of the type of clauses and the qualification of such a sentence is considered in the classification of V.V. Babaitseva about transitional types of sentences ( I asked if dinner was ready - SPP and BSP).

2) There has been a trend towards p expanding the repertoire of allied means of communication by merging demonstrative words with allied . For example: due to the fact that, instead of, due to the fact that, despite the fact that.

There are (by analogy with the secondary members of the proposal: definitions, additions and circumstances) three main type adnexal: definitive, explanatory and circumstantial; the latter, in turn, are divided into several types.

Subordinate clause can refer to a specific word in the main (conditional adjectives) or to everything main (non-verbal adventitious).

For determining the type of subordinate clause three interrelated features must be taken into account: 1) a question that can be asked from the main clause to the subordinate clause; 2) the conditional or non-verbal nature of the subordinate clause; 3) a means of communication of the subordinate with the main.

Clauses

Like the definitions in simple sentence, attributive clauses express a sign of an object, but, unlike most definitions, they often characterize the object not directly, but indirectly - through the situation one way or another related to the subject.

In connection with general meaning feature of the subject attributive clauses dependent on the noun(or from a word in the meaning of a noun) in the main clause and answer the question which? They join the main only with allied words - relative pronouns (which, which, whose, what) and pronouns (where, where, where, when). In a subordinate clause, allied words replace that noun from the main one on which the subordinate clause depends.

For example: [One of the contradictions, (which creativity is alive Mandelstam), concerns own nature of this creativity] (S. Averintsev)- [n., (what (= contradictions)),].

Allied words in complex sentences with can be divided into main (which, what, whose) and minor (what, where, where, where, when). Non-basic can always be replaced by the main allied word which, and the possibility of such a replacement is a clear sign definitive adjectives.

The village where(wherein) Eugene was bored, there was a lovely corner ... (A. Pushkin)- [noun, (where),].

I was reminded today of a dog that(which) was friend of my youth (S. Yesenin)- [n.], (what).

At night, in the desert of the city, there is one hour, imbued with longing, when(in which) for the whole city at night got off ... (F. Tyutchev) -[n.], (when).

In the main sentence, there are often demonstrative words ( demonstrative pronouns and adverbs) that, such For example:

It was that famous artist whom she saw on stage last year (Yu. Herman)- [uk.sl. that - n.], (which).

Pronoun-defining clauses

By value, relative clauses are close pronominal-defining clauses . They differ from the proper attributive clauses in that they do not refer to the noun in the main clause, but to the pronoun (that, each, all etc.), used in the meaning of a noun, for example:

1) [Total, (what knew more Evgeny), retell to me lack of leisure) (A. Pushkin)- [local, (what),]. 2) [Not oh (what you think), nature]... (F. Tyutchev)- [local, (what),].

Like attributive clauses, they reveal the attribute of an object (therefore, it is better to ask a question about them too which?) and join the main sentence with the help of allied words (the main allied words are who and what).

Wed: [That Human, (who came yesterday Today didn't show up] - adjective attributive. [indicative + noun, (which), ].

[That, (who came yesterday Today didn't show up] - adjectival pronoun. [local, (who),].

Unlike proper attributive clauses, which always come after the noun they refer to, pronoun-defining clauses can also appear before the word being defined, for example:

(Who lived and thought), [he can't in the shower do not despise people] ... (A. Pushkin)- (who), [loc. ].

Clauses of explanatory

Clauses of explanatory answer case questions and refer to a member of the main sentence that needs semantic distribution (addition, explanation). This member of the sentence is expressed by a word that has the meaning speech, thoughts, feelings or perception. Most of the time these are verbs. (say, ask, answer and etc.; think, know, remember and etc.; be afraid, rejoice, be proud and etc.; see, hear, feel etc.), but there may be other parts of speech: adjectives (happy, satisfied) adverbs (known, sorry, necessary, clear) nouns (news, message, rumor, thought, statement, feeling, feeling and etc.)

Clauses of explanatory are attached to the explained word in three ways: 1) with the help of unions what, how, as if, so that when and etc.; 2) with the help of any allied words; 3) using the union-particle whether.

For example: 1) [The light has decided], (that t smart and very mil) (A. Pushkin)- [vb], (what). [I_ was afraid], (so that in a bold thought you me could not blame) (A. Fet) - [ vb.], (so that). [Her dreaming], (as if she goes on a snowy glade, surrounded by a sad mist) (A. Pushkin)- [vb.], (as if).

2) [You you know himself], (which the time has come) (N. Nekrasov)- [vb], (what). [Then she started asking me], (where am I now working) (A. Chekhov)- [vb], (where). (When he will arrive), [unknown] (A. Chekhov)- (when), [adv.]. [I_ asked and the cuckoo] (how many yo i live)... (A. Akhmatova)- [vb], (how much).

3) [Both very wanted to know\, (brought whether father the promised piece of ice) (L. Kassil)- [vb], (whether).

Clauses of explanatory can serve to transfer indirect speech. With the help of unions what, like, when indirect messages are expressed using the union to- indirect urges, with the help of allied words and union-particles whether- indirect questions.

In the main clause, with the explained word, there may be a demonstrative word then(in different cases), which serves to highlight the content of the subordinate clause. For example: \Chekhov through the mouth of Dr. Astrov expressed one of his absolutely amazingly accurate thoughts about] (that forests teach a person to understand the beautiful) (K. Paustovsky)- [n. + uk.slov.], (what).

Distinguishing between subordinate attributive and subordinate explanatory

Certain difficulties are caused distinction between subordinate attributive and subordinate explanatory that refer to the noun. It should be remembered that attributive clauses dependent on the noun as parts of speech(the meaning of the noun being defined is not important for them), answer the question which?, indicate the sign of the subject that is called the noun being defined, and are attached to the main one only with allied words. Adnexal same explanatory depend on the noun not as a part of speech, but as from a word with a specific meaning(speech, thought, feeling, perception), except for the question which?(and it can always be set from a noun to any word or sentence depending on it) case question, they disclose(explain) content speeches, thoughts, feelings, perceptions and join the main unions and allied words. ( adnexal, attachable to the main unions and union-particle whether, can only be explanatory: The thought that he was wrong tormented him; The thought of whether he was right tormented him.)

More difficult distinguish between subordinate attributive and subordinate explanatory clauses depending on nouns when explanatory clauses join the main one with the help of allied words (especially the allied word what). Compare: 1) Question what(which) he was asked, seemed strange to him. Thought that(which) came into his head in the morning, haunted him all day. The news that(which) I received yesterday, very upset me. 2) The question of what to do now tormented him. The thought of what he had done made him uneasy. The news of what happened in our class amazed the whole school.

1) The first group - complex sentences with adverbial attributive. union word what can be replaced by an allied word which. The subordinate clause indicates the sign of the object named by the noun being defined (from the main clause to the subordinate clause, you can only ask a question which?, case question cannot be asked). The demonstrative word in the main clause is possible only in the form of a pronoun agreed with the noun (that question, that thought, that news).

2) The second group is complex sentences with subordinate explanatory clauses. Allied word replacement what allied word which impossible. The subordinate clause not only indicates the attribute of the object named by the noun, but also explains the content of the words question, thought, message(from the main clause to the subordinate clause, a case question can be asked). The demonstrative word in the main clause has a different form ( case forms pronouns: question, thought, news about that).

Adverbial clauses

Majority adverbial clauses sentences have the same meanings as the circumstances in a simple sentence, and therefore answer the same questions and, accordingly, are divided into the same types.

Adventitious mode of action and degree

Describe the way an action is performed or the degree of manifestation quality trait and answer questions as? how? in what degree? how much? They depend on the word that performs the function of an adverbial mode of action or degree in the main clause. These subordinate clauses are attached to the main clause in two ways: 1) with the help of allied words how, how much, how much; 2) with the help of unions that, to, as if, exactly, as if, as if.

For example: 1) [The offensive was on as provided at headquarters) (K. Simonov)- [vb + uk.el. as) ( adventitious image actions).

2) [The old woman is the same wanted to repeat my story], (how much do I listen) (A. Herzen)- [vb + uk.el. so many],(how much) (subordinate clause).

Adventitious mode of action and degree can be unambiguous(if they join the main allied words how, how much, how much)(see examples above) and two-digit(if joined by unions; the second value is introduced by the union). For example: 1) [White acacias smelled so strong] (that their sweet, cloying, candy the smell was felt on the lips and in the mouth) (A. Kuprin)-

[uk.sl. So+ adv.], (what) (the meaning of the degree is complicated by the meaning of the consequence, which is introduced into the meaning subordinate union what).

2) [Beautiful the girl must be dressed so that stand out from the environment) (K. Paustovsky)- [cr. + uk.sl. So],(to) (the meaning of the course of action is complicated by the meaning of the goal, which is introduced by the union to).

3) [Everything is small plant So sparkled at our feet], (as if it was really made from crystal) (K. Paustovsky)- [uk.sl. so + vb.], (as if) (the value of the degree is complicated by the value of the comparison, which is introduced by the union as if).

adnexal places

adnexal places indicate the place or direction of action and answer questions where? where? where? They depend on the whole main sentence or on the circumstance of the place in it, expressed by the adverb (there, there, from there, nowhere, everywhere, everywhere etc.), and join the main sentence with the help of allied words where, where, where. For example:

1) [Go the free way], (where entails you free cm)... (A. Pushkin)- , (where).

2) [He wrote everywhere], (where caught his thirst write) (K. Paustovsky)- [nar.], (where).

3) (Where the river went), [there and the channel will] (proverb)-(where), [uk.sl. there ].

adnexal places should be distinguished from other types of subordinate clauses, which can also be attached to the main clause using allied words where, where, where.

Compare: 1) AND [ Tanya enters to an empty house], (where(wherein) lived recently our hero) (A. Pushkin)- [n.], (where) (subordinate definitive).

2) [I_ began to remember], (where walked during the day) (I. Turgenev)- [vb], (where) (subordinate explanatory).

Adventitious time

Adventitious time indicate the time of the action or manifestation of the sign, which is referred to in the main sentence. They answer questions when? how long? since when? How long?, depend on the entire main sentence and join it with temporary unions when, until, as soon as, barely, before, while, until, since, suddenly etc. For example:

1) [When the count is back], (Natasha impolitely rejoiced him and hurried to leave) (L. Tolstoy)- (kog2) (Till does not require poet to the sacred sacrifice of Apollo), [in the cares of the vain world, he cowardly submerged} (A. Pushkin)- (Bye), .

The main sentence can contain demonstrative words then, until then, after and others, as well as the second component of the union (then). If there is a demonstrative word in the main clause then, then when in the subordinate clause is a union word. For example:

1) [I_ sitting until I don't start to feel hunger) (D. Kharms)- [uk.sl. until], (Bye).

2) (When in winter eat fresh cucumbers), [then in the mouth smells spring] (A. Chekhov)- (when), [then].

3) [The poet feels the literal meaning of the word even then], (when gives him in figurative meaning) (S. Marshak)- [uk.sl. then],(when).

Adventitious time must be distinguished from other types of subordinate clauses attached by a union word when. For example:

1) [I_ saw Yalta that year], (when (- wherein) her left Chekhov) (S. Marshak)- [indicative + noun], (when) (subjective definitive).

2) [Korchagin repeatedly asked me] (when he can check out) (N. Ostrovsky)- [vb], (when) (subordinate explanatory).

Subordinate conditions

Subordinate conditions indicate the conditions for the implementation of what is said in the main sentence. They answer the question under what condition? if, if ... then, when (= if), when ... then, if, as soon as, once, in case etc. For example:

1) (If I get sick), [to doctors I won't apply]...(Y. Smelyakov)- (if), .

2) (Once we started talking), [then it's better to finish everything to the end] (A. Kuprin)- (times), [then].

If a conditional clauses stand in front of the main one, then in the latter there may be a second part of the union - then(see 2nd example).

Adventitious targets

Adnexal suggestions goals indicate the purpose of what is being said in the main clause. They refer to the entire main sentence, answer questions why? for what purpose? for what? and join the main with the help of unions so that (to), in order to, so that, then so that, in order (obsolete) etc. For example:

1) [I_ woke up Pashka] (so that he didn't fall off from the road) (A. Chekhov)- , (to);

2) [He used all his eloquence], (so that turn away Akulina from her intention) (A. Pushkin)-, (to);

3)(In order to be happy), [necessary Not only be in love, but also to be loved] (K. Paustovsky)- (in order to), ;

When dismembering a compound union, a simple union remains in the subordinate clause to, and the rest of the words are included in the main sentence, being a demonstrative word and a member of the sentence, for example: [I_ mention about it solely for the purpose] (to emphasize unconditional authenticity of many things Kuprin) (K. Paustovsky)- [uk.sl. for],(to).

Adventitious targets must be distinguished from other types of subordinate clauses with a union to. For example:

1) [I want], (to the bayonet equated pen) (V. Mayakovsky)- [vb], (to) (subordinate explanatory).

2) [Time landings was calculated so], (to the place of landing get into at dawn) (D. Furmanov)- [red.adj. + uk.sl. So],(to) (subordinate modus operandi with an added meaning of purpose).

Adnexal causes

Adnexal suggestions causes reveal (indicate) the reason for what is said in the main sentence. They answer questions why? for what reason? from what?, refer to the entire main clause and join it with the help of unions because, because, since, because, because, because, because, due to the fact that, due to the fact that etc. For example:

1) [Sending her all my tears as a gift], (because not live me before the wedding) (I. Brodsky)- , (because)

2) [Any work is important], (because ennobles person) (L. Tolstoy)- , (because).

3) (Thanks to we set every day new plays), [ theatre ours is quite willing visited] (A. Kuprin)- (thanks to), .

Compound unions, the last part of which is what, can be dismembered: a simple union remains in the subordinate clause what, and the remaining words are included in the main sentence, performing the function of a demonstrative word in it and being a member of the sentence. For example:

[That's why roads to me people], (what live with me on earth) (S. Yesenin)- [uk.sl. because],(what).

Adventitious concessions

In the subordinate concession, an event is reported, in spite of which an action is carried out, an event called in the main clause. In concessive relations, the main sentence reports such events, facts, actions that should not have happened, but nevertheless happen (happened, will happen). Thus, subordinate concessions called as if "non-working" reason. Adventitious concessions answer questions in spite of what? contrary to what? refer to the entire main sentence and join it 1) unions although, although... but, not despite the fact that, despite the fact that, despite the fact that, let, let etc. and 2) allied words in combination with particle nor: no matter how much, no matter what (whatever). For example:

I. one) And (although he was a rake ardent), [but he fell out of love finally, and abuse, and a saber, and lead] (A. Pushkin)- (at least), [but].

Note. In the main clause, in which there is a concessive subordinate clause, there may be a union but.

2) (Let be rose plucked), [she is more blooms] (S. Nadson)- (let be), .

3) [In steppes it was quiet and overcast], (despite what the sun has risen) (A. Chekhov)- , (despite the fact that).

Item 1) (No matter how protected myself Pantelei Prokofievich from all sorts of difficult experiences), [but soon had to endure him a new shock] (M. Sholokhov)- (whatever), [but].

2) [I_, (however would love you), getting used to fall out of love immediately) (A. Pushkin)- [, (however),].

Comparative clauses

The types of adverbial clauses considered above correspond in meaning to the same-named categories of circumstances in a simple sentence. However, there are three types of adjectives (comparative, consequences and connecting), which do not correspond among the circumstances in a simple sentence. General feature complex sentences with these types of subordinate clauses - the impossibility, as a rule, to ask a question from the main clause to the subordinate clause.

In complex sentences with comparative clauses the content of the main clause is compared with the content of the subordinate clause. Comparative clauses refer to the entire main clause and join it with conjunctions like, exactly, as if, buto, as if, like as, as if, than ... asand etc. For example:

1) (As we swarm in the summer midge flies on the flame), [flocked cereals from the yard to the window frame] (K. Pasternak](as), ["].

2) [Small leaves bright and friendly turn green], (as if who them washed up and varnish on them brought) (I. Turgenev)-, (as if).

3) [We threesome started talking], (as if a century whether familiar) (A. Pushkin)- , (as if).

A special group among relative clauses make sentences with conjunction how and double union than... that. Double conjunction clauses than... the have comparative meaning, mutual conditioning of parts. Adverbs with the union how, in addition, they do not refer to everything that is important, but to the word in it, which is expressed by the form comparative degree adjective or adverb.

1) (How less woman we love), [the easier like us her] (A. Pushkin)- (than), [those].

2) [As time went slower] (than clouds were creeping across the sky) (M. Gorky)- [compar. step. out], (than).

Comparative clauses can be incomplete: they omit the predicate if it coincides with the predicate of the main clause. For example:

[Existence his concluded into this cramped program], (as egg in shell) (A. Chekhov)- , (as).

The fact that this is precisely an incomplete two-part sentence is evidenced by minor member predicate groups - into the shell.

Incomplete comparative clauses should not be confused with comparative turns in which there cannot be a predicate.

Adnexal consequences

Adnexal consequences indicate a consequence, a conclusion that follows from the content of the main sentence .

Adnexal consequences refer to the entire main clause, always come after it and join it with a union so.

For example: [ Heat all increased], (so it was getting hard to breathe) (D. Mamin-Sibiryak); [ Snow all became whiter and brighter], (so ached eyes) (M. Lermontov)- , (so).

Adventitious connecting

Adventitious connecting contain additional information, comments on what is reported in the main sentence. Connecting subordinate clauses refer to the entire main clause, always stand after it and are attached to it with allied words what, what, about why, why, why, why and etc.

For example: 1) [Her should not be late to the theatre], (from whatshe is very was in a hurry) (A. Chekhov)- , (from what).

2) [The dew has fallen], (what foreshadowed good weather tomorrow) (D. Mamin-Sibiryak)- , (what).

3) [And the old man Cuckoos n fast allotment glasses, forgetting to wipe them] (what with him for thirty years of official activity never didn't happen) (I. Ilf and E. Petrov)- , (what).

Syntactic analysis of a complex sentence with one subordinate clause

Parsing scheme complex sentence with one adjunct

1. Determine the type of sentence according to the purpose of the statement (narrative, interrogative, incentive).

2. Indicate the type of offer for emotional coloring(exclamatory or non-exclamatory).

3. Determine the main and subordinate clause, find their boundaries.

Draw up a sentence scheme: ask (if possible) a question from the main to the subordinate clause, indicate in the main word on which the subordinate clause depends (if it is conditional), characterize the means of communication (conjunction or allied word), determine the type of the clause (definitive, explanatory, etc.). d.).

An example of parsing a complex sentence with one subordinate clause

1) [In time strong storm turned out rooted high old pine], (why formed this pit) (A. Chekhov).

, (from what).

The sentence is narrative, non-exclamatory, complex with a subordinate clause. The subordinate clause refers to everything main and joins it with an allied word from what.

2) (To be contemporary clear), [all wide open open the poet] (A. Akhmatova).(to), .

The sentence is narrative, non-exclamatory, complex with a subordinate clause of purpose. The adjective answers the question for what purpose?, depends on the entire main clause and joins it with a union so that.

3) [I I love everything], (to which in this world there is no consonance, no echo No) (I. Annensky).[local], (what).

The sentence is narrative, non-exclamatory, complex with a pronoun-defining clause. The adjective answers the question which?, depends on the pronoun all in the main, joins with an allied word what, which is an indirect complement.

In complex sentences of a pronominal-correlative type, the connection between predicative parts is carried out using the ratio of pronouns that are close in meaning (correlative in the main and relative in the subordinate parts): one - who, then - what; such - what, such - what; so - how, so much - how much, so much - how much. The relative clause with a relative pronoun is attached directly to the correlative pronoun in the main one and fills it with its content. Since correlative words in this type of complex sentences retain categorical values various parts speech and corresponding forms, insofar as, filling these pronouns with their content, the subordinate parts, as it were, act as nouns, adjectives, qualitative and quantitative adverbs, that is, as if substantivized, adjectivized, adverbialized (see § 74).
Note. In a number of special studies, pronominal-correlative constructions are qualified as "phrasal nomination" and put on a par with other methods of nomination. For example: a shipbuilder - a builder of ships - a builder of ships - one who builds ships. However, unlike other methods of nomination, pronominal-correlative constructions, firstly, usually do not represent reproducible units and, secondly, adnexa does not lose the quality of a predicative unit, its predicate correlates with the predicate of the main part, that is, the basis of the feature of a complex sentence is polypredicativity.
In pronominal-correlative sentences, not only demonstrative, but also definitive, indefinite and negative pronouns are widely used as correlative ones.
Depending on the categorical affiliation of correlative pronouns and the meaning that subordinate parts receive, all sentences of this type are divided into several groups:

Compound sentences with subordinate parts presented as nouns are built according to the following models: a) the substantiated pronoun that (or anyone, everyone, everything, nobody, someone, etc.) in the main part + who in the subordinate clause (to express the meaning of a person) and b) the substantiated pronoun that (or all, nothing, something, something, etc.) in the main part + that in the subordinate clause (to express non-personal meaning). For example:

a) They overturned those who had already reached the shore, rushed into the water, fought in the middle of the river (A. N. Tolstoy); Everyone who crosses the Muzga will definitely sit at the hut of Uncle Vasya (Paustovsky);
b) But I did what I considered necessary ... (Gorky); It would be necessary to keep a chronicle of human manifestations from year to year - to publish annually a review of everything that has been done by man in the field of his concern for the happiness of all people (Gorky).
Note. The most difficult to qualify are complex sentences in which the subordinate clauses with the correlative substantiated pronoun that are in position with the word that needs explanatory expansion (see § 78), so that favorable conditions arise for the contamination of explanatory-objective and pronominal-correlative constructions. The differences between sometimes substantivized (in pronominal-correlative sentences) and sometimes purely functional (in explanatory-objective) in this case may not be clear enough. Nevertheless, these differences can usually be seen if one remembers that, due to its great specificity, the substantiated that can be replaced or supplemented by the pronoun everything, while the auxiliary that in explanatory-objective sentences cannot be replaced by such a replacement. Wed, for example: I have the right to say about him that (everything, everything) that I think (Gorky); He did not talk about what he was going to do (the first sentence is pronoun-correlative, the second is explanatory-objective).
In addition, the purely auxiliary then in explanatory sentences does not form a stable relationship with the allied word that, as in pronominal-correlative sentences; therefore, the subordinate clause in explanatory-objective sentences can be joined by any allied relative-interrogative word.
Finally, the relative pronoun that in pronominal-correlative sentences is completely devoid of an interrogative connotation.

Compound sentences with subordinate parts - presented as adjectives, are built according to the following model: such (or such) in the main part + what (or what) in the subordinate clause, and this is not an agreed definition with a noun, but plays the role of a nominal part of the predicate or costs when combined transitive verb with a noun in accusative, having the form instrumental. A sign expressed in the subordinate part is thought of as a qualitative one, often with a hint of degree. Along with this, comparative or comparative-similar relations are usually expressed in such sentences. For example: Silence is such as happens only before dawn (Lavrenev); After the meeting, the relationship between the foreman and the workers became what they should be in a healthy team (From the newspapers); Hadji Murad remembered his son the way he saw him for the last time (L. Tolstoy).
Complex sentences with subordinate clauses, presented as qualitative and quantitative adverbs, are built according to the following models:

a) So much + kind. n. noun in the main part + how much in the subordinate clause. For example: Here you will see as much gold as neither you nor Korzh dreamed of (Gogol); There was just as much master in him as needed for lackeys (Bitter).
b) So much (so) + the word of qualitative semantics in the main part + so much (as) in the subordinate clause. For example: She knew life as badly as possible at the age of 20 (Kuprin); This blind man is not as blind as it seems (Lermontov).
c) So + the verb in the main part + as in the subordinate clause. For example: The offensive went as planned at the headquarters (Simonov). In the latter model, the subordinate clause corresponds to a qualitative adverb; in the first two - quantitative.
In complex sentences of the pronominal-correlative type, the presence of correlative words in the main part is constructively necessary. However, in some cases, if the forms of the correlative and relative pronouns coincide and there is syntactic parallelism parts, it is possible to skip the first of them. For example; Who thinks clearly - clearly states (Bitter).
The order of parts in sentences of the pronominal-correlative type is free, and the position of the demonstrative and allied words can be both contact and distant. All this makes it possible to single out both the content of the subordinate clause and main parts. For example: Invite those who are waiting (the most neutral, common construction; the clause stands out in meaning); Invite those who are waiting (neutral construction; main content stands out); Invite those who are waiting (the content of the subordinate part is highlighted expressively); Those who are waiting, invite them (the content of the main part is expressively highlighted).
Free structures. There are two types of non-free pronominal-correlative constructions (see § 69):
a) Constructions with a prepositive subordinate, distant arrangement of correlative and relative pronouns and an intensifying particle and in the main part; the subordinate and main parts are usually built symmetrically. For example: With whom you will lead, from that you will type; What hurt you, so heal; As it comes around, it will respond; Take as much as you want. All such sentences are characterized by comparative-identifying relations.
b) Constructions with a subordinate part, which includes an intensifying particle neither, and a main one with correlative words - definitive or negative pronouns; the adnexal part is more often in preposition. For example: Whatever you ask him, he will answer everything (Turgenev); Whomever we asked, no one could answer us. Such sentences are characterized by an amplifying-comparative meaning with a touch of generalization, and sometimes concessions. Last value becomes the main one in sentences with words no matter how much (no matter how hard I tried to solve the problem, I couldn’t do it). Therefore, such sentences are considered among complex subordinate clauses with concessive clauses (§ 82).
Note. According to the same non-free models, sentences with subordinate places and time, attached by allied words. Wed: Where it is thin, it breaks there; Where does the rain come from, where does the snow come from;
When you come, then we'll talk; Wherever I looked, I could not find anywhere; Whenever you come, it's never there.
Methodological note. AT school course syntax pronominal-correlative constructions as separate type are not considered, and their models are assigned to those types with which they are similar in their meanings.
Pronominal-correlative sentences, built according to the models of one - who and that - that, are considered in the circle of complex sentences with attributive clauses.
Pronominal-correlative sentences built according to models in such a way - as, as much - as, so much - as far as, are considered in the circle of complex subordinate subordinate degrees and mode of action along with pronominal-union correlative sentences (see next paragraph)
Finally, pronominal-correlative constructions with the ratio such - what (such - what) are not considered rare at all.

Compound sentences pronoun-correlative

Complex pronoun-correlative sentences are sentences in which the connection between the predicative parts is based on the ratio of two pronouns or pronominal adverbs that are similar in their semantics: that - that, that - who, such - what, such - what; how much - how much, how much - how much etc. The first pronoun - correlate - is located in the main part, the second acts as a union word. The correlate in sentences of the pronominal-correlative type is constructively obligatory. This rule is strict in book speech, in colloquial speech and in the case of its stylization in literary texts the correlate can be omitted: Who good, not everything works only for itself(I. A. Krylov).

The subordinate part in sentences of the pronominal-correlative type is generally characterized by a non-fixed position: Who loves, that goes to the end(A. Green); Loves the one who teaches(A. M. Gorky).

Complex sentences with a pronominal-correlative clause are characterized by the following features: 1) the pronoun of the main part is constructively obligatory; 2) the subordinate part specifies the meaning of this pronoun, explains its content.

In a sentence He made now terrible, now affectionate and approving eyes, hissed at those who sang incorrectly, and with a barely noticeable trembling of his outstretched palm held back those who were carried away.(Cupr.) accessory part who sang wrong reveals the meaning of the pronoun those in the main part, correlates with it and is impossible without this correlation, because there are no other words that could be defined by this subordinate clause. In complex sentences of the pronominal-correlative type, the connection between the predicative parts is carried out using the ratio of pronouns that are close in meaning (correlative in the main and relative in the subordinate parts): that - who, that - what; such - what, such - what; so - how, so much - how much, so much - how much . Correlative words in a sentence retain the meanings of various parts of speech and, as it were, act as nouns, adjectives, qualitative and quantitative adverbs.

In pronominal-correlative sentences, not only demonstrative, but also definitive, indefinite and negative pronouns are widely used as correlative ones.

The following varieties of complex pronominal-correlative sentences are distinguished:

1. Substantive subtype. Sentences in which correlative pronouns-nouns are used, and the subordinate part is, as it were, substantiated: pronouns that (everyone, everyone, everyone, no one, anyone etc.) in the main part + who in the subordinate: Everyone who crossing the Muzga, he will definitely sit at Uncle Vasya's hut ( Paustovsky); then(everything, nothing, something, something etc.) in the main part + what in the subordinate: But I did what thought it necessary...(Bitter). They are built according to the models [+ to that], (s. p. who), [+k then], (s. p. what), [+k all], (s. p. what), [+k everyone], (s. p. who) and etc.: Everything, that imagined, burned to dust(B. Okudzhava).

2. Adjective subtype. The subordinate parts presented as adjectives are built according to the following model: such(such is) in the main part + which (what) in the subordinate clause. A sign expressed in the subordinate part is thought of as a qualitative one, often with a hint of degree. Along with this, comparative or comparative-similar relations are usually expressed in such sentences: Silence such as happens just before dawn(Lavrenev). Offers are built according to models [+k such], (s. p. which), [+k such is], (s. p. what): Forest such as I haven't seen him for a long time.

AT
Unlike complex sentences pronoun-correlative type in sentences of this type the connection between the main and subordinate parts is carried out not by the ratio of the demonstrative and allied words, but by the ratio of the demonstrative word and the union. In such complex sentences, the subordinate part, filling with its content correlative pronouns so (such), to that, to such an extent, so much, so much, expresses not only the corresponding values of the degree of quality, measure of quantity or mode of action (quality of action), but also the meanings due to allied subordination: consequences (union what), unreal consequences or goals (union to), presumptive comparison with a shade of consequence (unions as if, as if, as if, exactly). For example: Masha squeezed his hand so friendly and tightly that his heart beat with joy (Turgenev); She [Elena] was praised, it was nice. Since then, she tried to do everything so that she was praised (Panova); In my current mood, five minutes is enough for me to get tired of him as if I see and listen to him for an eternity (Chekhov).
Thus, this subtype is characterized by the ambiguity of the subordinate part. Some meanings (degrees of quality, measure of quantity, method or quality of action) depend on the semantics of the demonstrative word in the main part and on its position (whether it is quality adjectives, adverbs, words of the category of state or with verbs, nouns). Other meanings (consequences, goals, comparisons) are related to which union is in the subordinate clause. The first meanings arise as a result of the relation of the subordinate part to the phrases defined in the lexical and grammatical sense in the main part, the second - as a result of the ratio of the content of the entire main part and the entire subordinate clause, which finds its expression in the allied subordination. Therefore, complex sentences of this type occupy an intermediate position between undivided and dissected structural

Compound sentences with conjunction what. For example: And she leaves so quickly that I don’t have time to say goodbye to her (Chekhov); She was so beautiful that no one tried to look after her (Granin); Before that, I suddenly felt ashamed that literally tears flowed down my cheeks (Kuprin) (in all these sentences, subordinate clauses have quantitative value, indicate the degree of quality, filling with their content the correlative words so, so much, before that, standing with the words of qualitative semantics: adverbs (1), adjectives (2), the word of the state category (3); in all these sentences, the subordinate clauses also have the meaning of the consequence, that is, we can say that they denote the degree by indicating the consequence); She cried in such a way that it was not hard to see, although a little sad (Gorky) (in this sentence, the subordinate part fills with its content the correlative word so, standing with the verb, and, like this word, has a qualitative meaning, indicates the mode of action with a touch of degree; of course, in this case, the subordinate clause also expresses a consequence); But at the end of January, such weather came that it became impossible to hunt (Kuprin) (in this sentence, the subordinate part fills with its content the correlative word such, which is attached to the noun, and, like it, has a qualitative, definitive meaning with a touch of degree (cf. : very bad weather); the meaning of the consequence is also clearly manifested in this sentence); Danilov devotes so much time to arranging the train and maintaining the working mood in people that I am ashamed of my idleness (Panov) in front of him (in this sentence, the subordinate part fills with its content the correlative word so much, which is included in the quantitative combination of names for so long, and has the meaning of a measure of quantity and consequence ).
Complex sentences with the union to have the same quantitative and qualitative meanings as sentences with the union what, but these values are expressed not by indicating the real consequence, but by indicating the unreal (possible or desirable) consequence or goal. For example: Her golden pupils darkened, she frowned, shifting her eyebrows, and wiped her lips with a napkin so hard that everyone understood: her lips were not made up (Bitter) (meaning degree and purpose); But Niels said that beautiful girl should be dressed in such a way as to stand out from the environment (Paustovsky) (meaning the quality (image) of action, degree and purpose). Compare: Now it is not so cold to put on a fur coat (qualitative (determinative) meaning, the meaning of the degree and the unreal - a possible, but denied consequence).
Compound sentences with comparative conjunctions as if, as if, as if, exactly, as if they have the same quantitative and qualitative meanings as the sentences considered above with unions what, to, but these meanings are expressed by indicating a presumptive comparison, sometimes with a hint consequences. For example; ... My lady gradually stopped smiling, began suddenly - from amazement, it must be - to look askance, and, moreover, so strangely, as if for the first time she noticed that she had a nose on her face (Turgenev) (the value of the quantity (degree) and comparisons); And all this small plant sparkled so at our feet, as if it were really made of crystal (Paustovsky) (the meaning of quality (mode of action), degree and comparison); There was such steam from the horses, as if they had taken the station (Gogol) without taking a breath (qualitative (definitive) value, the value of degree and comparison).

Note. Allied qualitatively circumstantial sentences are characteristic of living colloquial speech and especially for the language fiction, as they provide ample opportunities for various figurative characteristics. The most common are stylistically neutral constructions with demonstrative words so, such; constructions with words before that have a colloquial connotation, and with a word so much - bookish.
AT spoken language, especially in common speech, it is possible to skip the union while maintaining the demonstrative word. For example: Such darkness - you can’t drill through it with any eye (Paustovsky).
Methodological note. Pronominal-union correlative sentences are considered in the school textbook in the circle of complex sentences with subordinate degrees and mode of action as polysemantic, in contrast to the unambiguous pronominal-correlative sentences considered here. He works as he was told.