Keywords: text, communicative unit, immediately components, hierarchical relations, anti-transitivity


Objective of the study is to identify the hierarchical relations between communicative units that fill the Russian-language text. The object of study is the hierarchy as the sequential inclusion of some syntactic units into the other, more complex ones, the subject is Russian-language texts with syntactic constructions of various rank of hierarchies. The material of the study is twenty Russian-language texts containing communicative units which are built according to different models. Methods – descriptive, structural and quantitative methods were used. Findings:  the sequence of occurrence in the text of predicative formations of varying complexity was revealed. Practical value – is possible in studies of the organization of the text as a syntactic unit. The realities of the language, as is well known, far from always can correspond to canonized judgments, interpretations and formulations, including those stated in official scientific, educational and reference editions. In a super-phrasal unity, there may not be complex sentences, and not only a super-phrasal unity or a complex sentence can function as a text as a syntactic unit, but a sentence can be simple and even a separate word, which can also be a communicative unit under certain conditions. Results: 1) the components of the text are predicative communicative units; 2) the formally expected vector of the hierarchy of communicative units should presumably have the following form: a simple sentence – a complex sentence – a superphrase unity – a text; 3) communicative units of the subsequent hierarchical rank due to their anti-transitivity are not always built directly from the units of the previous and preceding rank; 4) the order of location of the communicative units of different hierarchical levels, that fill the text is not strictly regulated and can be almost spontaneous, with multiple duplication of the same models.


1. Ahmanova, O. S. (1966), Dictionary of Linguistic Terms [Slovar' lingvisticheskih terminov], Mosсow, 608 p.

2. Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Modern Ukrainian Language [Velikij tlumachnij slovnik suchasnoї ukraїns'koї movi], Kyiv, 2005, 1728 p.

3. Glison, G. (1959), The Entrance to the Descriptive Linguistics [Vvedenie v deskriptivnuju lingvistiku], Moskow, 488 p.

4. Science of Information and Computer. Brief Explanatory Dictionary [Іnformatika ta obchisljuval'na tehnіka. Korotkij tlumachnij slovnik], Kyiv, 2000, 320 p.

5. Kondakov, N. I. (1971), Logical Dictionary [Logicheskij slovar'], Mosсow, 656 p.

6. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary [Lingvisticheskij jenciklopedicheskij slovar'], Moskow, 1999, 688 p.

7. Menshikov, І. І. (2002), Sentence as Predicative, Communicative and Functional Unit of Speech [Rechennja jak predikativna, komunіkativna ta funkcіonal'na odinicja movlennja], Dnipropetrovsk, 48 p.

8. Menshikov, I. I. (2003), “Text as a Syntactic Unit”, Herald of Dnipropetrovsk university. Series Linguistics [“Tekst kak sintaksicheskaja edinica”, Vіsnik Dnіpropetrovs'kogo unіversitetu. Serіja Movoznavstva], vip. 9, Dnipropetrovsk, рр. 167–170.

9. Menshikov, I. I. (2016), “Predicative Zone as a Fragment of Speech Cluster and Syntactic Category” Scientific Herald of International Humanitarian University. Series Philology [“Predikativnaja zona kak fragment rechevoj cepi i sintaksicheskaja kategorija”, Naukovij vіsnik Mіzhnarodnogo gumanіtarnogo unіversitetu. Serіja Fіlologіja], № 21, t. 1, Odesa, рр. 17–19.

10. Menshikov, I. I. (2010), “Typology of the Responsive Sentences in the Modern Russian Language (to the Formulation of Problem)” Herald of Dnipropetrovsk university. Series Linguistics [Tipologija responsivnyh predlozhenij v sovremennom russkom jazyke (k postanovke voprosa), Vіsnik Dnіpropetrovs'kogo unіversitetu. Serіja Movoznavstva], t. 18, vip. 16, Dnipropetrovsk, рр. 221–230.

11. Nebeskij, L. (1964), About One Formalization of Sentence Analysis. Mathematical Linguistics [Ob odnoj formalizacii razbora predlozhenija. Matematicheskaja lingvistika], Mosсow, рр. 145–149.

12. Popova, І. S. (2009), Fundamental Categories of the Ukrainian Syntax (Unit, Relation, Model) [Fundamental'nі kategorії vkraїns'kogo sintaksisu (odinicja, zv'jazok, model')], Dnipropetrovsk, 432 p.

13. Pushkin, A. S. (1957), Full Collection of Works in Ten Books [Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v desjati tomah], Mosсow, t. 3, 559 p.

14. Pushkin, A. S. (1957), Full Collection of Works in Ten Books [Polnoe sobranie sochinenij v desjati tomah], Mosсow, t. 5, 639 p.

15. The Russian Grammar [Russkaja grammatika], Mosсow, 1980, t. 2: Syntax [Sintaksis], 710 p.

16. Selіvanova, O. O. (2011), Linguistic Encyclopedia [Lіngvіstichna enciklopedіja], Poltava, 844 p.

17. Starichenok, V. D. (2008), Big Linguistic Dictionary [Bol'shoj lingvisticheskij slovar], Rostov n/D, 811 p.

18. Suima, I. P. (2015), “Responsive Sentences in Dialogical Unity”, Eastern Slavic Philology. Series Linguistics [“Responsivnye predlozhenija v dialogicheskom edinstve”, Shіdnoslov’jans'ka fіlologіja. Ser.: Movoznavstvo], vip. 27. Artemіvs'k, рр. 130–136.

19. Uorf, Bendzhamen L. (1960), “Relation of Norms of Behavior and Thinking to the Language”, New in Linguistics [Otnoshenie norm povedenija i myshlenija k jazyku, Novoe v lingvistike], vyp. 1, Mosсow,

рр. 135–168.
How to Cite
Menshikov, I. (2019). HIERARCHY OF COMMUNICATIVE UNITS IN RUSSIAN-LANGUAGE TEXTS. Problems of General and Slavic Linguistics, (3), 72-81. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15421/251910