Comparison of Approaches to the Systematization and Presentation of Punctuation Rules in Compound Sentences in Two Sources (“Rules of Russian Orthography and Punctuation” 1956 and “Rules of Russian Orthography and Punctuation: Complete Academic Handbook”)

Ni Xuejiao ORCID: 0009-0002-2049-1786 PhD in Philology Postgraduate student; Department of Russian Language; Shenzhen MSU-BIT University (Shenzhen, China); Lomonosov Moscow State University (Moscow, Russia) 7 Kravchenko str., Moscow, 119415, Russia, sq. 7 1539428372@qq.com

Introduction

Russian Russian Spelling and Punctuation Code of 1956 (hereinafter – the "Rules-1956") approved by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the Ministry of Higher Education of the USSR and the Ministry of Education of the RSFSR, is the first official set of rules that put an end to the discrepancy in spelling and the use of punctuation marks in Russian written speech. It became the basis for educational and publishing activities, reflecting the desire for normalization and stability of the language.

The Code of "Rules of Russian Spelling and Punctuation: a Complete Academic Handbook" 2006 (hereinafter – PAS) clarifies previously existing formulations and adds regulations for new linguistic phenomena. Unlike the 1956 set of rules, the PAS includes not only the rules themselves, but also their scientific comments reflecting the modern level of linguistics.

These two sets represent the key stages in the development of the Russian written language. Their comparison helps to understand how the requirements for the use of punctuation have changed, to identify the problems and difficulties that users face when interpreting and applying rules in a modern language.

The purpose of this research work is to identify differences in the rules of punctuation presented in the "Rules–1956" and PACe. The study is aimed at comparing the composition and wording of the rules, as well as illustrative material related to punctuation in compound sentences (SSPs) in these codes.

In the "Rules-1956", the rules of punctuation in the SSP are set out in paragraphs §131, §136, §137, §138 and §169, the total length of the text is 4,175 characters without spaces. In PACE, the section on punctuation marks in the SSP is placed on pages 280 to 284 and contains 7,011 characters without spaces. The relevant rules are presented in paragraphs 112, 113 and 114, which follow sequentially, which facilitates their study. It is important to note that PACe provides 57 examples, while the 1956 Rules contain 32 examples, which is almost half as many.

Scientific works devoted to punctuation consider various aspects, such as the use of punctuation marks in different types of sentences, their functions in conveying meaning and intonation, as well as the historical development of punctuation rules. However, relatively little research has been devoted to the analysis of the composition and wording of punctuation rules. B. S. Schwarzkopf in his study notes that the high degree of codification of punctuation practice does not correspond to the level of its theoretical development ^[10]. In the work "Changes in Russian spelling and punctuation in the XXI century." ^[4] T. V. Moseychuk, V. V. Dadkova and N. N. Taranova described changes in the composition of the punctuation system of PAS compared to the "Rules-1956": the boundaries of the use of dashes and ellipses were expanded, a tendency to replace the colon with a dash was revealed, and Clarifications are also given on the use of other punctuation marks.

An analysis of the punctuation rules in the SSP in two selected sources revealed the following six parameters by which they can be compared:

1. Grouping of all punctuation rules;

2. Terms used in the formulation of the rules;

3. Formulation and design of punctuation rules in the SSP

4. (Not) compliance of the examples with the wording of the rules;

5. (Non)correspondence between rules within the same source;

6. Completeness of accounting for exceptions and complex cases.

The main part

1. The ruppling of all punctuation rules

All punctuation rules in the "Rules-1956" are grouped by types of punctuation marks, and not by syntactic constructions. This means that in order to find the punctuation rules in the SSP, the user needs to refer to all the sections devoted to specific punctuation marks. This approach requires the user to study a large amount of text and makes it difficult to use the rules, since it is necessary not only to determine where the punctuation mark is placed, but also which sign should be used.

In addition, the punctuation rules in the SSP are not arranged sequentially, but are scattered in different paragraphs (in §131, §136, §137, §138 and §169), which further complicates their perception and application.

The main part of the punctuation rules in PACE is rigidly tied to the syntactic structure of the sentence: these are signs of the end of a sentence; signs separating parts of a complex sentence; signs indicating syntactic uniformity; signs highlighting groups of words with a clearly fixed location (for example, a participial phrase standing after the word being defined). The rules of punctuation in PACe are grouped by syntactic constructions. In this regard, he follows the tradition adopted in many other punctuation manuals, such as the works of K. I. Bylinsky and N. N. Nikolsky ^[2], the manuals of D. E. Rosenthal ^[8], N. M. Pipchenko ^[5] and others. Despite the fact that all manuals after 1956 and before 2006 are based on the "Rules-1956", their structuring is also carried out according to the syntactic principle. For example, D. E. Rosenthal notes in his manual that "the material is classified according to the syntactic principle and is accompanied by instructions on the types of punctuation marks" ^{[8, p. 200]}. N. S. Valgina notes that "in any case, most of the rules for the placement of signs in modern texts are formulated on the basis of syntactic structure" ^{[3, p. 240]}. Obviously, this order of rules is more convenient for the user, because it allows you to quickly find the right punctuation mark in a specific syntactic structure.

2. Terms used in the formulation of the rules

The condemned group of rules describes the punctuation marks in compound sentences (SSPs), which are one of the types of complex sentences. In the two compared codes, different terms are used to denote these constructions, which affects the perception and application of the rules.

1) Names of the structure as a whole

The 1956 Rules and PACe use different terminology to describe compound sentences. An important definition of SSP is contained in the Dictionary of Linguistic Terms by O. S. Akhmanova: "A compound sentence is a type of complex sentence characterized by syntactic equality of its constituent interdependent units, united rhythmically and preserving relative independence, despite their close semantic connectedness with each other" ^{[1, pp. 429-430]}. On the other hand, in the textbook "Modern Russian Language" by D. E. Rosenthal, I. B. Golub and M. A. Telenkova, a simpler definition is given: "A compound sentence is a complex sentence, the parts of which are interconnected by compositional unions" ^{[9, p. 379]}.

In PACE, the term compound sentence is used consistently and is fixed in the title of the corresponding section: "Punctuation marks in a compound sentence" ^{[7, p. 280]}.

In the "Rules-1956" such constructions are described more generally. Instead of the term compound sentence, the following description is used: "A comma is placed between sentences combined into one complex sentence through repeated conjunctions and ... and, neither...neither, or...or, etc." ^{[6, p. 40]}.

The differences in terminology between the two sets have a significant impact on the usability of the rules:

In the "Rules-1956", the term complex sentence covers different types of sentences, without distinguishing the complex sentences separately. This can lead to difficulties in understanding the rules and increases the likelihood of errors in their application, since the user needs to independently determine which type this design belongs to.

In PACE, using the exact term compound sentence makes it easier to understand the rules. This terminology allows the user to navigate the material faster and reduces the risk of errors, since the design immediately receives a clear definition.

Thus, differences in approaches to naming SSPs affect the convenience of working with the rules. PAS provides a more structured and understandable way of presenting the material, which contributes to better assimilation and practical application of the rules.

2) Names of parts of compound sentences

The two sets of rules use different terms to refer to parts of compound sentences (SSPs), which reflects differences in approaches to their systematization.

In the "Rules-1956" in paragraph §137 of the SSP part, they are described as "sentences combined into one complex sentence by means of conjunctions and, yes (in the meaning of "and"), yes and, or, or, as well as conjunctions a, and, yes (in the meaning of "but")" ^{[6, p. 40]}. In this case, the parts of the SSP are treated as separate sentences, which combines them with other complex structures. However, this approach does not distinguish them as specific parts of the SSP, which may complicate the perception and application of the rules.

PACe uses a more precise and narrow term for parts of a compound sentence. The rules state: "A comma is placed between the parts of a compound sentence" ^{[7, p. 280]}. This term emphasizes that each sentence within the SSP is part of a single complex structure, which facilitates the perception and application of punctuation rules.

Thus, the differences in the terminology of the two sets affect the understanding of the structure of the SSP. In the 1956 Rules, the use of the term sentences combines SSPs with other types of complex sentences, which can make it difficult to perceive their features. In PACE, the term parts of a compound sentence emphasizes the internal structure of the SSP, which contributes to a more accurate understanding and application of the rules.

3) Names of means of communication of parts

Compound sentences (SSPs) use different types of conjunctions, which determine the punctuation marks. The 1956 Rules and PACe apply two classifications of unions: formal and semantic, while the terms subordination and composition are not used.

However, both sets lack clear definitions of these terms. The PASS combines both classifications, which makes it more versatile. The user can quickly navigate the rules thanks to the semantic classification, which is tied to the meaning of the constructions. The formal classification helps to more accurately identify the use of repetitive and single conjunctions, which reduces the likelihood of errors in punctuation marks.

3. Formulation and design of punctuation rules in the SSP

1) Open and closed lists of unions

An important difference between the two sets is the way unions are presented:

In the "Rules-1956", the use of open lists gives the user more freedom, allowing you to add other unions, but this can lead to errors and discrepancies. In PACE, closed lists ensure accuracy, but limit the possibility of variable use of unions.

2) Syntactic explanation of the examples

In the "Rules-1956" there are no detailed explanations on the structure of complex examples, whereas in PACE such explanations are present, which helps users avoid mistakes when placing punctuation marks. Examples of complex cases are provided with specific explanations on how to understand the structure of a sentence and apply punctuation rules.

An example from paragraph 3 of paragraph 112 of the PASs: "And the blue smoke, and the vague anxiety of the first meetings, and the shawl thrown over the shoulders, the state house and the long road (Sim.) (in the last part — the state house and the long road — there is no comma, since this part is perceived as a single whole; the repetition of the union was interrupted before the part of the state house)."

An example from paragraph 114 of the PASS: "Who knows how long you will have to stay in the taiga, and all the time you will be behind Grinka and his comrades (Shuksh.) — a comma closes the subordinate part of the sentence, and a dash separates the parts of a compound sentence."

These explanations help the user to understand the logic of punctuation marks in complex sentences. Pointing out the syntactic role of the parts and explaining the absence or presence of signs contributes to the accurate application of the rules. Since there are no such explanations in the "Rules-1956", it is more difficult for users to interpret such cases independently, which can lead to errors.

3) Comparison of the design of the rules and examples in PACE and the "Rules-1956"

The ways of formatting the rules in the two sets differ, which affects the perception and usability.

PAS uses color and font accents, which facilitates the perception of the text and speeds up the search for the necessary information. "Rules-1956", on the contrary, use only italics to highlight elements, which makes the design uniform, but complicates perception and navigation through the text.

4. (Not) compliance of the examples with the wording of the rules

During the analysis, both correspondences and inconsistencies between the examples and the formulations of the rules were revealed, which may complicate their application. Some of the examples provided in the rules do not fully correspond to the wording, which creates uncertainty for users.

1) Recurring conjunctions

In §136 of the "Rules-1956" it is stated: "A comma is placed between sentences combined into one complex sentence by means of repeated conjunctions and ... and, neither... neither, or... or, etc.". The examples given in this paragraph demonstrate the use of the conjunctions "and ... and", "neither... neither " and " or... or":

- "And everything is sick, and my head is spinning, and the boys are bloody in my eyes..." (Pushkin);

- "Neither the sun is visible to me, nor there is no space for my roots, nor freedom for the breezes around me" (Krylov);

- "Or the plague will pick me up, or the frost will ossify, or an unruly invalid will slap a barrier into my forehead" (Pushkin).

In this case, the union "il" is presented as an outdated version of the union "or", which is typical for literary texts. However, an important observation is that the Pushkin example uses the repeated conjunction "or... or " three times, whereas the wording of the rule implies a repetition of two elements (for example, "neither... neither "or "and... and"). The 1956 Rules do not specify that the number of repetitions can be more than two, which may confuse users who are not familiar with this use of repeated conjunctions. This creates uncertainty and can lead to punctuation errors.

2) The example of separation unions in PACE

In §112 of the PASS, the separative conjunctions are presented: "or", "either", "whether...or ", " whether... either", "or... whether", "that... that", "not that... That's not it." However, in the example from this paragraph, there is a more complex construction "li ... li... or", which is not mentioned in the wording of the rules:

- "Whether the ringing of city and monastery bells was heard through the open windows, whether a peacock was shouting in the courtyard, or someone was coughing in the hall, it involuntarily occurred to everyone that Mikhail Ilyich was seriously ill."

Although such constructions can be logically related to the unions indicated in the list (for example, "li ...l and" and "li... or"), the absence of a direct mention of the triple construction causes difficulties for the user, who expects strict compliance of the examples with the rules.

3) The problem of the union "either... either"

The Union "either... either" is not included in the formulations and examples in either the 1956 Rules or PACe, which creates uncertainty about its use. In terms of open lists of "Rules-1956", the user can assume that "either... either" obeys the same rules as other recurring conjunctions (for example, "or... or"). However, the absence of a direct mention of it may cause difficulties in applying the rules.

In PACE, closed lists impose stricter restrictions: only those unions that are explicitly specified in the rules are considered normative. This gives the impression that "either... or" does not follow the general rules for separative unions, which can cause difficulties in choosing the correct punctuation.

The absence of a union "either... either" in both sets highlights the discrepancy between real language practice and normative formulations. Since this conjunction is actively used in modern language, its exclusion from the rules reduces their relevance to users and creates the feeling that not all possible language constructions are taken into account.

5. (Non)consistency between rules within the same source

The 1956 Rules and PACe reveal contradictions between different formulations of the rules, which makes it difficult to use them.

These formulations create uncertainty: what should I do if both situations are present at the same time — a close connection and the presence of commas? The rules do not give clear instructions on which criteria should be considered a priority. Another problem is that the term close semantic connection is not disclosed in the text of the rules. It is unclear to the user by what criteria to determine this relationship. This uncertainty makes it difficult to choose a punctuation mark in real situations and creates a risk of errors.

The main problems

1. The intersection of criteria: it is unclear what is more important — the close connection between the parts or their prevalence and the presence of commas.

2. Lack of definition of a close connection: it is difficult for the user to understand how to recognize a close semantic connection and what to do if both conditions meet.

Thus, there is uncertainty in both sets of rules. These contradictions make it difficult to choose between a comma and a semicolon and can lead to errors when using the rules.

6. Completeness of accounting for exceptions and complex cases

After analyzing the contradictions in the rules within a single source, it is important to pay attention to the consideration of exceptions and complex cases in their application. Exceptions are situations where punctuation marks are placed contrary to the basic rule. For example, the general rule of PAS says: "A comma is placed between the parts of a compound sentence." However, section112 of the PASS lists five exceptions when the comma is not placed. These exceptions differ from those set out in the 1956 Rules, which highlights the differences in approaches to the formulation of the rules.

1) Exceptions in the "Rules-1956"

In the 1956 Rules, accounting for exceptions plays an important role in the correct punctuation of punctuation marks. Although the punctuation rules for compound sentences (SSPs) are scattered in different paragraphs (§131, §137 and §169), the notes at the end of these paragraphs help the user navigate and find exceptions.

Examples:

- Note to section137:

"A comma before the conjunctions "and", "yes" (in the meaning of "and"), "or", "or" is not put if the sentences they connect have a common minor term or a common subordinate clause."

This explanation helps the user understand that in certain cases, when two sentences are connected by a common element, a comma is not required, despite the use of compositional conjunctions.

- Notes to §131 and §169:

These notes clarify that the choice between a comma and a semicolon depends on the prevalence of sentences and the presence of commas inside them. For example, if sentences contain internal commas, a semicolon is placed between them.

In addition, some paragraphs contain cross-references to other sections at the end, which directs the user to additional explanations.

Example:

Section 137 states: "A comma is placed between sentences combined into one complex sentence by means of conjunctions and, or, yes (in the meaning of "and")." At the end of the paragraph, a recommendation is added: "If difficulties arise, see also sections138 and 169 for additional instructions on setting commas and semicolons."

Thus, the 1956 Rules, despite their fragmentary presentation, offer flexibility through cross-references and notes. This compensates for the fragmented presentation and helps to avoid mistakes when parsing complex sentences.

2) New exceptions in PACe

PAS provides a more detailed description of exceptions, which makes the rules adapted to different syntactic situations. One example is note 1 to §114, which discusses the use of a comma and a dash as a single punctuation mark:

"A comma and a dash are used to emphasize a sharp contrast or unexpected addition of the second part of a sentence."

This norm is absent in the "Rules-1956", which emphasizes the novelty and evolution of punctuation norms. However, its application raises questions:

- When to use a combination of comma and dash?

The rules do not specify specific cases when this combination is appropriate in the MTSP, which may make it difficult to choose.

- When to consider a combination as a single punctuation mark?

Clarification is required on how to interpret the comma and dash as a single sign or as two separate ones. Such uncertainty can lead to errors if the user does not understand in which situations this combination is acceptable.

Thus, the PASS introduces new rules, but leaves some points not fully defined, which can cause difficulties for users. Unlike PACE, the 1956 Rules do not contain such structures, which limits their flexibility, but increases the predictability of their application.

Clarification of the new rules, especially those related to the combination of commas and dashes, is necessary to prevent confusion and ensure the correct use of punctuation marks in compound sentences.

Conclusion

A comparative analysis of the punctuation rules in compound sentences presented in the "Rules-1956" and PACe revealed several key differences affecting the convenience and accuracy of their application. The main differences relate to the structure and grouping of rules, the use of terminology, the completeness of examples, as well as flexibility and consistency of wording.

In the Rules 1956, the rules of punctuation are distributed by types of punctuation marks, which makes it difficult to find information and requires studying a large volume of text. In PACe, on the contrary, the rules are grouped by syntactic constructions, which simplifies the perception of the material and speeds up its application.

Differences in the terminology of the two sets also affect the perception and application of the rules. In PACe, the terms more accurately reflect the structure of sentences and their parts, while the "Rules-1956" use more generalized formulations, which can lead to difficulties in interpretation.

An important difference is the use of open and closed lists of unions. The 1956 Rules allow for flexibility through open lists, whereas the PAS restricts their application by introducing closed lists. This increases the accuracy of the rules, but reduces their variability.

The PACe examples are presented in greater volume and are accompanied by more detailed explanations, which simplifies their use. There are fewer examples in the 1956 Rules, and they do not always correspond to the wording of the rules, which can create difficulties for users.

PACe uses flexible verb constructions ("can stand", "not put", "separated"), which take into account the context and allow for more precise application of the rules in various situations. The 1956 Rules are dominated by strict prescriptive language, which makes the rules more unambiguous, but less flexible.

Visualization in PACe using color and font accents improves the perception of the material and facilitates its study. The "Rules-1956" uses a traditional design, which can make it difficult to find the necessary information.

Thus, PAS provides a more flexible and detailed approach to the presentation of punctuation rules, which simplifies their use and reduces the likelihood of errors. At the same time, the 1956 Rules offer a stricter structure and unambiguous formulations, which increases the stability of application, but limits variability. The differences between the two sets highlight the evolution of approaches to the use of Russian punctuation and reflect their different effects on the understanding and practical application of the rules by users.