Introduction. This article is devoted to the methodology of working on comparative constructions in the process of teaching Russian to foreign students.

The relevance of the work is due to the complexity of the subject of the study and the insufficient attention of scientists to the methodological aspect associated with the difference in comparative turns and comparative subordinates, which causes special difficulties when working with syntactic constructions for foreign students.

The purpose of this article is to consider particular issues arising in the process of teaching Russian to foreign students related to comparative constructions:

The essence of comparative turns and comparative clauses, their similarity and difference;

Punctuation in sentences with comparative turnovers;

Use of comparative constructions in literary texts;

A system of tasks that will allow you to distinguish between comparative turns from comparative relative clauses.

Materials and methods. The material for the study was the literary texts of Russian writers of the 19th-20th centuries, as well as the definitions of marked terms presented in dictionaries of linguistic terms and scientific works of philologists. In the process of work, the techniques of the descriptive method were used: extracting examples from literary texts, observing them, their subsequent analysis from the structural, grammatical and semantic points of view, classifications, conclusions.

Results. The essence, general and specific features of the union comparative turns and subordinate clauses are defined, which make it possible to distinguish them in the process of teaching Russian as a foreign language. A system of tasks has been developed that will contribute not only to the formation of the ability to distinguish between a comparative turn and a relative subordinate clause, but also to introducing students to creative work on a literary text, improving the ability to connect the content of a text with its form.

Discussion. The importance of a critical attitude to definitions of terms that do not have a single interpretation, and the need to attract literary texts for an in-depth understanding of the value of comparative constructions in language and speech are emphasized.

Conclusion. It is concluded that work on comparative constructions with foreign students will give effective results if it is carried out not only when studying the syntax of the Russian language, but also in all classes of the linguistic cycle, as well as in the study of Russian literature.

The essence of the terms “comparative turnover” and “comparative relative clause” is defined;

General and specific signs of comparative turnovers and comparative clauses were noted;

The characteristic of two types of union comparative constructions: figurative and comparative;

Questions about the functions of comparative turns and punctuation in sentences with these turns were considered;

A system of assignments has been developed that will help foreign students distinguish between union comparative turnovers and relative comparative sentences.

1. Shirokova N.A.  (1960), Tipy` sintaksicheskix konstrukcij so sravnitel`ny`m soyuzom v sostave prostogo predlozheniya [Types of syntactic constructions with a comparative Union as part of a simple sentence]. Izdatel'stvo Kazanskogo universiteta, Kazan’, 155 p. (In Russian).

2. Rudnev A.G. (1968), Sintaksis sovremennogo russkogo yazy`ka [Syntax of modern Russian language]. Vy`sshaya shkola, Moscow, 390 р.  (In Russian).

3. Cheremisina M.I. (1976), Sravnitel`ny`e konstrukcii russkogo yazy`kа [Comparative constructions of the Russian language]. Nauka, Novosibirsk, 270 p. (In Russian).

4. Sady`xova S.A. (2011), K probleme sravnitel`ny`x konstrukcij v russkom yazy`ke [On the problem of comparative constructions in the Russian language]. Ucheny`e zapiski Tavricheskogo nacional`nogo universiteta im. V.I. Vernadskogo, Seriya “Filologiya. Social`ny`e kommunikacii”, 24 (63), 3, 300–304. (In Russian).

5. Ly`tkina G.V. (2016), Sravnitel`ny`e konstrukcii v russkom yazy`ke: logiko-lingvisticheskij aspekt [Comparative constructions in the Russian language: logical-linguistic aspect]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy` teorii i praktiki, 16 (60), 115–119. DOI: 10.26907/2074-0239-2019-57-3-218-223 (In Russian).

6. Gak V.G. (1988), Russkij yazyk v sopostavlenii s francuzskim yazykom (uchebnoe posobie dlya studentov-inostrancev) [Russian language in comparison with the French language (Study guide for foreign students)]. Russkij yazyk, Moscow, 263 р. (In Russian).

7. Aleshin A.S. (2011), Ustojchivye sravneniya shvedskogo yazyka, harakterizuyushchie cheloveka (lingvokul'turologicheskij aspekt) (avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskaniye uchenoy stepeni kandidata filologicheskikh nauk) [Sustainable comparisons of the Swedish language characterizing a person (linguoculturological aspect) (Abstract of dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences)]. St. Petersburg, 24 р. (In Russian).

8. Yuj Fenin (2016), Ustojchivye sravneniya, harakterizuyushchie lico cheloveka, v russkoj yazykovoj kartine mira (na fone kitajskogo yazyka) (avtoreferat dissertatsii na soiskaniye uchenoy stepeni kandidata filo-logicheskikh nauk) [Stable comparisons characterizing a person’s face in the Russian language picture of the world (against the background of the Chinese language) (Abstract of dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sci-ences)]. St. Petersburg, 24 р. (In Russian).