MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic structure

of words. It follows from this that morphology as part of grammatical theory faces the two segmental units: the morpheme and the word. But, as we have already pointed out, the morpheme is not identified otherwise than part of the word; the functions of the morpheme are effected only as the corresponding constituent functions of the word as a whole. For instance, the form of the verbal past tense is built up by means of the dental grammatical suffix: train-ed [-d]; publish-ed [-t]; meditat-ed [-id]. However, the past tense as a definite type of grammatical meaning is expressed not by the dental morpheme in isolation, but by the verb (i.e. word) taken in the corresponding form (realised by its morphemic composition); the dental suffix is immediately related to the stem of the verb and together with the stem constitutes the temporal correlation in the paradigmatic system of verbal categories Thus, in studying the morpheme we actual study the word in the necessary details or us composition and functions. In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional (the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones) and semantic or functional (the correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the word). The combination of these two criteria in an integral description has led to the rational classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research linguistic work and in practical lingual tuition. In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided into root-morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). The roots express the concrete, "material" part of the meaning of the word, while the affixes express the specificational part of the meaning of the word, the specifications being of lexico-semantic and grammatico-semantic character. The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes. The affixal morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and inflexions (in the tradition of the English school grammatical inflexions are commonly referred to as "suffixes"). Of these, prefixes and lexical suffixes have word-building functions, together with the root they form the stem of the word; inflexions (grammatical suffixes) express different morphological categories. The root, according to the positional content of the term (i.e. the border-area between prefixes and suffixes), is obligatory for any word, while affixes are not obligatory. Therefore one and the same morphemic segment of functional (i.e. non-notional) status, depending on various morphemic environments, can in principle be used now as an affix (mostly, a prefix), now as a root. Cf.: out a root-word (preposition, adverb, verbal postposition, adjective, noun, verb); throughout a composite word, in which -out serves as one of the roots (the categorial status of the meaning of both morphemes is the same); outing a two-morpheme word, in which out is a root, and -ing is a suffix; outlook, outline, outrage, out-talk, etc. words, in which out- serves as a prefix; look-out, knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. words (nouns), in which -out serves as a suffix. The morphemic composition of modern English words has a wide range of varieties; in the lexicon of everyday speech the preferable morphemic types of stems are root-stems (one-root stems or two-root stems) and one-affix stems. With grammatically changeable words, these stems take one grammatical suffix {two "open" grammatical suffixes are used only with some plural nouns in the possessive case, cf.: the children's toys, the oxen's yokes). Thus, the abstract complete morphemic model of the common English word is the following: prefix + root + lexical suffix+grammatical suffix. The syntagmatic connections of the morphemes within the model form two types of hierarchical structure. The first is characterised by the original prefixal stem (e.g. prefabricated), the second is characterised by the original suffixal stem (e.g. inheritors). If we use the symbols St for stem, R for root, Pr for prefix, L for lexical suffix, Gr for grammatical suffix, and, besides, employ three graphical symbols of hierarchical grouping braces, brackets, and parentheses, then the two morphemic word-structures can be presented as follows: W1 = {[Pr + (R + L)] +Gr}; W2 = {[(Pr + R) +L] + Gr} In the morphemic composition of more complicated words these model-types form different combinations. [p'lsm] In cases of polysemy and homonymy, two or more units of the plane of content correspond to one unit of the plane of expression. For instance, the verbal form of the present indefinite (one unit in the plane of expression) polysemantically renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, action at the present moment, action taken as a general truth (several units in the plane of content). The morphemic material element -s/-es (in pronunciation [-s, -z, -iz]), i.e. one unit in the plane of expression (in so far as the functional semantics of the elements is common to all of them indiscriminately), homonymically renders the grammatical meanings of the third person singular of the verbal present tense, the plural of the noun, the possessive form of the noun, i.e. several units of the plane of content. THE PARTS OF SPEECH PROBLEM. WORD CLASSES In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated according to three criteria: semantic, formal and functional. This approach may be defined as complex. The semantic criterion presupposes the grammatical meaning of the whole class of words (general grammatical meaning). The formal criterion reveals paradigmatic properties: relevant grammatical categories, the form of the words, their specific inflectional and derivational features. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic function of words in the

sentence and their combinability. Thus, when characterizing any part of speech we are to describe: a) its semantics; b) its morphological features; c) its syntactic peculiarities. The linguistic evidence drawn from our grammatical study makes it possible to divide all the words of the language into: a) those denoting things, objects, notions, qualities, etc. words with the corresponding references in the objective reality notional words; b) those having no references of their own in the objective reality; most of them are used only as grammatical means to form up and frame utterances function words, or grammatical words.

It is commonly recognized that the notional parts of speech are nouns, pronouns, numerals, verbs, adjectives, adverbs; the functional parts of speech are articles, particles, prepositions, conjunctions and modal words.
The division of language units into notion and function words reveals the interrelation of lexical and grammatical types of meaning. In notional words the lexical meaning is predominant. In function words the grammatical meaning dominates over the lexical one. However, in actual speech the border line between notional and function words is not always clear cut. Some notional words develop the meanings peculiar to function words - e.g. seminotional words to turn, to get, etc. Notional words constitute the bulk of the existing word stock while function words constitute a smaller group of words. Although the number of function words is limited (there are only about 50 of them in Modern English), they are the most frequently used units. Generally speaking, the problem of words classification into parts of speech is far from being solved. Some words cannot find their proper place. The most striking example here is the class of adverbs. Some language analysts call it a ragbag, a dustbin (Frank Palmer), Russian academician V.V.Vinogradov defined the class of adverbs in the Russian language as . It can be explained by the fact that to the class of adverbs belong those words that cannot find their place anywhere else. At the same time, there are no grounds for grouping them together either. Compare: perfectly (She speaks English perfectly) and again (He is here again). Examples are numerous (all temporals). There are some words that do not belong anywhere - e.g. after all. Speaking about after all it should be mentioned that this unit is quite often used by native speakers, and practically never by our students. Some more striking examples: anyway, actually, in fact. The problem is that if these words belong nowhere, there is no place for them in the system of words, then how can we use them correctly? What makes things worse is the fact that these words are devoid of nominative power, and they have no direct equivalents in the Ukrainian or Russian languages. Meanwhile, native speakers use these words subconsciously, without realizing how they work. The parts of speech are classes of words, all the members of these classes having certain characteristics in common which distinguish them from the members of other classes. The problem of word classification into parts of speech still remains one of the most controversial problems in modern linguistics. The attitude of grammarians with regard to parts of speech and the basis of their classification varied a good deal at different times. Only in English grammarians have been vacillating between 3 and 13 parts of speech. There are four approaches to the problem: 1. Classical (logical-inflectional) 2. Functional 3. Distributional 4. Complex The classical parts of speech theory goes back to ancient times. It is based on Latin grammar. According to the Latin classification of the parts of speech all words were divided dichotomically into declinable and indeclinable parts of speech. This system was reproduced in the earliest English grammars. The first of these groups, declinable words, included nouns, pronouns, verbs and participles, the second indeclinable words adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections. The logical-inflectional classification is quite successful for Latin or other languages with developed morphology and synthetic paradigms but it cannot be applied to the English language because the principle of declinability/indeclinability is not relevant for analytical languages. A new approach to the problem was introduced in the XIX century by Henry Sweet. He took into account the peculiarities of the English language. This approach may be defined as functional. He resorted to the functional features of words and singled out nominative units and particles. To nominative parts of speech belonged noun-words (noun, noun-pronoun, noun-numeral, infinitive, gerund), adjective-words (adjective, adjective-pronoun, adjective-numeral, participles), verb (finite verb, verbals gerund, infinitive, participles), while adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection belonged to the group of particles. However, though the criterion for classification was functional, Henry Sweet failed to break the tradition and classified words into those having morphological forms and lacking morphological forms, in other words, declinable and indeclinable. A distributional approach to the parts to the parts of speech classification can be illustrated by the classification introduced by Charles Fries. He wanted to avoid the traditional terminology and establish a classification of words based on distributive analysis, that is, the ability of words to combine with other words of different types. At the same time, the lexical meaning of words was not taken into account. According to Charles Fries, the words in such sentences as 1. Woggles ugged diggles; 2. Uggs woggled diggs; and 3. Woggs diggled uggles are quite evident structural signals, their position and combinability are enough to classify them into three word-classes. In this way, he introduced four major classes of words and 15 form-classes. Let us see how it worked. Three test frames formed the basis for his analysis: Frame A - The concert was good (always); Frame B - The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly); Frame C The team went there. It turned out that his four classes of words were practically the same as traditional nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. What is really valuable in Charles Fries classification is his investigation of 15 groups of function words (form-classes) because he was the first linguist to pay attention to some of their peculiarities. All the classifications mentioned above appear to be one-sided because parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of only one aspect of the word: either its meaning or its form, or its function.

PROBLEMS OF FIELD STRUCTURE The problem of the interrelation between grammar and vocabulary is most complex. If the question arises about the relationship between grammar and vocabulary we generally think of grammar as a closed system, i. e. consisting of a limited number of elements making up this system. The grammatical system of a language falls into subsystems, such as for instance, parts of speech, conjugated verb-forms, prepositions, affixes, etc., in other words, the classes of linguistic units whose exhaustive inventory can be made up as a whole. Vocabulary on the contrary is not so closed in its character. When we say that grammar is a closed system, we do not certainly mean that grammar is separated from vocabulary. On the contrary, the grammatical system breaks up into subsystems just owing to its relations with vocabulary, and the unity of lexico-semantic groups is supported by the unity of grammatical forms and meaning of the words of each group. Grammar and vocabulary are organically related and interdependent but they do not lie on one plane. As a bilateral unity of form and content grammar always retains the categories underlying its system. In actual speech linguistic units of different levels come to correlate as similar in function. The study of the ways in which languages manage to provide different devices to express a given communicative meaning is one of the most fruitful directions of research receiving increasing attention in modern linguistics. It is on this level of linguistic analysis that we coordinate and deepen our grasp of the language as system. What is expressed by morphological forms may find its expression in lexical devices, or, say, in syntactic structures. Such is the grammatical treatment of the category of modality in the Russian language made by V. V. Vinogradov who identifies modality as a linguistic category expressed by syntactic, morphological and lexical means 1. Correlation in occurrence of different linguistic units in one semantic field makes it possible to suggest that there are certain regularities of their functioning in language activity. It will be emphasised, in passing, that different linguistic units expressing a common meaning are not quite identical in their semantic value and do not go absolutely parallel in language activity. They rather complete each other. The concept of field structure in grammar is not something quite novel in linguistic studies. The eminent historian of the French language F. Brunot proposed in his time to teach French grammar by starting from within, from the thoughts to be expressed, instead of from the forms 1. Related to this is h. ll's concept with emphasis laid on the logical categories and extra-linguistic relations involved in his observations 2. L.V. erba showed a better judgement making distinction between the two aspects of studying syntax: passive and active. The starting point of the former is the form of the word and its meaning. Language is thus studied from within as system. The concept of the active aspect is essentially different. Identifying notional categories I.I. Meshchaninov lays special emphasis on their linguistic nature which should never be lost sight of3. In his philosophical discussion of notional categories O. Jespersen first recognises that beside the syntactic categories which depend on the structure of each language as it is actually found, there are some extralingual categories which are independent of the more or less accidental facts of existing languages; they are universal in so far as they are applicable to all languages, though rarely expressed in them in a clear and unmistakable way. But then he goes on to say, that some of them relate to such facts of the world without as sex, others to mental states or to logic, but for want of a better common name for these extralingual categories he uses the adjective notional and the substantive notion. In other departments it is impossible to formulate two sets of terms, one for the world of reality or universal logic, and one for the world of grammar, and O. Jespersen is thus led to recognise that the two worlds should always be kept apart 4. In finding out what categories to recognise as notional, O. Jespersen points out that these are to have a linguistic significance. O. Jespersen develops this idea further. The specimens of his treatment given in the Philosophy of Grammar present a preliminary sketch of a notional comparative grammar, starting from (notion or inner meaning) and examining how each of the fundamental ideas common to all mankind is expressed in various languages, thus proceeding through (function) to A (form). Linguistic observations in terms of field structure are of undoubted theoretical interest and have a practical value as relevant to comparative studies of various languages. Important treatments of the field-theory have been made by A. V. ndark in his studies of the Russian language. The starting point of his analysis is the principle from meaning to form. Due attention is drawn to functional

transpositions of verb-forms and suspension of oppositions in different syntactic environments. Problems of field-structure in German are discussed in E. V. Guliga, E. I. Shendels'1 work where we also find acute observations valid for further development of the theory of language. All the linguistic units functioning in a language to express a given categorial meaning make up the functional semantic field of this category. The morphological devices are naturally primary in importance and make up its highly organised nucleus. All the other constituents are peripheral elements which may be used for different notional purposes, such as: intensity or emphasis of a given meaning, expressive connotation, weakening of meaning, making a given meaning more concrete and more precise, or expressing a new meaning. The functional-semantic field falls at least into two categories which stand in contrast. Thus, for instance, the timefield in English falls into three "microfields": Present, Past and Future. The voice-field in Modern English falls into Active and Passive (a binary opposition). The field of number falls into two microfields: Singular Plural (oneness plurality). In Modern English plurality may be expressed, for instance, by: 1) plural forms of nouns; 2) singular forms of nouns in transposition (implied plurality); 3) inflectional forms of verbs (very few in number); 4) personal and demonstrative pronouns; 5) pronouns of unspecified quantity; 6) numerals; 7) collective nouns and nouns of multitude, e. g.: mankind, peasantry, yeomanry, gentry, crowd, host, etc. or, say, such words as developed a collective signification by metonymy, e. g.: all the world all the men, the sex women, the bench the officials; 8) standardised paired noun-phrases, e. g.: day after day, year after year, question on question, country on country, etc. It is to be noted at this point that in patterns with "implied" (covert) plurality distinction must be made between: 1) the use of some common nouns in the singular with the implication of plurality, as in to have a keen eye, to keep in hand; trees in leaf, etc. 2) the use of the pronoun one with reference to: a) several unknown individuals or people in general, e. g.: One should always do one's duty. b) several known individuals including the speaker, e. g.: He asked me to review his new novel. Of course one did not like to refuse, but... Syntactic devices are generally most expressive, they intensify the meaning of plurality and as such are often used for stylistic purposes. A few typical examples are: Mile on mile, without an end, the low grey streets stretched towards the ultimate deserted grass. (Galsworthy) Sea on sea, country on country, millions on millions of people, all with their own lives, energies, joys, griefs, and suffering all with things they had to give up, and separate struggles for existence. (Galsworthy) The invariant meaning of any given category finds its most "specialised" expression in the morphological category. A study of linguistic signs in their interrelationship and interdependence leads to significantly increased knowledge of language. A special interest attaches to the correlation between meanings expressed by grammatical forms and those expressed by lexico-grammatical devices to which in our description we shall repeatedly draw the attention of the student. All these means denoting plurality are essentially different in their linguistic status. Without any frequency counts we may say that some of them are fairly common in every day use, others are used occasionally, according to circumstances. Morphological means to express plurality stand at the centre of this field and are primary in importance, all the rest are its peripheral elements used for different notional purposes. Pronouns and numerals, for instance, as noun determiners or its substitutes, make the quantitative meaning more concrete. Collective nouns denote at the same time singular and plural, i. e. a collection of individuals which are viewed as a unit. Many words which do not themselves denote a plurality of individuals acquire the meaning of a collective in certain contexts, as when, for instance, the bench is used of a body of judges, a town or village in the meaning of its inhabitants.