You are on page 1of 29

1.

Morphology and syntax as two constituents of the grammatical system The term grammar is often used to refer to morphology (the study of word forms) and syntax (the study of sentence structure) together. Morphology is a sub discipline of linguistics that studies word structure. Morphology is a branch of linguistics that studies such rules across and within language. When linguists study morphology, they are interested in different categories of morphemes that make up words as well as morphological processes for forming new words. Morphemes are the smallest meaningful pieces of language that make up words. Words may consist of one or more morphemes. In linguistics, syntax is the study of the principals and rules for constructing sentences in natural languages. Syntax is also used to refer directly to the rules and principles that govern the sentence structure of any individual language. While the morphology looks at how the smallest linguistic unit are formed into complete words, syntax looks at how those words are formed into complete sentences.

2. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationship and Morphology Syntax boundary Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence (string). The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit which is referred to as a syntactic syntagma. There are four main types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the combination of a subject and a predicate), objective ( the combination of a verb and its object), attributive (a noun and attribute), adverbial (a modified notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier). So syntagmatic relations are actually observed in the utterance. The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called paradigmatic, are such as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur. Unlike syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly observed in utterances. Each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections based on different formal and functional properties. Also paradigmatic is a term that describes the substitution relationship that a linguistic unit has with other units. For example in the sentence I hunted a bear, each of the words can be exchanged with number of other words without changing the basic syntactic arrangement: I= WE, HE, BEAR=RABBIT. The paradigmatic relation is one of the important criteria in the classification of words into various categories as noun, verb, pronoun. Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realization of any paradigmatic series. A linguistic unit can enter into relations of two different kinds. It enters into paradigmatic relations with all the units that can also occur in the same environment. PR are relations based on the principles of similarity. They exist between the units that can substitute one another. For instance, in the word-group A PINT OF MILK the word PINT is in paradigmatic relations with the words bottle, cup, etc. The article A can enter into PR with the units the, this, one, same, etc. According to different principles of similarity PR can be of three types: semantic, formal and functional. Semantic PRs are based on the similarity of meaning: a book to read = a book for reading. He used to practice English every day - He would practice English every day. Formal PRs are based on the similarity of forms. Such relations exist between the members of a paradigm: man - men; play - played - will play - is playing.

Functional PRs are based on the similarity of function. They are established between the elements that can occur in the same position. For instance, noun determiners: a, the, this, his, Anns, some, each, etc. PRs are associated with the sphere of language. A linguistic unit enters into syntagmatic relations with other units of the same level it occurs with. SRs exist at every language level. E.g. in the word-group A PINT OF MILK the word PINT contrasts SR with A, OF, MILK; within the word PINT - P, I, N and T are in syntagmatic relations. SRs are linear relations, that is why they are manifested in speech. There are four main types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the combination of a subject and a predicate), objective ( the combination of a verb and its object), attributive (a noun and attribute), adverbial (a modified notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier).

3. Types of grammar and the object of theoretical grammar There are different types of grammar. Traditional Grammar - analyses the parts of a well-formed sentence, focusing on surface structure, not meaning. It gives students a basic understanding of the building blocks of language, which can help in improving their writing skills. Prescriptive Grammar - codifies and enforces rules governing grammar, mechanics, and usage Descriptive Grammar - observes and records how language is used in function, and advocates teaching the function of grammatical structure Pedagogical Grammar. A book specifically designed for teaching a foreign language, or for developing an awareness of the mother tongue. Such 'tecjing grammars' are widely used in schools, so much so that many people have only one meaning for the term 'grammar': a grammar book. Practical grammar studies the rules and the usage og the language. Theoretical Grammar the aim of which is to present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to scientifically analyse and define its grammatical categories and study the mechanisms of grammatical formation of utterances out of words in the process of speech making.

4. The levels of language. Their units and peculiarities. Units of language are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental units consist of phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status (syllables, morphemes, words, etc.). Supra-segmental units do not exist by themselves, but are realized together with segmental units and express different modificational meanings (functions) which are reflected on the strings of segmental units. To the supra-segmental units belong intonations (intonation contours), accents, pauses, pat-terns of word-order. The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of a kind that units of any higher level are analyzable into (i.e. are formed of) units of the immediately lower level. Thus, morphemes are decomposed into phonemes, words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc.

The lowest level of lingual segments is phonemic: it is formed by phonemes as the material elements of the higher -level segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential: it differentiates morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no meaning, it is not a sign. Phonemes are combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental group of phonemes, is not a sign, either; it has a purely formal significance. Due to this fact, it could hardly stand to reason to recognise in language a separate syllabic level; rather, the syllables should be considered in the light of the intra-level combinability properties of phonemes. Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the level-forming signs of language. Units of all the higher levels of language are meaningful; they may be called "signemes" as opposed to phonemes (and letters as phoneme-representatives). The level located above the phonemic one is the morphemic level. The morpheme is the elementary meaningful part of the word. It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one phoneme. E.g.: ros-y [-1]; a-fire [-]; come-s [-z]. The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative" meanings which are used as constituents for the formation of more concrete, "nominative" meanings of words. The third level in the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words, or lexemic level. The word, as different from the morpheme, is a directly naming (nominative) unit of language: it names things and their relations. Since words are built up by morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit morpheme only. Cf.: man; will; but; I; etc. The next higher level is the level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic level. To levelforming phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These combinations, like separate words, have a nominative function, but they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a concrete thing, an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf., respectively: a picturesque village; to start with a jerk; extremely difficult; the unexpected arrival of the chief. This kind of nomination can be called "polynomination", as different from "mononomination" effected by separate words. Notional phrases may be of a stable type and of a free type. The stable phrases (phraseological units) form the phraseological part of the lexicon, and are studied by the phraseological division of lexicology. Free phrases are built up in the process of speech on the existing productive models, and are studied in the lower division of syntax. The grammatical description of phrases is sometimes called "smaller syntax", in distinction to "larger syntax" studying the sentence and its textual connections. Above the phrasemic level lies the level of sentences, or " proposemic" level. The peculiar character of the sentence ("proposeme") as a signemic unit of language consists in the fact that, naming a certain situation, or situational event, it expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event to reality. Namely. it shows whether this event is real or unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a truth or asked about, etc. In this sense, as different from the word and the phrase, the sentence is a predicative unit. Cf.: to receive to receive a letter Early in June I received a letter from Peter Mel rose. The sentence is produced by the speaker in the process of speech as a concrete, situationally bound utterance. At the same time it enters the system of language by its syntactic

pattern which, as all the other lingual unit-types, has both syntagmatic and paradigmatic characteristics. But the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of levels. Above the proposemic level there is still another one, namely, the level of sentence-groups, " suprasentential constructions". For the sake of unified terminology, this level can be called "supraproposemic". The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences forming a textual unity. Such combinations are subject to regular lingual patterning making them into syntactic elements. The syntactic process by which sentences are connected into textual unities is analysed under the heading of "cumulation". Cumulation, the same as formation of composite sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic.

5. 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. In studying the morpheme we actual study the word in the necessary details or us composition and functions. The morpheme is a meaningful segmental component of the word; the morpheme is formed by phonemes; as a meaningful component of the word it is elementary (i.e. indivisible into smaller segments as regards its significative function). The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it enters the lexicon of language as its elementary component (i.e. a component indivisible into smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with other nominative units the word is used for the formation of the sentence a unit of information in the communication process. 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. All morphemes are divided into: 1)) 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 lexicosemantic and grammaticosemantic character. The affixal morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and in-flexions. 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. 2)) form-building and word-building (ex.: small er) 3)) On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, " free" morphemes and "bound" morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves, they are identified only as component segmental parts of words. As different from this, free morphemes can build up words by themselves, i.e. can be used "freely". 4)) On the basis of formal presentation, "overt" morphemes and "covert" morphemes are distinguished. Overt morphemes are genuine, explicit morphemes building up words; the covert

morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence of morpheme expressing a certain function. The notion of covert morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme in the oppositional description of grammatical categories. 5)) On the basis of linear characteristic, " continuous" (or "linear") morphemes and "discontinuous" morphemes are distinguished The discontinuous morpheme is a two-element grammatical unit which is identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an auxiliary word and a grammatical suffix (ex.: is taking, has taken). Cranberry Morphemes - Cranberry morphemes are morphemes that occur only as bound roots and that have no constant associated meaning: cranberry, boysenberry, permit, commit, submit, receive, perceive, conceive. 6. The notion of grammatical category The general notions of grammar which determine the structure of language and find their expression in inflection and other devices are generally called grammatical categories. As is known, a grammatical category is generally represented by at least two grammatical forms, otherwise it cannot exist. A simple case of oppositions in pairs of grammatical forms will be found, for instance, between the Singular and the Plural in nouns, or between Active and Passive in verbs. A grammatical category is a unit of grammar based on a morphological opposition of grammatical meanings presented in grammatical forms. The categorial meaning (e.g. the grammatical number) unites the individual meanings of the correlated paradigmatic forms (e.g. singular plural) and is exposed through them. The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category are exposed by the so-called "grammatical oppositions". The opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalised correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features: common features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in question. Three main qualitative types of oppositions were established in phonology: "privative", "gradual", and "equipollent". By the number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary (two members) and more than bi-nary (ternary, quaternary, etc.). The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition; the other types of oppositions are reducible to the binary privative opposition. The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterised by the presence of a certain differential feature ("mark"), while the other member is characterised by the absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the "marked", or "strong", or "positive" member, and is commonly designated by the symbol + (plus); the member in which the feature is absent is called the "unmarked", or "weak", or "negative" member, and is commonly designated by the symbol (minus). [t] vs [d] The gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or bsen of a feature, but by the degree of it.[i:] vs [i] The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features. [k]vs [d] each of them is important in its own way, neither of them is more important.

Grammar oppositions: 1)) privative (verb has 7 categories) 2)) gradual (degree of comparison of adjectives) 3)) equipollent (present simple is used in 13 cases).

7. Grammatical meanings and forms The word combines in its semantic structure two meanings lexical and grammatical. Lexical meaning is the individual meaning of the word (e.g. table). Grammatical meaning is the meaning of the whole class or a subclass. For example, the class of nouns has the grammatical meaning of thingness. If we take a noun (table) we may say that it possesses its individual lexical meaning (it corresponds to a definite piece of furniture) and the grammatical meaning of thingness (this is the meaning of the whole class). Besides, the noun table has the grammatical meaning of a subclass countableness. Any verb combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical meaning of verbiality the ability to denote actions or states. An adjective combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical meaning of the whole class of adjectives qualitativeness the ability to denote qualities. Adverbs possess the grammatical meaning of adverbiality the ability to denote quality of qualities. There are some classes of words that are devoid of any lexical meaning and possess the grammatical meaning only. This can be explained by the fact that they have no referents in the objective reality. All function words belong to this group articles, particles, prepositions, etc. Types of grammatical meaning. The grammatical meaning may be explicit and implicit. The implicit grammatical meaning is not expressed formally (e.g. the word table does not contain any hints in its form as to it being inanimate). The explicit grammatical meaning is always marked morphologically it has its marker. In the word cats the grammatical meaning of plurality is shown in the form of the noun; cats here the grammatical meaning of possessiveness is shown by the form s; is asked shows the explicit grammatical meaning of passiveness. The implicit grammatical meaning may be of two types general and dependent. The general grammatical meaning is the meaning of the whole word-class, of a part of speech (e.g. nouns the general grammatical meaning of thingness). The dependent grammatical meaning is the meaning of a subclass within the same part of speech. For instance, any verb possesses the dependent grammatical meaning of transitivity/intransitivity, terminativeness/nonterminativeness, stativeness/non-stativeness; nouns have the dependent grammatical meaning of contableness/uncountableness and animateness/inanimateness. The most important thing about the dependent grammatical meaning is that it influences the realization of grammatical categories restricting them to a subclass. Thus the dependent grammatical meaning of countableness/uncountableness influences the realization of the grammatical category of number as the number category is realized only within the subclass of countable nouns, the grammatical meaning of animateness/inanimateness influences the realization of the grammatical category of case, teminativeness/non-terminativeness - the category of tense, transitivity/intransitivity the category of voice. Grammatical meanings ranged in oppositions and presented in grammatical forms build grammatical categories. Grammatical forms can be morphemes, synthetic forms, and grammatical word combinations, which are analytical forms. Synthetic forms unite both lexical

and grammatical meanings in one word. In analytical forms there two or more words in which at least one element is an auxiliary. The auxiliary is a constant element of an analytical structure, which is devoid of lexical meaning (it renders grammatical meanings and is a purely grammatical element).

8. Morphological oppositions and their types In discussing grammatical categories, we shall often have to mention oppositions, that is, pairs of grammatical forms opposed to each other in some way. The opposition may be defined as a generalized correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features: common features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in question. The oppositional theory was originally formulated as a phonological theory. Three main qualitative types of oppositions were established in phonology: privative, gradual, and equipollent. By the number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary and more than binary (ternary, quaternary, etc.). The most important type of oppositions is the binary privative opposition; the other types of oppositions are reducible to the binary privative opposition. The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterized by the presence of a certain differential feature (strong, marked, positive), while the other member is characterized by the absence of the feature (weak, unmarked, negative). Eg. voiced vs. devoiced consonants The gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or absence of a feature, but by the degree of it. (Eg. [: - i e - ae] form a quaternary opposition by the degree of their openness) The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features. (eg. [m] [b], both bilabial consonants, form an equipollent opposition, [m] being sonorous nasalized, [b] being plosive.) Any opposition can be reformulated in privative terms. Any positive feature distinguishing an oppositionally characterized element is absent in the oppositionally correlated element, so that considered from the point of view of this feature alone, the opposition, by definition, becomes privative. The most important type of opposition in morphology is the binary privative opposition. The privative morphological opposition is based on a morphological differential feature which is present in its strong member and absent in its weak member (eg. present past). Speaking about morphological oppositions we need to keep in mind the fact that members of morphological oppositions unlike those of phonological oppositions possess both the plane of expression and the plane of content (eg. Cat cats). The meaning of the weak member is more general and abstract as compared with the meaning of the strong member, which is more particular and specific. Due to this difference in meaning, the unmarked member is used in a wider range of contexts than the marked member. For example, the present tense form of the verb, as different from the past tense, is used to render meanings much broader than those directly implied by the corresponding time-plane. Equipollent oppositions in the system of English morphology constitute a minor type and are mostly confined to formal relations only (eg. am are is). Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognized. They can be identified as a minor type at the semantic level only (eg. strong stronger strongest). 9. Neutralisation of oppositions

Neutralization is the usage of the weak member of the opposition in the meaning of the maker neutralizer. It may be obligatory (ex.: If you tell me the truth, Ill be happy adverbial clause of condition) and optional (I think you are right. non- continuous form expresses the process). Neutralizers are the elements due to which we can usually choose the unmarked member (ex.: if, when in the ad. clause of condition and time). Neutralizers cab be internal (dont speak loud, we hear you. Hear is the process but we dont use continuous, because the meaning of continuity is heading in the meaning of the verb) and external (its expressed with the help of separate unit (tomorrow). 10. Realizers and neutralizers in English Neutralization is the usage of the weak member of the opposition in the meaning of the maker neutralizer. It may be obligatory (ex.: If you tell me the truth, Ill be happy adverbial clause of condition) and optional (I think you are right. non- continuous form expresses the process). Neutralizers are the elements due to which we can usually choose the unmarked member (ex.: if, when in the ad. clause of condition and time). Neutralizers cab be internal (dont speak loud, we hear you. Hear is the process but we dont use continuous, because the meaning of continuity is heading in the meaning of the verb) and external (its expressed with the help of separate unit (tomorrow). Realization helps to realize the action? Fox ex.: Ill go to Moscow tomorrow. Here tomorrow is the realize of the action. 11. The problems of the parts of speech classification in the English language 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 different approaches to the classification of the parts of speech: 1)) Traditional classification. Based on 3 criteria: semantic, morphological and syntactical. According to the fist criteria noun denotes substance, verbs process, adjectives properties of substances, adverbs properties of other properties, properties of other actions. By morphological criteria we mean grammatical categories: 5 main cat-es of verb, 1 of adj., 3 - of noun. The third criteria is syntactical, here we mean the syntactical role of words in the sentence and the combinability of the words. Its closely connected with valency potential combinability. But there exist some difficulties concerning how many parts of speech are in the language, because nowadays a lot of pars of speech are converted into others. Conversion: historical (work-work), traditional (paper-to paper, its formed by analogy), individual conversion (dont darling me). 2)) Descriptive approach. Charles Fries the representative. At the basis lies the distribution of the elements. Distribution is the sum of total environments. Words that exhibit the same distribution (which is the set of contexts, i.e. immediate linguistic environments, in which a word can appear) belong to the same class. Roughly speaking, the distribution of a word is the position of a word in the sentence. According to the scholar, these four parts of speech contain about 67 per cent of the total instances of the vocabulary. He also distinguishes 15 groups of function words set up by the same process of substitution but on different patterns. 3)) Henry Sweet approach. Two parts: declinable () and indeclinable. To the first group noun, verb and adj. are referred. To the second - prepositions, articles, conjunctions, particles, adverbs. 4)) Notional and Functional parts of speech: 1) noun, verb, adj, adv., 2) prepositions, articles, conjunctions, particles.

5)) Open parts of speech (noun, verb, adj the develop) and closed parts ( theyre stable prepositions, articles, conjunctions, particles). 12. General characteristics of nominal parts of speech in the frame of Traditional approach Based on 3 criteria: semantic, morphological and syntactical. According to the fist criteria noun denotes substance, verbs process, adjectives properties of substances, adverbs properties of other properties, properties of other actions. By morphological criteria we mean grammatical categories: 5 main cat-es of verb, 1 of adj., 3 - of noun. The third criteria is syntactical, here we mean the syntactical role of words in the sentence and the combinability of the words. Its closely connected with valency potential combinability. In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided into notional and functional, which reflects their division in the earlier grammatical tradition into changeable and unchangeable. To the notional parts of speech of the English language be-long the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb. The features of the noun within the identificational triad "meaning form function" are, correspondingly, the fol-lowing: 1) the categorial meaning of substance ("thingness"); 2) the changeable forms of number and case; the specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes in English do not discriminate parts of speech as such); 3) the substantive functions in the sen-tence (subject, object, substantival predicative); prepositional connections; modification by an adjective. The features of the adjective: 1) the categorial meaning of property (qualitative and relative); 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison (for qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) adjectival functions in the sen-tence (attribute to a noun, adjectival predicative). The features of the numeral: 1) the categorial meaning of number (cardinal and ordinal); 2) the narrow set of simple nu-merals; the specific forms of composition for compound numerals; the specific suffixal forms of derivation for ordinal nu-merals; 3) the functions of numerical attribute and numerical substantive. The features of the pronoun: 1) the categorial meaning of indication (deixis); 2) the narrow sets of various status with the corresponding formal properties of categorial changeability and word-building; 3) the substantival and adjectival functions for different sets. The features of the verb: 1) the categorial meaning of proc-ess (presented in the two upper series of forms, respectively, as finite process and non-finite process); 2) the forms of the verbal categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite forms; 3) the function of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the mixed verbal other than verbal functions for the non-finite verb. The features of the adverb: 1) the categorial meaning of the secondary property, i.e. the property of process or another property; 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; the specific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) the functions of various adverbial modifiers. Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and non-self-dependent, me-diatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech.

On the principle of "generalised form" only unchangeable words are traditionally treated under the heading of functional parts of speech. As for their individual forms as such, they are simply presented by the list, since the number of these words is limited, so that they needn't be identified on any general, opera-tional scheme. To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection. The article expresses the specific limitation of the substan-tive functions. The preposition expresses the dependencies and interde-pendences of substantive referents. The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena. The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series, alongside of other specifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as functional modifiers of verbs, etc. The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pro-nounced or less pronounced detached position, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts. Here belong the functional words of probability (probably, per-haps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation and negation. The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sen-tence, is a signal of emotions.

13. The common features of the adj., noun, adverb The noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of "substance" or "thingness". It follows from this that the noun is the main nominative part of speech, effecting nomination of the fullest value within the framework of the notional division of the lexicon. The noun has the power, by way of nomination, to isolate different properties of substances. The most characteristic substantive function of the noun is that of the subject in the sentence, since the referent of the sub-ject is the person or thing immediately named. The function of the object in the sentence is also typical of the noun as the sub-stance word. Other syntactic functions, i.e. attributive, adverbial, and even predicative, although performed by the noun with equal ease, are not immediately characteristic of its substantive quality as such. In particular, typical of the noun is the prepositional combinability with another noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb. E.g.: an entrance to the house; to turn round the corner; red in the face; far from its destination. As a part of speech, the noun is also characterized by a set of formal features determining its specific status in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its word-building distinctions, including typical suffixes, compound stem models, con-version patterns. It discriminates the grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination. The first nounal subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation of this division is "type of nomination". The second subclass opposition differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of "form of exis-tence". The third subclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the basis of "personal quality". The fourth subclass opposition differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis of "quantitative structure". The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal pronouns of the third person. Also with the help of special suffixes.

The category of number is expressed by the opposition of the plural form of the noun to the singular form of the noun. The strong member of this binary opposition is the plural, its productive formal mark being the suffix -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz ] as presented in the forms dog dogs, clock clocks, box boxes. The other, non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are vowel interchange in several relict forms (man men, woman women, tooth teeth, etc.), the archaic suffix -(e)n supported by phonemic interchange in a couple of other relict forms (ox oxen, child children, cow kine, brother brethren), the correlation of individual singular and plural suffixes in a limited number of borrowed nouns (for-mula formulae, phenomenon phenomena, alumnus alumni, etc.). In some cases the plural form of the noun is ho-monymous with the singular form (sheep, deer, fish, etc.). This category of case is expressed in English by the opposition of the form in -'s [-z, -s, -iz], usually called the "possessive" case, or more traditionally, the "genitive" case (to which term we will stick in the following presentation*), to the unfeatured form of the noun, usually called the "common" case. The apostrophised -s serves to distinguish in writing the singular noun in the genitive case from the plural noun in the common case. Cases: 1) according to the place the noun is in the sentence positional case, 2) prepositional case (genitive case (of), objective case (for, to), 3) common and possessive. But there is non-case theory by Voronzova. Reasons: 1) not only one word requires the s but the group of words, its called group-genetive, 2) not only the group of words marked by s but also the whole sentence,3) the existence of so called absolute possessive case,4) the one noun can have s. The adjective expresses the categorial semantics of property of a substance. It means that each adjective used in the text presupposes relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes, such as its material, colour, dimensions, po-sition, state, and other characteristics both permanent and tem-porary. It follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative value. Adjectives are distinguished by a specific combinability with nouns, which they modify, if not accompanied by ad-juncts, usually in pre-position, and occasionally in postposition; by a combinability with link-verbs, both functional and no-tional; by a combinability with modifying adverbs. In the sentence the adjective performs the functions of an attribute and a predicative. Of the two, the more specific func-tion of the adjective is that of an attribute, since the function of a predicative can be performed by the noun as well. All the adjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative and relative. Relative adjectives express such properties of a substance as are determined by the direct relation of the substance to some other substance. E.g.: wood a wooden hut; mathematics mathematical precision; history a historical event; table tabular presentation; colour coloured postcards; surgery surgical treatment; the Middle Ages mediaeval rites. Qualitative adjectives, as different from relative ones, de-note various qualities of substances which admit of a quantita-tive estimation, i.e. of establishing their correlative quantitative measure. The measure of a quality can be estimated as high or low, adequate or inadequate, sufficient or insufficient, optimal or excessive. Cf.: an awkward situation a very awkward situation; a difficult task too difficult a task; an enthusiastic reception rather an enthusiastic reception; a hearty wel-come not a very hearty welcome; etc. The degrees of comparison are essentially evaluative formu-las, therefore any adjective used in a higher comparison degree (comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an evaluative adjective, if only for the nonce (see the examples above). The category of adjectival comparison expresses the quantitative characteristic of the quality of a nounal referent, i.e. it gives a relative evaluation of the quantity of a quality. The purely relative nature of the categorial semantics of comparison is reflected in its name.

The category is constituted by the opposition of the three forms known under the heading of degrees of comparison; the basic form (positive degree), having no features of comparison; the comparative degree form, having the feature of restricted superiority (which limits the comparison to two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the feature of unrestricted superiority. Some linguists approach the number of the degrees of com-parison as problematic on the grounds that the basic form of the adjective does not express any comparison by itself and therefore should be excluded from the category. This exclusion would reduce the category to two members only, i.e. the com-parative and superlative degrees. The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing ei-ther property of an action, or property of another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs. This definition, though certainly informative and instructive, fails to directly point out the relation between the adverb and the adjective as the primary qualifying part of speech. In accord with their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by a combinability with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in expressing different adverbial modifi-ers. Adverbs can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under the heading of situation-"determinants". Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial. By qualitative such adverbs are meant as express immedi-ate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other quali-ties. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly. E. g.: The little boy was crying bitterly over his broken toy. The plainly embarrassed Department of Industry confirmed the fact of the controversial deal. The adverbs interpreted as "quantitative" include words of degree. These are specific lexical units of semi-functional na-ture expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be subdivided into several very clearly pronounced sets: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically?very, quite, en-tirely, utterly, highly, greatly, perfectly. Circumstantial adverbs are also divided into notional and functional. The functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pro-nominal nature. Besides quantitative (numerical) adverbs men-tioned above, they include adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used as syntactic connectives and questionforming functionals. Here belong such words as now, here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc. As for circumstantial adverbs of more self-dependent na-ture, they include two basic sets: first, adverbs of time; second, adverbs of place: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom, early, late; homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc. The two varieties express a gen-eral idea of temporal and spatial orientation and essentially per-form deictic (indicative) functions in the broader sense. Bearing this in mind, we may unite them under the general heading of "orientative" adverbs, reserving the term "circumstantial" to syntactic analysis of utterances.

14. The category of definiteness and indefiniteness. The problem of determination Article is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in communicative collocation. Its special character is clearly seen against the background of determining words of half-notional semantics. Whereas the function of the determiners such as this, any, some is to

explicitly interpret the referent of the noun in relation to other objects or phenomena of a like kind, the semantic purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent, as it were, altogether unostentatiously, to de-fine it in the most general way, without any explicitly expressed contrasts. Another peculiarity of the article, as different from the determiners in question, is that, in the absence of a determiner, the use of the article with the noun is quite obligatory, in so far as the cases of non-use of the article are subject to no less definite rules than the use of it. Taking into consideration these peculiar features of the arti-cle, the linguist is called upon to make a sound statement about its segmental status in the system of morphology. Namely, his task is to decide whether the article is a purely auxiliary ele-ment of a special grammatical form of the noun which func-tions as a component of a definite morphological category, or it is a separate word, i.e. a lexical unit in the determiner word set, if of a more abstract meaning than other determiners. The prototypes of definiteness and indefiniteness in English are the definite article the and the indefinite article a/an. A mere semantic observation of the articles in English, i.e. the definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not two, but three meaningful characterisations of the nounal referent achieved by their cor-relative functioning, namely: one rendered by the definite arti-cle, one rendered by the indefinite article, and one rendered by the absence (or non-use) of the article. The definite article expresses the identification or individu-alisation of the referent of the noun: the use of this article shows that the object denoted is taken in its concrete, individ-ual quality. This meaning can be brought to explicit exposition by a substitution test. The test consists in replacing the article used in a construction by a demonstrative word, e.g. a demonstrative determiner, without causing a principal change in the general implication of the construction. Of course, such an "equivalent" substitution should be understood in fact as nothing else but analogy: the difference in meaning between a de-terminer and an article admits of no argument, and we pointed it out in the above passages. Still, the replacements of words as a special diagnostic procedure, which is applied with the neces-sary reservations and according to a planned scheme of re-search, is quite permissible. In our case it undoubtedly shows a direct relationship in the meanings of the determiner and the article, the relationship in which the determiner is semantically the more explicit element of the two. The indefinite article, as different from the definite article, is commonly interpreted as referring the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects; in other words, the indefinite article expresses a classifying generalisation of the nounal referent, or takes it in a relatively general sense. To prove its relatively generalising functional meaning, we may use the diagnostic insertions of specifying-classifying phrases into the construction in question; we may also employ the transformation of implicit comparative con-structions with the indefinite article into the corresponding explicit comparative constructions. As for the various uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic point of view they all should be divided into two types. In the first place, there are uses where the articles are deliberately omitted out of stylistic considerations. We see such uses, for instance, in telegraphic speech, in titles and headlines, in various notices. Alongside of free elliptical constructions, there are cases of the semantically unspecified non-use of the article in various combinations of fixed type, such as prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt, etc.), fixed verbal collocations (take place, make use, cast anchor, etc.), descriptive coordinative groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog and gun, day by day, etc.), and the like. The meaningful absence of the article before the countable noun in the singular signifies that the noun is taken in an abstract sense,

expressing the most general idea of the object denoted. This meaning, which may be called the meaning of "absolute generalisation", can be demonstrated by inserting in the tested construction a chosen generalising modifier (such as in general, in the abstract, in the broadest sense). The absence of the article before the uncountable noun corresponds to the two kinds of generalisation: both rela-tive and absolute. To decide which of the two meanings is real-ised in any particular case, the described tests should be carried out alternately. The absence of the article before the countable noun in the plural, likewise, corresponds to both kinds of generalisation, and the exposition of the meaning in each case can be achieved by the same semantic tests. The opposition of the higher level operates in the whole sys-tem of articles. It contrasts the definite article with the noun against the two other forms of article determination of the noun, i.e. the indefinite article and the meaningful absence of the arti-cle. In this opposition the definite article should be interpreted as the strong member by virtue of its identifying and individualising function, while the other forms of article determination should be interpreted as the weak member, i.e. the member that leaves the feature in question ("identification") unmarked. The opposition of the lower level operates within the article subsystem that forms the weak member of the upper opposi-tion. This opposition contrasts the two types of generalisation, i.e. the relative generalisation distinguishing its strong member (the indefinite article plus the meaningful absence of the article as its analogue with uncountable nouns and nouns in the plural) and the absolute, or "abstract" generalisation distinguishing the weak member of the opposition (the meaningful absence of the article).

15.

Adjectivization of nouns and sustantivisation of adjectives

Adjectivization when the noun is used as an adjective (attribute function). An adjectivized noun is a noun turned into an adjective only in a given sentence, only, so to say, for the time being, without entering the vocabulary of the English language as a newly formed regular adjective. It is an instance of provisional conversion, conversion for the occasion. In the sentence It was a purely family gathering the word family is an adjectivized noun, but in the dictionary this word is marked as a noun. Similarly, in the sentence They receive evening and weekly papers the word evening is an adjectivized noun; in the dictionary it is listed as a noun. But there is, of course, no hard and fast line of demarcation between an adjectivized noun and a regular adjective formed from a noun by means of conversion, such as chief, choice, gold, cotton, etc.; an adjectivized noun may in the course of time turn into a regular adjective, may develop degrees of comparison as is the case with such converted adjectives as chief and choice (originally only nouns): the chiefest trouble, the choicest company. An adjectivized noun used attributively may be - r d i-n a t e d with regular adjectives (asyndetically or by means of a co-ordinative conjunction) which shows that it is treated as an adjective: He said it in a brisk, business tone (the adjectivized noun business is co-ordinated asyndetically with the adjective brisk), They receive London and provincial papers (the adjectivized noun London is co-ordinated with the adjective provincial by means of the coordinative conjunction and). Do you prefer country or urban life? (the adjectivized noun country is co-ordinated with the adjective urban by means of the co-ordinative conjunction or). Mounted and foot militia kept order in the streets. The children greatly enjoyed the open air, healthy life of the camp.

The prop-word one which is used in English when an adjective used as an attribute stands without its head-noun, may also follow an adjectivized noun which thus clearly shows its adjectival nature: That muslin dress is my best summer one. The house was a four-storey one. In place of the old wooden house they have built a beautiful stone one. Her lower lip had a way of thrusting the middle of her top one upward. (Hardy.) Adjectivized nouns may be modified by adverbs as regular adjectives are: It was a purely family gathering (the adjectivized noun family is modified by the adverb purely). He wrote some really first-class plays (the adjectivized noun first-class is modified by the adverb really). We objected on purely business grounds. The best books by Soviet writers are of truly world significance.

It is common knowledge that adjectives can, under certain circumstances, be substantivized, i.e. become nouns. This is a phenomenon found in many languages, e.g. in Russian: compare and ; and . In German, compare ein gelehrter Mann and ein Gelehrter; in French, un homme savant and tin savant, etc. The phenomenon is also frequent enough in English, The questions which arise in this connection are: (a) what criteria should be applied to find out if an adjective is substantivized or not? (b) is a substantivized adjective a noun, or is it not? As to the first question, we should recollect the characteristic features of nouns in Modern English and then see if a substantivized adjective has acquired them or not. These features are, (1) ability to form a plural, (2) ability to have a form in -s if a living being is denoted, (3) ability to be modified by an adjective, (4) performing the function of subject or object in a sentence. If, from this point of view, we approach, for example, the word native, we shall find that it possesses all those peculiarities, e. g. the natives of Australia, a young native, etc. The same may be said about the word relative (meaning a person standing in some degree of relationship to another): my relatives, a close relative, etc. A considerable number of other examples might be given. There is therefore every reason to assert.that native and relative are nouns when so used, and indeed we need not call them substantivized adjectives. Thus the second of the above questions would also be answered. Things, are, however, not always as clear as that. A familiar example of a different kind is the word rich. It certainly is substantivized, as will be seen, for example, in the title of a novel by C. P. Snow, "The Conscience of the Rich". It is obvious, however, that this word differs from the words native and relative in some important points: (1) it does not form a plural, (2) it cannot be used in the singular and with the indefinite article, (3) it has no possessive form. Since it does not possess all the characteristics of nouns but merely some of them, it will be right to say that it is only partly substantivized. The word rich in such contexts as those given above stands somewhere between an adjective and a noun. The same may be said of the poor, the English, the Chinese, also the wounded, the accused (which were originally participles), and a number of other words. We might even think of establishing a separate part of speech, intermediate between nouns and adjectives, and state its characteristic features as we have done for parts of speech in general. However, there would appear to be no need to do so. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the statement that these words are partly substantivized and occupy an intermediate position.

Sometimes the result of substantivization is an abstract noun, as in the following examples: The desire for a more inward light had found expression at last, the unseen had impacted on the seen. (FORSTER) Her mind was focused on the invisible. (Idem) Nouns of this type certainly have no plural form.

16.

The verb. The category of tense and voice

The general categorial meaning of the verb is process presented dynamically, i.e. developing in time. This general processual meaning is embedded in the semantics of all the verbs, including those that denote states, forms of existence, types of attitude, evaluations, etc., rather than actions. The combinability of the verb : with noun, adverb, pronoun, adj. Verbs are divided into finite (function of verb-predicate) and non-finite (verbids) (different functions: a part of predicate, the syntactical functions, object, adv. Modifier, attribute.). Then verbs can be regular vs irregular. According to the lexical division the verb can be actional (express the action performed by the subject) and statal (denote the state of the subject). Also verbs^ of motion, of sense perception, of mental activity. Aspective character of the meaning of the verb: terminative ()/ non-terminative, instantaneous (momentary)/ ingressive (starting), supercompleted (developed to the extent of superfluity) / undercompleted (not develop to its full extent), durative/interative (repeated), transitive/intransitive. The grammatical categories are the categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood, temporal correlation. The category of tense. The immediate expression of grammatical time, or "tense" (Lat. tempus), is one of the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical because the meaning of process, inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme, finds its complete realisation only if presented in certain time conditions. In Modern English, the grammatical expression of verbal time, i.e. tense, is effected in two correlated stages. At the first stage, the process receives an absolutive time characteristic by means of opposing the past tense to the present tense. The marked member of this opposition is the past form. At the sec-ond stage, the process receives a non-absolutive relative time characteristic by means of opposing the forms of the future tense to the forms of no future marking. But the first category, having the past tense as its strong member, expresses a direct retrospective evaluation of the time of the process, fixing the process either in the past or not in the past; the second category, whose strong member is the future tense, gives the timing of the process a prospective evaluation, fixing it either in the future (i.e. in the prospective posterior), or not in the future. In accord with the oppositional marking of the two temporal categories under analysis, we shall call the first of them the category of "primary time", and the second, the category of "prospective time", or, contractedly, "prospect". The category of primary time. The formal sign of the opposition constituting this category is, with regular verbs, the dental suffix -(e)d [-d, -t, -id], and with irregular verbs, phonemic interchanges of more or less individual specifications. The suffix marks the verbal form of the past time (the past tense), leaving the opposite form un-marked. Thus, the opposition is to be rendered by the formula "the past tense the present tense", the latter member representing the non-past tense, according to the accepted oppositional interpretation. The specific feature of the category of primary time is, that it divides all the tense forms of the English verb into two temporal planes: the plane of the present and the plane of the past, which affects also the future forms. Very important in this re-spect is the structural nature of the expression of the category: the category of primary time is the only verbal category of im-manent order which is expressed by inflexional forms. These inflexional forms of the past and present coexist in the same verb-

entry of speech with the other, analytical modes of various categorial expression, including the future. Hence, the English verb acquires the two futures: on the one hand, the future of the present, i.e. as prospected from the present; on the other hand, the future of the past, i.e. as prospected from the past. Prospective time. The category of prospect is also temporal, in so far as it is immediately connected with the expression of processual time, like the category of primary time. But the semantic basis of the category of prospect is different in principle from that of the category of primary time: while the primary time is absolutive, i. e. present-oriented, the prospective time is purely relative; it means that the future form of the verb only shows that the de-noted process is prospected as an after-action relative to some other action or state or event, the timing of which marks the zero-level for it. The two times are presented, as it were, in pro-spective coordination: one is shown as prospected for the fu-ture, the future being relative to the primary time, either present or past. As a result, the expression of the future receives the two mutually complementary manifestations: one manifestation for the present time-plane of the verb, the other manifestation for the past time-plane of the verb. In other words, the process of the verb is characterised by the category of prospect irrespec-tive of its primary time characteristic, or rather, as an addition to this characteristic, and this is quite similar to all the other categories capable of entering the sphere of verbal time, e.g. the category of development (continuous in opposition), the cate-gory of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), the category of voice (passive in opposition): the respective forms of all these categories also have the past and present versions, to which, in due course, are added the future and non-future versions. The oppositional basis of the category of prospective time is neutralised in certain uses, in keeping with the general regularities of oppositional reductions. The process of neutrali-sation is connected with the shifting of the forms of primary time (present and past) from the sphere of absolute tenses into the sphere of relative tenses. One of the typical cases of the neutralisation in question consists in using a non-future temporal form to express a future action which is to take place according to some plan or arrangement. Cf.: The government meets in emergency session today over the question of continued violations of the cease-fire. I hear your sister is soon arriving from Paris? Naturally I would like to know when he's coming. Etc. This case of oppositional reduction is optional, the equiva-lent reconstruction of the correlated member of the opposition is nearly always possible (with the respective changes of con-notations and style). Cf.: ... > The government will meet in emergency session. ... > Your sister will soon arrive from Paris? ... > When will he be coming"? Another type of neutralisation of the prospective time oppo-sition is observed in modal verbs and modal word combina-tions. The basic peculiarity of these units bearing on (he expression of time is, that the prospective implication is inherently in-built in their semantics, which reflects not the action as such, but the attitude towards the action expressed by the infinitive. For that reason, the present verb-form of these units actually renders the idea of the future (and, respectively, the past verb-form, the idea of the future-in-the-past). Cf.: There's no saying what may happen next. At any rate, the woman was sure to come later in the day. But you have to pre-sent the report before Sunday, there's no alternative. Sometimes the explicit expression of the future is necessary even with modal collocations. To make up for the lacking cate-gorial forms, special modal substitutes have been

developed in language, some of which have received the status of suppletive units (see above, Ch. III). Cf.: But do not make plans with David. You will not be able to carry them out. Things will have to go one way or the other. Alongside of the above and very different from them, there is still another typical case of neutralisation of the analysed categorial opposition, which is strictly obligatory. It occurs in clauses of time and condition whose verb-predicate expresses a future action. Cf.: If things turn out as has been arranged, the triumph will be all ours. I repeated my request to notify me at once whenever the messenger arrived. The category voice. The verbal category of voice shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the syntactic construction. The voice of the English verb is expressed by the opposition of the passive form of the verb to the active form of the verb. The sign marking the passive form is the combination of the auxiliary be with the past participle of the conjugated verb (in symbolic notation: be ... en see Ch. II, 5). The passive form as the strong member of the opposition expresses reception of the action by the subject of the syntactic construction (i.e. the "passive" subject, denoting the object of the action); the active form as the weak member of the opposition leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. it expresses "non-passivity". In colloquial speech the role of the passive auxiliary can oc-casionally be performed by the verb get and, probably, be-come. Still, not all the verbs capable of taking an object are actu-ally used in the passive. In particular, the passive form is alien to many verbs of the statal subclass (displaying a weak dynamic force), such as have (direct possessive meaning), belong, cost, resemble, fail, misgive, etc. Thus, in accord with their relation to the passive voice, all the verbs can be divided into two large sets: the set of passivised verbs and the set of non-passivised verbs. The big problem in connection with the voice identification in English is the problem of "medial" voices, i.e. the functioning of the voice forms in other than the passive or active meanings. All the medial voice uses are effected within the functional range of the unmarked member of the voice opposition. Medium voice: a) middle voice (the book reads well); b) reflexive voice (the plain of content and of the form are not coincide He shaves..); c) reciprocal voice (there are some verbs : to embrace, to kiss, to meet- there is no nesessaty to add reciprocal pronouns).

17.

The categories of temporal correlation and Aspect

Its based upon perfect and non-perfect forms of the verb. The Modern English perfect forms have been the subject of a lengthy discussion which has not so far brought about a definite result. The position of the perfect forms in the system of the English verb is a problem which has been treated in many different ways and has raised much controversy. There are three major approaches to defining the essence of perfective forms in English: The category of perfect is a peculiar tense category, i. e. a category which should be classed in the same list as the categories "present" and "past". This view

was held, for example, by O. Jespersen. The category of perfect is a peculiar aspect category, i. e. one which should be given a place in the list comprising "common aspect" and "continuous aspect". This view was held by a number of scholars, including Prof. G. Vorontsova. Those who hold this view have expressed different opinions about the particular aspect constituting the essence of the perfect forms. It has been variously defined as "retrospective", "resultative", "successive", etc. The category of perfect is neither one of tense, nor one of aspect but a specific category different from both. It should be designated by a special term and its relations to the categories of aspect and tense should be investigated. This view was expressed by Prof. A. Smirnitsky. He took the perfect to be a means of expressing the category of "time relation" ( ). The category denotes correlation of the action expressed by the finite verb to some moment in the past, present or future. This category is based on the opposition perfect vs. non-perfect. The opposition is privative in the plane of expression, however, it is not so easily neutralized in the plane of content. Since the opposition is not easily neutralized in the present tense, it is equipollent, but it can easily be neutralized in the past. Therefore, it should be considered privative-equipollent. Perfect forms denote priority to the moment in the past, present or future. Non-perfect forms denote simultaneity with a moment in the past, present of future. In Slavonic languages perfective and non-perfective aspects are differentiated. They should not be confused with perfect and non-perfect forms in Germanic languages. There are tendencies to define the English aspect as based on the notion of limit. Neutralization: with the verbs to forget, to be told, to hear we use nonperfect form of the verb to express priority. The category of aspect The category of aspect is a linguistic representation of the objective category of manner of action. It is realized through the opposition Continuous::NonContinuous (Progressive::Non-Progressive). The opposition is privative both in the plane of content and in the plane of expression. It is easily neutralized, i. e. noncontinuous forms substitute continuous forms when the notion of duration is expressed by other means (eg. lexical). The realization of the category of aspect is closely connected with the lexical meaning of verbs. There are some verbs in English that do not normally occur with progressive aspect, even in those contexts in which the majority of verbs necessarily take the progressive form. Among the so-called non-progressive verbs are think, understand, know, hate, love, see, taste, feel, possess, own, etc. The most striking characteristic that they have in common is the fact that they are stative - they refer to a state of affairs, rather than to an action, event or process. It should be observed, however, that all the non-

progressive' verbs take the progressive aspect under particular circumstances. As the result of internal transposition verbs of nonprogressive nature can be found in the Continuous form: Now I'm knowing you. Generally speaking the Continuous form has at least two semantic features - duration (the action is always in progress) and definiteness (the action is always limited to a definite point or period of time). In other words, the purpose of the Continuous form is to serve as a frame which makes the process of the action more concrete and isolated. A distinction should be made between grammatical aspect and semantic aspectuality. English has an aspect system marked by the presence or absence of the auxiliary be contrasting progressive and nonprogressive. The major aspectuality contrast is between perfective and imperfective. With perfective aspectuality the situation described in a clause is presented in its totality, as a whole, viewed, as it were, from the outside. With imperfective aspectuality the situation is not presented in its totality, but viewed from within, with focus on the internal temporal structure or on some subinterval of time within the whole. The main use of progressive forms is to express a particular subtype of imperfective aspectuality. As for the Russian verb, it has two aspects, the perfective and the imperfective. It is obvious at once that there is no direct correspondence between English and Russian aspects; for instance, the English continuous aspect is not identical with the Russian imperfective. The relation between the two systems is not so simple as all that. On the one hand, the English common aspect may correspond not only to the Russian perfective but also to the Russian imperfective aspect; thus, he wrote may correspond both to and to . On the other hand, the Russian imperfective aspect may correspond not only to the continuous but also to the common aspect in English; thus, may correspond both to was writing and to wrote. 18. The category of mood The category of MOOD is the most controversial category of the verb. The category of MOOD expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of a hypothesis (), speculation (), desire. OPPOSITION Strong member (Forms of oblique mood meaning, i.e. those of unreality) Weak member (Forms of direct mood meaning, i.e. those of reality) There are indicative (denoted the fact), imperative (denotes facts and non-factes) and subjunctive (denotes unreality) moods in English. Number of MOODS: Ilyish 3 MOODS (indicative, subjunctive, imperative)- meaning form; M.Deutschbein: 16 MOODS functional approach; Prof. Smirnitsky (+ O.S.Akhmanova, M.Gashina, N.Vasilevskaya): 6 MOODS (indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive II, suppositional, conditional) - form meaning; L.S.Barhudarov, D.A. Shteling: 2 MOODS (indicative, subjunctive); G.N.Vorontsova: 4 MOODS (indicative, optative speculative, presumptive).

Khlebnikova one mood: conjunctive mood, but its represented by 4 main forms: conditional, subjunctive II+ suppositional and subjunctive I. 19. Non-finite forms of the verb, their general characteristics Verb forms make up two distinct classes: finites and non-finites, also called verbals, verbids. Finites serve to express a primary predication, i.e. they tie the situation described by a proposition to the context. Non-finites serve to express a secondary predication. The non-finite forms of the verb combine the characteristics of the verb with the characteristics of other parts of speech. Their mixed features are revealed in their semantics, morphemic structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions. The strict division of functions clearly shows that the opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category. The differential feature of the opposition is constituted by the expression of verbal time and mood: the non-finite forms have no immediate means of expressing timemood categorial semantics and therefore present the weak member of the opposition. The category expressed by this opposition is called the category of finitude. The syntactic content of the category of finitude is the expression of predication (more precisely, the expression of verbal predication). In other words, the opposition of the finite verbs and the verbids is based on the expression of the functions of full predication and semipredication. While the finite verbs express predication in its genuine and complete form, the function of the verbids is to express semi-predication, building up semi-predicative complexes within different sentence constructions. The English verbids include four forms: the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle and the past participle. The Infinitive Historically, the infinitive is a verbal noun. Hence its double nature: it combines the features of the verb with those of the noun. It is the form of the verb which expresses a process in general, i.e. a process that is not restricted (i.e. concretized) by person, number, tense, and mood. Because of its general process meaning, the infinitive is treated as the head-form of the whole paradigm of the verb. The infinitive has two presentation forms: marked and unmarked. The marked infinitive is distinguished by the grammatical word-morpheme to, historically a preposition. Similar to other grammatical word morphemes, to can be used to represent the corresponding construction as a whole (e.g. You can read any of the books if you want to). It can also be separated from its notional part by a word or phrase, usually of adverbial nature, forming the

so-called split infinitive (e.g. We need your participation, to thoroughly investigate the issue.) The marked infinitive is an analytic grammatical form. The other form of the infinitive is unmarked; it is traditionally called the bare infinitive. It is used in various analytic forms (non-modal and modal), with verbs of physical perception, with the verbs let, bid, make, help (optionally), with a few modal phrases (had better, would rather, would have, etc.), with the relative why. The infinitive combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun, as a result it serves as the verbal name of a process. It has the grammatical categories of voice, aspect and temporal correlation. Consequently, the categorial paradigm of the infinitive includes eight forms: the indefinite active, the continuous active, the perfect active, the perfect continuous active; the indefinite passive, the continuous passive, the perfect passive, the perfect continuous passive. to take to be taking to have taken to have been taking to be taken to be being taken to have been taken to have been being taken The continuous and perfect continuous passive can only be used occasionally, with a strong stylistic colouring. It is the indefinite infinitive that constitues the head-form of the verbal paradigm. The verbal features of the infinitive. Like the finite form of verb, the infinitive distinguishes the categories of aspect, voice, and temporal correlation. The paradigm of the infinitive is determined by the semantico-syntactic properties of the process. If the process is intransitive, we cannot derive voice forms e.g. to walk to be walking vs. *to be being walked to have walked to have been walking vs. *to have been being walked The nounal features of the infinitive. Semantically and morphologically, the infinitive is much more similar to the verb than to the noun: its verbal features outweigh its nounal features. Similar to the noun, the infinitive can be used as the subject or part of the subject, the predicative, and the attribute. The Gerund The gerund is originally a verbal noun in ing. Similar to the infinitive, the gerund is the name of a process, but its substantive meaning is more strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive: unlike the infinitive, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or by the possessive pronoun and used with prepositions. The general combinability of the gerund, like that of the infinitive, is dual, sharing some features with the verb, and some features with the noun. The verbal features of the gerund. Like the verb, the gerund distinguishes the categories of voice and temporal correlation: writing (non-passive, nonperfect) being written (passive, non-perfect) having written (non-passive, perfect) having been written (passive, perfect) It is obvious that gerunds derived from intransitive verbs have only two forms: non-perfect active and perfect active, e.g. walking vs. having walked. The gerund has the following syntactic features of the verb: it can function as part of the verbal predicate (e.g. If he stops working, he will die); it can be followed by an object (e.g. I remember locking the door ) and an adverbial modifier (e.g. He avoids driving fast).

The nounal features of the gerund. Similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or in the common case, which, when pronominalized, turn into the possessive and objective forms, respectively: She did nothing to encourage Johns going abroad. She did nothing to encourage John going abroad. vs. She did nothing to encourage his going abroad. She did nothing to encourage him going abroad. The standard form is the form with the noun in the genitive case or with the possessive pronoun. The other form is more common in spoken English. The gerund in the latter construction is traditionally called the halfgerund. Unlike the noun, the gerund cannot be used in the plural; it cannot be preceded by the article (or its substitute); it cannot be determined by the adjective. Like the noun, the gerund can be used as the subject, the object, the predicative, and the attribute. Participle The participle is a term applied to adjectival forms of verbs. There are two types of participle: the present participle and the past participle. Participle I The present participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective and adverb, serving as the qualifying-processual name. In its outer form the present participle is wholly homonymous with the gerund, ending in the suffix -ing and distinguishing the same grammatical categories of temporal correlation and voice. Both forms denote a process the present participle (or the past participle) denotes a qualifying process while the gerund denotes a substantival process. The term present participle may be misleading since the participle does not express tense distinctions. It is a traditional term, originally applied to adjectival forms of verbs in Ancient Greece which were inflected for tense, aspect, and case. It was borrowed from Greek grammar through Latin grammar and uncritically applied to English verbal forms which had an adjective-like use. As to its temporal meaning, the present participle expresses a process simultaneous with or prior to the process of the finite verb: it may denote present, past, and future. Verbal features. Both the present participle and the gerund distinguish the same grammatical categories of voice and temporal correlation: writing (non-perfect, non-passive) being written (non-perfect, passive) having written (perfect, non-passive) having been written (perfect, passive) walking (non-perfect, non-passive) having walked (perfect, non-passive) Like the verb, it combines with the object, the adverbial modifier; like the verb, it participates in the formation of the verbal predicate. The present participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-predicative complexes of objective and subjective types. The two groups of complexes, i.e. infinitival and present participial, may exist in parallel (e.g. when used with some verbs of physical perceptions), the difference between them lying in the aspective presentation of the process. Cf.: Nobody noticed the scouts approach the enemy trench. Nobody noticed the scouts approaching the enemy trench with slow, cautious, expertly calculated movements. Suddenly a telephone was heard to buzz, breaking the spell.

The telephone was heard vainly buzzing in the study. A peculiar use of the present participle is seen in the absolute participial constructions of various types, forming complexes of detached semi-predication. Cf.: The message being written, I clicked Send. Jane was watching TV, the kids sleeping in the adjoining room. These complexes of descriptive and narrative stylistic nature seem to be gaining ground in present-day English. Adjectival properties. Like the adjective, the present participle can be used as an attribute generally as a postposed attribute, e.g. The man talking to John is my boss. Participle II The past participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective, serving as the qualifying processual name. Unlike the present participle, it has no paradigm of its own. Its verbal features are participation in the structure of the verbal predicate (e.g. The house was destroyed by a bomb) and the use as secondary predicate (e.g.Her spirit, though crushed, was not broken). Its adjectival feature is its attributive function, e.g. She looked at the broken cup. Similar to the present participle, the past participle can be used in postposition or in preposition to the noun: the broken cup vs. the cup broken. But as compared to the present participle, the past participle occurs in preposition to the noun more frequently. Like the present participle, the past participle is capable of making up semipredicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as of absolute complex. The absolute past participial complex as a rule expresses priority in the correlation of two events. Cf.: The preliminary talks completed, it became possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda. 20. Verbals and their grammatical categories

Verb forms make up two distinct classes: finites and non-finites, also called verbals, verbids. Finites serve to express a primary predication, i.e. they tie the situation described by a proposition to the context. Non-finites serve to express a secondary predication. The non-finite forms of the verb combine the characteristics of the verb with the characteristics of other parts of speech. Their mixed features are revealed in their semantics, morphemic structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions. The strict division of functions clearly shows that the opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category. The differential feature of the opposition is constituted by the expression of verbal time and mood: the non-finite forms have no immediate means of expressing timemood categorial semantics and therefore present the weak member of the opposition. The category expressed by this opposition is called the category of finitude. The syntactic

content of the category of finitude is the expression of predication (more precisely, the expression of verbal predication). In other words, the opposition of the finite verbs and the verbids is based on the expression of the functions of full predication and semipredication. While the finite verbs express predication in its genuine and complete form, the function of the verbids is to express semi-predication, building up semi-predicative complexes within different sentence constructions. The English verbids include four forms: the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle and the past participle. The Infinitive Historically, the infinitive is a verbal noun. Hence its double nature: it combines the features of the verb with those of the noun. It is the form of the verb which expresses a process in general, i.e. a process that is not restricted (i.e. concretized) by person, number, tense, and mood. Because of its general process meaning, the infinitive is treated as the head-form of the whole paradigm of the verb. The infinitive has two presentation forms: marked and unmarked. The marked infinitive is distinguished by the grammatical word-morpheme to, historically a preposition. Similar to other grammatical word morphemes, to can be used to represent the corresponding construction as a whole (e.g. You can read any of the books if you want to). It can also be separated from its notional part by a word or phrase, usually of adverbial nature, forming the so-called split infinitive (e.g. We need your participation, to thoroughly investigate the issue.) The marked infinitive is an analytic grammatical form. The other form of the infinitive is unmarked; it is traditionally called the bare infinitive. It is used in various analytic forms (non-modal and modal), with verbs of physical perception, with the verbs let, bid, make, help (optionally), with a few modal phrases (had better, would rather, would have, etc.), with the relative why. The infinitive combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun, as a result it serves as the verbal name of a process. It has the grammatical categories of voice, aspect and temporal correlation. Consequently, the categorial paradigm of the infinitive includes eight forms: the indefinite active, the continuous active, the perfect active, the perfect continuous active; the indefinite passive, the continuous passive, the perfect passive, the perfect continuous passive. to take to be taking to have taken to have been taking to be taken to be being taken to have been taken to have been being taken The continuous and perfect continuous passive can only be used occasionally, with a strong stylistic colouring. It is the indefinite infinitive that constitues the head-form of the verbal paradigm. The verbal features of the infinitive. Like the finite form of verb, the infinitive distinguishes the categories of aspect, voice, and temporal correlation. The paradigm of the infinitive is determined by the semantico-syntactic properties of the process. If the process is intransitive, we cannot derive voice forms e.g. to walk to be walking vs. *to be being walked

to have walked to have been walking vs. *to have been being walked The nounal features of the infinitive. Semantically and morphologically, the infinitive is much more similar to the verb than to the noun: its verbal features outweigh its nounal features. Similar to the noun, the infinitive can be used as the subject or part of the subject, the predicative, and the attribute. The Gerund The gerund is originally a verbal noun in ing. Similar to the infinitive, the gerund is the name of a process, but its substantive meaning is more strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive: unlike the infinitive, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or by the possessive pronoun and used with prepositions. The general combinability of the gerund, like that of the infinitive, is dual, sharing some features with the verb, and some features with the noun. The verbal features of the gerund. Like the verb, the gerund distinguishes the categories of voice and temporal correlation: writing (non-passive, nonperfect) being written (passive, non-perfect) having written (non-passive, perfect) having been written (passive, perfect) It is obvious that gerunds derived from intransitive verbs have only two forms: non-perfect active and perfect active, e.g. walking vs. having walked. The gerund has the following syntactic features of the verb: it can function as part of the verbal predicate (e.g. If he stops working, he will die); it can be followed by an object (e.g. I remember locking the door ) and an adverbial modifier (e.g. He avoids driving fast). The nounal features of the gerund. Similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or in the common case, which, when pronominalized, turn into the possessive and objective forms, respectively: She did nothing to encourage Johns going abroad. She did nothing to encourage John going abroad. vs. She did nothing to encourage his going abroad. She did nothing to encourage him going abroad. The standard form is the form with the noun in the genitive case or with the possessive pronoun. The other form is more common in spoken English. The gerund in the latter construction is traditionally called the halfgerund. Unlike the noun, the gerund cannot be used in the plural; it cannot be preceded by the article (or its substitute); it cannot be determined by the adjective. Like the noun, the gerund can be used as the subject, the object, the predicative, and the attribute. Participle The participle is a term applied to adjectival forms of verbs. There are two types of participle: the present participle and the past participle. Participle I The present participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective and adverb, serving as the qualifying-processual name. In its outer form the present participle is wholly homonymous with the gerund, ending in the suffix -ing and distinguishing the same grammatical categories of temporal correlation and voice. Both forms denote a process the present participle (or the past participle) denotes a qualifying process while the gerund denotes a substantival process.

The term present participle may be misleading since the participle does not express tense distinctions. It is a traditional term, originally applied to adjectival forms of verbs in Ancient Greece which were inflected for tense, aspect, and case. It was borrowed from Greek grammar through Latin grammar and uncritically applied to English verbal forms which had an adjective-like use. As to its temporal meaning, the present participle expresses a process simultaneous with or prior to the process of the finite verb: it may denote present, past, and future. Verbal features. Both the present participle and the gerund distinguish the same grammatical categories of voice and temporal correlation: writing (non-perfect, non-passive) being written (non-perfect, passive) having written (perfect, non-passive) having been written (perfect, passive) walking (non-perfect, non-passive) having walked (perfect, non-passive) Like the verb, it combines with the object, the adverbial modifier; like the verb, it participates in the formation of the verbal predicate. The present participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-predicative complexes of objective and subjective types. The two groups of complexes, i.e. infinitival and present participial, may exist in parallel (e.g. when used with some verbs of physical perceptions), the difference between them lying in the aspective presentation of the process. Cf.: Nobody noticed the scouts approach the enemy trench. Nobody noticed the scouts approaching the enemy trench with slow, cautious, expertly calculated movements. Suddenly a telephone was heard to buzz, breaking the spell. The telephone was heard vainly buzzing in the study. A peculiar use of the present participle is seen in the absolute participial constructions of various types, forming complexes of detached semi-predication. Cf.: The message being written, I clicked Send. Jane was watching TV, the kids sleeping in the adjoining room. These complexes of descriptive and narrative stylistic nature seem to be gaining ground in present-day English. Adjectival properties. Like the adjective, the present participle can be used as an attribute generally as a postposed attribute, e.g. The man talking to John is my boss. Participle II The past participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective, serving as the qualifying processual name. Unlike the present participle, it has no paradigm of its own. Its verbal features are participation in the structure of the verbal predicate (e.g. The house was destroyed by a bomb) and the use as secondary predicate (e.g.Her spirit, though crushed, was not broken). Its adjectival feature is its attributive function, e.g. She looked at the broken cup. Similar to the present participle, the past participle can be used in postposition or in preposition to the noun: the broken cup vs. the cup broken. But as compared to the present participle, the past participle occurs in preposition to the noun more frequently. Like the present participle, the past participle is capable of making up semipredicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as

of absolute complex. The absolute past participial complex as a rule expresses priority in the correlation of two events. Cf.: The preliminary talks completed, it became possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda. 21. Analytical and syntactical types of the verb-form derivation The means employed for building up member-forms of categorial oppositions are traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms themselves are classed into synthetical and analytical, too. Synthetical grammatical forms are realised by the inner morphemic composition of the word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word- morpheme), and the other, a word of "substantial" meaning. Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer inflexion, and suppletivity; hence, the forms are referred to as inner-inflexional, outerinflexional, and suppletive. Inner inflexion, or phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in modern IndoEuropean languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most ancient lexemic elements. By this feature, the whole family of Indo-European languages is identified in linguistics as typologically "inflexional". most important type of opposition is the binary-private opposition. The other type of opposition may be reduced to this kind of opposition. Oppositional reductions (binary) 1 .Neutralization /weak-strong 2.Transposition:strongweak How we express gr.meaning.l.inflexions-pen-pens,2.sound altemation-replacive morpheme-man-men,3.Analitycal means with the help of analytical forms (discontinuous morphemes) 4.Suppletivity-different roots for gr.forms. I-me/go-went

Synthetic Types
The number of morphemes used for deriving word-forms in Modern English is very small (much smaller than either in German or in Russian,for instance. There is the ending -s (-es), with three variants of pronunciation and the endings -en and -ren, in one or two words each, viz. oxen, brethren (poet.), children. There is the ending -'s, with the same three variants of pronunciation as for the plural ending, used to form what is generally termed the genitive case of nouns. For adjectives, there are the endings -er and -est for the degrees of comparison. For verbs, there is the ending -s (-es) for the third person singular present indicative, with the same three variants of pronunciation noted above for nouns, the ending -d (-ed) for the past tense of certain verbs (with three variants of pronunciation, again), the ending -d (ed) for the second participle of certain verbs, the ending -n (-en) for the second participle of certain other verbs, and the ending -ing for the first participle and also for the gerund. Thus the total number of morphemes used to derive forms of words is eleven or twelve, which is much less than the number found in languages of a mainly synthetical structure. It should also be noted that most of these endings are mono-semantic, in the sense that they denote only one grammatical category and not two or three (or more) at a time, as is the case in synthetic languages. For example, the plural -s (or -es) denotes only

the category of plural number, and has nothing to do with any other grammatical category, such as case. Analytical Types These consist in using a word (devoid of any lexical meaning of its own) to express some grammatical category of another word. There can be no doubt in Modern English about the analytical character of such formations as, e. g., has invited or is invited, or is inviting, or does not invite. The verbs have, be, and do have no lexical meaning of their own in these cases. The lexical meaning of the formation resides in the participle or infinitive following the verb have, be or do. Some doubt has been expressed about the formations shall invite and will invite. There is a view that shall and will have a lexical meaning. While the existence of analytical forms of the English verb cannot be disputed, the existence of such forms in adjectives and adverbs is not nowadays universally recognised. The question whether such formations as more vivid, the most vivid, or, again, more vividly and most vividly are or are not analytical forms of degrees of comparison of vivid and vividly, is controversial. We can only say here that if these formations are recognised as analytical forms of degrees of comparison, the words more and most have to be numbered among the analytical means of morphology.