Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The three constituent parts of language: the phonological system, the lexical system and the
grammatical system. Phonology, lexicology and grammar as three main branches of
linguistics.
Language as a very complex phenomenon includes three different constituent parts: the
phonological system, the lexical system, thee grammatical system.
By the grammatical system of a language, we understand the whole set of regularities
determining the combination of the naming means (words and phraseological word
combinations) for the formation of utterances in speech. Language as a whole is the object of
study for Linguistics (General, Comparative, Historical, Cognitive, etc.). Different constituent
parts of the language are studied by different branches of Linguistics. (The phonological system
phonology; the lexical system lexicology; the grammatical system grammar.) Grammar
may be subdivided into 2 subbranches: Morphology and Syntax.
Morphology (M. Blokh) is the grammatical study of the word in its abstract sense.
Syntax (M. Blokh) is the grammatical study of the sentence. It deals with the structure of the
sentence on the whole and with different constituent parts of the sentence in particular. As for
practical and theoretical approaches in Grammar Studies, they are both considered linguistics
disciplines that go hand in hand and deal with grammar as a branch of Linguistics. Their aims
and approaches however vary. The aim of study in Theoretical Grammar is to enquire a scientific
conception of the object (which is presented as Grammatical System) in accordance with the
principals of both traditional and modern Linguistics. The aim of study in Practical Grammar is
to get an ability to use certain knowledge about grammatical system of a language in order to
speak, understand and write according to the established rules of the language in question.
Different aims mean different methods of study.
Lexicology is the part of linguistics dealing with the vocabulary of the language and the properties of words as the main units of language. The term vabu1ar is used to denote the system
formed by the sum total of all the words and word equivalents that the language possesses.
Phonology is a branch of linguistics. Phonology as a branch of linguistics that studies the
vocalization process and speech.
and for this the word must assume a certain grammatical form and take a certain position in the
sentence. The position is the sphere of Syntax. At the same time the member of the sentence
(the level of sentence) is constituted by a certain part of speech (level of morphology). The
structure classification and combinability of the words is the object of Morphology. Syntax
deals with the structure classification and combinability of sentences which are built up of
words and their equivalents. (Phraseological units have the metaphors and wide vivid images.
/ ()).
In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis and description of the structure of
morphemes and other units of meaning in a language like words, affixes, and parts of speech and
intonation/stress, implied context.
Morphological typology represents a way of classifying languages according to the ways by
which morphemes are used in a language from the analytic that use only isolated morphemes,
through the agglutinative ("stuck-together") and fusional languages that use bound morphemes
(affixes), up to the polysynthetic, which compress lots of separate morphemes into single words.
Fundamental concepts
The distinction between these two senses of "word" is arguably the most important one in
morphology. The first sense of "word", the one in which dog and dogs are "the same word", is
called a lexeme. The second sense is called word form. We thus say that dog and dogs are
different forms of the same lexeme. Dog and dog catcher, on the other hand, are different
lexemes, as they refer to two different kinds of entities.
Inflection vs. word formation
Given the notion of a lexeme, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of morphological rules.
Rules of the first kind are called inflectional rules, while those of the second kind are called word
formation. The English plural, as illustrated by dog and dogs, is an inflectional rule; compounds
like dog catcher or dishwasher provide an example of a word formation rule.
There is a further distinction between two kinds of word formation: derivation and
compounding.
Compounding is a process of word formation that involves combining complete word forms into
a single compound form; dog catcher is therefore a compound.
Derivation involves affixing bound (non-independent) forms to existing lexemes, whereby the
addition of the affix derives a new lexeme.
In linguistics, syntax is the study of the principles and rules for constructing sentences in natural
languages.
The Sentence is the basic unit of syntax. It is different from other language units because it is a
unit of communication.
The main units of syntax are phrases and sentences.
The main difference between the phrase and the sentence is in their linguistic function. The
phrase is a nominative unit, the sentence is a predicative one.
Nomination is naming things and their relations. A nominative unit simply names something
known to everybody or a majority of native language speakers, recalling it from their memory,
e.g.: a book, a departure. A phrase represents an object of nomination as a complicated
phenomenon, be it a thing, an action, a quality or a whole situation, e.g.: an interesting book, to
start with a jerk, absolutely fantastic, his unexpected departure.
The content of the word. Its lexical, lexical-grammatical and grammatical meaning.
The lexical meaning of the word is it individual meaning or a bunch of such meanings held in a
dictionary or in memory. In speech we realize one of them when there is no pun or metaphor.
The lexical meaning characterizes the word as a unit of the vocabulary and therefore it is the
object of study for lexicology.
The lexico-grammatical meaning of the word is not individual. Quite different words, sometimes
a large number of them have the same lexico-grammatical meaning (a table, beauty, movement
lexico-grammatical meaning of substance or thingness). Lexico-grammatical meaning are of
interest to both lexicology and grammar. In grammar they are studied mostly by morphology. In
a number of cases lexico-grammatical meanings make different words (cases of conversion).
Words having the same lexico-grammatical meanings very often have the same or nearly
the same system of forms (plural number, strong/weak verbs), patterns of
combinability/collacability (art+ad+N; N+N; rare case: notional/modal verb+N, but NEVER
N+V)and syntactic functions in the sentence. The latter makes lexico-grammatical meanings in
Grammar a very interesting field of study for Syntax.
The grammatical meanings of words are not individual either. They can be attached to a
number of words that may differ greatly as far as their meanings are concerned. Eg. My cats My
brothers: the apostrophe cares the meaning of possessivity, while the individual meaning is
different. (also work-worked, create - created)
Grammatical meaning is always expressed either explicitly or implicitly. For instance: The book
reads well here the grammatical. meaning of passivity is expressed implicitly.
Grammatical meaning is a system of expressing the grammatical meaning through the
paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms-expressed by grammatical opposition, which can
be of different types:
Private
Gradual-large-larger-largest
Equipollent-am is are
By the number of the opossums opposition may be binary, ternary, quaternary and so on. Any
opposition can be reduced. The 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)
Neutralization /weak-strong
Transposition: strong-weak
How we express grammatical meaning:
Inflexions-pen-pens,
Sound alternation- replacive morpheme-man-men,
Analitycal means with the help of analytical forms (discontinuous morphemes)
Suppletivity-different roots for grammatical forms. I-me/go-went
Types of oppositions. The notion of a grammatical category in the light of the oppositional
theory. The privative opposition as the main type of the oppositions in English.
Among grammatical meanings of words we may find those which characterize the word from the
point of view that is connected with some certain grammatical aspect. Eg.: desk desks
grammatical meaning number of objects. [he] works is opposed to worked: work - worked
opposition of past vs. non-past (category of tense), work - working opposition of continuous
vs. non-continuous (category of aspect), work - have worked perfect vs. non-perfect
(category of correlation), and category of voice: passive vs. non-passive.
This grammatical means are sometimes called Homogeneous Grammatical Means (HGM).
HGM may be opposed to each other. According to the oppositional theory any grammatical
category is the opposition of grammatical meanings and grammatical forms, corresponding to
them.
Opposition, according to Pr. Blockh, - is a generalized correlation of lingual forms by means
of which a certain function is fulfilled ( ). The opposite members
have 2 kinds of features: 1) the basic feature upon which the opposition is build; 2) differential
feature (only one of the members possesses).
The simplest and the most important kind of opposition is the so-called privative/i/ binary
() opposition. A privative means that one member has a certain differential feature, and
the other doesnt. Binary means that there are 2 members opposed. The member of the
opposition that has got the differential feature is called the marked/strong (+) member of the
opposition. The member of the opposition that hasnt got the differential feature is called the
unmarked/weak (-) member of the opposition.
In Morphology we may deal with oppositions having more than 2 morphemes. They are
called more than binary or multiple. For the opposition which has 3 members we may used the
term triple. The opposition theory was first formulated in Phonology by the Czech scholar .
in his book Essentials of Phonology. This theory was further transferred be Pr.
(Czech) and in Russia by Pr. , Pr. and Pr. and his
school. This theory was also applied to morphology by this scholars.
Every word is characterized by its individual feature (its lexical meaning) and some lexicogrammatical, morphological and syntactical characteristics common with those of many other
words. Thus it is possible and necessary to use two approaches to the study of the vocabulary.
Lexicology dealing with the word as an item of the vocabulary in which every word differs from
others studies words one by one. It is clear, that when studying a word as a unit of the language
structure it is not necessary to study every word separately. Words have lexico-grammatical
characteristics that are shared by many other words.
In Grammar we try to classify words according to their lexico-grammatical, morphological
and syntactical characteristics and study large classes of words which are traditionally called
parts of speech.
Morphology practically deals with the properties of different parts of speech. Parts of speech
represent the main classification of words in Grammar.
By parts of speech we mean big classes of words having certain lexico-grammatical,
morphological and syntactical characteristics in common.
The parts of speech theory is very old one. But it was only summered in the
20es of the XX century that satisfactory scientific principals for establishing
various parts of speech were formulated. The first to formulate this principles
in Russia was Pr. . According to this author
different parts of speech should be singled put on the basis of three criteria
approach. He called these three criteria meaning, form and
function.
The noun, for example, as a part of speech, is traditionally characterized by 1) the categorial
meaning of substance (thingness),
2) a specific set of word-building affixes, the grammatical categories of number, case and article
determination, prepositional connections and modification by an adjective, and
3) the substantive functions of subject, object or predicative in the sentence. In the same way, all
the other notional parts of speech are described.
Functional words, which include conjunctions, prepositions, articles, interjections, particles, and
modal words, have incomplete nominative value, are unchangeable and fulfill mediatory,
constructional syntactic functions.
Notional words, which traditionally include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and
numerals, have complete nominative meanings, are in most cases changeable and fulfill selfdependent syntactic functions in the sentence.
Contribution to the solution of this problem made by the scholars in this country.
Pr. s ideas were further elaborated and put to practice by academician V.V. Vinogradov in
reference to Russia, while Pr. put reference to English. The first
semantic criteria means taking into account lexico-grammatical characteristics of words, their
lexico-grammatical meanings and lexico-grammatical morphemes. Alone these lines we speak of
1. words having the lexico-grammatical meanings of substance (house, road, movement)
2. Words having the lexico-grammatical meanings of property (big, strong, etc.)
3. Words having the lexico-grammatical meanings of process (write, read)
4. The property of another property (quickly, surely)
5. Of number (one, first, etc.).
the second formal criteria means taking into account the morphological characteristic of words
their grammatical categories. Along these line we single out such words as having the
grammatical categories of number and case, degrees of comparison, person and number,
tense, aspect, correlation, voice and mood and so on.
The third syntactic criteria means taking into account the combinability of words on the phrase
level and their syntactic function in the sentence on the sentence level. On this principal we
single out words having the syntactic function of the subject and the object, the predicate,
the adverbial modifier and so on.
The question whether it is necessary to apply three criterias. It is so that only complex approach
can help us more or less surely to classify vocabulary into different parts of speech. Taking in
isolation the semantic criteria is not much reliable because not all nouns have the lexicogrammatical meaning of substance. But it doesnt mean that they should form a different
category. As for the morphological criteria many words havent got any grammatical categories
at all. And as for the syntactic criteria different parts of speech may function as one and the same
member of the sentence (Moscow linguistic school end of the 19th century).
Alternative theories of distinguishing parts of speech (H. Sweet, O. Jesperson, Ch. Fries).
In the history of Linguistics there have been various approaches to classification of words in
grammar. Some grammarians used only the semantic or only the formal criteria.
Pr. Henry Sweet noticed the inconsistency() that exists between morphological
and syntactic properties of parts of speech. But his attempt resulted in uniting fragments of
classes that on the whole dont show either morphological or lexical stability on the one hand
and in disentitling that on the whole demonstrate morphological and lexical stability. He offered
two classifications. In the first of them he singles out two groups: declinable (;
nouns, adjectives and verbs) and indeclinables (adverbs, prepositions, conjunction and
interjection). The second typology is based on the syntactic functions of words and wordgroups. Thus the typology comprises of the so-called noun words (nouns proper, nounpronouns, noun-numerals, infinitive and gerund)and the adjective-words (adjective proper,
adjective pronouns, adjective numerals, participial construction) and verb-words (finite forms,
the infinitive and the Gerund).
The next attempt was by Otto Jespersen () tried to unite Syntagmatic and
Paradigmatic bonds of different words, their form and function. He introduce the dual system.
The 1st aspect: the traditional parts of speech description that is done both from the point of view
of their morphology and their lexoc-grammatical meanings.
2nd: these classes are also analysed from the point of view of their importance and value in
phrases and sentences. (He gets three ranks to every word) Thus a word may be: primary (the
nuclears of the phrase and the subject of the sentence), secondary (serving as an attribute to the
primary) and tertiary (subordinated and dependent upon the secondary word). This theory is
called the theory of three ranks. It was one of the first attempts to create such a classification
that would take into account both syntagmatc and paradigmatic properties of traditional parts of
speech. But it resulted only in terminological excess and proved to be not very convenient. The
descriptive approach is connected with the name of the American scholar Charles Freeze, who
belonged to the comparatively modern trend in Linguistics called American Descriptive
Linguistics.
Pr. Freeze used only the syntactic criteria for pointing out different classes of words and he
called it distribution of words in speech. As a practical devise he used three frames. By frames
he meant model sentences in which he pointed out certain syntactic positions. And he tested all
the words from his materials in those syntactic positions. Sentences were taken from oral speech.
His data base consisted of 50 hours of telephone conversations recorded by him.
Frame A the concert was good (class 1, class 2).
Frame B the clerk remembered the tax (Class 3).
Frame C the team went there (class 4).
He pointed out 4 classes of words. Later on some other scholars began to use symbols NAVD
(D determiner) for calling these four classes of words. But there is a difference between group
N or class 1 words and the traditional noun, the same with all the rest. Class 1 is a large category
than the class of nouns for it includes personal pronouns, infinitives and so on.
Alongside the 4 syntactic classes of words, Charles Freeze also pointed out 15 groups of the
so-called function words (linking verbs, particles, prepositions, conjunctions and so on). These 4
syntactic classes are extensively used by different scholars in the USA and in Russia because
they are very convenient for partenning sentences of diverse types. E.g. the concept was good
N+be+A. But at the same time these 4 classes cannot fully replace the traditional parts of speech.
Thus this theory cannot be applied for morphological investigation.
It contradicts the oppositional theory to a certain extent. Pr. Ilyish found rather an easy
way to solve this difficulty. In his opinion its possible to define the meaning of the
possessive case as possessivity in a wide sense of the word.
The meaning of the unmarked member is usually defined in the negative in comparison
with the marked member. Many scholars tried to enumerate the meanings of the common
case. The general meaning can be defined like this: the common case doesnt express
possessivity in the wide sense of the word.
Still another way to explain this mute problem can be found in the theory of prototypes
originated by pr. Rosch.
The category of number in the light of the oppositional theory. Strong member of the
opposition: ways of expressing the plural in English.
The opposition representing the category of number contains only two opposite members: the
plural number and the singular or the non-plural number. Thus we may say that this is a
privative binary opposition. The plural number is the marked member of the opposition and the
non-plural is the unmarked member.
The form of the singular number as the unmarked member of the opposition is expressed by the
zero inflectional suffix. The form of the plural number contains the positive morpheme of the
plural. This form has a number of allomorphs, that is the variants of the morpheme. The
allomorphs of the morpheme of the plural are: the s- inflectional suffix which has got in its turn
three phonetic variants (/z/, /s/, /iz/). The en- inflectional suffix exists in one set of forms (oxoxen). The plural number may be also expressed by sound interchange (man-men), sound
interchange and the ren inflectional suffix (child-children, brother-brethren).
A number of nouns have the plural form identical with the singular (dear-dear, sheep-sheep, so
on). Some nouns of foreign origin build up the form of the plural number in the foreign manner.
That is in the way this form is made in the language it is borrowed from. The major stock comes
from Latin and Greek (cactus-cacti). It is necessary t note that in the process of assimilation
some nouns of foreign origin acquire the s- inflectional suffix in the plural.
Not all nouns have the category of number as their property. Thus with regard to the grammatical
category of number we may divide the class of nouns into two big groups: countables (the nouns
that have got the category of number) and uncoutables (havent got this category).
The sphere of operation of the category of number within the morphological system of the
noun. Countable & uncountable nouns. Singularia & pluralia tantum nouns.
The uncountable nouns are outside the grammatical category of number. Yet they are treated by
the speakers of the language either as singulars or plurals. This is justified both by the form of
the nouns and their combinability.
e.g. The milk is fresh.
His wages were high.
All the nouns that havent got the category of number may be divided into two groups:
- Singularia tantum nouns include mass-nouns (milk, bread, gold, game, toast), abstract
nouns (knowledge, love, hatred), some collective nouns (peasantry, intelligentsia).
In the sub-class of s.t.n. we find a number of nouns with the s- inflectional suffix, such
as some sciences, names of some diseases, and certain games (cards, billiards).
- Pluralia tantum nouns include the names of objects consisting of two or more parts
(trousers, goods, wages), militia(), police, people havent got the s- inflectional
suffix but nevertheless are treated by the speakers as plural, it justifies their
combinability. Here also belong athletics, acoustics, ethics, hysterics and politics.
The problem of the combinations like "more important" & "most important".
All scholars agree that there exists the morphological way to express the comparative and the
superlative degrees synthetically and the suppletive way in some cases at least.
Some scholars also point out that there exists the analytical way. Recently there appeared a view
that the combinations of more/most + adjective should be regarded as phrases or presyntactical
combinations.
To prove this the scholars put forward a number of arguments. One of the strongest arguments is
that the words more and most may combine with other parts of speech and convey
practically the same meaning.
Alongside the combinations of more and most there exist the combinations with less/least +
adjective. These combinations are treated as free syntactical combinations practically by all
scholars.
On this basis Pr. Ilyish notes that there is no sufficient reason to treat this pairs of combinations
in two different ways. Some scholars however try to defend the traditional point of view. Pr.
Haimovich and Rogovskaya try to prove that more/most + adjective are nearly grammatical
forms of two different degrees of comparison. The meanings of more and most are practically
the same as those of -er and -est.
The distribution of the forms with more and most as compared with the forms er ad est is
complementary. We can hardly say the same about less/least + adjective. Having examined
different points of view Pr. Ilyish comes to the conclusion that strict grammatical considerations
tend to the idea that more/most + adjective are free syntactical combinations.
A very interesting solution to the problem is suggested by Pr. Blokh. He agrees with Pr. Ilyish
that there is no necessity to treat more/most + adjective and less/least + adjective in different
ways. He comes to another conclusion. In his opinion these combinations belong to the category
of degrees of comparison. The latter, thus, has five forms for three degrees of comparison.
Substantivisation of adjectives.
This phenomenon is characteristic not only of English but also of other Indo-European
languages, Russian, for instance. Under certain circumstances are substantivized that is inverted
into nouns. When they undergo this process adjectives acquire the characteristics of a noun.
When they undergo this process, an adjective acquire the characteristics of a noun, to be more
exact its lexico-grammatical meaning, the grammatical category of number and case, the ability
to be used in the function of the subject and the object. In this context a word is considered to be
a noun not an adjective. In some cases we deal with complete substantivisation. In many other
cases, however, substantivisation is only partial. Such adjectives acquire only some properties of
the noun its lexico-grammatical meaning of substance, the ability to combine with the definite
article, the ability to be used in the function of the subject and the object. But they dont have the
grammatical category of number and case, the ability to combine with the indefinite article.
According to pr. Ilyish, these words are partially substantivized and occupy an intermediate
position between nouns and adjectives.
(privates,natives,,,the reach, the English, the unforgettable)
The question about the possibility of establishing stative words as a separate part of speech.
The first to examine the characteristics of stative words in greater detail was Pr. Ilysh in 1948.
He called it the theory of Stative words. He examined the characteristics of these words on the
basis of the criteria applied for establishing different parts of speech. And he came to the
conclusion that the distinctive features of the afraid-type words were strong enough to single
them out as a separate part of speech the category of state, which is the loan ()
translation of the Russian term . Later, Pr. Ilysh gave another term the
Stative. Having examined all the characteristics of the afraid-type words he tried to prove that
they differed from adjectives not only as far as their syntactical functions work and sound, but
also in the sphere of their lexico-grammatical and morphological characteristics. First of all he
thought, that the meaning of state could be regarded as categorical, lying at the basis of different
parts of speech. From his point of view the meaning of state is different from the meaning of
property. The lexico-grammatical meaning of property is characteristic of the adjectives, while
the meaning of state is characteristic of Stative.
As for the lexico-grammatical morphemes Pr. Ilysh found that the morpheme A could be looked
upon as the lexico-grammatical morpheme of Stative.
As to their morphological characteristics, he thought that these words havent got any
grammatical categories; they are unchangeable in contrast with adjectives.
The most striking difference between the Stative and the adjectives lies in the syntactic
characteristics, they demonstrate in the combinability on the phrase level and in their syntactic
function on the sentence level. On the phrase level the most common combinative model of an
adjective is the right-hand connection with a noun. This combinative model is found with many
other parts of speech, not only with an adjective. The striking thing is that this position is alien
to the Stative. Although there are some exceptions (an aloof manner ), in general
we dont use this combinative model for the Stative. E.g. A man alive to social interests. On the
sentence level Stative words also differ from adjectives. The Stative is used only predicatively
from the point of view of Pr. Ilysh. The existence of all these considerations permitted Pr. Ilysh
to conclude that the afraid-type words made up a separate part of speech. This theory was
accepted rather broadly and the Stative was looked upon as a separate part of speech.
Arguments against and in favour of establishing stative words as a separate part of speech.
Pr. Ilysh considered stative words as a separate part of speech, but 10 years later in 1958
Pr.. published an article in which he tried to criticize the Stative theory. His arguments:
1) the meaning of state is but a variety of the meaning of property, which is a pure adjectival
lexico-grammatical meaning;
2) some words like these may be preceded by more and most. Thus they have got degrees of
comparison (more ashamed);
3) turning to the combinability characteristics, Pr. Barkhudarov couldnt but agree that such
words have some peculiarities as compared with near adjectives. But basically their
combinability is practically the same. He says that such words may combine with adverbs like
adjectives (E.g. deadly tired painfully alive). He says that words of this type could function as
predicatives and as attributes. Usually they are used in the function of post-positive attributes
(E.g. the Child asleep), less frequently they may be found in the function of pre-positive
attributes (an aloof manner, an alive one). Later on, come other scholars (especially Pr. Blokh,
Pr. Ivanova) also criticized Pr. Ilyshs theory of a Stative as a separate part of speech. They
practically repeated Pr. Barkhuudarovs criticism, but gave their own examples. They said that
state is a variety of property. Pr. Blokh: state may be expressed not only by Stative words, but
also by near adjectives, such as expectant, healthy, hungry, etc, its sure a state than a
property.E.g. a living predecessor = a predecessor alive. Some of these words may be found in
the comparative and the superlative degree. E.g. Of us all John was the most aware of the
situation. As to the combinability characteristics, Pr. Blokh and Pr. Ivanova couldnt but agree
that such words have some peculiarities. They differ at least negatively from the bulk of
adjectives. They cannot be used in some combinations in which adjectives are used. Basically,
there is hardly any difference between them. They are mainly used in the same syntactic models
and function in the sentence:E.g. The house was astir. The household was excited. We found the
house astir = We found the household excited. Stative words can also function as attributes. Pr.
Blokh gave some quantative considerations. He said that there were about a dozen of stable units
belonging to this group, and thrice as many unstable ones. At the same time, there are not so
many Stative words. This consideration also serves as a proof that Stative is evidently a
subclass of an adjective and not a separate part of speech.
Syntactical properties of the pronoun. Combinability (phrase level) and the syntactical
function (sentence level).
The pronoun cannot be characterized by the uniformity of their combinative models. Their combinability
differs from that of the both nouns and adj that may serve as another prove that the pronoun is a separate part
of speech. There is only one noun-pronoun which have the same combinative model as the noun.
(Show me another suit. A grey one.). Some of the pronoun have the post positive agent as an attribute (smt
terrible). The pronouns are usually not preceded by an adjective as the nouns are. Some of a pronoun does
not combine with any other words (smb, he/she). Some of the adj pronouns form a right hand connection
with a noun thus serving attributively (my book, his story). But even this model doesnt complete resemble
the model A+N of the adj. A tall boy (A+N).The pronoun take the position of the article not of the adj (That
tall boy). This is the position of a determination and it is typical for articles and adj pronouns. However, there
are some other adj pronouns that take the position before determination.(All these boys). This position is
called The pre-determinate position. There is one adj pronoun with the same combinative model as the
adj.-other(The other book). As for the syntactical function in the sentences all noun-pr are used in the
function of the subject, object, predicative (. . ). Adj-pr.are used in the function
of the attribute, but if we draw a line of difference b/w the attribute and the determina, than we must say that
only the pr Other is used in the pure function of the attribute. And other adj pronouns are used in the function
of the determina as they occupied exactly the same place as the article.
The category of primary time & the category of prospective time (M. Blokh)
According to Blokh it is possible to establish 2 temporal grammatical categories in English. In
his opinion the forms of past, non-past, future and future in the past constitute two different
temporal categories. They are closely connected because they are both temporal, but at the same
time they have distinctive features of their own.
The first temporal category the category of primary time is constituted by two opposite
members: past and non-past. In his opinion the future can hardly be included in this system if
only because it has two variants: the future and the future-in-the-past.
The second temporal category is the category of prospect/prospective time. It also includes
two members: future and non-future. Thus both these categories may be looked upon as binary
privative oppositions. The category of prospective time shows whether an action coincides with
some moment in the past or with the moment of speech or whether it follows that moment. So it
is purely relative because it is not necessarily connected with the moment of speech, not
always present oriented, e.g.: he said he would go there. The future in the category of prospect
has got 2 variants: the future and the future-in-the-past. In both cases it shows an after-action.
The expression of the future differs in two plains: in the present time plane of the construction
shall/will +verb, and the past time plane of the construction should/would + verb. The action
acquires an additional temporal characteristic to the expression of time in English. That is the
category of prospect.
Aspect. The Continuous forms & their interpretation by different scholars (H. Sweet,
O. Jespersen, I. Ivanova).
A-is ling representation of objective category of manner of action
As is known the morphological system of the English verb includes a set of continuous
forms. The essences of these forms and their place in English morphological system have
been interpreted in a number of ways. Pr. Henry Sweet and Pr. Jespersen regarded these
forms as a set of peculiar tense forms capable of expressing an action taking place
simultaneously with another action. They understood the category of aspect broader for
them this category expressed not only the time of the action from the point of view of time of
speech, but also some additional temporal characteristics such as simultaneity and priority.
Simultaneity is expressed by the continuous forms and priority by the perfect forms. Pr.
Ivanova understands the continuous forms as those rendering a bland of temporal and
aspective characteristics of the action. She examines these forms also within the category of
tense. But she says that these forms have a double function, on the one hand they express an
additional temporal characteristic (simultaneity), on the other they express an aspective
characteristic of the action (continuity).
The question about the number of voice opposites in the morphological system of the
English verb.
Most scholars agree that the main opposition lies between the Active and the Passive voices.
There are some scholars however who believe that there are more than two voices in English (Pr.
Ivanova, ). They recognize the so-called reflexive voice, which finds its expression
in the self-pronoun (myself, himself, etc.). E.g. He dressed himself.
Some other scholars speak of the reciprocal. It finds its expression in the reciprocal pronounce
Each Other; One Another that are looked upon as grammatical elements. E.g. They greeted each
other. The grammatical form in this case is believed to be: greated each other, constituting
Still others speak of the middle voice. It happens in cases like this: The door opened [and John
came in]; The new cell-phones are selling very well. Pr. Ilysh gives a thorough examination of
this point but doesnt express his view whether the Middle Voice exists in English or not.
Pr. , Pr. Rogovskaya tried to show that it is hardly probable that there are any other
voices in English besides the Active and the Passive Voice. In cases with the so-called reflexive
and reciprocal voice the form of the predicate verb is hardly include pronounce as unique
grammatical elements. As for the Middle Voice, Pr. and Pr. Rogovskaya presume
that there are some verbs that have 2 grammatical varints.
Pr. Barkhudarov doesnt except their idea about the existence of the reflexive/ reciprocal and
middle voices either. Instead he speaks about the Medial () reflexive and reciprocal
meanings, that have no specific grammatical forms for their expression in English.
This problem was discussed by Pr. Blokh in the same way. So there are just 2 voices: Passive
Active/ Non-passive.
The question about the two functions of the construction "be + participle".
There is another problem in connection with the category of voice. This problem concerns 2
constructions: be + Ven (V3) and be + Participle II (adjective). The meaning are neither
grammatical nor lexical in cases: The door was closed, he was frighten, etc.
This problem has been solved differently. Pr. Barkhudarov gives a simple variant: nearly in all
cases we deal with the Passive Voice and a Simple Verbal Predicate. However he has to admit
that there are some cases when Participle II forms a compound nominal predicate. E.g. I was
interested adjectivized.
Many other scholars think that in a number of cases the categorial character of the predicate is
entirely neutralized as in the sentence the door was closed. But this categorial character can be
deneutralized by some other context: the door was closed by butler, Jolin, etc. Passive voice
simple verbal. The door on the right was closed but the door on the left was open
Participle II/ adjective.
Adverbial Modifier after the predicate may also show that this is the Passive form and hence the
simple verbal predicate. E.g. The door was closed in the evening. The Adverbial Modifier
emphasizes the dynamic character of the verb thus showing that we deal with the Simple Verbal
Predicate. It may also be emphasized by the categorial verb forms: tense, aspect and correlation:
E.g. The door has been locked.
The question about the number of mood opposites in the morphological system.
If we take the problem of Mood as a whole, we shall notice that a great deal of studies have been
concerned with this aspect. In spite of this, however, the problem remains one of the most
controversial issues in modal linguistics on the English language. Thus even now different
scholars speak of a different number of Moods in Modern English. This number varies from 2 to
16. Pr. Barkhudarov and Pr. Blokh 2 Moods; Pr. Ivanova 3; Pr. Smirnitsky and Pr.
Akhmanova 6; Pr. Max Deutschbein 16 (these are more meanings then Moods). Practically
each of these viewpoints has something in its favor. Here arraises the question why there exist so
many opinions on this problem. Some scholars (Pr. Blokh and Pr. Barkhudarov among them)
think that the reason is some objective difficulties, the complexity of the problem being one of
them. Pr. Ilysh says that it is connected with the absence of direct correspondence between
meaning and form. Sometimes the same form of the verb shows different modal meanings. In
other cases, different forms express one and the same modal meaning.
E.G. I said, I should go. (max reality)
It is necessary that I should go.
I should go, if I knew the place.
It is necessary that I should go.
It is necessary that I go.
Objective difficulties do exist, but at the same time we should note that they occur not only in
connection with the problem of Mood, but they go hand on hand with practically any
grammatical category and theoretical research. Therefore, scholars mention subjective
difficulties. Pr. Barkhudarov raised the discussion of two points: first, grammatical homonymy
and its boundaries, and two, the modal auxiliaries should/would.
opposed in form and function. Thus we have a multiple opposition that contains 4 members, 3
marked members (varieties of the Subjunctive Mood) vs. 1 unmarked member (the Indicative
Mood).
S1. The sentence & the phrase: the main difference. Predication as the main sentence
characteristic. The predicative connection of the subject and the predicate.
the term phrase acquired an extremely narrow sense and was applied only to those phrases which include not less
than 2 notional words, connected by the relations of subordination. Predicative and prepositional groups were
excluded from the phrase theory. This point of view was introduced by Vinogradov and was supported by many
Russian linguis
The Sentence is the basic unit of syntax. It is different from other language units because it is a unit of
communication. It's very difficult to give a definition of the sentence because it has many aspects. Every definition
reflects this or that aspect but it can't be considered as a universal one.
A sentence is a unit of speech whose grammatical structure conforms to the laws of the language and which serves
as the chief means of conveying a thought. A sentence is not only a means of communicating something about
reality but a means of showing the speakers attitude to it. It is rather difficult to define the sentence as it is
connected with many lingual and extra lingual aspects logical, psychological and philosophical.
Sentence definitions.
A sentence is a subject-predicate structure. Grammatical subject can only be defined in terms of the sentence.
Moreover the grammatical subject often does not indicate what we are talking about (The birds have eaten all the
fruit. It is getting cold). Besides, this definition leaves out verbless sentences. There are one-member sentences.
They are non-sentences? Conclusion a sentence is a structural scheme.
Formal D. American Descriptive Gr-r) Ch. Fries: a s-ce is a word or group of words standing between the initial
Capital letter and a mark of end punctuation or between two marks of end punctuation.
Phonetic D. M.Whitehall: an utterance ending with one of 2 intonation contours (fall>.! , rise>?) typical of the Eng.
language. A sentence is a flow of speech between 2 pauses. But speech is made up of incomplete, interrupted,
unfinished, or even quite chaotic sentences. Speech is made up of utterances but utterances seldom correspond to
sentences.
It is more preferable to describe a sentence than to define it.
The main peculiar features of the sentence are: integrity, syntactic independence, grammatical completeness,
semantic completeness, communicative completeness, communicative functioning, predicativity, modality,
intonational completeness
Predicativity is a syntactical category. It is actualized reference to reality. Logical understanding: combination of 2
parts of proposition. Formally syntactic understanding: relations of the structural components of the sentence
(subject and predicate). Semantic approach: correlation of the contents of the utterance with the situation. The latter
is most popular.
Sentence definitions.
Modality is a semantic category. It is broader a notion than predicativity, it is revealed both in grammatical elements
of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. Prof.Pocheptsov: predicativity is mood plus tense
(predicativity is broader than modality)
The features which should be included into the s-ce def.-ns are:
the s-ce is a syntactic unit;
the s-ce is an autonomous unit which isnt a part of a larger syntactic structure;
the s-ce is a structurally complete unit which is based on a certain syntactic pattern or modal and contains all the
component characteristics of this pattern.
Sentence definitions.
S-ce should possess all the parts of the s-ce preconditioned by the verbal valency. Ex. He knew O. At the same time
the s-ce doesnt necessarily express a complete thought because in many cases it may contain the words whose
lexical meaning is ambiguous and depends on the context. Ex. She did that. He knew it.
the s-ce is characterized by its own purpose of utterance. It can be a statement, a ? or a command.
The s-ce as an syntactic unit is materialized in a written or oral form. Acc-ly it should be phonetically or graphically
shaped.
blokh:The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic
pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connec-tion of words
having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the
main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.
Predication. Means of expressing predication. To become a s-ce a word or a word group must have 2
categories predicativity and modality. The correlation of the thought expressed in the sentence with the
situation of speech is called predicativity. Predicativiry has three main components: modality, time and
person, expressed by the categories of mood, tense and person. So the predicate verb is the main means of
expressing predicativity.
The person component of predicativity is also expressed by the subject. Thus predicativity is expressed by
the subject-predicate group, or predication. Predication constitutes the basic structure of the sentence.
Predicativity is also expressed by intonation, which is the essential feature of the sentence as a unit of
speech.
It should be noted, that some scholars use only one term predication to denote both the relation of the
sentence to reality and means of its expression.
A sentence may contain primary and secondary predication:
/ heard someone singing.
The group someone singing is called the secondary predication, as it resembles the subject-predicate
group, or the primary predication, structurally and semantically: it consists of two main components,
nominal and verbal, and names an event or situation. But it cannot be correlated with reality directly and
cannot constitute an independent unit of communication, as verbals have no categories of mood, tense and
person. The secondary predication is related to the situation of speech indirectly, through the primary
predications.
Chahoyan (from S-Petersburg University): one member nominal s-ces have no gr-l predicativity, but they
possess the meaning of predication, for ex. an ability to describe a situation. The conclusion is that of
three kinds of simple s-ces two-member s-ces and one-member imperative s-ce express gr-l predicativity
unambiguously, while in one-member nominal s-ces there is only the meaning of predication, but no
predicativity.
S1. The sentence & the phrase: the main difference. Predication as the main sentence
characteristic. The predicative connection of the subject and the predicate.
the term phrase acquired an extremely narrow sense and was applied only to those phrases
which include not less than 2 notional words, connected by the relations of subordination.
Predicative and prepositional groups were excluded from the phrase theory. This point of view
was introduced by Vinogradov and was supported by many Russian linguis
The Sentence is the basic unit of syntax. It is different from other language units because it is a
unit of communication. It's very difficult to give a definition of the sentence because it has many
aspects. Every definition reflects this or that aspect but it can't be considered as a universal one.
A sentence is a unit of speech whose grammatical structure conforms to the laws of the language
and which serves as the chief means of conveying a thought. A sentence is not only a means of
communicating something about reality but a means of showing the speakers attitude to it. It is
rather difficult to define the sentence as it is connected with many lingual and extra lingual
aspects logical, psychological and philosophical.
Sentence definitions.
A sentence is a subject-predicate structure. Grammatical subject can only be defined in terms of
the sentence. Moreover the grammatical subject often does not indicate what we are talking
about (The birds have eaten all the fruit. It is getting cold). Besides, this definition leaves out
verbless sentences. There are one-member sentences. They are non-sentences? Conclusion a
sentence is a structural scheme.
Formal D. American Descriptive Gr-r) Ch. Fries: a s-ce is a word or group of words standing
between the initial Capital letter and a mark of end punctuation or between two marks of end
punctuation.
Phonetic D. M.Whitehall: an utterance ending with one of 2 intonation contours (fall>.! , rise>?)
typical of the Eng. language. A sentence is a flow of speech between 2 pauses. But speech is
made up of incomplete, interrupted, unfinished, or even quite chaotic sentences. Speech is made
up of utterances but utterances seldom correspond to sentences.
It is more preferable to describe a sentence than to define it.
The main peculiar features of the sentence are: integrity, syntactic independence, grammatical
completeness, semantic completeness, communicative completeness, communicative
functioning, predicativity, modality, intonational completeness
Predicativity is a syntactical category. It is actualized reference to reality. Logical understanding:
combination of 2 parts of proposition. Formally syntactic understanding: relations of the
structural components of the sentence (subject and predicate). Semantic approach: correlation of
the contents of the utterance with the situation. The latter is most popular.
Sentence definitions.
Modality is a semantic category. It is broader a notion than predicativity, it is revealed both in
grammatical elements of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. Prof.Pocheptsov:
predicativity is mood plus tense (predicativity is broader than modality)
The features which should be included into the s-ce def.-ns are:
the s-ce is a syntactic unit;
the s-ce is an autonomous unit which isnt a part of a larger syntactic structure;
the s-ce is a structurally complete unit which is based on a certain syntactic pattern or modal and
contains all the component characteristics of this pattern.
Sentence definitions.
S-ce should possess all the parts of the s-ce preconditioned by the verbal valency. Ex. He knew
O. At the same time the s-ce doesnt necessarily express a complete thought because in many
cases it may contain the words whose lexical meaning is ambiguous and depends on the context.
Ex. She did that. He knew it.
the s-ce is characterized by its own purpose of utterance. It can be a statement, a ? or a
command.
The s-ce as an syntactic unit is materialized in a written or oral form. Acc-ly it should be
phonetically or graphically shaped.
blokh:The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a
definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose.
Any coherent connec-tion of words having an informative destination is effected within the
framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the
grammatical theory.
Predication. Means of expressing predication. To become a s-ce a word or a word group must
have 2 categories predicativity and modality. The correlation of the thought expressed in the
sentence with the situation of speech is called predicativity. Predicativiry has three main
components: modality, time and person, expressed by the categories of mood, tense and person.
So the predicate verb is the main means of expressing predicativity.
The person component of predicativity is also expressed by the subject. Thus predicativity is
expressed by the subject-predicate group, or predication. Predication constitutes the basic
structure of the sentence.
Predicativity is also expressed by intonation, which is the essential feature of the sentence as a
unit of speech.
It should be noted, that some scholars use only one term predication to denote both the
relation of the sentence to reality and means of its expression.
A sentence may contain primary and secondary predication:
/ heard someone singing.
The group someone singing is called the secondary predication, as it resembles the subjectpredicate group, or the primary predication, structurally and semantically: it consists of two main
components, nominal and verbal, and names an event or situation. But it cannot be correlated
with reality directly and cannot constitute an independent unit of communication, as verbals have
no categories of mood, tense and person. The secondary predication is related to the situation of
speech indirectly, through the primary predications.
Chahoyan (from S-Petersburg University): one member nominal s-ces have no gr-l predicativity,
but they possess the meaning of predication, for ex. an ability to describe a situation. The
conclusion is that of three kinds of simple s-ces two-member s-ces and one-member imperative
s-ce express gr-l predicativity unambiguously, while in one-member nominal s-ces there is only
the meaning of predication, but no predicativity.
(connection with the reality can be shown through: 1 phonetic means - intonation; 2 semantic
means modal verbs; 3 grammatical means (mood) look for modality)
The sentence: the problem of classification (the communicative classification, the structural
classification, classification of simple sentences).
There exist two generally known classifications of sentences: communicative and structural.
a. Communicative classification is based on the notion of the communicative type. There exist
three types of communication: - a statement; - a question; - an inducement. Thus we have three
corresponding types of sentences: *declarative those rendering statements; *interrogative
those rendering questions; *imperative those rendering inducements.
All the three types may be emotional: *declarative: what absurd fellow you are! I dont like jam!
You have never even spoken to him!; *interrogative: What can he possibly do for you?! Now
you pay for it! But how?!; *imperative: Stop kidding me!
Sometimes emotionally coloured sentences are called exclamatory and are treated as a separate
communicative type of sentences. But most scholars think this is a mistake, because each of the
three types may be emotional.
b. Structural classification is based on the number of predicative centers/lines in the sentence.
If a sentence has got one predicative center, it is simple. If more than one, than it is a composite
sentence. Composite sentences are divided into two groups according to the type of relation
between the parts of the sentence. The parts may be connected on the bases of equality and in
this case we have a compound sentence () and on the principal of
subordination, than we have a complex sentence ().
c. Simple sentences have classification of their own. One is based on the structure of
predicative units in the sentence. In most cases there are two parts: the Subject and the Predicate.
These are two member sentences (double nuclear). When a predicative center consists of only
one part we deal with one member sentences (single nuclear), E.g. the smells of spring.
The second classification is based on whether the parts of the sentence are explicitly expressed or
not. If all parts are explicitly expressed, then we deal with a complete sentence. If not, then it is
an elliptical sentence. // Walking? - ; Spring .
.// It is necessary we should take care not to mix up elliptical sentences with one
member sentences. The missing parts of an elliptical sentence may be easily added. //also
Extended unextended/non-extended//
The structure of the simple sentence. Criteria used for establishing different parts of t
Simple Sentence
In the twentieth century linguistic studies were very often connected with the structure of
linguistic units that is what we call structural linguistics (de Saussure). In Lexicology we deal
with seams as components of the words semantic structure. In Grammar there is a certain role of
complex elements such as a word combination, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph, a text and a
discourse. Each element has a structure of its own that is connected with other levels of the
linguistic system. If we take morphemes, they are built of phonemes. If take a word/lexeme, it
would be built of morphemes. If we take a phrase then the bricks will be words and lexemes.
And for this we have two accesses of relations: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. The English
scholar Mark Halliday defines a structure of a linguistic unit as such: it is a syntagmatic
framework of interrelated elements paradigmatically established in systems of classes. From this
aspect the structure of the sentence may be understood as a sequence of interrelated elements
paradigmatically established as various parts of the sentence.
There is a question about the criteria that can prove to be a reliable basis for establishing parts
of the sentence. Pf. Smirnotsky spoke of two criteria: 1. the kind of the syntactic relations
between the parts of the sentence; 2. the character of the syntactic bond between the parts of the
sentence.
If we take the first criteria, we shall have four kinds of syntactic relations:
1. The relation between the doer of the action
The President arrives.
and the action itself.
The Presidents arrival.
2. The relation between the action and its
[They] delivered the mail.
object.
The mails delivery.
3. The relation between the action and its
They delivered it in the morning.
circumstances.
The morning delivery.
4. The relation between a person or a thing and The scenery was beautiful.
a property.
The beautiful scenery.
As these examples show, this criterion alone is not sufficient because one and the same kind
of relation is reflected both in different parts of the sentence and those of a phrase. That is why
another criterion is necessary. Thus we rely on the character of the syntactic bond between the
parts of the sentence and speak of two types of bonds: 1. the predicative syntactic bond; 2. the
non-predicative syntactic bond. The latter in its turn is father subdivided into the complementary
(, ) syntactic bond and the attributive syntactic bond. The
predicative syntactic bond makes the sentence. The complementary syntactic bond is found
between the predicate and the object and the predicate and the adverbial modifier. The attributive
syntactic bond forms an attributive word combination.
Depending on their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or
several (more than one) predicative lines; sentences may be, respectively,
"monopredicative" and "polypredicative". The simple sentence is a sentence in which only
one predicative line is expressed.
The simple sentence, as any sentence in general, is organized as a system of functionexpressing positions, the content of the functions being the reflection of a situational event.
The nominative parts of the simple sentence, each occupying a notional position in it, are
subject, predicate, object, adverbial, attribute, parenthetical enclosure, addressing enclosure;
a special, semi-notional position is occupied by an interjectional enclosure. The parts are
arranged in a hierarchy, wherein all of them perform some modifying role.
Simple Sentence
Another scheme of analysis called the "model of immediate constituents" is based on the
group-parsing (, ) of the sentence which has been developed by traditional
grammar together with the sentence-part parsing scheme. It consists in dividing the whole of
the sentence into two groups: that of the subject and that of the predicate, which, in their
turn, are divided into their sub-group constituents according to the successive subordinative
order of the latter.
Profiting by this type of analysis, the IC-model explicitly exposes the binary hierarchical
principle of subordinative connections, showing the whole structure of the sentence as made
up by binary immediate constituents. he sentence.
Main and secondary parts of the sentence. Their role in expressing predicativity. Basic and
optional parts of the sentence.
It has been common for a long time to distinguish the main and the secondary parts of the
sentence. The Subject and the Predicate are regarded as main and others are taken as
secondary. Now we shall dwell upon the reason for this decision and the main difficulties.
According to Pr. Ilysh: the Subject and the Predicate constitute the backbone of the sentence.
Without them, the sentence wouldnt exist at all. Whereas all other parts may or may not be
there. And if they are there, they serve to define or modify either the Subject or the Predicate or
each other. (It is too metaphoric).
Pr. Rogovich and Pr. Khaimovskaya gave a more scientific explanation: the main parts of
the sentence are those that take part in expressing predicativity which makes a sentence. Without
predicativity there is no sentence. But it has been noticed that a sentence wont exist not only
when it hasnt got a Subject or a Predicate, but also when some secondary part is missing and it
ruins the whole sense. For example, He struck; He went. In cases as these the word groups have
the subject and the predicate, but they are not complete, not correct and contradict both
grammatical and logical rules. It is only if we add some secondary part that this group will
become the communicative unit and will turn into a real sentence. So care should be taken as far
as we rely upon the criterion of predicativity, because there are cases when predicativity alone is
not enough to make a sentence. That is why there appeared yet another approach.
In order to differentiate between those parts that are indispensible (you cannot emit them) for
the structure of the sentence and those parts that can be emitted it is possible to divide them into
two groups: 1) basic (cant be emitted) and 2) optional that a sentence may have or not. E.g.
She is [very] (optional) fond of reading (basic). He went to London [yesterday].
.
This theory led to the thought that the former distinction between the main and secondary
parts of the sentence is outdated. This observation is of great interest for theoretical studies, but
here we run against another stumbling block. We dont have equal bases for classifications. The
basis of difference between the main and the secondary parts is their ability to form the line of
predication. The basis of difference between the basic and optional parts is their ability to form
the semantic syntactic minimum of the sentence. Although we take into account that not all
secondary parts are optional and acknowledge certain prose of classifying parts of a sentence as
basic and optional still wed better use the criterion of predicativity.
Main parts of the sentence
The subject is one of the 2 main parts of the sentence:
1)It denotes the thing whose action or characteristic is expressed by the predicate.
2)It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence.
It may be expressed by different parts of speech, the most frequent ones being: a noun in the
common case, a personal pronoun in the nominative case, a demonstrative pronoun occasionally,
a substantivized adjective, a numeral, an infinitive, and a gerund. It may also be expressed by a
phrase.
The predicate is one of the 2 main parts of the sentence:
1)It denotes the action or property of the thing expressed by the subject
2)It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence.
3)Ways of expressing the predicate are varied and their structure will better be considered under
the heading of types of predicate
The secondary parts
The Object is a secondary part of the sentence expressed by a verb, a noun, a substantival
pronoun, an adjective, a numeral, or an adverb, and denoting a thing to which the action passes
on, which is a result of the action, in reference to which an action is committed or a property is
manifested, or denoting an action as object of another action.
Classification of object:
Peculiarities of the attribute as a part of the sentence. The problem of the apposition as a part
of the sentence.
Attribute is a sentence member which depends on a noun in any of its sentential functions and
which, as a rule, specifies more closely, or "determines" its meaning. In inquiring about attributes
we use such interrogative pronouns as which, what or whose connected with the governing noun.
Attribute either agrees with its governing member or it is governed by it, or its dependency is not
expressed by a special form.
An attribute that agrees, at least in case, with the noun on which it depends, is called agreeing
attribute. If this attribute is represented by an adjective (a pronoun or a numeral in this status) it
agrees in case, number and gender. In rare cases there occur attributes of feminine gender
pertaining to masculine nouns as a means of emotional expression, e.g., a long-eared-Fem
An attribute that does not decline in accordance with its governing noun and, as a rule, represents
a case different from that of this noun, or is expressed by an adverb or an infinitive, is called a
non-agreeing attribute.
An attribute can be expressed by a subordinate clause, introduced by a conjunction or by a
relative pronoun. An attributive clause, however, cannot be seen in such a "pseudo-expansion"
as, e.g., I saw an angel and he had a formidable shield, nor in clauses joined by expressions such
as what, at which, etc. These are interpreted as coordination of head clauses.
A descriptive (non-restrictive) attribute is separated by commas in the sentence (the inmates,
confined in the institute, have pinched something). Such an attribute obtains the function Atr, too
(not Atr_Pa), as the case is not a parenthesis, for which it could be taken by mistake.
Afun Atr, however, can also be used in some instances in which the case is not a classical
attribute. Thus, it can be obtained by parts of addresses or parts of the text in foreign languages.
We can use it in analyzing numerical expressions as well. These problems are dealt with in
Addresses and names of persons and institutions, Foreign words in the text, and Expression with
numerals, figures in different functions.
Single attributes or homogeneous ones are usually placed before the noun modified, while
expanded attributes expressed by phrases usually stand in postposition to the noun:
Your new dress is wonderful.
You behave like a schoolboy afraid of his teacher.
Attributes can be expressed by:
1) An adjective: This big girl is very lazy.
2) A pronoun (possessive, defining, demonstrative, interrogative, relative, indefinite): I saw by
their faces that they had learned something new. Every student should know it.
3) A numeral (cardinal or ordinal): I borrowed two pounds from my brother. The second story
was very dull.
4) A noun in the common case or the genitive case: The village painter entered the pub. Her
fathers nerves would never stand the disclosure.
5) A prepositional phrase: It was an act of despair on her part.
6) An adverb in pre- or postposition to the noun modified: The after events shook the whole
town.
7) A participle or a participial phrase: She saw the lighted windows of the cottage.
8) A gerund or a gerundial phrase joined prepositionally: She admired his way of doing things.
9) An infinitive, an infinitive phrase or an infinitive construction in postposition to the noun
modified: He is a man to rely on. Here is a book for you to read on train.
10) A quotation group: I hate his dont-talk-to-me air.
Some scholars point out other parts of the sentence. Pr. Ilysh singles out the Apposition. He
defines it like this: An Apposition is a word or a phrase connected with a part of the sentence
expressed by a noun giving some additional designation (, ) to the
person [or a thing Pr. Ganshhina]. E.g. Tom, my school friend, has just arrived. / Billington, the
night watchmen, was going his rounds, with his bull-terrier Jim. / His son, a youth of sixteen,
was of lighter colour in a hair and eyes. / This event, his arrival, made us change our plan. There
are two kinds of Apposition: close (the river Thames, William the Conqueror) and loose (see
above). Many scholars think (Pr. Barkhudarov among them) that the apposition may be regarded
as a kind of an attribute. But Pr. Ilysh is against it.
He states that the apposition has its own characteristics which are not like those of the
attribute. The relations between the components in these combinations are different. An
apposition appears to have distinctive features strong enough to establish it as a separate
secondary part: it is always expressed either by a noun, or by a phrase centered around a noun,
and characterizes the person or thing in a way different from that of an attribute.
But if we accept the view point about the existence of the attribute in a broad sense of the
word (by Pr. Smirnitsky), or the structure of the category including best or salient examples (E.
Rosch) then we will come to the conclusion that the apposition falls under the category of the
attribute.
The problem of the direct address and the parenthesis as parts of the sentence.
Some scholars speak of the direct address and the parenthesis as the secondary parts of the
sentence. Pr. Ilysh gave a definition like this:the direct address is a word or a phrase denoting
the person or thing to which the speech or writing is directed. The direct address may consist of
one word or of a phrase. If it is one word, this may be the persons name or profession or title, or
it may denote a relationship between the person addressed and the speaker. If it is a phrase, this
may again be any of the types just mentioned or it may be some emotional address, whether
friendly or hostile.
E.g. John, come here. I havent seen you for ages!
As for the parenthesis, Pr. Ilysh defined as a word or a phrase expressing the attitude of the
speaker to the statement or the relation to reality.
According to Pr. Khaimovich and Pr. Rogovskaya, parenthetical elements are peculiar parts
of the sentence. a) they are characterized by negative combinability with the other words of the
sentence; b) they are not in a line with the other parts of the sentence, but parallel to them; c)they
mostly express the speakers attitude towards the content of the sentence, its relation to other
sentences or situations.
In accordance with their meaning, parenthetical elements fall into four major groups:
1) modal parenthetical elements, serving to show the attitude of the speaker towards the
relation of the communication to the real/actual state of things. E.g. He would have to buy them
out, of course. Certainly, he thought about it all the way there;
2) connective parenthetical elements, showing the chain of thoughts. E.g. He did not,
however, come. May I say, first, that I appreciate your help;
3) Explanatory parenthetical elements. E.g. He remembered suddenly one night, the first on
which he went out to dinner alone an old Malburian dinner the first year of their marriage;
4) other words inserted in the sentenced. E.g. Then who manages his business, pray?
, . But they also include into the fourth group direct address (see above
about Ilysh, )/ ( )
Many scholars regard the direct address and the parenthesis as falling out of the sentence
structure. For example, in the manual by Pr. Ganshina and Pr. Vasilevskaya they are called
independent elements and into this group they include interjections; direct address and
parenthesis. Pr. Ilysh considers this view point to be wrong in theory. A sentence should be
analyzed with all the elements it may contain. Thus Pr. Ilysh finds it possible to regard both as
the secondary parts of the sentence. On the one hand, it is right. But we shall face some
difficulties when we try to treat them as other parts of the sentence because it is difficult to name
the criterion for their appearance in the system of parts of the sentence. This difficulty still
remains.
Barkhudarov *(Isolated/detached): As parenthetical elements we may use different parts of
speech and word combinations such as: 1) modal verbs: Perhaps, I shall be unhappy, too Galsworthy; 2) adverbs: Unfortunately, he was found dead - Galsworthy; 3) prepositional
constructions: The worthy dame, to his surprise, turned very pale and very red; 4) Infinitive
constructions: she has broken a precious china and, to make the things still worth, she never told
anyone about it; 5) participial constructions: Frankly speaking, he had been amazed at this
failure; 5)clauses: You are not complaining, I hope.
Object
Blokh- the substance modifier of processial part of sent, secondary part. Is connected
with predicat/some other processual part, meaning of person/thing that are in connection with
process/property denoted by predicate.
Classification Ganshina, Vasyljeva- direct, indirect, retained, cognate, prepositional, complex.
Cognate obj after some transitive verb, similar to verb and noun in meaning, derived from the
same root (They fought a good fight,They slept a long sleep). This classification lacks
consistency.
Semantic classification based on synt bound betw object and predicate non-preposit
(connection isnt based on prepositions), prepositional introduced by prepositions.
Another classification of objects is based on the kind of syntactic bond between the Object
and the Predicate. As a result we have two kinds of Objects: non-prepositional, that follow the
predicate and the connection is non-prepositional, and prepositional objects, that are introduced
by a certain preposition. Non-prepositional Objects are further subdivided into direct and
indirect. This classification is first of all semantic, because it implies that the direct object
denotes the thing to which the process of the verb is directed. The indirect object denotes the
addressee of the action, a person or a thing, for whose benefit the action is performed. Objects
expressed by infinitival participial and gerundial groups and complexes cannot be called either
direct or indirect. They are beyond the margins of these two classes.
Both direct and indirect objects are found only after the verbs of the give-type: give, buy,
send, show. If we call an object a direct one, then there should always be its partner the
indirect object. THEY DONT EXIST WITHOUT EACH OTHER. Single objects are called
prepositional or non-prepositional without stating whether they are direct or not. Pr. Smirnitsky
and Pr. Homny also described such object that occur together but can hardly be called direct or
indirect. E.g. I asked him a question. I envy you your new garden (NOON_PREPOSITIONAL
OBJECTS).
3. The object is expressed either by a noun or by a noun equivalent. That is a personal
pronoun in the Objective case, a demonstrative pronoun, an indefinite pronoun, a substantivized
adjective, an infinitive and a gerund.
Ilyish; this cl-n can be applied only to direct/indirect objects that are expr by noun/pronoun (We
bought him a candy). Both direct, indirect objects are found oonly after verbs of given type.
Object is expr by noun, noun equivalent, pers pronoun in objective case, demonstr pronoun,
indef pronoun, substantivized adj, infinite, gerund.
would come early. She said she would come early; This is the issue that I planned to discuss
with you. This is the issue I planned to discuss with you.
The definition of the compound sentence. The problem of existence of the compound
sentence.
The compound sentence is a polypredicative construction built on the principle of coordination
(parataxis); the clauses of a compound sentence are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank,
equipotently. Paradigmatically, the compound sentence is derived from two or more base
sentences, joined as coordinate clauses. One of them becomes the leading clause (the leader
clause), and the other clauses, which may or may not include the coordinative connector, occupy
the dependent sentential position and may be called sequential clauses. Though the dependence
between the clauses of a compound sentence is not subordinative (the sequential clause is not
inserted into the position of a nominative part in the matrix sentence), the dependence is
manifested positionally: by means of differences in syntactic distribution of predicative units,
different distributions of the ideas expressed are achieved. Cf.: They quarreled and then they
made up (again); They made up, and then they quarreled (again) (the sequence of events in time
is shown as different); or, She was sick and she took some medicine (= because she was sick);
She took some medicine and she became sick (= because she took the medicine) (the sequence of
events in time and their causal-consequential relations are shown as different). There has been
some controversy concerning the syntactic status of the compound sentence: some linguists
maintain that it is not a specific syntactic construction, but a sequence of separate sentences
similar to the combination of semantically related independent sentences in speech, as in suprasentential constructions in the text. The following arguments are used to show the arbitrariness of
compound sentences: the possibility of a falling, finalizing tone between the coordinated
predicative units and the possibility of using the same coordinative conjunctions for the
introduction of separate sentences; cf.: They quarreled, but then they made up again. - They
quarreled. But then they made up again. The fact is, there is a distinct semantico-syntactic
difference between the two constructions: the closeness of connections between the events is
shown by means of combining predicative units into a coordinative polypredicative sequence,
while the connections between the events in a sequence of independent sentences are shown as
rather loose. Besides, the subordinate clauses can also be separated in the text, being changed
into specific independent sentences, but this does not challenge the status of the complex
sentence as a separate syntactic unit.