Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Every language contains thousands upon thousands of words. Different linguistic sciences study
language from three different points of view.
Lexicology deals with the vocabulary of a language, with the origin and development of words, with
their meaning and with wordbuilding. Phonetics is a science of speech sounds and other sound elements
of language, such as intonation. Grammar is a branch of linguistic science which deals with the
structure of language. This means that grammar deals with the forms of words and with the ways
according to which words are connected into word-groups, word-combinations and sentences. So
grammar defines the rules governing the modification of words and the combination of words into
sentences. Thus, grammar is divided into two parts: morphology and syntax.
Morphology is the part of grammar which deals with the forms of words, while syntax is the part of
grammar which studies the ways according to which words are grouped into word-combinations and
sentences, i.e. it deals with phrases and sentences.
Traditionally, all parts of speech are subdivided on the upper level of classification into notional words
and functional words. Notional words, which traditionally include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs,
pronouns and numerals, have complete nominative meanings, are in most cases changeable and fulfill
self-dependent syntactic functions in the sentence. 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.
4)Notional words, modal words, form words, the interjection, words of affirmation
and negation
According to the lexical meaning, syntactical functions and morphological categories all the words in
English may be divided into the following five classes.
1. Notional Words
a) Most of the words in English as well as in other languages belong to the notional words which denote
phenomena existing in reality. These words denote things, qualities, actions and so on. All the other
words play a secondary part. They may connect the notional words, underline the shades of meaning, etc.
The main idea is always expressed by notional words.
b) Their syntactical functions are very closely connected with their meaning. Since the notional words
express the main idea in the language, they form the parts of the sentence. So the parts of the sentence are
expressed only by notional words. The subject, the object, the predicate, etc. are always expressed by
notional words.
c) Morphologically the notional words form the class of words having morphological categories. All the
changeable words in English belong to notional words.
2. Modal Words
Modal words express modality in the sentence, that is the relation of what is said to reality. We have such
modal words in English as of course, certainly, surely, no doubt, naturally, perhaps, maybe, and others.
Modal words do not denote any phenomena existing in reality. Syntactically modal words cannot form
any part of a sentence. They are not connected syntactically with any other words. They may be used in
the function of a parenthesis or may form sentences themselves, e.g. Will you speak to him? - Certainly.
Morphologically modal words are invariable.
3. Form-Words
Form-words do not denote any phenomena existing in reality. They are used to determine notional words
or to connect them. They have no independent syntactical functions. Morphologically form-words are
invariable. According to the role they play in the sentence form-words are divided into two classes:
connective form-words (prepositions, conjunctions, etc.) and determinatives such as articles, particles
(only, merely, even, also, simply, just, too).
4. The Interjection
Interjections are words used to express different emotions such as joy, sadness, anger, etc., e.g. oh, bosh,
hallo, ha, alas, well, now, ah, etc. Interjections cannot be parts of the sentence. They are not connected
with any words of the sentence. They are always used as separate sentences in themselves.
Morphologically they are invariable.
5. The Words of Affirmation and Negation
Practically this class consists of two words "Yes" and its equivalents and "No" and its equivalents. They
are used to express affirmation or negation. They are not connected with other words in a sentence.
Morphologically they are invariable. They may form sentences themselves.
Thus we see that modal words, form-words, interjections and words of affirmation and negation have
several points in common: they do not denote any phenomena existing in reality, they are not used as
parts of a sentence and morphologically they are invariable.
The Infinitive is the most generalized, the most abstract form of the verb, serving as the verbal name of a process; it is used as
the derivation base for all the other verbal forms. That is why the infinitive is traditionally used as the head word for the
lexicographic entry of the verb in dictionaries.
The infinitive combines verbal features with features of the noun; it is a phenomenon of hybrid processual-substantive nature,
intermediary between the verb and the noun. It has voice and aspect forms, e.g.: to write, to be writing, to have written, to be
written, to have been written;. The non-verbal properties of the infinitive are displayed in its syntactic functions and its
combinability. The infinitive performs all the functions characteristic of the noun
The gerund is another verbid that serves as the verbal name of a process and combines verbal features with those of a noun;
the gerund, like the infinitive, can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-substantive nature, intermediary
between the verb and the noun. It is even closer to the noun, because besides performing the substantive functions in a
sentence like the infinitive, it can also be modified by an attribute and can be used with a preposition, which the infinitive can
not do, e.g.: Thank you for listening to me; Your careful listening to me is very much appreciated
Participle I (present participle) is fully homonymous with the gerund: it is also an ‘ing-form’ (or, rather, four ‘ing-forms’,
cf.: writing, being written, having written, having been written). But its semantics is different: it denotes processual quality,
combining verbal features with features of the adjective and the adverb; participle I can be characterized as a phenomenon of
hybrid processual-qualifying nature, intermediary between the verb and the adjective/adverb
Participle II, like participle I, denotes processual quality and can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-
qualifying nature. It has only one form, traditionally treated in practical grammar as the verbal “third form”, used to build the
analytical forms of the passive and the perfect of finites, e.g.: is taken; has taken.
(Limitive verbs present a process as potentially limited, directed towards reaching a certain border point, beyond
which the process denoted by the verb is stopped or ceases to exist, e.g.: to come, to sit down, to bring, to drop,
etc. Unlimitive verbs present the process as potentially not limited by any border point, e.g.: to go, to sit, to carry,
to exist, etc. Some limitive and unlimitive verbs form semantically opposed pairs, denoting roughly the same
actual process presented as either potentially limited or unlimited, cf.: to come – to go, to sit down – to sit, to bring
– to carry; other verbs have no aspective counterparts, e.g.: to be, to exist (unlimitive), to drop (limitive). But the
bulk of English verbs can present the action as either limitive or unlimitive in different contexts, e.g.: to build, to
walk, to turn, to laugh, etc. Traditionally such verbs are treated as verbs of double, or mixed aspective nature .)
15) The category of aspect. The continuous and the common aspect. Semantic view of
this phenomenon. (Kennedy, Curma). Verbs which are not used in the continuous
aspect (5 groups)
The problem of the category of aspect is connected with such forms as to write - to be writing or writes
- is writing, etc.
The category of aspect in English Grammar presents a very complicated question. There exists a great
variety of opinions in connection with this problem. Some linguists mostly foreign such as Kennedy,
Curme and some others consider that aspect is rather a semantic category. Some other linguists such as
H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, N.F. Irtenyeva do not recognize the existence of this category in Modern English.
They treat such forms as is writing, was writing, etc. as type frames to some other actions or situation.
Still other grammarians (Ivanova) though recognizing the existence of the category of aspect do not
separate it from the category of tense. Thus they classify all the forms of the verb into two groups: Pure
temporal forms such as Past Indefinite. Present Indefinite. Future Indefinite, and temperern aspective
forms: Present Continuous. Past Continuous, and Future Continuous. But if we come to analyze such
forms as wrote - was writing we see that these forms express one and the same time of an action, i.e. past.
And it is the character of an action that is different in these pairs of forms. The forms was writing, was
reading serve to express an action which is taken in its progress while the forms wrote and read indicate
the mere statement of the fact of the action. Therefore, we may say that these forms differ in the
expression of the character of an action. That is why such grammarians as Ilyish. Barhudarov. Yartseva.
and some others recognize the existence of a special category which grammatically expresses the
character of an action. They call this category of aspect. The grammatical category of aspect serves to
express the way in which the action is shown to proceed. The category of aspect is the system of two
opposimes. that is the forms of the type writes - wrote and the forms of the type is writing -was writing.
The forms of the type is writing serve to express an action in its progress and are called the Continuous
Aspect whereas the forms of the type writes express that the action is simply stated or that its nature is
not specified and these forms are called the Common Aspect. Thus the continuous aspect is a marked
member of the opposition both in its meaning and in its form as it is built up by means of the auxiliary
verb to be -Participle I. The common aspect is an unmarked member of the opposition. Note should be
made that the continuous aspect is not used with all the verbs of the English language. There are five
groups of verbs that are usually not used in the continuous aspect:
1. Verbs expressing some relations as actions: to contain, to consist, to possess:
2.such as: to ucconic, to appear, to prove;
3. Verbs of physical perception: to see, to hear, to smell, to feel;
4. Verbs of mental perception: to dislike, to hate, to trust:
5. Verbs denoting actions of a very short duration: to jump, to break, to drop.
All these verbs are terminative by their nature. Ilyish calls this phenomenon as the neutralization of
aspect relations.
Sometimes, however, even these verbs may be used in the continuous aspect to show the progress of an
action at a given moment and stressing its temporary nature, e.g. I was hating her more and more while
she spoke.
There is no strict correspondence between the continuous and the common aspects in English.
This classification should be discussed from the point of view of the scientific principle which it is based
on. If we suppose that the given classification of four Oblique Moods is based on the structural principal
then the question arises why we should distinguish between such forms as Subjunctive I and Present
Subjunctive II. From the structural point of view these two forms do not differ because they both are
synthetical forms. Again why we should distinguish between the Conditional and the Suppositional
Moods and Past Subjunctive II - they are analytical.
If we take into consideration the semantic principle then it is impossible to distinguish between
Subjunctive I and the Suppositional Mood because they both serve to express a problematic action.
As to the Conditional Mood and Subjunctive II they both express an unreal action. Thus, we may see that
both principles structural and semantic won't do in connection with the classification suggested by
Professor A.I. Smirnitsky.
Hence to be more precise it is more correct to consider that there is only one oblique mood in Modern
English - The Subjunctive Mood as all the forms both synthetical and analytical serve to express different
shades of one and the same meaning. In support of this point of view it is necessary to mention the fact
that the analytical forms which developed much later than synthetical forms very often render the same
shade of meaning as the corresponding synthetical forms. The so-called Suppositional Mood in our days
is freely used instead of the so-called Subjunctive I.
23) The Verbals. The double character of the infinitive, the gerund, participle
The verbals (the Infinitive, the Gerund, the Participle) form the system of non-finite forms of the
English verb. They do not express predication and lack some grammatical forms characterizing the verb.
These forms have no categories of mood, person, number. They name the action but it is presented as a
thing or as characteristic of a thing. This accounts for the fact that the verbals combine the characteristics
of a verb on the one hand and a noun, an adjective, and an adverb on the other. Their syntactical
functions also differ from the finite forms. The Infinitive and the Gerund, for example, can be used as a
Subject, an Object, and a Predicative in the sentence. The Participle may be used as an attribute and as a
predicative. In these functions the participle acquires the same syntactical characteristics as the adjective
and the adverb. The double nature of the verbals makes some grammarians think that they should not be
regarded as the forms of the verb. They think that the verbals must be included into other parts of speech
(Infinitive and Gerund into nouns and Participle into adjectives).
These opinions are based on the syntactical functions of the verbals. But the features of the finite and
non-finite forms of the verb having much in common leave this point of view to be groundless. The
general meaning of the finite and the non-finite forms coincides. Though the non-finite forms lack some
verbal categories, the categories possessed by the verbals (relativity, voice and aspect) are purely verbal
and they are not to be found in any part of speech but the verb.
The Infinitive is the most generalized, the most abstract form of the verb, serving as the verbal name of a process; it is used as
the derivation base for all the other verbal forms. That is why the infinitive is traditionally used as the head word for the
lexicographic entry of the verb in dictionaries.
The infinitive combines verbal features with features of the noun; it is a phenomenon of hybrid processual-substantive nature,
intermediary between the verb and the noun. It has voice and aspect forms, e.g.: to write, to be writing, to have written, to be
written, to have been written;. The non-verbal properties of the infinitive are displayed in its syntactic functions and its
combinability. The infinitive performs all the functions characteristic of the noun
The gerund is another verbid that serves as the verbal name of a process and combines verbal features with those of a noun;
the gerund, like the infinitive, can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-substantive nature, intermediary
between the verb and the noun. It is even closer to the noun, because besides performing the substantive functions in a
sentence like the infinitive, it can also be modified by an attribute and can be used with a preposition, which the infinitive can
not do, e.g.: Thank you for listening to me; Your careful listening to me is very much appreciated
Participle I (present participle) is fully homonymous with the gerund: it is also an ‘ing-form’ (or, rather, four ‘ing-forms’,
cf.: writing, being written, having written, having been written). But its semantics is different: it denotes processual quality,
combining verbal features with features of the adjective and the adverb; participle I can be characterized as a phenomenon of
hybrid processual-qualifying nature, intermediary between the verb and the adjective/adverb
Participle II, like participle I, denotes processual quality and can be characterized as a phenomenon of hybrid processual-
qualifying nature. It has only one form, traditionally treated in practical grammar as the verbal “third form”, used to build the
analytical forms of the passive and the perfect of finites, e.g.: is taken; has taken.