Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Alongside with the practical and theoretical grammar there exist a number of types of
grammar differing not only in the aims but also in the methods applied.
There does not appear to exist a generally accepted periodization of the history of English
grammars, so there are roughly distinguished two periods:
The modern period may be divided into two chronologically unequal parts:
o The first from the beginning of the 20th century till the 1940’s, when there
were only two types of grammars in use – theprescriptive and the classical
scientific.
a.1. Prescriptive grammar in 20th century changed very little, some 19th
century grammars continued to be reprinted. Among the 20th century
prescriptive grammars, which are of some interest, is a work of J.Nesfield,
which underwent a number of editions J. Nesfield developed the system of
members of the sentence.
a.2. The founders of classical scientific grammar in Modern period either
specialize in syntax or deal with the problem of both morphology and syntax.
Among the authors who specialize in syntax are L.G. Kimball, C.T. Onions
and H. R. Stokoe. A greater number of grammarians have more ambitious
aim – to describe English grammar scientifically as a whole, the most famous
scientists are Poustma H. And Kruisinga A., Curme G.O. and Bryant M.M..
Of all the authors of scientific grammars the classical type O.Jespersen is the
most original.
o The second from the 1940’s, during which time first structural grammar, and
then other grammars of other types have been added.
Literature:
Iofik L.L., Chakhoyan L.P., Pospelova A.G. – Readings in the Theory of English grammar.
– L., 1981, pp5-40
The units of language from a number of levels which present a hierarchy It means, on the
one hand, that language units are not equal relevance and, on the other hand, that units of
the higher level and formed of units of the immediate lower level.
The composition of units of higher level from the units of a lower level is by no means
mechanical. Units of each level are characterized by their own specific features, revealed in
their functioning, which provide for the very recognition of the units of each level.
• The lowest level of language units is phonetic. It consists of phonemes, the smallest
units of language devoid of any meaning, serving as the material building elements
of the higher-level units. Their function is purely differential; to differentiate
morpheme and words as material units, e.g.: /p/ -/b/; /t/-/d/; /i/, /a/ etc. As the
phoneme has no meaning it is not a sign.
• The level higher than phonemic is morphemic. The morpheme is the smallest
meaningful unit of language. The morpheme is a sign as it is double entity having its
form and meaning, uniting a sound-image and a concept. E.g.: {-clear-}, {-able-}, {-
s}, {be=-ing}, etc.
• The third level is lexemic or the level of words which are naming units: they name
objects, properties, activities, etc., e.g.: table, good, turn, etc.
• The next higher level is the phrasemic level or the level of phrases (word-
combinations). Here belong combinations of two or more words. These
combinations may have a nominating function just like words but the object or
phenomenon they name is complicated. (E.g.: My brother; writes letters; to his
friends; etc.) Or they may be just functional, e.g.: such as; out of, etc.
• Higher than phrasemic level (according to the majority of modern linguists) there is
the level of sentences or the prosemic level. The peculiarity of units of this level lies
in the fact that they not name some situation or event but also show the relation of
this situation or event to reality and the speaker’s attitude towards the object of
thought. Consequently, the sentence is predicative unit, which enters the system of
language by its syntactic pattern, e.g.: My brother writes letters to his friends rather
often.
• Above the proposemic level they distinguish the level of sentence-groups (supra-
sentential constructions) - the supra-proposemic level. The supra-sentential
construction is a combination of two or more utterances forming textual unity, e.g.:
I don’t like writing letters. But my brother writes letters to his friends rather often. And
it is but natural that he himself should get much more letters than me.
NB: Some linguists do not treat sentences and supra-sentential constructions among
language units claiming that they belong to the domain of speech. For them the highest
language level is phrasemic. (4)
Grammar
The part of the language system, which embraces units beginning with the morphemic,
levels upwards the Grammar. This part of the language system is studied by a particular
linguistic, discipline, which is also called Grammar.
Thus, grammar deals with their customary arrangements in phrases and sentences for the
formation of utterances (syntax).
Grammar is responsible for the very organization of the informative content of utterances
providing stable formal devices for arranging words into classes and connecting them into
phrases and sentences. It is grammar that makes language human characteristics.
The last few years have seen a rapid development of various new methods of investigation,
and there are a great variety of views as to their merits. There are three main positions in
this field:
• Some scholars think that these new methods mark the beginning of linguistics as a
science and that everything that was done earlier in linguistics belongs to a ‘pre-
scientific age”;
• Other scholars are skeptical about these new methods and think that they trend to
lead linguistic science away from its proper tasks;
• There is the view that the new methods mark new period in the development of
linguistics, and should be tried out, without implying that everything done in earlier
periods should be considered as valueless and “pre-scientific”. (2)
Approaches
• Formal approach is concerned only with a form, i.e. structural words and the
sentences, e.g.: Colorless green ideas sleep furiously (N.Chomsky). This sentence is
illogical semantically, but grammatically it is correct.
• Semantic approach is concerned with the meaning, e.g.: Up he goes. Semantically it
is correct, but grammatically is wrong, inverted word order.
• A combination of semantic and formal approach, which takes into consideration
both the form and the meaning.
Literature:
1.Blokh M.Y. - A course in Theoretical English grammar. - M., 2000, pp.6-11
2. Ilyish B.A. - The structure of Modern English – L., 1971, pp5-9
3. В.К.Гатилова Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Часть 1. Алма-
ата,1993, С.7-10
Aim of theoretical grammar
Alongside with the practical and theoretical grammar there exist a number of types of
grammar differing not only in the aims pursued but also in the method applied.
Consequently, they discriminate between historical, comparative, contrastive,
texonomic, structural, transformational, generative, case, functional and some other
types of grammar.
Literature:
Blokh M.Y. - A course in Theoretical English grammar. - M., 2000, pp.6-11
In contrast to words and groups of words, the sentence denotes a definite actualized,
i.e. correlated with reality, situation. The word “night”, for example, as an element of
the word stock, is a nominative unit of language which denotes a natural phenomenon.
The noun “night” is a linguistic expression of the concept “night”. The sentence
“Night.” represents a natural phenomenon as a fact of reality. It has a definite modal
characteristic (the speaker treats this phenomenon /event as real or true to life) and a
definite temporal perspective (this event can be either present, past or future). In other
words, the sentence is characterized by the category of predication, which
establishes the relation of the thought of a sentence to the situation of speech. The
sentence as a predicative unit not only names some referents with the help of the
words, but also, first, presents these referents as making up a certain situation and,
secondly, reflects the connection between this situation, on the one hand, and
objective reality, on the other, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal,
desirable or undesirable, necessary or unnecessary, etc.
1/ the time correlation of the act of speech with all other events mentioned in the
sentence which is grammatically expressed by the category of tense;
2/ the speaker’s relation to other persons and things mentioned in the sentence which
is grammatically expressed by the categories of person and number;
3/ The speaker’s attitude to the action mentioned in the sentence from the point of
view of reality which is grammatically expressed by the category of mood.
According to the purpose of utterance/communication the following types of the
sentence have been recognized in linguistic tradition: declarative, interrogative and
imperative.
Thus, in studying the morpheme we actually study the word in the necessary details of
its composition and functions.
It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the
word, i.e. such a definition as would unambiguously apply to all the different word-
units of the lexicon. This difficulty is explained by the fact that the word is an
extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of different
linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence,
the minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component of the sentence, the
articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged combination of sound with
meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately identifiable lingual unit, the
uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc. None of these definitions, which can be
divided into formal, functional, and mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the
lexical segments of language without a residue remaining outside the field of
definition.
The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the word as the
basic element of language. In particular,American scholars - representatives
of Descriptive Linguistics founded by L. Bloomfield - recognized not the word and
the sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme as the basic categories of linguistic
description, because these units are the easiest to be isolated in the continual text due
to their "physically" minimal, elementary segmental character: the phoneme being the
minimal formal segment of language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful
segment. Accordingly, only two segmental levels were originally identified in
language by Descriptive scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic level; later,
a third one was added to these - the level of "constructions", i.e. the level of
morphemic combinations.
In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and the like, as well
their simple derivatives, e.g. watery, passer, yellowness, we shall easily see their definite
nominative function and unambiguous segmental delimitation, making them beyond all
doubt into "separate words of language". But if we compare with the given one-stem
words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman, password,
yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter as separate
words is greatly complicated by the fact that they themselves are decomposable into
separate words.
One could point out that the peculiar property distinguishing composite words from
phrases is their linear indivisibility, i.e. the impossibility for them to be divided by a
third word. But this would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical word-
forms, e.g.:has met - has never met; is coming - is not by any circumstancescoming.
As for the criterion according to which the word is identified as a minimal sign
capable of functioning alone (the word understood as the "smallest free form", or
interpreted as the "potential minimal sentence"), it is irrelevant for the bulk of
functional words which cannot be used "independently" even in elliptical responses
(to say nothing of the fact that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially theopposite of
self-dependence).
In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that
each speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of naming units (more precisely, units
standing to one another in nominative correlation) by which he can build up an
infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of reality.
This circumstance urges us to seek the identification of the word as a lingual unit-type
on other lines than the "strictly operational definition". In fact, we do find the
clarification of the problem in taking into consideration the difference between the
two sets of lingual phenomena: on the one hand, "polar" phenomena; on the other
hand, "intermediary" phenomena.
Within a complex system of interrelated elements, polar phenomena arc the most
clearly identifiable, they stand to one another in an utterly unambiguous opposition.
Intermediary phenomena arc located in the system in between the polar phenomena,
making up a
gradation of transitions or the so-called "continuum". By some of their properties
intermediary phenomena arc similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while
by other properties they are similar to the other, opposing pole. Either of the two poles
together with the intermediary elements connected with it on the principle of
gradation, forms a "field". The polar elements of this field constitute its"centre", the
non-polar elements, respectively, its "periphery".
The analysis of the intermediary phenomena from the point of view of their relation to
the polar phenomena reveal their own status in the system. At the same time this kind
of analysis helps evaluate the definitions of the polar phenomena between which a
continuum is established.
In this connection, the notional one-stem word and the morpheme should be described
as the opposing polar phenomena amongthe meaningful segments of language; it is
these elements that can be defined by their formal and functional features most
precisely andunambiguously. As for functional words, they occupy
intermediarypositions between these poles, and their very intermediary status is
gradational. In particular, the variability of their status is expressed in the fact that
some of them can be used in an isolated response position (for instance, words of
affirmation and negation, interrogative words, demonstrative words, etc.), while
others cannot (such as prepositions or conjunctions).
The nature of the element of any system is revealed in the character of its function.
The function of words is realized in their nominative correlation with one another. On
the basis of this correlation a number of functional words are distinguished by the
"negative delimitation" (i.e. delimitation as a residue after the identification of the co-
positional textual elements),' e.g.: the/people;to/speak; by/way/of.
Summing up what has been said in this paragraph, we maypoint out some of the
properties of the morpheme and the word which are fundamental from the point of
view of their systemic status and therefore require detailed investigations and
descriptions.
The morpheme is a meaningful segmental component of the word; the morpheme is
formed by phonemes; as a meaningful component of the word it is elementary (i.e.
indivisible into smaller segments as regards its significative function).
In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional criterion (the location of the
marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones) and semantic or functional
criterion (the correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the
word). The combination of these two criteria in an integral description has led to the
rational classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research linguistic
work and in practical lingual tuition.
In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided
into root-morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). The roots express the
concrete, material" part of the meaning of the word, while the affixes express the
specificational part of the meaning of the word, the specifications being of
lexicoscmantic and ammatico-semantic character.
The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes.
The affixal morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and inflexions (in the tradition of
the English school, grammatical inflexions are tommonly referred to as "suffixes"). Of
these, prefixes and lexical suffixes have word-building functions, together with the
root they form the stem of the word; inflexions (grammatical suffixes)
expressdifferent morphological categories.
The root, according to the positional content of the term (i.e. the border-area between
prefixes and suffixes), is obligatory for any word, while affixes are not obligatory.
Therefore one and the same morphemic segment of functional (i.e. non-notional)
status, depending on various morphemic environments, can in principle be used now
as an affix (mostly, a prefix), now as a root. Cf:. out - a root-word (preposition, adverb,
verbal postposition, adjective, noun, verb); throughout - a composite word, in which -out
serves as one of the roots (the categorial status of the meaning of both morphemes is the
same);outing - a two-morpheme word, in which out- is a root, and -ing is a suffix;
outlook, outline, outrage, out-talk, etc. - words, in which out- serves as a prefix;look-out,
knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. - words (nouns), in which -out serves as a suffix.
The morphemic composition of modern English words has a wide range of varieties;
in the lexicon of everyday speech the preferable morphemic types of stems are root
stems (one-root stems or
two-root stems) and one-affix stems. With grammatically changeable words, these
stems take one grammatical suffix (two "open" grammatical suffixes are used only
with some plural nouns in the possessive case, cf:. the children's toys, the oxen's
yokes).
Thus, the abstract complete morphemic model of the common English word is the
following: prefix + root + lexical suffix + grammatical suffix.
The syntagmatic connections of the morphemes within the model form two types of
hierarchical structure. The first is characterized by the original prefixal stem (e.g.
prefabricated), the second is characterized by the original suffixal stem (e.g.
inheritors). If we use the symbols St for stem, R for root, Pr for prefix, L for lexical
suffix, Gr for grammatical suffix, and, besides, employ three graphical symbols of
hierarchical grouping - braces, brackets, and parentheses, then the two morphemic
word-structures can be presented as follows:
W2 = {[(Pr + R) + L] + Gr}
Further insights into the correlation between the formal A functional aspects of
morphemes within the composition of the word may be gained in the light of the so-
called "allo-emic" theoryiit forward by Descriptive Linguistics and broadly used in
the current linguistic research.
In accord with this theory, lingual units are described by means of two types of terms:
a/to-terms and erne-terms. Erne-terms denote the generalized invariant units of
language characterized by a certain functional status: phonemes, morphemes. Allo-
terms denote the concrete manifestations, or variants of the generalized units
dependent on the regular co-location with other elements of language: allonhones,
allomorphs. A set of iso-functional allo-units identified in the text on the basis of their
cooccurrence with other lingual units (distribution) is considered as the corresponding
erne-unit with its fixed systemic status.
In this word the left environment of the root is the negative prefix un; the right
environment of the root is the qualitative suffix -able. Respectively, the root -pardon-
is the right environment for the prefix, and the left environment for the suffix.
The distribution of a unit may be defined as the total of all its environments; in other
words, the distribution of a unit is its environment in generalized terms of classes or
categories.
In the distributional analysis at the morphemic level, phonemic distribution of
morphemes and morphemic distribution of morphemes are discriminated. The study is
conducted in two stages.
At the first stage, the analysed text (i.e. the collected lingual materials, or "corpus") is
divided into recurrent segments consisting oi phonemes. These segments are called
"morphs", i.e. morphemicmilts distributionally uncharacterized, e.g.:
the/boat/s/were/gain/ing/ speed.
At the second stage, the environmental features of the morphes established and the
corresponding identifications are effected.
Three main types df distribution are discriminated in the distributional analysis,
namely, contrastive distribution, non-contrastivedistribution, and complementary
distribution.
Contrastive and non-contrastive distributions concern identical environments of
different morons. The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if their
meanings (functions) are different.
Such morphs constitute different morphemes. Cf. the suffixes -(e)d and -ing in the
verb-forms returned, returning. The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive
distribution (or free alternation) if their meaning (function) is the same. Such morphs
constitute "free alternants", or "free variants" of the same morpheme. Cf. the suffixes
-(e)d and -t in the verb-forms learned, learnt.
As different from the above, complementary distribution concerns different
environments of formally different morphs which are united by the same meaning
(function). If two or more morphs have the same meaning and the difference in their
form is explained by different environments, these morphs are said to be in
complementary distribution and considered the allomorphs of the same morpheme.
Cf. the allomorphs of the plural morpheme /-s/, /-z/, /-iz/ which stand in phonemic
complementary distribution; the plural allomorph en in oxen, children, which stands
in morphemic complementary distribution with the other allomorphs of the plural
morpheme.
As we see, for analytical purposes the notion of complementary distribution is the
most important, because it helps establish the identity of outwardly altogether
different elements of language, in particular, its grammatical elements.
As a result of the application of distributional analysis to the morphemic level,
different types of morphemes have been discriminated which can be called the
"distributional morpheme types".
It must be stressed that the distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish
or in any way depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Rather, it supplements the
traditional classification, showing some essential features of morphemes on the
principles of environmental study.
1) the segments -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the possessive case of nouns, the
third person singular present of verbs;
2) the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]: the past and past participle of verbs;
On the basis of formal presentation, "overt" morphemes and "covert" morphemes are
distinguished. Overt morphemes are genuine, explicit morphemes building up words; the
covert morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence of morpheme expressing a certain
function. The notion of covert morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme in
the oppositional description of grammatical categories (see further).
For instance, the word-form clocks consists of two overt morphemes: one lexical
(root) and one grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-morpheme
word-form clock, since it expresses the singular, is also considered as consisting of
two morphemes, i.e. of the overt root and the covert (implicit) grammatical suffix of
the singular. The usual symbol for the covert morpheme employed by linguists is the
sign of the empty set: 0.
The said elements of language, as we have stated elsewhere, should beyond dispute be
considered signemic units of language, ""се they are functionally bound. They form
the secondary line of speech, accompanying its primary phonemic line (phonemic
complexes). On the other hand, from what has been stated about the morpheme
proper, it is not difficult to see that the morphemic interpretation of supra-scgmental
units can hardly stand to reason. Indeed, these units are functionally connected not
with morphemes, but with larger elements of guage: words, word-groups, sentences,
supra-sentential constructic.
On the basis of grammatical alternation, "additive" morphemes and "replacive"
morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as additivemorphemes are outer
grammatical suffixes, since, as a rule, they are opposed to the absence of morphemes
in grammatical alternation.
Cf. look + ed, small + er, etc. In distinction to these, the root phonemes of grammatical
interchange are considered as replacive morphemes, since they replace one another in
the paradigmatic forms. Cf. dr-i-ve - dr-o-ve - dr-i-ven; m-a-n - m-e-n; etc.
have ... en - for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone);
It is easy to see that the notion of morpheme applied to the analytical form of the word
violates the principle of the identificationof morpheme as an elementary meaningful
segment: the analytical"framing" consists of two meaningful segments, i.e. of two
different morphemes. On the other hand, the general notion "discontinuous
constituent", "discontinuous unit" is quite rational and can be help fully used in
linguistic description in its proper place.
TYPES OF MORPHEME
For instance, in the word handful the root hand is a free mornheme, while the suffix
-ful is a bound morpheme.
There are very few productive bound morphemes in the morphological system of
English. Being extremely narrow, the list of them is complicated by the relations of
homonymy. These morphemes are the following:
1) the segments -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the possessive case of nouns, the
third person singular present of verbs;
2) the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]: the past and past participle of verbs;
For instance, the word-form clocks consists of two overt morphemes: one lexical
(root) and one grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-morpheme
word-form clock, since it expresses the singular, is also considered as consisting of
two morphemes, i.e. of the overt root and the covert (implicit) grammatical suffix of
the singular. The usual symbol for the covert morpheme employed by linguists is the
sign of the empty set:
Segmental and supra-segmental morphemes:On the basis of segmental relation,
"segmental" morphemes and "supra-segmental" morphemes are distinguished.
Interpreted as supra segmental morphemes in distributional terms are intonation
contours, accents, pauses.
The said elements of language, as we have stated elsewhere, should beyond dispute be
considered signemic units of language, ""се they are functionally bound. They form
the secondary line of each, accompanying its primary phonemic line (phonemic
complexes). On the other hand, from what has been stated about the morpheme
proper, it is not difficult to see that the morphemic interpretation of supra-scgmental
units can hardly stand to reason. Indeed, these units are functionally connected not
with morphemes, but with larger elements of guage: words, word-groups, sentences,
supra-sentential constructic.
Additive and replacive morphemes:On the basis of grammatical alternation,
"additive" morphemes and "replacive" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as
additive morphemes are outer grammatical suffixes, since, as a rule, they are opposed
to the absence of morphemes in grammatical alternation.
Cf. look + ed, small + er, etc. In distinction to these, the root phonemes of grammatical
interchange are considered as replacive morphemes, since they replace one another in
the paradigmatic forms. Cf. dr-i-ve - dr-o-ve - dr-i-ven; m-a-n - m-e-n; etc.
have ... en - for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone);
It is easy to see that the notion of morpheme applied to the analytical form of the word
violates the principle of the identificationof morpheme as an elementary meaningful
segment: the analytical "framing" consists of two meaningful segments, i.e. of two
differentmorphemes. On the other hand, the general notion
"discontinuousconstituent", "discontinuous unit" is quite rational and can be help fully
used in linguistic description in its proper place.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar. - M.,2000. pp. 13-20
2. Гатилова В.К. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. часть 1.- Алма-
Ата, 1993. cc.12-19
Thus, in studying the morpheme we actually study the word in the necessary details of
its composition and functions.
It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the
word, i.e. such a definition as would unambiguously apply to all the different word-
units of the lexicon. This difficulty is explained by the fact that the word is an
extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of different
linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence,
the minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component of the sentence, the
articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged combination of sound with
meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately identifiable lingual unit, the
uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc. None of these definitions, which can be
divided into formal, functional, and mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the
lexical segments of language without a residue remaining outside the field of
definition.
The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the word as the
basic element of language. In particular,American scholars - representatives
of Descriptive Linguistics founded by L. Bloomfield - recognized not the word and
the sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme as the basic categories of linguistic
description, because these units are the easiest to be isolated in the continual text due
to their "physically" minimal, elementary segmental character: the phoneme being the
minimal formal segment of language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful
segment. Accordingly, only two segmental levels were originally identified in
language by Descriptive scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic level; later,
a third one was added to these - the level of "constructions", i.e. the level of
morphemic combinations.
In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and the like, as well
their simple derivatives, e.g. watery, passer, yellowness, we shall easily see their definite
nominative function and unambiguous segmental delimitation, making them beyond all
doubt into "separate words of language". But if we compare with the given one-stem
words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman, password,
yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter as separate
words is greatly complicated by the fact that they themselves are decomposable into
separate words.
One could point out that the peculiar property distinguishing composite words from
phrases is their linear indivisibility, i.e. the impossibility for them to be divided by a
third word. But this would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical word-
forms, e.g.:has met - has never met; is coming - is not by any circumstancescoming.
As for the criterion according to which the word is identified as a minimal sign
capable of functioning alone (the word understood as the "smallest free form", or
interpreted as the "potential minimal sentence"), it is irrelevant for the bulk of
functional words which cannot be used "independently" even in elliptical responses
(to say nothing of the fact that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially theopposite of
self-dependence).
In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that
each speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of naming units (more precisely, units
standing to one another in nominative correlation) by which he can build up an
infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of reality.
This circumstance urges us to seek the identification of the word as a lingual unit-type
on other lines than the "strictly operational definition". In fact, we do find the
clarification of the problem in taking into consideration the difference between the
two sets of lingual phenomena: on the one hand, "polar" phenomena; on the other
hand, "intermediary" phenomena.
Within a complex system of interrelated elements, polar phenomena arc the most
clearly identifiable, they stand to one another in an utterly unambiguous opposition.
Intermediary phenomena arc located in the system in between the polar phenomena,
making up a
gradation of transitions or the so-called "continuum". By some of their properties
intermediary phenomena arc similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while
by other properties they are similar to the other, opposing pole. Either of the two poles
together with the intermediary elements connected with it on the principle of
gradation, forms a "field". The polar elements of this field constitute its"centre", the
non-polar elements, respectively, its "periphery".
The analysis of the intermediary phenomena from the point of view of their relation to
the polar phenomena reveal their own status in the system. At the same time this kind
of analysis helps evaluate the definitions of the polar phenomena between which a
continuum is established.
In this connection, the notional one-stem word and the morpheme should be described
as the opposing polar phenomena amongthe meaningful segments of language; it is
these elements that can be defined by their formal and functional features most
precisely andunambiguously. As for functional words, they occupy
intermediarypositions between these poles, and their very intermediary status is
gradational. In particular, the variability of their status is expressed in the fact that
some of them can be used in an isolated response position (for instance, words of
affirmation and negation, interrogative words, demonstrative words, etc.), while
others cannot (such as prepositions or conjunctions).
The nature of the element of any system is revealed in the character of its function.
The function of words is realized in their nominative correlation with one another. On
the basis of this correlation a number of functional words are distinguished by the
"negative delimitation" (i.e. delimitation as a residue after the identification of the co-
positional textual elements),' e.g.: the/people;to/speak; by/way/of.
Summing up what has been said in this paragraph, we maypoint out some of the
properties of the morpheme and the word which are fundamental from the point of
view of their systemic status and therefore require detailed investigations and
descriptions.
In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional criterion (the location of the
marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones) and semantic or functional
criterion (the correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the
word). The combination of these two criteria in an integral description has led to the
rational classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research linguistic
work and in practical lingual tuition.
In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided
into root-morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). The roots express the
concrete, material" part of the meaning of the word, while the affixes express the
specificational part of the meaning of the word, the specifications being of
lexicoscmantic and ammatico-semantic character.
The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes.
The affixal morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and inflexions (in the tradition of
the English school, grammatical inflexions are tommonly referred to as "suffixes"). Of
these, prefixes and lexical suffixes have word-building functions, together with the
root they form the stem of the word; inflexions (grammatical suffixes)
expressdifferent morphological categories.
The root, according to the positional content of the term (i.e. the border-area between
prefixes and suffixes), is obligatory for any word, while affixes are not obligatory.
Therefore one and the same morphemic segment of functional (i.e. non-notional)
status, depending on various morphemic environments, can in principle be used now
as an affix (mostly, a prefix), now as a root. Cf:. out - a root-word (preposition, adverb,
verbal postposition, adjective, noun, verb); throughout - a composite word, in which -out
serves as one of the roots (the categorial status of the meaning of both morphemes is the
same);outing - a two-morpheme word, in which out- is a root, and -ing is a suffix;
outlook, outline, outrage, out-talk, etc. - words, in which out- serves as a prefix;look-out,
knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. - words (nouns), in which -out serves as a suffix.
The morphemic composition of modern English words has a wide range of varieties;
in the lexicon of everyday speech the preferable morphemic types of stems are root
stems (one-root stems or
two-root stems) and one-affix stems. With grammatically changeable words, these
stems take one grammatical suffix (two "open" grammatical suffixes are used only
with some plural nouns in the possessive case, cf:. the children's toys, the oxen's
yokes).
Thus, the abstract complete morphemic model of the common English word is the
following: prefix + root + lexical suffix + grammatical suffix.
The syntagmatic connections of the morphemes within the model form two types of
hierarchical structure. The first is characterized by the original prefixal stem (e.g.
prefabricated), the second is characterized by the original suffixal stem (e.g.
inheritors). If we use the symbols St for stem, R for root, Pr for prefix, L for lexical
suffix, Gr for grammatical suffix, and, besides, employ three graphical symbols of
hierarchical grouping - braces, brackets, and parentheses, then the two morphemic
word-structures can be presented as follows:
W2 = {[(Pr + R) + L] + Gr}
Further insights into the correlation between the formal A functional aspects of
morphemes within the composition of the word may be gained in the light of the so-
called "allo-emic" theoryiit forward by Descriptive Linguistics and broadly used in
the current linguistic research.
In accord with this theory, lingual units are described by means of two types of terms:
a/to-terms and erne-terms. Erne-terms denote the generalized invariant units of
language characterized by a certain functional status: phonemes, morphemes. Allo-
terms denote the concrete manifestations, or variants of the generalized units
dependent on the regular co-location with other elements of language: allonhones,
allomorphs. A set of iso-functional allo-units identified in the text on the basis of their
cooccurrence with other lingual units (distribution) is considered as the corresponding
erne-unit with its fixed systemic status.
In this word the left environment of the root is the negative prefix un; the right
environment of the root is the qualitative suffix -able. Respectively, the root -pardon-
is the right environment for the prefix, and the left environment for the suffix.
The distribution of a unit may be defined as the total of all its environments; in other
words, the distribution of a unit is its environment in generalized terms of classes or
categories.
In the distributional analysis at the morphemic level, phonemic distribution of
morphemes and morphemic distribution of morphemes are discriminated. The study is
conducted in two stages.
At the first stage, the analysed text (i.e. the collected lingual materials, or "corpus") is
divided into recurrent segments consisting oi phonemes. These segments are called
"morphs", i.e. morphemicmilts distributionally uncharacterized, e.g.:
the/boat/s/were/gain/ing/ speed.
At the second stage, the environmental features of the morphes established and the
corresponding identifications are effected.
Three main types df distribution are discriminated in the distributional analysis,
namely, contrastive distribution, non-contrastivedistribution, and complementary
distribution.
Contrastive and non-contrastive distributions concern identical environments of
different morons. The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if their
meanings (functions) are different.
Such morphs constitute different morphemes. Cf. the suffixes -(e)d and -ing in the
verb-forms returned, returning. The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive
distribution (or free alternation) if their meaning (function) is the same. Such morphs
constitute "free alternants", or "free variants" of the same morpheme. Cf. the suffixes
-(e)d and -t in the verb-forms learned, learnt.
As different from the above, complementary distribution concerns different
environments of formally different morphs which are united by the same meaning
(function). If two or more morphs have the same meaning and the difference in their
form is explained by different environments, these morphs are said to be in
complementary distribution and considered the allomorphs of the same morpheme.
Cf. the allomorphs of the plural morpheme /-s/, /-z/, /-iz/ which stand in phonemic
complementary distribution; the plural allomorph en in oxen, children, which stands
in morphemic complementary distribution with the other allomorphs of the plural
morpheme.
As we see, for analytical purposes the notion of complementary distribution is the
most important, because it helps establish the identity of outwardly altogether
different elements of language, in particular, its grammatical elements.
As a result of the application of distributional analysis to the morphemic level,
different types of morphemes have been discriminated which can be called the
"distributional morpheme types".
It must be stressed that the distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish
or in any way depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Rather, it supplements the
traditional classification, showing some essential features of morphemes on the
principles of environmental study.
1) the segments -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the possessive case of nouns, the
third person singular present of verbs;
2) the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]: the past and past participle of verbs;
On the basis of formal presentation, "overt" morphemes and "covert" morphemes are
distinguished. Overt morphemes are genuine, explicit morphemes building up words; the
covert morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence of morpheme expressing a certain
function. The notion of covert morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme in
the oppositional description of grammatical categories (see further).
For instance, the word-form clocks consists of two overt morphemes: one lexical
(root) and one grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-morpheme
word-form clock, since it expresses the singular, is also considered as consisting of
two morphemes, i.e. of the overt root and the covert (implicit) grammatical suffix of
the singular. The usual symbol for the covert morpheme employed by linguists is the
sign of the empty set: 0.
have ... en - for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone);
It is easy to see that the notion of morpheme applied to the analytical form of the word
violates the principle of the identificationof morpheme as an elementary meaningful
segment: the analytical"framing" consists of two meaningful segments, i.e. of two
different morphemes. On the other hand, the general notion "discontinuous
constituent", "discontinuous unit" is quite rational and can be help fully used in
linguistic description in its proper place.
WORDS
Thus, in studying the morpheme we actually study the word in the necessary details of
its composition and functions.
It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the
word, i.e. such a definition as would unambiguously apply to all the different word-
units of the lexicon. This difficulty is explained by the fact that the word is an
extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of different
linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence,
the minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component of the sentence, the
articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged combination of sound with
meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately identifiable lingual unit, the
uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc. None of these definitions, which can be
divided into formal, functional, and mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the
lexical segments of language without a residue remaining outside the field of
definition.
The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the word as the
basic element of language. In particular,American scholars - representatives of
Descriptive Linguistics founded by L. Bloomfield - recognized not the word and the
sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme as the basic categories of linguistic
description, because these units are the easiest to be isolated in the continual text due
to their "physically" minimal, elementary segmental character: the phoneme being the
minimal formal segment of language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful
segment. Accordingly, only two segmental levels were originally identified in
language by Descriptive scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic level; later,
a third one was added to these - the level of "constructions", i.e. the level of
morphemic combinations.
In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and the like, as well
their simple derivatives, e.g. watery, passer, yellowness, we shall easily see their definite
nominative function and unambiguous segmental delimitation, making them beyond all
doubt into "separate words of language". But if we compare with the given one-stem
words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman, password,
yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter as separate
words is greatly complicated by the fact that they themselves are decomposable into
separate words.
One could point out that the peculiar property distinguishing composite words
fromphrases is their linear indivisibility, i.e. the impossibility for them to be divided
by a third word. But this would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical
word-forms, e.g.:has met - has never met; is coming - is not by any
circumstancescoming.
As for the criterion according to which the word is identified as a minimal sign
capable of functioning alone (the word understood as the "smallest free form", or
interpreted as the "potential minimal sentence"), it is irrelevant for the bulk of
functional words which cannot be used "independently" even in elliptical responses
(to say nothing of the fact that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially theopposite of
self-dependence).
In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that
each speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of naming units (more precisely, units
standing to one another in nominative correlation) by which he can build up an
infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of reality.
This circumstance urges us to seek the identification of the word as a lingual unit-type
on other lines than the "strictly operational definition". In fact, we do find the
clarification of the problem intaking into consideration the difference between the two
sets of lingual phenomena: on the one hand, "polar" phenomena; on the other hand,
"intermediary" phenomena.
Grammatical category
The most general notions reflecting the most general properties of phenomena are
referred to in logic as "catcgorial notions", or "categories". The most general
meanings rendered by language and expressed by systemic correlations of word-forms
are interpreted in linguistics as categorial grammatical meanings. The forms
themselves are identified within definite paradigmatic series.
The categorial meaning (e.g. the grammatical number) unites the individual meanings
of the correlated paradigmatic forms (e.g. singular - plural) and is exposed through
them; hence, the meaning of the grammatical category and the meaning of the
grammatical form are related to each other on the principle of the logical relation
between the categorial and generic notions.
The opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be denned as a generalized correlation of
lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated
elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features: common
features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast,
while differential features immediately express the function in question.
Synthetical grammatical forms are realized by the inner morphemic composition of the
word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two
words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word
of "substantial" meaning.
Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer inflexion, and
suppletivity; hence, the forms are referred to as inner inflexional, outer-inflexional,
and suppletive.
Suppletivity is used in the forms of the verbs be and go, in the irregular forms of the
degrees of comparison, in some forms of personal pronouns. Cf.: be - am - are - is -
was - were; go-went;
good - better; bad - worse; much - more; little - less; I - me; we - us; she-her.
In the previous chapter we enumerated the few grammatical suffixes possessed by the
English language. These are used to build up the number and case forms of the noun;
the person-number, tense, participial and gerundial forms of the verb; the comparison
forms of the adjective and adverb. In the oppositional correlations of all theseforms,
the initial paradigmatic form of each opposition is distinguished by a zero suffix. Cf.:
boy+0-boys; go + 0-goes;
Taking this into account, and considering also the fact that each grammatical form
paradigmatically correlates with at least one other form on the basis of the category
expressed (e.g. the form of the singular with the form of the plural), we come to the
conclusion that the total number of synthetical forms in English morphologically,
though certainly not very large, at the same time is not so small as it is commonly
believed. Scarce in English are not the) synthetical forms as such, but the actual
affixal segments on which the paiadigmatic differentiation of forms is based.
As for analytical forms which are so typical of modern English that they have long
made ibis language into the "canonized" representative of lingual analytism, they
deserve some special comment on their substance.
The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognizes two lexemic
parts in it, stating that it presents a combination of an auxiliary word with a basic
word. However, there is a tendency with some linguists to recognize as analytical not
all such grammatically significant combinations, but only those of them that are
"grammatically idiomatic", i.e. whose relevant grammatical meaning is not
immediately dependent on the meanings of their component elements taken apart.
Considered in this light, the form of the verbal perfect where the auxiliary have has
utterly lost itsoriginal meaning of possession, is interpreted as the most standard.
and indisputable analytical form in English morphology. Its opposite is seen in the
analytical degrees of comparison which, according to the cited interpretation, come
very near to free combinations of words by their lack of "idiomatism" in the above
sense.
Moreover, alongside the standard analytical forms characterized by the unequal ranks
of their components (auxiliary element-basic element), as a marginal analytical form-
type grammatical repetition should be recognized, which is used to express specific
categorial semantics of processual intensity with the verb, of indefinitely highdegree
of quality with the adjective and the adverb, of indefinitelylarge quantity with the
noun. Cf:. He knocked and knocked and knocked without reply (Gr. Greene). Oh, I
feel I've got such boundless, boundless love to give to somebody (K. Mansfield). Two
white-haired severe women were in charge of shelves and shelves of knitting materials
of every description (A. Christie).
The grammatical categories which are realized by the described types of forms
organized in functional paradigmatic oppositions, can either be innate for a given
class of words, or only be expressed on the surface of it, serving as a sign of
correlation with some other class.
Thus, from the point of view of referent relation, grammatical categories should be
divided into "immanent" categories, i.e. categories innate for a given lexemic class,
and "reflective" categories,i.e. categories of a secondary, derivative semantic value.
Categorial forms based on subordinative grammatical agreement (such as the verbal
person, the verbal number) are reflective, while categorial forms stipulating
grammatical agreement in lexemes of a contiguous
word-class (such as the substantive-pronominal person, the substan-live number) are
immanent. Immanent are also such categories and their forms as are confined within a
word-class, i.e. do not transgress its borders; to these belong the tense of the verb, the
comparison of tie adjective and adverb, etc.
An example of constant feature category can be seen in the category of gender which
divides the class of English nouns into non-human names, man male names, human
female names, and human common render names. This division is represented by the
system of the third person pronouns serving as gender-indices (see further). C/.:
Literature:
1. Л.С. Бархударов, Д.А. Штелинг Грамматика английского языка М., 1973, сс.
17-22
2. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar . -M., 1994, pp.27-36
Thus, in studying the morpheme we actually study the word in the necessary details of
its composition and functions.
It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the
word, i.e. such a definition as would unambiguously apply to all the different word-
units of the lexicon. This difficulty is explained by the fact that the word is an
extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of different
linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence,
the minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component of the sentence, the
articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged combination of sound with
meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately identifiable lingual unit, the
uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc. None of these definitions, which can be
divided into formal, functional, and mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the
lexical segments of language without a residue remaining outside the field of
definition.
The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the word as the
basic element of language. In particular,American scholars - representatives
of Descriptive Linguistics founded by L. Bloomfield - recognized not the word and
the sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme as the basic categories of linguistic
description, because these units are the easiest to be isolated in the continual text due
to their "physically" minimal, elementary segmental character: the phoneme being the
minimal formal segment of language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful
segment. Accordingly, only two segmental levels were originally identified in
language by Descriptive scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic level; later,
a third one was added to these - the level of "constructions", i.e. the level of
morphemic combinations.
In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and the like, as well
their simple derivatives, e.g. watery, passer, yellowness, we shall easily see their definite
nominative function and unambiguous segmental delimitation, making them beyond all
doubt into "separate words of language". But if we compare with the given one-stem
words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman, password,
yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter as separate
words is greatly complicated by the fact that they themselves are decomposable into
separate words.
One could point out that the peculiar property distinguishing composite words from
phrases is their linear indivisibility, i.e. the impossibility for them to be divided by a
third word. But this would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical word-
forms, e.g.:has met - has never met; is coming - is not by any circumstancescoming.
As for the criterion according to which the word is identified as a minimal sign
capable of functioning alone (the word understood as the "smallest free form", or
interpreted as the "potential minimal sentence"), it is irrelevant for the bulk of
functional words which cannot be used "independently" even in elliptical responses
(to say nothing of the fact that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially theopposite of
self-dependence).
In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that
each speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of naming units (more precisely, units
standing to one another in nominative correlation) by which he can build up an
infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of reality.
This circumstance urges us to seek the identification of the word as a lingual unit-type
on other lines than the "strictly operational definition". In fact, we do find the
clarification of the problem in taking into consideration the difference between the
two sets of lingual phenomena: on the one hand, "polar" phenomena; on the other
hand, "intermediary" phenomena.
Within a complex system of interrelated elements, polar phenomena arc the most
clearly identifiable, they stand to one another in an utterly unambiguous opposition.
Intermediary phenomena arc located in the system in between the polar phenomena,
making up a
gradation of transitions or the so-called "continuum". By some of their properties
intermediary phenomena arc similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while
by other properties they are similar to the other, opposing pole. Either of the two poles
together with the intermediary elements connected with it on the principle of
gradation, forms a "field". The polar elements of this field constitute its"centre", the
non-polar elements, respectively, its "periphery".
The analysis of the intermediary phenomena from the point of view of their relation to
the polar phenomena reveal their own status in the system. At the same time this kind
of analysis helps evaluate the definitions of the polar phenomena between which a
continuum is established.
In this connection, the notional one-stem word and the morpheme should be described
as the opposing polar phenomena amongthe meaningful segments of language; it is
these elements that can be defined by their formal and functional features most
precisely andunambiguously. As for functional words, they occupy
intermediarypositions between these poles, and their very intermediary status is
gradational. In particular, the variability of their status is expressed in the fact that
some of them can be used in an isolated response position (for instance, words of
affirmation and negation, interrogative words, demonstrative words, etc.), while
others cannot (such as prepositions or conjunctions).
The nature of the element of any system is revealed in the character of its function.
The function of words is realized in their nominative correlation with one another. On
the basis of this correlation a number of functional words are distinguished by the
"negative delimitation" (i.e. delimitation as a residue after the identification of the co-
positional textual elements),' e.g.: the/people;to/speak; by/way/of.
Summing up what has been said in this paragraph, we maypoint out some of the
properties of the morpheme and the word which are fundamental from the point of
view of their systemic status and therefore require detailed investigations and
descriptions.
In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional criterion (the location of the
marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones) and semantic or functional
criterion (the correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the
word). The combination of these two criteria in an integral description has led to the
rational classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research linguistic
work and in practical lingual tuition.
In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided
into root-morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). The roots express the
concrete, material" part of the meaning of the word, while the affixes express the
specificational part of the meaning of the word, the specifications being of
lexicoscmantic and ammatico-semantic character.
The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes.
The affixal morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and inflexions (in the tradition of
the English school, grammatical inflexions are tommonly referred to as "suffixes"). Of
these, prefixes and lexical suffixes have word-building functions, together with the
root they form the stem of the word; inflexions (grammatical suffixes)
expressdifferent morphological categories.
The root, according to the positional content of the term (i.e. the border-area between
prefixes and suffixes), is obligatory for any word, while affixes are not obligatory.
Therefore one and the same morphemic segment of functional (i.e. non-notional)
status, depending on various morphemic environments, can in principle be used now
as an affix (mostly, a prefix), now as a root. Cf:. out - a root-word (preposition, adverb,
verbal postposition, adjective, noun, verb); throughout - a composite word, in which -out
serves as one of the roots (the categorial status of the meaning of both morphemes is the
same);outing - a two-morpheme word, in which out- is a root, and -ing is a suffix;
outlook, outline, outrage, out-talk, etc. - words, in which out- serves as a prefix;look-out,
knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. - words (nouns), in which -out serves as a suffix.
The morphemic composition of modern English words has a wide range of varieties;
in the lexicon of everyday speech the preferable morphemic types of stems are root
stems (one-root stems or
two-root stems) and one-affix stems. With grammatically changeable words, these
stems take one grammatical suffix (two "open" grammatical suffixes are used only
with some plural nouns in the possessive case, cf:. the children's toys, the oxen's
yokes).
Thus, the abstract complete morphemic model of the common English word is the
following: prefix + root + lexical suffix + grammatical suffix.
The syntagmatic connections of the morphemes within the model form two types of
hierarchical structure. The first is characterized by the original prefixal stem (e.g.
prefabricated), the second is characterized by the original suffixal stem (e.g.
inheritors). If we use the symbols St for stem, R for root, Pr for prefix, L for lexical
suffix, Gr for grammatical suffix, and, besides, employ three graphical symbols of
hierarchical grouping - braces, brackets, and parentheses, then the two morphemic
word-structures can be presented as follows:
W2 = {[(Pr + R) + L] + Gr}
Further insights into the correlation between the formal A functional aspects of
morphemes within the composition of the word may be gained in the light of the so-
called "allo-emic" theoryiit forward by Descriptive Linguistics and broadly used in
the current linguistic research.
In accord with this theory, lingual units are described by means of two types of terms:
a/to-terms and erne-terms. Erne-terms denote the generalized invariant units of
language characterized by a certain functional status: phonemes, morphemes. Allo-
terms denote the concrete manifestations, or variants of the generalized units
dependent on the regular co-location with other elements of language: allonhones,
allomorphs. A set of iso-functional allo-units identified in the text on the basis of their
cooccurrence with other lingual units (distribution) is considered as the corresponding
erne-unit with its fixed systemic status.
In this word the left environment of the root is the negative prefix un; the right
environment of the root is the qualitative suffix -able. Respectively, the root -pardon-
is the right environment for the prefix, and the left environment for the suffix.
The distribution of a unit may be defined as the total of all its environments; in other
words, the distribution of a unit is its environment in generalized terms of classes or
categories.
In the distributional analysis at the morphemic level, phonemic distribution of
morphemes and morphemic distribution of morphemes are discriminated. The study is
conducted in two stages.
At the first stage, the analysed text (i.e. the collected lingual materials, or "corpus") is
divided into recurrent segments consisting oi phonemes. These segments are called
"morphs", i.e. morphemicmilts distributionally uncharacterized, e.g.:
the/boat/s/were/gain/ing/ speed.
At the second stage, the environmental features of the morphes established and the
corresponding identifications are effected.
Three main types df distribution are discriminated in the distributional analysis,
namely, contrastive distribution, non-contrastivedistribution, and complementary
distribution.
Contrastive and non-contrastive distributions concern identical environments of
different morons. The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if their
meanings (functions) are different.
Such morphs constitute different morphemes. Cf. the suffixes -(e)d and -ing in the
verb-forms returned, returning. The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive
distribution (or free alternation) if their meaning (function) is the same. Such morphs
constitute "free alternants", or "free variants" of the same morpheme. Cf. the suffixes
-(e)d and -t in the verb-forms learned, learnt.
As different from the above, complementary distribution concerns different
environments of formally different morphs which are united by the same meaning
(function). If two or more morphs have the same meaning and the difference in their
form is explained by different environments, these morphs are said to be in
complementary distribution and considered the allomorphs of the same morpheme.
Cf. the allomorphs of the plural morpheme /-s/, /-z/, /-iz/ which stand in phonemic
complementary distribution; the plural allomorph en in oxen, children, which stands
in morphemic complementary distribution with the other allomorphs of the plural
morpheme.
As we see, for analytical purposes the notion of complementary distribution is the
most important, because it helps establish the identity of outwardly altogether
different elements of language, in particular, its grammatical elements.
As a result of the application of distributional analysis to the morphemic level,
different types of morphemes have been discriminated which can be called the
"distributional morpheme types".
It must be stressed that the distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish
or in any way depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Rather, it supplements the
traditional classification, showing some essential features of morphemes on the
principles of environmental study.
1) the segments -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the possessive case of nouns, the
third person singular present of verbs;
2) the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]: the past and past participle of verbs;
THE NOUN
Classification of nouns
Number
Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum
Collective Nouns and Nouns of Multitude
Case
Mutual relartions of number and case
Classification of nouns:
- on the basis of type of nomination - proper and common (Mary, sister)
- on the basis of form of existance - animate and inanimate (dog, desk)
- on the basis of personal quality - human and non-human (boy, fish)
- on the basis of a qualitative structure - countable and uncountable (pencil,water)
The noun in Modern English has only two main grammatical categories, number and
case. The existence of case appears to be doubtfuland has to be carefully analysed.
The Modern English noun certainly has not got the categoryof grammatical gender,
which is to be found, for example, in Russian, French, German and Latin. Not a single
noun in Modern English shows any peculiarities in its morphology due to its denoting
a male or a female being. Thus, the words husband and wife do not show any
difference in their forms due to the peculiaritiesof their lexical meanings.This
category is expressed by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal
pronouns of the third person. There are only several suffixes which show the gender :
actor - actress, widow - widower.
NUMBER
The grammatical meaning of the category is oneness and more than oneness.
Modern English, as most other languages, distinguishes between two
numbers,singular and plural., The essential meaning of singular and plural seems clear
enough: the singular number shows that one object is meant, and the plural shows that
more than one object is meant. Thus, the opposition is "one — more than one". This
holds good for many nouns: table —tables, pupil — pupils, dog — dogs, etc. However,
language facts are not always so simple as that. The category of number in
Englishnouns gives rise to several problems which claim special attention.
First of all, it is to be noted that there is some difference between, say, three houses
and three hours. Whereas three houses are three separate objects existing side by side,
three hours are a continuous period of time measured by a certain agreed unit of
duration. The same, of course, would apply to such expressions as three miles, three
acres, etc.
If we now turn to such plurals as waters (e. g. the waters of the Atlantic), or snows (e.
g. " Daughter of the Snows", the title of a story by Jack London), we shall see that we are
drifting further away from the original meaning of the plural number. In the first place, no
numeral could be used with nouns of this kind. We could not possibly say three waters, от three
snows. We cannot say how many waters we mean when we use this noun in the plural
number. What, then, is the real difference in meaning between water and waters,
snow and snows, etc.? It is fairly obvious that the plural form in every case serves to
denote a vast stretch of water (e. g. an ocean), or of snow, or rather of ground covered
by snow (e. g. in the arctic regions of Canada), etc. In the case of water and waters we
can press the point still further and state that the water of the Atlantic refers to its
physical or chemical properties (e. g. the water of tfie Atlantic contains a
considerable portion of salt), whereas the waters of the Atlantic refers to a
geographical idea: it denotes a seascape and has, as such, a peculiar stylistic value
which the water of the Atlantic certainly lacks. So we see that between the singular
and the plural an additional difference of meaning has developed.
Now, the difference between the two numbers may increase to such a degree that the
plural form develops a completely new meaning which the singular has not got at all.
Thus, for example, theplural form colours has the meaning 'banner' which is restricted
to the plural (e. g. to serve under the colours of liberty). In a similar manner, the plural
attentions has acquired the meaning wooing (pay attentions to, a young lady). A
considerable amountof examples in point have been collected by 0. Jespersen.
Since, in these cases, a difference in lexical meaning develops between the plural and
the singular, it is natural to say that the plural form has been lexicalized. It is not our
task here to go into details about the specific peculiarities of meaning which may
develop in the plural form of a noun. This is a matter of lexicology rather than of
grammar. What is essential from the grammatical viewpoint is the very fact that a
difference in meaning which is purely grammatical in its origins is apt under certain
conditions to be vershadowed by a lexical difference.
The -'s form can also sometimes be used in a sense which may be termed qualitative.
This is best illustrated by an example. The phrase an officer s cap can be interpreted
in two different ways.For one thing, it may mean 'a cap belonging to a certain officer',
and that, of course, is the usual possessive meaning (фуражка офицера). For another
thing, it may mean 'a cap of the type worn by officers', and this is its qualitative
meaning (the Russian equivalent for this is офицерская фуражка). Only the context
will showwhich is meant. Here are a few examples of the qualitative meaning; it is
only the context that makes this clear: if it were not for thecontext the usual
possessive meaning might be ascribed to the form.
She perceived with all her nerves the wavering of Amanda's confidence, her child's
peace of mind, and she understood how fragile it was. (CARY)'The meaning of the phrase
her child's peace of mind is in itself ambiguous. Taken without the context, it may mean one of
two .things: (1} 'the peace of mind of her child' (the usual possessive meaning), or
(2)her peace of mind, which was like a child's' (the qualitative meaning). Outside the
context both interpretations would be equally justified. In the sentence as it stands in
the text the surrounding words unmistakably point to the second,that is, the qualitative
interpretation: the whole sentence deals only with Amanda herself, there is no
question of any child of hers, so that the usual possessive meaning is not possible
here. A somewhat similar expression is found in the phrase, a small cupid's
mouth,which might mean, either the mouth of a small cupid, or a small mouth, like
that of a cupid. The context also confirms that the intended meaning is the qualitative
one.
A special use of the -'s-forms has also to be mentioned, which may be illustrated by
such examples as, I went to the baker's; we spent a week at our uncle's, etc. Yes, Mary, I
was going to write toMacmillan's and suggest a biography... (GR. GREENE)
The older view was based on the assumption that the -'s-form was an attribute
to some noun supposed to be "understood", namely I went to the baker's shop,
we spent a week at our uncle's house, etc. However, this interpretation is
doubtful. It cannot be proved
that a noun following the -'s-form is "understood". It seems more advisable,
therefore, to take the facts for what they are and tosuppose that the -'s is here
developing into a derivative suffix, used to form a noun from another noun.
This is also seen in the fact that the famous cathedral in London is very often
referred to as St. Paul's. A historical novel by the nineteenth-century English writer
W. Harrison Ainsworth bears the title "Old St. Paul's", and itappears to be quite
impossible here to claim that this is an attribute
to the noun cathedral which is "understood": if we were to restore the word
which is supposed to be omitted, we should get Old St. Paul's Cathedral, where
the adjective old would seem to modify St. Paul, rather than Cathedral, just as in any
other phrase of this type: old John's views, young Peter's pranks, etc.
MUTUAL RELATIONS OF NUMBER AND CASE
In Old English, the notions of number and case were alwaysexpressed by one
morpheme. Thus, in the Old English form stdna the ending -a expressed
simultaneously the plural number andthe genitive case. That was typical of an
inflected language. A change came already in Middle English, and in Modern
English the two notions have been entirely separated. This is especially clear in
the nouns which do not form their plural in -s: in the forms men's,children's
number is expressed by the root vowel and the inflection -ren, while the -'s expresses
case alone. But this applies to nouns forming their plural in -s as well. E. g. in
father s the -'s expressespossessivity, whereas the notion of singular has no
material expression. In the plural fathers' the -s expresses the plural
number,whereas the notion of possessivity has no material expression in
pronunciation (in the written language it is expressed by the apostrophe
standing after the -s). In spoken English the two forms may of course be
confused. Thus, in the phrase [ 'boiz buks) is impossible to tell whether one or
more boys are meant (in written English these variants would be distinguished
by the place of the apostrophe: the boy's books as against the boys' books},
unless the context gives a clue. It is natural, therefore, that ambiguity is better
avoided by using the of-phrase instead of the possesive, e. g. the opinions of our
mothers, etc.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar. - M,.2000. pp.48-61
2. Ilyish B.A. The structure of Modern English. - L.,71. pp.39-52
3. Гатилова В.К. Методические рекомендации для самостоятельной работы
студентов по курсу Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. часть 1. Алма-
Ата, 1993. сс36-40
Verb
The verb is a lexico-grammatical class of words, having the categorial meaning of
process presented dynamically, that is developing in time.
Classification of verbs:
• According to their meaning - terminative (to open, bring) and durative (to
carry, live);
• According to their relation to the continuous form - dynamic (he is eating) and
stative (she wishes);
• According to the type of object they take - transitive ( to tell the truth) and
intransitive (they live here);
• According to their meaning and function in the sentence - notional (to live, sit)
and functional (auxiliary, modal and link verbs);
• According to their function in the sentence - finite (sit, speak) and non- finite
(infinitive, gerund and participle).
FINITE
The finite forms of the verb express the processual relations of substances and
phenomena making up the situation reflected in the sentence. These forms are
associated with one another in an extremely complex and intricate system. The
peculiar aspect of the complexity of this system lies in the fact that, as we have stated
before, the finite verb is directly connected with the structure of the sentence as a
whole. Indeed, the finite verb, through the working of its categories, is immediately
related to such sentence-constitutive factors as morphological forms of predication,
communication purposes, subjective modality, subject-object relation, gradation of
probabilities, and quite a few other factors of no lesser importance.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the complicated character of the system in
question has given rise to a lot of controversies about the structural formation of the
finite verb categories, as well as the bases of their functional semantics. It would be
not an exaggeration to say that each fundamental type of grammatical expression
capable of being approached in terms of generalized categories in the domain of the
finite verb has created a subject for a scholarly dispute. For instance, taking as an
example the sphere of the categorial person and number of the verb, we are faced with
the argument among grammarians about the existence or non-existence of the verbal-
pronominal forms of these categories. In connection with the study of the verbal
expression of time and aspect, the great controversy is going on as to the temporal or
aspective nature of the verbal forms of the indefinite, continuous, perfect, and perfect-
continuous series. Grammatical expression of the future tense in English is stated by
some scholars as a matter-of-fact truth, while other linguists are eagerly negating any
possibility of its existence as an element of grammar. The verbal voice invites its
investigators to exchange mutually opposing views regarding both the content and the
number of its forms. The problem of the subjunctive mood may justly be called one of
the most vexed in the theory of grammar: the exposition of its structural properties, its
inner divisions, as well as its correlation with the indicative mood vary literally from
one linguistic author to another.
On the face of it, one might get an impression that the morphological study of the
English finite verb has amounted to interminable aimless exchange of arguments,
ceaseless advances of opposing "points of view", the actual aim of which has nothing
to do with the practical application of linguistic theory to life. However, the fallacy of
such an impression should be brought to light immediately and uncompromisingly.
As a matter of fact, it is the verb system that, of all the spheres of morphology, has
come under the most intensive and fruitful analysis undertaken by contemporary
linguistics. In the course of these studies the oppositional nature of the categorial
structure of the verb was disclosed and explicitly formulated; the paradigmatic system
of the expression of verbal functional semantics was described competently, though in
varying technical terms, and the correlation of form and meaning in the composition
of functionally relevant parts of this system was demonstrated explicitly on the
copious material gathered. Theoretical discussions have not ceased, nor subsided. On
the contrary, they continue and develop, though on an ever more solid scientific
foundation; and the cumulative descriptions of the English verb provide now an
integral picture of its nature which the grammatical theory has never possessed before.
Indeed, it is due to this advanced types of study that the structural and semantic
patterning of verbal constructions successfully applied to teaching practices on all the
stages of tuition has achieved so wide a scope.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar. - M.,2000. pp.119-122
VERBALS
• Meaning
• Form
• Combinability
• Function
• Infinitive
• Participle
• Gerund
Besides the features common to the English verb as a whole the verbals (or verbids
(Rogovskaya p.183) have certain features of their own distinguishing them from the
finite verb
Meaning
Their lexico-grammatical meaning is dual nature. The verbal meaning of
‘action, process’ is presented as some kind of ‘substance’ (gerund, infinitive) or
‘quality’ (participle).
The gerund and infinitive denote an action partially treated as a substance. E.g.:
Going there put an end to her anxiety. To tempt Providence was the practice of
Modernity. The participle denotes a”qualifying action’, i.e. an action presented
as a property of some substance (like an adjective) or a circumstance of another
action (like an adverb). E.g.: He looked at his son with twinkling eyes.
Form
They have peculiar morphemes: -ing (gerund and participle I), -e(d), -(e)n
(participle II, to (infinitive)
The verbals do not possess many of the categories of the finite verb , such as number,
person, tense, mood.
non-continuous
non-perfect, to be writing -
continuous
non-continuous
continuous
A. adverbs, e.g: Arriving there the visitor found everything that should be found
at all manors.
B. nouns, e.g.: It was the entrance to a large family vault, extending under the
north aisle.
C. pronouns, e.g.: Having closed the drawing-room door on him, Isabel awaited a
little, absorbed in her own thoughts.
Like an adverb it is connected with verbs, e.g.: The effect of her words was
terrifying.
Like a noun the infinitive may be associated with a finite verb: To land
seemed impossible.
Function.
Their syntactical function are quite different from those of the finite verb. They are
very rarely used as predicates (except secondary ones), but they are used in almost
any other function in the sentence.
Infinitive.
Participle:
Participle II:
A. Attribute They turned into the large conservatory beautifully lit up with
Chinese lamps. adverbial modifier, e.g.: a) of time , b) of condition, c)
of comparison, d) of concession, e) of attendant circumstances A) She is
a terror when roused. B) He did not usually utter a word unless spoken
to. C) “Does he know it?” said David Ruin, as though surprised. D) ...
her spirit, though crushed, was not broken. E) We sat silent, her eyes
still fixed on mine.
B. Predicative, e.g.: In spite of himself, Val was impressed Part of a
complex object, e.g.: She has found me unaltered, but I found her
unchanged.
Gerund.
a) On reaching Casterbridge he left the horse and the trap at an inn. B) She
startled her father by bursting into tears. C) She was not brilliant, not active, but
rather peaceful and statuesque without knowing it. D) ... one side of the gallery
was used for dancing. E) He has no right to come bothering you and papa
without being invited. F) I dared not attend the funeral for fear of making a fool
of myself. G) In spite of being busy, he did all he could to help her.
MODAL verbs
Background
Semantics
Morphological properties
Mustn't and don't have to
Can/could
May – might
Will, Would, Shall, Should
Need
Syntactic properties
Background
The class of verbs falls into a number of subclasses distinguished by different semantic and
lexico-grammatical features: verbs of full nominative value (notional verbs) and verbs of
partial nominative value (semi-notional and functional verbs.) Semi-notional verbs serve as
markers of predication in the proper sense. These “predicators” include auxiliary verbs,
modal verbs, link-verbs. Palmer, Modality and the English Modals, Longman 1979, says of
the modals: “There is no doubt that the overall picture of the modals is extremely "messy"
and untidy and that the most the linguist can do is to impose some order, point some
regularities, correspondences, parallelisms”. (1)
The modal auxiliaries form a closed class. If we list a number of examples the pattern is
quickly observed:
(1) He shouldn't have done that.
(2) They must've missed the train.
(3) He might not know yet.
(4) It couldn't have been easier.
(5) I think she may be pulling your leg!
In each of these statements the first place of the verb phrase is occupied by a modal
auxiliary. If such an auxiliary occurs in a sentence, it is always the first element of the verb
phrase, following the subject in statements. As a closed class they share certain
characteristics of meaning and are reciprocally exclusive ( I must can ask him) is
impossible, although once more two of the closed class may be linked by and in the same
sentence: You could and should have checked first. (1)
The complete list of modal verbs : Can, shall, may, will, must, could, should, might, would .
Semantic characteristics
Modal verbs denote various modal meanings: obligation, physical ability, possibility,
permission, prediction, doubt, certainty and etc. The modality expressed by modal verbs
may be of two types:
• The modal verb indicates the relation of the speaker (writer) to the event denoted by
the notional verb – the speaker may present events as possible (can, may), necessary
(must, should, ought, be, have) or desirable (shall, will, would) without indicating
whether the event really takes, took or will take place.
• The modal verb indicates the relation of the event denoted by the notional verb to
reality - the speaker (writer)may present events as realizable, attainable, indicating
that they possible, probably take, took or will take place in actual reality. (3)
Morphological characteristics
Forms –Simple – can, should, must.
Grammatical categories - Modal verbs do not have a complete paradigm and are called
defective verbs. Some modal verbs have the categories of:
The necessity may be of different kinds, for example, legal, moral, practical or logical:
You mustn't leave the car there after six.
You mustn't say things like that to Mrs. Wilson.
You must be careful with your money there.
They must have got the letter by now.
Although:
You have to get the 8 о 'clock train and You must get the 8 о 'clock train - seem similar in
meaning, the negatives are quite different: You mustn't get the 8 о 'clock train. You don't
have to get the 8 о 'clock train. We now see why this is.
You have to... = It is necessary for you to...
You don't have to... = It is not necessary for you to...
(Have) to is about objective necessity, the opposite of which is objective non-necessity. The
negation belongs to the necessity. The negation does not belong to the necessity, but to what
follows. We may summarize:
Don't have to = it is not necessary that... You don't have to ask first.
Mustn't = It is necessary not to... You mustn't forget to phone.
Interestingly, the distinction accounts for the existence of the form had to, and the fact that
this appears to be the "past tense" equivalent of both has/ have to and must. If the speaker
looks back on a past event and refers to necessity, that necessity will be objective, not the
subjective necessity "in the present circumstances", expressed by a modal auxiliary.
Talking of tomorrow I may say / must catch the 8.30 but referring factually to yesterday,
when the necessity is objectified, / had to catch the 8.30 will be obligatory.
Many students over-use must and avoid have to completely. This is partly because teachers
frequently give examples beginning I must and, as we have seen there is little difference
between the meaning of / must and / have to. Teachers can make the distinction clearer by
presenting a wider range of examples — choosing some with an obvious outside agency, for
example, traffic signs, and making sure they introduce examples with subjects other than
"I".Students are unlikely to be misunderstood if they confuse must and have to but they do
need to know (have) to in order to make such sentences as / had to wait 3 hours, and the
difference between mustn't and don't have to is essential. It is confusing to teach that the
positive sentences are "almost the same" and the negatives "completely different". It is
better to make the distinction clear from a relatively early stage in the teaching. It is also
essential to avoid statements about either of must and have to being "stronger" than the
other. (I have seen the statement made both ways round in textbooks!). The "strength" of
either form will depend upon its communicative meaning — this in turn depends on factors
other than a simple choice of verb form. It is possible that "objective necessity" may be
stronger if applied to "I" than any necessity I impose upon myself, using must. Equally,
however, if must is given a heavy stress in speech, it is possible the necessity I impose upon
myself appears stronger than any external necessity. The considerations are slightly
different with second or third person subjects, but it still remains true that the
communicative force ("strength") of the form is not constant.
Can/could
These are best dealt with as a pair, and we may state simple paraphrases as follows:
Can = I assert that it is possible that... Could =• I assert that it is "remotely" possible
that...These are the general, underlying meanings of can and could. Different kinds of
"possibility" exist, and will be interpreted in different contexts. Uses of could are
invariably possibilities of a more remote kind than uses of can. The "remoteness" may be
remoteness in time, social relationship, or likelihood:
/ could ride a bike when I was a kid but I haven't done it for years. (Time)
Could you pass the salt please ? (Relationship)
He could be a foreigner, but I don't think so. (Likelihood)
Can always refers to different kinds of possibility. Could is also about possibility, but is
more remote than can.
May - might
We turn now to the area of greatest potential confusion. We have already seen that the
will/shall distinction has been confused by misguided teaching and that the whole problem
of will/shall as "the future" has been misrepresented. With all of these modal auxiliaries a
further problem arises; there is a contrast between the reduced and non-reduced form in
statements:
I'll be going. I'd be surprised.
I will be going. I would be surprised.
1 shall be going. I should be surprised.
The question forms with the reduced form are not, however, possible. There are occasions
when we cannot be sure if a reduced form ('II or 'd) represents shall/will or should/would,
or even whether it may be an independent form.
In language teaching, contrasts such as should/would have frequently been taught. This has
often created further confusion.
Will
Will is not uniquely associated with Future Time, although most uses do refer to Future
Time. Here are some examples:
(1) I'll see him on Sunday.
(2) It's warm in here, I think I'll open the window.
(3) We'll have to do something about it.
(4) I'm sure they'll be home by now.
(5) What will you do if that doesn't work.
(6) It'll soon be 7 o'clock.
(7) He will keep ringing me early in the morning.
(8) Medicine will have taken great strides before the end of the century.
We know that one common characteristic of the modals is shared by will; it relates to a
state which is not factual for the speaker at the moment of speaking. It is, however,
psychologically immediate for the speaker at the moment of speaking. The meaning may be
loosely expressed as "given the present situation, and my perception of it, the situation to
which I am referring must inevitably also be true". Two states are relevant — that
pertaining at the moment of speaking, and a second one to which the speaker is referring;
the two are, as the speaker sees them, inevitably linked.
We see immediately why will is strongly associated with reference to Future Time; the
speaker refers to two states — that pertaining at the moment of speaking, and a second
which is seen as non-factual. If two states are involved, there is a difference between them.
The most common reason for that difference will be difference in time. If the state referred
to is not seen by the speaker as factual, it is unlikely (though not impossible) for it to be in
Past Time or Present Time; almost always it will be in Future Time. If it is not in Future
Time the second state must be something of which the speaker does not have direct factual
knowledge. Verb phrases of this kind containing will refer to logical inevitability, as in
examples like They will be there by now (given the present time, the time they left, and my
knowledge of the journey, the statement They are there must, inevitably, be true).
It is clear that questions with Will I. . .? will be unusual; their meaning
would be Do you assert, given the present circumstances, that it is inevitable that I... ? In
general the person addressed is unlikely to see the speaker's actions as inevitable.
Shall/will be common in statements about the speaker, or about objective fact, but
relatively rare in the construction You will. . . This usage does, however, exist:
(1) You will be met at the airport and taken direct to our office.
(2) You will be there by 7 o'clock.
(1) suggests "Don't worry, arrangements have been made, you can rely on them". The
person is reassured of the inevitability, and therefore reliability, of the arrangement.
Shall has the meaning of will and the additional meaning "if it's anything to do with me
(the speaker)". In questions, of course, the implication becomes "if it's anything to do with
you (the listener)".
Shall is a relatively uncommon word in modem spoken English, although common in the
constructions:
Shall I get one for you ?
Shall we go tomorrow evening?
It is also common (usually in its archaic form) in the Ten Commandments: Thou shall not
kill.
The pattern is clear — shall is appropriate (for those British native speakers of English
who use both shall and will) when the speaker's direct involvement in the creation of the
inevitability is involved. The shall/will contrast is clearly shown by the pair:What time will
we arrive ? What time shall we arrive ?
The first invites the listener's opinion of what, given the present circumstances, is
inevitable.
As we noted shall is rare in modem spoken English. For most school students it will
be sufficient for them to know the shall in first person questions and perhaps in the
fixed phrase Let's. . . , shall we. In all other cases they can, almost without risk, use
will. The shall/will distinction is certainly not a matter which deserves more than a
few moments of classroom time during a student's whole school career.
Would
Should
We come now to a much less tidy modal auxiliary. Palmer said that the area is messy,
and that any attempt to argue for a single central meaning is doomed to failure. Swan
has remarked that any attempt to find a single meaning results in cases of special
pleading. With should, this is definitely so.
There is no doubt that should have more than one use:
(Have) to
We have already discussed these forms. There is not complete agreement among
native speakers about the formal characteristics but there is a tendency not to treat
(have) to as an operator. Although sentences like Had you to show your ticket? are
acceptable, most native speakers probably
prefer Did you have to show your ticket? In a similar way, tags with (have) to tend to
be made with (do) but not invariably:
(Have) to and ought to are sometimes treated as operators, sometimes not. In contemporary
English ought to is usually treated as an auxiliary and used as operator; usage with (have) to is
more variable. Semantically (have) to and ought to share an important characteristic — they are
associated with objective rather than subjective perception of, respectively, necessity and
desirability.
They broke the fence down — they ought to have to fix it.
This sentence is about something as far from the speaker as the morality of the law, and
contrasts strongly with They should fix it in which the speaker expresses a personal view about
what should be done about the fence.
Need
Clearly, need is about necessity, and necessity is a modal concept. There are two forms in
contemporary British English which it is easy to confuse. Need to is treated as a full verb:
Do I need to bring my own ?
We don't need to pay, do we ?
In a small number of items which are now almost lexical items or "linguistic fossils" need
(without to) is still used as an operator:
Need I ask?
You needn't bring yours, you can borrow one from us.
Syntactic characteristics
Literature:
1. R.Quirk S Greenbaum G Leech J. Svartvik A comprehensive grammar of the English
Language. - Longman, London and new York 1994
2. M.Y. Blokh A course in theoretical English Grammar M., 2000, pp.87, 122-123, 156, 170
3. Reznik R.V., T.S.Sorokina, Kazaritskaya T.A. A grammar of modern English. M., 1999,71-
76
Link
Link-verbs introduce the nominal part of the predicate (the predicative) which is
commonly expressed by a noun, an adjective, or a phrase of a similar semantico-
grammatical character. It should be noted that link-verbs, although they are named so,
are not devoid of meaningful content. Performing their function of connecting
("linking") the subject and the predicative of the sentence, they express the actual
semantics of this connection, i.e. expose the relational aspect of the characteristics
ascribed by the predicative to the subject.
The linking predicator function in the purest form is effected by the verb be; therefore
be as a link-verb can be referred to as the "pure link-verb". It is clear from the above
that even this pure link-verb has its own relational semantics, which can be identified
as "linking predicative ascription". All the link-verbs other than the pure link be
express some specification of this general predicative-linking semantics, so that they
should be referred to as "specifying" link-verbs. The common specifying link-verbs
fall into two main groups: those that express perceptions and those that express non-
perceptional, or "factual" link-verb connection. The main perceptional link-verbs are
seem, appear, look feel, taste; the main factual link-verbs are become, get, grow,
remain, keep.
As is to be seen from the comparison of the specifying link-verbs with the verbid
introducer predicators described above, the respective functions of these two verbal
subsets are cognate, though not altogether identical. The difference lies in the fact that
the specifying link-verbs combine the pure linking function with the predicator
function. Furthermore, separate functions of the two types of predicators are evident
from the fact that specifying link-verbs, the same as the pure link, can be used in the
text in combination with verbid introducer predicators.
E.g.: The letter seemed to have remained unnoticed. I began to feel better. You
shouldn't try to look cleverer than you are.
C,{. the use of verbid introducer predicators with the pure link-verb:
The news has proved to be true. The girl's look ceased to be friendly. The address
shown to us seemed to be just the one we needed.
Besides the link-verbs proper hitherto presented, there are some notional verbs in
language that have the power to perform the function of link-verbs without losing
their lexical nominative value. In other words, they perform two functions
simultaneously, combining the role of a full notional verb with that of a link-verb.
C/.: Fred lay awake all through the night. Robbie ran in out of breath. The moon rose
red.
Notional link-verb function is mostly performed by intransitive verbs of motion and
position. Due to the double syntactic character of the notional link-verb, the whole
predicate formed by it is referred to as a "double predicate".
Grammatical categories
Grammatical category
Grammatical meaning
Grammatical form
Synthetic way of form-change
Meaning and form connection
Peculiarity of the grammatical categories
The most general notions reflecting the most general properties of phenomena are referred
to in logic as "categorial notions", or "categories". The most general meanings rendered by
language and expressed by systemic correlations of word-forms are interpreted in
linguistics as categorial grammatical meanings. The forms themselves are identified within
definite paradigmatic series.
The categorial meaning (e.g. the grammatical number) unites the individual meanings of
the correlated paradigmatic forms (e.g. singular - plural) and is exposed through them;
hence, the meaning of the grammatical category and the meaning of the grammatical form
are related to each other on the principle of the logical relation between the categorial and
generic notions. (2)
So, language is capable to express different meanings. Most general meanings rendered by
language are grammatical meanings. Grammatical meanings are very abstract, very
general. The grammatical meaning is the significance of a certain relation expressed by a
dependent part of a word (inflexion) or a significance of a certain arrangement of elements.
Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing
grammatical (morphological) meanings. These features determine the grammatical form of
the word. Therefore the grammatical form is not confined to an individual word, but unites
a whole class of words, so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding
grammatical meaning together with its individual, concrete semantics. The word form is
the juncture of the stem ( a root and an affix) of the word with a word-change morpheme
(inflexion). (3)
Grammatical category
As for the grammatical category itself, it is a system of expressing a generalized grammatical
meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms. (2). The ordered set of
grammatical forms expressing a categorial function constitutes a paradigm. The so-called
"grammatical oppositions" expose the paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in
a category. The opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalized
correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The
correlated elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features:
common features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast,
while differential features immediately express the function in question.
In various contextual conditions, one member of an opposition can be used in the position
of the other, counter-member. This phenomenon should be treated under the heading of
"oppositional reduction" or "oppositional substitution". The first version of the term
("reduction") points out the fact that the opposition in this case is contracted, losing its
formal distinctive force. The second version of the term ("substitution") shows the very
process by which the opposition is reduced, namely, the use of one member instead of the
other. (2)
Types of form-change
The change in the form of the word to convey different grammatical meanings can be
achieved in different ways: synthetically and analytically.
1. Synthetical grammatical forms are realized by the inner morphemic composition of the
word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two
words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of
"substantial" meaning. Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer
inflexion, and suppletivity.
2. As for analytical forms, which are so typical of modern English that they have long made
this language into the "canonized" representative of lingual analytism, they deserve some
special comment on their substance.
The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognizes two lexemic parts in
it, stating that it presents a combination of an auxiliary word with a basic word. However,
there is a tendency with some linguists to recognize as analytical not all such grammatically
significant combinations, but only those of them that are "grammatically idiomatic", i.e.
whose relevant grammatical meaning is not immediately dependent on the meanings of
their component elements taken apart. Considered in this light, the form of the verbal
perfect where the auxiliary have has utterly lost its original meaning of possession, is
interpreted as the most standard. And indisputable analytical form in English morphology.
Its opposite is seen in the analytical degrees of comparison which, according to the cited
interpretation, come very near to free combinations of words by their lack of "idiomatism"
in the above sense. (1,2)
Moreover, alongside the standard analytical forms characterized by the unequal ranks of
their components (auxiliary element-basic element), as a marginal analytical form-type
grammatical repetition should be recognized, which is used to express specific categorial
semantics of processual intensity with the verb, of indefinitely high degree of quality with
the adjective and the adverb, of indefinitely large quantity with the noun. Cf: He knocked
and knocked and knocked without reply (Gr. Greene). Oh, I feel I've got such boundless,
boundless love to give to somebody (K. Mansfield). Two white-haired severe women were in
charge of shelves and shelves of knitting materials of every description (A. Christie).
On the one hand, the grammatical form and the grammatical meaning of any linguistic
unit are inseparably connected. There is no meaning without a form, i.e. some material
means of expression. On the other hand, the connection between the form and the meaning
is very complex.
• One form may express several meanings, for example the form “s” can denot:
• A habitual action (He wakes up at 7.);
• Plurality (boys, toys);
• Possessiveness (A daughter’s book).
• One meaning may be expressed by several form, for example the meaning of
futurity is expressed by:
For instance, the category of number is organically connected with the functional nature of
the noun: it directly exposes the number of the referent substance, e.g. one ship - several
ships. The category of number in the verb, however, by no means gives a natural
meaningful characteristic to the denoted process: the process is devoid of numerical
features such as are expressed by the grammatical number. Indeed, what the verbal
number renders are not a quantitative characterization of the process, but a numerical
featuring of the subject-referent. Cf.: The girl is smiling. - The girls are smiling. The ship is
in the harbor. - The ships are in the harbor. (2)
Literature:
1.Л.С. Бархударов, Д.А. ШтелингГрамматика английского языка-М., 1973, сс.
17-22
2.Blokh M.Y. A course in Theoretical English grammar. - M., 2000, pp.27-37
3.В.К.Гатилова Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Часть 1. Алма-
ата,1993, С.21-26
Tense
Tense is the category of the verb, which indicates the time of the action. There exist
two main points of view on this category:
The combinations of thе verbs shall and will with thе infinitive have of late become
subject of renewed discussion. The codtroversial point about thеm is whether these
combinations really constitute, together with the forms of the past and present, Thе
categorial expression of verbal tense, or are just modal phrases, whose expression of
thе future time does not differ in essence from thе general future orientation of other
combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. The view that shall and will retain
their modal meanings in all their uses was defended by such a recognized authority on
English grammar of the older generation of the twentieth century linguists as O.
Jespersen. In our times, quite a few scholars, among them the successors of
Descriptive Linguistics, consider these verbs as part of the general set of modal verbs,
"modal auxiliaries", expressing the meanings of capability, probability, permission,
obligation, and thе like.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar. - M.,2000. pp.132-150
2. Ilyish B.A. The structure of Modern English. - L.,1971. pp.92-96.
Aspect
Aspect as a grammatical category has the aspective meaning, which reflects the
inherent mode of the realisation of the process irrespective of its timing. There exist
three main points of view on this problem:
Aspect is interpreted as a category of semantics rather than that of grammar
( M.Deuthbein, A.G.Kennedy, G.Curme). According to this theory aspect system
comprises 5 aspects - terminative, ingressive, effective, durative and iteratative.
Aspect is treated as a tense form, expressing actions simultanious with some other
actions or situations ( H.Sweet, O.Jesperson, L.L.Jofik).
Aspect and tense are recognised as two distinct grammatical categories ( B.A.Ilyish,
A.I.Smirnitsky, V.N.Yartseva), because the forms " wrote - was writing" are not
opposed as tense forms and because the idea of simultaneity does not go very well
with the Perfect Continuous forms, besides simultaneous actions are very often
expressed by the non-continuous forms.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar. - M.,2000. pp.150-170
2. Ilyish B.A. The structure of Modern English. - L., 1971. pp. 82-92
The Modern English perfect forms have been the subject of a lengthy discussion which has
not so far brought about a definite result. The difficulties inherent in these forms are plain
enough and may best be illustrated by the present perfet. This form contains the present of
the verb have and is called present perfect, yet it denotes an action which no longer takes
place, and it is (almost always) translated into Russian by the past tense, e. g. has written
— написал, has arrived — приехал, etc. The position of the perfect forms in the
system of the English verb is a problem which has been treated in many different
ways and has occasioned much controversy.
Among the various views on the essence of the perfect forms in Modern English the
following three main trends should be mentioned:
3. The category of perfect is neither one of tense, nor one of aspect but a
specific category different from both., It should accordingly be designated by a
special term and its relations to the categories of aspect and tense should be
investigated. This view was expressed by Prof. A. Smirnitsky. _He took the
perfect to be a means of expressing the category of "time relation" (временная
отнесенность).
This wide divergence of views on the very essence of a verbal category may
seem astonishing. However, its causes appear to be clear enough from the point
of view of present-day linguistics. These causes fall under the following three
main heads:
1. Scholars have been trying to define the basic character of this category
without paying sufficient attention to the system of categories of which it is
bound to make a part. As we shall see presently, considerations of the system
as a whole rule out some of the proposed solutions.
2. In seeking the meaning of the category, scholars have not always been
careful to distinguish between its basic meaning (the invariable) and its
modifications due to influence of context.
3. In seeking the basic meaning of the category, scholars have not always
drawn a clear line of distinction between the meaning of the grammatical
category as such and the meanings which belong to, or are influenced by, the
lexical meaning of the verb (or verbs) used in one of the perfect forms.
If we are to find out whether the perfect can be a tense category, i. e. a tense
among other tenses, we must consider its relations to the tenses already
established and not liable to doubts about their basic character, i. e. past,
present, and future. There is no real difficulty here. We need only recollect that
there are in Modern English the forms ' present perfect, past perfect, and future
perfect. That present, past, and future are tense categories, is firmly established
and has never been doubted by anyone. Now, if the perfect were also a tense
category, the present perfect would be a union of two different tenses (the
present and the perfect), the past perfect would likewise be a union of two
different tenses (the past and the perfect) and the future perfect, too, would be a
union of two different tenses (the future and the perfect). This is clearly
impossible. If a form already belongs to a tense category (say, the present) it
cannot simultaneously belong to another tense category, since two tense
categories in one form would, as it were, collide and destroy each other. Hence
it follows that the category of perfect cannot be a tense category. We need not
consider here various views expressed by those who thought that the perfect
was a tense, since their views, whatever the ' details may be, are shown to be
untenable by the above consideration. So the view that the perfect is a special
tense category has been disproved.
In order to find out whether the perfect can be an aspect category, We must
consider its relations to the aspects already established, viz. the common and
the continuous aspects. This problem does not present any particular difficulty,
either. We need only recollect that there are in Modern English such pairs as is
writing — has been writing, was writing — had been writing, will be writing
— will have been writing, i. e. present continuous and present perfect
continuous, past continuous and past perfect continuous, future continuous and
future perfect continuous. All of these forms belong to the continuous aspect,
so the difference between them cannot possibly be based on any aspect
category. For example, since both was writing and had been writing belong to
the continuous aspect (as distinct from wrote and had written), they cannot be
said to differ from each other on an aspect line; otherwise they would at the
same time belong to- one aspect and to different aspects, which is obviously
impossible. Hence the conclusion is unavoidable that the perfect is not an
aspect. The views of those who consider the perfect to be an aspect need not
therefore be discussed here in detail.
Since the perfect is neither a tense nor an aspect, it is bound to be some special
grammatical category, different both from tense and from aspect. This view,
though not quite explicitly stated, was first put forward by Prof. A. Smirnitsky
in a posthumous article.
On the other hand, the use of a non-perfect form does not necessarily imply that
the action did not precede some moment in time. It may, or it may not, have
preceded it. To find this out, the reader or hearer has to take into account some
other feature of the context, or, possibly, the situation, that is, an extralinguistic
factor. Thus, the opposition between perfect and non-perfect forms is shown to
be that between a marked and an unmarked item, the perfect forms being
marked both in meaning (denoting precedence) and in morphological
characteristics (have + second participle), and the non-perfect forms unmarked
both in meaning (precedence not implied) and in morphological characteristics
(purely negative characteristic: the collocation "have + second participle" not
used). On the whole, as a general term to denote the basic meaning of the
perfect the term '^correlation" in the above-mentioned meaning seems quite
acceptable and we propose to make use of it until a better term is found, which
may take some time to happen.
If this view is taken, the system of verbal categories illustrated by the forms
writes, is writing, has written, has been writing, wrote, was writing, had
written, had been writing, will write, will be writing, will have written, will
have been writing, — is based on three groups of notions, viz. tense: present vs.
past vs. future; aspect: common vs. continuous; correlation: non-perfect vs.
perfect. As is seen from this list, the latter two of the three oppositions are
double (or "dichotomic"), i. e. they consist of only two items each, whereas the
first (the tense opposition) is triple (or "trichotomic"), i. e. it consists of three
items.
We will accept this state of things without entering into a discussion of the
question whether every opposition must necessarily be dichotomic, i. “. consist
of two members only. Thus, the opposition between writes and wrote is one of
tense, that between wrote and was writing one of aspect, and that between
wrote and had written one of correlation. It is obvious that two oppositions may
occur together; thus, between writes and was writing there are simultaneously
the oppositions of tense and aspect; between wrote and will have written there
are simultaneously the oppositions of tense and correlation, and between wrote
and had been writing there are simultaneously the oppositions of aspect and
correlation. And, finally, all three oppositions may occur together: thus,
between writes and had been writing there are simultaneously the oppositions
of tense, aspect, and correlation.
Literature:
1. Blikh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar. - M.,2000. pp.151-170
2. Ilyish B.A. The atructure of Modern English. - L.,1971. pp.96-105
The verb be has a system of its own both in the present indicative and in the
past. Its system in the present indicative is as follows:
1st person singular — am
3rd person singular — is
2nd person (without distinction of number) --are
Plural (without distinction of person) - are
In analysing the system of person and number we have so far bypassed the
forms of the type livest, takest, livedst, tookest. These forms are associated
with the personal pronoun thou .and are only used in religions and occasionally
in poetical texts and among Quakers. As they stand outside the received
grammatical system we can not go into details concerning them. Suffice it to
say that
with these forms the category of number appears within the category of the 2nd
person a&d the whole system of person and number (including the past tense)
must be presented in a different shape.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grannar. - M.,2000. pp.122-132
2. Ilyish B.A. The structure of Modern English. - L.,1971. pp.129-132
The category of voice presents us with its own batch of difficulties. In their
main character they have something in common with the difficulties of mood:
there is no strict one-way correspondence between meaning and means of
expression. Thus, for instance, in the sentence I opened the door and in the
sentence the door opened the meaning is obviously different, whereas the form
of the verb is the same in both cases. To give another example: in the sentence
he shaved the customer and in the sentence he shaved and went out the
meaning is different (the second sentence means that he shaved himself), but no
difference is to be found in the form of the verb.
We are therefore bound to adopt a principle in distinguishing the voices of the
English verb: what shall we take as a starting-point, meaning, or form, or both,
and if both, in what proportion, or in what mutual relation?
As to the definition of the category of voice, there are two main views.
According to one of them this category expresses the relation between the
subject and the action 0nly these two are mentioned in the definition.
According to the other view, the category of voice expresses the relations
between the subject and the object .of the action. In this case the object is
introduced into the definition of voice. We will not at present try to solve this
question with reference to the English language. We will keep both variants of
the definition in mind and we will come back to them afterwards.
Before we start on our investigation, however, we ought to define more
precisely what is meant by the expression "relation between subject and
action". Let us take two simple examples: He invited his friends and He was
invited by his friends. The relations between the subject (he) and the action
(invite) in the two sentences are different since in the sentence He invited his
friends he performs the action, and may be said to be the doer, whereas in the
sentence" He was invited by his friends he does not act and is not the doer but
the object of the action. There may also be other kinds of relations, which we
shall mention in due course.
The obvious opposition within the category of voice is that be-tween active and
passive. This has not been disputed by any scholar, however views may differ
concerning other voices. This position may be illustrated by a number of
parallel forms involving different categories of aspect, tense, correlation, and
mood. We will mention only a few pairs of this kind, since the other
possible pairs can be easily supplied:
invites — is invited
is inviting — is being invited
invited — was invited
has invited — has been invited
should invite — should be invited
From the point of view of form the passive voice is the marked member of the
opposition: its characteristic is the pattern "be + second participle", whereas the
active voice is unmarked: its characteristic is the absence of that pattern.
It should be noted that some forms of the active voice find no parallel in the
passive, viz. the forms of the future continuous, present perfect continuous, past
perfect continuous, and future perfect continuous. Thus the forms will be
inviting, has been inviting, had been inviting, and will have been inviting have
nothing to correspond to them in the passive voice. With this proviso we can
state that the active and the passive .constitute a complete system of
oppositions within the category of voice.
The question now is, whether there are other voices in the English verb, besides
active and passive. It is here that we find doubts much controversy.At various
times, the following three voices have been suggested addition to the two
already mentioned:
(l)The reflexive, as in: he dressed himself,
(2) the reciprocal, as in: they greeted each other, and
(3) the middle voice, as in: the door opened (as distinct from: I opened the
door).
It is evident that the problem of voice is very intimately connected with that of
transitive and intransitive verbs, which has also been variously treated by
different scholars. It seems now universally agreed that transitivity is not in
itself a voice, so we could not speak of a "transitive voice"; the exact relation
between voice and transitivity remains, however, somewhat doubtful. It is far
from
clear whether transitivity is a grammatical notion, or a characteristic of the
lexical meaning of the verb.
In view of such constructions as he was spoken of, he was taken care of, the
bed had not been slept in, etc., we should perhaps say that the vital point is the
objective character of the verb, rather than its transitivity: the formation of a
passive voice is possible if the verb denotes an action relating to some object.
Last not least, we must mention another problem: what part are syntactic
considerations to play in analysing the problem of voice?
Having enumerated briefly the chief difficulties in the analysis of voice in
Modern English, we shall now proceed to inquire into each of these problems,
trying to find objective criteria as far as this is possible, and pointing out those
problems in which any solution is bound to be more or less arbitrary and none
can be shown to be the correct one by any irrefutable proofs.
First let us formulate what is established and does not depend on anybody's point of
view or interpretation, and then we will proceed to analyse the questions which admit
of different solutions.
The facts, then, are these. In the sentences of the first and in those of the second
column we have verb forms sounding alike but differing from each other in two
important points:
(1) In the first column, the verb denotes an action which is performed by the doer on
an object in such a way that a change is brought about in that object, for instance,.the
door was closed and then I acted in such a way that the door became open; the paper
was intact, but I subjected it to the action of fire, and it was reduced to ashes, etc.
In the second column a process is stated which is going en in the subject itself: the
door opened (as if of its own will), the paperdisappeared in flames, etc. Compare, e.
g., His camp had filled. (LINKLATEB) The teas making. (L. MITCHELL)
This, of course, is a difference in the relation between the subject and the action (and,
for the first column, the object).
(2) In the first column, the verb is followed by a noun (or pronoun) denoting the thing
which is subjected to the action denoted by the verb. In the second column, the verb is
not followed by any noun (or pronoun). In the first column the verb is transitive, in
the second column the verb is intransitive. What we have said so far is nothing but an
objective description of the state of things found in these sentences, no matter what
theory a scholar may prefer. Now we must turn our attention to the possible
theoretical interpretation of these facts, and here the problem of voice will arise. One
possible interpretation is this. In every line we have in the two columns two different
verbs which may be represented in some such way as: open1, verb transitive, open2,
verb intransitive; burn1, verb transitive, burn 2, verb intransitive, etc. If this
interpretation were adopted, the whole problem would be shifted into the sphere of
lexicology, and from the grammatical viewpoint we should have to state that open1
here stands in the active voice (correlative with was opened), and open 2 has no voice
distinction at all (since from the intransitive verb open no mutually opposed voice
forms can be derived).
Another interpretation would run something like this. In both columns we have the
same verb open, the same verb burn, etc. and the difference between the two is a
difference of voice: in the first column it is the active voice (showing an action
performed by the doer on the object), while in the second column it is the middle
voice, denoting a process going on within the subject, without affecting any object.
The difference between the voices, though not expressed by any morphological signs,
would then be a difference in meaning and in syntactical constrtiction, the active
voice characterized by connection with a following noun or pronoun denoting the
object of the action, and the middle voice characterized by the impossibility of
connection with such a noun or pronoun. This interpretation would mean the
admission of a special voice, the middle voice.
Still another interpretation would be the following. The verb in both columns is the
same and the voice is the same, too, since there is no morphological difference
between the two columns, and differences of meaning and of syntactical construction
are not sufficient reason for establishing a difference of voice. If this view is accepted,
we should have to define the category of active voice in such a way that it should
include both the first-column and the second-column examples.
The choice between these interpretations depends on the principles which a scholar
considers to be the most essential and the most likely to yield an adequate picture of
language facts. If, for instance, it is considered essential that a difference in
grammatical categories should find its outward expression by some morpheme, etc.
the second of the three suggested interpretations will have to be rejected. If, on the
other hand, it is considered possible for two morphological categories to be
distinguished in meaning and syntactical use without any special morphemes to show
the distinction, that second interpretation will be found acceptable.
Without prejudice to the first or second interpretation, we will now follow up the
third, which seems to present the greatest interest from a theoretical point of view. In
doing so, we will assume that we do not accept either a reflexive or a reciprocal or a
middle voice, so that only two voices are left, the active and the passive. If, then, we
are to bring under the heading of the active voice such cases as the door opened, the
paper burnt, the water boiled, etc., we shall have to give that voice a definition wide
enough to include all uses of that kind as well (this may make it necessary to change
the term for the voice, too).
Let us now consider the opposition between the voices: opened (in any sense) was
opened; burnt (in any sense) was burnt from the point of view of meaning. It should at
once be clear that the second member of the opposition (was opened, etc.) has a much
more definite meaning than the first: the meaning of the type was opened is that the
subject is represented as acted upon, whereas the meaning of the first member
(opened, etc.) is much less definite. We could, then, say that opened is the unmarked,
and was opened, the marked member of the opposition. The meaning of the unmarked
member is, as has often been the case, hard to define. What seems the essential point
in its meaning is, that the subject is represented as connected with the origin of the
action, and not merely acted upon from the outside. Some such definition would seem
to cover both the type he opened the door, and the type the door opened. Whether the
subject produces a change in an object, or whether the action is limited to the sphere
of the subject itself — all these and similar points would depend partly on the
syntactical context (on whether the verb is followed by a noun / pronoun or not),
partly on the lexical meaning of the verb and its relation to the lexical meaning of the
noun expressing the subject (compare the old man opened... and the door opened),
partly, probably, on a number of other factors which are yet to be studied. The
question whether it is more advisable to keep the term "active voice" or to substitute
another term for it would also have to be discussed.If this view is adopted, all the
special cases considered above: he shaved (in the reflexive meaning), they kissed (in
the reciprocal meaning) would fall under the heading of the active voice (if this term
is kept) and their peculiarities would have to be referred to the context, the lexical
meaning of the verb in question, etc.
The following phenomena would also belong here: the book sells well, the figures
would not add, the rule does not apply in this case (as different from we do not apply
the rule), and a number of others, which have been variously treated as "absolute use",
use of the active form in a passive meaning, etc.
As to form, it has been already said above that the passive is the marked, and the
active the unmarked member of the opposition. Thus, then, the passive is marked both
in meaning and in form and the active as unmarked both in meaning and in form. This
solution of the voice problem in Modern English appears to be convincing. However
the other interpretations (mentioned
above as first and second) ought also to be reasoned out to their logical conclusions.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theiretical English grammar. - M.,2000. pp170-179
THE PREPOSITION
We have briefly discussed the problem of the meaning of prepositions but here
we shall have to consider it at some length.
We must add that there are cases in which a preposition does not express
relations between extralinguistic phenomena but merely serves as a link
between words. Take, for instance, the sentence This depends on you. Here we
cannot say that the preposition has any meaning of its own. This is also clear from the
fact that no other preposition could be used after the verb depend (except
thepreposition upon, which is to all intents and purposes a stylistic variant of
on). Using modern linguistic terminology, we can say
that the preposition on is here predicted by the verb depend. The same may be
said about the expression characteristic of him. If the adjective characteristic is
to be followed by any prepositional phraseat all the preposition of must be
used, which means that it is predicted by the word characteristic. Returning
now to our examples. The book is lying on the table and The book is lying
under the table, we must of course say that neither the preposition ore nor the (' See,
for instance, Грамматика русского языка, т. I, стр. 41.
preposition under is predicted by the verb lie. If we put the sentence like this:
The book is lying ., . the table, the dots might be replaced by a number of
prepositions: on, in, under, near, beside, above, etc.The choice of the
preposition would of course depend on the actual position of the book in space
with reference to the table. Similarly, if we are given the sentence He will.
come ... the performance, the dots may be replaced by the prepositions before,
during, after, according as things stand. Now, in defining the meaning of a
preposition, we must of course start from the cases where the meaning is seen
at its fullest, and not from those where it is weakened or lost,just as we define
the meaning of a verb as a part of speech according to what it is when used as a
full predicate, not as an auxiliary.
The next point is, the syntactical functions of prepositions. Here we must
distinguish between two levels of language: that phrases and that of the
sentence and its parts. As far as phrases concerned, the function of prepositions
is to connect words with each other. '(1 This statement will require some
modification when we come to thefunction of prepositions in such cases as
"Under the Greenwood Tree", etc. On this level there are patterns like "noun +
preposition + noun", "adjective + preposition + noun", "verb + preposition +
noun", etc., which may be exemplified by numerous phrases such as a letter
from my friend, a novel by Galsworthy, fond children, true to life, listen to
music, wait for an answer, etc.
The connection between the preposition, the word whichprecedes it, and the
word which follows it requires special study. Different cases have to be
distinguished here. The question is, what predicts the use of this or that
preposition. We have already noted
the cases when it is the preceding word which determines it (or predicts it) In
these cases the connection between the two is naturally strong. In the cases
where the use of a preposition is not predicted by the preceding word the
connection between them is looser, and the connection between the preposition
and the following word may prove to be the stronger of the two. This difference
more or less corresponds to that between objects and adverbial modifiers
expressed by prepositional phrases. Thus, in a sentence like This depends on
him the preposition is predicted by the verb and the phrase on him
is of course an object, whereas in a sentence like The book is lying under the
table the preposition is not predicted by the verb and the phrase is an adverbial
modifier. However, this criterion does not bold good in all cases.
The boundary line between a preposition and another part of speech
The adjective has degrees of comparison, and the prepositionof course has
none. In this connection let us examine the following sentence, which presents
us with a whole bundle of problems involving both that of parts of speech and
that of subordinate clauses:
When they had finished their dinner, and Emma, her shawl trailing the floor,
brought in coffee and set U down before them, Bone drew back the curtains
and opened wide the window nearest where they sat. (BUECHNER) The question
about the word nearest is closely connected with that about the ties between the
where-clause and the main clause. As to the word nearest, there are obviously
twoways of interpreting it: it is either an adjective in the superlative degree, or
a preposition. Each of the two interpretations has its
difficulties. If we take nearest as an adjective in the superlative degree, it will
follow that this adjective (that is, the adjective near) can lake an object clause,
in the same way as it takes an object within a clause, e. g. near our house, near
midnight, etc., and this
would mean that the subordinate clause where they sat is treated very much like
a noun. If, on the other hand, we take nearest as a preposition, we should have
to state that there is a special preposition nearest in Modern English: it would
obviously not do to say that the preposition near has degrees of comparison.
There would appear to be no valid reason to prefer the one or the other of the
two views, and a third possibility seems to present itself, viz. sayingthat we
have here a borderline case of transition between an adjective in the superlative
degree and a preposition.
A special case must now be considered. In some phrases, which are not part of
a sentence, a preposition does not connect two words because there is no word
at all before it, and so its ties are one-sided: they point only forwards, not back.
As characteristic examples we may quote the titles of some poems and novels:
"To a Skylark" (SHELLEY) ,"0n a Distant Prospect of Eton College" (GRAY),
"Of Human Bondage" (MAUGHAM), "Under the Greenwood Tree" (TH.
HARDY). The syntactical function of the prepositions in cases of this type is a
peculiar one. Thepreposition either expresses a relation between the thing
expressed by the noun and something not mentioned in the text (as in "To a
Skylark"), or it gives the characteristic of the place where something not specified takes
place ("Under the Greenwood Tree").
It is evident that in such cases the preposition has only a one- sided connection,
namely with the noun following it, but we may ask whether it has not also some
reference to something not expressed which may be imagined as standing
before the preposition.
Let us, for instance, compare the actual title of W. SomersetMaugham's novel,
"Of Human Bondage", with a possible variant "Human Bondage", without the
preposition. In this way the meaning and function of the preposition become clear: the
preposition of is here used as it is used in the phrases speak of something, think of
something, etc. In the title as it stands, the prepositionimplies that the author is going
to speak of human bondage, that is, human bondage is going to be discussed. '
Prepositions in English are less closely connected with the word or phrase they
introduce than, say, in Russian. It would be impossible in English for a
preposition to consist of a consonant only that is, to be non-syllabic, which is
the case with the three Russian prepositions в, к, с. This greater independence
of English prepositions manifests itself in various ways.
There is the possibility of inserting, between a "preposition and the word or
phrase it introduces, another phrase, which can, in its turn, be introduced by a
preposition. Here is an example of this kind: The first of these, "The Fatal
Revenge", appeared in 1807,
and was followed by, among other, "The Milesian Chief" ... (COUSIN) The two
prepositions, by and among, stand one after the other, but there is certainly no
syntactic connection between them, and probably there is a pause,
corresponding to the comma of the written text. The connection between
followed and by appears tobe closer than that between by and the phrase which
it introduces, namely, "The Milesian Chief". Unless it were so, the preposition
by would come after the inserted phrase among others, rather than.
But that variant, though perhaps not impossible would certainly be less
idiomatic than that in the text. This way of making one preposition come
immediately after another, showing the independence of the first preposition, is
seen in some cases where the status of the second preposition may be doubted,
that is, it may be doubted whether the word is really a preposition in that
context (compare what has been said on p. 152, B. Ilyish)). The following
sentence, which is fairly characteristic of modern usage, will show the essence
of the phenomenon: His industrywas marvellous, and its results remain
embodied in about
40 books, of which about 25 are commentaries on books of Scripture
(COUSIN). Of course all this is made possible by the fact that prepositions in
English do not require the word they introduce to have a specified case form.
Sometimes even a parenthetical clause come between the preposition and the
noun it introduces, e. g. Some weeks ago Mr Blessington came down to me in,
as it seemed to me, a state of considerable agitation. (CONAN DOYLE)
The looseness of the tie between the preposition and the following noun can be
offset by a closer tie between the preposition and the preceding word. This may
be seen, for instance, in some passive constructions with the phrase "verb +
noun + preposition" acting
as a kind of transitive unit. Examples of this use are well known.
Compare the following sentence: Their conference was put an end to by the
anxious young lover himself, who came to breathe his parting sigh before he
set off for Wiltshire. (J. AUSTEN) The active construction would have been, The
young lover put an end to their conference, where an end would be a non-
prepositional, and to then conference a prepositional object. It might be argued,
however, that pat an end is something of a phraseological unit and should therefore be
treated as the predicate. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the noun end is included
into the passive form of the verb, and the subject of the passive construction is the noun
which, in the active construction, would have been part of the prepositional object.
It should also be noted that a preposition does not necessarilyconnect the word
which immediately precedes it with the one that follows. Cases are frequent
enough in which there is no connection at all between the preposition and the
preceding word. For instance,
in the sentence, This beauty is a trifle dimmed now by traces of recent illness
(O'NEILL) there is no connection between the words now and by. The
preposition by is of course connected with the passive participle dimmed and
the adverb now could be left out without affecting the connections and the
functions of the preposition: This beauty is dimmed by traces of recent illness.
The same may be said about the sentence I get the same tale of woe from every
one in our part of the country (Idem): the preposition from every is not connected
with the noun woe which precedes it, it is connected with the verb get, which is separated
from it by five other words. Many more examples of this kind might be given. This should
warn us against an oversimplified understanding of the tactical function of a preposition.
Groups of words whose meaning and functions in the sentence are the
same as those of prepositions
THE CONJUNCTION
• DEFINITION
• PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS
Taking up the definition of a conjunction given above in general survey of parts of
speech, we must first of all, just as we have done with prepositions, consider the
question of the meaning
of conjunctions. Many authors, in defining a conjunction, limit themselves to
indicating that they serve to connect words (or parts of the sentence) and clauses.(B
Ilyish, p.156, Грамматика русского языка, т. I, стр. 665.) This would seem to imply
that theconjunctions have no meaning of their own, that is, that they do not themselves
express any phenomena of the extralinguistic world This is untenable, as may be very
easily shown by the simplest examples. Compare, for instance, the two sentences, He
came because it was late, and He came though it was late. The different conjunctions
obviously express different real relations between two extralinguistic phenomena: his
coming and its being late. The causal connection between them exists outside the
language, and so does the concessive relation expressed in the latter of the two
sentences. There is no difference whatever in the grammatical structure of the two
sentences: the difference lies only in the meanings of the two conjunctions. The same
observation can be made on comparing the two sentences, We will come to see you
before he comesback, and We will come to see you after he comes back, and also in a
number of other cases. All this goes to prove that every conjunction has its own
meaning, expressing some connection or other existing between phenomena in
extralinguistic reality.
So far our reasoning and our conclusions have been the same as in the case of
prepositions. Now, however, comes a point in which conjunctions are different from
prepositions. When discussing prepositions, we noted that in a certain number of
cases the use of a given preposition is predicted by the preceding word: thus the verb
depend can only be followed by the preposition on (or upon}, the adjective
characteristic only by the preposition of, etc. In such cases the preposition has no
meaning of its own. Conjunctions in this respect are entirely different. The use of a
conjunction is never predicted by any preceding word. We will no longer inquire into
the meanings of conjunctions, as this is a question of lexicology rather than grammar.
On the phrase level it must be said that conjunctions connect words and phrases. It is
the so-called coordinating conjunctions that are found here, and only very rarely
subordinating ones.
On the sentence level it must be said that conjunctions connect clauses (of different
kinds). Here we find both so-called coordinating conjunctions and so-called
subordinating conjunctions. The division of conjunctions into coordinating and
subordinating is one that can hardly be dealt with outside syntax: coordinating
conjunctions imply coordination of clauses, and subordinating conjunctions imply
subordination of clauses. So we shall have again into this question when we come to
syntax.(B.Ilyish, p157) Here it will be sufficient to say that there is nothing in the
conjunction itself to show whether it is coordinating or subordinating, and even "the
structure of the clauses there is no unmistakable sign of this (as is the case, for
instance, with word order in Modern German).
Conjunctions can sometimes lose their connecting function, as is the case with the
conjunction if in sentences expressing wish, like the following: If only she might play
the question loud enough
to reach the ears of this Paul Steitler. (BUECHNER) Probably we
shall have to say that if here is no longer a conjunction but a particle. We will consider
such cases in Syntax as well. (B. Ilyish, p.157)
All this presents us with intricate problems. On the one hand, it seems doubtful
whether we are right in uniting subordinating conjunctions (that is, words like when,
as, after, before, since) together with coordinating conjunctions (that is, words like
and, but, or} into one part of speech and separating them from prepositions (that is,
words like of, from, after, before, since), with which they obviously have much more
in common. On the other hand, it remains doubtful how we should treat the relations
between the Reposition after and the conjunction after (and similarly, before ....
since}. None of the treatments so far proposed seems satisfactory.
One way is to say, there is the word after, which may function both as a preposition
and as a conjunction. But then the question arises what part of speech is after? If it
can only function as a Position and as a conjunction, this would mean that it is neither
the one nor the other,
Another way is to say that after the preposition and after the conjunction are
homonyms. This will not do either, since .homonymy, by definition, supposes
complete difference of meaning between saw ‘instrument for sawing' and saw 'old
saying', where the meaning of after tie preposition and after the conjunction is
absolutely the same.
These considerations apply as well to the words before and since and here the
question further complicated by the fact that they can also be adverbs. '
The difficulty with the word after would be overcome if we. were to unite
prepositions and conjunctions into one part of speech (as hinted above, p. 33\ which
would then have to be given a new name. The difference between what we now call
the preposition after and the conjunction would then be reduced to different syntactical uses of
one word. But the difficulty with the adverbs and preposition-conjunctions before and since
would not be solved by this: it would not do to say hat an adverb and a word uniting the
qualities of preposition and conjunction are the same word.
A fully convincing solution of this problem has yet to be found. As to the relation
between prepositions, coordinating conjunctions, and subordinating conjunctions, it
must be said that on the ground of the peculiarities which have been pointed out a
completely different treatment of the three types of words is possible. An ideato this
effect was put forward by the French scholar L. Tesnierein a book on general
participles of syntax. Tesniere classes what are
usually called coordinating conjunctions as a type for itself: he calls them
‘jonctifs’(that is , junctives), whereas prepositions and what we call subordinating
conjunctions come together under the name of ‘translatifs’ (translatives) and are
distinguished from each other as subclasses of this large class: prepositions are called
"translatifs, premier degre" (translatives, first degree) and subordinating. conjunctions,
"translatifs, second degre" (second degree). This is quite natural iii a book on syntax,
in which things are looked at from a synta;tical angle and words classified according
to their functions in the sentence.
ARTICLES
• Definition
• Semantic properties (meaning)
• Morphological properties (form)
• Syntactic properties (function)
• USES of the DEFINITE ARTICLE
• USES of the INDEFINITE ARTICLE
• USES of the ZERO ARTICLE
Definition: Article is determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in
communicative collocation.
The peculiar feature of the article is that the use of the article with the noun is
obligatory. Taking into consideration these particular feature of the article, the linguist
is called to make a sound statement about its segmental status in the system of
morphology.
The English article differs greatly from the article in such languages as German and
French where it has gender distinctions. Not being connected with the gender and case
(as in German) the English article appears to be more independent of the noun.
Consequently, semantically and functionally it acquires an exceptionally wide use in
speech. The status of the article in the system of the languages one of the most
difficult and controversial problem.
Some linguists treat the article as a morpheme on the ground that it has no lexical
meaning of its own and that it is nothing but a structural element marking a word as a
noun. M.Y. Blokh qualifies the article as a special type of a grammatical auxiliary,
stating that combination of the article and the noun has the status of the analytical
form. J.Opdicke, J.Morell and some other representative of the traditional approach
refer the article to the class of adjectives. B.A.Ilyish is of the opinion that the problem
of the status of the article is impossible to solve because of the lack of objective
criteria. Still we think that it is possible to distinguish three main criteria of an article
to prove that its status is that of a part of speech. (semantic, morphological and
syntactic characteristics)
Semantic properties: The lexical meaning of a(n) in Modern English is a very weak
reminder of its original meaning (OE. an = one). In spite of the long process of
weakening there remains enough of the original meaning in a(n) to exclude the
possibility of its being attached to a 'plural' noun. The lexical meaning of the in
Modern English is a pale shadow of its original demonstrative meaning. The general
lexico-grammatical meaning of these words, as usual, is not identical with their
individual lexical meanings. It abstracts itself from the meaning of 'oneness' in a(n)
and the 'demonstrative' meaning in the. Perhaps, the names of the article? ('definite',
'indefinite') denote the nearest approach to this lexico-grammatical meaning, which,
for lack of a better term, might be defined as that of 'definiteness — indefiniteness'.
The definite article the and the indefinite article a/an at once discloses not two but
three meaning characterizations of the nounal referent achieved by their correlative
functioning. The definite article expresses the identification or individualization of the
referent of the noun The indefinite article is commonly interpreted as referring the
object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects; in other words, the
indefinite article expresses a classifying generalization of the nounal referent. As for
the various uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic point of view they all
should be divided into two types. In the first place, there are uses where the articles
are deliberately omitted out of stylistical considerations. We see such uses in
telegraphic style in titles, in headlines. Alongside free elliptical constructions there are
cases of the semantically unspecified non-use of the article in various combinations of
fixed type, such as prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt), fixes verbal
collocations (take place, make use, cast anchor) descriptive coordinative groups and
repetition groups (man and wife, dog and gun, day by day)
Morphologicalproperties: Not only the status but also the number of the article in
English has been debated for a long time. Obviously there are two material articles
that accompany the noun in English: the definite and the indefinite. One might be
tempted to regard the two articles as members of an opposeme, and the meanings of
'definiteness', 'indefiniteness' as the particular meanings of some grammatical
category. Language facts, however, contradict such views.
As we know, the members of an opposeme must belong to the same lexeme and have
identical meanings (barring those opposed). Now a(n) and the do not belong to one
lexeme and their meanings are not identical. Besides the meaning of 'indefiniteness'
a(n) possesses the meaning of 'oneness' not found in the. The 'demonstrative' meaning
of the is alien to a(n).
For similar reasons a hook — the hook are not analytical members of some noun
opposeme, and the, a(n) are not grammatical word-morphemes.
1) A(n) and the are not devoid of lexical meaning as grammatical word-morphemes
are.
2) Their meanings are not relative. The has the meaning of 'definiteness' not only
when opposed to a(n). Cf. snow—the snow , books — the books.
All this corroborates the view that the articles are individual words with individual
lexical meanings united by the general lexico-grammatical meaning of
'(in)definiteness'. Some grammarians speak of the 'zero article' l or the 'zero form of
the indefinite article' 2. Rogovskaya B.I. and Haimovich B.S. are definitely against
these terms, as a grammatical zero morpheme is created in an opposeme owing to the
relative nature of grammatical meanings. As shown above, the articles are not
grammatical morphemes and their meanings are not relative. They are words, and the
absence of a word cannot be regarded as a zero word. They do not speak of zero
prepositions or zero particles. But if the article is a word, the notion “zero word”
cannot be accepted as logical and grounded, if it is a morpheme the notion “zero
morpheme” is no less illogical. Majority of scholars and foreign scholars as well
distinguish the zero morpheme.
Syntactic properties:
Combinability:
The common features in the combinability of the articles are due to their belonging to the same
part of speech, in other words, the lexico-grammatical combinability of the
articles is the same. Both of them have right-hand connections with the same part of
speech, nouns.
1. Identical nounal positions for the pair “the definite-the indefinite article : eg:
the train hooted (that train) - A train hooted (some train)
2. correlative nounal positions for the pair ‘the indefinite article - the absence of
article” Be careful there is a puddle under you feet (a kind of puddle). _ Be
careful, there is mud on the ground. (as different from clean space) (Blokh,
p.72-81)
The use of the article in a sentence: In discussing the use of articles , we must
distinguish between specific and generic
The reference is specific when we have in mind particular specimens of the class
“tiger”, the reference is generic when we are thinking of the class “tiger” without
specific reference to particular tigers. The distinction between definite and indefinite,
and between singular and plural , are important for specific reference.
USES of the DEFINITE ARTICLE.
The definite article is used to mark the phrase it introduces as definite, ie as referring
to something which can be identified uniquely in the contextual or general knowledge
shared by speaker and hearer. There are several ways in which the identity of the
referent may be determined or ‘recovered’ by the hearer.
I lent Bill a valuable book, but when he returned it , the cover was filthy, and
the pages were torn.
It will improve your tennis if you keep the back straight when you serve.
b. The use of the definite article with nouns in set expressions (Kayshanskaya,
p.36-37):
it is out of the question, to take the trouble to do something, in the original, to play the
piano, to keep the house, on the whole, the other day, on the one hand ... on the other
hand, to tell the truth
USES of the INDEFINITE ARTICLE
The indefinite article in contrast to the definite article, makes no assumptions about an
earlier mention. There are two possible uses of the indefinite article:
2. The indefinite article and the numeral one. The indefinite article derives
historically from the unstressed form of one, and in present-day English there
are still many contexts in which this numeral is uppermost: a mile or two cf:
one or two miles; a foot and a half of water cf: one and half feet..
1. the use of the indefinite article with nouns in set expressions ( Kayshanckaya, p
36):
in a hurry, to have a mind to do something, to flu into a passion, to get into a fancy to,
in a low voice, a great many, a great deal, it is a pity (shame), as a result, to have a
good time, to be at a loss, at a glance.
3. Phrases :
1. The generic use of a/an picks out ANY REPRESENTATIVE MEMBER OF THE
CLASS.
e.g. The best way to learn a language is to live among its speakers.
2. The generic use of the zero article identifies the class considered as an
UNDIFFERENTIATED WHOLE
3. a) with singular noun phrases it is often formal or literary in tone, indicating THE
CLASS AS REPRESENTED BY ITS TYPICAL SPECIMEN
e.g.: A great deal of illness originated in the mind
b. with plural noun phrases when they refer to the people of a nationality or ethnic
group : the Chinese, the English
a. with plural noun phrases with an adjective head referring to a group of people,
eg: the unemployed, the blind, the rich
Literature:
Semantic characteristics:
'Modality' as a linguistic term denotes the relation of the contents of speech to reality
as viewed by the speaker. When describing the meaning of 'modality' in the small
group of modal verbs we are in fact dealing with lexical 'modality'. The 'modality' of
the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moods is grammatical 'modality'. Now we
are dealing with the meaning of 'modality' uniting a part of speech. This is lexico-
grammatical 'modality'.
Modal words indicate whether the speaker is sure that the contents of his utterance
corrrespond to reality or he doubts it or he regards it as something possible, probable,
desirable etc Accordingly modal words can be divided into several groups .
Morphological characteristics:negative
Syntactic characteristics:
c) Their isolatability is greater than that of other words. They very often make
response sentences.
1. Function. The usage of modals depends upon the type of sentence. They are found almost
exclusively in declarative sentences, very rarely in interrogative and almost never in
imperative sentences. According to S. E. Kagan l there are 256 modal words in The Man
of Property by J. Galsworthy. 250 of them are in declarative sentences, 6 in interrogative
ones and none in imperative sentences. This fact can easily be accounted for.
Interrogative and imperative sentences are used not in order to express one's knowledge
of reality with various degrees of certainty or doubt. They are means of urging somebody
else to say something or do something.
Literature:
So, according to their meaning particles fall under the following main groups:
Limiting particles: only, just, but, alone, solely, merely, barely, etc. Intensifying
particles: simply, still, just, yet, all, but, only, quite, even, etc. Connecting
particles: too, also. Negative particles: not, never.
Morphological properties (form): Particles have no grammatical categories, no
typical stem-building elements.
As far as their structure is concerned, they may be simp1e (just, still, yet, even,
else), derivative (merely, simply, alone), compound (also).
Very few particles (else, merely, solely) are not homonymous with other words.
Most of them are identical in form with adverbs (exactly, precisely, simply,
never, still), adjectives (even, right, just, only), pronouns (all, either),
conjunctions (but), articles (the).
Syntactic properties
Combinability: As a rule, the combinability of particles is unilateral and variable.
They can specify different classes of words or clauses. Most of them precede the unit
they specify, but some particles follow it, as in the case of too. Here are a few illus
trations of the combinability of the particle only.
By George, if she o n I y knew that two men were talking about her like this!
(Shaw).
A sestertius is only worth a loaf of bread. (Ib.).
You look only f i ft y in it. (Ib.).
Is it nothing to you what wicked thing you do if o n I y
you do it like a g e n t I e m a n? (Ib.).
Function: Like most particles not can be used with different classes of words or
clauses (not he, not the student, not beautiful, not forty, not yesterday, not to see.
not seeing, not when he comes).
Sometimes a particle occupies a different position in the sentence. The question
of the place of a particle in sentence structure remains unsolved. It would
appear that the following three solutions are possible: (1) a particle is a separate
secondary member of the sentence, which should be given a special name; (2) a
particle is an element in the part of the sentence which is formed by the word
(or phrase) to which the particle refers (thus the particle may be an element of
the subject, predicate, object, etc.); (3) a particle neither makes up a special part
of the sentence, nor is it an element in any part of the sentence; it stands outside
the structure of the sentence and must be neglected when analysis of a sentence
is given.
Each of these three views entails some difficulties and none of can be proved
to be the correct one.
The view that a particle is a part of the sentence by itself makes necessary to
state what part of the sentence it is. Since it obviously cannot be brought under
the headings either of object, or attribute or adverbial modifier, we should have
to introduce a special
part of the sentence which ought then to be given a special name.
The second view would be plausible if the particle always stood immediately
before (or immediately after) the word or phrase to which it belongs. But the
fact that it can occasionally stand at a distance from it (for example, within the
predicate, while referring to an adverbial modifier) makes this view impossible
of realization; compare, for instance, / have only met him twice.
The last view, according to which a particle stands, as it were, outside the
sentence, seems rather odd. Since it is within the sentence, and is essential to its
meaning, so that omission of the particle could involve a material change in the
meaning, it is hard to
understand how it can be discounted in analysing the structure of the sentence.
Since, then, the second view proves to be impossible and the third
unconvincing, we shall have to adhere to the first view and to state that a
particle is a separate secondary part of the sentence
which ought to be given a special name.
THE PARTICLE Not
The particle not deserves special attention. It can, as is well known, be used in
two different ways. On the one hand, it may stand outside the predicate, as in
the following sentence: Not till
Magnus had actually landed in Orkney did he consider the many difficulties
that confronted him. (LINKLATER) It also stands outside the predicate in a type of so-
called short answers, in which the negative is expressed by the particle not, if it is
accompanied by a modal word like certainly, perhaps, or a phrase equivalent to a modal
word, e. g. of course: Certainly not. Perhaps not. Of course not. ' Compare also: / am
afraid not, I think not, etc. In these cases the particle not appears to be the main part of
the sentence.
Another use of the particle not is that within the predicate. In these cases it is
customary to treat it as part of the verb itself. The usual way of putting it is this.
The negative form of the present
indicative, e. g., of the verb be, is: (I) am not, (he) is not, etc., or, the negative
form of the present indicative, e. g., of the verb.
Literature:
The noun, the pronoun, the adjective, the verb, the adverb, the
numeral are notional parts of speech as they
1) unite words of complete nominating meaning;
2) have specific morphological categories revealed in the
changeability of forms, specific derivational affixes and
3) are characterized by independent functions in the sentence
and peculiar combinability
It should be noted at once that there are other ways of indicating the reality or
possibility of an action, besides the verbal category of mood, viz. modal verbs
(may, can, must, etc.), and modal words (perhaps, probably, etc.), which do not
concern us here. All these phenomena fall under the very wide notion of
modality, which is not confined to grammar but includes some parts of
lexicology and f phonetics (intonation) as well.
In proceeding now to an analysis of moods in English, let us first state the main
division, which has been universally recognized. This is the division of moods
into the one which represents an action as real, i. e. as actually taking place (the
indicative) as against that or those which represent it as non-real, i. e. as merely
imaginary, conditional, etc.
THE INDICATIVE
The use of the indicative mood shows that the speaker represents the action as
real. Two additional remarks are necessary here.
(1) The mention of the speaker (or writer) who represents the action as real is
most essential. If we limited ourselves to saying that the indicative mood is
used to represent real actions, we should arrive at the absurd conclusion that
whatever has been stated by
anybody (in speech or in writing) in a sentence with its predicate verb in the
indicative mood is therefore necessarily true. We should then ignore the
possibility of the speaker either being mistaken or else telling a deliberate lie.
The point is that grammar (and indeed linguistics as a whole) does not deal
with the ultimate truth or untruth of a statement with its predicate verb in the
indicative (or, for that matter, in any other) mood. What is essential from the
grammatical point of view is the meaning of the category as used by the author
of this or that sentence. Besides, what are we to make of statements with their
predicate verb in the indicative mood found in works of fiction? In what sense
could we say, for instance, that the sentence David Copperfield married Dora
or the sentence Soames Forsyte divorced his first wife, Irene represent "real
facts", since we are aware that the men and women mentioned in these
sentences never existed "in real life"? This is more evident still for such nursery
rhyme sentences as, The cow jumped over the moon. This peculiarity of the
category of mood should be always firmly kept in mind.
(2) Some doubt about the meaning of the indicative mood may arise if we take
into account its use in conditional sentences such as the following: / will speak
to him if I meet him.
It may be argued that the action denoted by the verb in the indicative mood (in
the subordinate clauses as well as in the main clauses) is not here represented
as a fact but merely as a possibility (I may meet him, and I may not, etc.).
However, this does not affect the meaning of the grammatical form as such.
The conditional meaning is expressed by the conjunction, and of course it does
alter the modal meaning of the sentence, but the meaning of the verb form as
such remains what it was. As to the predicate verb of the main clause, which
expresses the action bound to follow the fulfilment of the condition laid down
in the subordinate clause, it is no more uncertain than an action belonging to
the future generally is. This brings us to the question of a peculiar modal char-
acter of the future indicative, as distinct from the present or past indicative. In
the sentence // he was there I did not see him the action of the main clause is
stated as certain, in spite of the fact that the subordinate clause is introduced by
if and, consequently, its action is hypothetical. The meaning of the plain clause
cannot be affected by this, apparently because the past has a firmer meaning of
reality than the future. On the whole, then, the hypothetical meaning attached to
clauses introduced by if is no objection to the meaning of the indicative as a
verbal category.
THE IMPERATIVE
The imperative mood in English is represented by one form only, viz. come(!'},
without any suffix or ending.It differs from all other moods in several
important points. It has no person, number, tense, .or, aspect distinctions.and.
which is the main thing, it is limited in its use to one type of sentence only, viz.
Imperative sentences.Most usually a verb in the imperative has no pronoun
acting as subject. However, the pronoun may be used in emotional speech, as in
the following example: "But, Tessie— he pleaded, going towards her. "You
leave me alone!" she cried out loudly. (E. CALDWELL) These are essential
peculiarities distinguishing the imperative, and they have given rise to doubts
as to whether the imperative can be numbered among the moods at all. This of
course depends on what we mean by mood. If we accept the definition of mood
given above there would seem to be no ground to deny that the imperative is a
mood. The definition does not say anything about the possibility of using a
form belonging to a modal category in one or more types of sentences: that
syntactical problem is not a problem of defining mood. If we were to define
mood (and, indeed, the other verbal categories) in terms of syntactical use, and
to mention the ability of being used in various types of sentences as
prerequisite for a category to be acknowledged as mood, things would indeed
be different and the imperative would have to go. Such a view is possible but it
has not so far been developed by any scholar and until that is convincingly
done there
appears no ground to exclude the imperative. A serious difficulty connected
with the imperative is the absence of any specific morphological
characteristics: with all verbs, including the verb be, it coincides with the
infinitive, and in all verbs, except be, it also coincides with the present
indicative apart from the 3rd person singular. Even the absence of a subject
pronoun you, which would be its syntactical characteristic, is not a reliable
feature at all, as sentences like: You sit here! occur often enough.
Meaning alone may not seem sufficient ground for establishing a grammatical
category. Thus, no fully convincing solution of the problem has yet been found.
THE OTHER MOODS
Now we come to a very difficult set of problems, namely those connected with
the (subjunctive, conditional, .or whatever other name we may choose to give
these moods.
The chief difficulty analysis has to face here is the absence of a straightforward
mutual relation between meaning and form. Some times the same external
series of signs will have two (or more) dif ferent meanings depending on
factors lying outside the form itself, and outside the meaning of the verb;
sometimes, again, the same modal meaing will be expressed by two different
series of external
signs.
The first of these two points may be illustrated by the sequence: we should
come, which means one thing in the sentence I think we should come here
again to-morrow (here we should come is equivalent to we ought to come); it
means another thing in the sentence : we knew that he wants us we should
come to see him (here we should come denotes a conditional action, i. e. an
action depending on certain conditions), and it means another thing again in the
sentence How queer that we should come at the very moment when you were
talking about us! (here we should come denotes an action which has actually
taken place and which is considered as an object for comment). In a similar
way, several meanings may be found in the sequence he would come in
different contexts.
The second of the two points may be illustrated by comparing the two
sentences, I suggest that he go and / suggest that he should go, and we will for
the present neglect the fact that the first of thetwo variants is more typical of
American, and the second of British English. It is quite clear, then, that we
shall arrive at different systems of English moods, according as we make our
classification depend on the meaning (in that case one should come will find its
placeunder one heading, and the other should come under another, whereas (he)
go and (he) should go will find their place under the same heading) or on form
(in that case he should come will fall under one heading, no matter in what
context it may be used, while (he) go and (he) should go will fall under
different headings). This difficulty appears to be one of the main sources of that
wide devergence of views which strikes every reader of English grammars
when he reaches the chapter on moods.
Literature:
1. Blokh M.Y. A course in theoretical English grammar. - M.,2000. pp.179-197
2. Ilyish B.A. The structure of Modern English. - L.,1971. pp.105-120
Classification of nouns:
- on the basis of type of nomination - proper and common (Mary, sister)
- on the basis of form of existance - animate and inanimate (dog, desk)
- on the basis of personal quality - human and non-human (boy, fish)
- on the basis of a qualitative structure - countable and uncountable (pencil,water)
The noun in Modern English has only two main grammatical categories, number and
case. The existence of case appears to be doubtfuland has to be carefully analysed.
The Modern English noun certainly has not got the categoryof grammatical gender,
which is to be found, for example, in Russian, French, German and Latin. Not a single
noun in Modern English shows any peculiarities in its morphology due to its denoting
a male or a female being. Thus, the words husband and wife do not show any
difference in their forms due to the peculiaritiesof their lexical meanings.This
category is expressed by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal
pronouns of the third person. There are only several suffixes which show the gender :
actor - actress, widow - widower.
NUMBER
The grammatical meaning of the category is oneness and more than oneness.
Modern English, as most other languages, distinguishes between two
numbers,singular and plural., The essential meaning of singular and plural seems clear
enough: the singular number shows that one object is meant, and the plural shows that
more than one object is meant. Thus, the opposition is "one — more than one". This
holds good for many nouns: table —tables, pupil — pupils, dog — dogs, etc. However,
language facts are not always so simple as that. The category of number in
Englishnouns gives rise to several problems which claim special attention.
First of all, it is to be noted that there is some difference between, say, three houses
and three hours. Whereas three houses are three separate objects existing side by side,
three hours are a continuous period of time measured by a certain agreed unit of
duration. The same, of course, would apply to such expressions as three miles, three
acres, etc.
If we now turn to such plurals as waters (e. g. the waters of the Atlantic), or snows (e.
g. " Daughter of the Snows", the title of a story by Jack London), we shall see that we are
drifting further away from the original meaning of the plural number. In the first place, no
numeral could be used with nouns of this kind. We could not possibly say three waters, от three
snows. We cannot say how many waters we mean when we use this noun in the plural
number. What, then, is the real difference in meaning between water and waters,
snow and snows, etc.? It is fairly obvious that the plural form in every case serves to
denote a vast stretch of water (e. g. an ocean), or of snow, or rather of ground covered
by snow (e. g. in the arctic regions of Canada), etc. In the case of water and waters we
can press the point still further and state that the water of the Atlantic refers to its
physical or chemical properties (e. g. the water of tfie Atlantic contains a
considerable portion of salt), whereas the waters of the Atlantic refers to a
geographical idea: it denotes a seascape and has, as such, a peculiar stylistic value
which the water of the Atlantic certainly lacks. So we see that between the singular
and the plural an additional difference of meaning has developed.
Now, the difference between the two numbers may increase to such a degree that the
plural form develops a completely new meaning which the singular has not got at all.
Thus, for example, theplural form colours has the meaning 'banner' which is restricted
to the plural (e. g. to serve under the colours of liberty). In a similar manner, the plural
attentions has acquired the meaning wooing (pay attentions to, a young lady). A
considerable amountof examples in point have been collected by 0. Jespersen.
Since, in these cases, a difference in lexical meaning develops between the plural and
the singular, it is natural to say that the plural form has been lexicalized. It is not our
task here to go into details about the specific peculiarities of meaning which may
develop in the plural form of a noun. This is a matter of lexicology rather than of
grammar. What is essential from the grammatical viewpoint is the very fact that a
difference in meaning which is purely grammatical in its origins is apt under certain
conditions to be vershadowed by a lexical difference.
• Definition
• Meaning (semantic property)
• Form (morphological properties)
• Function (syntactic properties)
• Subclasses of the adjectives
• Qualitative adjectives
• Predicative adjectives
• The statives
• Substantivized (adjectivids)
Definition : The adjective is considered to be a part of speech as it has its own
categorial meaning, form and function.
Meaning (semantic property). The adjective expresses the categorical semantics of
property of a substance. It means that each adjective used in the text presupposes relation
to some noun, the property of whose referent it denotes, such as its material, color,
dimensions, position, state and other characteristics both permanent and temporary. The
semantically bound character of the adjective is emphasized in English by the use of the
non-substitute “one” in the absence of the notional head-noun of the phrase. E.g. : I don’t
want a yellow balloon, let me have the green one over there.
On the other hand, if the adjective is placed in a nominatively self-dependent position,
this leads to its substantivization. E.g.:Outside it was a beautiful day, and the sun tinged
the snow with red .
Subclasses of the
adjectives
Qualitative adjectives denote various qualities of substances which admit a
quantitative estimation. The measure of a quality can be estimated as high or low,
adequate or inadequate, sufficient or insufficient, optimal or excessive, e.g.: an
awkward situation - a very awkward situation , a difficult task - too difficult task, an
enthusiastic reception- rather an enthusiastic reception, etc. Relativeadjectives
express such properties of substance as are determined by direct relation of the
substance to some other substance, e.g.: wood - a wooden hut, table -tabular
presentation, history - a historical event.
Predicative adjectives or The statives denote different states, mostly of temporary
duration. E.g. : afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze. This class of adjective is problematic as it
was first identified :
I. as a separate part of speech in the Russian language by L.V.Scherba and V.V.
Vinogradov. And was called the “words of the category of state” , which was later
changed into “stative words”, or “statives”. B.S.Khaimovich and B.I. Rgovskaya
criated their theory, explaining why it is a separate part of speech.
1. The categorial meaning of such adjectives is different - adjectives denote
“qualities” and statives denote “states”, e.g.: But Johnny and Paddy were
asleep, the rose-red grow had paled, bats were flying, and still the bathers had
not returned. (Mansfield)
Crearer said, "I'm afraid, General, we have to rely on the appeal of the
leaflet." (Heym)
2. Statives are characterized by the specific prefix a-,e.g.: ablaze, afire, aflame,
afoot, afraid, asleep, awake, etc.
3. The statives do not possess the category of the degrees of comparison,
4. The combinability of statives is different from that of adjectives as they are
not used in pre-positional attributive function;
5. They are mainly used in the function of: A. a predicative: 1."He is awake!"
Sally cried. (Saxton)2.That was all right in the daytime, but while Alice was
putting her to bed she grew suddenly afraid. (Mansfield). 3. When he got into
bed, he was sure he'd never fall asleep, and yet he was dog-tired. (Wilson). B.
Words of the category of state may be used as objective predicatives: She was
saying that she intended to leave him entirely alone again. (Wilson) C. Words
of the category of state may be sometimes used as attributes. But unlike
adjectives they cannot be placed before the words they modify. As attributes
they may be only used in post-position: The father dolls, who sprawled very
stiff as though they had fainted in the drawing-room, and their two little
children asleep upstairs were really too big for the doll's house. (Mansfield)
II. Statives may be treated as a subclass of adjectives (Blokh M.Y.).
1. as the adjectives denote not “quantity” in the narrow sense, but “property”
and formulates the meaning of the statives as “sative property” : the psychic
state of a person (afraid, ashamed, aware) - cf/happy, curious, spondent, the
physical state of a person (astir, afoot) -cf/ sound, refreshed, hungry, the state
of an object (afire, ablaze, aglow) the state of an object in space (askew, awry,
aslant).
2. Combinability - though the statives are not used in attributive position but
like adjectives they are distinguished by the left-hand categorial combinability
both with nouns and link-verbs.
3. Functions - the predicative and attribute like adjectives.
4. Degrees of comparison - the statives are capable of expressing comparison
analytically, e.g.: Jack was the one most aware of the delicate situation in
which we found ourselves.
5. Prefix a- is not a prefix of a special part of speech because some adjectives
do not have any affixes at all but display the stative set as well: ill, well, glad,
sorry, worth, due to and etc.(Blokh M.Y. 197-214)
LITERATURE:
THE NUMERAL
Meaning
Form
Function
Cardinal numerals
Ordinal numerals
Имя числительное (по Ивановой И.П. и Бурлаковой В.В. )
With numerals, even more than with pronouns, it is difficult to keep the strictly
grammatical approach and not to let oneself be diverted into lexicological considerations.
0.Jespersen has quite rightly remarked that numerals have been treated by grammarians
in a different way from other parts of speech. This is what he says, "...the grammarian in
this chapter on numerals does what he never dreamed of doing in the two previous
chapters (those on nouns and adjectives.—B. I.), he gives a complete and orderly
enumeration of all the words belonging to this class." 2
It seems therefore all the more necessary to stick to the grammatical aspect of things
when dealing with this particular category of words. What, indeed, ought to be said
about numerals from a grammatical viewpoint?
(Form) Morphologically the numerals are, to all intents and purposes, invariable.
(Function) Syntactically
Cardinal numerals indicate number: one, two, three, four, ten, twelve, eighteen, twenty,
thirty-three, seventy-five, ninety- one, a hundred, one hundred end forty-six, two hundred and
twenty-eight, a thousand, three thousand and fifty-two, seven thousand three hundred and
seventeen, etc.
Note 1. The numerals hundred, thousand and million are always preceded by the
indefinite article а о the numeral one. The latter is generally used when these
numerals are followed by some other numerals, e.g. a hundred but one hundred and
twenty-three; a thousand but one thousand seven hundred and thirty.
b) hundreds of books,
b) thousands of cars,
b) millions of workers.
In the examples under (a) the exact number of persons or things is given; in the
examples under (b) hundred, thousand and million do not indicate any exact number
but only a great multitude of persons or things.
As to their structure, the cardinal numerals from 1 to 12 and 100, 1000, 1,000,000
are simple words (one, two, three, etc., hundred, thousand, million); those from 13 to
19 are .derivatives with the suffix -teen (thirteen, fourteen, etc.); the cardinal numerals
indicating tens are formed by means of the suffix-ty (twenty, thirty, etc.). The
numerals from 21 to 29, from 31 to 39, etc. are composite: twenty-two, thirty-five, etc.
Note 1.—Twenty-two, thirty-five, etc. are spelt with a hyphen. Note 2. — In two
hundred and twenty-three, four hundred and sixteen etc. there must be the word and
after the word hundred.
Such cardinal numerals as hundred, thousand, million may be used with articles (a
hundred, a thousand, a million)', they may be substantivized and used in the plural
(hundreds, thousands, millions).When used after other numerals they do not take -s
(two hundred times. Thirty thousand years etc). The word million may be used with or
without -s (two million, two millions). When the word, million is followed by some
other cardinal numeral only the first variant is possible; two million five hundred
inhabitants.
Cardinal numerals are used in the function of subject, predicate, object, adverbial
modifier and attribute (apposition).e.g.:
... the young man opposite had long since disappeared. Now the other two got
out. (Mansfield) (subject) Earle Fox was only fifty-four, but he felt timeless and
ancient. (Wilson) (predicative)
And again she saw them, but not four, more like forty laughing,
sneering, jeering... (Mansfield) (object) At eight the gang sounded for
supper. (Mansfield) (advfrbial MODIFIER)
“And he remembered the holidays they used to have the four of them,
with a little girl, Rose, to look after the babies. (Mansfield) (apposition)
Cardinals are sometimes used to denote the place of an object In a series. Cardinals
are used in reading indications: line 23, page 27S, Chapter X, No. 49. etc.
... but from the corner of the street until she came to No. 26 she thought
of those four flights of stairs. (Mansfield)
Class nouns modified by a numeral in post-position are used without articles.
e.g.: All he wanted was to be made to care again, but each night he took
up his briefcase and walked home to dinner at 117th Street and Riverside
Drive, apartment 12D. (Wilson)
Ordinal numerals indicate order: first, second, third, fourth, tenth, twelfth,
eighteenth, twenty-fifth, forty-seventh, a hundredth, two hundred and thirty-ninth, etc.
Ordinal numerals show the order of persons and things in a series. With the
exception of the first three (first, second, third) the ordinal numerals are formed
from cardinal numerals by means of the suffix -th.
In ordinal groups only the last member of the group takes the ordinal form: (the)
sixty-fifth, (the) twenty-third. Ordinal numerals are generally used with the definite
article (the first, the fifth, the tenth, etc.). Ordinal numerals may be used with the in-
definite article when they do not show a definite order of persons and things in
series :"I've torn simply miles and miles of the frill," wailed a third. (Mansfield)
The functions of ordinal numerals in a sentence.
Note 2. Common fractions are read in the following way 2/3 = two
Decimal fractions are read as: 8.5= three point five; 4.76=four nni < seventy-six; 8.03=eight
point naught three. row
ИМЯ ЧИСЛИТЕЛЬНОЕ
She might be thirty or forty-five. (Christie) Two Italian primitives on the wall. (Christie) She
had not seen me for four days. (Snow)
PRONOUNS
• Introduction
• Semantical properties (meaning)
• Morphological properties (form)
• CASE
• PERSON
• GENDER
• NUMBER
• Syntactical properties (function)
Introduction
Pronouns share several characteristics, most of which are absent from nouns. Their
name implies that they 'replace' nouns, but it is best to see pronouns as comprising a
varied class of closed-class words with nominal function. By 'nominal' here we mean
'noun-like' or, more frequently, 'like a noun phrase'.
Semantically, a pronoun has a categorial meaning that of deixis (indication). It may
be a 'pro-form' in any of the three senses illustrated in the following example
Margot longed for a bicycle, and at last (C) somebody gave (B) her (A) a brand
new one
(A) It may substitute for some word or phrase (as one may
substitute for a noun, and therefore be a 'pronoun in a quite literal
sense)
B. It may signal, as personal pronouns like her do, that reference is being made to
something which is given or known within the linguistic or situational context
C. It may stand for a very general concept, so that its reference includes the
reference of untold more specific noun phrases somebody, for example,
indicates a broad class of people including a girl, a man, a secretary, etc.
+ + - + and - + -
that tative
+ + _ - - + -
According to E.M. Gordon and I.P.Krylova emphatic pronouns have the same
forms as reflexive pronouns - they are homonyms, but are used for emphasis,
e.g.: You yourself told them the story.
Indefinite pronouns are subdivided into the following groups:
1. proper
some, any, no
somebody, anybody, nobody, someone, anyone, no one, something, anything,
nothing
one, none
distributive pronouns
all, every, each, other, either, neither, both
everybody, everyone, everything
quantitative pronouns:
much, many, little, few, a little, a few, a lot of, lots of, a great deal, a great
many
Morphologically, some pronouns have characteristics that nouns have:
CASE
There is a contrast between subjective and objective cases for personal,
possessive, interrogative pronouns, genitive case for reciprocal, defining,
interrogative , indefinitepronouns:
personal pronouns: she / her, I/me, he/him, we/us and etc.
possessive pronouns: my, his, her, our, it, their ( genitive case)
interrogative pronouns: who/whom, whose etc.
reciprocal pronouns: each other / each other’s (genitive case)
defining pronouns: everybody/ everybody’s , other/other’s (genitive case)
indefinite pronoun: one/one’s, somebody/somebody’s and etc. (genitive case)
According to the point of view of Quirk there are the following cases:
1.common case (someone)
2.genitive case (someone’s)
However, the five personal pronouns /, we, he, she, they and the wh-pronoun:
who have a
further distinction between subjective and objective cases
Table 1. Personal pronouns with subjective, objective and genitive case forms
Subjective I we he it who
you she they
Objective me us her it
you him them who(m
his its
independent mine ours yours hers theirs whose
PERSON.
There is a contrast between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons for personal, possessive,
reflexive pronouns:
1ST PERSON PRONOUNS
I, me, my, mine, myself
we, us, our, ours, ourselves
2ND PERSON PRONOUNS
you, your, yours, yourself, yourselves
The reference of these pronouns includes the addressee(s), but excludes the
speaker(s)/writer(s).
3RD PERSON PRONOUNS.
he, him, his, himself she, her, hers, herself
it, its, itself ,they, them, their, theirs, themselves
All noun phrases (except those having 1st and 2nd person pronouns as
heads) are 3rd person for purposes of concord
GENDER .
There are overt grammatical contrasts between (1) personal and non-personal
gender, and between (2) masculine and feminine gender .Gender distinctions are
largely restricted to 3rd person singular pronouns of the categories of personal,
possessive, and reflexive pronouns, as shown in Table 2 Gender distinctions in
pronouns:
singularyourself himself/herself
/herselfherself
itself
plural ourselves themselves
yourselves
Pronouns belonging to other classes, such as interrogative, relative, and
indefinite pronouns, do not in general have number contrast. Exceptions are the
demonstratives this/these and that/those, and the indefinite pronoun onewhen
used as a substitute Other pronouns, like the corresponding determiners, are
invariable for number. The pronoun both, like the predeterminer both, has dual
meaning, but is plural for purposes of concord.
Note [a] In the absence of a singular/plural distinction in the 2nd person
pronoun, plural reference is sometimes indicated by lexical additions, e.g. you
people, you boys, and you guys [b] The low-prestige plural form youse /ju:z/ is
current in Northern American English and certain areas of Britain such as
Liverpool and Glasgow In Southern AmE, by contrast, the singular/plural
distinction has been reformed through suffixation of the originally plural form
You-all (y'all /jo:i/) is widely used on all social levels in Southern AmE (always
with a plural meaning by those to whom the form is native, although often
misunderstood as a singular by outlanders) There is also a colloquial genitive )
alls /J3:lz/, as in I really like у all s new car ['your family's new car'] [c] You in
earlier English was a plural pronoun only, and was restricted to oblique cases A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language R.Quirk, S.Greenbaum,
G.Leech, J.SvartvikLongman, London and New-York 1994, pp.335-345
Syntactically, most pronouns function like noun phrases rather than nouns.
They combine in only a limited way with determiners and modifiers. We can
say, indeed, that most pronouns, being either definite or indefinite, incorporate
their own determiner.
Pronouns may perform several functions such as :
SUBJECT :
1.We are convinced that the Government has made a grave mistake in imposing this
tax. (personal pronoun)
2.’ Yours (sum of money) won’t come short of a hundred thousand, my boy’, said old
Jolyon. (possessive pronoun).
It’s all right, but I’d rather try my hand at brokerage, I think that appeals to me. (
demonstrative pronoun)
Who , do you think, has been to see you, Dad? She couldn’t wait. (interrogative
pronoun)
... when all is said and done. (defining pronoun)
In the next house someone was playing the piano. (indefinite pronoun)
Nobody seemed to know him well. (negative pronoun)
OBJECT
I met him in the street. ( personal pronoun)
... he realized that she was making an effort to talk his talk, and he resolved to get
away from it and talk hers. (possessive pronoun)
In that moment of emotion he betrayed the Forsyte in him - forgot himself, his
interests, his property - was capable of almost anything. (reflexive pronoun)
Elizabeth and George talked and found each other delightful. (reciprocal pronoun)
Tell me just how you did this. (demonstrative pronoun)
‘Who do you mean?’ I said. (interrogative pronoun)
And Martin forgot all about it. ( defining pronoun)
We’d have nobody to fight the war. (negative pronoun)
Where is his home? He didn’t have any. (indefinite pronoun)
PREDICATIVE
But I think that was him that I spoke. (personal pronoun)
When he turned round again he saw Fleur standing near the door holding a
handkerchief which the boy had evidently just handed to her. ‘F.F. ‘, he heard her say.
‘Fleur Forsyte - it’s mine all right. Thank you ever so.’ (possessive pronoun)
When she came back she was herself again. (reflexive pronoun)
The only honest people - if they existed - were those who said : ‘ This is foul
brutality... ‘ (demonstrative pronoun)
‘No, who’s he?’ ‘Oh, he’s a Polish Jew.’ (interrogative pronoun)
He just loved me, that is all. (defining pronoun)
..What he likes is anything except art. (indefinite pronoun)
‘Now, look here, Marian, this is nothing but nonsense. (negative pronoun)
ATTRIBUTE
1..... and while she rattled on, he strove to follow her, marvelling at all the
knowledge that was stowed away in that pretty head of hers. (possessive pronoun)
‘I fancied you looked a little downcast when you came in ,’ she ventured to
observe, anxious to keep away from the subject of herself. (reflexive pronoun)
Not until moon and stars faded away and streaks of daylight began to appear, did
Meitjie Brinker and Hans look hopelessly in to each other’s face. (reciprocal
pronoun)
‘If that young fellow wanted a place, I’d give it to him,’ he thought.
(demonstrative pronoun)
‘Which day is it that Dorloote Mill is to be sold?’ (interrogative pronoun)
This is something more than genius. It is true, every line of it. (defining pronoun)
We approved neither plan. (negative pronoun)
‘It’s anybody’s right,’ Martin heard somebody said. (indefinite pronoun)
DVERBIAL MODIFIER
1. If June did not like this, she could have allowance and live by herself.
(reflexive pronoun)
• The definition
• Meaning (semantic property)
• Form (the morphological properties)
• Function (the syntactic property )
The definition: The adverb is a part of speech which expresses some circumstances
that attend an action or state, or points out some characteristic features of an action or
a quality. (Kayshanslaya , 204-205). This definition, though certainly informative and
instructive, fails to directly point out the relation between the adverb and adjective as
the primary qualifying part of speech. In attempt to overcome this drawback Blokh
M.Y. defines the adverb as a notional word expressing a non-substantive property.
This formula immediately shows the actual correlation between the adverb and
adjective, since the adjective is a word expressing a substantive property. (Blokh
M.Y., pp. 214-222)
• to give - to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away, to give over, etc.
Adverbs can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under the
heading of situation-“determinants”, cf. :
• The woman was crying hysterically (an adverb modifier of manner, in left-
hand contact combination with the verb-predicate)
• Wilson looked at him appraisingly. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-
hand contact distant combination with the verb-predicate).
Adverbs can also combine with nouns acquiring in such cases a very peculiar
adverbial-attributive function, essentially in post position, but in some cases also in
pre-position. E.g.:
• The world today presents a picture radically different from what was before
the Second world War.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, proclaimed the
“New Deal” - a new Government economic policy.(Blokh m.Y., pp. 214-222)
• Adverbs coincide with an adjective: fast, loud, late, wide : He rode fast. She
waited long. The teacher always reads loud enough. She opened her eye wide.
• Adverbs coincide with prepositions: after, before, since. Cf. : I shall speak to
you after. (preposition). I shall tell you about it after. (adverb)
• Adverbs coincide with conjunctions: when, where, but. Cf.: When did you
speak to her? (adverb) When she returns, I shall go to see her.