You are on page 1of 11


1. Two aspects of e!"a#$%at$o&' !ea#$%at$o& a&( act)a#$%at$o&
*. Fo!+s of #$&,)a# !ep!ese&tat$o&'
&o+$&at$o&- $+p#$cat$o&- s$,&$f$cat$o&
.. G!a++at$ca# cate,o!/' cate,o!$a# fo!+s a&( cate,o!$a# +ea&$&,s
0. G!a++at$ca# cate,o!$es 1ta2o&o+/3'
0.1 +o!p4o#o,$ca#- s/&tact$ca#- $&te!#ee#5
0.* $&f#ect$o&a# a&( se#ect$o&a# ,!a++at$ca# cate,o!$es
St)(/ 6)est$o&s
1. La&,)a,e a!$et$es
*. La&,)a,e a&( soc$et/
e!"a#$sat$o&- !ea#$sat$o&- act)a#$sat$o&- #$&,)a# !ep!ese&tat$o&- &o+$&at$o&-
s$,&$f$cat$o&- co&cept)a# co&te&t- co&cept)a# cate,o!/- #e2$co-,!a++at$ca# f$e#(-
L- L;M- M- M;S- S- L;S (e$ces- #$&,)$st$c stat)s of #$&,)$st$c (e$ces-
,!a++at$ca# cate,o!/- ,!a++at$ca# fo!+- ,!a++at$ca# +ea&$&,- +o!p4o#o,$ca#
,!a++at$ca# cate,o!/- s/&tact$ca# ,!a++at$ca# cate,o!/- $&te!#ee# 1+a!,$&a#3
,!a++at$ca# cate,o!/- $&f#ect$o&a# ,!a++at$ca# cate,o!$es- se#ect$o&a#
,!a++at$ca# cate,o!$es- ,!a++at$ca# oppos$t$o&- cate,o!$a# +a!<e!
F)!t4e! Rea($&,
1. Morokhovskay E.J. Fundamentals of English Grammar:Theory and Practice. –
Kyiv: ysca !kola" #$$%. – P.#&'(#)&.
2. *uddleston" +. English Grammar: ,n -utline. – ./: 01P" #$22. – P. #(33.
1. Two aspects of e!"a#$%at$o&' !ea#$%at$o& a&( act)a#$%at$o&
The recognition of the t4o 5lanes of language" that of 6language6 and that of
6s5eech6" re7uires the differentiation of the t4o as5ects of ver8ali9ation:
!ea#$%at$o& and
each taking 5lace in the 5articular 5lane. +eali9ation of grammatical categories is
associated 4ith the 6language6 5lane. :t im5lies the em8odiment of conce5tual
content 8y different language forms. :n other 4ords the reali9ation of grammatical
categories reveals and outlines the living forms and amount of the categories in the
concrete language. The reali9ation of grammatical categories is indis5ensa8le from
the 4ays in 4hich conce5tual content is re5resented lingually.
There are t4o im5ortant things to remem8er 4hen the reali9ation of grammatical
categories is discussed.
13 Firstly" in the course of time the grammatical structure of the language
undergoes certain changes. ,s the result of some cardinal historic changes this or that
grammatical category disa55ears" some ne4 categories develo5.
e.g. the reduction of the noun paradigm caused the decay of Old English cases and
the obliteration of gender distinctions of nouns.
.evertheless" the disa55earance of categories is not the only conse7uence of
historic changes. ,n o55osite conse7uence is illustrated 8y the e;tension of the ver8
5aradigm in English.
e.g. the verb paradigm has become highly developed at the expense of a number of
new-born grammatical forms (Continuous, Perfect Continuous, etc. which appeared
as analytical innovations in the !iddle English period.
*3 !econdly" a grammatical category does e;ist in a language if there is at least
one o55osition of the forms" i. e. if there are any 5ositive grammatical markers of
re5resented conce5tual content. The e;tra5olation of a grammatical category from one
language to another is a rude mistake on the 5art of linguists. :t may lead to the
misinter5retation of linguistic facts. The universality of some grammatical categories
is 5roved 8y the very fact that they e;ist in most human languages 8ut the 5eculiarities
of their reali9ation are surely conditioned 8y the distinguishing idioethnic features of
the structure of a given language.
e.g. "t is true that "ndo-European languages have nearly the same range of
grammatical categories associated with the main parts of speech. #ut it does not
mean that the whole set of grammatical categories is found in every language of the
<ingual devices are of different linguistic status" i. e. they 8elong to different
s5heres of the language system:
Phonetic devices are essentially inter5retative" they 5rovide the actual form of the
5roduct of s5eech. The le;ical and grammatical devices make u5 a system 4hich is
no4adays defined as the le;ico(grammatical field. :t consists of t4o su8systems:
le;ical and grammatical.
There are intermediate cases: le;ico(mor5hological" mor5hologo(syntactical and
le;ico(syntactical. The remark made here concerning the linguistic status of lingual
devices is im5ortant for the com5le; analysis of grammatical categories. Fact is that
lingual devices differ not only in linguistic status 8ut also in the forms or 4ays of
re5resenting conce5tual content.
*. Fo!+s of #$&,)a# !ep!ese&tat$o&' &o+$&at$o&- $+p#$cat$o& a&( s$,&$f$cat$o&
There are t4o main forms of lingual re5resentation: nomination and signification.
No+$&at$o& is characteristic of le;ical units 4hich make u5 a system of nominative
devices" a system of nominators. They nominate the re5resented conce5tual content.
!ome of the nominators 5ossess denotational and referential a8ility" they have
o8=ective referents. :f something is e;5ressed le;ically" 4e say that it is nominated.
There is another way of le;ical re5resentation" it is le;ical $+p#$cat$o&. :n such cases
the re5resented content is not nominated 8y the le;ical unit itself 8ut it is im5lied in
the semantics of this unit. ,s far as the conce5tual content correlative 4ith the
grammatical categories is concerned" it is usually im5licated in the semantics of
nominative units as an attending semantic feature.
e.g. such $oice notions as %eflexivity or %eciprocity are implicated regularly in the
semantics of the so-called reflexive (to wash. to shave and reciprocal (to meet, to
&iss verbs.
S$,&$f$cat$o& is the distinguishing function of grammatical devices" 4hich are
devoid of nominative a8ility and merely signify the content re5resented. The le;ico(
mor5hological and le;ico(syntactical devices should 8e s5ecified 4ith regard to their
re5resentational function. .amely" the nominative 5o4er of the le;ico(mor5hological
devices" 4hich are derivational affi;es" is e;tremely general and 4eak" they are more
grammatical than le;ical in nature. The le;ico(syntactical devices" on the contrary"
have much of nominative 5o4er" their le;ical elements are full notional 4ords" their
significational function is minimal.
0-.0EPT1,< 0-.TE.T
O"8ect$e L$&,)a# M M>! ! M>! ! <>!
!efe!e&t (e$ces
Le2$co-,!a++at$ca# f$e#(
The multi5licity of lingual devices and their usea8ility for the re5resentation of
conce5tual categories are 5redetermined 8y the 5eculiarities of the structure of the
language" 8y the degree of its syntheticity and analyticity 5rimarily. :n synthetic
languages" 4hich have develo5ed mor5hologies" mor5hological and le;ico(
mor5hological devices are more regularly used. :n analytical languages" 4hose
mor5hologies are rather scanty" le;ical and le;ico(syntactical devices are 5refera8ly
used in the function of significators. .evertheless" other devices are used fre7uently
,n illustration of multi5le re5resentation of e;tralingual 5henomena 4ith the hel5
of different le;ico(gramrnatical devices in English is the reflection of se; differences
of living 8eings. This is of 5articular interest 8ecause English has no grammatical
!e; differences can 8e e;5ressed #e2$ca##/" i. e. 8y the 4ords denoting either males
or females: man ' woman, uncle ' aunt, nephew ' niece, &ing ' (ueen, coc& '
hen, bull ' cow, goose ' gander, etc. This 4ay of indicating se; differences of
living 8eings 4as characteristic of the early stages in the develo5ment of English" in
Modern English they are e;ce5tional.
The #e2$co-+o!p4o#o,$ca# 4ay of e;5ressing se; differences of living 8eings is
remnant too. :t is re5resented 8y the suffi; ""(ess6 4hich is used for the derivation of
the names of females: lion ' lioness, tiger ? tigress, heir ? heiress, tutor' tutress,
The #e2$co-s/&tact$ca# devices of e;5ressing se; differences of living 8eings are
most fre7uently and 4idely used in Modern English. 0ommon nouns of this language
do not dis5lay gender distinctions and the indication of femality>mality is not made
mor5hologically. The only 4ay out is to resort to the le;ico(syntactical devices. The
le;ico(syntactical com8inations like man-servant, woman-pilot, woman doctor,
woman cler&, girl cashier, lady witness, hen pigeon, coc& pigeon, dog-fox are very
s5ecific. They look like com5ound 4ords 8ut they are really not 8ecause they do not
consist of t4o le;ically full mor5hemes or stems. -ne of the elements" 4hich
indicates the se; differences of the living 8eing denoted 8y the other 5art of a com8i(
nation is devoid of denotative inde5endence. !uch elements lose their denotative
a8ility and 8ecome significative in nature.
)he parlour-maid entered with a folded piece of paper on a salver which she
handed to $iolet. @0hristieA. *e are going to get two men instead ? a house-
parlourman and a &ind of butler-chauffer. @0hristieA.
-ne may easily notice that some common nouns in English can refer to 8oth male
and female 8eings. Bhenever needed" the s5ecification of their reference is achieved
syntactically" 8y means of the conte;t. :n the follo4ing situation the 5ronouns she
and her are likely to 5lay the role of conte;tual s5ecificators. They o8literate the
referential am8iguity of the noun +doctor+.
e.g. )he doctor approached a little grey building and &noc&ed, "t was her fourth
round and she loo&ed tired when she stepped into the dar&ness of the corridor.
.. G!a++at$ca# cate,o!/' cate,o!$a# fo!+s a&( cate,o!$a# +ea&$&,s
Bhile considering the reali9ation of grammatical categories in English it is
im5ortant that 4e claim that grammatical categories should 8y no means 8e identified
4ith the grammatical meanings" es5ecially 4ith those categorial meanings 4hich
constitute the category.
The category" in contrast to the meaning" is a 8ilateral entity having its content and
e;5ression sides. The grammatical category is the synthesi9ing unity of mutually
associated grammatical meanings and the grammatical formants e;5ressing these
The content of the grammatical category is re5resented 8y a com5le; of categorial
meanings. ,s to the num8er of categorial meanings constituting the content of the
category" it varies from language to language and is 5redetermined 8y the nature of
the 4ordsC 5aradigms" in other 4ords" 8y the set of grammatical devices 4hich can 8e
used for marking categorial meanings. The grammatical category is turned 8y its
categorial content to the corres5onding conce5tual category 4ith 4hich it correlates.
The e;5ression side of the grammatical category is given 8y the com5le; set of the
categorial markers designed to signify the corres5onding categorial meanings. These
are of synthetic and analytic ty5es.
a com5le; of categorial meanings
G+,MM,T:0,< 0,TEG-+/ D (((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
a set of grammatical markers
The amount of a grammatical category" i. e. the num8er of the constituent
categorial forms and the character of their interrelationshi5s 4ithin the grammatical
category de5end u5on the 4ays in 4hich the corres5onding conce5tual category is
re5resented regularly in Modern English.
The categorial form itself is 8ilateral. :t is given in its content side 8y the categorial
meaning and in its e;5ression side 8y the concrete categorial marker:
categorial meaning
0,TEG-+:,< F-+M D ------------------------------------------------
categorial marker
:t is 7uite clear that the category is a 4ider notion than the categorial form" or either
of its constituting 5arts: categorial meaning and categorial marker. :t ha55ens that
sometimes a categorial form is mistaken for a category" a constituent is mistaken for
the 4hole. There are such categories as 0ase" .um8er" ,s5ect" etc." 8ut it 4ould not
8e correct to s5eak of the category of 6Plural6 or that of 60ontinuous6. These are the
categorial forms constituting together 4ith some other categorial forms the
corres5onding grammatical category.
0. G!a++at$ca# cate,o!$es 1ta2o&o+/3'
0.1 +o!p4o#o,$ca#- s/&tact$ca#- $&te!#ee#5
-ne and the same conce5tual category or notion can 8e re5resented linguially 8y
the devices 8elonging to the different com5onents of the le;ico(grammatical field
4hich are" thus" of different linguistic status: le;ical" mor5hological or syntactical.
Grammatical devices re5resenting conce5tual content com5rise not only
mor5hological or syntactic devices 5ro5er 8ut also those of le;ico(mor5hological and
le;ico(syntactical character. The linguistic status of devices" as 4ell as their
fre7uency and usea8ility for the linguistic re5resentation of 5articular conce5tual
content" 5redetermine to a great e;tent the reali9ation of lingual categories" of
grammatical categories in 5articular.
The notion of the grammatical category itself remains uns5ecified and inade7uately
defined 4hen grammatical categories are referred to as mor5hological only" facts of
synta; 8eing ignored. :n kee5ing 4ith the recognition of the t4o 5arts of grammar"
mor5hology and synta;" grammatical categories must 8e 7ualified as either
mor5hological or syntactical res5ectively" certain intermediate cases 8eing taken into
:n contrast to mor5hological categories" 4hich are the categories of the 4ord"
syntactical categories 5ertain to the 5aradigmatics of syntactic units and find their
reali9ation in the system of their forms. From this 5oint of vie4" such 5henomena as
.egation" ,ffirmation and :nterrogation a55ear s5ecifically syntactic categories
4hich are reali9ed in the 5aradigm of the sentence" through the o55ositions of
5aradigmatic sentence(forms.
Thus" the 5rimary su8division of grammatical categories is into the mor5hological
ones" 4hich are associated 4ith the form(derivation of the 4ord" and into the
syntactical ones" 4hich are associated 4ith the form(derivation of syntactic units"
4ith that of the sentence in 5articular. Eut among grammatical categories 4hich
cannot 8e classified under the mor5hological or the syntactical categories there are
some interlevel ones. The $&te!#ee# 1+a!,$&a#3 ,!a++at$ca# cate,o!$es have their
o4n s5ecific marker. For instance" the nature of the Cs(sign in Modern English" 4hich
can form u5 a 4ord and a grou5 of 4ords" stimulated the recognition of an interlevel
grammatical category of Possessivity.
The term 6Possessivity6 is commonly used in grammar in its 4ider meaning.
Possessivity" in the general meaning of the 4ord" develo5ed on the 8asis of 0ase. :n
the course of time the genitive inflection" 4hich is assumed to 8e the only nounal
inflection that has survived" ac7uired in the F::th century its modern a5ostro5hic
form and the latter develo5ed into an agglutinative element 4ith its distinguishing
looseness in relation to the unit it is a55ended to.
0om5are: ,ane-s turn to play.
,ane and !ary-s turn to play.
,ane who lives near by-s turn to play.
Gue to these characteristics of the Cs(sign it is either e;cluded from the system of
mor5hological formants on the ground that its relations 4ith the unit it forms u5 are
much more loose than the relationshi5s of the inflection 5ro5er 4ith the stem of the
4ord" or the e;istence of the t4o homonymous signs is admitted: the genitive case(
inflection" if it forms u5 a 4ord" and the attri8utive relation syntactic marker" if it
forms u5 a syntactic com8ination.
0.* I&f#ect$o&a# a&( se#ect$o&a# ,!a++at$ca# cate,o!$es
The linguistic status of grammatical categories should 8e determined 4ith regard to
the s5here in 4hich the given grammatical category finds its reali9ation: mor5holo(
gical" syntactical" interlevel >marginal>H on the other hand" grammatical categories are
su8categori9ed into inflectional and selectional in accordance 4ith the 4ay or
character of their reali9ation.
I&f#ect$o&a# categories are in fact form(derivational since they are reali9ed through
the o55ositions of form(derivational grammatical devices. The term 6inflectionalI
renders a more general meaning than the classical one im5lying the inflectional
mor5heme 5ro5er" as inflectional categories e;ist in mor5hology and in synta; as
Se#ect$o&a# grammatical categories are not reali9ed through the o55ositions of
grammatical forms of linguistic units. They are defined as selectional on the ground
that the design of their categorial markers is to indicate the selection of units into
classes. These categories are" in the most" classificational mor5hological categories
4hich are reali9ed in the system of 4ord(8uilding devices @affi;al formsA. !uch
categories are 4idely s5read in synthetic languages.
e.g. .spect in /&rainian and %ussian is a selectional morphological, namely
lexico-morphological category. "t means that there are many verbs in such languages
which do not change in aspect but are selected for aspect. )his selection is mar&ed in
the verb-stems affixally, by prefixes, as a rule. )hus, .spect appears lexico-
grammatical in nature. !ost prefixal verbs in /&rainian and %ussian belong to the
so-called ,,perfective aspect+.
Compare the following same-root verbs but with different prefixes which have
aspectual significance. /&rainian0 123 4563723, 891723, 5:6:723, ;<723, 93723
!electional grammatical categories are ty5ical of synthetic languages 8ecause in
such languages form(derivation and 4ord(8uilding are not inde5endent s5heres of
their Mor5hology 8ut are rather fused and overla55ing mor5hological 5arts of
synthetic mor5hology.
:n languages 4ith analytical tendencies" as in English" 4ord(8uilding is
inde5endent from form(derivation 8ecause of the tendency to e;5ress grammatical
categories a5art from the 4ord(stem itself.
Thus" 4henever considered" grammatical categories should 8e identified in their
linguistic status as 5ertaining to the s5here of grammar and" conse7uently" should 8e
differentiated from the categories of the le;ico(semantic character. Every grammatical
category must 8e 7ualified as mor5hological" syntactical or interlevel @marginalA.
St)(/ 6)est$o&s
#. !5eak on the category of com5arison of ad=ectives as the grammatical category.
3. :s Possessive 0ase a grammatical categoryJ Provide your arguments.
%. !5eak on the category of Gender as the unity of categorial meanings and the
categorial markers.
'. 0omment on the follo4ing statements. Give your e;am5les.
=.> ?!orphological categories can be inflectional and selectional, whereas
syntactical categories are always inflectional, in the wide meaning of the
word. "n addition, there are grammatical categories in English which are
morphologo-syntactical in significance.@
=.A ?)he categories of )ense and !ood are morphologo-syntactical. )hey are
morphological because they find their realisation in the paradigm of the
verb, but on the other hand they are of syntactical value because they
constitute B"C")ECEDD which is the essential category of the predicate.@