You are on page 1of 134

The History of English grammars

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:

o English grammars before 1900 (the end of 16th – 19th):


 The pre-normative grammar (William Bullokar’s “Bref grammar of
English” 1585) - the age of pre-scientific grammar.
 The normative (prescriptive) grammar (middle of 18th –19th century)
stated strict rules of grammatical usage. The most influential
grammar of the period was R. Lowth’s “Short Introduction to
English grammar” 1762. The best prescriptive grammars of this
period, like C.P. Manson’s “English grammar” (1858) and A. Bain’s
“Higher English grammar (1863) paved the way for the first scientific
grammar of English.
 The classical scientific grammar appeared after the description of the
grammatical system, especially that of syntax, had been completed
(the end of 19th century) A need was felt for a scientific explanation of
the grammatical phenomena. The appearance of H.Sweet’s “New
English grammar, Logical and Historical” (1891) met this demand.
H.Sweet is mainly famous for his a system of parts of speech.
o English grammars in the 20th century:

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.

b.1. Structural (descriptive) grammarians began treating the


problems of the structure of English with criticism of traditional
grammar. The representative of this approach is Ch. Fries. Among
American linguists should be mentioned L. Bloomfield, K.L. Pike, and
R. Wells, E. Nida, Z.S. Harris and others. Sentence structure was
represented in terms of immediate constituents analysis. The
generally favorite method of linguistic description became that of
description (distributional analysis and substitution). The difference
between the traditional and structural approaches consists in that the
former did not rely on this method as a part of explicitly formulated
theory.

b.2. Other grammars may be presented by the following ones:

• A new type of grammar, which is known as transformational generative grammar,


followed structural linguistics. Its main aim was to find out mechanisms, which
account for the generation of the variety of sentences of language out of a kernel
sentence. The representative of this grammar is E.Bach “An introduction to
transformational grammas” (1964).
• The representatives of the Generative semantics vigorously opposed the notion of
“deep structure”. They propounded the idea of the semantic level where all the
information relevant for the syntactic structure of a sentence is accumulated. The
representatives of this grammar are Ch. Fillmore “The case for case” (1968), K.
Donnellan “Reference and Definite Descriptions (1971).
• Besides the analysis of the semantic properties of sentences there appeared a new
trend – textual Linguistics. Its aim is to provide a formal device needed for
theoretical description of discourse. M.A.K. Halliday’s work illustrates an attempt
at giving a theoretical basis of textual linguistics. (3)

Literature:
Iofik L.L., Chakhoyan L.P., Pospelova A.G. – Readings in the Theory of English grammar.
– L., 1981, pp5-40

Theoretical grammar as a linguistic discipline

Language and speech


Hierarchy of language levels
Grammar
Methods of linguistic investigation
Approaches

Language and speech

Language is a very complicated system, i.e. a whole, orderly arranged, consisting of


interrelated and interconnected units (elements). In the process of social intercourse
language gets its realization in speech - the actual use of material units governed by the
laws of their interaction.
The system of language is characterized by its substance - the body (inventory) of material
units (sounds, morphemes, words, word-groups) and its structure - interrelations and
interconnections of the units, regularities of the use of these units in the construction of
utterances.
Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech
in the same narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system of
language in the process of intercourse. (1)

Hierarchy of language levels

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.

Methods of linguistic investigation

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)

Nowadays there are the following methods of investigation – observation, description,


transformation, and substitution.
Methods of analysis – distributional, combinatorial, transformational.

Approaches

As there are many methods of investigation, each grammatical phenomenon may be


treated from different sides. That’s why there exist several types of grammars, which use
different approaches to investigation. The main of them are:

• 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

A theoretical description (theoretical grammar) is aimed at : a)


elucidating the fundamentals of the grammatical structure of
language in accordance with the latest developments in
linguistics; b) initiating the students into most important
problems of the grammatical structure of language; c)
developing the students ability to digest scientific information,
from judgments of their own and apply their knowledge to their
teaching practice.
Difference between theoretical and practical grammar
Grammatical description as any other linguistic description may have practical and
theoretical aims. The purpose of a practical description (Practical grammar) is to
supply the student with the knowledge of the grammatical structure of language in
terms of standards of correctness (rules that should be obeyed) as the basis for the
creation of the student’s general grammatical aptitude. But it is one thing to use
language, it is quite another to understand how it works.

A theoretical description (theoretical grammar) is aimed at:

• Elucidating the fundamentals of the grammatical structure of language in


accordance with the latest developments in linguistics;
• Initiating the students into most important problems of the grammatical
structure of language;
• Developing the students’ ability to digest scientific information, form
judgments of their own and apply their knowledge to their teaching practice.

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

Classifications of the phrase

• According to the type of syntactic bond


• According to the head-word
• According to the inner structure
In linguistics there are different classifications of phrases .
The basis of the structural theory of word-groups is the division of phrases into
endocentric (i.e. containing a head-word or centre) and exocentric (i.e. non-headed)
suggested by L.Bloomfield. This classification is based on the criteria of distribution
and substitution. In terms of substitution the head- word of the endocentric groups
functions in the same way as the whole phrase. According to L.Bloomfield “poor
John” is an endocentric phrase because the component “John” can substitute the
word-group “poor John” in the structure “poor John ran away”. Each of the
components of the phrase structure “Tom and Mary ran away" can substitute the
whole group (Tom ran away, Mary ran away), as a result “Tom and Mary” is also an
endocentric phrase.
The members of exocentric phrases cannot be used in the function of either of its
members: John ran, beside John.
Further Bloomfield subdivides endocentric phrases in accordance with the type of
syntactic bond into subordinate and coordinate. The subdivision of exocentric
groups is based on another criterion and gives ground to speak about predicative and
prepositional phrases.
Pr.Barhudarov propounded a classification based on the type of syntactic bond. He
distinguishes three types of phrases;
1/ subordinate (fine weather, to tell the story, nothing of interest) In this type of
phrases subordinate relations exist between the components;
2/ coordinate (books and notebooks,either you or me, young but clever). The relations
of such
phrases are based on coordination;
3/ predicative (the lesson over, for you to read, him singing). Here belong predicative
constructions consisting of nominal and verbal componentsmbetween which the
predicative relations are established.
The subordinate phrases are further classified according to the head-word into noun
phrases, adjective phrases, adverbial phrases and verbal phrases.
Pr.Ivanova, Burlakova and Pocheptsov suggest another classification based onthe
inner structure of a phrase.
According to this criterion all phrases fall into two main groups: headed and non-
headed. Headed phrases are based on subordination. In such phrases one element is
leading, i.e. not subordinated to any other element within the phrase. By the direction
of the relations, i.e. by the position of the subordinateelement with regard to the
leading element, headed phrases are subdivided into regressive ( the subordinate
element precedes the leading element: very nice, real friendship, my book) and
progressive (the subordinate element follows the leading element: to answer the
question, to look guilty, to look at the children). The non-headed phrases are versatile
in structure. Such phrases can be based on coordination, predication or cumulation.
They fall into two big groups: independent and dependent phrases.
Independent phrases are phrases which can be identified as grammatically arranged
groups without any additional context: easy and simple, shouting and singing, [she
nodded]. Dependent phrases require some additional context without which they
cannot be identified as grammatically arranged groups: his own (dog), (send) him a
letter, (to find) the car gone.
Theory of the supra-sentential unit
The object of text linguistics is the text. The term “text” is used in two meanings -
with reference to any utterance consisting of two or more sentences, on the one hand,
and with reference to such units as a story, a novel, a monograph, etc. To avoid
ambiguity O.I.Moskalskaya suggests differentiating two main objects of text
linguistics: macrotext, i.e. a complete speech composition and microtext, i.e. a supra-
phrasal unit, which is a sequence of sentences characterized by semantico-syntactic
cohesion and a communicative purpose. The semantic integrity of a supra-phrasal unit
is reflected in the existence of the microtheme, i.e. the semantic topic. The supra-
phrasal unit is always monothematic. The unity of the theme is revealed in regular
recurrence of the key words connected with the theme and is ensured by the
correlation of the words with one and the same object of reality.
The communicative integrity is expressed by the communicative continuity of its
components. The essence of this phenomenon lies in the fact that each succeeding
sentence in the super-phrasal unit in the communicative aspect depends on the
preceding sentence developing the narration from the unknown information to the
new information.
The structural integrity of the super-phrasal unit is revealed in the existence of
different signals showing that the sentences comprising the super-phrasal unit are
components of the whole. Here belong pronouns, conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs,
articles, etc.
Text linguistics is very much concerned with various means of sentence connection.
The linguists distinguish lexico-grammatical, lexical and syntactical means of
sentence connection. Lexico-grammatical means of connection are represented by
conjunctions, conjunctive adverbs pro-forms, articles, etc. Lexical means of
connection cover different types of repetition, synonyms, words of the same thematic
group, words of abstract meaning (thing, matter, case, stuff, etc). Syntactic means of
connection include word order, parallel constructions, ellipsis.
The above-mentioned means of connection are not used separately. As a rule, they
accompany each other ensuring logical consistency, interdependence of separate facts,
actions, etc.

Theory of the sentence

• The category of predication


The sentence is the smallest unit of speech conveying some thought or emotion, built
up according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a definite
communicative purpose.

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.

The category of predication includes:

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.

According to the purpose of utterance


• The declarative sentence
• The interrogative sentence
• The imperative sentence
• The exclamatory sentence
• The negative sentences
The declarative sentence contains a statement which gives some information about
various events, activities or attitudes , thoughts and feelings. Grammatically
statements are characterized by the subject-predicate structure with the direct order of
words.
The interrogative sentence contains a question, i.e. a request for information wanted
by the speaker from the listener. Interrogative sentences are formed by means of
inversion, the predicate or part of it being placed before the subject. There are 4 types
of questions: general, special, alternative and disjunctive. Some grammarians
/Kobrina, Korneyeva/ single out suggestive or declarative questions. Suggestive
questions preserve the word order of the statements but serve as questions owing to
the rising tone and a question mark in writing, as in “You still don’t believe me, Aunt
Nora? - No, I don’t”.
The imperative sentence expresses inducement, i.e. it urges the listener in the form
of a request or command to perform or not to perform a certain action. Formally
imperative sentences are marked by the predicate verb in the imperative mood, the
reference to the second person and lack of subject.
In addition to the three cardinal communicative types of sentences another type is
recognized in the theory of syntax, namely the exclamatory sentence.The relation of
the exclamatory sentence to the three established types presents some difficulty. Some
scholars (Blokh, Ivanova, Pocheptsov) claim that exclamatory sentences do not
possess a set of qualities that could place them on one and the same level with the
three cardinal communicative types. In their opinion the property of exclamation
should be considered as an accompanying feature of the established types. In other
words, each of the three types of sentences can be represented in two variants - non-
exclamatory and exclamatory. Consequently, the communicative classification of
sentences discriminates between the six sentence-types.
Pr.Ilyish’s approach to the problem of exclamatory sentences is different. He admits
the fact that every sentence - declarative, interrogative and imperative - may be
exclamatory at the same time, i.e. it may convey the speaker’s feelings and be
characterized by emphatic intonation and by an exclamatory mark in writing. On the
other hand, a sentence, in Ilyish’s opinion, may be purely exclamatory, i.e. it may not
belong to any of the three established types, i.e. Oh, for God’s sake! Henry! Pr.Ilyish
suggests using different terms for sentences which are purely exclamatory and thus
constitute a special type and those which add an emotional element to their basic
quality which is either declarative, interrogative or imperative. In this case
classification of sentences according to type of communication includes:
1/declarative (including emotional ones);
2/ interrogative (including emotional ones);
3/ imperative ( including emotional ones);
4/ exclamatory.
Communicative types of sentences fall into affirmative/positive and negative.
Analyzingnegative sentences, Pr.Ilyish raises a problem which can be formulated in
the following way:do negative sentences constitute a special grammatical type and if
so, what are its grammatical features?
The difficulty of the problem lies in the peculiarity of negative expressions in modern
English. The thing is that negation can be expressed grammatically by means of
auxiliary verb and the negative particle “not” and lexically, by means of the negative
pronouns “nobody, nothing, none”, adverbs “nowhere, never” etc. Since in the second
case negative sentences are not characterized by any grammatical peculiarities, they
are not a grammatical type.
Some scholars think that it is essential to differentiate between full and partial
negation (Ivanova, Khaimovich, Rogovskaya). Full negation is predicate negation.
Partial negation can refer to any member of the sentence except the predicate, e.g. Not
a person could be seen around. Further it is claimed that a sentence can be termed
negative only if it contains the predicate negation. In this case it can be opposed to the
affirmative sentence together with which it constitutes the syntactical category of
information (Khaimovich).
According to the structure
• Simple and composite
• Complete and incomplete (elliptical)
• Two-member (double-nucleus) and one-member
(single-nucleus).
From the point of view of their structure sentences can be:
1/simple and composite (compound and complex);
The difference between the simple and the composite sentence lies in the fact that the
former contains only one subject-predicate unit, or one predicative line, and the latter
more than one.
e.g. Opinions differ (one predicative line)
He says that opinions differ (two predicative lines).
Some words should be said about the sentences with homogeneous subjects and
predicates. Some scholars do not single them out into a separate structural type,
regarding them as simple (Ilyish, Iofic, Vinogradov, Bryant). Other grammarians
claim that the presence of homogeneous subjects or predicates influences the status of
the sentence (Peshkovsky, Pospelov, Poutsma). Prof.Blokh states that if we define the
simple sentence as a sentence in which only one predicative line is expressed,
sentences with several predicates referring to one and the same subject can not be
considered as simple. The sentence “I took the child in my arms and held him”
expresses two different predicative lines, since two predicates are separately
connected with the subject. Pr.Blokh treats sentences with homogeneous subjects and
predicates as sentences of composite structure.
2/ complete and incomplete (elliptical);
Complete and incomplete (or elliptical) sentences are distinguished by the presence or
absence of word-forms in the principal positions of two-member sentences. In a
complete sentence both principal positions are filled with word-forms, e.g. “Where do
you live?” In an incomplete sentence one or both of the main positions are not filled
with word-forms but they can easily be filled, e.g. “Ready? Wrong again”.
Pr.Ilyish refers to elliptical sentences with one or more of their parts left out which
can be unambiguously inferred from the context. He applies this term to any sentence
of this kind, no matter what part or parts of it have been left out.
There are several types of elliptical sentences in English: sentences without a word-
form in a subject position (e.g. Looks like rain.), in the subject position and part of the
predicate position (e.g. Going home soon?), in part of the predicate position (e.g. You
seen them?)
3/ two-member (double-nucleus) and one-member (single-nucleus).
These three classifications are based on different approaches to the structural
organization of sentences and reflect its different aspects.
Actual Division
• The theme
• The rheme
The purpose of the Actual Division of the Sentence, called also the “functional
sentence perspective”, is to reveal the correlative significance of the sentence parts
from the point of view of their actual informative role in an utterance.. The main
components of the actual division are the theme and the rheme. The theme expresses
the starting point of the communication, i.e. it denotes an object or a phenomenon
about which something is reported. The rheme expresses the basic informative part of
the communication, its contextually relevant centre. Compare the two sentences: “The
book is on the table” and “There is a book on the table”.
The first sentence is an answer to the question :”Where is the book?” The second
question is an answer to the question “What is their on the table?”
In the first sentence “on the table” is the centre, the focus of information, i.e. . the
rheme, in the second sentence the rheme is “a book”, as it conveys the main
information.
The actual division of the sentence finds its full expression in a concrete context of
speech, therefore it is sometimes referred to as the “contexual” division of the
sentence. It explains the fact that one and the same sentence can be interpreted
differently with reference to its division into the theme and the rheme. For example, if
the teacher asks the group “Who is absent?” and gets the answer “Petrov is absent”,
the theme of the sentence is “is absent” and the rheme is “Petrov”. In a different
situation the division of the sentence can be entirely different. If the sentence “Petrov
is absent” is a reaction to the teacher’s utterance “Today I’m going to ask Petrov”, the
theme here is “Petrov” and the rheme is “is absent”.
Every language has worked out special means of expressing rheme in a sentence. In
English all sentences can be theoretically divided into two groups. In the first group
there are sentences which do not possess special means of expressing the rheme. In
such sentence the theme is expressed by the subject or the subject group while the
rheme is expressed by the predicate or the predicate group, e.g. The forest was calm.
She is fond of music.
The second group include sentences which have some special means of expressing the
rheme. In the English language they are as follows:
.
1. intonation. It can mark any word as a rheme of a sentence either independently or
in combination with any other rheme-identifying means.

2.construction “there is/are” which introduces the subject as its rheme.

3.particles, used to intensify this or that member of the sentence,e.g .

Only John came.


4. negation. Negative particles or words make any part of a sentence a rheme, e.g.

Nobody saw me. I couldn’t face the sight.


5.articles. The definite article usually though not always
accompanies the theme and the indefinite article goes with the
rheme.
6.construction “It is ... that/who” which can make a rheme any part
of a sentence except a predicate, e,g,
It was John who met me in the park.
It was in the part that John met me.
7.word-order,e.g.
He opened the door. There was nobody. In he went.
Not a penny could George find in his pockets.
MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE
WORD

• The morphological system of language


• The morpheme
• The word
• The distributional classification
• Descriptive classification
The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic
structure of words. It follows from this that morphology as part of grammatical theory
faces the two segmental units: the morpheme and the word. But, as we have already
pointed out, the morpheme is not identified otherwise than part of the word; the
functions of the morpheme are effected only as the corresponding constituent
functions of the word as a whole.
For instance, the form of the verbal past tense is built up by means of the dental
grammatical suffix: train-erf [-d]; publish-ed [-t];
meditat-ed [-id].
However, the past tense as a definite type of grammaticalmeaning is expressed not by
the dental morpheme in isolation, but by the verb (i.e. word) taken in the
corresponding form (realized byits morphemic composition); the dental suffix is
immediately related to the stem of the verb and together with the stem constitutes
thetemporal correlation in the paradigmatic system of verbal categories.

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.

The "negative delimitation" immediately connects these functionalwords with the


directly nominative, notional words in the system.Thus, the correlation in question
(which is to be implied by the conventional term "nominative function") unites
functional words notional words, or "half-words" (word-morphemes) with "full
words". On the other hand, nominative correlation reduces the morheine as a type of
segmental signcmc to the role of an element in the composition of the word.

As we see, if the elementary character (indivisibility) of the mornheme (as a


significative unit) is established in the structure of words, the elementary character of
the word (as a nominative unit) is realized in the system of lexicon.

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).

The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it enters the


lexicon of language as its elementary component (i.e. a component indivisible into
smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with other nominative
units the word is used for the formation of the sentence - a unit of information in the
communication process.

In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional 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:

W1 = {[Pr + (R + L)] + Gr};

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.

The allo-emic identification of lingual elements is achieved by means of the so-called


"distributional analysis". The immediate aim of the distributional analysis is to fix and
study the units of language in relation to their textual environments, i.e. the adjoining
elements
in the text.
The environment of a unit may be either "right" or "left", e.g.:un-pardon-able.

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.

We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of


immediate correlation.

On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, "free" morphemes and "bound"


morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves,
they are identified only as
component segmental parts of words. As different from this, free nhenies can build up
words by -themselves, i.e. can be used"freely"'
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;

3) the segments -ing: the gerund and present participle;

4) the segments -er, -est the comparative and superlative degrees


of adjectives and adverbs.

The auxiliary word-morphemes of various standings should be interpreted in this


connection as "semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate elements of
speech strings, they form categorial unities with their notional stem-words.

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.

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 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.

It should be remembered that the phonemic interchange is utterly unproductive in


English as in all the Indo-European languages.If it were productive, it might rationally
be interpreted as a sort of
replacive "infixation" (correlated with "exfixation" of the additive type). As it stands,
however, this type of grammatical means can be understood as a kind of suppletivity
(i.e. partial suppletivity).

On the basis of linear characteristic,"continuous" (or "linear") morphemes and


"discontinuous" morphemes are distinguished.

By the discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i.e. uninterruptedly


expressed, continuous morpheme, a two-element grammatical unit is meant which is
identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an auxiliary word and a
grammatical suffix. These two elements, as it were, embed the notional stem; hence,
they are symbolically represented as follows:

be ... ing - for the continuous verb forms (e.g. is going);

have ... en - for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone);

be ... en - for the passive verb forms (e.g. is taken).

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

• Free and bound morphemes


• Overt and covert morphemes
• Segmental and supra-segmental morphemes
• Additive and replacive morphemes
• Continuous and discontinuous morphemes
We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of
immediate correlation.
Free and bound morphemes:On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, "free"
morphemes and "bound" morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot
form words by themselves, they are identified only as component segmental parts of
words. As different from this, free nhenies can build up words by -themselves, i.e. can
be used "freely"'

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;

3) the segments -ing: the gerund and present participle;

4) the segments -er, -est the comparative and superlative degrees


of adjectives and adverbs.

The auxiliary word-morphemes of various standings should be interpreted in this


connection as "semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate elements of
speech strings, they form categorial unities with their notional stem-words.

Overt and covert morphemes: 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:
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.

It should be remembered that the phonemic interchange is utterly unproductive in


English as in all the Indo-European languages.If it were productive, it might rationally
be interpreted as a sort of replacive "infixation" (correlated with "exfixation" of the
additive type). As it stands, however, this type of grammatical means can be
understood as a kind of suppletivity (i.e. partial suppletivity).
Continuous and discontinuous morphemes:On the basis of linear characteristic,
"continuous" (or "linear") morphemes and "discontinuous" morphemes are
distinguished.

By the discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i.e. uninterruptedly


expressed, continuous morpheme, a two-element grammatical unit is meant which is
identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an auxiliary word and a
grammatical suffix. These two elements, as it were, embed the notional stem; hence,
they are symbolically represented as follows:

be ... ing - for the continuous verb forms (e.g. is going);

have ... en - for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone);

be ... en - for the passive verb forms (e.g. is taken).

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

The grammatical meaning


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.

The grammatical form


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)

MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE


WORD

• The morphological system of language


• The morpheme
• The word
• The distributional classification
• Descriptive classification
The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic
structure of words. It follows from this that morphology as part of grammatical theory
faces the two segmental units: the morpheme and the word. But, as we have already
pointed out, the morpheme is not identified otherwise than part of the word; the
functions of the morpheme are effected only as the corresponding constituent
functions of the word as a whole.
For instance, the form of the verbal past tense is built up by means of the dental
grammatical suffix: train-erf [-d]; publish-ed [-t];
meditat-ed [-id].
However, the past tense as a definite type of grammaticalmeaning is expressed not by
the dental morpheme in isolation, but by the verb (i.e. word) taken in the
corresponding form (realized byits morphemic composition); the dental suffix is
immediately related to the stem of the verb and together with the stem constitutes
thetemporal correlation in the paradigmatic system of verbal categories.

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.

The "negative delimitation" immediately connects these functionalwords with the


directly nominative, notional words in the system.Thus, the correlation in question
(which is to be implied by the conventional term "nominative function") unites
functional words notional words, or "half-words" (word-morphemes) with "full
words". On the other hand, nominative correlation reduces the morheine as a type of
segmental signcmc to the role of an element in the composition of the word.

As we see, if the elementary character (indivisibility) of the mornheme (as a


significative unit) is established in the structure of words, the elementary character of
the word (as a nominative unit) is realized in the system of lexicon.

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).

The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it enters the


lexicon of language as its elementary component (i.e. a component indivisible into
smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with other nominative
units the word is used for the formation of the sentence - a unit of information in the
communication process.

In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional 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:

W1 = {[Pr + (R + L)] + Gr};

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.

The allo-emic identification of lingual elements is achieved by means of the so-called


"distributional analysis". The immediate aim of the distributional analysis is to fix and
study the units of language in relation to their textual environments, i.e. the adjoining
elements
in the text.
The environment of a unit may be either "right" or "left", e.g.:un-pardon-able.

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.

We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of


immediate correlation.

On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, "free" morphemes and "bound"


morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves,
they are identified only as
component segmental parts of words. As different from this, free nhenies can build up
words by -themselves, i.e. can be used"freely"'
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;

3) the segments -ing: the gerund and present participle;

4) the segments -er, -est the comparative and superlative degrees


of adjectives and adverbs.

The auxiliary word-morphemes of various standings should be interpreted in this


connection as "semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate elements of
speech strings, they form categorial unities with their notional stem-words.

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.

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 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.

It should be remembered that the phonemic interchange is utterly unproductive in


English as in all the Indo-European languages.If it were productive, it might rationally
be interpreted as a sort of
replacive "infixation" (correlated with "exfixation" of the additive type). As it stands,
however, this type of grammatical means can be understood as a kind of suppletivity
(i.e. partial suppletivity).

On the basis of linear characteristic,"continuous" (or "linear") morphemes and


"discontinuous" morphemes are distinguished.

By the discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i.e. uninterruptedly


expressed, continuous morpheme, a two-element grammatical unit is meant which is
identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an auxiliary word and a
grammatical suffix. These two elements, as it were, embed the notional stem; hence,
they are symbolically represented as follows:

be ... ing - for the continuous verb forms (e.g. is going);

have ... en - for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone);

be ... en - for the passive verb forms (e.g. is taken).

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

o The grammatical meaning


o The grammatical form
o The grammatical category
o The opposition
o Synthetical forms
o Analytical forms
o Referent relation
Language is capable to express different meanings. Most general meanings rended 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 thegrammatical 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)

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.

As forthe grammatical category itself, it is a system of expressing a generalized


grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms.

The ordered set of grammatical forms expressing a catcgorialfunction constitutes a


paradigm.

The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category arc exposed by the


so-called "grammatical oppositions".

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.

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.

The means employed for building up member-forms of categorial oppositions are


traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms
themselves are classed into synthetical and analytical, too.

Synthetical grammatical forms are 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.

Inner inflexion, or phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in modern Indo-


European languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most ancient
lexemic elements. By this feature, the whole family of Indo-European languages is
identified in linguistics as typologically "inflexional".

Inner inflexion (grammatical "infixation", see above) is used in English in irregular


verbs (the bulk of them belong to the Germanic strong verbs) for the formation of the
past indefinite and past participle; besides, it is used in a few nouns for the formation
of the .Suppletivity, like inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely morphological
type of form. It consists in the grammatical interchange of word roots, and this, as we
pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in principle with inner inflexion (or,
rather, makes the latter into a specific variety of the former).

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 a broader morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognized in


paradigmatic correlations of some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns, as well as
certain nouns of peculiar categorial properties Cf.: can - be able; must-have (to), be
obliged (to); may-be allowed (to); one - some; man - people; news - items of news;
information - pieces
of information; etc.

The shown unproductive synthetical means of English morphologyare outbalanced by


the productive means of affixation (outer inflexion), which amount to grammatical
suffixation (grammatical prefixation could only be observed in the Old English verbal
system).

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;

work +0- worked; small+0-smaller; etc.

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.

For instance, the category of number is organically connectedwith 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 is
rendered by the verbal number is 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 harbour. -
The ships are in the harbour.

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.

Another essential division of grammatical categories is based on the changeability


factor of the exposed feature. Namely, the feature of the referent expressed by the
category can be either constant (unchangeable, 'derivational"), or variable
(changeable, "demutative").

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/.:

It (non-human): mountain, city, forest, cat, bee, etc.


He (malehuman): man, father, husband, uncle, etc.
She (female human): woman, lady, mother, girl, etc.
He or she (common human): person, parent, child, cousin, etc.
Variable features categories can be exemplified by the substantivenumber (singular -
plural) or the degrees of comparison(positive - comparative - superlative).

Constant feature categories reflect the static classifications of phenomena, while


variable feature categories expose various connections between phenomena. Some
marginal categorial forms may acquire intermediary status, being located in-between
the corresponding categorial poles, for instance, the nouns singularia tantum and
pluralia tantum present a case of hybrid variable-constant formations, since their
variable feature of number has become "rigid", or "lexicalized". C/'.: news, advice,
progress; people, police; bellows, tongs; colours, otters; etc.

In distinction to these, the gender word-building pairs should be considered as a clear


example of hybrid constant-variable formations, since their constant feature of gender
has acquired some changeability properties, i.e. has become to a certain extent
"grammaticalized". Cf:. actor - across, author - authoress, lion - lioness, etc.

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

MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE


WORD

• The morphological system of language


• The morpheme
• The word
• The distributional classification
• Descriptive classification
The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic
structure of words. It follows from this that morphology as part of grammatical theory
faces the two segmental units: the morpheme and the word. But, as we have already
pointed out, the morpheme is not identified otherwise than part of the word; the
functions of the morpheme are effected only as the corresponding constituent
functions of the word as a whole.
For instance, the form of the verbal past tense is built up by means of the dental
grammatical suffix: train-erf [-d]; publish-ed [-t];
meditat-ed [-id].
However, the past tense as a definite type of grammaticalmeaning is expressed not by
the dental morpheme in isolation, but by the verb (i.e. word) taken in the
corresponding form (realized byits morphemic composition); the dental suffix is
immediately related to the stem of the verb and together with the stem constitutes
thetemporal correlation in the paradigmatic system of verbal categories.

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.

The "negative delimitation" immediately connects these functionalwords with the


directly nominative, notional words in the system.Thus, the correlation in question
(which is to be implied by the conventional term "nominative function") unites
functional words notional words, or "half-words" (word-morphemes) with "full
words". On the other hand, nominative correlation reduces the morheine as a type of
segmental signcmc to the role of an element in the composition of the word.

As we see, if the elementary character (indivisibility) of the mornheme (as a


significative unit) is established in the structure of words, the elementary character of
the word (as a nominative unit) is realized in the system of lexicon.

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).

The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it enters the


lexicon of language as its elementary component (i.e. a component indivisible into
smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with other nominative
units the word is used for the formation of the sentence - a unit of information in the
communication process.

In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional 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:

W1 = {[Pr + (R + L)] + Gr};

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.

The allo-emic identification of lingual elements is achieved by means of the so-called


"distributional analysis". The immediate aim of the distributional analysis is to fix and
study the units of language in relation to their textual environments, i.e. the adjoining
elements
in the text.
The environment of a unit may be either "right" or "left", e.g.:un-pardon-able.

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.

We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of


immediate correlation.

On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, "free" morphemes and "bound"


morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves,
they are identified only as
component segmental parts of words. As different from this, free nhenies can build up
words by -themselves, i.e. can be used"freely"'
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;

3) the segments -ing: the gerund and present participle;

4) the segments -er, -est the comparative and superlative degrees


of adjectives and adverbs.

The auxiliary word-morphemes of various standings should be interpreted in this


connection as "semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate elements of
speech strings, they form categorial unities with their notional stem-words.

THE NOUN
Classification of nouns
Number
Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum
Collective Nouns and Nouns of Multitude
Case
Mutual relartions of number and case

Noun - is characterised by the following features : semantically - it has the meaning of


substance, morphologically - a) the category of number, case and gender, b) certain
word-building suffixes, syntactically - a)performs the function of a subject, object,
predicative, attribute, adverbial modifier, b) has specific combinability.

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.

Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum


We must also consider here two types of nouns differing fromall others in the way of
number: they have not got the usual two number forms, but only one form. The nouns
which have only a plural and no singular are usually termed "pluralia tantum" (which
is the Latin for "plural only"), and those which have only a singular and no plural are
termed "singularia tantum" (the Latinfor "singular only").
Among the pluralia tantum are the nouns trousers, scissors, tongs, pincers, breeches;
environs, outskirts, dregs. As is obvious from these examples, they include nouns of
two types. On the one hand, there are the nouns which denote material objects
consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors, etc.); on the other, there are thosewhich
denote a more or less indefinite plurality (e. g. environs'areas surrounding some place
on all sides'; dregs 'various smallthings remaining at the bottom of a vessel after the
liquid has been poured out of it', etc.). If we compare the English pluralia tantum with
the Russian, we shall find that in some cases they correspond to each other (e. g.,
trousers — брюки, scissors — ножницы, environs — окрестности, etc.), while in
others they do not (деньги — money, etc.). This seems to depend on a different view of the
objects in question reflected by the English and the Russian language respectively.
The reason why a given object is denoted by a plurale tantum noun in this or that
language is not always quite clear.
Close to this group of pluralia tantum nouns are also some names; of sciences, e. g.
mathematics, physics, phonetics, also politics, and some names of diseases, e. g.
measles, mumps, rickets. The reason for this seems to be that, for example,
mathematics embrace a wholeseries of various scientific disciplines, and measles are
accompanied by the appearance of a number of separate inflamed spots on the skin
(rash). However, the reasons are less obvious in the case of phonetics, for instance.
Now, it is typical of English that some of these pluralia tantum may, as it were, cease
to be plural. Theymay occasionally, or even regularly, be accompanied by the
indefinite article, and if they are the subject of a sentence the predicateverb may stand
in the singular.
This way of treating pluralia tantum, which would be unthinkable in Russian, is of
course connected with the structure of English as a whole.
The possibility of treating a plural form as if it were singular is also seen in the use of
the phrase the United Nations, which may, when it is the subject of a sentence, have
the predicate verb in the singular, e. g. the United Nations is a world organization.
Examples of a phrase including a noun in the plural being modified by a pronoun in
the singular and thus shown to be apprehended as a singular are by no means rare.
Here are a few typical examples. / myself still wonder at that six weeks of calm
madness. (CARY) The unity of the period of time, measured in the usual units of
months, weeks, and days, is thus brought out very clearly. Bessie, daring that twenty-
four hours, had spent a nightwith Alice and a day with Muriel... (CARY) The unity of the
space of time referred to is even more obvious in this example than in the preceding
one; twenty-four hours is a commonly received unit of measurement of time (in
Russian this would be expressed by a single noun—сутки). The variant those twenty-
four hours would be inappropriate here, as it would imply that the statement wasreferring to
every single hour of the twenty-four taken separately.
This way of showing the unity of a certain quantity of space or time by modifying the
phrase in question by a pronoun in the singular, and also (if the phrase be the subject
of the sentence) by using the predicate verb in the singular, appears to be a very
common thing in present-day English.
The direct opposite of pluralia tantum are the singularia tantum, i. e. the nouns which
have no plural form. Among these wemust first note some nouns denoting material
substance, such as milk, butter, quicksilver, etc., and also names of abstract notions,such
as peace, usefulness, incongruity, etc. Nouns of this kind express notions which are,
strictly speaking, outside the sphere of number: e. g. milk, or fluency. But in the
morphological and syntactical system of the English language a noun cannot stand
outside the category of number. If the noun is the subject of a sentence, the predicate
verb (if it is in the present tense) will have to be either singular or plural. With the
nouns just mentioned the predicate verb is always singular. This is practically the only
externalsign (alongside of the absence of a plural inflection in the noun itself) which
definitely shows the noun to be singular.
Some nouns denoting substance, or material, may have a plural form, if they are used
to denote either an object made of the material or a special kind of substance, or an
object exhibiting the quality denoted by the noun. Thus, the noun wine, as well as the
noun milk, denotes a certain substance, but it has a plural form wines used to denote several
special kinds of wine. The noun iron, as well as the noun quicksilver, denotes a metal,
but it may be used in theplural if it denotes several objects made of that metal
(утюги).The noun beauty, as well as the noun ugliness, denotes a certainquality
presented as an object, but it may be used in the plural to denote objects exhibiting
that quality, e. g. the beauties of nature;His daughters were all beauties. Many more
examples of a similarkind might be found. Accordingly, the nouns wine, iron, and
beautycannot be called singularia tantum, although in their chief application they no
more admit of a plural form than milk, quicksilver,or ugliness.

Collective Nouns and Nouns of Multitude


Certain nouns denoting groups of human beings (family, government, party, clergy,
etc.) and also of animals (cattle, poultry, etc.) can be used in two different ways:
either they are taken to denote the group as a whole, and in that case they are treated
as singulars, and usually termed "collective nouns" (in a restricted sense of the term);
or else they are taken to denote the group as consisting of a certain number of
individual human beings (or animals), and in that case they are usually termed "nouns
of multitude".The difference between the two applications of such nouns may be
briefly exemplified by a pair of examples: My family is small and My family are good
speakers It is quite obvious here that inthe one sentence the characteristic "small"
applies to the family as a whole, while in the other sentence the characteristic "good
speakers" applies to every single member of the family ("everyone of them is a good
speaker" is what is meant, but certainly not "everyone of them is small"). The same
consideration would also apply to such sentences as The cattle were grazing in the
field, itis also quite lossible to say, Many cattle were grazing in the field, where the use of many
(not much) clearly shows that cattle is apprehended as a plural.
The following bit of dialogue is curious, as the noun board which is the subject of
the first sentence, is here connected with a predicate verb in the singular, but is
replaced by a plural pronoun in the second sentence: "Does the Board know of this?"
"Yes," said John, "they fully approve the scheme." (A. WILSON)
With the noun people the process seems to have gone further than with any other noun
of this kind. There is, on the one hand, the noun people, singular, with its plural
peoples (meaning 'nations'), and there is, on the other hand, the noun people
apprehended asa plural (There were fifty people in the hall) and serving as a kindof
plural to the noun person (There was only one person in the hall). People can of course
be modified by the words many and few and by cardinal numerals (twenty people).
In the following sentence the word people is even modified by the phrase attribute
one or two, although the numeral one in itself could not possibly be an attribute to the
noun people in this sense:the phrase One or two people looked at him curiously, but
no one said anything. (A. WILSON) Strictly speaking we might expect one man or
two people, however, this variant does not appear to be used anywhere. The perfect
possibility of the phrase two people appears to be sufficient ground for making the
phrase one or two people possible as well.
Recently a peculiar view of the category of number was put forward by A. Isachenko.
According to this. view, the essential meaning of the category (in nouns) is not that of
quantity, but of discreteness (расчлененность). The plural, in this view, expresses
fundamentally the notion of something consisting of distinguishable parts, and the
meaning of quantity in the usual sense would then appear to be a result of combining
the fundamental meaning of the category as such with the lexical meaning of the noun
used in the plural. Thus, in scissors the category of plural number, which, in
Isachenko's view, expresses discreteness, combines with the lexical meaning of the
noun, which denotes an object consisting of two halves, whereas in houses the same
meaning of the grammatical category combines with the lexical meaning of the noun,
which denotes separate objects- not coalescing together, as in the case of scissors.
Accordingly, the resulting meaning is that of anumber of separate objects, i. e. the
plural number in the usual sense of the term. These views put forward by A.
Isachenko throw a new light on the problem of number in nouns and certainly deserve
close attention. It is yet too early to say whether they can provide a final solution to
the complex problem of number in nouns.
CASE
Case is the category of noun expressing relation between the thing denoted by the
noun and other things.
The problem of case in Modern English nouns is one of the most vexed problems in
English grammar. This can be seen from the fact that views on the subject differ
widely. The most usual view is that English nouns have two cases: a common case (e.
g. father) and a genitive (or possessive) case (e. g. father's). Side by side with this
view there are a number of other views, which can be roughly classified into two main
groups:
(1) the number of cases in English is more than two,
(2) there are no cases at all in English nouns.
The first of these can again be subdivided into the views that the number of cases in
English nouns is three, or four, or five, or even an indefinite quantity. Among those
who hold that there are no cases in English nouns there is again a variety of opinions
as to the relations between the forms father and father's, etc.Before embarking on a
detailed study of the whole problem it is advisable to take a look at the essence of the
notion of case. It is more than likely that part, at least, of the discussions and
misunderstandings are due to a difference in the interpretation of case as a
grammatical category. It seems therefore necessary to give as clear and unambiguous
a definition of case as we can. Case is the category of a noun expressing relations
between the thing denoted by the noun and other things, or properties, or actions, and
manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This sign is almostalways an
inflection, and it may also be a "zero" sign, i. e. The absence of any sign шау be
significant as distinguishing one particular case from another. It is obvious that the
minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence
оftwo correlated elements at least is needed to establish a category (In a similar way,
to establish the category of tense in verbs, at least two tenses are needed, to establish
the category of mood two moods, etc.). Thus case is part of the morphological system
of a language.Approaching the problem of case in English nouns from this angle, we
will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means. It will be
therefore impossible to accept the theories of those who hold that case may also be
expressed by prepositions (i. e. by the phrase "preposition + noun") or by word order.
Such views have indeed been propounded by some scholars, mainly Germans. Thus, it
is the view of Max Deutschbein that Modern English nouns have four cases, viz.
nominative, genitive, dative and accusative, of which the genitive can be -expressed
by the -s inflection and by the preposition of, the dative by the preposition to and also
by word order, and the accusative is stinguished from the dative by word order alone.
It should be recognized that once we admit prepositions, or word order, or indeed any
non-morphological means of expressing case, the number of cases is bound to grow
indefinitely. Thus, if we admit that of the pen is a genitive case, and to the pen a
dative case, there would seem no reason to deny that with the pen is an instrumental
case, in the pen a locative case, etc., etc. Thus the number of cases in Modern English
nouns would become indefinitely large. This indeed is the conclusion Academician I.
I. Meshchaninov arrived at. That view would mean abandoning all idea of
morphology and confusing forms of a word with phenomena of a completely different
kind. Thus, it seems obvious that the numberof cases in Modern English nouns cannot
be more than two (father and father's). The latter form, father's, might be allowed to
retain its traditional name of genitive case, while the former (father)may be termed
common case. Of course it must be borne in mind that the possibility of forming the
genitive is mainly limited to a certain class of English nouns, viz. those which denote
living beings (my father's room, George's sister, the clog's head) and a few others,
notably those denoting units of time (a week's absence, thisyear's elections), and also
some substantivized adverbs (to-day's newspaper, yesterday's news, etc.).
It should be noted, however, that this limitation does not appear be too strict and there
even seems to be some tendency at work to use the -'s-forms more extensively. Thus,
we can come across such phrases as, a work's popularity, the engine's overhaul life,
which certainly are not stock phrases, like at his fingers' ends, or at the water's edge,
but freely formed phrases, and they would seemto prove that it is not absolutely necessary
for a noun to denote aliving being in order to be capable of having an -'s-form. The
more exact limits of this possibility have yet to be made out.
The essential meaning of this case would seem to require an exact definition. The
result of some recent investigations into the nature of the -'s form shows that its
meaning is that of possessivity in a wide sense of the term. Alongside of phrases like
my father's room, the young man's friends, our master's arrival, etc., we also find such
examples as nothing could console Mrs Birch forher daughter" s loss, where the
implied meaning of course is, 'MrsBirch lost her daughter'. The real relation between the
notionsexpressed by the two nouns may thus depend on the lexical meaning of these
nouns, whereas the form in -'s merely denotes thepossessive relation.
Up to now we have seen the form in -'s as a genitive case, and in so far we have stuck
to the conception of a two-case system in Modern English nouns.
There are, however, certain phenomena which give rise to doubts about the existence
of such a system — doubts, that is, about the form in -'s being a case form at all. We
will now consider some of these phenomena. In the first place, there are the
expressions of the type Smith and Brown s office. This certainly means 'the
officebelonging to both Smith and Brown'. Not only Brown, whose name is
immediately connected with the -'s, but also Smith, whose name stands somewhat
apart from it, is included in the possessive relation. Thus we may say that the -'s
refers, not to Brown alone, butto the whole group Smith and Brown. An example of a
somewhat different kind may be seen in the expression the Chancellor of
theExchequer's speech, or the Oxford professor of poetry's lecture.
These expressions certainly mean, respectively, 'the speech of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer', and 'the lecture of the Oxford professor of poetry. Thus, the -'s belongs to
the groups the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Oxford professor of poetry. The same
of course applies to the groups the Duke of Edinburgh's speech, the King of England's
residence, and many others.
A further step away from the category of case is taken in the groups somebody else's
child, nobody else's business, etc. Here the word immediately preceding the -'s is an
adverb which could not by itself stand in the genitive case (there is an obvious
difference between somebody else's child and, e. g., to-day's news, or yesterday's
paper). The -'s belongs here to the group somebody else as a whole. It cannot, then, be an
inflection making an integral part of a word: it is here part of a whole phrase, and,
accordingly, a syntactical, not a morphological, element.
Formations of this kind are by no means rare, especially in colloquial style. Thus, in
the following sentence the -'s is joined on to a phrase consisting of a noun and a
prepositional phrase serving as attribute to it: This girl in. my class's mother took us
[to the movies] (SALINGER), which of course is equivalent to the mother,of this girl
(who is) in my class. It is only the lexical meaning ofthe words, and in the first place the
impossibility of the phrase my class's mother, that makes the syntactical connection
clear.Compare also: . . .and constantly aimed to suggest a man of the world's outlook
and sophistication... (The Pelican Guide to EnglishLiterature)The -'s is still farther away
from its status as an inflection insuch sentences as the following: The blonde I had
been dancingwith's name was Bernice something — Crabs or Krebs. (SALINGER);
Inever knew the woman who laced too tightly's name was Mathson. (FORSTER) This
is the type usually illustrated by Sweet's famous example,the man I saw yesterday's
son, that is, the type "noun + attributive clause + -'s".Let us have a look at J. D. Salinger's
sentence. It is obvious that the -'s belongs to the whole group, the blonde I had been
dancing with (it is her name he is talking about). It need hardly be emphasized that the
preposition with cannot, by itself, be in the genitive case. Such constructions may not
be frequent but they do occur and they are perfectly intelligible, which means that
they fit into the pattern of the language.All this seems to prove definitely that in the
English languageof to-day the -'s can no longer be described as a case inflection
innouns without, at least, many reservations. This subject has been variously treated
and interpreted by a number of scholars, both in this country and elsewhere.
The following views have been put forward:
(1) when the -'s belongs to a noun it is still the genitive ending, and when it belongs to
a phrase (including the phrase "noun + attributive clause") it tends to become a
syntactical element, viz, a postposition;
(2) since the -s can belong to a phrase (as described above) it is no longer a case
inflection even when itbelongs to a single noun;
(3) the -'s when belonging to a noun, no longer expresses a case, but a new
grammatical category, viz. the category of "possession", for example, the possessive
form father'sexists in contradistinction to the non-possessive form father.
An essential argument in favour of this view is, that both the form without -'s and the
form with -'s can perform the same syntactic functions; for instance, they can both be
subject of the sentence (cf. My father was a happy man and My father's was a happy
life). Itshould be noted that the views listed under (2) and (3) lead to the conclusion
that there are no eases in the Modern English noun. Though the question is still under
discussion, and a final agreement on it may have to wait some time, we must
recognize that there is much to be said in favour of this view. We will, then, conclude
the discussion by saying that apparently the original case system in the English nouns,
which has undergone a systematic reduction ever since the earliest times in the history
of the language, is at presentextinct, and the only case ending to survive in the modern
language has dveloped into an element of a different character —possibly a particle
denoting possession.Different views have also been expressed concerning the scope of
meaning of the -'s. Besides phrases implying possession in the strict sense of the term
(my father's books, etc.), the -'s is also found inother contexts, such as my father's
friends, my father's arrival, my father's willingness, etc. The question now arises how wide
this scope may be. From this point of view it has been customary to point out that the
relation expressed by the collocation "noun + + -'s + noun" is often a subjective
relation, as in my father's arrival: my father's expresses the subject of the action, cf. my
father arrives. This would then correspond to the so-called subjective genitive of inflected
languages, such as Russian or Latin. It would, however, not do to say that the noun
having the -'s could never indicate the object of the action: cf. the example Doughty's
famoustrial and execution, where the implied meaning of course is, 'Doughty was tried and
executed'. This would correspond to the so-called objective genitive of inflected
languages. Now, though this particular use would seem to be far less frequent than the
subjective, it is by no means impossible or anomalous. Thus it would not be correct to
formulate the meaning of the -'s in a way that wouldexclude the possible objective
applications of the -'s-formation.My father was a happy man and My father's was a
happy life). It should be noted that the views listed under (2) and (3) lead to the
conclusion that there are no cases in the Modern English noun. ' Though the question
is still under discussion, and a final agreement on it may have to wait some time, we
must recognize that there is much to be said in favour of this view. We will, then,
conclude the discussion by saying that apparently the original case system in the
English nouns, which has undergone a systematic reduction ever since the earliest
times in the history of the language, is at present extinct, and the only case ending to
survive in the modern language has dveloped into an element of a different character
— possibly a particle denoting possession.
Parallel use of the -'s-form and the preposition of is seen in the following example: In
the light of this it was Lyman's belief and it is mine — that it is a man's duty and the
duty of his friends to see to it that his exit from this world, at least, shall be made with
all possible dignity. (TAYLOR)
It should also be noted in this connection that, if both the subject of an action and its
object are mentioned, the former is expressed by a noun .with -'s preceding the name
of the action, and the latter by an o/-phrase following it, as in Coleridge's praise of
Shakespeare, etc. The same of course applies to the phrases in which the object is not a
living being, as in Einstein's theory ofrelativity, or Shakespeare's treatment of history.

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)

• Morphological features. The verbals have special morpheme distinguishing


them from the finite verbs. They are not lexical or lexico-grammatical
morphemes because they do not characterize all the words of the verb lexeme.
Gerund .The -ing morpheme differs from grammatical morphemes as well.
Grammatical morphemes are used to form grammatical opposemes. Cf.: asks
-asked -will ask. The suffix -ing in gerund is not used to form any grammatical
opposemes but to oppose all the gerunds to all the non-gerunds. Participle.
Two additional remark are necessary to mention speaking about the
homonymous -ing suffix of the participle: 1) The participle -ing morpheme
does not unite all the system of the paticiple. The so-called participle II
(written, asked) has different suffixes. 2) The -ing suffix of the participle is a
grammatical morpheme of the finite verb as well. Infinitive. ‘To’ is a word-
morpheme because it has only the form of a separate word, but not the content,
and its functions as part of a word. It is not used as a grammatical morpheme.
Like other word-morphemes, to can be separated from the rest of the analytical
word by some other word or words, in which case the linguists speak about the
split infinitive e.g.: In order to fully appreciate .... .
• Grammatical categories.

The verbals do not possess many of the categories of the finite verb , such as number,
person, tense, mood.

Infinitive. Here is a table presenting the paradigms of the infinitive:


time-correlation and Active voice Passive voice
aspect

non-perfect, to write to be written

non-continuous

non-perfect, to be writing -

continuous

perfect, to have written to have been written

non-continuous

perfect, to have been writing -

continuous

Gerund. The paradigm of the Gerund:

time correlation Active voice Passive voice

non-perfect writing being written

perfect having written having been written

Participle. The paradigm of the Participle I:

time correlation Active voice Passive voice

non-perfect writing being written

perfect having written having been written

Participle II has no paradigm.


Combinability
Their is a duality in their combinabiltiy, they form connections with
adverbs , nouns, pronouns (denoting objects of action) like finite verbs,
and with finite verbs like nouns and adverbs.

Gerund like a noun may be preceded by:

A. a preposition. E.G.: They went on talking.


B. a possessive pronoun. E.g.: One could see that without his even
speaking. Sir Pitt Crawley was not aware of Becky’s having married
Rawdon.

Like a verb may go together with:

A. adverbs, e.g.: You may rely on my setting matters right.


B. nouns , e.g.: I was always afraid of losing his goodwill.
C. pronouns, denoting an object, e.g: Excuse my leaving you in the dark a
moment.

The participle like a finite verb may be connected with:

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 adjective it is regularly connected with nouns: E.g.: My forgotten


friend ... Marlow was dead and buried.

Like an adverb it is connected with verbs, e.g.: The effect of her words was
terrifying.

Infinitive. Like a verb the infinitive is associated with :

A. adverbs, e.g. to speak fluently.


B. with nouns denoting the doer or the object of the action. e.g.: We expected
you to bring the book.

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.

A. the subject ,e.g.:. To doubt, under the circumstances, is almost to insult


B. the predicative, e.g.: My intention is to get into parliament. part of a
compound verbal predicate, e.g.: We must not leave him by himself any
longer an object Leila had learned to dance at boarding school.
C. a part of a complex object , e.g.: I never saw you act this way before.
attribute , e.g.:I have not had time to examine this room yet.
D. an adverbial modifier a) purpose, b) of result, c) comparison, e.g.: a) To
pacify her, I held the window ajar a few seconds b) I was too busy to
see anyone. C) She moved her hand to his lips as if to stop him. D) She
can driven away, never to revisit this place.

Participle:

A. Attribute, e.g.: The gate-keeper surveyed the retreating vehicle.


B. Adverbial modifier a) of time, b) of cause, c) of manner, d) of attendant
circumstances, e) of comparison e.g.: a) Having closed the room on him,
Isabel awaited a little . absorbed in her own thoughts . B)Having been a
little in that line myself, I understood it. C) She balanced herself on the
curbstone and began to walk carefully, setting heels to toe, heel to toe,
and counting her steps. D) Gwendolen was silent, again looking at her
hands. E) This was said as if thinking aloud. predicative, e.g.: The
whole damned day had been humiliating. part of a compound verbal
predicate, e.g.: The horse was seen descending the hill. part of a
complex object , e.g.: I heard my wife coming. parenthesis, e.g.:
Generally speaking, I don’t like boys.

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. Subject - Talking mends no holes.


B. Predicative - The only remedy for such a headache as mine is going to
bed.
C. Part of a compound verbal predicate - Joseph could not help admiring
the man.
D. Object - I simply love riding .
E. Attribute - She had a feeling of having been worsted.
F. Adverbial modifier a) of time ( after, before, on, in, at) , b) of manner
(by, in), c) of attendant circumstances (without), d) of purpose (for), of
condition (without), f) of cause (for fear of, for, owing to), g) of
concession (in spite of)

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:

• 1. Tense (can – could, may –might, have – had, be- was/were).


• 2.Mood (can, may)
A. Indicative
Can - He can do it.
May – He may be doing it.
B. Subjunctive
Can – He could do it if he tried.
May – He might have done it.
• 3. Number (be, have)

All of these share a number of important characteristics:


1. They occupy the first place in a complex verb phrase.
2. They do not co-occur.
3. They are used as operators in the formation of, for example, questions, negatives etc.
4. They share important semantic similarities.
For the moment, we will concentrate on this basic group and relegate those auxiliaries,
which sometimes "misbehave" to the group of marginal modals. What primary semantic
characteristics do the modal auxiliaries in the basic group share? With the choice of a pure
tense form the speaker expresses the factual elements of a situation; with aspect the speaker
provides an interpretation of the temporal features of an action. Modal auxiliaries allow
the speaker to express an attitude to the non-factual and non-temporal elements of the
situation. This means (s)he can introduce elements of possibility, necessity, desirability,
morality, doubt, certainty, etc. Most modals have more than one meaning. For example,
may is sometimes used to express permission, and sometimes to express possibility. Usually
the meaning is clear from the situation or context.
Must

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.

Mustn't and don't have to

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

He may come may imply the granting of permission, or a prediction. In contemporary


English it is much more likely to be the latter. Nonetheless, if we contrast He can come and
He may come it becomes clear that the meanings may be paraphrased // is possible for him
to come and / suppose it is possible that he will come. The difference is apparent; the may
example involves the speaker explicitly in the possibility. It is this which is the defining
contrast between may and can — the fact that the speaker is explicitly involved in the
"creation" of the possibility. We may paraphrase may as:
May = If I have anything to do with it, it is possible that...
This paraphrase is cumbersome, but does, as we shall see, reflect an important distinction
common to several definitions within the group of modal auxiliaries. The definition of
might is similar, with the additional idea of remoteness.

Will, Would, Shall, Should

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

At first sight there is little to link usages such as:


/ wouldn't think so.
I would if I could.
We would always go there picnicking, when I was a child.
“Would” is clearly related to “will “and the relationship is by now a familiar one —
would is "a remote form" of will. This is clearly the case with examples such as:
Would you open the window please ? (remoteness of relationship)
/ will if I can. I would if I could, (remoteness of likelihood/possibility).
Like the other modal auxiliaries, would involves a non-factual interpretation of the
situation. As we have seen, will expresses a state which is psychologically immediate
for the speaker, and arises out of a perception of the present circumstances. We might
then expect would to express an event, which is psychologically remote for the
speaker. This is exactly the use of would. This emerges clearly in examples such as /
would be surprised, or / would never have expected that to happen. The distinction
between the factual quality of the remote form, and the non-factuality of would is
further demonstrated by contrasts such as:
/ didn't realize he was here.
I didn't realize he would be here.
Was suggests my knowledge was wrong, whereas would be suggests my imagination
or judgment of the situation was inaccurate. It is the psychological element in the
semantic characteristics of would which is the source of this distinction.
The meaning of would is clear; it has the association of "inevitability" which we saw
with will but with an important difference; will is based on two situations — one
which is psychologically immediate for the speaker at the moment of speaking, and
the second, the event or state which is seen as "inevitably" linked. In the case of
would, the first perceived state is, at the moment of speaking, remote from the
speaker, in a non-factual way. This cumbersome expression is seen to be equivalent to
the fact that the speaker, at the moment of speaking, conceptualises the action as
hypothetical, i.e. non-factually remote.
Would = Given the (hypothetical) situation which I perceive at the moment of
speaking, the action described is also inevitably true.
English does not possess a "conditional tense". It is, however, common for would to
occur in sentences containing conditionals and not unusual for it to be presented in
textbooks under headings such as "the conditional". Once more it is necessary to
remind ourselvesof the Principle of General Use. Would is not "the conditional". It
does, however, frequently co-occur with conditions. It is easy to see why this is so.
Would is associated with events which are "hypothetical" for the speaker; in this
context "hypothetical" means "true in certain circumstances, not those currently
prevailing". This immediately suggests the question In what circumstances? The
speaker, anticipating this implied question, frequently makes those circumstances
explicit in the form of a clause beginning with such words as when, if, or unless. The
fundamental meaning of would is such that it naturally occurs in sentences containing
explicit conditions. Examples such as:
/ would expect him to be very pleased to see you.
I would expect so.

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:

(1) Should it rain, the game will be postponed until Saturday.


(2) It doesn't seem fair that he should get away without paying.
It's funny you should say that.
(3) How should I know!
(4) It's about 5 miles, I should think.
It must be about quarter past four, I should say.
(5) If you should bump into him, please tell him I'm looking for him.
If one green bottle should accidentally fall.... (a popular song).
(6) We were just talking about it when who should come along but Sandra.
(7) You should have taken your coat.
I don't think he should have done that.
It is immediately clear than any attempt to identify the primary semantic
characteristics of all uses of should is doomed to failure. Some of these examples at
least must be "a different should". This should not surprise us. Such closed-class
grammatical items as there and one evidently have more than one use. (There is both
an adverb of place, and, quite distinctly, a pronoun). The contention of this book is not
that the language is totally regular, but that within the verb the majority of forms are
part of a basic and completely regular structure. Returning to should, we expect it to
form some kind of relationship with would and will/shall. We might expect should:
With this in mind it is easy to see why I don't think you ought to do that is closer in
meaning to You shouldn't do that than to You oughtn't to do that. The sentence
containing should involves the speaker's judgment through the modal auxiliary; when
ought to is used, the speaker can introduce personal judgment through the use of a
form such as / think.

(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:

You have to be careful these days, don't you ?


I'm afraid they had to do it, hadn't they.

(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.

Occasionally ought to and have to can be combined:

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.

From a classroom point of view it is certainly easier to treat need to as an ordinary


verb, and introduce the operator (modal auxiliary) use of need as
a lexical item.

Syntactic characteristics

• Combinability – Modal verbs mainly combine with an infinitive


• Functions – Modal verbs perform a function of a part of a compound modal
predicate, e.g.: He may go there tomorrow.

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.

• Inner inflexion, or phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in modern Indo-


European languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most
ancient lexemic elements. By this feature, the whole family of Indo-European
languages is identified in linguistics as typologically "inflexional". Inner inflexion is
used in English in irregular verbs (the bulk of them belong to the Germanic strong
verbs) for the formation of the past indefinite and past participle; besides, it is used
in a few nouns for the formation of the .
• Suppletivity, like inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely morphological type of
form. It consists in the grammatical interchange of word roots, and this, as we
pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in principle with inner inflexion (or,
rather, makes the latter into a specific variety of the former). 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 a broader morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognized in
paradigmatic correlations of some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns, as well as
certain nouns of peculiar categorical properties Cf.: can - be able; must-have (to), be
obliged (to); may-be allowed (to); one - some; man - people; news - items of news;
information – pieces of information; etc. The shown unproductive synthetical means
of English morphology are outbalanced by the productive means of affixation (outer
inflexion), which amount to grammatical suffixation (grammatical prefixation could
only be observed in the Old English verbal system).
• Outer inflexion – is the meaningful replacement of phonemes within one and the
same morpheme. 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
these forms, the initial paradigmatic form of each opposition is distinguished by a
zero suffix. Cf.:boy+0 - boys; go + 0 -goes; work +0 - worked; small+0 - smaller; etc.

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).

Meaning and form connection

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:

o Combination “shall/will + verb”, e.g.: He will open the door.

o Continuous form, e.g.: I’m leaving tomorrow.


o Simple form, e.g.: The train leaves at 5 o’clock.
o Combination with modal verbs and modal expressions, e.g.: He can come
anytime.
o Combination with “to be going to do something”, e.g.: It’s going to rain.

Peculiarity of the grammatical categories


The grammatical category is reveled on the basis of opposition of forma and meanings. Not
every relation between grammatical forms presents a grammatical category, Cf.: to see –
seeing - seen. These are the forms of one and the same word ‘see’, but there is no any
opposition. (1)
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.

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:

1. Three-fold system. Representatives of this theory are professors Smirnitsky and


Ilyish. They distinguish three tenses - Present, Past and Future. They consider
the Future tense to be an analytical form of the verb because it combines an
auxiliary verb - shall/will and an infinitive.
2. Two fold system. Representatives of this theory are O.Jesperson,
L.S.Barhudarov, Quirk. According to their theory the category of Tense in
English is expressed through the opposition "Past" and Non-past" (Present).The
Future tense is not considered to be a tense form opposem as: the combination
"shall/will +Infinitive" as a whole has a modal meaning, that of certainty;
"shall/will + Infinitive" is not the only construction in English to express the
future action; there is Future-in-the-past. If tense is a system of opposems, one
of the opposems "Future" cannot belong to two different tenses simultaneously.

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.

A well-grounded objection against the inclusion of the construction shall/will +


Infinitive in thе tense system of the verb on the same basis as the forms of the present
and past has been advanced by L. S. Barkhudarov . His objection consists in the
demonstration of the double marking of this would-be tense form by one and the same
category: the combinations in question can express at once both the future time and
the past time (the form "future-in-the-past"), which hardly makes any sense in terms
of a grammatical category. Indeed, the principle of the identification of any
grammatical category demands that the forms of the category in normal use should be
mutually exclusive. The category is constituted by the opposition of its forms, not by
their co-position!

However, reconsidering the status of the construction shall/will + Infinitive in the


light of oppositional approach, we see that far from comparing with the past-present
verbal forms as the third member-form of the category of primary time it marks its
own grammatical category, namely, that of prospective time (prospect). The
meaningful contrast underlying the category of prospective time is between an after-
action and a non-after-action. The after-action, or the "future", having its shall/will-
feature, constitutes the marked member of the opposition.

The category of prospect is also temporal, in so far as it is immediately connected


with the expression of processual time, like the category of primary time. But the
semantic basis of the category of prospect is different in principle from that of the
category of primary time: while the primary time is absolutive, i.e. present-oriented,
the prospective time is purely relative; it means that the future form of the verb only
shows that the denoted process is prospected as an after-action relative to some other
action or state or event, the timing of which marks the zero-level for it. The two times
are presented, as it were, in prospective coordination: one is shown as prospected for
the future, the future being relative to the primary time, either present or past. As a
result, the expression of the future receives the two mutually complementary
manifestations: one manifestation for the present time-plane of the verb, the other
manifestation for the past time-plane of the verb. In other words, the process of the
verb is characterised by the category of prospect irrespective of its primary time
characteristic.

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 PERFECT. BASIC QUALITIES OF THE PERFECT FORMS

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:

1. The category of perfect is a peculiar tense category, i. e. a category which should be


classed in the same list as the categories "present" and "past". This view was held, for
example, by 0. Jespersen.
2. The category of perfect is a peculiar aspect category, i. e. one which should
be given a place in the list comprising "common aspect" and "continuous
aspect". This view was held by a number of scholars, including Prof. G.
Vorontsova. Those who hold this view have expressed different opinions about
the particular aspect constituting the essence of the perfect forms. It has been
variously defined as "retrospective", "resultative", "successive", etc.

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 carefully eliminate these three sources of error and confusion we shall


have a much better chance of arriving at a true and objective solution. Let us
now consider the views expressed by different scholars m 'the order in which
we ' mentioned them above.

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.

It is in complete harmony with the principle of distributive analysis, though


Prof. Smirnitsky did not, at the time, use the term "distributive analysis".

The essence of the grammatical category expressed by the perfect, and


differing both from tense and from aspect, is hard to define and to find a name
for. Prof. Smirnitsky proposed to call it "the category of time relation", which is
not a very happy term, because it seems to bring us back to the old view that
the perfect is a special kind of tense — a view which Prof. Smirnitsky quite
rightly combatted. Later it was proposed to replace his term of "time relation"
by that of "correlation" (соотнесенность), which has the advantage of
eliminating the undesirable term "time". This is decidedly the term to be
preferred. As to the opposition in such pairs as writes — has written, wrote —
had written, will write — will have written, is writing — has been writing, was
writing — had been writing, will be writing — will have been writing. Prof.
Smirnitsky proposed to denote it by the correlative terms "non-perfect" and
"perfect". While this Jatter proposal may be fully accepted, the definition of the
meaning of the category presents considerable difficulty. Its essence appears to
be precedence: an action expressed by a perfect form precedes some moment in
time. We cannot say that it always precedes an other action: the present perfect
form is most commonly used in sentences which contain no mention of any
other action.

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: PERSON AND NUMBER.


OTHER MORPHOLOGICAL ATEGORIES
The categories of person and number must be considered in close connection
with each other, since in languages of the IndoEuropean family they are
expressed simultaneously, i. e. a morpheme expressing person also expresses
number, e. g. in Latin the morpheme -nt in such forms as amant, habent, legunt,
amabant, habebunt, legerunt, etc., expresses simultaneously the 3rd person and
the plural number.
We shall, however, start by considering the meaning of each of these
categories, and then proceed to the analysis of their state in Modern English.
The category of person in verbs is represented by the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person,
and it expresses the relation between the speaker, the person or persons
addressed, and other persons and things. The 1st person, of course, expresses
the speaker or a group of which the speaker makes a part; the 2nd person, the
person or persons spoken to, and the 3rd, that person or thing .(or those persons
or things) which are neither the speaker nor the person (s) spoken to.
The category of number expresses the quantity of the subjects (one or more
than one). However, this system does not hold good for the Modern English
verb, and this for two reasons. First, there is no distinction of persons in the
plural number. Thus, the form live may, within the plural -number, be
connected with a subject of any person (1st, 2nd, or 3rd). Second, there is no
distinction of numbers in the 1st or 2nd person. Thus, the form live in these
persons may refer both to one and to more than one subject.
So what we actually find in the Modern English verb is this:
3rd person singular — lives
All the rest — live
If we analyse this state of things in the Modern English verb in exact terms we
shall reach the following conclusion. The opposition lives /live, or, in general
terms, stem + s / stem + 0, expresses the relation: 3rd person singular/any
person of both numbers except 3rd person singular.
It is quite clear that the first item of the opposition is marked both in meaning
(3rd person sing.) and in form (-s), whereas the second item is unmarked both
in meaning (everything except the 3rd person sing.) and in form (zero-
inflection). We ought to add that the category of mood is implied in this
opposition, the form lives belonging to the indicative mood only, whereas live
may also
be any person of both numbers in the subjunctive mood (as far as we recognize
its existence at all). Another consequence of this analysis is, that the -s-inf
lection in verbs conveys 4 meanings: 1) 3rd person, 2) singular number, 3)
present tense, 4) indicative mood. The present tense is of course characterized
by other signs as well: by the absence of the -d (or -t) morpheme denoting the
past tense in regular verbs, and by alternation of the root vowel (e. g. [i] in
drinks as against [ae] in drank) in irregular verbs. But in verbs of the type put
the -s is the only distinctive sign of the present.
The ending -s having four meanings to express simultaneously is of course a
synthetic feature, standing rather by itself in the general structure of Modern
English.
Some verbs do not fit into the system of person and number described above
and they must be mentioned separately both in a practical study of-the language
and in theoretical analysis. We will limit ourselves to the verb can (the verbs
may, shall, and some others sharing some of its features) and the verb be,
which stands quite apart and, of course, is very widely used.
The verb can, as is well known, takes no -s-inflection parallel to such forms as
lives, writes, takes, etc. Hence it follows that this verb has no category of
person or number at all.

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 the past tense the system is:


1st and 3rd person singular — was
2nd person (without distinction of number) --were
Plural (without distinction of person)- were

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 VERB: VOICE

THE PROBLEM OF A REFLEXIVE VOICE


THE PROBLEM OF A RECIPROCAL VOICE
THE PROBLEM OF A MIDDLE VOICE

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.

THE PROBLEM OF A REFLEXIVE VOICE


Taking, then, first the problem of the reflexive voice, we will formulate it in the
following way. Can the group "verb + self-рrоnoun" (i.e. myself, himself,
ourselves, etc.) be the reflexive voice of a verb, that is, can the self-pronouns
ever be auxiliary words serving to derive a voice form of the verb? This is
putting the problem in purely morphological terms. But it also has a syntactical
side to it. From the syntactical viewpoint it can be formulated in another way:
does a self-pronoun coming after a verb always perform the function of a
separate part of the sentence (the direct object), or can it (in some cases at least)
be within the same part of the sentence as the verb preceding it (in the vast
majority of cases this would be the predicate)?
If we approach this question from the point of view of meaning, we shall see
that different cases may be found here. For instance, in the sentence He hurt
himself badly we might argue that himself denotes the object of the action and
stands in the same relation to the verb as any other noun or pronoun: he hart
himself badly would then be parallel to a sentence like he hurl me badly. On
the other hand, in a sentence like He found himself in a dark room things are
different: we could not say that he found himself is analogous to he found me.
We could not, indeed, say that he performed an action, that of finding, and the
object of that action was himself. Here, therefore, doubt is at least possible as to
whether himself is a separate part of the sentence, namely, a direct object, or
whether it is part of the predicate. We might possibly have to class he hurt
himself and he found himself (in a dark room) under different headings and this
would influence our general conclusions on the category of voice.
Considerations of this kind cannot, however, bring about a solution that would
be binding and could not be countered by a different solution which might also
be confirmed by more or less valid reasons. If we are to achieve some objective
solution, we have to rely on objective data in this case, as in so many other
cases.
Objective investigation requires that we should find various syntactic contexts
or patterns in which the group "verb + self- pronoun" can appear. For instance,
we ought to look for examples of the pattern "verb + self-pronoun + and + noun
or pronoun". If such examples can be found, they will argue in favour of the
view that the self-pronouns standing after a verb are actually treated as
standing in the same relation to the verb as any other noun or pronoun denoting
the object of the action. If, on the other hand, no such example could be found,
this would go some way towards proving that a self-pronoun is not
apprehended as standing in the same relation to the verb as any other noun or
pronoun following it and this would be an argument in favour of
acknowledging a
reflexive voice in the Modern English verb. Other considerations of a
syntactical character might also influence our judgement on this question.
The problem has been treated by 0. Ovchinnikova, who has collected some
examples of the pattern "verb + self-pronoun + and + noun or pronoun", for
instance, / see this man Meek doing everything that is natural to a complete
man: carpentering, painting, digging, pulling and hauling, fetching and
carrying, helping himself and everybody else ... (SHAW) and also examples of
a noun functioning as apposition to the self-pronoun which comes after a verb,
e. g. I am defending myself — an accused communist. (FOX) These cases, few
as they are, show that a self-pronoun following a verb can at least be
apprehended as a separate member of the sentence. If it were only part of the
predicate it obviously could not have an apposition attached to it. So we may
take it as proved that in some cases at least the self-pronoun following a verb is
not an auxiliary word serving to express a voice category of the verb. But the
question remains, what we are to make of cases such as the following: It was
done, and Catherine found herself alone in the Gallery before the clocks had
ceased to strike. (J. AUSTEN)
Here the self-pronoun cannot either be joined by and to a noun (pronoun), or
have a noun in apposition attached to it. Without going into many details
concerning these cases, we can merely say that two ways are here open to us.
One way is to say that, since in a number of cases the self-pionoun is not an
auxiliary word used to form a verbal voice, it is never an auxiliary. Then we
should have to treat such cases as he found himself ... etc. as phraseological
units and refer their peculiarities to the sphere of lexicology rather than of
grammar.
The other way would be to say that in some cases a self-pronoun does become
an auxiliary of voice. Then to find oneself would be treated as a form of the
reflexive voice of the verb find and the group (and, of course, other groups of a
similar kind) would remain in the sphere of grammar and we should recognize
a reflexive voice in English. There seems at present no binding argument in
favour of one or the other solution. We shall have to leave the question open
until such a solution can be found.
The treatment of the problem would be incomplete if we did not mention the
cases when a verb is used without a self-pronoun to denote an action which the
doer performs on himself. Examples of this kind are not numerous. We can
mention the verb dress, which may be used to mean 'dress oneself, and the verb
wash, which may be used to mean 'wash oneself. This is seen, for example, in
sentences like the following: At daybreak the next morning Home got up and
dressed. (E.C ALDWELL) As we see, these verbs denote habitual everyday
actions and this appears to be essential for the possibility of such a usage. It
would not, for instance, be possible to use the verb hurt in the sense of 'hurt
oneself, or the verb accuse in the sense of 'accuse oneself, etc. Since in the
sentence he dressed quickly there is no self-pronoun and no other special sign
to indicate that the doer is performing the action on himself, we cannot include
such cases under the category of the reflexive voice even if we were to
recognize the existence of such a voice, which, as we have seen, cannot be
objectively established.

THE PROBLEM OF A RECIPROCAL VOICE


Under this heading we will consider formations like greeted each other, or
loved each other, or praised one another. The problem is somewhat similar to
that of the reflexive voice, and it is this: Does the group each other (and the
group one another) make part of an analytical verb form, that is, is it an
auxiliary element used for forming a special voice of the verb, the reciprocal
voice, or is it always a separate secondary part of the sentence (though it is hard
to tell exactly what part of the sentence it may be)?
We might seek a solution to the question on the same lines as with the reflexive
voice, that is, we might try to find out whether the group each other (or one
another} is ever found to be co-ordinated with a noun or pronoun serving as
object to the verb. We should have to see whether such a sentence is ever found
as this one: They kissed each other and the child, etc. However, such a search
would be very hard and not promising at all. Very possibly, we would not find
a single example of that kind, but this could not be considered as a proof that
each other (or one another) does serve as an auxiliary to form the reciprocal
voice of the verb (kiss in this example).
We will not go into this question any deeper and we will limit ourselves to the
following conclusion. The solution of the question must remain to a certain
extent arbitrary. But, putting together this Question and the question of the
reflexive voice as discussed above, we may state that the grounds for assuming
a special reciprocal voice are weaker than those for assuming a reflexive voice.
Therefore if we reject the reflexive voice, we will certainly reject the reciprocal
voice as well. If, on the other hand, we accept the reflexive voice, the question
about the reciprocal voice will remain open.
As in the case of the reflexive voice, we must also mention the instances, which
are rather few, when a verb denotes a reciprocal action without the help of the
group each other or one another. For instance, in the sentence They kissed and
parted, kissed is of course equivalent to kissed each other. Since there is no
external sign of reciprocity, we cannot find here a reciprocal voice even if we
should admit its existence in the language. These cases will also best be
considered under the heading "middle voice".

THE PROBLEM OF A MIDDLE VOICE


This problem arises chiefly in connection with the possible double use of a
number of verbs in Modern English. Compare, for instance, such pairs of
sentences as these:
I opened the door
I burnt the paper
I boiled the water
We resumed the conference
We apply the rule to many cases

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

Functional parts of speech


Contrasted against notional parts of speech are words , which
are called functional parts of speech:
1) of incomplete nominative meaning,
2) unchangeable
3) characterized by dependent functions in the sentence and
specific comb inability.

THE PREPOSITION

• The meanings of various prepositions in various


contexts
• The boundary line between a preposition and another
part of speech
• Use of prepositions
• Groups of words whose meaning and functions in the
sentence are the same as those of prepositions

It is common knowledge that prepositions are a most importantelement of the


structure of many languages, particularly those which, like Modern English,
have no developed case system in their nominal parts of speech.

We have briefly discussed the problem of the meaning of prepositions but here
we shall have to consider it at some length.

It is sometimes said ' that prepositions express the relationsbetween words in a


sentence, and this is taken as a definition of the meaning of prepositions. If
true, this would imply that they do not denote any relations existing outside the
language. However, this is certainly not true, and two or three simple examples
will show it. If we compare the two sentences: The book is lying on the
table,and The book is lying under the table, and ask ourselves, what do the
prepositions express here, it will at once be obvious that they express relations
(in space) between the book (the thing itself) and the table (the thing itself).
The difference in the situations described in the two sentences is thus an
extralinguistic difference expressed by means of language, namely, by
prepositions. It would certainly be quite wrong to say that the prepositions
merely express the relations between the word book and the word table, as
thedefinition quoted above would imply. The same may be said about
a number of other sentences. Compare, for instance, the two sentences, He will
come before dinner, and He will come after dinner. It is absolutely clear that the
prepositions denote relations between phenomena in the extralinguistic world
(time relations between "his coming" and "dinner"), not merely relations
between the word come and the word dinner.

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.

We need not go further into the meanings of various prepositions in various


contexts, since that is a problem of lexicology rather than grammar. What we
needed here was to find a definition based on the real meaning of prepositions.

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.

On the sentence level: a preposition is never a part of a sentence by itself; it


enters the part of sentence whose main centre is the following noun, or
pronoun, or gerund. We ought not to say that prepositions connect parts of a
sentence. They do not do that, as they stand within a part of the sentence, not
between two parts.

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

Sometimes the boundary line between a preposition and anotherpart of speech is


not quite clear. Thus, with reference to the words like and near there may be
doubtful cases from this viewpoint. For instance, there certainly is the adjective
near, used in such phrases
as the near future. On the other hand, there is the preposition near, found in
such sentences as they live near me.

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.

This is one more example of language phenomena requiringa careful and


wholly undogmatic approach: it would be futile to expect that every single
language fact would fit easily into one pigeonhole or another prepared for it in
advance. Language phenomena have as it were no -obligation to fit into any
such pigeonholes and it is the scholar's task to approach them with an open
mind, to take into account their peculiarities, and to adjust his system as best he
can to receive such "unorthodox" facts. Another example of this kind has been
considered above: it concerned the status of we words many, much, few, and
little (see pp. 71—72, B. Ilyish).

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. '

We shall arrive at a similar conclusion if we compare the actual title of Th.


Hardy's novel, "Under the Greenwood Tree", with the possible variant "The
Greenwood Tree". The preposition implies that we shall be reading about
something happening under the tree,
rather than about the tree itself. So it will probably be right to say that
something is implied (very vaguely, it must be admitted).
Use of prepositions

We should especially note some peculiar uses of the prepositionabout, namely in


such sentences as, There were about twenty people in the room, which of course means
that the number is given approximately. The preposition here has only a one-sided
connection, namely with the numeral, and has no connection at all with the preceding
verb. It certainly does not express any relation between were and twenty.
Syntactically, it makes an element of the subject group (about twenty people). Indeed
we may be inclined to doubtwhether the word about is a preposition at all in
such a case. It rather approaches the status of a particle.

This is still more confirmed by examples in which the group introduced by


about stands after another preposition, as in the sentence, This happened at
about three o'clock. The group about three o'clock here follows the preposition
at in quite the same way as the group three o'clock would follow it in the
sentence This happened at three o'clock. The group about three o'clock is a
designation of a certain time as much as the group three o'clock, and to
establish its relation with the verb happened it also requires the preposition at
to be used.

We also find two prepositions close to each other in differentcontexts.


Compare, for instance, the following sentence: He sat until past midnight in the
darkness while grief and sorrow overcame him. (E. CALDWELL) Here also
belongs the phrase from under in
a sentence like The cat stretched its paw from under the table. It seems quite
possible to take this in the same way as we took at about in the preceding
example, and to say that under the table denotes a certain place and from indicates
movement from that place. However, it is also possible to view this case in a
somewhat different way, namely to suppose that from under is a phrase
equivalent to a preposition, and then we should not have two prepositions
following one another here. This problem should be further
investigated.

Prepositions can sometimes be followed by adverbs, which apparently become


partly substantivized when so used. The groups from there, from where, since
then, since when are too widely known to require illustrative examples.
Another case in point is the following: She is beautiful with that Indian summer
renewal ofphysical charm. which comes to a woman who loves and is loved
particularly to one who has not found that love until comparatively late in life.
(O'NEILL)

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

Special attention must be given to groups of words whose meaningand functions in


the sentence are the same as those of prepositions. Here belong the groups out
of, as to, as for, instead of, in spite of, etc. We cannot term these groups
prepositions, since a preposition is a word, not a word group, and it is essential
to keep up the distinction between words and word groups; neglect of it would
bring about a muddle both in grammar and in lexicology. The current haziness
in the treatment of such groups and the vague terms "compound preposition"
and the like are not conducive to a clear and consistent grammatical theory.
Since much the same can be said about phrases equivalent in meaning and
function to conjunctions, we will return to this problem after having considered
the conjunctions(B. Ilyish p150-155)

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.

In studying the syntactical functions of conjunctions, we have, just as with


prepositions, to distinguish between two levels — that of phrases and that of
sentences.

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)

PREPOSITIONS AND CONJUNCTIONS


In comparing prepositions with coordinating and subordinatingconjunctions we
cannot fail to notice that while prepositions have nothing in common with
coordinating conjunctions, some prepositions are very close in meaning to
subordinating conjunctions, and in some cases a preposition and a subordinating
conjunction soundexactly the same. As examples of similarity in meaning we may
give, for instance, such phrases and clauses: during his illness =
while he was ill; examples of complete identity in meaning and sound are the words before,
after, since.

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.

It should also be noted that the difference between prepositionsand conjunctions is


much less pronounced in Modern English than .in Russian, where prepositions are
closely connected with cases, while conjunctions have nothing whatever to do with
them. In English with its almost complete absence of cases, this different prepositions
and conjunctions is very much obliterated. While in Russian the substitution of a
conjunction for a preposition makes
it necessary to change the case of the following noun, in English no such change is
necessary or, indeed, possible. So the distinction between preposition and conjunction
is based here only on semantic criteria and also on the use of these words in other
contexts, where they are not interchangeable.

In discussing prepositions, we noted that there are in English, as well as in Russian


and in other languages, certain phrases which cannot be termed prepositions, since
they are not words, but which are similar to prepositions in meaning and in syntactical
function.
The same is true of conjunctions. A certain number of phrases (consisting of two or
three words) are similar in meaning and in function conjunctions. Among them we
can quote such phrases as inother. that, as soon as, as long as, notwithstanding that,
etc. Just as
prepositional phrases, these will be analyzed in a special chapter in Syntax (B. Ilyish,
p.158-159)

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)

a. the lexico-grammatical meaning of '(in)definiteness',


b. the morphological destination is its being a structural marker.

b) the right-hand combinability with nouns,

c) the function of noun specifiers.

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.

The difference in their combinability can be explained by the difference in their


lexical meanings.

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

reference (Quirk. P. 265-286). Compare sentences 1 and 2:

1. A lion and two tigers are sleeping in the cage. (specific)


2. Tigers are dangerous animals. (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.

Immediate general Anaphor Cataphori Sporadic The The use


situation knowled ic c reference ‘logical’ of ‘the’
ge referenc reference use of with
e: ‘the’ referen
ce to
body
parts

extralinguis unique direct: the reference to uniqueness “the” is


tic situation denotati the noun modificati an of the often
1 on - 3 head has on of the institution referent is used
already noun of human explained instead
occurred phrase society - 9 by appeal of
in the restricts to the pronou
text - 5 the logical ns my,
reference interpretati your,
of the on of her,
noun - 7 certain their,
word etc. -
12

which - or the indirect: the whole modern - 11 first,


what- larger inferenc phrase transport same,
questions 2 situation e from may have and only, sole,
which what has unique communicat next, last,
speaker already denotation ion - 10 best,
and been -8 largest
hearer mention
share - 4 ed - 6

1. The roses are very beautiful . /said in a garden/

Have you visited the castle? ?/ said in a given town/

Have you fed the cat? /said in a domestic context/

2. Have you fed the cat? /which cat?/

Aren’t the red roses lovely? /what red roses?/

3. The North Pole the Equator the earth

the moon the sea the sky

the cosmos the Renaissance

4. the prime Minister the airlines the last war


1. Felicity bought a TV and a video recorder, but she returned the video recorder
because it was defective.
2. John bought a new bicycle, but found that one of the wheels was defective.

I lent Bill a valuable book, but when he returned it , the cover was filthy, and
the pages were torn.

3. The President of Mexico is to visit China.


The girls sitting over there are my cousins.

8. The parents of Elvis Prestly, the height of Mont Blanc


1. My sister goes to the theater every month.

Did you hear the ten o’clock news?

What’s on the radio this evening?

10. Mary took the bus/the train to Landon.


1. When is the first flight to Chicago tomorrow?

This is the only remaining copy .

12. They pulled her by the hair.

My mother complains of a pain in the/her hip.

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:

1. Non-referring uses of the indefinite article. The indefinite article is strongly


associated with the complement function in a clause, or more generally with
noun phrases in a copular relationship:

eg. Paganini was a great violinist.

We found Lisbon (to be) a delightful city.

Sometimes a/an is non-referring in a stronger sense; it may not refer to anything in


reality at all: Leonard wants to marry a princess who speaks five languages.

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 :

USES of the ZERO article


1. The zero article compared with unstressed some.

a. with plural countable nouns


b. with uncountable nouns

2. Phrases without article

a. some institutions of human life and society: be in town, be in bed, be in prison,


go to hospital, be at school, be at church and etc.
b. means of transport and communication: travel by bicycle, leave by bus, come
by boat, go by train.
c. times of day and night: at sunrise, by night, after nightfall, day by day, all day
and etc.
d. seasons :in spring, in summer; winter is coming
e. meals: stay for breakfast, have brunch, before tea, after dinner, for supper
f. illnesses :appendicitis, influenza, diabetes, anaemia.
g. parallel structures: arm in arm, face to face, day by day, hand in hand, eye to
eye, from right to left, husband and wife.
h. fixed phrases involving prepositions: on foot, in turn, out of step, on top of, by
way of, set fire to, take advantage of

Uses of the articles in generic reference

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.

Generic a/an is therefore restricted in that it cannot be used in attributing properties


which belong to the class or species as a whole. Thus: The tiger is becoming almost
extinct. Tigers are becoming almost extinct.

2. The generic use of the zero article identifies the class considered as an
UNDIFFERENTIATED WHOLE

e.g.: Cigarettes are bad for your health

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:

1. B.A. Ilyish The structure of modern English. L., 1971, pp.49-58


2. Blokh M.Y. A course of theoretical English grammar. M., 1994 , pp.72-83
3. Rogovskaya B.I., Haimovich B.S. Theoretical English grammar . M., !967 ,
pp.214-217
4. Kayshanskaya B.L. and others The grammar of the English language. L.1967,
pp.25-47
5. R.Quirk S. Greenbaum G. Leech J. Svartvik A comprehensive grammar of the
English language. - Longman, London and New York 1994, 265-286pp.
6. Гатилова В.К. Методические рекомендации для самостоятельной работы
студентов по курсу “теоретическая грамматика английского языка”.
Алма-Ата, 1993, С.48-59

THE MODAL WORDS

• Semantic characteristics (meaning)


• Morphological characteristics (form)
• Syntactic characteristics (function)
As a part of speech the modals are characterized by the following features:

1. Their lexico-grammatical meaning of 'modality'.

2/ Their negative combinability

3 Their functions of parenthetical elements and sentence-words

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 .

a. Those which denote various shades of certainty: certainly, surely, of course, no


doubt, assuredly, undoubtedly, indeed, really, etc.
b. Those which denote various degrees of probability: maybe, perhaps, possibly,
probably, etc.
c. Those which denote various shades of desirability : happily, luckily,
fortunately, unhappily, etc.

Morphological characteristics:negative

Syntactic characteristics:

1. Combinability. The relatively combinability of modal words manifest itself in


various ways.

a. They are almost never used as adjuncts to some headword.


b. They but seldom function as head-words to some adjuncts, mostly adverbs of
degree like very, quite, most, etc.

E. g... whom most probably they were compelled to respect. (Dreiser).

c) Their isolatability is greater than that of other words. They very often make
response sentences.

E. g. But you can take a carpet to Caesar in it if I send one? — Assuredly.


(Shaw).
Functioning as a parenthetical element of sentence, a modal word is usually connected with the
sentence as a whole. E.g. Perhaps I shall never pray again. (Shaw).
Apparently, they were fully prepared for the coming of the visitors from
England. (Tracy)
But sometimes it may be connected with a part of the sentence only.
E. g. We worked that land for m a y b e a hundred years. (Daily Worker).

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:

1. B.C. Haimovich, B.I. Rogovskaya A course in English grammar. Moscow


1967., pp.203-204
THE PARTICLE
Semantic properties (Meaning )
Morphological properties (form)
Syntactic properties
Three views
The particle not
To include a word in the class of particles we must find out whether it has the
characteristic features of particles which we have described in our general
survey of parts of speech, and we should not apply any other criteria. We shall
not inquire whether the word has one syllable, or two, or many; this phonetic
quality of a word
is irrelevant to its grammatical status: just as, for example, a preposition may
have one syllable (of, to) or four (notwithstanding) a particle may have one
syllable (just) or four (exclusively). Thus the diminutive suffix -icie should not
be taken to refer to the length of the word.
In dealing with particles, we will limit ourselves to the grammatical side of the
matter. We will not discuss either their meanings, which belong to the sphere of
lexicology, nor the morphemes making them up, which should be considered in
the theory of word-building.
The particle as a part of speech is characterized by the following features:
1. Its lexico-grammatical meaning of 'emphatic specification'.
2. Its unilateral combinability with words of different
classes, groups of words, even clauses.
3. Its function of a specifier .
Semantic properties meaning:
When speaking of particles in our review of parts of speech we have noted
already that they usually refer to the word (or, sometimes, phrase) immediately
following and give special prominence to the notion expressed by this word (or
phrase), or single it out in
some other way, depending on the meaning of the particle. As we know, the
definitions of the lexico-grammatical meanings of parts of speech are not
general enough. With particles it is, probably, more so than elsewhere because
they are less uniform.
In most of them the meaning of 'emphatic specification' is quite obvious.
Only sixteen hundred talents, Pothius. (Shaw).
Why, man, Ireland was peopled ] ust as England was. (Ib.).
/ never thought of that then. (Ib.).
/ notice that there is but one chair in it. (Ib.).
But there are particles in whose meanings there is as much 'emphatic
specification' as there is 'action' in the verb belong or 'substance' in the noun
faith. There are, for instance, the connective particles also, too, else, either 1.
They seem to resemble the conjunction and lexically, but their properties are
different. Compare, for instance, the particle too and the conjunctions and, if in
the following
sentence. / / life is dull, you can be dull too, a n d no harm is done. (Shaw).
Different lexically, the conjunctions if, and have the same lexico-grammatical
meaning of 'relations between...' in accordance with which each of them shows
the relation between two clauses without interfering lexically with their
content. The particle too in fact 'specifies' the pronoun you (you too can be
dull), but as a condition of that specification it requires, in accordance with its
lexical meaning, that the content of the clause, of which the specified word is
part, should be similar to the content of the previous clause. Thus it connects
the two clauses lexically.

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:

1. B.A. Ilyish The structure of modern English. L., 1971, pp.160-164


2. Blokh M.Y. A course of theoretical English grammar. M., 1994 , pp.39,
66-67, 72.
3. Rogovskaya B.I., Haimovich B.S. Theoretical English grammar . M., !
967 , pp.217--220
4. Kayshanskaya B.L. and others The grammar of the English language.
L.1967, pp219-221.
Notional parts of speech

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

2. Ilyish B.A. ThTHE VERB: MOOD


THE INDICATIVE
THE IMPERATIVE
THE OTHER MOODS
The category of mood expresses the relation of the utterance to actual reality,
presenting it as real,
desirable, unreal, etc.
The category of mood in the present English verb has given rise to so many
discussions, and has been treated in so many different ways, that it seems
hardly possible to arrive at any more or less convincing and universally
acceptable conclusion concerning it. Indeed, the only points in the sphere of
mood which have not so far been disputed seem to be these: (a) there is a
category of mood in Modern English, (b) there are at least two moods in the
modern English verb, one of which is the indicative. As to the number of the
other moods and as to their meanings and the names they ought to be given,
opinions to-day are as far apart as ever. It is to be hoped that the new methods
of objective linguistic investigation will do much to improve this state of
things. Meanwhile we shall
have to try to get at the roots of this divergence of views and to establish at
least the starting points of an objective investigation. We shall have to begin
with a definition of the category. Various definitions have been given of the
category of mood. One of them (by Academician V. Vinogradov) is this:
"Mood expresses the relation of the action to reality, as stated by the speaker." '
This definition seems plausible on the whole, though the yords "relation of the
action to reality" may not be clear enough. What is meant here is that different
moods express different degrees of reality of an action, viz. one mood
represents it as actually taking (or having taken) place, while another represents
it as merely conditional or desired, etc.

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

e structure of Modern English. - L.,1971. pp.120-129


THE NOUN
Classification of nouns
Number
Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum
Collective Nouns and Nouns of Multitude
Case
Mutual relartions of number and case

Noun - is characterised by the following features : semantically - it has the meaning of


substance, morphologically - a) the category of number, case and gender, b) certain
word-building suffixes, syntactically - a)performs the function of a subject, object,
predicative, attribute, adverbial modifier, b) has specific combinability.

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.

Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum


We must also consider here two types of nouns differing fromall others in the way of
number: they have not got the usual two number forms, but only one form. The nouns
which have only a plural and no singular are usually termed "pluralia tantum" (which
is the Latin for "plural only"), and those which have only a singular and no plural are
termed "singularia tantum" (the Latinfor "singular only").
Among the pluralia tantum are the nouns trousers, scissors, tongs, pincers, breeches;
environs, outskirts, dregs. As is obvious from these examples, they include nouns of
two types. On the one hand, there are the nouns which denote material objects
consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors, etc.); on the other, there are thosewhich
denote a more or less indefinite plurality (e. g. environs'areas surrounding some place
on all sides'; dregs 'various smallthings remaining at the bottom of a vessel after the
liquid has been poured out of it', etc.). If we compare the English pluralia tantum with
the Russian, we shall find that in some cases they correspond to each other (e. g.,
trousers — брюки, scissors — ножницы, environs — окрестности, etc.), while in
others they do not (деньги — money, etc.). This seems to depend on a different view of the
objects in question reflected by the English and the Russian language respectively.
The reason why a given object is denoted by a plurale tantum noun in this or that
language is not always quite clear.
Close to this group of pluralia tantum nouns are also some names; of sciences, e. g.
mathematics, physics, phonetics, also politics, and some names of diseases, e. g.
measles, mumps, rickets. The reason for this seems to be that, for example,
mathematics embrace a wholeseries of various scientific disciplines, and measles are
accompanied by the appearance of a number of separate inflamed spots on the skin
(rash). However, the reasons are less obvious in the case of phonetics, for instance.
Now, it is typical of English that some of these pluralia tantum may, as it were, cease
to be plural. Theymay occasionally, or even regularly, be accompanied by the
indefinite article, and if they are the subject of a sentence the predicateverb may stand
in the singular.
This way of treating pluralia tantum, which would be unthinkable in Russian, is of
course connected with the structure of English as a whole.
The possibility of treating a plural form as if it were singular is also seen in the use of
the phrase the United Nations, which may, when it is the subject of a sentence, have
the predicate verb in the singular, e. g. the United Nations is a world organization.
Examples of a phrase including a noun in the plural being modified by a pronoun in
the singular and thus shown to be apprehended as a singular are by no means rare.
Here are a few typical examples. / myself still wonder at that six weeks of calm
madness. (CARY) The unity of the period of time, measured in the usual units of
months, weeks, and days, is thus brought out very clearly. Bessie, daring that twenty-
four hours, had spent a nightwith Alice and a day with Muriel... (CARY) The unity of the
space of time referred to is even more obvious in this example than in the preceding
one; twenty-four hours is a commonly received unit of measurement of time (in
Russian this would be expressed by a single noun—сутки). The variant those twenty-
four hours would be inappropriate here, as it would imply that the statement wasreferring to
every single hour of the twenty-four taken separately.
This way of showing the unity of a certain quantity of space or time by modifying the
phrase in question by a pronoun in the singular, and also (if the phrase be the subject
of the sentence) by using the predicate verb in the singular, appears to be a very
common thing in present-day English.
The direct opposite of pluralia tantum are the singularia tantum, i. e. the nouns which
have no plural form. Among these wemust first note some nouns denoting material
substance, such as milk, butter, quicksilver, etc., and also names of abstract notions,such
as peace, usefulness, incongruity, etc. Nouns of this kind express notions which are,
strictly speaking, outside the sphere of number: e. g. milk, or fluency. But in the
morphological and syntactical system of the English language a noun cannot stand
outside the category of number. If the noun is the subject of a sentence, the predicate
verb (if it is in the present tense) will have to be either singular or plural. With the
nouns just mentioned the predicate verb is always singular. This is practically the only
externalsign (alongside of the absence of a plural inflection in the noun itself) which
definitely shows the noun to be singular.
Some nouns denoting substance, or material, may have a plural form, if they are used
to denote either an object made of the material or a special kind of substance, or an
object exhibiting the quality denoted by the noun. Thus, the noun wine, as well as the
noun milk, denotes a certain substance, but it has a plural form wines used to denote several
special kinds of wine. The noun iron, as well as the noun quicksilver, denotes a metal,
but it may be used in theplural if it denotes several objects made of that metal
(утюги).The noun beauty, as well as the noun ugliness, denotes a certainquality
presented as an object, but it may be used in the plural to denote objects exhibiting
that quality, e. g. the beauties of nature;His daughters were all beauties. Many more
examples of a similarkind might be found. Accordingly, the nouns wine, iron, and
beautycannot be called singularia tantum, although in their chief application they no
more admit of a plural form than milk, quicksilver,or ugliness.

Collective Nouns and Nouns of Multitude


Certain nouns denoting groups of human beings (family, government, party, clergy,
etc.) and also of animals (cattle, poultry, etc.) can be used in two different ways:
either they are taken to denote the group as a whole, and in that case they are treated
as singulars, and usually termed "collective nouns" (in a restricted sense of the term);
or else they are taken to denote the group as consisting of a certain number of
individual human beings (or animals), and in that case they are usually termed "nouns
of multitude".The difference between the two applications of such nouns may be
briefly exemplified by a pair of examples: My family is small and My family are good
speakers It is quite obvious here that inthe one sentence the characteristic "small"
applies to the family as a whole, while in the other sentence the characteristic "good
speakers" applies to every single member of the family ("everyone of them is a good
speaker" is what is meant, but certainly not "everyone of them is small"). The same
consideration would also apply to such sentences as The cattle were grazing in the
field, itis also quite lossible to say, Many cattle were grazing in the field, where the use of many
(not much) clearly shows that cattle is apprehended as a plural.
The following bit of dialogue is curious, as the noun board which is the subject of
the first sentence, is here connected with a predicate verb in the singular, but is
replaced by a plural pronoun in the second sentence: "Does the Board know of this?"
"Yes," said John, "they fully approve the scheme." (A. WILSON)
With the noun people the process seems to have gone further than with any other noun
of this kind. There is, on the one hand, the noun people, singular, with its plural
peoples (meaning 'nations'), and there is, on the other hand, the noun people
apprehended asa plural (There were fifty people in the hall) and serving as a kindof
plural to the noun person (There was only one person in the hall). People can of course
be modified by the words many and few and by cardinal numerals (twenty people).
In the following sentence the word people is even modified by the phrase attribute
one or two, although the numeral one in itself could not possibly be an attribute to the
noun people in this sense:the phrase One or two people looked at him curiously, but
no one said anything. (A. WILSON) Strictly speaking we might expect one man or
two people, however, this variant does not appear to be used anywhere. The perfect
possibility of the phrase two people appears to be sufficient ground for making the
phrase one or two people possible as well.
Recently a peculiar view of the category of number was put forward by A. Isachenko.
According to this. view, the essential meaning of the category (in nouns) is not that of
quantity, but of discreteness (расчлененность). The plural, in this view, expresses
fundamentally the notion of something consisting of distinguishable parts, and the
meaning of quantity in the usual sense would then appear to be a result of combining
the fundamental meaning of the category as such with the lexical meaning of the noun
used in the plural. Thus, in scissors the category of plural number, which, in
Isachenko's view, expresses discreteness, combines with the lexical meaning of the
noun, which denotes an object consisting of two halves, whereas in houses the same
meaning of the grammatical category combines with the lexical meaning of the noun,
which denotes separate objects- not coalescing together, as in the case of scissors.
Accordingly, the resulting meaning is that of anumber of separate objects, i. e. the
plural number in the usual sense of the term. These views put forward by A.
Isachenko throw a new light on the problem of number in nouns and certainly deserve
close attention. It is yet too early to say whether they can provide a final solution to
the complex problem of number in nouns.
CASE
Case is the category of noun expressing relation between the thing denoted by the
noun and other things.
The problem of case in Modern English nouns is one of the most vexed problems in
English grammar. This can be seen from the fact that views on the subject differ
widely. The most usual view is that English nouns have two cases: a common case (e.
g. father) and a genitive (or possessive) case (e. g. father's). Side by side with this
view there are a number of other views, which can be roughly classified into two main
groups:
(1) the number of cases in English is more than two,
(2) there are no cases at all in English nouns.
The first of these can again be subdivided into the views that the number of cases in
English nouns is three, or four, or five, or even an indefinite quantity. Among those
who hold that there are no cases in English nouns there is again a variety of opinions
as to the relations between the forms father and father's, etc.Before embarking on a
detailed study of the whole problem it is advisable to take a look at the essence of the
notion of case. It is more than likely that part, at least, of the discussions and
misunderstandings are due to a difference in the interpretation of case as a
grammatical category. It seems therefore necessary to give as clear and unambiguous
a definition of case as we can. Case is the category of a noun expressing relations
between the thing denoted by the noun and other things, or properties, or actions, and
manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This sign is almostalways an
inflection, and it may also be a "zero" sign, i. e. The absence of any sign шау be
significant as distinguishing one particular case from another. It is obvious that the
minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence
оftwo correlated elements at least is needed to establish a category (In a similar way,
to establish the category of tense in verbs, at least two tenses are needed, to establish
the category of mood two moods, etc.). Thus case is part of the morphological system
of a language.Approaching the problem of case in English nouns from this angle, we
will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means. It will be
therefore impossible to accept the theories of those who hold that case may also be
expressed by prepositions (i. e. by the phrase "preposition + noun") or by word order.
Such views have indeed been propounded by some scholars, mainly Germans. Thus, it
is the view of Max Deutschbein that Modern English nouns have four cases, viz.
nominative, genitive, dative and accusative, of which the genitive can be -expressed
by the -s inflection and by the preposition of, the dative by the preposition to and also
by word order, and the accusative is stinguished from the dative by word order alone.
It should be recognized that once we admit prepositions, or word order, or indeed any
non-morphological means of expressing case, the number of cases is bound to grow
indefinitely. Thus, if we admit that of the pen is a genitive case, and to the pen a
dative case, there would seem no reason to deny that with the pen is an instrumental
case, in the pen a locative case, etc., etc. Thus the number of cases in Modern English
nouns would become indefinitely large. This indeed is the conclusion Academician I.
I. Meshchaninov arrived at. That view would mean abandoning all idea of
morphology and confusing forms of a word with phenomena of a completely different
kind. Thus, it seems obvious that the numberof cases in Modern English nouns cannot
be more than two (father and father's). The latter form, father's, might be allowed to
retain its traditional name of genitive case, while the former (father)may be termed
common case. Of course it must be borne in mind that the possibility of forming the
genitive is mainly limited to a certain class of English nouns, viz. those which denote
living beings (my father's room, George's sister, the clog's head) and a few others,
notably those denoting units of time (a week's absence, thisyear's elections), and also
some substantivized adverbs (to-day's newspaper, yesterday's news, etc.).
It should be noted, however, that this limitation does not appear be too strict and there
even seems to be some tendency at work to use the -'s-forms more extensively. Thus,
we can come across such phrases as, a work's popularity, the engine's overhaul life,
which certainly are not stock phrases, like at his fingers' ends, or at the water's edge,
but freely formed phrases, and they would seemto prove that it is not absolutely necessary
for a noun to denote aliving being in order to be capable of having an -'s-form. The
more exact limits of this possibility have yet to be made out.
The essential meaning of this case would seem to require an exact definition. The
result of some recent investigations into the nature of the -'s form shows that its
meaning is that of possessivity in a wide sense of the term. Alongside of phrases like
my father's room, the young man's friends, our master's arrival, etc., we also find such
examples as nothing could console Mrs Birch forher daughter" s loss, where the
implied meaning of course is, 'MrsBirch lost her daughter'. The real relation between the
notionsexpressed by the two nouns may thus depend on the lexical meaning of these
nouns, whereas the form in -'s merely denotes thepossessive relation.
Up to now we have seen the form in -'s as a genitive case, and in so far we have stuck
to the conception of a two-case system in Modern English nouns.
There are, however, certain phenomena which give rise to doubts about the existence
of such a system — doubts, that is, about the form in -'s being a case form at all. We
will now consider some of these phenomena. In the first place, there are the
expressions of the type Smith and Brown s office. This certainly means 'the
officebelonging to both Smith and Brown'. Not only Brown, whose name is
immediately connected with the -'s, but also Smith, whose name stands somewhat
apart from it, is included in the possessive relation. Thus we may say that the -'s
refers, not to Brown alone, butto the whole group Smith and Brown. An example of a
somewhat different kind may be seen in the expression the Chancellor of
theExchequer's speech, or the Oxford professor of poetry's lecture.
These expressions certainly mean, respectively, 'the speech of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer', and 'the lecture of the Oxford professor of poetry. Thus, the -'s belongs to
the groups the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Oxford professor of poetry. The same
of course applies to the groups the Duke of Edinburgh's speech, the King of England's
residence, and many others.
A further step away from the category of case is taken in the groups somebody else's
child, nobody else's business, etc. Here the word immediately preceding the -'s is an
adverb which could not by itself stand in the genitive case (there is an obvious
difference between somebody else's child and, e. g., to-day's news, or yesterday's
paper). The -'s belongs here to the group somebody else as a whole. It cannot, then, be an
inflection making an integral part of a word: it is here part of a whole phrase, and,
accordingly, a syntactical, not a morphological, element.
Formations of this kind are by no means rare, especially in colloquial style. Thus, in
the following sentence the -'s is joined on to a phrase consisting of a noun and a
prepositional phrase serving as attribute to it: This girl in. my class's mother took us
[to the movies] (SALINGER), which of course is equivalent to the mother,of this girl
(who is) in my class. It is only the lexical meaning ofthe words, and in the first place the
impossibility of the phrase my class's mother, that makes the syntactical connection
clear.Compare also: . . .and constantly aimed to suggest a man of the world's outlook
and sophistication... (The Pelican Guide to EnglishLiterature)The -'s is still farther away
from its status as an inflection insuch sentences as the following: The blonde I had
been dancingwith's name was Bernice something — Crabs or Krebs. (SALINGER);
Inever knew the woman who laced too tightly's name was Mathson. (FORSTER) This
is the type usually illustrated by Sweet's famous example,the man I saw yesterday's
son, that is, the type "noun + attributive clause + -'s".Let us have a look at J. D. Salinger's
sentence. It is obvious that the -'s belongs to the whole group, the blonde I had been
dancing with (it is her name he is talking about). It need hardly be emphasized that the
preposition with cannot, by itself, be in the genitive case. Such constructions may not
be frequent but they do occur and they are perfectly intelligible, which means that
they fit into the pattern of the language.All this seems to prove definitely that in the
English languageof to-day the -'s can no longer be described as a case inflection
innouns without, at least, many reservations. This subject has been variously treated
and interpreted by a number of scholars, both in this country and elsewhere.
The following views have been put forward:
(1) when the -'s belongs to a noun it is still the genitive ending, and when it belongs to
a phrase (including the phrase "noun + attributive clause") it tends to become a
syntactical element, viz, a postposition;
(2) since the -s can belong to a phrase (as described above) it is no longer a case
inflection even when itbelongs to a single noun;
(3) the -'s when belonging to a noun, no longer expresses a case, but a new
grammatical category, viz. the category of "possession", for example, the possessive
form father'sexists in contradistinction to the non-possessive form father.
An essential argument in favour of this view is, that both the form without -'s and the
form with -'s can perform the same syntactic functions; for instance, they can both be
subject of the sentence (cf. My father was a happy man and My father's was a happy
life). Itshould be noted that the views listed under (2) and (3) lead to the conclusion
that there are no eases in the Modern English noun. Though the question is still under
discussion, and a final agreement on it may have to wait some time, we must
recognize that there is much to be said in favour of this view. We will, then, conclude
the discussion by saying that apparently the original case system in the English nouns,
which has undergone a systematic reduction ever since the earliest times in the history
of the language, is at presentextinct, and the only case ending to survive in the modern
language has dveloped into an element of a different character —possibly a particle
denoting possession.Different views have also been expressed concerning the scope of
meaning of the -'s. Besides phrases implying possession in the strict sense of the term
(my father's books, etc.), the -'s is also found inother contexts, such as my father's
friends, my father's arrival, my father's willingness, etc. The question now arises how wide
this scope may be. From this point of view it has been customary to point out that the
relation expressed by the collocation "noun + + -'s + noun" is often a subjective
relation, as in my father's arrival: my father's expresses the subject of the action, cf. my
father arrives. This would then correspond to the so-called subjective genitive of inflected
languages, such as Russian or Latin. It would, however, not do to say that the noun
having the -'s could never indicate the object of the action: cf. the example Doughty's
famoustrial and execution, where the implied meaning of course is, 'Doughty was tried and
executed'. This would correspond to the so-called objective genitive of inflected
languages. Now, though this particular use would seem to be far less frequent than the
subjective, it is by no means impossible or anomalous. Thus it would not be correct to
formulate the meaning of the -'s in a way that wouldexclude the possible objective
applications of the -'s-formation.My father was a happy man and My father's was a
happy life). It should be noted that the views listed under (2) and (3) lead to the
conclusion that there are no cases in the Modern English noun. ' Though the question
is still under discussion, and a final agreement on it may have to wait some time, we
must recognize that there is much to be said in favour of this view. We will, then,
conclude the discussion by saying that apparently the original case system in the
English nouns, which has undergone a systematic reduction ever since the earliest
times in the history of the language, is at present extinct, and the only case ending to
survive in the modern language has dveloped into an element of a different character
— possibly a particle denoting possession.
Parallel use of the -'s-form and the preposition of is seen in the following example: In
the light of this it was Lyman's belief and it is mine — that it is a man's duty and the
duty of his friends to see to it that his exit from this world, at least, shall be made with
all possible dignity. (TAYLOR)
It should also be noted in this connection that, if both the subject of an action and its
object are mentioned, the former is expressed by a noun .with -'s preceding the name
of the action, and the latter by an o/-phrase following it, as in Coleridge's praise of
Shakespeare, etc. The same of course applies to the phrases in which the object is not a
living being, as in Einstein's theory ofrelativity, or Shakespeare's treatment of history.
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

Adjective as a part of speech

• 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)

• Substantivized (adjectives) are divided into wholly substantivized and partially


substantivized adjectives.
• Wholly substantivized adjectives have all the characteristics of nouns,
namely plural form , the genetive case, they are associated with articles: a
native - the natives, a native’s hut. Some wholly substantivized adjectives have only the
plural form eatables, valuables, ancients, sweets, greens. (Kayshanskaya, 50-51).
• Partially substantivized adjectives acquire only some of characteristics of
the noun ; they are used with the definite article. Partially substantivized
adjectives denote a whole class: the rich, the poor, the unemployed. They
may also denote abstract notions: the good, the evil, the beautiful, the singular, the
plural. Substantivized adjectives are : a Russian - Russians, a German - Germans.
Partially substantivized adjectives are: the English, the French, the Chinese.

Form (morphological properties):


• Derivational features. The most important suffixes and prefixes are: -ful(hopeful),
-less(flawless), -ish (bluish), -ous (famous), -ive (decorative), -ic (basic), un
(unprecedented), pre- (premature). Among the adjectival affixes should also be
named the prefix a-, constructive for the stative subclass.
• Grammatical form. As for the veritable morphological features, the English
adjective, having lost in the course of the history of English all its forms of
grammatical agreement with the noun, is distinguished only by the hybrid category
of comparison: primary, comparative, superlative. Only qualitative adjectives are
capable of forming degrees of comparison, e.g.: a prettier girl, a quicker look, the
most bombastic speech . However, there are two cases of contradiction: 1 -
adjectives ,which possess such qualities which are incompatible with the idea of
degrees of comparison, are incapable of forming degrees of comparison: extinct,
immobile, deaf, final, fixed, etc. 2 - many adjectives considered under the heading of
relative still can form degrees of comparison when the property of a substance can
be graded quantitatively : cf. a mediaeval approach - rather a mediaeval approach - a
far more mediaeval approach. In order to overcome the demonstrated lack of rigor in
the definition the following additional linguistic distinction are introduced:
“evaluable” and “specificative” . In particular , one and the same adjective,
irrespective of its being basically relative or quantitative, can be used either in the
evaluative or specificative function

Function (syntactic properties)


• Combinability. Adjectives are distinguished by specific combinability with nouns in
pre-position and occasionally in post-position; with link-verbs, both functional and
notional, with modifying adverbs. In addition to the general combinability
characteristics of the whole class are distinguished by a complementive
combinability with nouns. The complement-expansion of adjectives are effected by
means of prepositions. E.g.: fond of, jealous of, angry with, sick with, serious about,
grateful to, mad for, etc.
• In the sentence the adjective performs the functions of an Attribute and a
Predicative, e.g.:
I will be silent as a grave. (Predicative)
I will be like a silent grave. (Attribute)

LITERATURE:

• M.Y. Blokh A course in theoretical English Grammar M., 2000, pp.197-214


• B. Ilyish The structure of modern English Leningrad, 1971, pp.58-66
• B.B. Khaimovich , B.I. Rogovskaya A course in English grammar, M.1967, pp.
75-83
• И.П.Иванова, В.В. Бурлакова , Г.Г. Почепцов Теоретическая грамматика
современного английского языка М., 1981 СС.34-39

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?

(Meaning )Semantically the numeral possess the categorial meaning of number.

(Form) Morphologically the numerals are, to all intents and purposes, invariable.

There are no grammatical categories to be discussed in numerals. There is no category


of number, nor of case, nor any other morphological category. So there is only the
function of numerals to be considered, and also possibilities of their substantivization.

(Function) Syntactically

The most characteristic function of numerals is of course that of an attribute preceding


its noun. However a numeral can also perform other functions in the sentence (it can
be subject, predicative, and object) if the context makes it clear what objects are
meant, as in: We are seven. Of the seven people 1 was looking /or / found only three.

Numerals include two classes of words—cardinal numerals and ordinal


numerals.

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.

Note 2. Care should be taken to remember the following patterns:

a) five hundred books (=500 books),

b) hundreds of books,

a) three thousand cars (=3,000 cars),

b) thousands of cars,

a) two million workers (==2, 0(0, 000 workers),

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.

The functions of cardinal numerals in a sentence.

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)

Four men in their shirt-sleeves stood grouped together on the garden


path. (Mansfield) (attribute)

“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.

As a rule ordinal numerals are used as attributes.

"No, this is my first dance," she said. (Mansfield)

Almost immediately the band started and her second partner

seemed to spring from the ceiling. (Mansfield)

Note 1. Dates are read in the following way:


1st September, 1944—the first of September (September the first),
nineteen (hundred and) fourty-four, 5th January, 1807—the fifth of January
(January the fifth), eighteen

hundred and seven.

Note 2. Common fractions are read in the following way 2/3 = two

thirds;3/8= three eights; 5/12=five twelfths,

Decimal fractions are read as: 8.5= three point five; 4.76=four nni < seventy-six; 8.03=eight
point naught three. row

Function of cardinal and ordinal numerals


Both cardinal and ordinal numerals can have certain functions of nouns (a) and of
adjectives (b) in the sentence.
e.g. a) Three of the schoolboys fell ill with scarlet fever. There were four of us there. "Will
you have another cup of tea?" "No, thank you
I've had two." There were three questions in the test. The second
was particularly difficult. Jane was the first to wake up. "Which exercise would you
like to do first?" "I think
I'd begin with the third." b) We had three visitors that day. The first visitor to
arrive was my aunt Milly.
LITERATURE:
1. 0. Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, p. 37.
2. M.Y. Blokh A course in theoretical English Grammar M., 1994, pp.38
3. B. Ilyish The structure of modern English Leningrad, 1971, pp.66-74
4. B.B. Khaimovich , B.I. Rogovskaya A course in English grammar, M.1967, pp.
92-96
5. V.L.Kaushanskaya and others Practical grammar of the English language
Leningrad 1967, pp.70-73
6. И.П.Иванова, В.В. Бурлакова , Г.Г. Почепцов Теоретическая грамматика
современного английского языка М., 1981 , СС.39-40

ИМЯ ЧИСЛИТЕЛЬНОЕ

В то время как существительные обладают всеми тремя признаками частей речи


— морфологическими, синтаксическими и семантическими, а у прилагательных
морфологический признак представлен слабее (1.3.3), числительные
объединены только своей семантикой (см. 1.1.1). Они обозначают точное
количество или точный по- рядок следования; соответственно, они
подразделяются на количественные (one, two ...) и порядковые (the first, the
second...). Словоизменительные признаки у них отсутствуют; синтаксически они
могут занимать позиции, свойственные как существительным, так и
прилагательным:

She might be thirty or forty-five. (Christie) Two Italian primitives on the wall. (Christie) She
had not seen me for four days. (Snow)

Обе позиции в равной степени свойственны числительным; следует, однако,


указать, что субстантивная позиция, как правило, связана с анафорическим
употреблением: after a minute or two...

Количественные числительные могут употребляться неанафорически, если они


обозначают отвлеченное число: Two and two is four.

В атрибутивной позиции количественные числительные обусловливают форму


числа существительного: one day — two days.

Порядковые числительные, обозначающие знаменатель дроби, подвергаются


полной субстантивации; они получают морфологическую форму
множественного числа: two thirds.

Количественные числительные способны обозначать порядок следования, когда


речь идет о годах, страницах или главах книги:

in ten sixty-six; Chapter seven.

Отсутствие морфологических признаков, а также особых, только им


свойственных синтаксических функций были причиной того, что некоторые
лингвисты (Есперсен, Керм) не признавали за числительными статуса части
речи, причисляя их к существительным и прилагательным. Однако, как мы
видели, оба подкласса числительных способны выступать в равной мере в
функциях, свойственных и существительному, и прилагательному; они имеют
специфическую семантику, их объединяющую, и, наконец, у них имеется
свойственная им словообразовательная система: для количественных от
двенадцати до двадцати — образования с суффиксом -teen, от двадцати до ста
— с суффиксом -ty, для порядковых, начиная от пяти, с суффиксом -th.
Количественные hundred, thousand, million являются числительными, когда они
обозначают точное число: two thousand five hundred and ten. Омонимичные им
существительные употребляются для обозначения большого количества
приблизительно, не называя точной цифры, причем эти существительные
выступают тогда в форме множественного числа: hundreds of people, by twos and
threes.

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.

Subclasses of pronoun according to their meaning:

ocal demonstrative interrogative relative conjunctive defining indefinite negative

That Who, whose, Who who each, some, any, No,


one what, which. every, somebody none,
r. this whose whose everybody, anybody neither
everyone, something, nobody,
these that what everything, anything no one,
all, either, someone nothing
those which which both, anyone, one.
other,
such as another.
same

+ + - + and - + -

and how much, 1.proper

how much, how 2.distribu-tive

how many many 3. quanti-

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

  my    his  her  its  


Possessive our your their whose

determinative

     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:

  he  him  his  himself


masculine

 PERSONAL   she  her  her  herself


feminine hers

  neutral  it  it  its  itself


NONPERSONAL
These gender distinctions are neutralized in the plural: they, them, etc. No
pronouns other than those in Table2 manifest a masculine/feminine contrast,
but the personal/nonpersonal contrast is also found in relativepronouns
(who/whom contrasted with which) and in indefinite pronouns (somebody
contrasted with something, etc). The 1st and 2nd person pronouns are inevitably of
personal rather than nonpersonal gender.
The choice between personal and nonpersonal gender is determined primarily
by whether the reference is to a 'person', i.e. to a being felt to possess
characteristics associated with a member of the human race. So defined,
'persons' are not only human beings, but may also include supernatural beings
(the Deity, gods, angels, fairies, etc.), and higher animals. Exceptional uses
such as it referring to babies and she referring to ships have already been noted.
The occurrence of he and she in cases of outright personification is common in
informal use: he may refer to a computer; she (or, for some women, he) to a
car. In poetry and fiction (especially children's fiction) there are virtually no
limits to the kinds ofobject which can be personified in this way.
The choice between masculine and feminine pronouns is primarily based of the
sex of the person (or animal) referred to:
Fred looked at himself in the mirror.
Freda looked at herself in the mirror.
In recent decades, the use of he, him, etc. as an 'unmarked' pronoun when the
sex of the referent is undetermined has been opposed, particularly in the
United States, by those campaigning against sexual bias in language.
NUMBER
There are morphologically unrelated number forms, as in personal, possessive,
reflexive demonstrative (this/these, that/those), defining (other/others)
pronouns:
singular : I , he, she, it, my, his, her, it, myself, herself, himself, itself, yourself, this,
that. other.
plural: we, they, our, their, ourselves, themselves, yourselves, these, those. others.
as opposed to the typical regular formation of noun plurals girl/girls, etc.
These special distinctions associated with pronouns are found most notably in
the class of personal pronouns, which may be regarded, by reason of their
frequency and their grammatical characteristics, as the most important and
central class of pronouns. Accordingly, it is to personal pronouns above all that
we turn in exemplifying these characteristics. It is also worth noticing that the
plurals of the 1st and 2nd person
have a more specific meaning than do those of nouns. Except when it refers to,
for example, collective authorship, we means 'I plus one or more other persons';
and, similarly, you with plural reference normally means 'you (singular) and
one or more other persons, but not me'. But contrast of number is neutralized
with you: in current standard English, only the reflexive forms yourself and
yourselves preserve a distinction between singular and plural:
Harry, behave yourself
Harry and Susan, behave yourselves!
Reflexive pronouns in general show number contrast in the manner of nouns.
The suffix -self the singular changes, by the addition of a sibilant suffix, to
-selves in the plural :

 
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)

 Adverbs as a part of speech

• 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)

Meaning (semantic property): Adverbs fall under several groups:

• adverbs of time (today, tomorrow, soon)


• adverbs of repetition or frequency ( often, seldom, ever, never)
• adverbs of place or direction (inside, here, backward, upstairs)
• adverbs of cause and consequence ( therefore, consequently, accordingly)
• adverbs of manner (kindly, quickly, hard)
• adverbs of degree, measure, quantity (very, rather, too, nearly, almost, twice,
firstly)
• Three groups of adverbs stand aside : interrogative (where, when, why, who),
relative, conjunctive.(Kayshanslaya , 204-205)
Blokh M.Y. divides adverbs into qualitative (adverbs which express immediate,
inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities : bitterly, plainly),
quantitative (words of degree - very, entirely, utterly, highly, awfully, dreadfully,
surprisingly, comparatively, slightly, enough, ridiculously, hardly and etc.) ,
circumstantial (adverbs of this type may be divided into notional and functional.
Functional include adverbs of time, place manner, cause, consequence. Many of these
adverbs are used as connectives and question forming functionals -now, here, when,
where, so, thus, how, why, etc. Notional include adverbs of place, time - today,
shortly, recently, seldom, late etc.( Blokh M.Y., pp. 214-222)

Form (the morphological properties):


a. As to their structure adverbs are divided into simple (long, enough, then, there),
derivative (slowly, likewise, headlong), compound (anyhow, sometimes,
nowhere) , composite (at once, at last). Blokh M.Y. considers that composite
adverbs differ in principle from the one cited above. The difference consists in
the fact that their parts are semantically not blended into an indivisible lexemic
unity and present combinations of a preposition with a peculiar adverbial
substantive -a word occupying an intermediatery lexico-grammatical status
between the noun and the adverb, e.g.:

• The pale moon looked at me from above.


• The departure of the delegation is planned for later this week.

Of quite a different nature are preposition-adverb-like elements which, placed in post-


position to the verb, form a semantic blend with it. By combining with these elements,
verbs of broader meaning are subjected to a regular, systematic multiplication of their
semantic functions. E.g.:

• to give - to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away, to give over, etc.

The function of these post-positional elements is either to impart an additional


aspective meaning to the verb-base, or to introduce a lexical modification to its
fundamental semantics. E.g.: to bring about - to cause to happen, to bring down -to
kill or wound. The lexico-grammatical standing of the elements in question has been
interpreted in different ways. Some scholars have treated these words as a variety of
adverbs (H.Palmer, A.Smirnitsky); others as preposition-like functional words
(I.Anichkov, N.Amosova); still others, as peculiar prefix-like suffixes similar to the
German separable prefixes (Y.Zhluktenko); finally some scholars have treated these
words as a special set of lexical elements functionally intermediate between words
and morphemes (B.A.Ilyish, B.S.Khaimovich and B.I.Rogovskaya). One fundamental
idea is common to all various theories advanced, and that is the idea of the functional
character of the analyzed elements. Blokh M.Y. classes these words as a special
functional set of particles, i.e. words of semi-morphemic nature , correlative with
prepositions and conjunctions. As for the name to be given to the words for their
descriptive identification (“postpositions”, “adverbial word-morphemes”, “adverbial
postpositions) we prefer the term “postpositives” introduced by N. Amosova.
Some adverbs have degrees of comparison: 1. If the adverb is a word of one syllable,
the comparative degree is formed by adding -er and the superlative by adding -est. 2.
Adverbs ending in -ly form the comparative form by means of more and the
superlative by means most. 3. Some adverbs have irregular forms of comparison:
(well-better-best, badly-worse-worst, much-more-most, little-less-least)
Function (the syntactic property ):
a. Combinability: An adverb may modify verbs (verbals), words of the category of state,
adjectives and adverbs, nouns:

• Annette turned her neck lazily ( verb + adverb)


• And glancing sidelong at his nephew he thought ... (verbal + adverb)
• And now the morning grew so fair, and all things were so wide awake. (word of the
category of state + adverb)
• Harris spoke quite kindly about it. (adverb + adverb)
• She is very beautiful (adverb + adjective). (Kayshanslaya , 204-205)

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)

b. The function of the verb is that of an adverbial modifier:

1. That is very good. (adverbial modifier of degree)


2. She is busy now. (adverbial modifier of time)
3. We shall meet here. (adverbial modifier of place)
4. She sings beautifully. (adverbial modifier of manner).

Adverbs, usually mixed up with other parts of speech.

Such adverbs may be distinguished only from the context.

• 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.