2

Міністерство освіти і науки України

Львівський національній університет імені Івана
Франка

О.І. ФЕДОРЕНКО • С.М.

СУХОРОЛЬСЬКА

ГРАМАТИКА
АНГЛІЙСЬКОЇ МОВИ
•
ТЕОРЕТИЧНИЙ КУРС
НАВЧАЛЬНИЙ ПОСІБНИК
ДЛЯ СТУДЕНТІВ І АСПІРАНТІВ
 3

ЛЬВІВ
Видавничий центр Львівського національного
університету імені Івана Франка
2008
Ministry of education and science of Ukraine
Lviv Ivan Franko National University

O.I. FEDORENKO • S.M.

SUKHOROLSKA

ENGLISH GRAMMAR
•
THEORY
STUDY MANUAL
FOR STUDENTS AND RESEARCHERS
 4

LVIV
Lviv Ivan Franko National University Publishing
Center
2008
ББК 81.2 Англ.
УДК 811.111

Рецензенти: д-р філол. наук, проф. Р.П.

Зорівчак
(Львівський національний
університет
імені Івана Франка)
д-р філол. наук, проф. Ю.А. Зацний
(Запорізький національний
університет)
д-р філол. наук, доц. В.В.
Михайленко
(Чернівецький національний
університет
імені Юрія Федьковича)

канд. філол. наук, проф. Л.І.

Булатецька
(Волинський державний
університет
імені Лесі Українки)

Рекомендовано до друку Міністерством освіти і науки

України.
Лист № 1.4/18-Г-1863 від 02.11.2007 р.
 5

Федоренко О.І., Сухорольська С.М.

Граматика англійської мови. Теоретичний курс:
Навч. посібник. – Львів: Видавничий центр ЛНУ ім.
Івана Франка, 2008. – 368 с.
ISBN
У підручнику аналізуються основні
питання граматичної теорії сучасної англійської
мови з огляду на нові теоретичні здобутки
сучасного мовознавства. Системно викладено
принципи категоріальної морфології,
синтаксичного аналізу, лінгво-комунікативної
інтерпретації речення.
Основне завдання посібника — допомогти
студентам оволодіти основними принципами
граматичного аналізу, тим самим сприяти
розвиткові наукового мислення, осмисленню
граматичних явищ і фактів мови, що вивчаються.
Для студентів філологічних факультетів
вузів, аспірантів, науковців, викладачів.

CONTENTS

ПЕРЕДМОВА ................................................................
................10

PART I. THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES

Unit 1. Basic Assumptions of Linguistic Analysis
……………12
1.1. Language as a system ……………………………………12
1.2. Peculiarities of language structure. Relations of
hierarchy. Level-stratificational view on
language:
structural levels and level units
 6

……..............................18
1.3. Language and speech…………. …………………………
21
1.4. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations ………………..24

Unit 2. What Is Grammar?

………………………….....................27
2.1. Basic conceptions of grammar
…………………………...27
2.2. Grammar as a linguistic discipline. Domains of
grammatical studies: Morphology and Syntax
………….30
2.3. Grammar and its relation to other linguistic
disciplines and language levels
……………….....……...32

Unit 3. Development of Modern Grammatical

Theory:
Types of Grammar
………….............................37
3.1. Prescriptive Grammar
……………………………………..37
3.2. Descriptive Grammar
……………………………………...40
3.3. Comparative and Contrastive Grammar
………………...43
3.4. Structural grammatical theories: oppositional
analysis
……………………………………………………..46
3.5. Structural grammatical theories: distributional
analysis
……………………………………………………..51
3.6. Structural grammatical theories: IC analysis and
Phrase- Structure Grammar
……………………………...55
3.7. Generative Grammar
……………………………………...57
3.8. Transformational Grammar
……………………………….65
3.9. Universal Grammar (Government/Binding or
Principles and Parameters Grammar)
………………..…71
 7

3.10. Text Grammar

…………………………………………….75
3.11. Relational Grammar
………………………………...……76
3.12. Functional approaches to grammar.
Systemic
Grammar. Communicative Grammar.
Lexical-
Functional Grammar
……………………………………..78
3.13. Cognitive Grammar
………………………………………83
3.14. Corpus-based Lexico-Grammar
……………………......85

Unit 4. Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Relations

in Grammar
…………………………...................90
4.1. Paradigmatic relations in grammar ................................90
4.2. Syntagmatic relations in grammar..................................94

Unit 5. Grammatical Categories and Problems of

Field Structure
…………………………..........…99
5.1. Nature of grammatical categories and the notion
of functional-semantic field
…………………………..…...99
5.2. Voice in terms of field structure …………………………
102
5.3. Aspect in terms of field structure ……………………….105

Unit 6. Functional Transposition of Grammatical

Forms ................................................
..............109
6.1. The notion of transposition ……………………………...109
6.2. Regular and stylistic transposition
……………………...112
6.3. Internal and external transposition ………....................112

Unit 7. Synonymy, Polysemy, and Homonymy

in Grammar
……………………………………..115
 8

7.1. The planes of content and expression. Asymmetric

dualism of the linguistic sign
…………………………….115
7.2. Synonymy in grammar …………………………………..116
7.3. Polysemy in grammar ……….......................................119
7.4. Homonymy in grammar
………………………………….121

Revision Tasks
……………………………………………………….124

PART II. MORPHOLOGY

Unit 8. Morphological Units: the Morpheme
and the Word
…………………………..............127
8.1. The morpheme as a morphological unit. Types
of morphemes. Morphs and allomorphs
……………….127
8.2. The word as a morphological unit. The structure of
words. Lexical and grammatical aspects of
words …...130
8.3. Morphological typology of languages. Synthetical
and analytical languages
………………………………..132

Unit 9. Lexico-Grammatical Word-Classes:

Parts of Speech
…………………………..........137
9.1. Main approaches to lexico-grammatical classification
of words
……………………………………………………137
9.2. Principles of part of speech classification ……………..140
9.3. The system of parts of speech
………………………….142
9.4. Notional and functional parts of speech. General
characteristics of function words
……………………….147

Unit 10. The Noun

…………………………...................................149
10.1. Part of speech characteristics of the noun
 9

…………...149
10.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of nouns
………........151
10.3. The category of number
………………………………..152
10.4. The category of case
…………………………………...155
10.5. Gender distinctions of the English noun
……………...160
10.6. Problems posed by nouns in theoretical
grammar:
‘the canon ball problem’
……………………………..…161

Unit 11. The Pronoun

………………………….............................163
11.1. Part of speech characteristics of the
pronoun ……….163
11.2. Subclasses of pronouns
………..................................166
11.3. The notion of deixis. Types of deixis and
kinds
of deictic usage
……………………………..................174

Unit 12. The Adjective

………………….......................................177
12.1. Part of speech characteristics of the
adjective ………177
12.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of
adjectives ……….178
12.3. The category of the degrees of comparison
…………180
12.4. Substantivation of adjectives
…………………………..184

Unit 13. The Adverb

…………………..........................................185
13.1. Part of speech characteristics of the adverb
…………185
13.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of adverbs
………….187
 10

13.3. The category of the degrees of comparison

…………189

Unit 14. The Verb

…………………………....................................190
14.1. Part of speech characteristics of the verb
……………190
14.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of verbs
…………….191
14.3. The category of tense
…………………………………..195
14.4. The category of aspect
…………………………………201
14.5. The category of time correlation
………………………206
14.6. The category of voice
…………………………………..209
14.7. The category of mood
………………………………….217
14.8. The categories of person and number
………………..224

Unit 15. Non-Finite Forms of the Verb

………...........................227
15.1. Non-finite forms of the verb: general
characteristic …227
15.2. The infinitive
………....................................................229
15.3. The gerund …………………………….
………………...231
15.4. The participle
……………………………………………232
15.5. The gerund and the infinitive compared
……………...234
15.6. The gerund and the participle compared
…………….235

Revision Tasks
……………………………………………………….236

PART III. SYNTAX

 11

Unit 16. Syntactical Units: the Word-Group/Phrase

and the
Sentence ...........................................
242
16.1. The word-group as a syntactical unit.
Classification
of word-groups. Forms and means of
syntactical
connection in word-groups
…………………………….242
16.2. The sentence as a syntactical unit.
Predicativity as
an essential part of the content of the
sentence …….249
16.3. Classification of sentences. Structural and
communicative types of sentences
……………….…..251
16.4. The problem of negative sentences.
Negation ………256
16.5. Non-sentence utterances
………………………………258

Unit 17. The Simple Sentence

…………………………...............259
17.1. The structure of the simple sentence
…………………259
17.2. Parts of the sentence. Main and secondary
parts. Independent elements
……………...................262
17.3. Some special difficulties of sentence
parsing ………..273
17.4. Order of sentence parts: word order
……………….…274

Unit 18. The Composite Sentence

…………………………........279
18.1. The structure of the composite sentence
…………….279
18.2. The compound sentence
………………………………282
18.3. The complex sentence
…………………………………285
 12

18.4. Direct and indirect speech

……………………………..296

Unit 19. Constructions of Secondary Predication:

Predicative
Complexes ..................................299
19.1. Secondary predication as a syntactical
phenomenon
……………………………………………299
19.2. Predicative complexes
………....................................302
19.3. Problems posed by secondary predication
in
theoretical grammar
…………………………………….309

Unit 20. Syntactical Processes

…………………………………..313
20.1. What syntactical processes are.
Alternational
and derivational syntactical processes
……………….313
20.2. Syntactical processes of the enlargement-
type ……..313
20.3. Syntactical processes of the reduction-type
…………316

Unit 21. Actual Syntax: Functional Sentence

Perspective
………………………….................322
21.1. What functional sentence perspective is
……………..322
21.2. Ways of indicating the rheme of a sentence
…………326
21.3. Ways of indicating the theme of a sentence
…………330
21.4. Hallidayan approach to communicative
organization of the sentence
…………………………..331

Unit 22. Semantic Syntax

………………………………………….334
 13

22.1. Semantic aspects of syntax. Case

Grammar
and Semantic Syntax
…………………………………..334
22.2. Parts of the sentence semantically
considered ……...338

Unit 23. Pragmatic Syntax

………………………………………...339
23.1. Linguistic pragmatics and speech act theory
………..339
23.2. Pragmatic types of utterances. Pragmatic
Syntax
……………………………………………………340

Unit 24. Beyond the Sentence: the Problem of

Supersyntactical Units
………………………..342
24.1. The notion of supersyntactical unit
……………………342
24.2. Supersyntactical units as textual
structures ...............346
24.3. Sentence connection into supersyntactical
units. Cohesion and coherence in discourse
………...347

Revision Tasks
……………………………………………………….350

References
……………………………………………………………355

Subject Index
 14

ПЕРЕДМОВА
Курс теоретичної граматики англійської мови є
завершальним у системі теоретичних курсів для
студентів англійської філології. Мета курсу —
ознайомлення студентів з граматичною будовою
англійської мови як системи, частини якої взаємопов’язані.
У курсі розглянуто основні закономірності морфологічної
та синтаксичної будови сучасної англійської мови. Основне
завдання курсу — розвиток у студентів самостійного
філологічного мислення і наукового розуміння змісту
граматичних категорій.
Курс теоретичної граматики складається із
трьох розділів: I. Вступ, ІІ. Морфологія, ІІІ. Синтаксис.
У кінці кожного розділу подано контрольні
завдання у формі тестів з декількома варіантами
відповідей, які сприяють засвоєнню матеріалу посібника.
Увагу студентів спрямовано на наукове розуміння
досягнень у розвитку сучасної граматичної теорії. У курсі
викладено теоретичні передумови граматичних теорій у
сфері зовнішнього і внутрішнього аналізу мови. Основи
теоретичної граматики викладено спираючись на
концептуальний апарат сучасної лінгвістичної науки.
Зокрема, розглянуто питання системного характеру
мови, функціонально-семантичних зв’язків між одиницями
різних рівнів, парадигматичні і синтагматичні відношення,
лексичні і граматичні аспекти слова, принципи
класифікації слів на лексико-морфологічні і лексико-
синтаксичні класи, природу, статус та актуалізацію
граматичних категорій та їх взаємодію з різними
контекстами. У третьому розділі подано загальну
характеристику синтаксичних одиниць і категорій
англійської мови, висвітлено предикатні і структурні
характеристики речення, семантичні аспекти
синтаксису, проблеми синтаксичної парадигми.
Згідно з принципом системного вивчення мови у
посібнику розглянуто концептуальну базу теоретичної
граматики англійської мови, що не тільки сприяє
осмисленню граматичних фактів і явищ, але й розвиває
наукове лінгвістичне мислення студентів, формує чітке
уявлення про основні принципи і категорії граматичного
аналізу. Курс теоретичної граматики знайомить
 15

студентів із розвитком граматичної теорії англійської

мови та методами лінгвістичного аналізу і передбачає
використання запропонованих методик у написанні
курсових і дипломних робіт.
Базові положення курсу теоретичної граматики
тісно переплітаються і випливають із основних положень
теоретичних курсів, які передували курсу теоретичної
граматики (курси теоретичної фонетики, лексикології,
стилістики, загального мовознавства, історії мови,
вступу до германського мовознавства), а також мають
безпосередній зв’язок із курсами теорії перекладу та
методики, які читають паралельно. Значна кількість
питань, які розглянуто у посібнику, стосується не лише
граматики англійської мови, але й загального
мовознавства, історії англійської мови (наприклад,
становлення аналітичних форм, синтетичні та
аналітичні мови тощо).
У темі “Зв’язок граматики з іншими мовними
дисциплінами та мовними рівнями” виділено залежність
граматичного значення від наголосу, інтонації та інших
просодичних характеристик. У центрі уваги висвітлення
взаємозв’язку граматики і лексики (взаємозв’язок курсу
теоретичної граматики із курсом лексикології). У полі зору
обох теоретичних дисциплін знаходимо питання
морфологічної будови слова, синонімії, омонімії, полісемії,
семантики (лексична і граматична семантика),
парадигматики (лексична і морфологічна парадигми),
польова структура (лексико-семантичні і функціонально-
семантичні поля) тощо.
Зважаючи на те, що спеціалізацію студентів
факультету іноземних мов проводять із трьох іноземних
мов і що студенти прослухали курс “Вступ до германської
філології”, окремі питання курсу теоретичної граматики
викладено у зіставленні з іншими мовами. Курс
теоретичної граматики повинен підготувати студентів
до кращого сприймання курсу теорії перекладу, який
читають паралельно. Ознайомлення з типологічними
характеристиками англійської мови сприяє вивченню
граматичних питань перекладу.
Курс теоретичної граматики має безпосередній
зв’язок із курсом методики викладання англійської мови,
що читається паралельно, зокрема із розділом “Навчання
граматики англійської мови”.
 16

Теоретична граматика грунтується

безпосередньо на практичній граматиці англійської мови,
вивчення якої завершується до VІІ семестру. У Вступі до
курсу теоретичної граматики зазначено відмінність між
практичною граматикою, яка пропонує готові правила
вживання, та теоретичною граматикою, яка описує та
аналізує факти мови, не даючи жодних конкретних
приписів.
Автори висловлюють вдячність рецензентам
посібника — доктору філологічних наук, професору Р.П.
Зорівчак (Львівський національний університет імені Івана
Франка), доктору філологічних наук, професору Ю.А.
Зацному (Запорізький національний університет), доктору
філологічних наук, доценту В.В. Михайленку (Чернівецький
національний університет імені Юрія Федьковича),
кандидату філологічних наук, професору Л.І. Булатецькій
(Волинський державний університет імені Лесі Українки)
— за цінні критичні зауваження та конструктивні
пропозиції.

PART I
THEORETICAL PRELIMINARIES

Unit 1
____________________________________

BASIC ASSUMPTIONS OF LINGUISTIC

ANALYSIS
____________________________________
1.1. Language as a system
Interest in language, how it originated, how it works
and develops, has existed from time immemorial. In the course
of the history of linguistics, many different views on language
have been put forward. For a long time, the word language
 17

(from Latin lingua ‘tongue’) was a general notion used to mean

‘the entire communicative means of people’.
Many researchers are interested in language —
philosophers, psychologists, logicians, sociologists, as well as
linguists. Since language is closely connected with thinking and
is considered a vehicle of thought, it has fallen under the
scrutiny of philosophers. Logicians study the laws of thinking
and their reflection in language. Language is of social character
by its origin and thus draws the attention of sociologists.
Many definitions of language have been made by
different thinkers and scholars.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831), a German philosopher, said
that ‘language is the art of theoretical intelligence in its true
sense, for it is its outward expression’.
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913), the famous Swiss
linguist, defined language as a system of signs expressing
ideas.
Benedetto Croce (1866-1952), an Italian philosopher
and historian, said that ‘language is an articulated limited sound
system organized for the purpose of expression’.
Edward Sapir (1884-1939), an outstanding American
linguist, considered language to be a purely human and non-
instinctive method of communicating ideas, emotions, and
desires by means of a system of voluntarily produced symbols.
As a most complex entity, language is defined
depending on which aspects have been singled out for
research. Seen in the light of its function or functioning,
language can be considered a means of communication
between people and, as such, a means for shaping, expressing,
and conveying thoughts. From the point of view of its
mechanism, language is a set of certain elements and rules for
using these elements, i.e. for combining them. If we focus on its
existence, we can describe language as the result of a collective
social habit of ‘producing’ language items and entities out of
phonic substance by linking certain sounds with certain
meanings. Semiotics will regard language as a system of signs,
i.e. material objects (sounds), whose qualities enable them to
designate something that is outside them. In terms of the theory
of information, language is a code used to encode semiotic
information [Solntsev, 1983: 13].
Various definitions agree that language is a system.
The idea that language is a system whose parts are
mutually interconnected and interdependent was elaborated by
 18

Ferdinand de Saussure. The great Swiss linguist created a

basis for the theory of language as a system. Though his only
written work appeared while he was still a university student, he
became very influential as a teacher, principally at the University
of Geneva (1901–1913). Two of his students reconstructed
lecture notes and other materials as Course in General
Linguistics (1916), often considered the starting point of the
20th-century linguistics.
Ferdinand de Saussure's main ideas taken in our
science of language are as follows.
1. Language is a system of signs: a sign being a two-
sided entity whose components are the ‘signifier’ and the
‘signified’. The signifier is the physical sound that you make
when you say, for example, cat, while the signified is a mental
concept or representation of physical cats in the real world. The
concept is the product of the mind which mediates between the
specific sign and the specific object. It is social practice (society)
that assigns the sign to its concept. Thus the linguistic sign is
‘absolutely arbitrary’.
2. The linguistic sign is bilateral, i.e. it has both form
and meaning. The meaning of the linguistic sign reflects the
elements (objects, events, situations) of the outside world and is
linked with the ‘signified’ (concept). Meaning is a ‘simplified
concept’. It is the stable core of the concept, i.e. the minimum of
the feature of the concept that is imparted to a linguistic sign.
3. The system of language is a body of interconnected
linguistic units: sounds, morphemes, words, sentences.
Linguistic units are viewed as linguistic signs of different kinds.
Specifically, the concepts of the sign and of the word are
equated.
4. Language has two aspects: the abstract language
system shared by the members of a community (langue or 'lan-
guage') and actual uses of language, i.e. language as
manifested in the individual speech acts of particular speakers
(parole or ‘speech’). Speech is the total of our utterances and
texts. It is based on the system of language, and it gives the
possibility of studying the system.
5. Language as a system may be approached both as
it changes over a period of time (the historical or diachronic
approach) and as it exists at one point in time, i.e. at a given
stage of its development without reference to history (the
synchronic approach).
6. The units of the language system can be analyzed
 19

as to their inner structure, the classes they belong to in the

system (or their paradigmatic relations), and the combinations
they form in speech (or their syntagmatic relations).
Ferdinand de Saussure established the structuralist
school of linguistics. He focused on the notion of language as
a system at a given moment in time (a synchronic approach) at
a highly abstract level that uncovered powerful principles about
the way in which language in general is structured. The
structuralist model he produced was then developed and
modified by various schools of modern linguistic thinking.
Modern linguistics is the scientific study of human
languages which is characterized by the systemic approach to
the object of its investigation. The systemic approach implies
that the object is regarded as an integral whole, or system, by
the researcher who analyzes its qualities and constituent parts
from this specific angle.
System is an integral unity made up of discrete
interrelated or interdependent parts or elements. In other words,
a system is a set of elements and relations between these
elements.
Element or elementary object of a system is a certain
object which possesses a number of properties and has certain
relations with the other objects within the system. A system’s
element may be a rather complex object (a system in its own
right), yet within this particular system it is indivisible.
Relation is an existing connection, association,
correlation, dependence or interdependence among elements.
Structure is a set of intra-systemic relations between
the system’s elements — a system’s internal organization or
ordering.
A system is an ordered object and has interrelated and
interdependent parts or elements. Any accidental, chaotic, or
irregular conglomeration of things, like a pile of children’s toys or
a garbage dump, is not a system. They consist of things which
have no systemic relations or links although they could well be
integrated.
The transition from chaotic to ordered objects, i.e. from
non-systems to systems, is gradual. A pile of stones is not a
system since it lacks features of internal ordering. Yet such a
pile is not just many scattered stones. If we remove some from
beneath those on top, the pile will collapse. This is an example
of rudimentary interrelation and interconnection, and,
consequently, a system in its early stages [Solntsev, 1983: 15].
 20

An object becomes a system only when the relations

between its component parts become complicated enough to
make up an internally ordered organization, i.e. structure.
In terms of the nature of the elements constituting a
system, systems can be divided into ideal and material
[Solntsev, 1983: 17].
Ideal systems consist of ideal objects, i.e. concepts or
ideas linked through certain relationships.
An ideal system (a system of concepts or ideas) is a
system of a certain kind of information which is called semantic
information. This information is recorded by means of some
material substance, which thus becomes its carrier. As a result,
the ideal system is represented by some material system, to
which people assign the function of storing an ideal system.
Material systems consist of interrelated material
elements. A stone or any other material object will be such a
system as it consists of elements (molecules) and of links
between them (molecular bonds). The totality of a system’s
material elements constitutes the material substance of the
system.
Material systems can be relatively simple or complex.
Simple material systems consist of relatively
homogeneous units interacting with one another.
Complex material systems are made up of relatively
autonomous parts — subsystems — which have elements of
their own. In such systems, elements may group together in
most diverse ways, with relations and interrelations between
them being direct, indirect, weak, or strong. Besides, some parts
(elements) of complex systems may have no interrelations or
interaction whatever, being linked with one another only through
belonging to the same whole.
Material systems may be either primary or secondary.
Primary material systems are made up of elements
which are in themselves of value to the system because of their
material properties. Primary material systems may be artificial
and natural. Natural systems may be organic and non-organic.
Secondary material systems are made up of
elements which have a value primarily because people have
invested them with some properties which they do not possess
by nature. Such systems are always made by humans in order
to record and transmit semantic information (ideal systems) as a
means of communication.
Among these secondary material systems, which
 21

are called sign or semiotic systems, is language. Elements

of the secondary material systems manifest themselves as
signs.
Signs carry some properties and qualities which have
been ascribed to them by humans and which are not inherent in
their natural properties. As a colour, red does not mean either
prohibition or permission. The traffic-stopping quality has been
assigned to it in the system of traffic control. The same is true of
language. No physical (material) properties of the sounds will
have any bearing on their being used as prepositions or other
words: to the house, by the river, etc. This property has been
assigned by social practice.
In this sense, F. de Saussure’s thesis that the linguistic
sign is arbitrary is quite correct. There is nothing obligatory in
the relation of its phonological form to the object it denotes (ac-
cording to the nature of the object: whale is a small word for a
large object, whereas micro-organism is just the reverse); the
connection between them is set up on the basis of conscious or
unconscious convention. This fact becomes evident when we
compare the names of the same objects in different languages.
Because linguistic signs are unmotivated and the relations
between them and their meanings are arbitrary, there is a
variety of ways to express some meanings, such as the plural in
English, which is expressed with the help of [s], [z], [ız], [n], etc.
The relative (historical or secondary) motivation of the
sign means that the linguistic sign taken in the system of
language reveals connections with other signs of the system
both in form and meaning. There are three main types of
motivation: phonetical (similarity between the sounds and the
sense, onomatopoeia: hiss, bang, buzz, cuckoo, giggle, gurgle,
purr, whistle), morphological (morphological structure suggests
the meaning: rethink, employee, snowdrop, crash-land) and
semantic (based on the co-existence of direct and figurative
meaning: heart-breaking, time-server, lick-spittle).
In most languages, however, onomatopoeic words are
relatively rare, and the vast majority of linguistic expressions are
in fact arbitrary [Yule, 1996: 22]. Therefore the relative
motivation does not contradict the thesis that the linguistic sign
is arbitrary.
Semiotic systems have all arisen in the course of
human activities and cannot function on their own, regardless of
social activities. The links established between the material
elements of a semiotic system and what these elements stand
 22

for are valid in any given society, its every new member
accepting these links as something given externally.
The transmission of meaning, the conveyance of
significant concepts, may be realized not only by language, but
also with sign-posts, the Morse code, gestures, signal fires, etc.
African natives use drums as a long-distance telephone. The
same goes for the smoke signals of the American Indians
[Berezin, 1969: 9-10].
Some non-linguistic forms of communication come
close to spoken language. The whistling language used by the
natives of Gomera, in the Canary Islands, who can
communicate in it over very long distances (about six miles), is
one of these. Other kinds of non-linguistic means of
communication come close to written language, and are
supposed by some to have been its embryonic form.
A third important field of non-linguistic communication
is gestures, which have no connection with either spoken or
written language. Gestures accompany all our speech.
American Indian plain tribes, for example, use the following
gestures: a fist is clapped into a palm for a shot, two fingers
imitate a man walking, and four the running of a horse.
Differences in the meanings of gestures are often striking. To
the English, a downward nod of the head means ‘yes’, and a
shaking of the head from side to side, ‘no’. On the other hand,
Czechs express ‘no’ by a downward nod of the head.
There are common features between language and
other sign systems: they serve as a means of expression,
conveying ideas or feelings; they are of social character, as they
are created by society with a view to serving it; they are material
in essence though their material form is different (sound-waves,
graphic schemes, the Morse code, etc.); they all reflect objective
reality.
But the differences between language and other
sign systems are more essential.
Language is the total means of expressing ideas and
feelings and communicating messages from one individual to
others, used by all people in all their spheres of activity. All other
sign systems are restricted in their usage and limited in their
expressive capacity.
Language conveys not only the essence of the facts,
but the speaker’s attitude towards them, his/her estimation of
reality and will. Language is connected not only with logical
thinking, but with psychology of people too.
 23

All sign systems apart from language are artificial, and

they are created and changed by convention. They are made
not by the people as a whole, but by a relatively small group of
representatives of the given speciality.
All sign systems are subsidiary to language. Each of
them has its own advantages over language, such as precision,
brevity, abstraction, clarity, etc. But none of them can replace
language as the universal means of communication of people in
all fields of activity conveying ideas, thoughts, and emotions.

1.2. Peculiarities of language structure. Relations of hierarchy.

Level-stratificational view on language: structural levels
and level units
Ferdinand de Saussure made it possible to see
language as a structured system rather than a ragbag of bits
and pieces. Language is not a pile of elements, it is a perfect
constitution of the language units which are integrated in the
structural whole.
Like any other system, language has a structure which
is viewed as its internal organization. It is made up of relations
between the elements. Every element in language can
potentially enter three types of relations: hierarchic,
paradigmatic, and syntagmatic.
Hierarchic relations consist in the following: a) less
complex units make up more complex units as their
components: morphemes consist of phonemes, words consist of
morphemes, phrases and sentences consist of words; b) each
less complex unit can pose as the simplest possible case of the
more complex unit (their qualitative features being disregarded):
the shortest morpheme includes only one phoneme, the
shortest sentence includes only one word.
Relations of hierarchy are found between units of
different structural levels of the language system. Introduced
by the descriptivists, the concept of level has been adopted by
other schools of linguistics and has become a widely used term.
A language as a system is organized as series of
hierarchically arranged levels each of which displays systemic
characteristics too. This is the level-stratificational view on
language. By common tradition, four main levels are
distinguished in the structure of language, represented by the
corresponding level units: phonological, morphological, lexical,
and syntactical. Only the unity of these levels forms a language.
 24

The phonological level is the lowest language level. It

is the sub-foundation of language; it determines the material
(phonetical) appearance of its units. The phoneme is the
phonological level unit. It is the smallest distinctive unit, e.g., the
phoneme /b/ is the only distinctive feature marking the
difference between tale [teıl] and table [teıbl]. Units of all the
higher levels of language are meaningful, as opposed to
phonemes. Phonemes are represented by letters in writing.
Since the letter (or sequence of letters) has a representative
status, it is a sign (grapheme), though different in principle from
the level-forming signs of language.
The morphological level is the second of the main
structural levels. There are two units at the morphological level
which represent the two morphological sublevels: the
morpheme and the grammeme. The morpheme is the smallest
meaningful unit built up by phonemes. Morphemes occur as
meaningful parts of the word, e.g., un-fail-ing-ly contains four
meaningful parts or four morphemes. The grammeme is
defined as a word-form, or grammatical form of the word, e.g.,
worked is a word-form of the verb to work expressing the Past
Simple tense. Also cf.: work, works, is working, has worked, will
work; near, nearer, nearest; son, son’s, sons, sons’.
The lexical level embraces the whole set of naming
means of language, i.e. words and stable word-groups (idioms).
The lexeme is the main nominative (naming) unit of language,
e.g., the words terror, terrible, terrific, terrify are the smallest
units naming a certain feeling, certain properties, and a certain
action respectively.
Each word of a lexeme represents a certain
grammeme, and each word of a grammeme represents a
certain lexeme. A word like speaks is at the same time a
member of a certain lexeme (having the lexical meaning ‘to utter
words, talk’) and of a certain grammeme (having the
grammatical meanings of ‘indicative mood’, ‘present tense’,
‘third person’, ‘singular number’, ‘non-continuous aspect’).
The word has many aspects. It has a sound form
because it is a certain arrangement of phonemes; it has its
morphological structure, being also a certain arrangement of
morphemes; when used in actual speech, it may occur in
different word-forms (grammatical forms), and signal various
meanings. The word is a necessary language unit both in the
sphere of the lexicon (the lexical level) and of grammar (the
morphological level). It is therefore simultaneously a lexical and
 25

a grammatical unit.
The syntactical level of language is the higher stage
in the hierarchy of language units. There are two units at the
syntactical level which represent the two syntactical sublevels:
the word-group (phrase) and the sentence. The word-group
(phrase) is the dependent syntactical unit distinguished as part
of the sentence only. The sentence is the smallest
communication unit, e.g., It rains is a sentence because it
contains a communication.
Hierarchy is obviously the first to be considered when
units are assigned to the respective structural levels: relations
between, say, a sentence and a word, a word and a morpheme,
a morpheme and a phoneme, are those of hierarchy. A
language level is defined as a set of relatively homogeneous
units that are not linked by relations of hierarchy, but exhibit
these relations (as larger or smaller units) with other units that
also form a totality [Solntsev, 1983: 72].
However, the number of language levels is still
unsettled. Some linguists believe that two levels may intersect,
giving rise to an intermediate level, e.g., lexico-grammatical
[Лешка, 1969: 27] or that there are areas lying between the
levels [Алефиренко, 2005: 80]. Between the phoneme and the
morpheme is the area of morphonological sublevel. Between
the morpheme and the word is the sublevel of word-building, or
derivation. Between the word and the phrase (sentence) is the
phraseological sublevel.
The establishment of the supersyntactical level in the
structure of language remains problematic though arguments
are posed for the recognition of the texteme to be the highest
structural form of language. Many linguists are inclined to regard
the sphere of supersyntax as the domain of stylistics which
deals with text-composition and with forming up texts
stylistically.
Levels are relatively autonomous systems, possessing
a set of units and a relational framework (structure). They can
be defined as subsystems of the overall language system.
Being a system of enormous complexity, language is a system
of systems.
Levels appear to enter one another. They are not
superimposed but intertwined. As soon as language begins to
function, this involves simultaneously units of all levels, since
these units are constituent parts which eventually form units of
communication in speech.
 26

A unit of a higher level contains units of the preceding

level. Transition from elements of one level to the next
incorporating them always entails the appearance of a new
quality: a word is qualitatively different from the morphemes it is
made up of, and a sentence has its own qualities, distinct from
those of the words it comprises.
Conversely, a combination of units of a certain level
does not make a unit of a higher level unless the combination
acquires the properties of the units of that higher level. The
combination of phonemes [dıt] does not make a morpheme as
long as it is meaningless. The combination of morphemes -ing-
ly is not a word since it names nothing. The combination of
words of the teacher is not a sentence as long as it communi-
cates nothing.
On the other hand, a single unit of a given level
becomes a higher level unit on acquiring the proper qualities.
The phoneme /o:/ makes a morpheme when it becomes
meaningful, as in the word aw-ful. When the word awe makes a
communication, it is a sentence: What feeling did you
experience? — Awe.
Relations between units of different levels may acquire
the following directions: a) progressive — units of the higher
level incorporate units of the nearest lower level; b) recursive —
smaller units make up larger units of the same level, e.g.,
compound words; c) regressive — units of the higher level are
transposed and become units of the lower level, e.g., idioms
(from free syntactic combination to the unit of the lexical level);
analytical forms (from free syntactic combination to the unit of
the morphological level) [Данеш, Гаузенблас, 1969: 17].
Level units (e.g., morphemes, words, phrases,
sentences) are segmental. They consist of phonemes and form
a hierarchy of levels. Supra-segmental units, on the other
hand, do not exist by themselves, but are realized together with
segmental units and express different modifying meanings
(functions) which are reflected in the strings of segmental units.
To the supra-segmental units belong junctural and prosodic
features: stress, pitch, length, intonation patterns, and pauses.

1.3. Language and speech

For linguistics to make progress in describing the
structural levels, Ferdinand de Saussure thought it necessary to
distinguish between what he called ‘langue’ and ‘parole’ (the
 27

terms are often used in their French form in other languages).

This is the difference between the abstract language system
(langue or ‘language’), which F. de Saussure saw as the object
of linguistics, and actual uses of language (parole or ‘speaking’,
‘speech’), which were thought to be too variable for systematic,
scientific study because the factors involved were too numerous
and too random.
An example might illustrate this. After a certain amount
of alcoholic intake you might say I've got a shore head when
you mean sore head. In this case the difference between s and
sh has no linguistic meaning; it is a matter of parole; it is a one-
off event that has no function in the language system. By
contrast, the difference between sore and shore in the non-
alcoholic I got a bit sore sitting on the shore does have a
function in the language system: the sound opposition in this
case serves to mark out a change in meaning, and it does so on
a systematic basis (single/shingle, sin/shin). These differences
are a matter of langue [Fawcett, 1997: 15].
The langue-parole distinction and the insistence that
linguistics should study only langue (the langue-oriented
approach), led to tremendous progress in the discipline. The
problem was that parole-oriented linguistics was scarcely
developed. It is better developed nowadays. The view that
language must be studied as parole (a communicative event)
rather than langue (an abstract system) is now widely accepted.
Language is a totality of rules to form sentences and a
set of meaningful units to be used in accordance with these
rules. It is a kind of storehouse of elements and rules (‘in the
mind’). The rules are a totality of potential relations between
linguistic elements, revealed in speech chain. They serve as a
programme to produce actual utterances, incorporating text-
forming linguistic elements. Language rules are manifestations
of the properties of linguistic elements, since these properties
form the basis for their linear, syntagmatic relations.
Speech is the language system in action (‘in the
mouth’); it is the actual use of language as a means of
communication. Human language exists through its speech
manifestation which is a perceptible speech utterance. Speech
and speech utterances are an objective reality which can be
investigated.
Speech reveals something that language as a means
of communication consists of, i.e. all types of language units
and the rules for combining them. Speech also has, first, their
 28

actual combinations which form speech as such and, second,

the extensive extra-linguistic information (supra-linguistic
residue) about the speaker — his/her age, education, peculiar
pronunciation, incomplete or erroneous understanding of the
meanings of some words, pitch of voice, health, mood, etc.
Supra-linguistic residue remains after one has ‘removed’ from
speech everything that language is made up of.
Ferdinand de Saussure stated that historically, a fact of
speech always precedes language, that there is nothing in
language which did not appear first in speech.
For simplicity sake, the language system may be
compared to a jig-saw puzzle, every bit carrying only part of a
picture of animals, houses, or landscapes. To see the whole
picture, one has to put these bits together keeping to certain
rules. These rules act as restrictions on the way these elements
may be combined. The langue-parole dichotomy can be
visualized as a relation which links the pieces of a jig-saw
puzzle into a set [Solntsev, 1983: 58].

The differentiation of the two planes — langue and

parole — is revealed in the oppositions: ideal vs. real, potential
vs. actual, general vs. concrete. The units of language are
constructs which are ideal, abstract, and potential. They cannot
be described in physical terms of concrete actual lingual pheno-
mena such as sounds, word-forms and utterances. They are
given by their generalized abstracted forms. But they do not
exist if not actualized and concretized by their speech
counterparts in particular conditions of the language use.
The units of language are usually called eme-units
because their names are derived with the help of the suffix -
eme: phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, grammeme, etc. The
elements of speech, on the contrary, are designated with the
help of allo-terms: allophone, allomorph, allolexeme, etc. They
are called allo-units. They are the speech actualizations and
manifestations of the corresponding eme- units; they are the
concrete speech variants of the latter.
 29

L Language Speech
e
v
e
l
s structural pattern concrete
y of the sentence utterance
n structural pattern concrete
t of the phrase phrase
a
ct
ic
al
le lexeme allolexeme
xi or allolex
c (lexico-
al semantic
variant)
m grammeme allogramme
o morpheme me (word-
r form)
p allomorph
h
ol
o
gi
c
al
p phoneme allophone
h
o
n
ol
o
gi
c
al

A language unit may be represented by a number of

speech variants. In actual speech the [t] sounds (allophones)
representing the phoneme /t/ in the words tar, star, writer and
eighth are all very different. Because of the linearity of language
in use, only one speech variant representing the language unit
can be found in a specific instance of language use.
Speech units are diverse in their structure and reveal
the dominant properties of language units. Units of speech have
one common basic quality which distinguishes them from lan-
 30

guage units: they can be produced in speech (being built to suit

a particular momentary need), whereas language units are
reproduced as ready-made entities. Some phrases are made in
speech itself, i.e. they are producible, whereas some types of
phrases (all phraseological units and some other types of set
phrases) are repeated like any other language units, i.e. they
are reproducible.
The actual operation of language produces a number
of typical structures, or patterns that can be filled with different
elements (patterns of words, phrases, and sentences), e.g.,
N+N: space flight, morning star, gold watch; Adj+N: fine
weather, sunny smile; SV: John ran. Time flies. The fact that
these patterns are reproducible, in spite of their different
material content, makes it possible to classify them as language
units.

1.4. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations

Units of each level have paradigmatic (associative)
and syntagmatic (combinatory) relations in respect of each
other: they can be put together in classes, or paradigms, and
can combine in linear sequences or syntagmatic chains.
Language elements (signs) can be joined up in a string,
and they can be grouped in a bundle. This is often called the
'chain and choice' model. In the first case (making the chain),
we produce sequences. In the restaurant we can string words
together to say 'I'd like sausage and chips, please'. This is
syntagmatic structure. In the second case (making the choice),
we can pick elements out of a ‘bag’ in place of other elements.
We could replace sausage in the above sentence by a number
of words, such as egg, pie, or steak. This is paradigmatic
structure [Fawcett, 1997: 15].
Syntagmatic relations (from Greek suntassein ‘to put
in order’) are based on the linear character of speech:
sentences are linear entities, which are in effect chains of
words; words are characterized by a linear arrangement of
morphemes; morphemes are chains of phonemes constituting
their acoustic form; phonemes alone may be regarded as point-
like entities, although the phonation of a phoneme unfolds in
time, i.e. it is also linear.
However, linearity of lingual elements is not the only
ground on which syntagmatic relations are established. It is the
factor of relatedness of elements that is of primary significance.
 31

In the sentence She watched the kitten playing with the ball, the
articles have only right-hand connections with nouns and do not
contract any syntagmatic relations with the elements displaced
to the left of them (watched and with), despite their linear
contact.
Syntagmatic relations enable language to function as a
means of communication. When they are brought into play,
linguistic elements combine to form information-carrying
utterances. They are therefore the functional relations of
language. The communicative function is largely based on them
[Solntsev, 1983: 60].
Syntagmatic relations are those between classes and,
in specific cases, between the constituent members of these
classes. In syntax, the relations between specific words like I,
read, a book are seen as relations between classes of words: a
pronoun, a verb, and a noun. A specific relation between
specific words is a specific instance of relations between
classes.
Syntagmatic relations can be set up only between
classes of elements having the same degree of complexity, i.e.
elements which have no relations of hierarchy. Morphemes do
not combine with words; they combine only among themselves
as elements of words. Notional words combine only among
themselves as parts of sentences, but not with independent
sentences.
Paradigmatic relations — termed associative by
Ferdinand de Saussure — link members of different classes of
linguistic units ‘formed by mental association’. They reveal
themselves in the sets of forms constituting a paradigm (from
Greek paradeigma ‘pattern’, from paradeiknunai ‘to show side
by side’).
Paradigmatic relations embrace various possible
groupings of elements within the system: classes, subclasses,
and groups of elements. All these groupings are based on some
common feature with respect to which elements enter the group.
Word-families, for instance, have as their basis a common root
(dog, doggish, doggedly, etc.), synonymic series — a common
denotative meaning, lexico-semantic fields and thematic groups
— a common sphere of reference (colours: red, yellow, green,
brown, etc.)
Units of each level divide into groups or classes whose
members have certain components in common. The
phonemes /b, d, g/ are united by their being voiced and plosive.
 32

As a group /b, d, g/ is part of the phonemic system of English,

but in speech the whole group is not used together. Each
member of this group forms certain combinations with other
phonemes: /bı-/, /be-/, /bu-/, etc.
Linguists have established that historically syntagmatic
relations precede paradigmatic relations. It is syntagmatic re-
lations that give rise to paradigmatic ones. Classes of all types
(paradigms) and, accordingly, paradigmatic relations within
these classes are formed by fitting different elements into the
same position in a speech chain. Elements which can occur in
the same position are considered to be members of a paradigm.
In The sun is shining, the nouns moon, star, or light can
substitute for sun; was shining, shone, will shine, etc., as well as
is rising, is setting can substitute for is shining.
Linguistic elements can form super-paradigms (the
largest possible paradigms), major paradigms (sub-paradigms),
and minor paradigms. Smaller paradigms enter those of a
higher order as their elements, with each superior paradigm
consisting of paradigms of a lower order. All phonemes form a
super-paradigm, or a super-class of their own. Vowel phonemes
constitute a major paradigm. This is a most extensive paradigm
since it comprises all sounds occurring between consonants in
different words. Minor paradigms are constituted by the variants
(allophones) of the same phoneme.
The fewer restrictions are imposed on a position the
greater the number of different elements that can be used in it
and the wider the paradigm thus isolated.
Some linguists assume that paradigmatic relations are
the sphere of language, while syntagmatic relations are the
sphere of speech. However, paradigmatic and syntagmatic
relations are found in both spheres, in the sphere of language
and in that of speech.
Language as a system, not as a functioning entity, has
primarily associative, i.e. paradigmatic, relations between its
elements. If we assume this view of language, syntagmatic
relations will appear as a latent ability of elements to combine
with one another to form linear sequences. This ability is
variously called valency, combining power, combinatorial
possibilities, collocability, etc. As a functioning medium, speech,
language translates the capacity inherent in its elements for
forming linear sequences into meaningful syntagmatic relations.
Speech is undoubtedly the manifestation of
syntagmatic relations of language elements, but it also
 33

manifests paradigmatic relations between classes. In the

sentences The stream discharges into the river and The river
flows into the sea there are paradigmatic relations between the
words stream and river, discharges and flows into, etc. In each
specific case a class, or paradigm, has its own representative.
Paradigmatic relations occur in speech in a latent form: a) as a
sequence of paradigm representatives in utterances; b) as a
repetition of these paradigm representatives in different
utterances [Solntsev, 1983: 79].

Unit 2
____________________________________

WHAT IS GRAMMAR?
____________________________________
2.1. Basic conceptions of grammar
The system of language is parted into separate levels
or subsystems: Phonetics (phonological level), Lexicon (lexical
level) and Grammar (morphological and syntactical levels).
From this point of view, grammar is a constituent part of
language.
The level that usually seems most important is the
Lexicon — also known as the word-stock, vocabulary, or lexis.
We may think of this as our total collection of names for things:
the names of actions, objects, qualities, and so on; words like
assume, box, taxation, finger, sharp, extraordinary. The total
vocabulary of English is immense and runs to about half a
million items. But a language cannot work with words alone. A
group of words like arrive, girl, man, say cannot tell us much
until we have added grammar. Grammar contributes features
like articles, prepositions, tense, number, and the conventions of
arrangement — which word goes before which. With grammar
added, words can be made to tell us something: The man said
that the girls had arrived. Grammar has done three things here.
It has arranged the words in a particular order, making clear
who did the saying and who the arriving. It has contributed
tense (said), and number (girls). Thirdly, grammar has added
some additional words: the, that, had [Quirk, 1991: 192-193].
Grammar is a meaningful arrangement of linguistic
 34

forms from morphemes to sentences [Bloomfield, 1969: 163-

164].
Grammar is the abstract system of rules
governing the modification of words and the combination
of words into sentences.
The grammatical system is the whole set of regularities
determining the combination of naming means in the formation
of utterances as the embodiment of thinking process [Blokh,
1983: 6].
Grammar is the way a language multiplies and
combines words (or bits of words) in order to form longer units
of meaning. There is a set of rules which govern how units of
meaning may be constructed in any language.
Without grammar communication is impossible.
Grammar connects words and gives them the sense. If
the same words with the same meanings are rearranged
in a sentence, the meaning will be different. Consider the
effect of switching the subject and object in: The farmer
killed the wolf. The wolf killed the farmer.
Grammar is not something scary ‘out there’ — it is part
of every speaker’s intuitive knowledge of language.
Each adult speaker of a language clearly has some
type of ‘mental grammar’, that is, a form of internal linguistic
knowledge which operates in the production and recognition of
appropriately structured expressions in that language. This
‘grammar’ is subconscious and is not the result of any teaching
[Yule, 1996: 87].
Even five-year-old children know most of the grammar
of the English language. We can see this from the way they
speak. They put words together in the right order, with the right
endings, and only occasionally make a mistake.
R. Quirk and G. Stein [1990: 173-174] take as an
example the following authentic remark of a five-year-old boy:
Eric and me's just buyed lots of fings. In fact, the parent ought to
feel pride in the quite remarkable amount of grammar the little
boy has correctly mastered. He has mastered the ordering of
sentence elements perfectly, having placed the subject Eric and
me in front of the verb [ha]s buyed with the object lots of fings in
its correct place after the verb. His subject shows an even
subtler grasp of ordering: the polite relegation of the speaker
reference to the end — Eric and me rather than me and Eric.
The sentence also shows the correct use of the perfect has
 35

buyed with the item just.

There are some errors of grammar that the little boy
makes. He seems to have little idea of concord: the fact that
some verb forms (is, has, plays) can be correctly used only with
a singular subject and that otherwise a plural form must be
substituted. Nor does he seem to realize that personal pronouns
have a subject form and an object form; he uses me (Eric and
me) instead of the correct I. But since in both respects his
grammatical deviance is shared by thousands of adults who
have not learned (or who carelessly ignore) standard grammar,
we should not be too hard on the five-year-old. And in one
respect what he has got wrong tells us how much he has in fact
correctly learned: [ha]s buyed is wrong, but it shows that he has
mastered the inflection of regular verbs: love/loved, play/played.
Everyone who speaks English knows grammar,
intuitively and unconsciously. But not everyone who speaks
English knows about grammar. ‘Knowing about’ means being
able to describe what we know, e.g., analyze sentence patterns
into their parts, and give them such labels as subject and object,
or noun and preposition. It means being able to describe what
we do, when we string words together, and being able to work
out what the rules are. It means learning a number of technical
terms, and using them in a clear and consistent way [Crystal,
1990: 8-9].
Explicit knowledge of grammar is conscious knowledge
of grammatical facts. It can be taught and learned in much the
same way as any other kind of factual knowledge (mathematical
theorems, historical dates). Implicit grammatical knowledge, on
the other hand, is unconscious grammatical knowledge of a
much larger body of information that is the basis of automatic,
spontaneous use of language. It cannot be directly taught.
A second and quite different concept of grammar
involves what might be considered 'linguistic etiquette', i.e. the
identification of the ‘proper’ or ‘best’ structures to be used in
speaking or writing; usage of the preferred or prescribed forms.
This approach to grammar as a set of rules needed to speak
and write correctly is still the basis of primary and secondary
language education.
It is not that uneducated or non-standard expressions
like He never gives us nothing have no grammar. It is
convention that makes They have forgotten it acceptable where
They have forgot it is not acceptable. It is not that one form is
more ‘logical’ or even more ‘grammatical’ than the other: the two
 36

differ simply in following different conventions [Quirk, Stein,

1990: 176]. A sentence such as You was here is grammatical
even though it is nonstandard and, in many contexts,
unacceptable.
A third view of 'grammar' involves the study and
analysis of the structures found in a language, usually with the
aim of establishing a description of the grammar of English, for
example, as distinct from the grammar of Russian or French or
any other language [Yule, 1996: 87]. Grammar is defined as the
scientific study of the grammatical facts of a language, the
business of taking a language to pieces, to see how it works
[Crystal, 1990: 6].
This is what occupies many linguists, since the concern
is with the nature of language, often independently of the users
of the language. The study of grammar, in this narrow sense of
the study of the structure of expressions in a language, has a
very long tradition.
In linguistic description, the term grammar can refer
more broadly to the overall analysis of a language. For example,
Franz Boas and Ella Deloria’s Dakota Grammar (1939) uses the
Americal structuralist model of language to describe the
phonetics, morphology, and syntax of this plains Indian
language.
Grammar can also be viewed as a product, i.e. a book
containing an account of the grammatical facts of a
language or recommendations as to rules for the proper use of
a language.
The study of grammar has its roots in several traditions
in the ancient world. One is the religious traditions of India,
which encouraged the systematic study of Sanskrit, the sacred
language of Hinduism: the famous Hindu scholar Panini in the
4th century BC gave a detailed description of Sanskrit. Panini's
grammar of Sanskrit is the oldest systematic grammar of the
Ancient Indians. It consists of eight books, or chapters,
containing about 4,000 very short grammatical rules — ‘sutras’,
given in verses.
In European tradition, the beginning of grammar is
ascribed to Ancient Greece: Dionysius Thrax of Alexandria in
the 1st century BC compiled a pedagogical grammar that
served as a model for subsequent grammars of Latin and, still
later, the vernacular languages of Western Europe and other
regions. The grammar of Dionysius Thrax is sometimes seen as
the first codification of part-of-speech distinctions, but it
 37

benefited from a long tradition of study of logic and language by

philosophers.
The Greeks were the first Europeans to write grammar
texts. The Romans applied the Greek grammatical system to
Latin. The works of the Latin grammarians Donatus (4th century
AD) and Priscian (6th century) were widely used to teach
grammar in medieval Europe. By 1700, grammars of 61
vernacular languages had been printed. These were mainly
used for teaching and were intended to reform or standardize
language.
Scientific grammatical analysis of language began in
the 19th century, with the realization that languages have a
history: this led to attempts at the genealogical classification of
languages through comparative linguistics. Grammatical
analysis was further developed in the 20th century, and was
greatly advanced by the theories of structural linguistics and
transformational-generative grammar.

2.2. Grammar as a linguistic discipline. Domains of

grammatical studies: Morphology and Syntax
Grammar (from Greek gramma ‘letter’, grammatike
‘the art of writing’) is the branch of linguistics which studies the
grammatical structure of language. It deals with the structure of
words and their forms, and the way the phrases and sentences
of a language are constructed. Grammar is divided into
Morphology (from Greek morpha ‘form’ and logos ‘knowledge’)
which is the study of forms (of words), and Syntax (from Greek
syn ‘with, together’ and tássein, ‘to put in order, to arrange’)
which deals with the arrangement of those structures and forms.
The grammar of any language has a system of forms and
syntactic combinations whose structure allows us to express our
thoughts and our attitude to reality.
Morphology is the part of grammar that studies the
form and structure of words in a language. It is the study of
parts of speech and patterns of word formation (inflection,
derivation, composition, etc.), the study of the behaviour and
combination of morphemes.
The two sublevels are distinguished at the
morphological level: the level of the morpheme and that of the
word (grammeme or word-form). Accordingly, there are two
grammatical studies in the framework of Morphology. The study
of the morpheme is called Morphemics, and the study of the
 38

word is called Morphology in the narrow meaning of the term.

The subject of Morphology as a part of Grammar is nowadays
extended to the study of all paradigmatic and syntagmatic
properties of morphemes and words. Concrete morphological
theories investigate different aspects in paradigmatics and
syntagmatics of the morphological level units: Categorial
Morphology, Morphological Semantics, Syntagmatic
Morphology, Prosodic (Templatic) Morphology, Derivational
Morphology (Word-building), Morphemics, etc.
Syntax is the part of grammar that studies grammatical
arrangement of words to show their connection and relation.
The two sublevels are distinguished at the syntactical
level: the level of the word-group (phrase) and that of the
sentence. Accordingly, there are two main spheres for
syntactical studies, the Minor and Major syntax respectively. At
the same time, modern Syntax is the complex of syntactical
studies of different paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects of the
syntactical level units: Generative Syntax, Paradigmatic Syntax,
Semantic Syntax, Categorial Syntax, Structural Syntax, Actual
Syntax (Functional sentence perspective), Communicative
Syntax, Pragmatic Syntax, Modal Syntax, Relational Syntax,
Principles and Parameters Syntax, etc.
Besides the branches of grammar described above,
there are other divisions of grammar.
The general study of grammatical system, irrespective
of the specific features of any particular language, is known as
General grammar which forms a part of general linguistics.
Linguistic phenomena and properties (including grammatical
material) common to all languages are generally referred to as
language universals. The principles and methods of General
grammar provide foundations for the theory and practice of the
grammars of concrete languages, e.g. English grammar,
Ukrainian grammar, etc.
Grammar can also be theoretical (linguistic or
academic) and practical (pedagogical). Theoretical grammar
is relevant to the needs of professional linguists and university
students, whereas pedagogical grammars are for teachers and
learners.
The aim of theoretical grammar of a language is to
present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e.
to scientifically analyze and define its grammatical categories
and study the mechanisms of grammatical formation of
utterances out of words in the process of speech making.
 39

Practical grammar is aimed at providing the student

with a manual of practical mastery of the grammatical system of
language (within the limits determined by various factors of
educational destination and scientific possibilities).

2.3. Grammar and its relation to other linguistic disciplines and

language levels
All the branches of Grammar are closely connected not
only with one another, but also with the other branches of
linguistics: Phonetics, Lexicology, Stylistics, General linguistics,
History of the language, Cognitive linguistics, Sociolinguistics,
etc. Grammar also meets the needs of various branches of
applied linguistics: lexicography, translation studies,
computational linguistics (automatic machine translation and
text analysis), foreign language teaching.
This connection is determined by the fact that language
is a system whose component parts are inseparably connected
with one another, and therefore the branches of linguistics
which study these component parts must of necessity be also
interconnected.
The treatment of grammatical facts (grammatical
system) cannot be divorced from the study of all the other levels
in the language system. In the actual process of communication,
the levels of Phonetics, Lexicon, and Grammar are
interdependent and stand in definite relations to one another.
Grammar as a linguistic discipline is closely connected with
Phonetics and, especially, Lexicology.
Connection of Grammar with Phonetics is explained
by the fact that morphemes, words, their grammatical forms,
phrases, and sentences consist of sequences of speech sounds
(allophones of some phonemes). Speech sounds may help
distinguish between grammatical meanings: asks [asks] :: asked
[askt].
Modulation features, intonation and stress are well
known to effect both morphology and syntax.
Discrimination between the parts of speech may be
based upon stress (morphological or semantic stress): 'present
— to pre'sent, 'export — to ex'port, 'conduct — to con'duct, etc.
Stress also distinguishes compounds from otherwise
homonymous word-groups: 'blackbird :: 'black 'bird.
Changes in the intonation pattern can change the
functional sentence perspective, the interpretation of the whole
 40

utterance, say, from a statement to a question, from a positive

to a negative sense, from interrogative to exclamatory: He gives
me up? You mean that? Michael knows? Did you hear it!
The connection between two members of an ordinary
affirmative sentence may be brushed aside as impossible by
intonation: We surrender? Never! I catch cold! No fear.
Structural ambiguity in homonymic patterns on the
syntactical level is very often resolved by intonation patterns. In
the phrase old men and women, for instance, old could refer to
both men and women or just men. In speech, the difference
would normally be conveyed by the corresponding stress and
juncture. He talked with a pretty French accent — with the
stress on French the word pretty is used adverbially (‘in/to some
degree’); when pretty is stressed it is used attributively (‘good,
fine’).
Patterns of stress sometimes show the structural
meaning unambiguously in the spoken language while in the
written variant it may be ambiguous without the context. When I
have instructions to leave is equivalent in meaning to I have
instructions that I am to leave this place, the dominant stress is
on leave. When the same sequence is equivalent to I have
instructions which I am to leave, the dominant stress is on
instructions.
The interconnection between Lexicology and
Grammar is conditioned by inseparable ties between the
objects of their study. Even isolated words as presented in the
dictionary bear a definite relation to the grammatical system of
the language because they belong to some part of speech.
There is a ‘grammar’ within the word (internal
grammar) as well as between words. Such words as delegation
and inspiration have their noun character suggested by their
form alone, even before we see them identified as nouns by
their use in a structure.
Linguists nowadays are in fairly general agreement that
the definition of grammar as a system of general rules
governing the changes in words, no matter what their lexical
meaning may be, and representing grammar as an abstraction
from all concrete properties of words, needs revision. The most
important error in this connection is the idea that grammar rules
apply to all the elements of a certain class of words alike.
Previous grammatical descriptions supported coursebooks
based on slot and filler approaches to language teaching.
Computer-aided corpus linguistics gives more coherent and
 41

accurate account of how language works. Actually, the lexical

meaning of words, their combining power and usage introduce
variations and interfere with the general application of grammar
rules.
One of the best known examples to illustrate this point
is furnished by restrictions in the use of the plural of nouns.
Abstract nouns are usually uncountable. But it is not enough to
say (nor is it true) that they are not used in the plural and do not
occur with a or an. Many abstract nouns (arrival, collision,
situation, etc.) have two numbers regularly, and may be
preceded by such determiners as a/an, another, each, every in
the singular, and certain, few, many, several in the plural. Other
abstract nouns (absence, amusement, beauty, fear, hope,
sickness, etc.) are uncountable in some of their meanings, and
countable when they express a separate instance of the
corresponding state. A third group (clarity, magic, stealth, etc.)
have no countable variants and occur only with such
determiners as little, much, some.
Variation in lexical environment may change the
meaning of a grammatical form, and the use of a grammatical
form may, in its turn, change the lexical meaning of the word
involved.
The constant reciprocal interaction between vocabulary
and grammar makes itself evident in contextual restrictions of
word meanings. The verb mean + Vinf means ‘intend’, while
mean + Ving means ‘indicate, result in’: I am sorry I didn’t mean
(= intend) to be rude. This meant (= resulted in) changing my
plans.
Compare also: George is certain (sure) to pass his
exam (the speaker is certain). — George is certain (sure) of
passing his exam (George himself is certain). I remembered to
post your letter (I remembered that I had to: then I posted it). —
I remembered posting it (I posted it, and remembered). I forgot
to post it (I forgot I had to and I didn’t do it). — I forgot posting it
(I posted it, but have forgotten about it). I regret to tell you … (I
regret, but will now tell you). — I regret telling you … (I told you
and now regret it).
When the verb that follows deserve is understood in a
passive meaning, that meaning can be expressed either by a
passive infinitive or gerund: people who deserve to be treated
gently; theory which deserves mentioning on its own merits.
When the verb following deserve expresses an active meaning,
only the to-infinitive occurs: I did not deserve to go to prison.
 42

For many years there has been current a lively

alternative to the structure-oriented grammar which is not part of
the ‘lexist’ approach since it derives its strength from a pre-
Chomskyan, performance-oriented, tradition. Charles Owen
[1993: 171] points out that in 1966 M. Halliday and J. Sinclair
also preseved the distinction between lexis and grammar; or
rather, they argued that there are certain aspects of lexical
patterning which opertae independently of any grammatical
restrictions. At that time, the aim was to redress the balance of
linguistic interest which was tilted away from the study of lexis.
However, the conventional assumption that grammatical
abstractions are in principle possible without recourse to lexical
statements was not really challenged until the appearance of
the more integrated view of the lexis/grammar relationship
modified in the light of corpus data. Modern linguists direct our
attention to the corpus data and point out that lexical patterning
is very much more repepetitive than open-choice models
suggest. The grammar is best learnt by focusing on the usage
patterns of individual words. Words, or rather their
accompanying patterns of use, are not seen as ‘exceptions’ to
the rules.
One of the underlying tenets of the grammar, derived
from J.R. Firth, is that meaning is very closely associated with,
or even dependent on, the pattern of co-occurrence of a word.
There is a circularity here, in which the meaning of a word
depends on its grammar and its grammar depends on its
meaning.
There is no doubt that computer-assisted corpus
linguistics does reach some parts of the language other
grammars failed to reach. The basic insight that grammar and
lexis are closely integrated is important linguistically and
pedagogically, and the grammar provides evidence to support it.
Most grammars take the meaning of the words for
granted, but this position was not open to the compilers of
Collins COBUILD English Grammar [1990]. It emerged gradually
through the first few years of research that words do not have
inherent meanings, but depend on their environments to select
or at least confirm their meanings. It is essential to specify which
individual lexical items display particular grammatical behaviour.
Obviously, the question of how much lexical information a
grammar should supply will depend on the scope of the book.
An electronic descriptive grammar, on the other hand, has no
space restriction and could easily provide much fuller lists for
 43

the user to select from as he/she wishes.

In order to illustrate the fact that observation of a
corpus of natural language is essential in compiling a
descriptive grammar, we will look at one type of verb, the
ergative verb. Ergative verbs have the same thing as their
object, when transitive, and as their subject, when intransitive:
He narrowed his eyes in concentration (X narrowed Y). — His
eyes narrowed angrily (Y narrowed).
There is also connection between ergative verbs and
reciprocal verbs. Thus we have the patterns they met and X met
Y; they negorioated and X negotiated with Y.
Some verbs are both reciprocal and ergative. The verb
combine, for example, has the following patterns: X and Y
combined; X combined with Y; Z combined X and Y. The first
and the second of these patterns are intransitive and reciprocal,
while the first and the third are related as members of an
ergative pair. Then there is another interesting verb, normalize,
which is ergative and reciprocal in a strictly different way,
yielding the patterns relations normalized; X and Y normalized
relations; X normalized relations with Y. The second the the
third patterns are transitive and reciprocal, while the first and
second are related as members of an ergative pair. Facts like
these mean that there are a lot of one-member classess, where
the grammar and the lexicon coincide precisely; there are
simply some verbs which have behaviour peculiar to
themselves.
The ties between Lexicology and Grammar are
particularly strong in the sphere of word-formation which had
been considered as part of Grammar before Lexicology became
a separate branch of linguistics. The characteristic features of
English word-building are largely dependent upon the peculiarity
of the English grammatical system. The analytical character of
the language is largely responsible for the wide spread of
conversion and for the remarkable flexibility of the vocabulary
manifest in the ease with which many nonce-words (words
coined for one occasion, situational neologisms) are formed on
the spur of the moment [Arnold, 1973: 24].

Unit 3
 44

____________________________________

DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN
GRAMMATICAL THEORY: TYPES OF
GRAMMAR
____________________________________
3.1. Prescriptive Grammar
There does not appear to exist a generally accepted
periodization of the history of English grammars, so it is roughly
divided into two periods. The first is the age of prescientific
grammar beginning with the end of the 16th century and lasting
till about 1900. It includes two types of grammars.
The first type of grammars are the early prenormative
grammars, beginning with William Bullokar’s Bref Grammar for
English (1585) [Iofik, Chakhoyan, 1972: 5].
By the middle of the 18th century, when many of the
grammatical phenomena of English had been described, the
early English grammars gave way to prescriptive (normative)
grammars. They were concerned with establishing norms of
correct and incorrect usage and formulating rules based on
these norms to be followed by users of the language.
The most influential grammar of the period was Bishop
Robert Lowth's A Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762).
The principal design of a grammar of any language, according
to Robert Lowth, is to teach us to express ourselves with
propriety, to enable us to judge of every phrase and form of
construction, whether it be right or not. The plain way of doing
this is to lay down rules and to illustrate them by examples. But
besides showing what is right, the matter may be further
explained by showing what is wrong.
Lowth's prescriptive approach was upheld by an
American grammarian Lindley Murray in his English Grammar
Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners (1795). It was
considered so superior to any then in use that soon after its
appearance it became the text-book in almost every school. In
its original form it underwent 50 editions, and in an abridged
version more than 120.
From the 1760s, grammarians such as Robert Lowth
and Lindley Murray laid down rules which they thought should
govern correct grammatical usage. The early prescriptive
 45

grammars of English were based on Latin grammar. They

reproduced the Latin classification of the word-classes which
included eight parts of speech. Tables such as the following
were presented for English, constructed by analogy with similar
tables of forms in Latin grammars. Note that each of the Latin
verb forms is different, according to the categories of person
and number, yet the English forms are, with one exception, the
same.
Pres First person, singular a
ent I love m
tens Second person, o
e, singular you love a
activ Third person, singular m
e he loves a
voic First person, plural s
e we love a
Second person, plural m
you love a
Third person, plural t
they love a
m
a
m
u
s
a
m
a
t
i
s
a
m
a
n
t
The influence of Latin, however, goes beyond the parts
of speech and verb forms. Prescriptive grammars went on to
claim that the structure of English sentences should be like the
structure of sentences in Latin. After all, Latin and Greek were
the languages of scholarship, religion, philosophy, so the
grammar of these languages was taken to be the best grammar.
 46

This led to a view that, because Latin was a superior language

to English, then, at those points where the two languages
differed, Latin must be right and English wrong. For instance, it
has always been normal in English to end sentences with a
preposition. You could say things like I have a new house which
I’m very pleased with. It was argued, however, that this
grammatical structure was ‘wrong’ and that one ought to say I
have a new house with which I’m very pleased, because in Latin
it was not grammatical to end sentences with a preposition.
Other features often considered to be errors because
of this inferiority complex of English with respect to Latin are
personal pronouns in sentences like It’s me, If you were me, It
was him that did it, This is her. This is a very old construction in
English. However, such constructions were not found in Latin.
The grammatical structure of Latin required that only nouns and
pronouns in the nominative case could occur together with esse,
the verb be. This led to the argument that in English, too, we
should use nominative pronouns and say It’s I, It was he that did
it, This is she. These sentences sound very strange to most
English speakers.
The rule against splitting an English infinitive (to really
learn a language, to solemnly swear) is also based on the
analogy with Latin, in which infinitives are single words and just
do not split.
Prescriptive grammarians of that time subjected to
criticism many expressions established by long use in English:
the use of adverbs without the suffix -ly, such patterns as had
rather, had better, etc. They used passages from the works of
classical writers as exercises for pupils to correct ‘bad’ or ‘false’
English.
The early grammars were followed by others, and a
tradition of correct usage came to be built up, which was then
taught in public schools during the 19th century, and later in all
schools. Many generations of schoolchildren learned how to
analyze (or ‘parse’) a sentence into ‘subject’, ‘predicate’, etc.
They learned to label the different parts of speech (nouns,
verbs, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.). And they learned about
correct usage, as viewed by educated society, and tried to
follow it in their own speech and writing. They were left in no
doubt that failure to speak or write correctly would lead in the
long term to social criticism and reduced career prospects.
But from the very beginning, scholars saw problems
with this approach. Even in the 18th century, critics such as
 47

Joseph Priestley were arguing that it was impossible to reduce

all the variation in a language to a single set of simple rules. It
was pointed out that no language was perfectly neat and
regular. There were always variations in usage which reflected
variations in society, or individual patterns of emphasis. There
would always be exceptions to the rules. And there were some
very prestigious exceptions too: there are double negatives in
Chaucer, Lord Macaulay split an infinitive on occasion, and one
does not have to look far to find Shakespeare ending a
sentence with a preposition.
If it is a typical feature of the use of English that
speakers and writers do produce such structures, then we may
wish to say that there are structures in English which differ from
those found in Latin, rather than to say that the English forms
are ‘bad’ because they are breaking a supposed rule of Latin
grammar.
Yet even though many rules are arbitrary and liable to
change, prescriptivism has some merits. Prescription makes
possible the standardization of languages, which makes
communication easier between highly different dialect regions.
Having a target language codified simplifies both the teaching
and learning of second languages. If there were no limit to the
variation permissible, the speech (or writing of learners) would
inevitably diverge much more from the target language.
Constraining the divergence through prescription can help to
make ways of speaking or writing mutually intelligible when
learners modify their language toward a single standard, or at
least toward a narrower range of standards (e.g., British or
American English). While it is true that standard varieties are
often associated with the richer and more powerful members of
a society, education can — and should — make the standard
accessible to all. Pretending that language teaching does not
entail prescription will hardly serve learners [Odlin, 1994: 2].
Prescriptive normative grammar has the longest
tradition and is still prevalent in classroom instruction. By the
end of the 19th century, when the prescriptive grammar had
reached its highest level of development, when the system of
grammar known in modern linguistics as traditional had been
established, the appearance of a new grammar, the classical
scientific grammar, became possible.

3.2. Descriptive Grammar

 48

The end of the 19th century brought a grammar of a

higher type, a descriptive grammar intended to give scientific
explanation to grammatical phenomena. Instead of prescribing
the forms people ought to use when they speak and/or write,
descriptive grammars described the forms people actually use.
This was Henry Sweet's New English Grammar,
Logical and Historical (1891). Instead of serving as a guide to
what should be said or written, Sweet's explanatory grammar
aims at finding out what is actually said and written by the
speakers of the language. This leads to a scientific
understanding of the rules followed instinctively by speakers
and writers, giving in many cases the reasons why this usage is
such and such.
Scientific grammar was thus understood to be a
combination of both descriptive and explanatory grammar.
H. Sweet confined himself to the statement and
explanation of facts, without attempting to settle the relative
correctness of divergent usages. If an 'ungrammatical'
expression such as It is me is in general use among educated
people, he accepts it as such, simply adding that it is avoided in
the literary language. Whatever is in general use in language is
for that reason grammatically correct.
Numerous other grammar books continue the same
tradition: English Grammar: Past and Present (1898) by John
Collinson Nesfield; A Grammar of Late Modern English in 5
volumes (1914-1929) by Hendrik Poutsma (1856-1937);
Grammar of the English Language (1931) by George Oliver
Curme (1860-1948), an American linguist and professor of
German; Handbook of English Grammar (1931) by Reinard
Willem Zandvoort (1894-1990), a Dutch linguist; Advanced
English Syntax (1904) by Charles Talbut Onions (1873-1965),
an English grammarian and lexicographer; A Handbook of
Present-Day English in 4 volumes (1909-1911) by Etsko
Kruisinga (1875-1944), a Dutch linguist.
One of the most important contributions to linguistic
study in the first half of the 20th century was made by Jens
Otto Harry Jespersen (1860-1943), a Danish linguist who
specialized in the grammar of the English language. He
attended Copenhagen University, earning degrees in English,
French, and Latin. He also studied linguistics at Oxford. O.
Jespersen was a professor of English at Copenhagen University
from 1893 to 1925. He was a founder of the International
 49

Phonetic Association and collaborated with Alice Vanderbilt

Morris to develop the research program of the International
Auxiliary Language Association.
Of all the authors of scientific grammars of the classical
type O. Jespersen was the most original. He advanced the
theories of rank and nexus. In his theory of ranks Jespersen
removes the parts of speech from the syntax, and differentiates
between primaries, secondaries, and tertiaries, e.g., in well
honed phrase, phrase is a primary, this being defined by a
secondary, honed, which again is defined by a tertiary well.
Jespersen’s theory of ranks provided a basis for understanding
the hierarchy of syntactical relations hidden behind linear
representation of elements in language structures.
The term nexus is applied to sentences, structures
similar to sentences and sentences in formation, in which two
concepts are expressed in one unit, e.g., it rained, he ran
indoors. This term is qualified by a further concept called a
junction which represents one idea, expressed by means of two
or more elements, whereas a nexus combines two ideas.
Junction and nexus proved valuable in bringing the concept of
context to the forefront of the attention of the world of linguistics.
O. Jespersen was most widely recognized for some of
his books. His Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles
in seven volumes (1909-1949) concentrated on morphology and
syntax. His Growth and Structure of the English Language
(1905) is a comprehensive view of English by someone with
another native language, and still in print, over 60 years after his
death and nearly 100 years after publication. O. Jespersen was
the only one who, like H. Sweet, elaborated such general
concepts of grammatical theory as the correspondence of
grammatical and logical categories and the definition and
delimitation of morphology and syntax in his Philosophy of
Grammar (1924). Late in his life he published Analytic Syntax
(1937), in which he presents his views on syntactic structure
using an idiosyncratic shortghand notation. Grammatical
constructions are transcribed in formulas in which the parts of
the sentence and parts of speech are represented by capital
and small letters: S for subject, V for verb, v for auxiliary verb,
etc.
G. Curme’s Grammar of the English Language
presents a systematic and rather full outline of English syntax
based upon actual usage. The attention is directed to the
grammatical categories — the case forms (the nominative,
 50

genitive, dative, accusative), the prepositional phrase, the

indicative, the subjunctive, the active, the passive, the word
order, the clause formations, clauses with finite verb, and the
newer, terser participial, gerundial, and infinitival clauses, etc.
Serious efforts were made to penetrate into the original concrete
meaning of these categories. The peculiar views on accidence
(the four-case system of nouns) are reflected in syntax.
G.Curme discusses accusative objects, dative objects, etc.
Most grammarians retain the threefold classification of
sentences into simple, compound and complex, as given in the
prescriptive grammars of the mid-19th century. In Grammar of
Late Modern English, H. Poutsma introduces the term
composite sentence as common for compound and complex
sentences.
Scientific grammar gave up the strictly structural
concept of a clause as of a syntactical unit containing a subject
and a predicate, recognized by prescriptive grammar. Beginning
with Sweet's grammar, grammarians have retained the concepts
of half-clauses, abridged clauses, verbid clauses, etc. Thus, H.
Poutsma treats substantive clauses, adverbial clauses, infinitive
clauses, gerund clauses, and participle clauses as units of the
same kind.
E. Kruisinga's Handbook of Present-day English
presents a new viewpoint on some parts of English structure
suggesting interesting approaches to various disputable points
in the treatment of phrase-structure. The concept of the phrase
was not popular among the writers of scientific grammars. E.
Kruisinga originated the theory of close and loose syntactical
groups, distinguishing between subordination and coordination.
Closely related to this theory is the author's concept of the
complex sentence.
R. Zandvoort's Handbook of English Grammar deals
with accidence and syntax. It eschews historical digressions;
synchronic and diachronic grammars are, in the author's
opinion, best treated separately. R. Zandvoort confesses
himself a pupil of E.Kruisinga, whose Handbook of Present-day
English he considers to be the most original and stimulating
treatment of English syntax.
Descriptive grammars deal with grammatical facts of a
given language at a given stage of its development. They tell us
what the actual language use of speakers is like without any
remarks about right or wrong, good or bad. They provide a
much more detailed look at languages than most prescriptive
 51

grammars do.
For linguists, a descriptive grammar of a language
consists of accounts of not only syntax and morphology but also
phonetics and phonology, as well as semantics and/or lexis
(vocabulary). Even when they restrict their descriptions to
morphology and syntax, descriptive grammarians consider
many structures that prescriptive grammarians either ignore or
only briefly discuss. George Curme in his Grammar of the
English Language devotes almost ninety pages to adverbial
clauses. Descriptive grammars sometimes provide a detailed
look at both contemporary usage and earlier patterns in the
language, as seen in Otto Jespersen's seven-volume Modern
English Grammar on Historical Principles. In contrast to
prescriptivists, descriptive grammarians often focus on
nonstandard dialects. Patrick Leo Henry (1957) examines many
patterns found in a dialect of Irish English, including patterns
rarely if ever used elsewhere in the English-speaking world (the
unusual construction involving a gerund in I found it horrid sour
in the drtnktn' o'it = I found it sour to drink).

3.3. Comparative and Contrastive Grammar

Comparative Grammar compares various grammatical
forms to study the correspondences between kindred languages
that have a common origin. It reveals the origin of these forms,
their change and historical development, linguistic and extra-
linguistic forces modifying their structure, meaning, and usage.
Comparative grammar is combined with the comparative
method in linguistics.
Comparative method employed to investigate
genealogically related languages is known as historical
comparative method. It developed in connection with the
comparative observations of languages belonging to the Indo-
European family, and its appearance was stimulated by the
discovery of Sanskrit.
In 1786 Sir William Jones, a British judge stationed in
India, made one of the most extraordinary discoveries in all
scholarship. He took up the study of Sanskrit, a long-dead
language, and pointed out in the form of a rigorously grounded
scientific hypothesis that Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Germanic, and
some other languages of India and Europe had sprung from the
same source which no longer existed. W. Jones announced
clearly the relationship between three of the great languages of
 52

antiquity — Sanskrit, Greek and Latin — and at the same time

anticipated the reconstruction of the parent Indo-European
language itself.
Here are the kinds of affinities that impressed W. Jones:
English: brother mead is thou bearest he
bears
Greek: phrater methu esti phereis
pherei
Latin: frater — est fers fert
Old Slavic: bratre mid yeste berasi
beretu
Old Irish: brathir mith is — beri
Sanskrit: bhrater medhu asti bharasi
bharati
Such similarities in vocabulary and grammar are seen in
an immense number of modern languages. The similarities are
so pervasive that linguists have reconstructed a grammar and a
large dictionary for a hypothetical common ancestor language,
Proto-Indo-European, and a set of systematic rules by which the
daughter languages changed [Pinker, 1995: 252].
The first of the great pioneers in comparative linguistics in
Western Europe was the Danish scholar Rasmus Kristian Rask.
His major work Investigation on the Origin of Old Norse or
Icelandic (1818) may be called a comparative Indo-European
grammar. In this book, R. Rask clearly demonstrated the
significance of laws of sounds as a proof of linguistic kinship,
although he added that they were especially convincing when
supported by grammatical similarities. Grammatical forms, as a
rule, are never borrowed by one language from another. If the
same grammatical meanings are expressed in the same
grammatical forms in the compared languages, we can be sure
of their close relationship.
Take, for instance, the verb take in related languages, in
the form they take:
Ukrainian Old Slavonic Sanskrit Greek Latin Gothic
berút' berọt bharanti pheronti ferunt
bairand
This example shows that the endings -ut’, -ọt, -anti, -onti,
-unt, -and are equivalent and come from the same source.
Important contribution to the development of comparative
grammar was made by the German scholar Franz Bopp who
 53

wrote a book Über das Konjugationssystem der Sanskrit

Sprache (‘On the Conjugation System of Sanskrit’) (1816)
comparing this subject with the conjugation of verbs in Greek,
Persian and German languages. The merit of his book lies in
the study of inflections; his main contribution was systematic
comparison of the inflectional endings of all the Indo-European
languages.
Comparative grammar (based on the historical
comparative method) dealt only with the comparative study of
kindred languages. But to gain the deeper insight into the nature
of language, all languages must be studied in comparison, not
only kindred.
Contrastive Grammar attempts to find out similarities
and differences in grammar in both related and non-related
languages. As a rule, it entails a synchronic approach to the
study of languages without reference to their origins.
Contrastive grammar is part of contrastive linguistics
which is one of the youngest branches of linguistics. Contrastive
linguistics as a separate branch sprang up in the middle of the
20th century.
Contrastive linguistics originated in the field of applied
linguistics since it was assumed that the most effective teaching
materials were those based upon a scientific description of the
target language carefully compared with a parallel description of
the native language of the learner.
The procedures of contrastive analysis were formulated
by Robert Lado in his book Linguistics Across Cultures: Applied
Linguistics for Language Teachers (1957). R. Lado's point of
view is that learning a 2nd language constitutes a very different
task from learning the 1st language. The basic problems arise
not only out of any essential difficulty in the features of the new
language but primarily out of the special ‘set’ created by the 1st
language habits. He was the first to grasp the significance of
these facts. His recipe of how to achieve progress in mastering
a foreign language is comparison of 2 languages + comparison
of 2 cultures to discover and describe the problems that the
speakers of one of the language will have in learning the other.
R. Lado's book presented a fairly new field of linguistics.
Two years later, work was started on the Contrastive Structure
Series edited by Charles A. Ferguson under the auspices of the
Centre of Applied Linguistics of the Modern Languages
Association of America in Washington, D.C. The series had as
its aim the description of differences and similarities between
 54

English, French, German, Italian, Russian, and Spanish.

Valuable contribution to contrastive grammar was made
by V.N. Yartseva. Her book Contrastive Grammar (1981) treats
of specific procedures of contrastive analysis in different
languages. Grammatical level is chosen as an object of
investigation since typological features of languages are most
vividly revealed in it.
Contrastive study of grammar of the Ukrainian and
English languages was initiated by Yuriy Zhluktenko in his
Comparative Grammar of the English and Ukrainian Languages
(1960). It was followed by a number of fundamental works in the
1970s-90s [Введение в сравнительную типологию
английского, русского и украинского языков, 1977; Нариси
з контрастивної лінгвістики, 1979; Порівняльні
дослідження з граматики англійської, української,
російської мов, 1981].
Yu. Zhluktenko’s ideas were developed by Ilko Korunets’
whose book Contrastive Typology of the English and Ukrainian
Languages (1995, second edition 2003) has been the first ever
published comprehensive contrastive study of the two
languages on the phonological, grammatical (morphological and
syntactical), and lexical levels. Morphemic structure of the word,
lexico-grammatical classes of words and their categorial
features, syntactic relations, phrase structure, structural types of
sentences, principal and secondary parts of the sentence,
composite sentence (complex and compound) are the objects of
contrastive analysis on the grammatical level of both languages.

3.4. Structural grammatical theories: oppositional analysis

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries Ferdinand de
Saussure established the structuralist school of linguistics,
which analyzed actual speech to learn about the underlying
structure of language. There were three schools of structural
linguistics: The Prague School that created functional
linguistics, the Copenhagen School which created
Glossematics, and the American Descriptive School that created
descriptive linguistics.
Structural grammarians are to a large degree
concerned with studying patterns of organization, or structures.
They hold the view that linguistics, like physics and chemistry or,
say, geology or astronomy, must be preoccupied with structure.
Structural grammarians have abandoned many of the
 55

commonly held views of grammar. Dealing primarily with the

grammar of ‘structure’, some scholars offer an approach to the
problem of sentence analysis that differs in point of view from
the traditional treatment of syntax.
Central to structuralism is the notion of opposition
and oppositional analysis which is connected with the Prague
School, founded in 1929 by Czech and Russian linguists Villem
Mathesius, Nikolay Trubetzkoy, Roman Jakobson, Bohumil
Trnka, and others.
Oppositional analysis was first introduced by N.
Trubetzkoy (1890-1938) who presented an important survey of
the problem of phonology in his Grundzüge der Phonologie
(‘The Fundamentals of Phonology’) published in Prague in
1939.
In terms of N.S. Trubetzkoy's theory, opposition is
defined as a functionally relevant relationship of partial
difference between two partially similar elements of language.
The common features of the members of the opposition make
up its basis, the features that serve to differentiate them are
distinctive features. For example, in English the phoneme /b/ is
characterized by voicing, stop articulation (that is, it involves a
complete closure), and it is oral, that is non-nasal. There is
another phoneme /p/ in English which shares all of those
characteristics except voicing.
A phoneme is distinguished from all the other
phonemes by a set of distinctive (differential) features: /p/ is
distinguished from /b/ as a voiceless sound, from /t/ as a
bilabial, from /m/ as non-nasal, etc.
The basic definitions given by N. Trubetzkoy are as
follows:
1. If in a language two sounds occur in the same
position and can be substituted for each other without changing
the meaning of the word, such sounds are optional variants of
one and the same phoneme. One and the same speaker of
English, for instance, may pronounce one and the same
voiceless plosive ([p], [t], [k]) in absolutely identical positions
with a varying force of aspiration.
2. If two sounds occur in the same position and cannot
be substituted for each other without changing the meaning of
the word or distorting it beyond recognition, these two sounds
are phonetic realizations of two different phonemes, e.g.,
the sounds [p] and [b] in the minimal pair of English words [pæk]
(pack) and [bæk] (back).
 56

3. If two similar sounds never occur in the same

position, they are positional variants of the same phoneme,
e.g., the [k] sounds in the English words [ku:l] (cool), [sku:l]
(school), and [lukt] (looked) are different from one another from
an articulatory and therefore acoustic point of view, being
respectively, aspirated, unaspirated, and plosionless
(unexploded). Each of these similar speech sounds occurs in a
definite position in which no other of these sounds can ever
occur; in other words they are mutually exclusive.
N.S. Trubetzkoy developed an elaborate set of contrast
criteria for the identification and classification of phonological
oppositions. Later on, other researchers proved that the notion
of opposition can be applied to elements of different linguistic
status: phonemes, morphemes, words, word-forms, phrases,
sentences, etc.
Girl and girlish are members of a morphemic
opposition. They are similar as the root morpheme girl- is the
same. Their distinctive feature is the suffix -ish.
Man and boy are members of a lexical opposition
which is defined as the semantically relevant relationship of
partial difference between two partially similar words. The
distinctive feature in the opposition is the semantic component
of age.
Morphological (formal) opposition may be well
illustrated by the pair play :: plays which represents the
opposition between the third person singular present tense, on
the one hand, and the other persons of the singular plus those
of the plural, on the other.
Oppositional relations on the sentence level are
most obvious in the correlation between Peter plays and Peter
does not play which gives the opposition affirmation :: negation.
Correlation between Peter plays and Does Peter play?
illustrates the opposition declarative :: interrogative sentence.
It has become customary to designate opposition with
the signs ÷ or :: , e.g., skilled ÷ unskilled, skilled :: unskilled. It
may also be represented as a fraction,
e.g.,

Linguistic elements may enter into several types of

oppositions with other cognate elements.
1. Oppositions between the members of the
opposition: privative, gradual, and equipollent.
The most widely known is the binary privative
 57

opposition in which one member of the contrastive pair is

characterized by the presence of a certain feature which is
lacking in the other member (hence ‘privative’, i.e. indicating
negation or absence). The feature is said to mark the
opposition. The element possessing the feature in question is
called the marked (strong) member of the opposition, the
other is called the unmarked (weak) member of the
opposition. For example, the presence of voice marks the
privative opposition /b/ :: /p/, the marked member of the
opposition characterized by this minimal distinctive feature
being the phoneme /b/. In the privative opposition boy :: lad, the
distinctive feature is that of stylistic colouring of the second
member. In morphology, privative oppositions may be illustrated
by book :: books, play :: is playing, etc.
Gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group
of members which are distinguished not by the presence or
absence of a feature, but by the degree of it. For example,
phonemes /ı:/ :: /ı/ :: /e/ :: /æ/ are differentiated by the degree of
their openness. The verbs affect :: torment :: torture are
distinguished by the degree of intensity implied in the inflicted
suffering. In morphology, it is a minor type of oppositions, e.g.,
strong :: stronger :: the strongest.
In an equipollent opposition the members are
logically equal. They may differ according to changes in their
common distinctive feature. For example, /m/ and /b/ are both
bilabial consonants, i.e. they have one distinctive feature in
common. The members of the opposition kid ‘a child or young
person’ and kid ‘leather made from the skin of a kid or goat,
used in making shoes and gloves’ are transferred variants of kid
‘a young goat’, but the transfer of meaning is of different type: in
the first case, it is a metaphoric transfer based on similarity, in
the second — metonymic transfer based upon the association
of contiguity. Any string of stylistic synonyms may serve as an
example of an equipollent opposition, e.g., girl :: maiden :: lass.
In this case, the basis of the opposition is the common feature ‘a
young woman’ and stylistic colouring is a differential feature. In
morphology, it is a minor type of oppositions confined to formal
relations only, e.g., opposition of the person forms am :: is :: are.
2. Oppositions defined with respect to the whole
system of oppositions: proportional, isolated, and multi-
dimensional.
Proportional opposition is based on correlation
between sets of binary oppositions. It is composed of two
 58

subsets formed by the first and the second elements of each

couple, i.e. opposition. Each element of the first set is coupled
with exactly one element of the second set and vice versa. Each
second element may be derived from the corresponding first
element by a general rule valid for all members of the relation,
e.g., /p/ :: /b/ = /t/ :: /d/ = /k/ :: /g/ = /f/ :: /v/ = /s/ :: /z/ = /θ/ :: /ð/;
child :: childish = woman :: womanish = monkey :: monkeyish =
book :: bookish.
Isolated opposition is limited to one pair of words only
and there is no other pair the members of which have the same
relations, e.g., wit :: witness, where the noun stem of the first
member combined with the native English suffix -ness forms the
name of the person, whereas in the majority of cases -ness is
attached to adjectives and participles, forming abstract nouns
denoting quality or state, e.g., dark :: darkness = good ::
goodness = kind :: kindness = obliging :: obligingness =
prepared :: preparedness.
When the basis of similarity is not limited to the
members of one opposition but comprises other elements of the
system, linguists call the opposition poly-dimensional. The
presence of the same basis or combination of features in
several words permits their grouping into a subset of the vo-
cabulary system, i.e. lexical group.
An opposition existing between two elements may
under certain conditions become irrelevant. One member of an
opposition can be used in the position of the other. This kind of
oppositional reduction (i.e. suspension of otherwise functioning
opposition) is referred to as neutralization of opposition. The
position of neutralization is filled in by the weak member of the
opposition.
Phonological neutralization in English may be well
illustrated by the absence of contrast between final s and z after
t. Similarly, though we distinguish the English phonemes /p/ and
/b/ in pin, bin, there is no such opposition after s, e.g., split,
splint, spray.
In morphological derivation the opposition of animate
personal nouns to all other nouns is in some cases sustained by
such suffixes as -or/-er, -ant, -ist, but most often neutralized:
accountant ‘a person who keeps accounts’ and coolant ‘a
cooling substance’.
In Man conquers nature we observe generic use of
man to denote ‘people in general, humankind’, thus the weak
member of the lexical opposition is used instead of the strong
 59

mankind.
Neutralization of opposition in grammar may be
illustrated by the sentences I have no brother and I have no
brothers.
The method of oppositions has been successfully
extended to grammar. It is equally effective in morphology and
syntax.
The principle of binary oppositions is especially suitable
for describing grammatical categories. A grammatical
category is generally represented by at least two opposed
grammatical forms, otherwise it cannot exist. A simple case of
oppositions in pairs of grammatical forms will be found, for
instance, between the Singular and the Plural in nouns, or, say,
between Active and Passive in verbs. It is around such
oppositions that the grammatical system of the language is to a
large extent built up.
An application of the oppositional method has also
been extended to describe different types of simple sentences
and variants of one and the same sentence.
Different sentence-types (the opposites) are those that
cannot be substituted for each other without changing the
structural meaning of the sentence. Here belong [Irtenyeva et
al., 1969: 33-35:
1. Two-member sentences as against one-member
sentences: John worked :: John! or Work!
2. Sentences differing in the arrangement of the main
constituents: We saw a river there :: There is a river there.
3. Sentences differing in the case-form of the subject-
noun: Mary was a happy girl :: Mary's was a happy life.
Variants of one and the same sentence-type are those
that can be substituted for each other without changing the
structural meaning of the sentence or distorting it beyond
recognition.
a) Positional variants — context sensitive sentences
in which one of more elements are left out but can be
unambiguously inferred from the preceding sentence. Included
positional variants can be placed in the position occupied in
the preceding sentence by a question word or a word repeated
in the positional variant: Where did she see him? — In the park.
Soames gave it her. — Who? Adjoined positional variants
can be optionally added to the preceding sentence: I am
leaving. Tonight. Immediately.
b) Optional variants — extended sentences as
 60

against unextended ones: She saw him :: She saw him

yesterday in the park.
c) Stylistic variants may be emotional: She is such a
darling! and colloquial: Father in town? Lost my job, Vic.

3.5. Structural grammatical theories: distributional analysis

The main contribution of the American Descriptive
School to the study of grammar is the elaboration of techniques
of linguistic analysis. The main methods are the distributional
analysis and the Immediate Constituent (IC) analysis
(phrase-structure grammar).
American Descriptive School began with the works of
Edward Sapir (1884-1939) and Leonard Bloomfield (1887-
1949). American linguistics developed under the influence of
these two prominent scientists. E. Sapir studied a great variety
of languages (Indian and Malayo-Polynesian). His most known
work is Language. An Introductory to the Study of Speech
(1921). Leonard Bloomfield is considered to be a more rigid
theorist. His main work Language (1933) is more systematic
than Sapir's. It is a complete methodology of language study,
approaching the language as if it were unknown to the linguist.
The ideas laid down in this book were later developed by Z.S.
Harris, R.S. Wells, Ch.F. Hockett, Ch.C. Fries, E.A. Nida.
Descriptive linguistics developed in the United States
from the necessity of studying half-known and unknown
languages of the American Indian tribes. The Indian languages
had no writing and, therefore, had no history. The comparative
historical method was of little use here, and the first step of work
was to be keen observation and rigid registration of linguistic
forms. Furthermore, the American Indian languages belong to a
type that has little in common with the Indo-European
languages; they are incorporating languages, devoid of
morphological forms of separate words and of corresponding
grammatical meanings. Descriptive linguists had therefore to
give up analyzing sentences in terms of traditional parts of
speech; it was by far more convenient to describe linguistic
forms according to their position and their co-occurrence in
sentences.
American descriptive linguists began by criticizing the
Prague School oppositional method and claiming a more
objective — distributional — approach to linguistic analysis.
Distributional analysis aims at analyzing linguistic
 61

elements in terms of their distribution.

The term distribution is used to denote the possible
variants of the immediate lexical, grammatical, and phonetical
environment of a linguistic unit (phoneme, morpheme, word,
etc.). It implies the position of an element and its combinability
with other elements in this or that particular context.
According to Zellig Harris [1961: 15-16], the distribution
of an element is the total of all environments in which it occurs,
i.e. the sum of all the (different) positions (or occurrences) of an
element relative to the occurrence of other elements.
Distribution is the matter of speech, it is describable in
terms of positions and in terms of positional classes (distri-
butional classes) of fillers for these positions. Therefore, the
distribution of an element is given by the distributional formula
which is the contextual pattern of the environment characteristic
of the concrete occurrence of a linguistic unit. The distributional
value of the verb get, for instance, may be shown by the
following examples:
get + N (notional verb) get a book
get + A (copula-type verb) get cool
get + V!nf (semi-auxiliary verb of aspect) get to
think
get + V!ng (semi-auxiliary verb of aspect) get
thinking
get + prep + V!ng (semi-auxiliary verb of aspect) get to
thinking
get + N + V!nf (causative verb) get him to
work
get + N + V!ng (causative verb) get the
watch going
get + N + Ven (causative verb) get it done
get + Ven (the so-called passive auxiliary) get
killed
have got + V!nf (modal verb) it has got
to be done
get + Ven (function verb of an analytical lexical
unit) get rid
For procedural purposes the element whose
distribution is under analysis remains unsymbolized in order that
the concrete environment of a concrete element should be
outlined and patterned. The contextual positions in the
environment of the unit under consideration are identified as
 62

function-slots which can be filled with the elements of the

appropriate fillers-class. Each positional slot of the pattern
should be symbolized accordingly.
A phrase, all elements of which, including the head-
word, are coded, is called a distributional pattern, e.g., to
make somebody laugh — to V1 Np V2. The subscripts 1, 2, etc.
show the order of appearance of different members of the same
class.
Three types of distribution are commonly
distinguished in distributional analysis.
Complementary distribution is said to take place
when two linguistic variants cannot appear in the same en-
vironment. Two units are said to be in complementary
distribution if only one of them normally occurs in certain
environments and only the other normally occurs in other
surroundings. Stems ending in consonants take the suffix -ation
(liberation); stems ending in pt, however, take -tion (corruption)
and the final t becomes fused with the suffix. Positional variants
of the morpheme -(e)s [z], [s], [ız] are also in complementary
distribution, cf.: rooms, books, boxes, etc.
Contrastive distribution is understood as a difference
of two linguistic units occurring in the same environment and
changing one linguistic form into another linguistic form, e.g.,
the zero suffix as against the -s suffix: pen — pens, book —
books, etc. Different linguistic units may be characterized by
contrastive distribution, i.e. if they occur in the same
environment they signal different meanings: measurable —
measured.
Non-contrastive distribution is understood as a
difference of two linguistic units occurring in the same
environment without changing one linguistic form into another
linguistic form: hoofs — hooves, wharfs — wharves, etc.
The main concern of distributional analysis is to
investigate the distribution of forms (e.g., morphemes) in a
language. The method employed involves the use of test-
frames which can be sentences with empty slots in them:

The _____ makes a lot of noise.

I heard a _____ yesterday.
There are a lot of forms which can fit into the slots to
produce good grammatical sentences of English, e.g., donkey,
car, dog, radio, child, etc. Consequently, we can suggest that
because all of these forms fit in the same test-frame, they are
 63

likely to be examples of the same grammatical category (parts

of speech like noun or adjective or parts of sentences like
subject or adverbial). By developing a set of test-frames of this
type and discovering what forms fit the slots in the test-frames,
we can also produce a description of (at least some) aspects of
the sentence structures of a language [Yule, 1996: 93].
Descriptive linguists claimed that the study of a
language must be objective, that is it must be based on formal
criteria — the distribution of linguistic units and their structural
characteristics, not on the meaning of linguistic forms.
Take the following string of items: Plome the pleakful
croatation will be niggling polanians ungleshably in the rit. It is at
once obvious that every ‘word’ falls into some sort of pattern
that is recognizably English. We do not know what rit means, yet
if we were to replace it by a word that we do know, we would
choose one like nest or bag or office or terror: we would not be
satisfied with politely or beautify or then. Clearly, rit is a noun,
and we must now see that we have recognized rit as a noun not
because we knew about a noun being ‘the name of a person,
place or thing’, but because rit is used in the framework where
words like office but not then frequently appear and ‘make
sense’. Cf.:
a b c d
Plome the pleakful croatation will be
niggling
Then the artful delegation will be
muddling
Suddenly the fine horse will be
facing
Probably the young publisher will be
reading
e f g
polanians ungleshably in the rit.
politicians unpardonably in the street.
picnickers shyly in the field.
manuscripts through in the evening.
There are two quite different kinds of grammatical
identity here. The vertical sets a to g each comprise items
grammatically identical (a and f adverbs; b adjectives; c, e, and
g nouns; and d present participles of verbs), and the horizontal
structures are grammatically identical too [Quirk, Stein, 1990:
178-179].
 64

Distributional analysis is widely applied for different

purposes: to find out typical, most commonly used collocations,
investigate the meaning in some types of collocations,
differentiate between synonyms, classify word-groups, identify
class-membership and functions of linguistic units, etc.

3.6. Structural grammatical theories: IC analysis and Phrase-

Structure Grammar
Immediate Constituent (IC) analysis was originally
elaborated as an attempt to show how small constituents (or
components) in sentences go together to form larger
constituents. It was discovered that combinations of linguistic
units are usually structured into hierarchically arranged sets of
binary constructions, e.g., in the word-group a black dress in
severe style we do not relate a to black, black to dress, dress to
in, etc. but set up a structure which may be represented as a
black dress / in severe style.
An Immediate Constituent (IC) is a group of linguistic
elements which functions as a unit in some larger whole.
The division of a construction begins with the larger
elements and continues as far as possible. Successive
segmentation results in Ultimate Constituents (UC), i.e. two-
facet units that cannot be segmented into smaller units having
both sound-form and meaning. The Ultimate Constituents of the
word-group analyzed above are: a / black / dress / in / severe /
style.
The concept of IC analysis was first introduced by
Leonard Bloomfield and later on developed by Rulon S. Wells
and other linguists — K.L. Pike, S. Chatman, E.A. Nida, R.S.
Pittman.
The fundamental aim of IC analysis is to segment each
utterance into two maximally independent sequences or ICs,
thus revealing the hierarchical structure of this utterance.
The analysis of the constituent structure of the
sentence can be represented in different types of diagrams.
One type of diagram simply shows the distribution of
the constituents at different levels.

The man saw the thief in a car

 65

This type of diagram can be used to show the types of

forms which can substitute for each other at different levels of
constituent structure [Yule, 1996: 94].

The man saw the thief in a car

Fred took Jean to
Honolulu
He came here
This type of IC diagram may be drawn somewhat
differently without changing the principle of analysis. Such a
diagram is called a candelabra diagram:
The man hit the ball
|___| | |___|
| |____|
|_______|
|
Sentence
Another type of diagram uses slashes (/) to show the
groupings of ICs:
My younger brother / left all his things there.
My // younger brother / left all his things // there.
My // younger brother / left /// all his things // there.
My // younger /// brother / left /// all //// his things //
there.
My // younger /// brother / left /// all //// his ///// things //
there.
An alternative type of diagram is designed to show how
the constituents in sentence structure can be marked off via
labeled brackets. The first step is to put brackets (one on each
side) around each constituent, and then more brackets around
each combination of constituents [Yule. 1996: 94].

[The] [dog] [followed] [the] [boy]

We can label each constituent with grammatical terms

such as T (determiner), N (noun), NP (noun phrase), V (verb),
 66

VP (verb phrase), S (sentence). In the following diagram, these

labels are placed beside each bracket which marks the
beginning of a constituent. The result is a labeled and bracketed
analysis of the constituent structure of the sentence.
S
VP
NP NP
T N V T N
[The] [dog] [followed] [the] [boy]

In performing this type of analysis, we have not only

labeled all the constituents, we have exposed the hierarchical
organization of those constituents.
The IC theory (or grammar), or the phrase theory
(phrase-structure grammar), is based on the assumption that
despite the apparent simple linear progression language
consists of layer upon layer of structure, each layer having its
internal structure ignored and being treated as a single unit as it
enters into the next layer of structural relationship.
Each language has its own system of structural
grouping and the signals of the groups (or phrases). In English,
there are generally two ICs in a phrase. English has
dichotomous phrase structure, which means that the phrase in
English can always be divided into two elements (constituents).
In oral speech, the structural groupings (phrases) are shown by
intonation and pauses.
The study of syntax is greatly facilitated by studying the
types of immediate constituents which occur. IC analysis is of
particular value when one phrase or sentence has two
meanings, even if each individual word has only one meaning.
Rulon S. Wells emphasized the fact that the prime
function of analysis into ICs is to reveal a formal difference
correlated with the semantic one. Thus he shows that The King
of England's people has two meanings, and correspondingly two
ICs analyses: 1) the / King // of England's people (this analysis
shows that we are speaking about ‘the King of a certain people,
viz. the English’) and 2) The King of England/'s people (which
has a different meaning ‘the people of a certain King, viz the
King of England’). Correct IC analysis helps to understand the
real relations of elements constituting the sequence.
Steven Pinker [1995: 102-103] discusses the following
 67

examples: Yoko Ono will talk about her husband John Lennon
who was killed in an interview with Barbara Walters. Two cars
were reported stolen by the Groveton police yesterday. The two
meanings in each of these sentences come from the different
ways in which the words, or ICs, can be grouped.

3.7. Generative Grammar

The IC theory (or grammar), or the phrase theory
(grammar) was the first modern grammar fit for generating
sentences. When the IC model was created and diagrammed
there was left only one step to its understanding as a generative
model, a model by which sentences can be built (or generated).
The messianic figure was Noam Chomsky and the
starting-point his book Syntactic Structures (1957). He sought a
simple linguistic theory which would generate all the sequences
of morphemes (or words) that constitute grammatical English
sentences. Using the IC model, N. Chomsky worked out rigid
rules for generating (building up) sentences.
1. Sentence → NP + VP
2. NP → T + N
3. VP → Verb + NP
4. T → the
5. N → man, ball, etc.
6. Verb → hit, etc.
Every sentence (S) or syntactic construction is built up
of two immediate constituents: the noun phrase (NP) and verb
phrase (VP). The noun phrase consists of two IC: the
determiner (T) and noun or its equivalent (N). The verb phrase
consists of the verb (V) and its noun phrase (NP).
The set of rules showing how a sentence is generated
are called phrase structure rules. In each rule above, →
represents the word rewrite. The rule S → NP VP is then read
as: ‘a sentence consists of a noun phrase followed by a verb
phrase’. In addition to rules of this type which generate
structures, there are lexical rules which indicate the words to
be used for constituents such as N, e.g., N → man, ball means
that N is rewritten as man or ball.
Given the set of rules one can generate an English
sentence or a number of sentences changing only the N and the
transitive V. The generation of the sentence must proceed with
the change of only one element at the application of each rule.
 68

The procedure of generating is as follows:

Applying rule 1: NP + VP
Applying rule 2: T + N + VP
Applying rule 3: T + N + Verb + NP
Applying rule 4: the + N + Verb + NP
Applying rule 5: the + man + Verb + NP
Applying rule 6: the + man + hit + NP
For the second NP the same rules are applied
Applying rule 2: the + man + hit + T + N
Applying rule 4: the + man + hit + the + N
Applying rule 5: the + man + hit + the + ball
The generating of the sentence involves first only the
classes of words and the function words. Only on the lowest
level (the morphemic level) we choose the concrete lexical
elements.
This generation of a sentence, or derivation, as N.
Chomsky called it, can be represented by a derivation tree
diagram.
This type of tree-diagram representation contains all
the grammatical information found in the IC analysis, but also
shows more explicitly the fact that there are different levels in
the analysis. That is, there is a level of analysis at which a
constituent such as NP is represented and a different, lower
level at which a constituent such as N is represented.

We can view this tree-diagram in two different ways. In

one way, we can simply treat it as a static representation of the
structure of the sentence at the bottom of the diagram. We
could propose that, for every single sentence in English, a tree
diagram of this type could be drawn. The alternative view is to
treat the diagram as a ‘dynamic’ format, in the sense that it
represents a way of ‘generating’ that sentence. It shows how the
sentence is built (or generated) from the ICs. The derivation tree
is drawn as two branches forking out from the sign S
 69

(sentence). Each branch has nodes (joints or knots) in it from

which smaller branches fork out. Each node corresponds to a
phrase, the two forking branches correspond to the IC of the
phrase.
A tree diagram of this type may represent a way of
‘generating’ not only one sentence, but a very large number of
sentences with similar structures. This alternative view is very
appealing since it should enable us to generate a large number
of sentences with only a small number of rules.
We can create a set of extremely simple (and
necessarily incomplete) phrase structure rules which can be
used to generate a large number of English sentences [Yule,
1996: 104-105]:
S → NPVP
NP → {Art (Adj) N}
PN
VP → V NP (PP) (Adv)
PP → Prep NP (prepositional phrase)
N → {boy, girl, dog} V → {saw, followed, helped}
PN → {George, Mary} Prep → {with, near}
Art → {a, the} Adv → {yesterday, recently}
Adj → {small, crazy}
→ = 'consists of’: NP → Art N, i.e. a noun phrase
consists of an article and a noun: the book.
() = 'optional constituent': NP → Art (Adj) N, i.e.
a noun phrase consists of an obligatory article
and an obligatory noun, but may also include
an adjective which is optional: the (green)
book.
{} = 'one and only one of these constituents must be
selected'
Art N
NP → pronoun
proper noun
i.e. a noun phrase can consist of an
expression like the woman (Art N), or she
(pronoun), or Cathy (proper noun).
These rules will generate the grammatical sentences
shown as (1) to (7), but will not yield the ungrammatical
sentences (8) to (10): 1) The girl followed the boy. 2) A boy
helped the dog. 3) The dog saw a girl. 4) Mary helped George
recently. 5) George saw a dog yesterday. 6) A small dog
 70

followed Mary. 7) The small boy saw George with a crazy dog
recently. 8) *Boy the Mary saw. 9) *Helped a girl. 10) *Small dog
with girl. This small set of rules is a good start on creating a
phrase structure grammar of English.
From such elementary rules and diagrams has
emerged a school of grammar that has shaken the foundations
of traditional grammar. IC analysis which brings forth the
mechanism of generating sentences has contributed greatly to
the development of generative grammar — a linguistic theory
that attempts to describe the tacit knowledge that a native
speaker has of a language by establishing a set of explicit,
formalized rules that specify or generate all the possible
grammatical sentences of a language.
This explicit system of rules, it was proposed, would
have much in common with the types of rules found in mathe-
matics. This mathematical point of view helps to explain the
meaning of the term generative, which is used to describe this
type of grammar. If you have an algebraic expression like 3x +
2y, and you can give x and y the value of any whole number,
then that simple algebraic expression can generate an endless
set of values, following the simple rules of arithmetic. When x=5
and y=10, the result is 35. When x=2 and y= 1, the result is 8.
These results will follow directly from applying the explicit rules.
The endless set of such results is ‘generated’ by the operation
of the explicitly formalized rules. If the sentences of a language
can be seen as a comparable set, then there must be a set of
explicit rules which yield those sentences. Such a set of explicit
rules is a generative grammar [Yule, 1996: 101].
Generative grammar has a number of properties,
which can be described in the following terms [Yule, 1996: 101-
110].
1. The grammar will generate all the well-formed
syntactic structures (e.g., sentences) of the language and fail to
generate any ill-formed structures. This is the 'all and only'
criterion (i.e. all the grammatical sentences and only the
grammatical sentences).
2. The grammar will have a finite (i.e. limited) number
of rules, but will be capable of generating an infinite number of
well-formed structures. In this way, the productivity of language
(i.e. the creation of totally novel, yet grammatical, sentences)
would be captured within the grammar.
3. The rules of this grammar will also need the crucial
property of recursion, i.e. the capacity to be applied more than
 71

once in generating a structure. We need, for example, to have

sentences included within other sentences, e.g., John said
Cathy thought George helped Mary. In order to capture these
structures in phrase structure rules, we need to add a crucial
recursive rule that says: VP → VS. We also need to add V →
{said, thought} and PN → {Cathy, John} to the lexical rules. With
these minor additions, we can now represent the structure of a
more complex sentence. In principle, there is no end to the
recursion of sentence structures of this type in the English
language and our rule (VP → VS) represents that fact.

John said Cathy thought George helped Mary

4. This grammar should also be capable of revealing
the basis of two other phenomena: first, how some superficially
distinct sentences are closely related, and second, how some
superficially similar sentences are in fact distinct.
Two superficially distinct sentence structures would be,
for example, Charlie broke the window and The window was
broken by Charlie. In traditional terminology, the first is an active
sentence and the second is passive. The distinction between
them, it can be claimed, is a difference in their surface
structure, that is, the syntactic form they take as actual English
sentences. However, the two sentences are very closely
related, even identical, at some less 'superficial' level. This other
'underlying' level, where the basic components shared by the
two sentences would be represented, has been called their
deep structure. The deep structure is an abstract level of
structural organization in which all the elements determining
structural interpretation are represented. So, the grammar must
be capable of showing how a single underlying abstract
representation can become different surface structures.
 72

On the second point noted above, let us say that we

had two distinct deep structures expressing, on the one hand,
the fact that 'Annie had an umbrella and she whacked a man
with it’ and, on the other hand, that ‘Annie whacked a man and
the man happened to be carrying an umbrella’. Now, these two
different concepts can, in fact, be expressed in the same
surface structure form: Annie whacked a man with an umbrella.
This sentence is structurally ambiguous. It has two different
underlying interpretations which would be represented
differently in the deep structure.
5. One other feature of phrase structure rules is that
they will generate all sentences with fairly fixed word order to
the constituents. It would have some difficulty accommodating
structures of the following types: George helped Mary yesterday
and Yesterday George helped Mary or George picked up the
magazine and George picked the magazine up. A phrase
structure analysis would have to create two distinct tree
diagrams. Yet, we intuitively recognize that these two sentences
must come from a single underlying source.
We need a set of rules which will change or move
constituents in the structures derived from the phrase structure
rules. These are called transformational rules. Essentially
what they do is take a 'branch' of the 'tree' away from one part of
the tree diagram, and attach it to a different part. We would, of
course, specify which constituent can be moved, from where
and to where. Here is an example of a movement
transformation:

(George helped Mary yesterday) (Yesterday George helped

Mary)
By using this simple transformational rule, we have
provided the means for explicitly relating the two structures in
sentences as ‘surface’ variations of a single underlying
structure. It may not seem much, but this type of
transformational analysis solved a number of tricky problems for
previous syntactic descriptions.
This led N. Chomsky to the formulation of a new
conception of grammatical theory — transformational-
generative grammar — in which phrase structure rules were
 73

supplemented by new, more powerful devices called transforma-

tions.
Generative grammar is notorious for giving rise to
very different approaches. For some, the only relevant issues
are syntactic ones, that is, how to describe structure,
independently of 'meaning' considerations. For others, the
'meaning component' is primary. In some later versions of
generative grammar (Generative Semantics and Case
Grammar), the level of deep structure is essentially taken over
by a 'meaning' or semantic interpretation which is assigned a
structural or syntactic form in its surface realization.
Unfortunately, almost everything involved in the
analysis of generative grammar remains controversial. There
continue to be many different approaches among those who
claim to analyze language in terms of generative grammar, and
many more among those who are critical of the whole system.
Not all generative grammarians concur with
Chomskyan formulations of generative systems. There are
examples of work in some alternative approaches, including
Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar (GPSG).
Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar is a theory
developed by Gerald Gazdar, Ewan Klein, Geoffrey Pullum, and
Ivan Sag [1985] to produce a grammar that provides in a single
level of a single structure all the information necessary to derive
a semantic form. It does not use transformations. It is truly a
single-level theory of syntax: it has only a surface structure
[Hubbard, 1994: 62-65].
Phrase structure rules are basically constraints on
possible constituent structures. They do not specify linear order,
only immediate dominance relations. For example, a noun
phrase could be specified as including a determiner and a noun,
but their relative order would be specified by a separate
statement of linear precedence. A set of linear precedence rules
specifies word order.
The verb phrase has a special status among
constituents. It is considered the head of the sentence in much
the same way a noun is the head of a noun phrase or a verb is
the head of a verb phrase. Verbs are the key to the sentence.
Subcategorization is a feature of all lexical items and
directly determines which structures they may appear in. By the
same token, much of the grammatical structure of English is
directly linked to the logical structure of lexical items.
The descriptive machinery of Generalized Phrase
 74

Structure Grammar includes a system of syntactic features,

immediate dominance rules, and various restrictions,
conventions, principles, and statements that combine to define
the set of well-formed phrase structure trees for a given
language.
Features of various types play an important role in
Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar. G. Gazdar et al. [1985]
present a list of thirty features of various types necessary for a
grammar of English. Some, like N, V, PAST, and LOC (locative),
are binary (represented by a combination of the two binary (+/-)
features N (nominal) and V (verbal). A noun in this system
would be [+N,-V], a verb [-N,+V], a preposition [-N,-V]). Others,
like CONJ (conjunction) and COMP (complementizer), have a
list of linguistic items as their possible values (for COMP they
are for, that, whether, if, and NIL). Still others, such as VFORM
(verb form) have feature values denoting categories of lexical
forms: BSE (base), FIN (finite), INF (infinitive), PAS (passive),
PRP (present participle), and PSP (past participle). This rich
feature system is critical because of the necessity of including
all the syntactic information in a single structure and because of
its emphasis on comprehensiveness.
The syntactic features appear on the nodes of tree
structures whose specification begins with immediate
dominance rules.
Immediate dominance rules are of two basic types:
lexical and nonlexical. Lexical immediate dominance rules
specify the character of the hierarchical relationships that exist
among items in constituents that include a lexical head,
constituents such as noun phrases and verb phrases.
Thirty of the forty-nine lexical immediate dominance
rules refer to the expansion of verb phrases, linking a particular
class of verbs with a particular structure. The following versions
of rules from Gazdar et al. [1985: 247; cited in Hubbard, 1994:
62-65] have been adjusted so as to incorporate linear
precedence in the familiar phrase structure rule fashion and to
indicate explicitly that the head is a verb. They have been
numbered here for the purpose of exposition, and in each case
they are followed by a sample verb and a sentence built on it.
The underlined portion of each sentence is the part representing
the constituents required by the rule.
1. VP→V[1] die - The cat died at
midnight.
2. VP→V[2] NP kiss - Ken kissed
 75

Barbie softly.
3. VP→V[3] NP PP[to] give - Ken gave a
ring to Barbie.
4. VP→V[5] NP NP give - Ken gave
Barbie a ring.
5. VP→V[8] NP S[FIN] persuade - I
persuaded Ken that
I was too
sick to work.
6. VP→V[11] (PP[of]) S[BSE] require - I require
(of all my
employees) that they be
here on time.

3.8. Transformational Grammar

The theory of the IC, which in the middle of the 20th
century fascinated the minds of the linguists, has only been
obscured by Transformational Grammar, a new linguistic
theory which appeared in the 1950s. Transformational grammar
was first proposed by Zellig S. Harris as a method of analyzing
the ‘raw material’ (concrete utterances) and was later
elaborated by Noam Chomsky as a synthetic method of
generating (constructing) utterances.
Transformational Grammar as a system of
grammatical analysis is a form of generative grammar that
posits the existence of deep structure and surface structure,
using a set of transformational rules to derive surface structure
forms from deep structure; a grammar that uses transformations
to express the relations between equivalent structures.
Transformational grammar model presented by N.
Chomsky in Aspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965) is often
referred to as the Standard Theory. N. Chomsky’s [1965]
theory of transformational grammar (the Standard Theory) was
a revision and expansion of his original (1957) theory of
generative grammar. Following are some of the Standard
Theory’s key assumptions [Hubbard, 1994: 51-52]:
1. A theory of grammar has as its goal the description
of the linguistic competence of the idealized native speaker-
hearer of a language. Competence is the implicit internalized
knowledge of a language that a speaker possesses and that
enables the speaker to produce and understand language. It is
not to be confused with actual performance, i.e. the actual use
 76

of language in real situations, which may or may not fully reflect

a speaker’s competence, being subject to such nonlinguistic
factors as inattention, distraction, memory lapses, fatigue, or
emotional state.
2. An adequate grammar must generate (or
exhaustively describe) the set of all the possible grammatical
sentences in that language while excluding all ungrammatical
ones.
3. A grammar consists of three basic components:
syntax, semantics, and phonology. Syntax consists of two types
of rules: phrase structure rules, which determine the deep
structure of a sentence, and transformational rules, which
change the deep structure through operations that insert, delete,
replace, or move sentence constituents, eventually leading to
the surface structure. Semantics is interpreted from the deep
structure, while the surface structure provides the input to the
phonological component for pronouncing the sentence.
The descriptive machinery of the theory includes
basically the two types of rules noted above operating to define
tree structures.
The phrase structure rule S → NP+VP, for instance,
defines a sentence as being comprised of a noun phrase and a
following verb phrase.
The transformational rule
NP AUX V NP 4 2 + be 3 + en by + 1
1 2 3 4
describes the transformation of a sentence from active
(Gremlins must have eaten the cake) to passive (The cake must
have been eaten by gremlins).
The emphasis in this study is syntax; semantic and
phonological aspects of language structure are discussed only
insofar as they bear on syntactic theory.
4. The lexical entries for words in a language include
(besides phonological and semantic information) two elements.
One is the strict subcategorization, which shows what other
constituents can or must occur with the word (e.g., transitive
verbs are subcategorized as requiring a following noun phrase).
The other is selectional restrictions, which require a matching of
semantic features between one word and another (e.g., kill
requires an [+animate] object).
5. Grammatical functions (subject, direct object, etc.)
are structurally derived, e.g., the subject can be defined as the
 77

noun phrase immediately dominated by the sentence and the

direct object as the noun phrase immediately dominated by the
verb phrase. Grammatical functions do not play any direct role
in transformations, which are based exclusively on structural
configurations.
The main assumption of Transformational grammar
is that any language consists of a limited number of kernel
(basic) sentences. All the other linguistic forms, sentences of
different structure, are derived (generated) from these basic
(kernel) elements by means of transformations which
constitute the transformational mechanism, a very important
area in a language system.
The approach of transformational grammar presents
each sentence as derived in accordance with a set of
transformational rules from one or more (generally simpler)
sentences, e.g., the sentence Good tests are short is made up
from two simple kernel sentences: Tests are short and Tests are
good. A language is then described as consisting of specified
sets of kernel sentences and a set of transforms generated from
these kernel sentences by certain transformational rules which
are not very numerous or difficult.
Kernel sentences are the basic elementary sentences
of the language from which all other sentences are made. They
are simple, active, declarative, indicative, unextended
sentences. They can be adequately described by phrase or
constituent structure method, as consisting of noun and verb
phrases.
For English Z.S. Harris [1957] lists seven principal
patterns of kernel sentences: 1) N V (The team went there); 2) N
V N (We’ll take it); 3) N V Prep N (The teacher looked at him); 4)
N is N (He is an architect); 5) N is A (The girl is pretty); 6) N is
Prep N (The paper is of importance); 7) N is D (The man is
here).
Transformation is the changing of a sentence, phrase,
or formula according to a prescribed model and following certain
rules. Transformational operations consist in rearrangement,
addition, deletion, and combination of linguistic elements.
Transformations can change and expand the kernel in many
ways to form the great variety of sentences possible in a given
language.
The result of transformation is called a transform.
Transforms are syntactic constructions derived from the kernel
sentences retaining their grammatical and semantic relations,
 78

but having an additional grammatical meaning of their own.

According to the additional grammatical meaning, transforms
may be affirmative, interrogative, imperative, exclamatory,
negative, passive, compound, complex, etc. To give an
example, the sentence Was the sky overcast? is a transform
derived from the kernel sentence The sky was overcast. The
grammatical meaning of the kernel sentence is the relation
‘thing and its state’. This meaning is carried over into the
transform, but the transform also contains the additional
grammatical meaning of a question asking for confirmation of
this relation.
A transformational rule is a rule which requires or
allows us to perform certain changes in the kernel structure. It
tells us how to derive something from something else by
switching things about, putting things in or leaving them out, and
so on. Transformational rules may also be called derivation
rules because they tell us how a variety of sentence structures
and nominal structures are derived or generated from the kernel
sentences [Irtenyeva et al., 1969: 78].
Transformational rules may concern the introduction of
new elements into kernel sentences (negatives, adjectives,
etc.), the rearrangement of their elements (to produce a
negative or interrogative sentence) or both (transformation into
passive).
The following are examples of transformational rules:
NP1+V+NP2 → NP2+Aux+ Ven+by+NP1: The dog
chased the man. → The man was chased by the dog.
This rule will generate all regular active-passive
sentences. Four separate operations are recognized here: 1)
the first noun phrase in the active sentence (NP 1) is placed at
the end of the passive sentence; 2) the second noun phrase in
the active sentence (NP2) is placed at the beginning of the
passive sentence; 3) the verb (V) is changed from past tense to
past participle (Ven), and an auxiliary verb (Aux) is inserted
before it; 4) preposition by is inserted between the verb and the
final noun phrase [Poluzhyn, 2004: 135].
NP is A → TAN: The girl is pretty → the pretty girl
According to this tansformational rule, nominal
structures are derived from kernel sentences. The operations
applied to the kernel sentence are: 1) deletion of the verb; 2)
embedding A into NP between T and N [Irtenyeva et al., 1969:
99].
As can be seen, a transformational rule has two
 79

parts: structural analysis (SA) used to determine sentence

constituents (constituent structure) of the input string and
structural change (SC) specifying how to change the original
structure to get the derived structure [Poluzhyn, 2004: 135].
Transformational rules are studied in three sets,
indicated by Z.S. Harris [Irtenyeva et al., 1969: 79-80]: 1)
transformations of kernel sentences into other simple sentences
(S → S); 2) transformations of simple sentences into NP —
nominalization (S → NP); 3) transformations of two or more
simple sentences into a complex or compound sentence (S1 +
S2 → S3).
Transformations in simple sentences usually imply
the transformation of:
• affirmation (T-A): I love summer. → I do love summer.
I’ve been there. → But I have been there.
• negation (T-NOT): She saw him. → She did not see
him. Somebody saw that. → Nobody saw that.
• general question (T-Q): She loves summer. → Does
she love summer? Mary is not your friend. → Is Mary not your
friend?
• tag-question (T-TAG): She loves sweets. → She
loves sweets, doesn’t she?
• special question (T-W): Peter has come. → Who has
come? Do you know the song? → What do you know?
• exclamation (T-EX): The girl is pretty. → How pretty
the girl is! He is a boy. → What a boy he is!
• command or request (T-I): You must be quiet. → Be
quiet!
• the passive (T-PASS): He put the book aside. → The
book was put aside.
• preposition introduction (T-PREP): He gave his
mother some money. → He gave some money to his mother.
• permutation (T-PERM) involves changing the order of
elements: The pencil is here. → Here is the pencil.
• introducer (T-IN): The man appeared in the corridor.
→ There appeared a man in the corridor. Winter. → It is winter.
• reduction (T-RED) consists in omitting the elements
which do not destroy the meaning of the sentence: Do you like
it? → Like it? How nicely she sings! → How nicely! Be quiet! →
Quiet!
Transformational procedures in simple sentences
are carried out by means of:
• expansion of VP or NP: His dreams came true. → All
 80

his dreams came true at last.

• permutation (word-order change): He is here. → Is he
here?
• introduction of functional words: He came. → Did he
come? Ted is clever. → How clever is Ted!
• use of introducers: The boy is here. → There is a boy
here.
• omission of the elements in the sentence, which does
not affect its grammatical meaning: Do you like it? → Like it?
• change of the intonation contour: He was there. →
Was he there? You know it. → You know it?
Transformation of nominalization converts the kernel
sentence into a noun-phrase (NP) retaining the same semantic
relations, e.g., The seagull shrieks → the shriek of the seagull.
Nominalization implies the following procedures:
• deletion of the verb: The sea is rough. → the rough
sea. The girl is near the window. → the girl near the window.
• introduction of prepositions: The man is wise. → the
wisdom of the man. My wife is like an angel. → my angel of a
wife.
• introduction of the -‘s element between the two NP:
The man has a son. → the man’s son.
• permutation of NP1 and NP2: The bowl is for sugar. →
a sugar bowl. The cup is for coffee. → a coffee cup.
• derivation of the corresponding N from V: The bird
sang. → the song of the bird. He loves pictures. → his love for
pictures.
• transformation of V-finite into Ving and Vto: The bird
sings. → singing bird / the bird’s singing / for the bird to sing.
N-transforms can be used in NP positions in other
sentences to expand them: The shriek of the seagull startled me
(N-subject position). I heard the shriek of a seagull (N-object
position). The sound was the shriek of a seagull (N-predicative
position).
Transformations of two or more simple sentences
into a complex or compound sentence are defined as two-
base transformations or transformations in sentence sequences.
They reveal the mechanism by which two or more sentences
can be joined into one larger structural pattern: S 1 + S2 → S3,
where S1 is a matrix sentence; S2 is an insert sentence.
Two kernel sentences may be joined together into a
compound sentence by means of:
• the procedure of conjunction (but, and, etc.): The man
 81

came to the window. The detective saw him. → The man came
to the window and the detective saw him.
• conjunction, substitution (sometimes permutation) in
the second sentence: We asked for the book. He gave us the
book. → We asked for the book and he gave it to us.
• conjunction, V-substitutes, permutation, addition of
function words (so, neither, etc.): / shall do it tomorrow. He will
do it tomorrow. → I shall do it tomorrow and so will he.
Kernel sentences may be joined together into a semi-
compound sentence. If NP1 in the two sentences are identical,
the identical element in the second sentence is zeroed
(deleted); the operation is conjunction: The car rounded the
corner. The car stopped. → The car rounded the corner and
stopped.
Two sentences may be joined into a complex
sentence by:
• wh-substitutes (who, which, etc.): Here is a man. The
man is waiting for you. → Here is the man who is waiting for
you.
• embedding, accompanied by introducing a conjun-
ctive: I know it. → What I know isn't important. He explained to
me what I know. The insert clause What I know may be
embedded in the NP position of any matrix sentence.
• embedding and adjustment: He asked me where I
lived.
• addition of subordinators (when, because, as, etc.):
He did not come. He was busy. → He did not come because he
was busy.
Two sentences may be joined into a semi-complex
sentence by means of word-sharing. The shared word may be:
a) different in grammatical status in both sentences: /
saw him. He was crossing the street. → I saw him crossing the
street.
b) similar in grammatical status in both sentences: He
was there. He was working. → He was there working.
Transformational grammar symbolized a new stage in
the living languages and their syntax investigation. It opened up
the most extensive field for linguistic investigations, which
demonstrated a new view on language and its structure
[Poluzhyn, 2004: 125].
However, many of its core assumptions, such as the
linking of deep structure with semantic interpretation, were
abandoned years ago. While its historic influence on
 82

contemporary linguistics is undeniable, it is, as a serious theory,

obsolete [Hubbard: 1994: 50].
To take a simple example, a passive question (e.g., Is
that produced here?, relatable to an active statement They
produce that somewhere) is now treated in terms not of phrase-
structure rules together with passivization and question
formation transformation, but rather in terms of the lexical
properties of the specific verb, here produce (which state, for
example, what kinds of noun phrase can, or must, occur with it),
and of a number of parameterized principles (which can help to
determine, for example, where is and that can be moved). The
operation of abstract universal principles, with variable
parameters, is assumed, with a heavy syntactic burden resting
on individual lexical items [Westney, 1994: 86].
The most familiar version of transformational grammar,
Chomsky's (1965) Standard Theory, has not for quite some time
been considered an adequate characterization of the structure
of human language, even by those (such as N. Chomsky) most
closely associated with it. Transformations can be significantly
limited and eliminated altogether in the description of the
structure of a sentence.

3.9. Universal Grammar (Government/Binding or

Principles and Parameters Grammar)
After undergoing several significant revisions in the
1970s, Transformational Grammar emerged as the version of
the Revised Extended Standard Theory known as Universal
Grammar (UG). UG remains the most widely accepted
replacement for Standard Theory.
The Chomskyan UG model is based on the theory of
syntax known variously as Principles and Parameters Theory
or Government/Binding (GB) Theory, named after Chomsky's
book Lectures on Government and Binding (1981).
The basic concept is that language is knowledge stored
in the mind. This knowledge consists of principles that do not
vary from one person to another and parameter settings that
vary according to the particular language that the person knows.
Principles and parameters theory can be approached through
an analogy to a video recorder. A recorder needs two elements
in order to function: the unchanging equipment itself, which is
the same in every set that is sold, and the variable tuning, which
has to be set by the user to local circumstances. When a new
 83

recorder is switched on, everything may be in working order, but

nothing appropriate will show on the screen until the channels
have been tuned to the local TV stations. The combination of
the two elements of permanent equipment and particular tuning
allows the recorder to function in any situation.
The human mind similarly has built-in language
‘principles’ that are part of its knowledge of any language. But it
also has ‘parameters’ within these principles whose values are
set to the actual language it learns. The principles are the
permanent equipment in all minds; the parameters tune the
principles to a particular language or languages. A mind that
knows English and one that knows French contain the same
language principles; the main difference between them is the
different settings for the language parameters. These principles
and parameters are highly abstract and they interact with each
other in complex ways [Cook, 1994: 25-29].
A much-discussed example of a principle is the
principle of structure-dependency [Chomsky, 1988]. This states
an obvious but curious fact: in many languages, the structure of
questions depends on the structure of the sentence itself rather
than on the sequence of words in it. The question Is Sam the
cat that is black? is linked to a similar structure to that seen in
Sam is the cat that is black. Forming a question involves
knowing which of the two examples of is can be moved to the
beginning of the sentence to get the grammatical sentence Is
Sam the cat that is black? instead of *Is Sam is the cat that
black? The ability to form English questions therefore relies on
the speaker's ability to tell the subordinate clause from the main
clause. English questions always depend on knowledge of the
structure of the sentence. They are structure-dependent.
Yet there is no real reason why questions should
involve a knowledge of structure in this way. Many other ways of
forming questions can be imagined which depend on the sheer
sequence of words in the sentence rather than on its
hierarchical structure — say, reversing the order of words or
moving only the second word. Such alternatives are logically
possible and are indeed carried out by computers with ease. But
they do not occur in human languages. The mind knows that, in
order to form a question by movement, it must rely on the
phrase structure of the sentence instead of the sheer sequence
of words. This applies not just to questions but to all other
constructions in which movement occurs in the sentence, such
as passives. Structure-dependency is, then, a principle of
 84

language knowledge built-in to the human mind. It becomes part

of any language that is learnt, not just of English. Principles and
parameters theory claims that an important component in the
speaker's knowledge of any language such as English is made
up of a handful of general language principles such as structure-
dependency.
Let us now look at some parameters. In English,
declarative sentences must have grammatical subjects, such as
he, it and there in the following sentences: He's going home. It's
raining. There's a book on the table. In Spanish, subjects are
not needed in the equivalent sentences: Va a casa. Llueve. Hay
un libro en la mesa. This difference is due to the 'pro-drop'
parameter. Some languages, such as Spanish, Italian, Chinese,
Arabic, permit sentences without subjects, and are called 'pro-
drop' languages. Other languages, which include English,
French, German, do not permit sentences without subjects, and
are called 'non-pro-drop'. All languages fall into one or other of
these groups. The pro-drop parameter therefore has two values
or ‘settings’ — pro-drop or non-pro-drop. Any mind that knows a
language has set the pro-drop parameter to one or other of
these two values. A person who knows English knows the same
principles and parameters as a person who knows Spanish but
has set the value of the pro-drop parameter differently [Cook,
1994: 27].
Nina Hyams [1986] claims that young English children
often produce sentences without subjects, such as Want more
bubbles or Now wash my hands, and gradually learn that the
subject is compulsory. They are initially treating English as if it
were a pro-drop language like Spanish. So pro-drop seems to
be the unmarked setting from which all children start. English
children have to change the setting to non-pro-drop so that in
due course they consistently produce sentences with subjects.
Another recently studied parameter distinguishes
English from French. In English, it is possible to say: John often
drinks wine. But not: *John drinks often wine. However, in
French the reverse is true in that it is possible to say: Jean boit
souvent du vin. But not: *Jean souvent boit du vin. In other
words, in English the adverb often precedes the verb; in French
it follows it. English also permits: John does not drink wine,
where the negative element not precedes the main verb drink
rather than: *John drinks not wine. In French, however, it is
correct to say: Jean ne boit pas du vin. Furthermore, English
speakers say: The workers all drink wine, with the quantifier all
 85

preceding the verb, but French speakers say: Les ouvriers

boivent tous du vin, with tous following the verb [Cook, 1994:
27-28].
These consistent differences over the elements that
may follow or precede the verb can be accounted for by a
further parameter called 'opacity' [Pollock, 1989]; in French
certain grammatical elements must occur after the verb, in
English before it. A French-speaking person has set the
parameter so that these elements must follow the verb; an
English-speaking person has set it so that these elements must
precede the verb. They have tuned the parameter in different
ways. The two languages differ in a single overall factor that
affects all these constructions — the opacity parameter — rather
than in terms of rules about the position of adverbs, negative
elements and quantifiers like all.
The speaker, of course, knows many other aspects of
language as well as principles and parameters. Knowledge of
vocabulary is especially important to principles and parameters
theory. A person who knows the verb faint knows not only its
meaning but also how it is used in sentences: Faint usually has
an animate subject in front of it but no grammatical object after
it. So it is possible to find: Peter fainted. But not: *The rock
fainted, where the subject is inanimate, or *Peter fainted Mary,
with a grammatical object. Knowledge of words is closely tied in
to the syntax; the native speaker has learnt how words behave
in sentences as well as what they mean. Many of the
complexities of a language are now seen as having more to do
with how particular words are used than with syntax. An extreme
version of this position is N. Chomsky's controversial claim that
syntax is innate but vocabulary is learnt: 'there is only one
human language, apart from the lexicon, and language
acquisition is in essence a matter of determining lexical
idiosyncrasies' [Chomsky, 1989: 44].
The powerful type of description made available
through principles and parameters theory has shed new light
upon many aspects of grammar. The pro-drop or opacity
parameters, for instance, are intriguing and novel ways of
capturing the differences between English and Spanish, and
French and English, or indeed many other pairs of languages. In
the Chomskyan framework, Universal Grammar (UG) underlies
the structural regularities found in all human languages, and UG
principles can account for the wide variation in morphology and
syntax in the languages of the world.
 86

3.10. Text Grammar

The ever growing interest to text theoretical research
guides our attention to Text Linguistics and problems of Text
Grammar.
Text Linguistics is one of the approaches in
Discourse Analysis (DA) — the study of the rules governing
appropriate language use in communicative situations.
Discourse analysis started attracting attention in the early 1970s
and has developed into a variety of approaches (speech act
analysis, conversational analysis, rhetorical analysis, register
analysis, genre analysis, functional analysis, clause-relational
analysis). It has developed from a surface-level formal analysis
to a deeper functional analysis, which marks a movement from
form to function, usage to use in Widdowson's terms, grammar
to discourse and communication.
Text Grammar studies such problems as syntax of the
text, style of the text, text coherence, the structure and the main
units of the text. Linguists concentrate their attention on the
discussion of the contextual theory of meaning, the problem of
meaning and use, pragmatic aspects of the sentence and the
text. Due attention is given to the study of the role of
implications and presuppositions in the organization of the text.
Attempts have been made to prove that many
systematic phenomena of language are properties of discourse
and cannot be adequately described by traditional grammar.
The existing types of structural and generative-transformational
grammars are limited to the formal enumeration and structural
description of the sentences of a language and therefore are
called Sentence grammars (or S-grammars). Text grammars (T-
grammars) account for the formal structure of texts and serve as
a basis for the study of all types of texts of verbal
communication.
Important observations in the theory of Text Grammar
were made by T.A. van Dijk [1972] who tried to prove that only
Text Grammar provides an adequate framework for the
description of many problematic phenomena in modern
linguistics. Intonation and stress assignment in sentences,
article selection, different processes of pronominalization,
tenses, moods, and aspects of the verb, communicative
organization of sentences, sentential connectives, implication,
presupposition, entailment cannot be studied in terms of
 87

isolated sentences; they may be made explicit only on the basis

of intersententional relations, i.e. they require a textual
approach.
T-grammars attempt to gain explicit insight into
structures ‘beyond the sentence’. The impoprtance of Text
grammars is most obvious in determining a typology of texts, in
establishing formal criteria for degrees of interpretability of
sentences in texts.

3.11. Relational Grammar

Relational Grammar was developed initially by David
Perlmutter and Paul Postal in the mid-1970s to account for
certain types of cross-linguistic generalizations that
transformational grammar and its offshoots at the time were
unable to explain. The theory attracted the interest of a number
of linguists during the decade that followed, and although no
major breakthroughs have occurred in the past few years, many
of the generalizations discovered by linguists working with
Relational Grammar have influenced the development of other
theories [Perlmutter, Postal, 1977; Perlmutter, 1983; Perlmutter,
Rosen, 1984].
Like transformational grammar, Relational Grammar
assumes syntax to be an independent component of linguistic
structure, separate from phonology and semantics. However, it
differs from transformational grammar in a number of its key
assumptions [Hubbard, 1994: 53-57]:
1. Grammatical relations (subject, predicate, direct
object, etc.) are primitives. This means that they are a core part
of the clause structure and not derived by structural description
(e.g., the subject is the noun phrase immediately dominated by
the sentence) as they were in transformational grammar.
2. Linear order is a more or less independent aspect of
clause structure. This allows a rule such as passive to be stated
universally as the displacement of an underlying subject by a
direct object, without respect to word order.
3. Clause structure is not derivational (i.e., structure-
changing rules do not apply in succession as in transformational
grammar), but it is still multileveled. The representation of a
passive sentence such as Ken was shot by Barbie, for example,
contains the information that Ken was initially the direct object
but is now the subject and that Barbie was initially the subject
but is so no longer.
 88

4. Linguistic generalizations (rules for case marking

and other inflectional morphology, word order, etc.) may make
reference to any aspect of the clausal representation. The
appearance of passive morphology in English, for instance (be
plus the past participle ending), is allowed only in those clauses
containing a direct object at the initial level which is also a
subject at the final level, such as Ken in the preceding example.
5. Possible representations of clause structure are
limited by a set of universal constraints that set restrictions on
the types of grammatical relation changes that can occur.
In the descriptive machinery of Relational Grammar,
the most critical notion is that of the grammatical relation itself.
The theory recognizes a number of relations divided into various
classes. The most important ones include the following.
Predicate is the central relation of a clause. It is normally carried
by verbs, though adjectives may sometimes carry it as well. The
predicate has a special role. It is the defining item for the clause,
determining the number of noun arguments, the grammatical
relations they will carry, and the semantic roles (Agent, Patient,
etc.) that a particular grammatical relation will be linked with.
The traditional Subject, Direct Object, and Indirect
Object together form a class known as the term relations. These
differ from other nominal relations in that they carry a range of
semantic roles and act as a natural class with respect to certain
grammatical processes. Other grammatical relations for
nominals include the oblique relations (Benefactive, Locative,
Instrumental, etc.), which are marked with prepositions, and a
few others such as Possessor.
There is a distinction between subject, direct object,
and indirect object (called the term relations) and all other
grammatical relations. They are the ones not linked to a single
semantic role, and they participate in most of the grammatical
rule statements.
Relational Grammar deals centrally with the ways
nominals and predicates can change their grammatical relations
in a clause, i.e. relation-changing rules. There are universal
characterizations of rules such as passive, indirect object
movement, and so on.
The basic goal of Relational Grammar as a universal
grammar is to characterize the set of such possible structures in
such a way that structures which do not occur in any language
are blocked by universal principles. A grammar of a particular
language, like English, would include additional restrictions that
 89

determine which subset of universally allowed structures could

occur, along with statements of how (through word order,
inflections, grammatical particles, etc.) the structural information
would be indicated.
In place of the familiar tree structures of most
generative grammars, the characterization of sentence structure
in Relational Grammar is presented through a representational
device called a stratal diagram. The figure below shows a stratal
diagram for Ken was shot by Barbie [Hubbard, 1994: 56-57].

shoot Barbie Ken

In this diagram, the arrows, called relational arcs, are
labeled to show the grammatical relations that Ken, shoot, and
Barbie carry, and the curved, latitudinal lines represent levels.
The leftmost arc, with shoot at the end of it, carries the predicate
(P) relation to the clause at both the initial (top) and final
(bottom) levels. The next arc, with Barbie at the end, carries the
subject (Sub) relation at the initial level and the chomeur (Cho)
relation at the final level. Chomeur, from the French for
‘unemployed’, is the label used in Relational Grammar to
indicate that an item no longer has a central role to play in a
clause. In the English passive, this means it will be marked with
a by-phrase if it appears at all. The final arc, with Ken at the
end, carries the direct object (DO) relation at the initial level and
the subject (Sub) relation at the final level, indicating that Ken
begins as the direct object but ends up as the subject.

3.12. Functional approaches to grammar. Systemic

Grammar. Communicative Grammar. Lexical-
Functional Grammar
In general, functional grammars embrace the
‘communicative imperative’, the idea that linguistic form
generally serves to code or signal linguistic function and that the
shapes taken by linguistic form arise out of the demands of
communicative interactions.
 90

The fundamental functionalist assumption is that

language is communication and that linguistic form serves
communicative functions. Language develops within human indi-
viduals and within human culture to ensure maximally
successful communication.
Functional Grammar studies how grammatical
constructions are deployed in discourse. Functional analysis
attempts to determine the semantic and/or pragmatic conditions
which lead to the selection of alternative grammatical structures,
e.g., active vs. passive voice. Numerous analyses are devoted
to puzzling out how contextual features of a text correlate with
specific grammatical forms.
At a descriptive level, the research focuses on
identifying discourse functions and arguing that certain
grammatical forms correlate with those functions. Among the
functions that have been examined are: old vs. new information,
theme vs. rheme, foreground vs. background information,
contrastive information, newsworthiness, focus, topic continuity,
identifiability, referentiality, evidentiality. These functional
parameters have been linked to a number of grammatical
construction types: voice, constituent order, intonation,
subordination, tense-aspect, modality, pronominalization, etc.
[Tomlin, 1994: 149].
At an explanatory level, functional research argues that
the interaction of form and function is neither arbitrary nor
accidental. Instead, such research often proposes that specific
form-function interactions occur precisely to make discourses
either easier to comprehend or to produce. For example, the
hypothesis that the English active-passive alternation is tied to
the assignment of a focally attended referent to syntactic subject
might be explained as an English-specific instance of a more
general cognitive strategy that places important elements first in
linear arrays.
Overall, functional work in linguistics falls into several
broad divisions [Tomlin, 1994: 149].
First, there is Praguean functionalism, the historical
precursor to contemporary efforts. Prague School linguists focus
on the so-called functional sentence perspective, which
distinguishes a number of fundamental pragmatic statuses
(given-new, theme-rheme, and so on) and describes their
interactions with the syntax of word order, voice, and intonation
[Daneš, 1974, 1987; Jones 1977].
Second, there is the Functional Grammar of Simon Dik
 91

and associates [Dik, 1987], an approach dedicated to the formal

specification of functional interactions.
Third, there is the Systemic Grammar of Michael
Halliday [Halliday, 1976, 1985, 1991; Halliday, Hasan 1989] in
which the notion of paradigmatic relations, or system is made
the central explanatory principle. Systemic grammar is
concerned to establish a network of systems of relationships
which will account for all the systematically relevant choices in
the language. The emphasis of the theory is on the way
language functions in the act of communication, and on the
choices which speakers make as they interact in speech
situations [Crystal, 1994: 380]. Language functions in this model
are termed registers [Davidse, 1987].
SFG has been used to derive further grammatical
accounts, e.g., word grammar. Word grammar is a grammar
model developed by Richard Hudson in the 1980s. It is based
on dependency grammar model, in which information is almost
entirely contained in the lexical entries for particular words, and
syntax is seen as consisting primarily of rules for combining
words.
Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik’s Communicative
Grammar of English (1975, second edition 1994) is strongly
influenced by Halliday’s functional approach to language.
Communicative Grammar has established itself as an
innovative grammar, where grammatical structures are
systematically related to meanings, uses, and situations. It
presents grammar through the eyes of the communicator. The
question it tries to answer is: Given that I want to communicate
certain meanings in certain situations or contexts, which
grammatical forms and structures can I use? [Leech, Svartvik,
1994: 3].
Here we find the basic categories of grammar:
‘number’, ‘definite meaning’, ‘amount’, ‘time’, ‘manner’, ‘degree’,
‘affirmation and denial’, ‘possibility’ and ‘certainty’, etc.
The chief ways of expressing manner, for example,
are: a) adverbs (usually ending in -ly); b) in a … manner (way);
c) with + abstract noun phrase [Leech, Svartvik, 1994: 101].
confidently (most
common)
He spoke in a confident manner (more
formal)
with confidence (formal)
 92

Communicative grammar also deals the social

dimension of communication, relating grammar to the attitudes
and behaviour of speaker and hearer. Thus, questions can be
adapted ‘pragmatically’ for the purpose of making an offer:
Would you like some more? or making a suggestion: Why don't
you come with me? or expressing a strong feeling: Wasn't it a
marvellous play?
It also deals with the organization of communication.
The question here is: How shall we arrange our thoughts? i.e.,
in what order shall we put them, and how shall we bind them
together, in order to communicate in the most appropriate or
effective way?
An important part of communicative grammar is
knowing the appropriate choice according to the situation you
are in. Where English gives us a choice of grammatical forms or
structures for a given purpose, the different structures available
are often not equivalent, since they belong to different styles or
varieties. For example, if you are communicating in speech your
choices of grammar will often be different from the choices you
make in writing.
Lexical-Functional Grammar represents an attempt
to build a grammar that is consistent with research about human
language processing. The cofounders of the theory are
theoretical linguist Joan Bresnan, who in the late 1970s began
arguing for a more psychologically real transformational
grammar, and Ronald Kaplan, a psycholinguist. As the name of
the theory suggests, the lexicon and language functions play a
significant role in its language description.
The following are the key assumptions that underlie
Lexical-Functional Grammar [Hubbard, 1994: 57-61]:
1. A grammar should be psychologically real; that is, it
should be a direct representation of the underlying linguistic
competence of a speaker so that it can form the basis for a
theory of language performance (both comprehension and
production).
2. The structure of a sentence has two forms:
constituent structure, which is similar to the phrase structure
trees of transformational grammar, and functional structure,
which contains information about the relations of constituent
elements to the clause (e.g., which NP is the subject).
3. For a sentence to be grammatical, constituent and
functional structure must each be well formed. Furthermore, the
two must be mutually compatible.
 93

4. The lexicon plays a central role. Unlike in

transformational grammar and its direct descendants, lexical
entries subcategorize for functional as well as constituent
structure.
5. There are no transformations or movements of any
kind, and the structure of a sentence is not ‘multileveled’.
Constituents that in other theories have been moved (such as
which in Which book did you read?) are generated in place and
related by functional structure and/or lexical rules to the
appropriate constituents.
The descriptive machinery of Lexical-Functional
Grammar is of two types: that which describes constituent and
functional structures and that which describes lexical relations.
Constituent structure in Lexical-Functional Grammar is
like that of transformational theories in that it is generated by
phrase structure rules of the type S → NP+VP. It differs,
however, in annotating this structure with the functional informa-
tion necessary for linking it with the functional structure. Thus, in
the tree structure generated by the preceding rule, the NP would
be annotated with the feature (SUBJ), indicating that it is the
subject of S.
Functional structure is quite different: It consists of
attributes that are specified with particular values. A sentence
like The cat sleeps would have the following functional structure.
SUBJ SPEC THE
NUM SG
PRED ‘CAT’
TENSE [PRES]
PRED ‘SLEEP’ <(SUBJ)>
(SUBJ = subject, SPEC = specifier, NUM = number,
SG = singular, PRED = predicate, PRES = present)
In this structure, the attribute SPEC carries the value
THE, while the attribute SUBJ carries the value the cat. The
terms in single quotes (‘CAT’ and ‘SLEEP’) represent semantic
values (roughly ‘words’), while items with primarily grammatical
functions, such as THE, occur without quotes. The form
<SUBJ> after sleep indicates that the value of SUBJ (the cat in
this case) will carry the subject relation in the sentence. This
functional structure thus includes the essential information
necessary for assigning a semantic value to the sentence. It
does not, however, specify linear order; this is the role of the
annotated constituent structure.
 94

The lexicon in Lexical-Functional Grammar has two

interesting elements: the treatment of subcategorization and
lexical rules. As with most recent generative grammars, the
function of subcategorization is to determine what constituents
can co-occur with a particular lexical item. The verbs sleep and
drink, for instance, are subcategorized as intransitive (no NP
after the verb) and transitive (an NP after the verb), respectively.
Subcategorization is done in terms of function rather
than structure; that is, drink is subcategorized to take an Object,
not a Noun Phrase. The subcategorization entry also specifies
the thematic role that a function is linked with. Drink would be
specified as having a Subject-Agent and an Object-Theme.
Lexical rules in Lexical-Functional Grammar take a
lexical item as input and return a related lexical item with a new
subcategorization. That is, they account for the systematic
relationships among the different forms of the same basic lexical
item. They serve a function similar to that of transformations in
Standard Theory. A lexical rule, for example, links the active
and passive forms of a verb like drink, changing the base form
to the participle drunk while changing the subcategorization so
that the thematic roles shift along with the grammatical function.
The resulting rule in simplified form is:
(SUBJ) → Ø/( OBLAG)
(OBJ) → (SUBJ)
where Ø/(OBLAG) means that the original subject
argument of a verb appearing as a passive is either not stated
or appears as an oblique agent, which by other rules is required
to occur as the object of the preposition by.
There are a number of apparently transitive verbs
which can occur as passives only if the agent is not stated in a
by-phrase, e.g., The list includes some interesting items/Some
interesting items are included (*by the list). The paper requires
more work/More work is required (*by the paper) [Levin 1988:
26]. These sentences are grammatical if the by-phrases are
replaced by in the list and on the paper. Since in and on are
prepositions of location, there is a restriction on performing the
(SUBJ) → Ø/( OBLAG) portion of the lexical passive rule; namely,
that the change cannot occur if the original subject plays a
location role. This is an example of how thematic roles can be
used to account for apparent exceptions to syntactical
processes within the Lexical-Functional Grammar framework.
 95

3.13. Cognitive Grammar

While descriptive grammars provide information about
the wide range of structures in a language, they say little or
nothing about the mind, which is the source of grammatical
patterning. Views on the psychology of language have shifted
drastically in the second half of the 20th century, but scholars
have long recognized that grammatical patterning reflects,
however indirectly, a complex neurological system defined by
the capacities and limitations of the human brain (grammar as
internalized system).
Cognitive Grammar is an extension of the Space
Grammar framework of Ronald Langacker (1978). Unlike the
other theories, it does not claim to be generative, nor to isolate
language completely from other human faculties. Rather, it
assumes that language is a part of overall cognitive organization
and that the grammar of a language is non-generative and non-
constructive, for the expressions of a language do not constitute
a well-defined, algorithmically computable set [Langacker 1988:
4-5]. Rather than trying to integrate independent syntactic,
semantic, and phonological components, it claims that grammar
is a system of symbolic units incorporating semantic and
phonological structure with lexicon, morphology, and syntax
forming a continuum of symbolic structures [Langacker 1988: 5].
Thus the distinction between what we commonly call grammar
and lexicon becomes blurred.
Cognitive grammar is an essential aspect of Cognitive
Linguistics, which endeavours to explain facts about language in
terms of known properties and mechanisms of the human
mind/brain. The most important problems of Cognitive grammar
are: correlation of language with cognitive structures, parts of
speech, verb-particle constructions, spatial prepositions,
syntactical patterns, etc. — everything that is connected with
highlighting mental representations by language forms.
The symbolic resources of language generally provide
an array of alternative ways for describing a given scene and we
shift from one to another with great facility, often within the
confines of a single sentence. Consider the sentences Bill sent
a walrus to Joyce and Bill sent Joyce a walrus, which in classic
transformational grammar were treated as synonymous and
derived from the same deep structure. Cognitive grammar does
not posit deep structure, and neither sentence type is derived
from the other — they are claimed instead to represent alternate
 96

construals of the same event.

The sentences differ in meaning because they employ
subtly different images to structure the same conceived situa-
tion. In the first sentence, the grammatical morpheme to
specifically designates the path followed by the walrus, and
thereby renders this aspect of conceptualization more
prominent. In the second sentence, on the other hand, to is
absent, but the juxtaposition of two unmarked nominals (Joyce
and a walrus) after the verb is claimed to symbolize a
possessive relationship between the first nominal and the
second. Consequently, it lends added prominence to the con-
figuration that results when the walrus completes its trajectory,
namely that which finds it in Joyce's possession [Булатецька,
2004: 54].
Cognitive grammar is concerned with the selection and
arrangement of the information that is expressed. For example,
the sentence The car crashed into the tree might be a
description of the circumstances that led to the car's breakdown.
The sentence seems to describe the situation in a fairly natural
way. In comparison, other ways of relating the accident such as
The tree was hit by the car seem somehow strange and unnatu-
ral. The reason is that the moving car is the most interesting and
prominent aspect of the whole situation and, therefore we tend
to begin the sentence with the noun phrase the car. The
selection of clause subject is determined by the different
degrees of prominence carried by the elements involved in a
situation. This is what may be called the prominence view of
linguistic structures [Ungerer, Schmid, 1996: x-xiv].
The principle of prominence indicates that different
facets of an action can be highlighted by choosing certain
linguistic structures. The prominence view provides one
explanation of how the information in a clause is selected and
arranged.
What ultimately underlies the principle of prominence is
our general cognitive ability to direct our attention. An alternative
approach is based on the assumption that what we actually
express reflects which parts of an event attract our attention,
and it can therefore be called the attentional view.
A moving ‘figure’ such as a flying bird or a workman
hammering in a nail attract our attention more readily than the
more stable ‘ground’. In Cognitive Grammar, the use of syntactic
structures is largely seen as a reflection of how a situation is
conceptualized by the speaker, and this conceptualization is
 97

governed by the attention principle. Salient participants,

especially agents, are rendered as subjects and less salient
participants as objects; verbs are selected which are compatible
with the choice of subject and object, and evoke the perspective
on the situation that is intended; locative, temporal, and many
other types of relations are highlighted or ‘windowed for
attention’ by expressing them explicitly as adverbials.
Taken together, prominence and attention allocation
seem to be no less relevant for grammatical analysis than the
rule-based description of logical grammars.

3.14. Corpus-based Lexico-Grammar

At a time when few linguists, other than lexicographers,
devoted much attention to the study of lexis, John Rupert Firth
(the head of London School of Linguistics), repeatedly stressed
the importance of lexical studies in descriptive linguistics. He
argued that ‘you shall know a word by the company it keeps’
[Firth, 1957: 190-203]. His familiar example was that of ass
which occurs in you silly ass, don’t be such an ass and with a
limited set of adjectives such as silly, obstinate, stupid, awful,
and (occasionally) egregious.
J.R. Firth was concerned with such interesting co-
occurrences, the ‘mutual expectancy of words’, as he put it. He
saw collocation as just one of his levels of meaning. His
followers have attempted to integrate it more closely to the other
levels of linguistic analysis, to argue, for instance, that it may be
handled within the level of lexis, which is related in a fairly direct
and, in theory, precise way to grammar.
Considering the nature of collocational patterns in
language, Michael Halliday [1966: 148-161], for instance,
suggests that lexis may be thought of a) as within linguistic form,
and thus standing in the same relation to (lexical) semantics as
does grammar to (grammatical) semantics and b) as not within
grammar, lexical patterns thus being treated as different in kind,
and not merely in delicacy, from grammatical patterns.
Fundamental tenets of Firthian linguistics laid the
foundation of the new linguistic theory making use of the
corpus-based computational techniques — corpus-based
Lexico-Grammar. The published evidence of this linguistic
theory is a new substantial descriptive grammar of English, the
Collins Cobuild English Grammar (subtitle: Helping Learners
with Real English) (1990) developed at the University of
 98

Birmingham. Editor-in-chief — John Sinclair.

Two main strengths of this novel kind of grammar are
identified: a) more integrated view of the lexis/grammar
relationship and new insights into lexico-grammatical patterning
(lexical patterning is seen as the key to grammatical
description); b) reliance on actual corpus data — the campaign
for real English.
A cornerstone of Lexico-Grammar is the belief that a
description of the language should be organized much more
closely around the ways in which words behave than around
abstract structures into which we can slot items selected from a
word-stock or ‘lexicon’. This contrasts with the view of
mainstream linguistics, which has generally regarded structure
as in some sense primary, and lexis as a secondary,
independent and largely unsystematized component of
language [Owen, 1993: 168].
Traditional grammars have been interested in lexis only
insofar as it is necessary for the illustration of syntactic
structures: the assumption has often been that grammar is an
activity which is mainly concerned with the description of syntax,
and that the role of lexis is to fit into structural slots [Francis,
Sinclair, 1994: 199]. In other words, grammar provides the
overall patterns, vocabulary the material to put into those
patterns.
Cobuild Grammar has made a significant move
upwards a more lexical approach, and in future grammars the
authors want to specify all major lexical items in terms of their
syntactic environments, and all grammatical structures in terms
of their key lexis and phraseology. Lexico-grammar
demonstrates a distinct change in direction — there is the
tendency to shift explanation from facts about constructions to
facts about words.
The essence of the new approach called ‘lexicalism’
can be conveyed by the words of D. Wilkins [1972: 111] who
reminded the ELT world in 1972 that ‘without grammar very little
can be conveyed, without vocabulary nothing can be conveyed’.
The central tenet of lexico-grammar is that language
consists of grammaticalized lexis, not lexicalized grammar
[Lewis, 1997: 33].
A large proportion of what is regularly observable in
language output cannot be accounted for by a model consisting
of abstract formulations of rules of syntax supported by a
‘lexicon’ in which terms items are marked with co-occurrence
 99

features on broad grammatical classes such as NP [Owen,

1993: 174].
To illustrate this point, Charles Owen [1993: 174-175]
considers a familiar idea that a sentence containing a transitive
verb has a passive equivalent in which the direct object is
moved to subject position: She took us upstairs.  We were
taken upstairs. According to the rule, the following pairing ought
also to be possible, but it is not: She took a look upstairs.  *A
look was taken upstairs. It might be said that this is an
exception. This would imply that most sentences containing take
+ direct object are acceptable when passivized. In fact, there
are far too many uses of take + direct object which resist the
formation of passive structures: He takes a nap in the afternoon.
I take exception to that. Lisa took charge for a few minutes.
Such aggression may simply take the form of bad language.
The following examples presumably occupy different
positions on a scale of acceptability: Care should be taken …
(seems unexceptional). Account should be taken … (seems
possible, but formal). *Part should be taken by children under
the age of 10 (unacceptable). *Stock should be taken of the
situation (unacceptable, not English).
Such examples provide weighty evidence that grammar
and lexis cannot be forced apart, they are very closely related.
Many English words have several meanings and uses.
Each meaning of a word may well have its own grammar. Verbs
referring to physical senses see, feel, hear, smell, for instance,
when used to refer to the present time are typically preceded by
the modal can (can’t) rather than being in the Simple Present: I
can see George. However some of the verbs can be used with
other non-physical meanings, and in the other meanings the
Simple Present form is much used: I see you had a good trip.
Many people feel that he should resign immediately.
Different meanings of a word are likely to occur in
different structures. So a verb such as see in its physical
meaning is likely to go along with noun that means what was
seen, or perhaps an adverb such as well which gives an
evaluation of the power of seeing. When see is used to mean
something like ‘understand’ it will be followed by a that-clause
[Collins Cobuild English Grammar, 1990: viii].
Within a strictly lexical approach, syntax is simply
treated as part of the properties of individual lexical items.
Contemporary syntactic theories seem to be converging on the
idea that sentence structure is generally predictable from word
 100

meanings.
Corpus-based grammars are grammars of lists. Collins
Cobuild English Grammar’s standard formula is: ‘Here is a list of
…’ If the word class is small, then all members of it are given. If
it is large, then the most frequently used members are given.
The lists in Collins Cobuild English Grammar are both a
continuation of a tradition and an innovation. Traditional
reference grammars always contained lists. Otto Jespersen’s
Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles (1909-1949),
for example, is full of citations of actual instances, and Henry
Poutsma’s Grammar of Late Modern English (1926-1929) has
lots of lists. As with dictionaries, so with grammars, the tradition
was to observe carefully what people did and record it in a
reference book. A list entry says that people use this item
regularly in this pattern, so it is worth learning. Listing has been
an important feature, especially in areas such as ‘closed’
classes (pro-forms, determiners), and also verb
complementation.
The most obvious advantages that computer-assisted
grammarians have over their predecessors is the ability to store
and retrieve for immediate inspection and comparison as many
examples of a word structure as desired. Established categories
can be confirmed at a keystroke. Previously unsuspected
categories can appear with starting clarity when concordances
are consulted.
One of the central specifically linguistic ideas of the
Lexical Approach is that of collocation. Collocation is the
readily observable phenomenon whereby certain words co-
occur in natural text with greater than random frequency: miss
the bus, make a mistake, slump dramatically [Lewis, 1997: 8].
English speakers typically pay a visit, less typically
make a visit, and are unlikely to perform a visit. They typically
break rules but they do not break regulations; they typically talk
of wasting time but not of squandering time [Baker, 1992: 47].
Researchers have demonstrated the overriding importance of
collocation: it is possible that up to 70% of everything we say,
hear, read, or write is to be found in some form of fixed
expression.
J.M. Sinclair [1988] has suggested the need for two
models of language: the open choice principle and the idiom
principle. The open choice model of language divides grammar
and lexis, and uses grammar to provide a string of lexical choice
points. The principle of idiom is that a language user has
 101

available to him a large number of semi-preconstructed phrases

that constitute single choices, even though they might appear to
be analyzable into segments. The idiom principle is far from
being a rather minor feature.
Recent work in computational linguistics and the
analysis of large bodies of text has brought a sharper
recognition of the importance of what are variously known as
collocations, lexical phrases, preassembled chunks,
prefabricated units and there is a growing recognition that these
are by no means peripheral to language description [Wray,
2000: 463].
Extensive work is being done in corpus linguistics in
lexically conceptualizing language in terms of the idiom
principle, the open choice principle, fixedness and variability,
and in describing the restrictions that different registers and
genres place on collocational patterning and colligational
complexity. Projects such as COBUILD (Collins Birmingham
University International Language Database) have also
demonstrated the powerful and all-pervading nature of
collocational patterning across long texts.

Unit 4
____________________________________

PARADIGMATIC AND SYNTAGMATIC

 102

RELATIONS IN GRAMMAR
____________________________________
4.1. Paradigmatic relations in grammar
Paradigmatic relations exist between the members of a
class. Since the main principle for distinguishing classes is
‘association’, paradigmatic relations are associative in nature.
There are several kinds of paradigmatic relations
studied by grammar [Morokhovska, 1993: 30-38].
Semantic paradigmatic relations are found between
the members of a semantic grouping. They are based on the
similarity of the semantic invariant feature characteristic of the
whole class of elements. The members of synonymic or
antonymic series stand in semantic paradigmatic relations.
There are several morphological synonyms which can
be used to render the idea of ‘futurity’. These are the
grammatical verb-forms of the Future Simple, the Present
Continuous, and the Present Simple: We will leave (= are
leaving, leave) for Europe tomorrow.
Syntactical synonyms are word-groups and clauses,
predicative constructions and clauses, etc.: It is not a night to
turn a dog from the door (= in which one should turn a dog from
the door). Here is the text for you to read aloud (= which you
may read aloud).
Alongside intralevel synonymy, cases of interlevel
synonymic relationships between linguistic units can be traced.
They are found among the units belonging to different language
levels. In such cases synonymic paradigmatic relations are
established between the members of functional-semantic fields
(groupings comprising lexical and grammatical devices of
expressing the same invariant content).
Formal paradigmatic relations are based on the
similarity in the formal characteristics of linguistic elements.
Such relations exist between the members of the paradigm — a
set of forms of one and the same linguistic unit, regardless of its
linguistic status: morpheme, word, or sentence.
English has very little in the way of paradigms, but
some languages have far more. An example is Latin, one of
whose paradigms is this: amo ‘I love’, amas ‘you (sing.) love’,
amat ‘s/he loves’, amamus ‘we love’, amatis ‘ you (pl.) love’,
amant ‘they love’. Note how the Latin forms vary constantly,
while the English paradigm distinguishes only loves from all the
 103

others [Trask, 2006: 94].

Formal paradigmatic relations are also well illustrated
by the paradigm of the noun declension in Ukrainian: стін-а,
стін-и, стін-і, стін-у, стін-ою, (на) стін-і. The noun paradigm
in English comprises four forms: boy, boy’s, boys, boys’.
Paradigmatic relations unite similar units on one
paradigmatic axis to form a set in which units relate to each
other by association with some distinctive feature (DF), or
category, or kind of relationship common to all members of such
a paradigmatic set [Khlebnikova, 1994: 12]. Words united in one
part of speech stand to each other in paradigmatic relations, as
they are similar units, having a common general grammatical
meaning (of substance – nouns, process – verbs, etc.)
The super-paradigm of the English verb appears
extremely multiple: there are about 64 forms in the verb
paradigm: writes, wrote, will write, am writing, are writing, was
writing, have written, had written, is written, was written, etc.
Major-paradigms of the English verb may comprise: 1)
tense forms (live – lived – will live – would live) united by the
general categorical meaning of tense; 2) aspect forms (am
speaking – is speaking – are speaking, etc.) having common
categorical meaning of duration; 3) voice forms (am asked – is
asked – are asked, etc.) having common categorical feature of
passive.
Minor paradigms of the English verb may be
constituted by allomorphs, e.g., 3rd person singular Present
Simple tense -s, -es: opens, reads, washes. Since meaning is
embodied in a certain form, a paradigm may be marked by
form-building (morpheme) alternation. Compare also the
allomorphs of the negative prefix in-: insane, impossible, and
illegal which make up a minor paradigm.
Paradigmatic relations of the formal type exist between
the paradigmatic forms of syntactic units too. There are different
approaches to the syntactic paradigm (synparadigm).
Some linguists assume that the paradigm of the
sentence is represented by the three categorial sentential forms:
the affirmative, interrogative, and negative. All of these are
specifically marked: She knows this good news. Does she know
this good news? She does not know this good news.
In another view, which is characteristic of Slavic
grammatical scholarship, the paradigm of the sentence is
represented by different transformations, modifications, and
alternations of the structural sentence-type. These are qualified
 104

as sentence-forms (sentential formal variants). A question can

be described as transformationally produced from a statement:
You are fond of the kid. → Are you fond of the kid? A negation
can be presented as transformationally produced from an
affirmation: You are fond of the kid. → You are not fond of the
kid. Similarly, a composite sentence is to be presented as
derived from two or more simple sentences: He turned to the
waiter. The waiter stood in the door. → He turned to the waiter
who stood in the door. Thus, syntactic derivation is understood
as paradigmatic production (generation) of more complex
pattern-constructions out of kernel pattern-constructions as their
structural bases.
Transformational (syntactical derivational) procedures
for the production of sentential formal variants include:
1. Steps of morphological arrangement, i.e.
morphological changes expressing syntactically relevant
categories, above all, the predicative categories of the finite
verb: tense, aspect, voice, mood: John+start (the kernel base
string). → John starts. John will be starting. John would be
starting. John has started. John started.
2. Functional expansion (functional words): Now they
consider the suggestion. → Now they do consider the
suggestion.
3. Processes of substitution: The pupils ran out of the
classroom. → They ran out of the classroom. I want another
pen, please. → I want another one, please.
4. Processes of deletion, i.e. elimination of some
elements of the sentence in various contextual conditions. As a
result of deletion the corresponding reduced constructions are
produced: Would you like a cup of tea? → A cup of tea? It's a
pleasure! → Pleasure!
5. Processes of positional arrangement, in particular,
permutation (changes of word-order): The man is here. → Is the
man here? Jim ran in with an excited cry. → In ran Jim with an
excited cry.
6. Processes of intonational arrangement, i.e. appli-
cation of various functional tones and accents: We must go. →
We must go? We? Must go?? [Blokh, 1983: 281-282].
Functional paradigmatic relations, which are based
on the similarity of function of linguistic elements, can be found
between the members of functional classes. It is the functional
design itself that is the criterion for joining elements together in
a functional class, their semantic characteristics being left aside.
 105

Functional paradigmatic relations are exemplified by

the members of the class of noun-determiners. Different
linguistic elements, regardless their character, may be included
into the functional class of noun-determiners: definite and
indefinite articles and functionally equivalent elements such as
possessive, demonstrative, indefinite pronouns and the N's form
(a, the, his, this, some, John’s). All of them possess similar func-
tional design, and the paradigmatic relations between them are
purely functional.
In the same way, the elements which are functionally
designed to modify the sentence can be united into the
functional class of sentential modifiers. We find here
parenthetical elements (probably, perhaps, in fact, of course, at
first, as you know, thus).
Semantic-functional paradigmatic relations are
based on the similarity of linguistic units in semantics and
functioning. Such relations are contracted by linguistic elements
which possess common semantic features and, in addition, are
substitutable for the given functional position in the construction-
pattern.
Semantic-functional paradigmatic relations are
exemplified by lexico-syntactical classes (form-classes) which
comprise words, word-groups and even clauses with common
features in semantics and function. The naming terms of the N,
V, A, D classes are derived with the help of the suffix -al added
to the stem which designates the part of speech representing
the core of the class.
N stands for the class of nominals, i.e. nouns and
noun-like elements: N-words, N-phrases (NP), N-clauses. All of
them share the meaning of substantivity, occur in the noun-
positions and perform in the sentence the functions charac-
teristic of the noun: He appreciated the proposal. He
appreciated the proposal made by his friend. He appreciated
what his friend proposed.
A stands for the class of adjectivals, i.e. adjectives and
adjective-like elements: A-words, A-phrases (AP), A-clauses.
They are characterized by the qualitative meaning and
attributive function: the text analyzed; the text analyzed for
illustration; the text which was analyzed for illustration.
V stands for the class of verbal elements, i.e. finite and
non-finite verbal forms (V, Vinf, Ving, Ven) and verb-phrases (VP):
the plan to work out for discussion; the plan outlining some
points for discussion; the plan worked out for class discussion.
 106

D stands for the class of adverbials which render

qualitative adverbial and circumstantial meanings and function
as adverbial modifiers: D-words, D-phrases, D-clauses: He
came early. He came very early in the morning. He came when
the day broke out.

4.2. Syntagmatic relations in grammar

Linearity and relatedness being essential, syntagmatic
relations cannot be contracted on the principle of association
which is characteristic of paradigmatic relations.
According to the traditional approach, the differentiation
is made between the three main types of syntagmatic relations:
independence, dependence, and interdependence. This
typology seems to be universal [Morokhovska, 1993: 38-51].
Syntagmatic relations of independence are
established as a result of coordination or conjunction.
Accordingly, the elements which are conjoined and stand in
syntagmatic relations of independence are identified as
conjuncts.
The result of conjunction is the formation of conjunctive
syntagmemes the elements of which are equal in rank and
relatively independent. The relations between the conjuncts are
rather loose due to the relative independence of the elements
themselves.
Groupings of notional words related to one another on
an equal rank are also called equipotent. The constituents of
such combinations form either logically consecutive connections
(e.g., prose and poetry; came and went) or non-consecutive
(cumulative) type of connections (e.g., agreed, but reluctantly;
satisfied, or nearly so) [Blokh, 1983: 230-231].
Conjunction is revealed in morphology and syntax.
Conjunction at the morphological level is characteristic
of word-building: tick-tack, drip-drop (conjunctive words); think-
and-answer, here-and-there (conjunctive phrase-words).
Conjunction at the syntactical level is characteristic of
the formation of syntactical units in which the conjoining parts
(conjuncts) are very much independent. Conjunctive word-
groups: think and answer, white and black. Conjunctive clauses:
The dusk was blue, and the birds were flying in it. A fish
splashed, a long white cloud brushed the tree tops beyond the
 107

water.
Conjunction at the supersyntactical level is
characteristic of the formation of textual units, paragraphs and
texts themselves. The conjuncts make up configurational
compositions, sometimes called sequences: They walked up the
steps and entered the hall. Miss Thompson was standing at her
door chattering with a sailor.
In traditional lexicology and grammar, the syntagmatic
process of conjunction is qualified as compounding. It underlies
the formation of compound words, compound phrases,
compound sentences, etc.
Syntagmatic relations of dependence are
established as the result of subordination or adjunction. Such
connection is also called dominational. The principal
(dominating) element is commonly known as kernel, or head-
word, while the subordinate (dominated) element is the adjunct,
or expansion.
Dominational connection is achieved by different forms
of the word (categorical agreement, government), connective
words (prepositions, i.e. prepositional government), word order.
Dominational connection, like equipotent connection,
can be both consecutive and cumulative. Cf.: a careful observer
– an observer, seemingly careful; definitely out of the point – out
of the point, definitely [Blokh, 1983: 232].
The process of adjunction is characteristic of the
formation of morphological and syntactical units.
At the morphological level, adjunctive relations are
characteristic of word-building: snowball, streetlight, daybreak.
At the syntactical level, adjunctive relations exist
between the constituents of complex syntactical units of phrasal
and clausal types.
Adjunctive word-groups are most numerous and
various. Noun-phrases and verb-phrases make up the core of
subordinate word-groups: the books for review, to review books;
significative meanings, to signify meanings.
Adjunctive relations are also characteristic of
subordinate clauses in composite (complex) sentences: He
asked if I knew Spanish. The boy was absent because he was
ill.
At the supersyntactical level, adjunction may indicate
the establishment of adjunctive relations between sentential
sequences, paragraphs, and other textual fragments: There has
been a great deal of rain. Consequently, the reservoirs are full.
 108

Syntagmatic relations of interdependence

(reciprocal, two-way domination) unite the subject and the
predicate. They are observed in syntactical structures with
predicative connection of words. The reciprocal nature of this
connection consists in the fact that the subject dominates the
predicate determining the person of predication, while the
predicate dominates the subject, determining the event of
predication, i.e. ascribing to the person some action, or state, or
quality.
With this universal differentiation in view, E.J.
Morokhovska [1993: 38-51] suggested a non-contradictory
typology of linguistic syntagmatic relations based on
differentiation of combinational and non-combinational
syntagmatic relations between linguistic elements. The nature of
relations is in accord with the combinatory power or the
combinational potential of linguistic units, i.e. whether they can
or cannot make up a linguistic combination.
Non-combinational relations, which are of
syntagmatic relevance at least, have been found in syntax, in
the syntax of the text particularly. They are the subject of text
linguistics.
Non-combinational syntagmatic relations are coherent
(cohesive) in nature. They are contracted by the elements which
are not in construction. Neither word-groups, nor sentences can
be formed on the basis of such relations. These appear
specifically textual. Linearity is not essential for such relations.
On the contrary, such relations are established between the
elements which are usually in distant positions. There are
several kinds of non-combinational relations — the so-called ‘-
phoric' relations.
Anaphoric relations show that an element refers to its
antecedent in the left-hand environment (i.e. they point back to
a previously established referent): Y←X.
Cataphoric relations indicate that the antecedent is
located in the right-hand context (i.e. they point ahead): X→Y.
Such relations exist between some pronominal or
deictic elements. Pronouns may be used in a way that ‘ties’
them to certain nouns in the text: There was an old woman who
lived in a shoe. She had so many children she didn't know what
to do. Here, the pronoun she refers back to a previously
mentioned noun woman, the tie is anaphoric (woman ← she). In
the example John asked him to sing and so Bill sang, the
pronoun him refers forward to the noun Bill; the tie, therefore, is
 109

cataphoric (him → Bill).

Combinational syntagmatic relations are established
between the elements which make up linear arrangements or
combinations, with the elements displaced in contact or distant
positions. To make up a combination means to form a whole, a
relational unity of combining elements.
Combinational syntagmatic relations can be
preliminarily subdivided into collocational and compositional.
Collocational relations are not of grammatical
relevance. In English, as in other languages, there are many
fixed, recurrent, non-idiomatic constructions called collocations.
Collocations fall into two major groups: grammatical and lexical
[CDE, 1990: ix, xxiv].
Grammatical collocations are phrases consisting of a
dominant word (noun, adjective, verb, etc.) and a preposition or
grammatical structure such as an infinitive or clause, e.g., the
components of decide on ‘choose’ and of other fixed phrases
such as account for, accuse of, adapt to, aim at ‘collocate’ with
each other.
Lexical collocations, in contrast to grammatical
collocations, normally do not contain prepositions, infinitives, or
clauses. Typical lexical collocations consist of nouns, adjectives,
verbs, and adverbs. An example of an adjective + noun
collocation is warmest regards. Typical violations of lexical
collocability are *hot regards and *hearty regards. Many lexical
collocations in English consist of a verb and noun, such as bring
in an acquittal, commit murder, put on airs, etc.
Free combinations, on the other hand, consist of
elements that are joined in accordance with the general rules of
English syntax and freely allow substitution. A construction such
as condemn murder is a free combination. The verb condemn
occurs with an unlimited number of nouns; they condemned —
the abduction, abortion, abuse of power, the acquittal, etc. In a
similar manner, murder combines freely with hundreds of verbs:
abhor, accept, acclaim, advocate, etc. On the other hand,
commit murder is a collocation. The verb commit is limited in
use to a small number of nouns, meaning ‘crime’, ‘wrongdoing’;
it collocates specifically with murder.
Compositional syntagmatic relations are
grammatically relevant relations between linguistic elements of
different types. Connectivity of the elements in a linguistic
composition can be different in character. This serves as a
ground for the differentiation of configurational and
 110

constructional syntagmatic relations.

Configurational relations are found between the parts
of accumulative groupings of syntagmatically distributed ele-
ments which do not constitute a construction but form a
configuration with the elements standing in radial relations to
one and the same base-element (head-word). The elements of
a configuration are loosely connected between themselves.
There are configurational formations at the morphological level
and in syntax.
Configurational relations are characteristic of
syntactical clusters or of their lexicalizations. Syntagmatic
configurations are well illustrated by the following sentences in
which several elements refer to the same head-word. They are
very loosely connected between themselves: I was talking to
him for a moment. So can you please come over here again
right now? […] the old bold spectacled conceited stupid-as-an-
owl, unintelligent-in-conversation, brave and as-dumb-as-a-bull,
propaganda-built-up defender of Madrid.
Configurational relations in syntax are also
characteristic of contaminated compositions in which two or
more constructions appear in a contaminated complex, with
some elements deleted but reconstructable. He lay tired is a
contamination of He lay + He was tired. The relations between
lay and tired are configurational.
Constructional relations are of grammatical
significance because on their basis grammatical constructions,
morphological and syntactical, are derived. Linguistic
constructions, and grammatical constructions first of all, are
specific combinations of linguistic elements which stand in
relations of relative independence, dependence or
interdependence.
Construction is a complex unit constituted by the
syntagmatically related elements which possess constructive
value. Constructional syntagmatic relations are derivational for
linguistic constructions.
Morphological constructions are constituted by the
elements of morphemic status, i.e. morphemes, or by different
morphemic complexes which are traditionally called stems.
Morphological constructions are exemplified by morphologically
composite words with the parts of different constructive
significance: hopeful, totally, manager, enlarge, shorten,
movement, peace-loving, front-promoted, self-conscious, well-
proved.
 111

Syntactical constructions have the constituents of

the higher-than-the-word status. The status of syntactical
constructions is predetermined by the syntactical status of their
constituents. Syntactical constructions fall into phrasal, clausal,
and sentential, each type having constituents of particular
syntactical status.
Phrasal constructions, or word-groups, are constituted
either by words or by phrases: fine weather, the decision to
leave tomorrow.
Clausal constructions are constituted by clauses. They
are finite complexes, i.e. compositions of finite predication: I
went down as I had promised. From the pavement below she
could see that their room was lit. When they had taken their
places she began speaking.
Sentential constructions represent super-syntactical
compositions as sentential sequences in which the constituting
sentences are dependent or interdependent; in any way, they
are related constructively: The door was not opened. She got up
and opened it. They saw Miss Thompson standing at the
threshold. But the change in her appearance was extraordinary.

Unit 5
____________________________________

GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES
AND PROBLEMS OF FIELD STRUCTURE
____________________________________
5.1. Nature of grammatical categories and the notion of
functional-semantic field
Category is defined as one of the fundamental or
ultimate classes of entities or of language.
Grammatical category is the unity of similar
grammatical meanings signified by appropriate grammatical
 112

forms; the unity of mutually associated grammatical meanings

and grammatical forms expressing these meanings. Both the
meanings and their markers are identified as categorial in status
[Morokhovska, 1993: 156].
Case is regarded as a grammatical category because
its exponents, different cases, are united by one common
grammatical meaning, that of designating meaningful relations
between words of certain classes in speech. Mood is also a
grammatical category because it covers a certain set of special
forms and their meaning correlating with the degree or kind of
reality assigned by the speaker to what s/he is saying, and so
with every category (tense, person, number, gender, etc.).
Grammatical categories of a language represent a
realization of universal conceptual categories produced by
human thinking. Conceptual categories are the most general
notions reflecting the most general properties of phenomena;
the most basic classes into which objects and concepts can be
analyzed, such as Quantity, Quality, Substance, Time, Space,
etc. These are most fundamental concepts required by human
beings to interpret the empirical world.
Grammatical categories, however, are not universal,
they may differ from language to language.
It is difficult to find a notional category which is
regularly and uniformly expressed in all languages. Even
categories such as Time and Number, which many of us take as
reflecting basic aspects of experience, are only optionally
indicated in some Asian languages such as Chinese and
Vietnamese. On the other hand, a number of American Indian
languages such as Yana and Navaho have grammatical
categories which in many other languages would hardly ever be
expressed even by lexical means. These languages, for
instance, have a category of ‘shape’, which means that an
object must be classified according to whether it is long, round,
or sheet-like. Some languages, such as Amuesha of Peru,
regularly indicate whether a person is dead or alive by adding a
suffix to the name of any person referred to after his/her death
[Baker, 1992: 85-86].
Grammatical categories are presented by sets of
interrelated forms organized in oppositions. A grammatical
category should be represented by at least two opposed
categorial forms, otherwise it cannot exist. The marked member
of the opposition contains the positive categorial marker which
signifies the positive categorial meaning. The unmarked
 113

member of the opposition is devoid of the positive categorial

feature. Its categorial relevance can be conceived only due to its
juxtaposition to the positive member which signifies the
categorial meaning. Grammatical forms make up an opposition
if they have one grammatical feature in common and are
contrasted by one or several points of their denotative content.
The category of number in English is realized through
the opposition of singular and plural forms: boy :: boys. The
plural opposite is the strong, marked member of the opposition.
It is marked by inflection. The singular opposite is the weak,
unmarked member.
The categorial form itself is a unity of meaning and
form. So it happens that sometimes a categorial form is
mistaken for a category, a constituent is mistaken for the whole.
There are such categories as Case, Number, Aspect, etc., but it
would not be correct to speak of the category of Plural or that of
Continuous. These are the categorial forms constituting together
with some other categorial forms the corresponding grammatical
category.
In keeping with the recognition of the two parts of
grammar, morphology and syntax, the primary subdivision of
grammatical categories is into morphological, associated with
the form-derivation of the word, and syntactical, associated
with the form-derivation of syntactical units, with that of the
sentence in particular. In contrast to morphological categories,
which are the categories of the word, syntactical categories
pertain to the paradigmatics of syntactical units and find their
realization in the system of their forms. Negation, Affirmation,
Interrogation are specifically syntactical categories realized in
the paradigm of the sentence, through the oppositions of
paradigmatic sentence-forms.
In addition, there are grammatical categories in English
which are morphologo-syntactical — the categories of Tense
and Mood. They are morphological because they find their
realization in the paradigm of the verb, they are of syntactical
value because they constitute Finiteness which is the essential
category of the predicate.
Two types of grammatical categories are distinguished
in accordance with their external relationships with extra-lingual
categories: referential categories which have indirect
reference to objective reality, and significational categories
which express some conceptual content (concepts, mental
operations).
 114

Tense, Aspect, and Number are referential categories

proper because they correlate with quite definite objective
categories (Time, Manner of Action, Quantity). Case and Voice
are relational referential categories since their objective
referents are not objective categories but objective relations
(objective relations of substances; the relations between the
action, its subject and potential object, which can be defined as
actant relations).
Those significational grammatical categories which rep-
resent corresponding conceptual categories are called
representational. The grammatical category of Mood which
correlates with logical Modality has no objective referent, it
expresses the attitude of the speaker towards the action
expressed by the verb, real or unreal.
The category of Degree is of significational type.
Degree is associated with Graduality of quality. The perception
and conception of the graduality of quality is the endowment of
humans, and it is the result of the cognitive operation of
comparison.
Those significational grammatical categories which
signal the performance of different operations in the process of
mental activity, are called classificational or identificational.
They indicate that linguistic signs of exralingual objects are
distributed into certain classes distinguished on this or that prin-
ciple. Gender of nouns indicates their distribution into a number
of gender-classes, each having its own classificatory features
(masculine, feminine, neuter).
The system of grammatical categories is historical in its
nature. In the process of the development of language some
grammatical categories may disappear.
In actual speech, linguistic units of different levels
come to correlate as similar in meaning. What is expressed by
morphological devices (e.g., morphological forms) may also find
its expression in lexical or syntactical devices. There are also
intermediate cases: lexico-morphological (derivational affixes),
lexico-syntactical (lexico-grammatical), morphologo-syntactical
devices.
Linguistic units of different levels functioning in a
language to express a common categorial meaning make up the
functional-semantic (lexico-grammatical) field of this catego-
ry. The constituents of the field are not quite identical in their
semantic value and do not go absolutely parallel. They rather
complement each other. Lexico-grammatical fields are linguistic
 115

groupings. They comprise lexical and grammatical devices of

expressing the same invariant conceptual content which are
defined as components of the field: lexical, morphological, syn-
tactical. Each of such components is designed to perform quite
definite semantic function in the lingual representation of
conceptual content [Morokhovska, 1993: 32].
The concept of a functional-semantic (lexico-
grammatical) field is important for the complex analysis of
grammatical categories.
The morphological devices are primary in importance
and make up its highly organized nucleus. All other means
(lexical, syntactical, lexico-syntactical, lexico-morphological) are
peripheral elements which may be used for different notional
purposes, such as intensity or emphasis of a given meaning,
expressive connotation, weakening of meaning, making a given
meaning more concrete and more precise, or expressing a new
meaning.
The functional-semantic field falls at least into two
categories which stand in opposition (contrast). Thus, for
instance, the time-field in English falls into three micro-fields:
Present, Past, and Future. The voice-field falls into Active and
Passive. The field of number falls into two micro-fields: Singular
and Plural.
The concept of field structure is not quite novel in
linguistic studies. Such eminent linguists as F. Brunot, Ch. Bally,
L. Ščerba, O. Jespersen proposed to teach grammar starting
from within, from the thought to be expressed, instead of from
the forms.
Otto Jespersen recognizes that besides the syntactic
categories which depend on the structure of each language,
there are some extralingual categories, universal in so far as
they are applicable to all languages, though not always
expressed in a clear way. In his Philosophy of Grammar, O.
Jespersen [1968: 55-56] presents a preliminary sketch of a
notional comparative grammar, starting from C (notion) and
examining how each of the fundamental ideas common to all
mankind is expressed in various languages, thus proceeding
through B (function) to A (form).
Time distinctions, for instance, may be expressed in
English by different devices [Starikova, Alova, 1980: 77]:
1. Tense-forms of the verb — morphological device: He
worked at a factory. He will leave for London.
2. The so-called ‘going to future’ — lexico-grammatical
 116

(lexico-syntactical) device: Soon she is going to be sixteen.

3. Non-finite forms of the verb (express priority,
simultaneity, posteriority) — morphologo-syntactical device:
Reading the book he was taking notes. Having done with his
work he rang me up.
4. Conjunctions (conjunctive words) while, after, before,
till, etc. — lexico-syntactical device: The heavy guns began
again soon after it was light. I shan't ring you up till I know the
truth.
5. Correlative conjunctive words (no sooner ... than;
hardly ... when, etc.) — lexico-syntactical device: No sooner had
I entered the room when the rain began.
6. Adverbs of time — lexical device: then, yesterday,
etc.
7. Nouns expressing time — lexical device: winter,
summer, January, futurity.
8. Adjectives — lexical device: former teacher, future
wife.
9. Affixes ex-, post-, pre- — lexico-morphological
device: ex-minister, post-war, pre-war.
Plurality is expressed by [Starikova, Alova, 1980: 92]:
1. Plural forms of nouns (books, children, mice, etc.) —
morphological device,
2. Plural forms of pronouns (these, those, others, ones)
— morphological device.
3. Forms of verbs (are, were) — morphological device.
4. Numerals (three, four, five, etc.) — lexical device.
5. Quantitative pronouns (many, few) — lexical device:
many students, few books.
6. Personal pronouns (we, you, they) — lexical device.
7. Collective nouns and nouns of multitude (peasantry,
gentry, team, crowd) — lexical device.
8. Noun-phrases — syntactical device: a lot of books, a
number of students, heaps of time, sea of trouble, a pair of
gloves.
9. Fixed paired noun-phrases (implied plurality) —
lexico-syntactical device: day after day, year after year, question
on question, country on country.
10. Singular forms of nouns in stylistic transposition
(implied plurality): to have a keen eye, to keep in hand; trees in
leaf. Many words acquire the meaning of plurality in certain
contexts: the bench (a body of judges), a town (its inhabitants).
11. Generic pronoun one with implication of plurality —
 117

lexical device: One must do one's duty.

All these means denoting plurality are essentially
different in their linguistic status. Morphological means
expressing plurality stand at the centre of this field and are
primary in importance, all the rest are its peripheral elements
used for different notional purposes.
Pronouns and numerals, for instance, as noun
determiners or its substitutes, make the quantitative meaning
more concrete. Collective nouns denote at the same time
singular and plural, i.e. a collection of individuals which are
viewed as a unit.
Linguistic observations in terms of field structure are of
undoubted theoretical interest and have a practical value as
relevant to comparative studies of various languages.

5.2. Voice in terms of field structure

Voice is a relational grammatical category. Voice (also
called diathesis) of a verb describes the relationship between
the action (or state) that the verb expresses and the participants
identified by its arguments (subject, object, etc.) When the
subject is the agent or performer of the action, the verb is in the
active voice. When the subject is the patient, target, or
undergoer of the action, the verb is said to be in the passive
voice.
In a transformation from an active voice clause to an
equivalent passive construction, the subject and the direct
object switch grammatical roles. The direct object gets promoted
to the subject, and the subject demoted to an (optional)
complement: The mouse ate the cheese. → The cheese was
eaten by the mouse.
Voice distinctions find their expression in:
1. Active :: Passive forms of the verb — morphological
device: write :: is written, has written :: has been written, is
writing :: is being written, to write :: to be written, writing :: being
written.
Peripheral elements of the voice field are:
2. The verb-pattern get + participle II (get-passive) —
lexico-grammatical device: He got caught by the police. He got
wounded.
3. Verb-patterns with link verbs become, stand, rest, go
and participle II — lexico-grammatical device: He sat amazed at
 118

what they had told him. He stood convicted of treason. We rest

assured. They go armed.
4. Active verb-forms with reflexive pronouns (self-
pronouns) and reciprocal pronouns (one another, each other) —
(lexico)-syntactical device: He cut himself. They offended each
other.
5. Ergative verbs (open, pay, eat, read, sell, wash, etc.)
capable of transitive and intransitive use — lexico-grammatical
device: He opened the door. — The door opened.
6. Prepositional nominal phrases above criticism,
beyond (above) suspicion, beyond (past) cure, beyond (past)
help, beyond belief, beyond description. beyond dispute,
beyond doubt, beyond expectation, beyond expression, beyond
grasp, beyond pardon, beyond praise, beyond question, beyond
reach, beyond recognition, beyond repair, in print, in question, in
use, on sale, out of reach, out of use, under consideration,
under construction, under control, under discussion, under
repair, under review, within reach, etc. — lexico-syntactical
device: The problem is under consideration (discussion). The
house is under construction (repair). He was out of our reach.
7. Verbo-nominal collocations (fixed non-idiomatic
phrases) with active and passive meaning — lexico-syntactical
device: give (administer, impose, inflict) punishment — take
(receive, undergo) punishment; give (lend, offer, provide,
render) help — get (find, obtain, receive) help; give (make) an
answer — get (receive) an answer; give (offer, lend, provide,
render) support — get (find, gain, obtain, receive, win) support;
give a beating — get (take) a beating; give a hug — receive a
hug; give offence — suffer offence; give satisfaction — get
(take, find) satisfaction; inflict a defeat — suffer a defeat; pay
attention — receive attention.
Opposition of active and passive meaning is expressed
lexically; it is based on lexical meaning of verbal components,
e.g., receive ‘be the recipient of, be subjected to, undergo’. Cf.:
She gave him a rather vigorous push. — Suddenly he received
a push which nearly overturned him in the road. She paid
attention to his needs. — His needs received attention. To this
she made no answer. — If he spoke to her he got no answer.
Active meaning is rendered in constructions with the
verbs give, do, make, administer, deliver, extend, impose, inflict,
grant, offer, pay, provide, render, produce.
Passive meaning is actualized in constructions with the
verbs get, take, achieve, attain, claim, demand, deserve, earn,
 119

endure, escape, find, gain, obtain, receive, require, suffer,

undergo, win.
An obligatory component of the nominally qualifying
type of passive predication is a noun derived from a transitive
verb. Such nouns retain in their lexico-semantic structure the
semantic traits of verbal lexemes — verbal semes of active and
passive action: punishment ‘punishing or being punished’;
offence ‘the hurting of person’s feelings; condition of being hurt
in one’s feelings’. Passive meaning is actualized in appropriate
lexical context: to take (suffer, receive) punishment = be
punished, to take offence = be offended.
Nouns used in verbo-nominal collocations may denote
[Федоренко, 2004: 164]: a) physical actions: beating, flogging,
blow, bang, cut, knock, hit, punch, push, hug; b) mental actions:
attention, credence; c) communication: answer, reply, order,
command, advice, promise, warning, remark, criticism, approval,
permission, consent, reprimand; d) aspects of human relations
and social activities: help, support, encouragement, damage,
hurt, punishment, forgiveness, education, training; e) feelings,
emotions: love, compassion, delight, joy, pleasure, satisfaction,
thrill, comfort.
The action denoted by verbo-nominal collocations of
the model have + N may simultaneously realize active and
passive meanings: have a kiss = give sb a kiss, get a kiss.
8. Syntactical patterns of secondary predication
(complex object with participle II) — syntactical device: He had
his photo taken. I want it done.
9. Nouns (object, subject, center, victim, etc.) — lexical
device: to be the object of study, the object of admiration, the
subject of sarcasm, the center of attention, a victim of one’s
desire, a victim of a practical joke.
10. Adjectives (subject, worthy, liable, secure, immune,
exempt, prone, free, etc.) in combinations with deverbal nouns
— lexical device: open to discussion, free from blame, subject to
confirmation, worthy of respect, liable to punishment, immune to
criticism, exempt from taxation.
11. Suffix -ee added to transitive verbs to form nouns
which denote a person who is the object or beneficiary of the
action specified by the verb: addressee, employee, examinee,
grantee, patentee — lexico-morphological device.
Recent formations now also mark the performer of an
action, with the base being an intransitive verb (escapee,
returnee, standee) or, less frequently, a transitive verb
 120

(attendee) or another part of speech (absentee, refugee).

12. Suffixes -able and -ible added to transitive verbs to
form adjectives passive in meaning — lexico-morphological
device: pardonable, eatable, movable, credible, invisible, etc.
Many prepositional noun-phrases are synonymically
correlated with such adjectives: beyond belief — unbelievable;
beyond cure — incurable; beyond doubt — indubitable; beyond
repair — irreparable; beyond words — indescribable.
The lexical distinction between active and passive
applies to adjectives derived from or related to verbs. Adjectives
with such suffixes as -some (troublesome, wearisome), -ive
(imaginative, talkative), -ous (industrious, laborious) are active.
Adjectives in -able/ -ible are generally passive. Occasionally,
they are active (forcible, serviceable). There are adjectives with
two correlated forms (active and passive): contemptuous ::
contemptible, desirous :: desirable.
Some adjectives (curious, loveless, dubious,
suspicious, adoptive) may have now an active, and now a
passive meaning, depending on the context: a curious boy :: a
curious thing.
13. Non-finite forms of the verb (gerund, infinitive) —
lexical device: He deserves punishing. The house needs
repairing. My shoes want mending. Here is the book to read.

5.3. Aspect in terms of field structure

The category of Aspect is a linguistic representation of
the conceptual category which is called Aspectuality.
Aspectuality is the conceptual reflection of the objective
category of Manner of Action.
Aspective semantics exposes the inner character of the
process. It represents the process as durative (continual),
iterative/ frequentative/ multiple (repeated), terminate
(concluded), interminate (not concluded), instantaneous
(momentary), ingressive/ inceptive/ inchoative (starting),
supercompleted (developed to the extent of superfluity),
undercompleted (not developed to its full extent), etc.
The functional-semantic field of aspect is constituted
by:
1. Continuous :: Non-Continuous forms of the verb —
morphological device: works. :: is working, worked :: was
working, has worked :: has been working, to work :: to be
working.
 121

Peripheral elements of the aspect field are:

2. Patterns will/would + Infinitive, used to + Infinitive,
keep + Gerund expressing the iterative (frequentative) character
of the action — lexico-grammatical device: He will sit in the
library for hours. She would often wake up screaming in the
night. He used to read newspapers after breakfast. He kept
coming every other day.
3. Patterns with the verbs come, get, grow, fall, set,
take + Infinitive/ Gerund expressing the ingressive (inceptive)
character of the action — lexico-grammatical device: I came to
like the child. He grew to believe. He fell to thinking. I set to
working.
4. Patterns with the verb come + Infinitive expressing
perfective/ terminative meaning (denoting an action in its
entirety) — lexico-grammatical device: I wonder how he came to
win her. She sat wondering how ever she'd come to marry a
bloody fool.
5. Patterns with the verbs come and go followed by the
participle: come flying, come running, come crushing, go flying,
go bumping, etc. implying the perfective aspect.
6. Patterns with the link verbs become, grow, turn, get
+ Adjective/ Participle II /Noun expressing the inchoative
character of the action — lexico-syntactical device: The girl’s
face suddenly turned red. The noise becomes intolerable. He
got very restless. Ellen’s eyes grew moist.
7. Collocations with the verbs break, burst, fall, put
expressing ingression — lexico-syntactical device: break into
song, break into a laugh, burst into laughter, burst forth into
song, break into a run, fall into talk, fall into a flutter, fall into
lively discussion, put into a flutter, fly into a passion, fly into a
rage.
8. Patterns with the verbs stand, stay, lie + Participle I
expressing the durative character of the action — lexico-
syntactical device: stood gazing, lay trembling, sat playing, etc.
9. Patterns with the verbs begin, start, finish, stop,
keep, continue, go on + Infinitive/ Gerund expressing ingressive,
durative, or terminative character of the action — lexico-
syntactical device: They began writing (to write). They stopped
talking. He continued talking (= to talk). He kept looking at the
picture. He went on talking.
Patterns with go on + Vinf may indicate the setting in of
a new act. Cf.: He went on talking (=He continued talking) and
He went on to talk (=He continued by talking).
 122

Keep + N + Vger implies duration associated with

causative meaning: keep the fire burning, keep something
moving, etc
10. Patterns with the link verbs keep, remain, stay +
Adjective/ Participle II /Noun expressing the durative character
of the action — lexico-syntactical device: The children kept
suspiciously silent. She remained vexed with him.
11. Verbo-nominal collocations (fixed non-idiomatic
phrases) consisting of the verbs of broad semantics make, give,
get, take, have + verbal Noun (formed by conversion): give a
cry, give a wash, have a rest, have a wash, have a try, have a
run, have a cry, take a ride, talk a walk, take a swim, make a
move, make a bow — lexico-syntactical device.
Such phrases express instantaneous actions of single
occurrence (make a jump, give a cry, cast a glance, give a look,
make a start) or single actions of some short duration (give a
wash, have a wash, have a run, have a swim, give a thought).
The meaning of multiple or instantaneous action is
traced in the semantic structure of derivative nouns and is
marked in dictionary entries as ‘act of Ving’: swim ‘act of
swimming’.
12. Conjunctions since, as, once, while, whenever, till,
until, etc. expressing ingressive, durative, iterative, or
terminative character of the action — lexico-syntactical device:
She has been such a companion to him since she was three
years old (beginning). While he walked around Christine sat and
knitted at a distance (duration). Whenever there was a pause he
gently asked again (repetition). She resolved to wait till Clym
came to look for her (the end of the action).
13. Grammatical constructions do nothing but, do little
but, to be wont of, be in the habit of expressing the frequentative
character of the action — syntactical device: The fellow did
nothing but catch the imaginary fleas. He was wont to rise at
dawn.
14. Repetition of the verb (syntactic reduplication)
intensifying the frequentative character of the action —
syntactical device: They talked, talked and talked about it. He
talks, talks, talks about protecting women, and when the time
comes for him to do some protecting, where is he?
Intensity of this aspectual meaning may also be
produced by the patterns Verb + on and on, Verb + over and
over again, time and time again: On and on stormed the loud
applause. He has gone through all that over and over again.
 123

15. Prepositional phrases expressing ingressive,

durative, iterative, or terminative aspects: from time to time, on
Mondays, every year, once (twice) a week, since Monday, since
that time, for two hours, all evening, all night, all these years,
during the journey, till summer, by the end of the week, by this
time — syntactical device.
16. Verbal nouns walks, many kisses — lexical device.
Putting the noun in plural changes the aspectual sense for the
frequentative character of the action: give blows, take naps,
take walks, draw deep breaths, etc.
17. Adverbs frequently, constantly, always, often,
seldom expressing iterative character of the action — lexical
device.
18. Verbs — lexical device. The lexical meaning of the
verb may convey aspectual meaning: verbs of ingression begin,
start, resume, set out, get down; verbs of instantaneity
(semelfactive verbs) burst, click, knock, bang, jump, drop; verbs
of termination terminate, finish, end, conclude, close, solve,
resolve, sum up, stop; verbs of duration continue, prolong, last,
linger, live, exist; frequentative verbs blabber, chatter, dribble,
crackle, frequent, pant, giggle.
19. Prefixes over-, out-, under, re- expressing aspec-
tual meanings of supercompletion, undercompletion, repetition
— lexico-morphological device: oversimplify, outdo,
underestimate, reconsider.

Unit 6
____________________________________

FUNCTIONAL TRANSPOSITION
OF GRAMMATICAL FORMS
____________________________________
6.1. The notion of transposition
Transposition implies placement of a language unit or
form into the speech environment which is not typical of its
regular and neutral occurrence; the use of a grammatical form in
an unusual surrounding. The term transposition is applied in
grammar rather to the result of placement than to the placement
 124

of elements itself.
Transposition of an element into an incompatible
contextual environment leads to the neutralization of its regular
(dominant) meaning and causes semantic shift. As a result, the
element loses its regular meaning and acquires another, usually
connotative, meaning characteristic of the given element in the
particular case of its occurrence. Transposition always implies
certain semantic shifting.
The regular denotative meaning of the Present Simple
form of the verb is present time. The action it denotes may
either coincide with the moment of speech or cover a more or
less lengthy period of time including the moment of speech (the
present moment).
Iterative/Habitual Present describes actions repeated
at intervals in the present: I run two miles every day. You always
come dreadfully late. Leaves change color in autumn.
Qualitative Present denotes actions permanently
characterizing the subject: She plays tennis with innate grace. I
hate authority. Like all young men, he sleeps like a log.
Generalizing/Omnitemporal Present denotes
something that is always true (timeless statements, or ‘eternal
truths’): Two and two make four. Tissues consist of cells.
Hydrogen is the lightest element. War solves no problems. All is
well that ends well.
Actual/Instantaneous Present denotes actions
occurring at the moment of speaking: I see an airplane. There
goes Tom. It normally occurs in certain easily definable contexts
[Leech, 1987: 6]:
a) in stage directions: The bell tolls. They shake hands.
b) in sports commentaries: Smith passes the ball.
He shoots.
c) in commentaries of conjurors and demonstrators:
Look, I take this card from the pack and place it under the
handkerchief —so. I pour a glass of milk into a pan, add two
table-spoonfuls of sugar and an egg and mix it all well.
d) in comments on the action of a novel, play, film, or
any other aesthetic work: In this movie, a man-eating shark
attacks and terrifies swimmers until he is finally killed.
e) in exclamations: Here goes the train! Up we go!
f) in asseverations: I beg you pardon. We accept your
offer. I deny your charge. I say that you are wrong. I give you
my word.
g) in ceremonial contexts such as ship-launching: I
 125

name this ship …; judge passing sentence: I sentence you to

…; card and board games: I bid two clubs, I resign, I pass; wills:
I bequeath … .
h) in expressions of wishes and condolences: We wish
you every success. I send you my deepest sympathy.
i) in formal letters: I write to inform you that … .
As a result of transposition, the Simple Present
form loses its paradigmatic meaning of ‘present-time
action’ and acquires different actual (secondary
syntagmatic) meanings such as ‘futurity’, ‘past action’,
‘imperative force’.
Historic/Dramatic Present describes the past
event as if it were happening now. It can only be used if
there is something in the context to show that the events
described belong to the past: Last week I’m in the sitting-
room with my wife, when the chap next door staggers
past and throws a brick through our window.
G.O. Curme also mentions the annalistic present, a
variety of the historical present used when some well-known
events or public figures of the past are spoken of. No other
reference to the past may then be necessary: Then Edward the
Elder wins back Essex.
Somewhat allied to this is the use of the Present
Simple when we quote an old author feeling that his words have
weight in the questions of the hour (when we report a statement
of lasting significance): Galsworthy says that humour is as
essential to man as the scent to the rose. ‘All art,’ says Oscar
Wilde, ‘is quite useless.’
When discussing an artist and his surviving work, one
feels justified in using the present, because the work, and
through it (in a sense) the artist, are still ‘alive’: Watteau is able
to convey an impression of warm, living flesh by the merest whiff
of colour.
In newspaper headlines the Present Simple is also
preferred (because of its brevity and dramatic vividness) to the
past tenses as a way of announcing recent events: Ex-champ
dies.
Two minor uses of historic present are in photographic
captions: Father O’Brien gives his first blessing; and in historical
summaries, tables of dates: 1876 – Brahms finishes his
symphony.
The Present Simple may denote a future action. It
 126

helps to refer to a specific course of action in future time. It

mostly occurs with verbs denoting concrete actions (come,
leave, sail, go, dine, break up, graduate, meet, see, remain,
start, take place, etc.). The usage has been handed down from
Old English with its two-tense system, in which a future action
was regularly denoted by the present tense.
Quite naturally, the Present Simple used in reference
to the future occurs in a context indicating futurity — with such
adverbials as tonight, tomorrow, next week, etc.: I start work
next month. His ship sails tomorrow. The train leaves at eight
o’clock tomorrow.
When so used it has the implication of certainty of
fulfillment. It attributes to the future the same degree of certainty
that we normally accord to present or past events. Statements
about the calendar are the most straightforward examples:
Tomorrow is Saturday. Next Christmas falls on Thursday. But
any aspect of the future which is regarded as immutable may be
similarly expressed: The term starts on 23rd April. The train
leaves at 7.30 this evening.
A related use of the Simple Present is the expression
of inexorable determination in One more step, and I shoot you!
The Present Simple is regularly found in subordinate
clauses of time, condition, and concession when the action
refers to the future: She won’t go to bed till you come. I'll tell you
if it hurts. Whatever happens we must keep her out of this.
The Simple Present is also used in some object that-
clauses and attributive (relative) clauses of future reference: I
hope you enjoy the ride. Make sure you get up early. I’ll see that
she is properly looked after. The man she marries will have to
be rich.
The Present Simple may render imperative modal
force: You go and see him. Into bed you go! Down you/we get!
The basic meaning of the past form of the verb is
past time. Most uses of the Past Simple refer to an
action or state which took place in the past, at a definite
time, with a gap between its completion and the present
moment: I arrived yesterday. They were upset.
As a result of transposition, the Simple Past form
loses its regular past-time meaning and is also used for
the present or future.
The attitudinal past reflects the speaker’s
tentative state of mind, giving a more polite effect than
 127

would be obtained by using the present tense: Did you

want to go? (= Do you want to go?)
In indirect speech, a past tense used in the verb
of saying allows the verb in the subordinate clause to be
past tense as well, even though it refers to present time:
Did you say you had no money? (i.e. now).
The Indicative Mood may be transposed into the
sphere of the Imperative: You will leave this house at once.
You will wait here, and will be careful!
The Indicative Mood may be transposed into the
sphere of the Subjunctive. There is a growing tendency in
Modern English to replace the past subjunctive form were by the
indicative verb form was, especially in non-formal style and in
conversation: If I was healthier I would travel more frequently.
However, with the use of inversion Subjunctive II is obligatory:
Were he to come tomorrow we should invite him to the
conference.
The Imperative Mood may be transposed into the
sphere of the Indicative. In the first coordinate clause of a
compound sentence or when used parenthetically, the
imperative mood form can express a condition the consequence
of which is stated in the same sentence: Do it again and you will
find it much easier (= If you do it again). This event, only try to
see it in its true light, will show you who is at the bottom of all
this (= if you try to see it).
Observations on the contextual use of various
sentence patterns furnish numerous examples of transposition
of syntactical structures connected with shifts of their
syntactical content. Here belong, for instance, pseudo-
subordinate clauses of comparison, time, and condition which in
transposition function as independent units of communication:
As if I ever stop thinking about it (= I never stop thinking about
it). As if I would talk on such a subject. Well, if you aren't a
wonder (= You are a wonder).
A special case of transposition of subordinate clauses
of condition will be found in ‘wish-sentences’: If only he knew
more. If only he could make others feel that vision. In sentence-
patterns of this type the idea of the principal clause seems to be
suppressed and the if-clause becomes a complete expression
of wish (a complete sentence, an independent unit of
communication).
Each cardinal communicative sentence type
 128

(declarative, interrogative, imperative) is characterized by the

tendency of functional transposition in relation to the other com-
municative types opposing it. Expression of inducement within
the framework of a declarative sentence is regularly achieved by
means of constructions with modal verbs: You can't come in (=
Don’t come in). You might as well sit down (= Sit down).
Inducement effected in the form of question is employed in
order to convey such additional shades of meaning as request,
invitation, suggestion, softening of a command: Why don't you
get Aunt Em to come? (= Get Aunt Em to come). Perhaps you
will help me up the stairs? (= Help me up the stairs).
Transposition results in neutralization of the
corresponding grammatical opposition: She is not coming back
till tomorrow night = She will not come back till tomorrow night
(the opposition 'present — future' is neutralized). You are not
going in there! = Don’t go in there! (the opposition 'Indicative -
— Imperative' is neutralized).

6.2. Regular and stylistic transpositions

Two types of transposition are distinguished in
grammar: regular and stylistic transpositions.
Regular transpositions are stylistically neutral and do
not lead to synonymy. They occur in subordinate clauses of
condition and time: / will recognize the place directly I see it (I
see it = I will see it). If I receive her letter, I will ring you up (I
receive = I will receive)
Stylistic transpositions of grammatical forms have a
special stylistic (connotative) value and are used in expressive
language. They lead to the development of situational
synonymy in grammar: She is not coming back till tomorrow
night. — syn. She will not come. You are not going in there! —
syn. Don't go in there!
Stylistic transposition can also be traced in the
grammar of English nouns (transposition of singular nouns into
the sphere of the plural): trees in leaf, to have a keen eye,
strong of muscle. Not less characteristic is the stylistic
transposition of personal pronouns: How are we feeling today?
— syn. How are you feeling today?
Transposition of nouns into adjectives where they ren-
der the idea of quality through the relationship of one object to
the other: You are patience itself. — syn. You are most patient.
She was kindness itself. — syn. She was most kind. She is all
 129

goodness. — syn. She is very good. He is all nerves. — syn. He

is very nervous.
Stylistic transposition of syntactic structures: Oh, if I
were free now. — syn. / wish I were free now.

6.3. Internal and external transposition

Definite potential semantic features are being
actualized under concrete contextual conditions. Since contexts
(linguistic environments in which this or that element occurs) are
different, the results of transposition are different too. The
grammatical context which is given by different grammatically
relevant phenomena is of great significance for the actualization
of grammatical meanings. Such contexts can be internal and
external.
Internal grammatical context is presented by the
semantic features inherent in the internal content of a unit.
These are of grammatical relevance because they interact with
the meanings of the grammatical form and regulate its
realization and actualization.
Internal transposition, which is revealed in the
relative incompatibility of implicit and explicit meanings of the
grammatical form, makes the grammatical form shifted in its
regular meaning. As a result, the grammatical form acquires a
connotational meaning. Internal transposition is quite a natural
consequence of the contextual interaction of the grammatical
form and the semantics of the lexeme.
Internal transposition of noun forms can be illustrated
by possessive case forms (N's). The categorial paradigmatic
meaning of the N's-forms has been traditionally defined as
‘Possessivity’. But the latest data contradict the traditional view.
The canonical meaning of the N's-form is likely to become
Agentivity represented by its different shades which are
associated with activity: the British government's optimistic
statements.
Internal transposition of verb forms is well-manifested
by the mutual interaction of the Continuous and Perfect forms in
case the verb assumes the Perfect Continuous form. Naturally,
one of the forms, either Continuous or Perfect, can dominate
semantically over the other. Cf: I've been hanging out of the
window for the last five days to see you coming. I've been
looking for you.
Illustrative cases of the internal transposition of
 130

Continuous forms are exemplified by those cases where the

‘verbs-without-Continuous’ are used in the Continuous form.
The transposition reveals itself to an utmost extent because the
semantics of such verbs is not associated with the idea of
Continuality. But the verbs of this type can occur in Continuous
forms despite the fact that their lexical meanings have nothing
to do with continuation or duration: How are you liking your new
job? I'm believing there is Irish in them.
Instances of a similar internal transposition of the verb
forms are exemplified when the ‘verbs-without-Continuous’ are
used in the Perfect form instead of the Perfect Continuous. Cf.:
I've known all of you through many years running.
Internal transposition takes place when the verbs of
‘mental activity’ occur in the Vbe + Ven form. In such cases, the
given forms appear pseudo-Passives because they do not
express acting upon but rather the state of the subject's mind.
Cf.: I was prepared to give him twenty francs. But he was still
irritated.
External lingual context is subdivided into the micro-
context, which is given by the immediate environment of a
linguistic element, and the macro context or the context of the
paragraph or that of the discourse. It is surely the micro context
that is of primary relevance for the actualization of grammatical
phenomena.
The great influence exerted by the external context
upon the actualization of categorial and potential grammatical
meanings is seen in the effect produced by the external
transposition when a grammatical form occurs in the
environment, lexical or grammatical, which is semantically
incompatible with the meanings of the form.
The actual meaning of the possessive case form (N's)
is predetermined not only by the internal context but also by the
peculiarities of the external environment in which the N's form
occurs. The syntactic function of the N's form is that of an
attribute; it is used as a preposed noun adjunct in the pattern
N's + N-head. The actual meanings of the N's form are variable
and the nature of the N-head causes the external transposition
of the N's form which, thus, acquires the subjective, objective,
qualitative, or adverbial genitive meanings. Cf.: possessive
genitive her sister's coat (= her sister has a coat); agentive
genitive her sister's arrival (= her sister arrived); objective
genitive her sister's arrest (= her sister is arrested); authorship
genitive her sister's article (= an article written by her sister);
 131

genitive of the quality bearer her sister's generosity (= her sister

is generous); qualitative genitive her sister's love (= love
characteristic of a sister), etc.
Continuous verb-forms can also occur in external
contexts, lexical or grammatical, which cause semantic shift of
the aspect-form. As a result of the external transposition, the
Continuous form loses its paradigmatic meaning (‘durativeness,
continuality’) and acquires a different actual meaning such as
‘immediate futurity’ or something like ‘planning’: She is sending
in the younger ones first.

Unit 7
____________________________________

SYNONYMY, POLYSEMY, AND HOMONYMY

IN GRAMMAR
____________________________________
7.1. The planes of content and expression. Asymmetric
dualism of the linguistic sign
Ferdinand de Saussure distinguished two parts of the
linguistic sign: the signifier (the physical sounds or other
linguistic symbols representing a sign in a language) and the
signified (the thing or concept denoted by the sign).
The two sides of the linguistic sign recognized by
Ferdinand de Saussure led Louis Hjelmslev (1899–1965), the
founder of Copenhagen School of linguistic analysis known as
Glossematics, to the recognition of a bilateral character of the
two planes — the plane of content and the plane of expression.
 132

plane of content [ substance: human thoughts

language form: meanings, lexical and
grammatical

plane of expression [ substance: sounds,

letters, etc.
form: linguistic forms
The object of linguistic analysis is limited to the two
inner layers — the form in the plane of content and the form in
the plane of expression, i.e. linguistics studies nothing but form.
The two inner layers are connected by the ‘law of
commutation’, which means that differences in the plane of
expression signal differences in the plane of content.
The nature of Grammar as a constituent part of
language is better understood in the light of explicitly
discriminating the two planes of language, namely, the plane of
content and the plane of expression. Grammatical elements of
language present a unity of content and expression (or, in
somewhat more familiar terms, a unity of form and meaning). In
this the grammatical elements are similar to the lingual lexical
elements, though the quality of grammatical meanings is
different in principle from the quality of lexical meanings.
The plane of content comprises the purely semantic
elements contained in language, while the plane of expression
comprises the material (formal) units of language taken by
themselves, apart from the meanings rendered by them. The
two planes are inseparably connected, so that no meaning can
be realized without some material means of expression. But
there is no simple one-to-one correspondence of the two
planes.
The correspondence between the planes of content
and expression is very complex, and it is peculiar to each
language. This complexity is clearly illustrated by the
phenomena of polysemy, homonymy, and synonymy.
In cases of polysemy and homonymy, two or more
units of the plane of content correspond to one unit of the plane
of expression. For instance, the verbal form of the Present
Indefinite (one unit in the plane of expression) polysemantically
renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, action at
the present moment, action taken as a general truth (several
units in the plane of content). The morphemic material element -
s, i.e. one unit in the plane of expression, homonymically
renders the grammatical meanings of the third person singular
 133

of the verbal present tense, the plural of the noun, the

possessive form of the noun, i.e. several units of the plane of
content.
In cases of synonymy, conversely, two or more units of
the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the plane of
content. For example, the forms of the verbal Future Indefinite,
Future Continuous, and Present Continuous (several units in the
plane of expression) can in certain contexts synonymically
render the meaning of a future action (one unit in the plane of
content).
The asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign is a
fairly common development in the structure of any language.
One linguistic sign can have several meanings, and one
meaning may find its expression in different linguistic signs (S.
Karcevsky).

7.2. Synonymy in grammar

Synonymy (from Greek syn ‘with’ and onyma ‘name’) is
a natural development at different levels of linguistic structure.
Along with synonyms in vocabulary there exists synonymy in
grammar.
Grammatical synonyms are grammatical forms and
constructions similar in their grammatical meaning. In certain
contexts, grammatical synonyms are interchangeable.
There are no absolute synonyms in grammar. A
language does not retain side by side two means of expressing
exactly the same meaning. This would burden the language.
Absolute parallelisms represented by grammatical
doublets are excluded from synonyms [Rayevska, 1976: 55]:
a) variant forms of degrees of comparison of adjectives: clever
— cleverer (more clever) — the cleverest (the most clever); b)
variations in plural forms of nouns: hoofs (hooves), wharf
(wharves); formulae (formulas); c) variations in forms of verbs:
clothe — clothed (clad) — clothed (clad); d) negative forms of
be: am not (ain’t); e) negative and interrogative forms of have:
do you have? (have you?), he didn’t have (he hadn’t); f) archaic
variant forms: doth, hath, thee, thy; g) parallel use of pronouns: I
don’t know whom (who) to suggest. It is I (me).
Grammatical synonyms differ either in a) various
shades of the common grammatical meaning; b) expressive
connotation or stylistic value. The former may be referred to as
relative synonyms, the latter as stylistic ones.
 134

Relative synonyms may be illustrated by the forms of

the Present Perfect and Present Perfect Continuous with non-
terminative verbs: You’ve slept for two hours is synonymic to
You’ve been sleeping for two hours. When the Present Perfect
is used attention is drawn to the fact. When the Present Perfect
Continuous is used attention is drawn to the continuation of the
action for a certain period of time. Present Perfect is preferred to
the Present Continuous in negative sentences as the attention
is focused rather on the negation of the action than on its
progress: She hasn’t slept since that night.
The Simple Present sometimes occurs with the verbs
hear, forget, learn, tell with reference to a past action where one
might expect the Present Perfect to show that the action is
viewed as one of present interest: We hear you are engaged to
be married. You’ve been to Switzerland, they tell me. I forget
what it was you asked me. In this case it is functionally
synonymous with the Present Perfect.
Stylistic synonyms produce a change in style, and
the effect on the reader is quite different: Marry she would! is
synonymic to She would marry but there is a marked difference
in style: the former sentence is highly expressive, the latter is
neutral.
The following examples illustrate stylistic alternatives
functioning as synonyms in English phrase-structure: blue-eyed
— with blue eyes — blue of eye; suddenly — of a sudden — all
of a sudden; an important thing — a thing of importance; to be
right — to be in the right; to be successful — to be a success.
Synonyms with a clear differentiation in emotional
colouring are also found in such pairs as I don’t know and I
know not, I didn’t know and I knew not. The archaic verbal forms
without the auxiliary do are relatively synonymous with the
corresponding forms of Present and Past Indefinite in Modern
English — they make the negative sense of the verbal idea
more prominent.
Grammatical forms of the Suppositional mood and
Subjunctive I are identical in their grammatical content but differ
in stylistic value. The former is stylistically neutral, the latter is
formal and bookish. Cf.: However hard it should rain, we shall
have to go. However hard it rain, we shall have to go.
Grammarians distinguish between paradigmatic
synonyms and contextual synonyms, or synonyms by
function in speech.
Paradigmatic synonyms are grammatical forms
 135

belonging in the paradigm of a grammatical category. In English

morphology, paradigmatic synonyms are very few in number.
Such are synthetical and analytical forms of the Subjunctive I
and Suppositional Mood: I now move that the report be adopted
= should be adopted.
Paradigmatic synonyms with similarity in function and
structural features may also be exemplified by the non-emphatic
and emphatic Present Indefinite, Past Indefinite and Imperative
mood: I know. = I do know. I knew. = I did know. Come. = Do
come.
Relatively synonymous are the Future Indefinite tense-
forms and the periphrastic forms of ‘to be going to’ future. A
simple affirmative statement of intention with no external
circumstances mentioned (time, condition, reason) is expressed
by the periphrastic form; when a future action depends on the
external circumstances the ‘to be going to’ is rare: He will sell
his house (rare). — He's going to sell his house (normal). He'll
sell it if you ask him (normal). — He is going to sell it if you ask
him (rare).
Patterns with the passive auxiliaries be and get also
illustrate paradigmatic grammatical synonyms: She was blamed
for everything. — She got blamed for everything. She is teased
by the other children. — She gets teased by the other children.
Contextual synonyms on the grammatical level are
created through transposition of related grammatical forms.
Neutralization of the distinctive features of the opposed
grammatical forms leads to situational synonymy. Contextual
synonyms are found on the speech level. Such grammatical
forms are parallel by function in speech only.
Present Continuous and Future Indefinite may function
as contextual (situational) synonyms: Are you coming to the
party on Tuesday? is synonymous with Will you come? The
opposition Present — Future is neutralized. Similarly: She's
taking her boy to London next week (= She will take).
Present Continuous and Present Indefinite may
function as situational synonyms: You are always wasting
money on something is synonymous with You always waste
money. She is continually imagining dangers when they do not
exist (= She imagines).
The situational context can neutralize the opposition
Indicative — Imperative: You are not going there (= Don't go
there).
Syntactical synonyms are structurally different
 136

syntactical units which may differ a) in shades of their

grammatical meaning: to be about to do sth = to be on the point
of doing sth; the book is not to be found anywhere = the book
cannot be found anywhere; b) in intensity or emphasis of
grammatical meaning: She is always grumbling = She does
nothing but grumble; c) in stylistic sphere of application: About
to go home? = Are you about to go home? Ever been there? =
Have you ever been there? [Rayevska, 1970: 41-42].
Syntactical synonyms may be illustrated by verb-
phrases and their nominal counterparts: Birds are singing. =
Birds are in song. She thought deeply. = She was in deep
thought. The ice seemed appallingly thin. = The ice seemed
suddenly of an appalling thinness.
Predicative complexes (complex subject, complex
object, for-to-infinitive complexes, gerundial complexes) are
synonymous with subordinate clauses: We rely on it that he will
come. = We rely on him to come. = We rely on his coming. Here
is the text which you may read aloud. = Here is the text for you
to read aloud. = Here is the text for your reading aloud.
In terms of structure and resemblance in grammatical
content, most syntactical synonyms may be represented as
patterns related through transformation and substitution. Cf.:
Such books can be seen everywhere. = Such books are to be
seen everywhere. It is time that he should go. = It is time for him
to go. When he saw us he greeted us warmly. = Seeing us he
greeted us warmly. We were three. = There were three of us.

7.3. Polysemy in grammar

All languages seem to have polysemy (Greek polys
‘many’ and séma ‘sign’) on several levels. Like words which are
often signs not of one but of several things, a single gramma-
tical form can also be made to express a whole variety of
structural meanings in different contexts of its use. Orientation
towards the context will generally show which of all the possible
meanings is to be attached to a polysemantic grammatical form.
In case of grammatical polysemy, we observe various
structural meanings inherent in the given form, one of them
being dominant or invariable, i.e. can be found in any context of
its use. This primary meaning may be considered a centre of
radiation of other meanings, as represented in the following
scheme:
 137

p
r

Most grammatical forms are polysemantic.

Distinction is made between synchronic and potential
polysemy.
The primary denotative meaning of the Present
Continuous is characterized by three semantic elements
(semes): a) present time relevance, b) something progressive,
c) contact with the moment of speech. The three semes make
up its synchronic polysemy.
Potential polysemy implies the ability of a
grammatical form to have different connotative meanings in
various contexts of its use.
Meanings of the Present Continuous include:
1. The primary denotative meaning of an action going
on at the moment of speaking (Actual Present): You are talking
like a child.
Secondary connotative (syntagmatic) meanings
derived from the primary denotative meaning are illustrated by
its use in transposition where it may denote:
2. Repeated processes of increasing duration (Iterative
Present): I am always thinking of him.
3. Permanent characteristic of the subject (Qualitative
Present): She is always grumbling about trifles. You are never
crying.
4. An action going on in the past (past time reference):
It was a wedding in the country. The best man makes a speech.
He is beaming all over his face.
5. An action anticipated or planned in the future (future
time reference): We are seeing him to-night. I'm getting married.
6. Order or command (imperative modality): You are
not going in there! — Don't go in there!
As compared with other verbal forms the Present
Continuous and the Present Simple are the richest in temporal
meanings, since they serve to represent an action as belonging
not only to the present, but to the past and to the future as well.
The study of potential polysemy in grammar must
reasonably be associated with the problem of functional
 138

transposition of grammatical forms leading to variation in their

meaning in different contexts, linguistic or situational.
Contextual variation of component grammatical mean-
ings as potentially implicit in a grammatical form must be
distinguished from syncretism (plurality of the signified). In
speech, all the grammatical meanings of a grammatical form go
together in a bunch: he works (present tense, active voice,
indicative mood, singular number).

7.4. Homonymy in grammar

Homonyms (Greek homos ‘the same’ and onyma
‘name’, i.e. ‘having the same name’) are linguistic units different
in meaning but identical in their form. In case of polysemy,
different meanings of the same grammatical form are mutually
dependent and proceed from the primary meaning. In case of
homonymy, the primary (invariant) meaning of a given
grammatical form is no longer traced in different uses of this
form. The different meanings of grammatical forms are mutually
independent. The relation between polysemy and homonymy
may be presented graphically in the following way:

polysemy homonymy
Homonyms may be created through the break-up of a
former case of polysemy. Form-words, prepositions and
conjunctions, give sufficient evidence to this: provided, past
participle of provide and a conjunction ‘on the condition or
understanding (that)’: He provided for his children in his will. I’ll
go provided that the others go, too.
Words which differ in their lexical meaning and also in
their grammatical category (part of speech) are lexical-
grammatical (interparadigmatic) homonyms: rose (the
flower) and rose (past tense of rise). An interesting case is
presented by like which may function as a preposition (It would
be like marrying money), conjunction (He can’t sing like he used
to), interjection (Like, why didn’t you write to me?), adjective
(They are as like as two peas), noun (We shall not see his like
again), verb (They like reading).
Interparadigmatic homonymy is closely related to the
development of conversion which is one of the most peculiar
 139

features of English and presents a special point of interest in its

structure. Conversion consists in making a new word from some
existing word by changing the category of a part of speech, the
morphemic shape of the original word remaining unchanged.
The newly formed word differs both lexically and grammatically
from the source word and the latter becomes its homonym: (a)
ship → to ship.
There are also grammatical homonyms which differ
only in their grammatical meaning and express different
grammatical categories, e.g., combinations containing the verb
would:
1. Future in the past: She said she would come soon.
2. Conditional mood: If she knew this she would come.
3. Construction expressing recurrent actions in the
past: He would come and tell us stories.
4. Constructions with modal verbs: We asked him to
come but he wouldn't.
Subjunctives happen to be homonymous with past
tense forms (with the possible exception of the verb be): If they
had the chance …, I wish I knew. It’s high time we left. These
non-past uses are sometimes treated as secondary uses
derived from a basic temporal meaning, perhaps through
notions like ‘nonactuality’ or ‘factual remoteness’ [Westney,
1994: 79].
Inflectional homonymy is illustrated by the ending -
ed, which is generally found in verbs (opened, smoked, etc.),
but it may be also added to nouns to form adjectives (kind-
hearted, talented, blue-eyed, etc.); the inflection -s changes the
noun into a plural and is also used to indicate the third person
singular in verbs, etc.
Constructional homonymy is observed in overtly
parallel sentences and other types of syntactical constructions
which are identical in their grammatical arrangement (structure)
but differ in meaning. Observations on syntactical structures of
various types give numerous examples of homonymic patterns.
Compare the following: She made him a good wife. — She
made him a good husband. The surface structures of the two
sentences are identical but their syntactical meanings differ
essentially.
Consider also the phrases: the shooting of the hunters;
the singing of birds; the raising of the cattle. On the level of
phrase structure they are identical. Their meanings, however,
are different. The shooting of the hunters has two distinct
 140

meanings: ‘the hunters shoot’ and ‘they shoot the hunters’.

Lexical improbability excludes the possibility of ‘they sing birds’
or ‘cattle raise’.
Further examples of homonymic syntactical structures
are: The boy looked fast (= The boy looked speedy / The boy
looked speedily). This chicken eats well (= This chicken is good
to eat / This chicken has a good appetite).
Illustrative examples of ambiguity will be found in
patterns with the so-called dangling participle (participle or
participial phrase, often found at the beginning of a sentence,
that appears from its position to modify an element of the
sentence other than the one it was intended to modify):
Proceeding down the road, a small village came in sight.
Sleeping on the roof, I saw the neighbour’s cat.
Structural ambiguity often occurs with prepositional
phrases. However, intonation contour supported by lexical
indicators serves to recognize prepositional phrases as such:
His faith in her words was unshakable. The distinction between
the two possible meanings would be preserved by setting off in
her words with commas.
Absence of clear part-of-speech markers also leads to
structural ambiguity: Ship sails today (which might appear in a
telegram). If the marker the is put before the first word The ship
sails today, we have a statement. If, however, the same marker
is put before the second word Ship the sails today, we have a
request.
Cf. also: Love blossoms in spring where ambiguity is
avoided by intonational differences: Love / blossoms (verb) in
spring. Love blossoms (noun) / in spring!
Structural homonymy of adverbial elements may be
well illustrated by the multifarious use of absolute predicative
phrases: The weather being fine, we shall go for a walk
(condition: if the weather is fine). The weather being fine, we
went for a walk (cause: as the weather was fine). The weather
being fine, we always went for a walk (time: when the weather
was fine). The weather being fine, we still didn’t go for a walk
(concession: though the weather was fine).
Infinitival modifiers in verb phrases may be structurally
ambiguous. Distinction will be made here between adverbial
relations of purpose as expressed by the infinitive and infinitival
phrases implying succession of actions. The former are
paraphrased by patterns with in order to, so as + infinitive or
subordinate clauses introduced by so that; the latter may be
 141

transformed into coordinated finite verb forms: He paused to

see whether the boy understood his meaning (= he paused in
order to see). She awoke to find that she was alone (= she
awoke and found that she was alone).
Many ambiguities are never noticed because various
possible meanings are narrowed down by context. In they have
busy lives without visiting relatives only context can indicate
whether visiting relatives is equivalent in meaning to paying
visits to relatives or to relatives who are visiting them.
If a sentence Flying planes can be dangerous is
presented in an appropriately constructed context, the listener
will interpret it immediately in a unique way, and will fail to detect
the ambiguity: flying planes are dangerous and flying planes is
dangerous.
 REVISION TASKS
Choose the correct answer to complete the sentences.
1. A system is a) a set of elements and relations
between them; b) a material object with a number of properties;
c) an existing connection, association, correlation among
elements; d) a set of intra-systemic relations.
2. A rudimentary system in its early stages is
exemplified by a) a stone; b) a pile of stones; c) an army unit; d)
a family.
3. Language belongs to a) ideal; b) simple material; c)
primary material; d) secondary material systems.
4. The relations between linguistic signs and their
meanings are arbitrary, that is why there is a) a variety of ways
to express some meaning; b) connection with other signs both
in form and meaning; c) internal relation between the sound
sequence and the object; d) explanation why a certain meaning
is expressed through a certain sound cluster.
5. The common feature between language and other
sign systems is that they are a) restricted in their usage; b)
artificial; c) of social character; d) created and changed by
convention.
6. Relations of hierarchy are found between elements
a) of different structural levels; b) of the same structural level; c)
linearly ordered; d) having the same degree of complexity.
7. Four main levels are distinguished in the structure of
language represented by corresponding level units. This is the
a) level-stratificational; b) level-distributional; c) level-
identificational; d) level-interactional view.
 142

8. The grammeme is the a) phonological; b)

morphological; c) lexical; d) syntactical level unit.
9. Junctural and prosodic features belong to the a)
segmental; b) syntactical; c) supra-segmental; d)
supersyntactical units.
10. Speech (‘parole’) is a) a set of meaningful units and
rules for combining them; b) a programme to produce actual
utterances; c) the abstract language system; d) the actual use of
language.
11. Speech units are usually called a) eme-units; b)
allo-units; c) supra-units; d) super-units.
12. Speech units are a) ideal, abstract, and potential; b)
given by their generalized abstracted forms; c) produced in
speech; d) reproduced as ready-made entities.
13. Paradigmatic relations are also termed a)
associative; b) combinatory; c) linear; d) functional.
14. Grammar as a constituent part of language is a) the
abstract system of rules governing the modification of words
and the combination of words into sentences; b) the
identification of the ‘proper’ or ‘best’ structures to be used in
speaking or writing; c) the study and analysis of the structures
found in a language; d) an account of these structures.
15. Grammar as a linguistic discipline is divided into a)
Morphemics and Morphology; b) Morphology and Syntax; c)
Morphology and Accidence; d) Minor and Major Syntax.
16. Not everyone who speaks English has a) implicit; b)
explicit; c) extrinsic; d) working knowledge of grammar.
17. The part of grammar that studies the form and
structure of words is called a) Morphology; b) Syntax; c)
Paradigmatics; d) Syntagmatics.
18. Syntax bears an intimate relation to Morphology
because a) syntactical patterns may be structurally ambiguous;
b) variations of denotative and connotative meanings of
grammatical forms generally result from their use in different
contexts; c) contrast in meaning may be brought out by changes
of the intonation pattern in syntactical structures; d) the use of
some grammatical rules is well known to be lexically restricted.
19. Grammar bears an intimate relation to Lexicology
because a) changes in the intonation pattern can change the
functional sentence perspective; b) discrimination between the
parts of speech may be based upon stress; c) grammatical
content of verb forms cannot be studied without a considerable
reference to the syntactical environment; d) certain grammatical
 143

functions are possible only for words whose meaning makes

them fit for these functions.
20. The first grammars of English were a) prescriptive;
b) descriptive; c) comparative; d) contrastive.
21. Henry Sweet’s New English Grammar is a)
prescriptive; b) descriptive; c) comparative; d) contrastive.
22. Contrastive grammar attempts to find out
similarities and differences in grammar in a) related; b) non-
related; c) both related and non-related; d) modern languages.
23. The number opposition book :: books is a) privative;
b) gradual; c) equipollent; d) isolated.
24. Positional variants of the morpheme -(e)s [z], [s],
[ız] (rooms, books, boxes) are in a) non-contrastive; b)
contrastive; c) complementary; d) proportional distribution.
25. Distributional analysis involves the use of a)
derivation tree diagrams; b) phrase structure rules; c) stratal
diagrams; d) test-frames.
26. The IC theory is based on the assumption that a)
verbs are the key to the sentence; b) combinations of linguistic
units are usually structured into hierarchically arranged sets of
binary constructions; c) grammar consists of three basic
components: syntax, semantics, and phonology; d) any
language consists of a limited number of kernel (basic)
sentences.
27. S → NP + VP is an example of a) transformational
rules; b) immediate dominance rules; c) lexical rules; d) phrase
structure rules.
28. NP is A → TAN exemplifies the transformation of a)
affirmation; b) preposition introduction; c) negation; d)
nominalization.
29. The most widely accepted replacement for
Transformational Grammar is known as a) Universal Grammar;
b) Generalized Phrase Structure Grammar; c) Relational
Grammar; d) Lexical-Functional Grammar.
30. The central tenet of Lexico-Grammar is that
language is made up of a) lexicalized grammar; b)
grammaticalized lexis; c) kernel sentences from which all other
sentences are made; d) principles and parameters.
31. The members of the noun paradigm exemplify a)
semantic; b) formal; c) functional; d) semantic-functional
paradigmatic relations.
32. Syntagmatic relations of independence are
established as the result of a) association; b) predicative
 144

connection of words; c) subordination (adjunction); d)

coordination (conjunction).
33. Free word combination green leaves exemplifies a)
anaphoric; b) collocational; c) configurational; d) constructional
syntagmatic relations.
34. Non-combinational anaphoric relations are
exemplified by a) Since you don’t like it, you don’t have to go
skiing; b) It’s getting dark; c) The judge told the jury it must
decide two issues; d) Where does it hurt?
35. One functional-semantic field comprises units
similar in meaning which belong to a) grammar; b) lexis; c) one
level; d) different levels.
36. Prepositional nominal phrases beyond doubt, in
use, under consideration exemplify a) lexical; b) morphological;
c) lexico-syntactical; d) lexico-morphological devices in the
functional-semantic field of Voice.
37. Frequentative verbs like dribble, giggle exemplify a)
lexical; b) morphological; c) syntactical; d) lexico-syntactical
devices in the functional-semantic field of Aspect.
38. Transposition of grammatical forms results in a)
their transformation; b) neutralization of meaning; c)
complementary distribution; d) contrastive distribution.
39. Regular transposition is exemplified by a) We shall
know soon after he calls; b) Let’s leave soon; c) I would sooner
not go to their party; d) Sooner or later his luck will run out.
40. Transposition of syntactical structures is
exemplified by a) It may rain; b) You may enter; c) Times may
change but human nature stays the same; d) I may be wrong
but I think you would be wise to go.
41. As if I ever told him about it! exemplifies a) regular;
b) stylistic; c) internal; d) paradigmatic transposition of
subordinate clauses.
42. The Past Simple and the Historic Present exemplify
a) grammatical homonyms; b) grammatical doublets; c)
contextual synonyms; d) paradigmatic synonyms.
43. Paradigmatic synonyms are a) the Future Simple
and the Present Simple used with future time relevance; b) the
Imperative Mood and the Present Simple used with the
implication of command; c) Subjunctive I and Suppositional
Mood; d) Subjunctive II and Conditional Mood.
44. Grammatical homonyms are exemplified by a)
Subjunctive I and Suppositional Mood; b) Subjunctive II and the
Past Simple; c) Subjunctive II and the Present Simple; d)
 145

Subjunctive I and Subjunctive II.

45. As compared with other verbal forms, the
polysemantic grammatical forms of a) the Present Simple; b) the
Past Simple; c) the Past Continuous; d) the Present Perfect are
the richest in temporal meanings.
46. He called his sister a heroine and He called his
sister a taxi exemplify a) stylistic transposition; b) syntactical
synonyms; c) synchronic polysemy; d) constructional
homonymy.

PART II
MORPHOLOGY

Unit 8
____________________________________

MORPHOLOGICAL UNITS:
THE MORPHEME AND THE WORD
____________________________________
8.1. The morpheme as a morphological unit. Types of
morphemes. Morphs and allomorphs
It is to I.A. Bodouin de Courtenay that linguistics
owes the term morpheme (from Greek morphē ‘form’, coined
on the model of phoneme), which he used to designate the
smallest meaningful part of the word. He wrote that integral,
coherent speech may be broken down into meaningful
sentences; sentences may be analyzed into words; words —
into morphological units, or morphemes, and morphemes — into
phonemes [Solntsev, 1983: 198].
The word books can be divided into two parts: book-,
expressing the basic lexical meaning of the word, and -s,
indicating plurality. Such meaningful parts of a word are
morphemes. If we break up the word books in some other way,
e.g., boo-ks, the resulting parts will not be morphemes, since
they have no meanings.
The morpheme thus defined includes such non-
independent parts of words as roots and affixes of all types:
prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and inflections (endings). This list
does not include the stem, since it is not an indivisible part of
 146

the word: it may be a combination of morphemes, often

consisting of a root plus an affix, to which the inflectional
endings of a word are added.
Another popular view of the morpheme is that of
Leonard Bloomfield and other linguists of the descriptivist
school. It is defined as the minimum linguistic form, the
minimal meaningful unit, the minimal formal element of
meaning. Morphemes are the smallest individually meaningful
elements in the utterances of a language. Thus viewed, the term
embraces parts of words (roots and affixes), simple notional
words, and auxiliary words, as the -ed of waited, write, cat, the,
or will.
This view of the term morpheme also became common
currency in linguistics. Since, according to this view, the term
denotes not only parts of words but words themselves, it
became to be used both in the analysis of words and in the
analysis of combinations of words and sentences, regarded as
different arrangements of morphemes. A consequence of this
was the trend to exclude the word from grammatical analysis
and to recognize the morpheme as the main unit of language
[Solntsev, 1983: 199].
And yet, there are contradictions in L. Bloomfield's view
of the term. The description of such simple words as walk, talk,
fox, etc. as morphemes is a contradiction because every one of
these words consists of two morphemes: a root one and a zero
(affixal) one (cf. walk+Ø — walk+s). It follows that such words
cannot be considered indivisible, i.e. morphemes in Bloomfield's
sense.
The morpheme is a meaningful segmental component
of the word; it is formed by phonemes, so that the shortest
morphemes include only one phoneme, e.g., ros-y [ı], come-s
[z]; the morpheme expresses abstract, significative meanings
which are used as constituents for the formation of more
concrete, nominative meanings of words; as a meaningful
component of the word it is elementary (i.e. indivisible into
smaller segments) [Blokh, 1983: 20].
Description and classification of morphemes was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional and
semantic. The following types of morphemes are commonly
distinguished.
Root-morphemes (roots) express the fundamental
lexical meaning of the word; affixal morphemes (affixes)
express the specificational part of the meaning, the
 147

specifications being of lexical or grammatical character. Affixal

morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, infixes, interfixes, and
inflections. The root is obligatory for any word, while affixes are
not obligatory. Roots are defined as notional morphemes, all the
other morphemes being auxiliary.
A zero (covert) morpheme is described as a
significant absence of an auxiliary morpheme indicating a
certain meaning. The word book contains the morpheme book-
plus a zero (covert) morpheme indicating singular number:
book+Ø (the sign of the empty set Ø is the symbol for zero
morphemes). The meaning of ‘singularity’ is acquired by the
word book because there exists the word books with the
morpheme of ‘plurality’ -s. The morpheme -s having a positive
form is called a positive (overt) morpheme.
Inflectional (form-building or grammatical)
morphemes which serve to convey grammatical meaning, e.g.,
-ed of the past, -er and -est of comparison, are opposed to
derivational (word-building or lexical) morphemes which
serve to make new words, e.g., -ment in government, -less in
jobless. Roots, prefixes, and lexical suffixes have word-building
functions. Inflections (often referred to as grammatical or
inflectional suffixes) express grammatical meanings, e.g., -s
may denote the plural number of noun (guests), third person of
the finite verb in the singular (hopes), the possessive case of
nouns (man’s life), absolute possessive pronouns (hers, ours).
An inflectional morpheme never changes the word from
one part of speech into another. They build different forms of
one and the same word, e.g., both old and older are adjectives.
However, the verb teach becomes the noun teacher if we add
the derivational morpheme -er. So, -er can be an inflectional
morpheme as part of an adjective and also a distinct
derivational morpheme as part of a noun. Derivational
morphemes supply components of lexical and lexico-
grammatical meaning, and thus form different words.
Derivational morphemes always precede the inflectional ones in
the same word.
Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves,
they are indentified only as component parts of words, e.g., re-,
-ist, -ed, -s; free morphemes (word-morphemes) can build
up words by themselves, i.e. can be used ‘freely’, e.g., boy,
open, long, in, will.
There are word-morphemes of lexical and of
grammatical relevance. Lexical word-morphemes may change
 148

the meaning of the word (give in, bring up). Grammatical word-
morphemes are auxiliary verbs of analytical grammatical forms
(is playing, have done).
Additive morphemes are outer grammatical
morphemes, e.g., looked, smaller. Root phonemes of
grammatical alternation are called replacive morphemes, since
they replace one another in the paradigmatic forms, cf. drive —
drove — driven; man — men.
In descriptive linguistics, distinction is also made
between morphemes, morphs, and allomorphs.
Morpheme is the generalized invariant unit of
language.
Morph is the phonological representation of a
morpheme. Morphs are the actual forms used to realize
morphemes.
Thus, the form cat is a single morph realizing a lexical
morpheme. The form cats consists of two morphs, realizing a
lexical morpheme and an inflectional morpheme (plural).
Allomorph is one of the alternate contextually
determined phonological representations of a morpheme; a
positional variant of a morpheme in a specific environment.
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: the final [s]
and [z] sounds of bets and beds are allomorphs of the English
noun-plural morpheme which stand in phonemic complementary
distribution; -s and -en in students and children are allomorphs
of the English noun-plural morpheme which stand in morphemic
complementary distribution. Similarly, -ion/-tion/-sion/-ation are
the positional variants of the same suffix; im-/ir-/il-/in- are
allomorphs of the same prefix.
The boundaries between the morphemes may change
in the course of historical development. The modern English
word husband is hardly realized by an average speaker to be
composed of house and bond, though in Anglo-Saxon and
Middle English it was a compound. It meant ‘master of a house’.
It has also been pointed that an extremely large
number of English forms owe their morphological patterning to
languages like Latin and Greek. Consequently, a full description
of English morphology will have to take account of both
historical influences and the effect of borrowed elements [Yule,
1996: 79].
 149

8.2. The word as a morphological unit. The structure of words.

Lexical and grammatical aspects of words
There exist many definitions of the term word and none
of them is generally accepted. Linguists point out as most
characteristic features of words their isolatability (a word may
become a sentence: Boys! Where?), indivisibility (it cannot be
cut without a disturbance of meaning), uninterruptibility
(nothing can be inserted between its elements), positional
mobility (a word is permutable with other words in the same
sentence: Away he ran, He ran away, Away ran he). This is
reflected in writing where the graphic form of almost every word
is separated by intervals from its neighbours.
The word is generally defined as a nominative
(naming) unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it
enters the lexicon of language as its elementary 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 [Blokh, 1983: 21].
The function of naming (or expressing a notion) is
typically performed by the word and not by the morpheme. In
contrast to the word, the meaning of the morpheme is
associative, as in the example of the Russian morpheme krasn-
‘red’ which is associated with something red. The notions with
which the morpheme is associated are expressed by the words
which contain it, e.g., krasny ‘red’, krasnota ‘redness’, krasnet'
‘to redden’ [Solntsev, 1983: 206].
Diachronic study of languages shows that historically
words preceded morphemes. The oldest suffixes and prefixes
originated from individual words in a proto-language.
Words are built up by morphemes. In accordance with
the peculiarities of their stem-structure, the following types of
words are distinguished in English: a) simple, containing only
one root: day, write; b) derivative, with affixes or other stem-
building elements: darkness, rewrite, strength, speech; c)
compound, containing two or more roots: brother-in-law,
pickpocket, cold-blooded; d) composite, containing free word-
morphemes or having the form of a combination of words: give
up, two hundred and twenty-five, in spite of.
Yet a word is not just a combination of morphemes.
Apart from the naming power that unites all the morphemes of a
 150

word and turns them into a higher unit, they are also united by
the word-stress which is an essential part of the structure of a
word.
The word is a lexico-grammatical unit of language.
It possesses lexical and grammatical meanings. The words runs
and ran, for instance, have the same lexical meanings and
belong therefore to the same lexeme in spite of the formal
difference. Also cf.: buy and bought, go and went, I and me. All
the grammatical meanings of the word runs, inherent in the
morpheme -s, unite this word with walks, stands, sleeps, gives,
lives, etc. into a grammeme.
When we speak of a word as a grammeme we
abstract ourselves from its lexical meaning and concentrate on
the kind of grammatical information it carries, e.g., the
grammeme runs shows the present tense 3rd person singular. It
can be identified due to the existence of opposed forms, such
as run, ran, is running, etc. contrasted to runs in different
distinctive features, or grammatical meanings. Grammatical
meanings are very abstract, very general. Therefore the
grammatical form is not confined to an individual word, but
unites a whole class of words (e.g., verbs), so that each word of
the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning
together with its individual, concrete semantics.
An organized set of grammemes expressing a
generalized grammatical meaning is called a grammatical
(morphological) category. The ordered set of grammatical
forms expressing a certain categorial meaning constitutes a
paradigm.
A grammatical category must be expressed by at least
two opposed grammatical forms, otherwise it cannot exist.
Grammatical forms of categorial oppositions are
traditionally classed into synthetical (from Greek synthesis
‘combination’) and analytical (from Greek analysis ‘separation
into parts’).
Synthetical grammatical forms are realized by inner
morphemic composition of the word: inner inflection, or sound
interchange (foot — feet), outer inflection (play — plays),
suppletivity (I — me, go — went, good — better — the best).
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 notional
meaning (will play, has gone, was written, has been waiting).
An auxiliary is a functional element. It ascribes a
 151

certain grammatical meaning to the whole unit. Auxiliaries

express grammatical categories of tense, aspect, voice, mood,
person, number. Full lexical meaning is carried by the notional
word.
Analytical form functions as one single word
(grammatical form). It is indivisible in grammatical sense, though
its components are separate words. It denotes one generalized
meaning and performs one syntactical function.
Nouns and inflected pronouns have only synthetical
forms: boys, boy's, ones, one's, this, these. Verbs have both
synthetical and analytical forms: speaks, spoke, is speaking,
has been speaking. Analytical forms prevail in the English verb,
which is a confirmation of the general analytical character of
English form-building.

8.3. Morphological typology of languages. Synthetical and

analytical languages
Specificity of morphological units varies from one
language to another. The most familiar morphological
classification which embraces almost all the languages of the
world contains four groups.
1. Isolating or analytical languages (like Chinese),
which are devoid of the form-building morphemes and in which
grammatical relationships are indicated chiefly through word
order.
Isolating languages are sometimes called amorphous
(i.e. formless). The words in these languages do not depend
upon one another, because they are invariable in themselves
and, so to speak, ‘isolated’ in the sentence. The best example of
an isolating language is Chinese, monosyllabic and invariable. A
Chinese root like da can be used as a noun to mean
‘greatness’, an adjective to mean ‘great’, a verb to mean ‘to be
great’, and an adverb meaning ‘greatly’. The exact meaning is
made clear by where it stands in the sentence.
2. Agglutinative languages (like those of the Turkic
group), characterized by agglutination — a process of word
formation in which each grammatical category is typically
represented by a single morpheme in the resulting word.
A characteristic feature of these languages is the large
number of suffixes which are added in a strictly prescribed order
to the unchangeable root of the word, as in Turkish, in which ev
means ‘house’, ev-den means ‘from a house’, and ev-ler-den
 152

means ‘from houses’. Each of the suffixes expresses one

definite grammatical meaning, and each grammatical meaning
is expressed by the same affix in whatever word it is required.
3. Inflectional or synthetical languages (the Indo-
European and Semitic languages), characterized by inflections,
which often fuse together several grammatical categories (such
as number, gender, and case) into a single morpheme, and
which often undergo major phonological alterations when com-
bined with roots.
4. Incorporating or polysynthetical languages
(languages of the American Indians and Eskimo), characterized
by the inclusion of the object within the inflected verb form as a
type of word-formation.
Incorporation of affixes expressing different grammatical
meanings into the verb is carried to such an extent that the
whole expression forms one unseparable unity which can hardly
be called either a word or a sentence, e.g., I came to give it to
her is rendered in Chinook (an Indian language of the Columbia
River) by i-n-i-a-l-u-d-am. This word consists of the root -d- ‘to
give’; -i- indicates recently past time; -n- the pronominal subject
I; the other -i- the pronominal object it; -a- the second prono-
minal object her; -l- is a prepositional element indicating that the
preceding pronominal prefix is to be understood as an indirect
object (-her-to-, i.e. to her); and -u- indicates movement away
from the speaker. The suffix -am modifies the verbal content in
a local sense.
In aspects of grammar, English has changed from a
highly inflected, free-word-order, topic-prominent language, all
in less than a millennium [Pinker, 1995: 232-233].
English is an isolating language, which builds sentences
by rearranging immutable word-sized units, like Dog bites man
and Man bites dog. Other languages express who did what to
whom by modifying nouns with case affixes, or by modifying the
verb with affixes that agree with its role-players in number,
gender, and person. One example is Latin, an inflecting
language in which each affix contains several pieces of
information; another is Kivunjo, an agglutinating language in
which each affix conveys one piece of information and many
affixes are strung together.
English is a fixed-word-order language where each
phrase has a fixed position. Free-word-order languages allow
phrase order to vary. In an extreme case like the Australian
aboriginal language Warlpiri, words from different phrases can
 153

be scrambled together: This man speared a kangaroo can be

expressed as Man this kangaroo speared, Man kangaroo
speared this, and any of the other four orders, all completely
synonymous.
English is an accusative language, where the subject of
an intransitive verb, like she in She ran, is treated identically to
the subject of a transitive verb, like she in She kissed Larry, and
different from the object of the transitive verb, like her in Larry
kissed her. Ergative languages like Basque and Australian
languages have a different scheme for collapsing these three
roles. The subject of an intransitive verb and the object of a
transitive verb are identical, and the subject of the transitive is
the one that behaves differently. It is as if we were to say Ran
her to mean ‘She ran’.
English is a subject-prominent language in which all
sentences must have a subject (even if there is nothing for the
subject to refer to, as in It is raining or There is a unicorn in the
garden). In topic-prominent languages like Japanese, sentences
have a special position that is filled by the current topic of the
conversation, as in This place, planting wheat is good or
California, climate is good.
English is an SVO language, with the order subject-verb-
object: Dog bites man). Japanese is SOV: Dog man bites.
Modern Irish (Gaelic) is VSO: Bites dog man.
In English, a noun can name a thing in any construction.
In classifier languages, nouns fall into gender classes like
human, animal, inanimate, one-dimensional, two-dimensional,
cluster, tool, food, etc. In many constructions, the name for the
class, not the noun itself, must be used — for example, three
hammers would be referred to as three tools.
Some basic typological properties of other types of
languages are found in English [Pinker, 1995: 232-233].
English, like the inflecting languages it supposedly differs
from, has an agreement marker, the third person singular -s as
in He walks. It also has case distinctions in the pronouns, such
as he vs. him. And like agglutinating languages, it has
machinery that can glue many bits together into a long word,
like the derivational rules and affixes that create
sensationalization and Darwinianisms.
English, like free-word-order languages, has free
ordering in strings of prepositional phrases, where each
preposition marks the semantic role of its noun phrase as if it
were a case marker: The package was sent from Chicago to
 154

Boston by Mary; The package was sent by Mary to Boston from

Chicago; The package was sent to Boston from Chicago by
Mary, and so on. Conversely, in the so-called scrambling
languages, like Warlpiri, word order is never completely free;
auxiliaries, for example, must go in the second position in a
sentence, which is rather like their positioning in English.
English, like ergative languages, marks a similarity
between the objects of transitive verbs and the subjects of
intransitive verbs. Cf.: John broke the glass and The glass
broke.
English, like topic-prominent languages, has a topic
constituent in constructions like As for fish, I eat salmon and
John I never really liked.
Like SOV languages, not too long ago English availed
itself of an SOV order, which is still interpretable in archaic
expressions like Till death do us part and With this ring I thee
wed.
Like classifier languages, English insists upon classifiers
for many nouns: a sheet of paper, a piece of fruit (which refers
to an apple, not a piece of an apple), a blade of grass, a stick of
wood, fifty head of cattle, and so on.
English can incorporate in at least two ways. One is to
form compound verbs, where an argument of the verb (i.e. a
participant in the action) is the first member, e.g., the instrument
for fishing, the spear, is incorporated into the verb to spearfish.
Another method of incorporation is to take a nominal that would
normally serve as the argument for a verb and create a verb out
of it, e.g., the senses of both action and location are
incorporated in the verb to bottle.
As far as the Indo-European languages are concerned,
two morphological language-types are commonly distinguished.
1. Synthetical languages, defined as the languages of
the ‘internal’ grammar of the word. The grammatical function of
a word is implicit in the form of the word. Synthetic languages
are inflectional languages because in such languages most
grammatical meanings and most grammatical relations of the
words are expressed with the help of inflectional devices pri-
marily.
2. Analytical languages are the languages of the
‘external’ grammar of the word. Analytical devices of
grammatical expression are preferably used in analytical
languages. Analytical languages tend to express in a phrase the
function and meaning of an inflected form. Grammatical
 155

meanings and relations between words are expressed not in the

word itself, but by means of function words (auxiliary verbs,
prepositions, etc.) and word order. In its extreme, the analytical
tendency leads to the isolating type of a language.
English is considered a ‘canonized’ representative of
lingual analytism. Analytical tendency in Modern English
manifests itself in various language phenomena which belong to
different language levels and are quite heterogeneous:
comparatively few grammatical inflections and a sparing use of
sound alternations (suppletivity) to denote grammatical forms;
analytical morphological forms (have done, will play); quasi-
morphological forms (be going to+infinitive, used to+infinitive);
non-finite forms of the verb and complexes with them (complex
object, complex subject, etc.); phrasal verbs (get in = enter, get
out = leave); fixed phrases (V+vN: give a look = look; V+N:
make a suggestion = suggest; V+prep+N: come to an
agreement = agree; V+Adj: go bad); extensive use of word-
substitutes (do a book, do a play); analytical means of
denomination (railway station, lady visitor); attributive application
of nouns (silver flow); productivity of conversion (book → to
book); wide use of prepositions (prepositional phrases) to
denote relations between objects and connect words in the
sentence (to the boy, of the boy, by the boy); a more or less
fixed or ‘grammatical’ word order to denote grammatical
relations; analytical predicate (compound nominal and
compound verbal); analytical lexical units (let go, make believe,
get rid).
Analytical lexical units of the type let go, make believe,
get rid constitute one of the typological characteristics of English
[Сухорольская, 1989; Сухорольська, 1984, 1991]. They are
formed by a functional-semantic model (let+Vinf, make+Vinf,
get+Ven) and are characterized by structural-semantic and
functional integrity, functional differentiation of components into
functional and notional, contact position of their constituents,
their ability to enter into synonymous or antonymous series
alongside with monolexemic verb: let go = release, make
believe = pretend, make do = manage, let slip = omit, get rid =
disembarrass, get set = resolve.
Analytical grammatical forms (have done, will play, was
written) and analytical lexical units (let go, make believe, get rid)
are different formations and must not be confused. Analytical
lexical units belong to the lexical level, whereas analytical
grammatical forms represent the morphological level. Analytical
 156

word-form is a member of the paradigm of the notional word;

analytical lexical unit possesses its own full paradigm. Analytical
verbs are realized in all the morphological (paradigmatic) forms:
he gets rid, he got rid, he has got rid, he was got rid of.
Analytical lexical units also have derivational
paradigms: make-believe (v, n, adj), make-believer (n), make-
believing (n).

Unit 9
____________________________________

LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL WORD-CLASSES:
PARTS OF SPEECH
____________________________________
9.1. Main approaches to lexico-grammatical classification of
words
Every language contains thousands upon thousands of
words. When describing them it is possible either to analyze
every word separately or to unite them into classes with more or
less common features. Linguists make use of both approaches.
A dictionary usually describes individual words; a grammar book
mostly deals with classes of words, traditionally called parts of
speech.
The general current definition of parts of speech places
them as lexico-grammatical word-classes characterized by a
general abstract grammatical meaning expressed in certain
grammatical markers [Khlebnikova, 1994: 18]. A part of speech
is a type of word different from other types in some grammatical
point or points, e.g., the verb is a type of word different from all
other types in that it alone has the grammatical category of
tense.
Parts of speech present a mixed lexical and
grammatical phenomenon because each generalized word-
class possesses a unifying abstract meaning, e.g., ‘substance’
(‘thingness’) — noun; ‘process’ — verb. As this kind of meaning
covers the whole class, it may be defined as lexico-grammatical.
The parts-of-speech problem remains one of the
most controversial problems in grammar. It has a long-time
history. The term parts of speech and the first outline of the part
of speech theory were introduced in Ancient Greece. The
 157

original Greek term is to be interpreted as ‘constituents of the

sentence’. The term is purely traditional; it cannot be taken as
defining or explanatory. It reflects the logico-syntactical
approach to the parts of speech revealed in the most
fundamental division between ‘noun’ and ‘verb’ drawn in terms
of logico-syntactical categories of utterances such as ‘subject’
and ‘predicate’ primarily [Morokhovska, 1993: 81-82].
Parts of speech were reinterpreted in Latin grammar in
accordance with the logico-inflectional approach to the
classification of words. The division was made between ‘partes
orationis’ (parts of speech) and ‘particles orationis’ (particles of
speech) with regard to the inflectional declinability/
indeclinability of words. Parts of speech were distinguished as
words grammatically changeable. Nouns were defined as words
inflected for case and number; verbs were characterized as
inflected for person, number, tense, and mood; adjectives as
inflected for gender. Declinable words were opposed to the
particles of speech, i.e. indeclinable words (adverbs,
prepositions, conjunctions, interjections).
In the course of time, the Latinate logico-inflectional
principle was imported into the grammars of most Indo-Euro-
pean languages and developed into the traditional lexico-
morphological principle of word-classification. It seems
acceptable for the classification of words in synthetical
languages which resemble Latin grammatically. In languages
with rather poor inflectional paradigmatic systems (like English)
it seems refutable and hardly workable.
Henry Sweet (1845–1912) was the first grammarian
who broke away from the cannons of classical Latin grammar
and strove at representing the facts of English as they were in
that language. Here is his classification of parts of speech.
noun-word: noun, noun-
pronoun, noun-
numeral, infinitive,
gerund
declinable adjective-word: adjective, adjective-
pronoun,
adjective-numeral,
participle
verb: finite verb, verbals
(infinitive,
participle, gerund)
 158

indeclinable (particles): adverb, preposition,

conjunction,
interjection
H. Sweet could not fully abstract himself from the rules
of classical grammar, which, based on features of highly
inflected languages, such as Greek and Latin, departed from
form, i.e. from the ability of a word to have inflections. Thus
Sweet divides the whole bulk of word-classes into two main
groups. However, adjectives and numerals are indeclinable
words in English, pronouns have but a few formal exponents.
So this classical principle is violated.
The second peculiar feature of the classification is the
attempt to reflect the two-fold functions, or rather, positions in
word combinations of such classes as numerals and pronouns,
and the double nature of verbals. The result is a mixture of
morphological and syntactical criteria, and a distorted picture of
actual word-classes existing in English [Khlebnikova, 1994: 20-
21].
H. Sweet introduced a functional criterion for ascribing
words to word-classes but, on the whole, his classification
remains traditional because it looks like the classical division of
words into ‘partes orationis’ and ‘particles orationis’
[Morokhovska, 1993: 82].
H. Sweet describes three main features characterizing
the parts of speech: meaning, form, and function, and this has
logical foundations but the results of his classification are,
however, not always consistent [Rayevska, 1976: 13].
Syntactico-distributional principle of classifying
words was elaborated by Charles C. Fries (1887–1967) in his
book The Structure of English (1952). Syntactico-distributional
classification of words is based on the study of their
combinability (their linear arrangement in speech). It involves
the use of test-frames.
Frame A The concert was good (always)
Frame B The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly)
Frame C The team went there
Class I Class II Class III Class IV
(The) concert was good (always)
(The) team went there
All words that could fill the same position as the word
concert are Class I words: food, lesson, family, etc. In frames B
 159

and C, Class I words are identified in the same way. Further

substitution in the frames gives Class II words: is/was, are/were,
seems/seemed, feels, etc. in Frame A; wanted, saw, discussed,
etc. in Frame B; came, ran, started, etc. in Frame C. Class III
words fill the position of good. Class IV words can be substituted
for always, suddenly, there.
Class words comprise the main bulk of the
vocabulary. They are notional units which share the distribution
in a standard utterance-frame and make up a distributional
constituent-class of elements fillable for the given position
(form-class). Ch. Fries does not fully identify his form classes
with traditional parts of speech, because some of these cannot
fill the slots in the frames.
Words which have not been included in the four
classes are considered to be function words. They are divided
into 15 groups.
Group A (markers of Class I words) includes all the
words in the position of the in the test frames: no, your, both,
few, John's, one, four, most, that, etc. Such traditional parts of
speech as pronouns, numerals, some adjectives and even the
noun in the possessive case belong here on the ground of their
distribution. Group B (markers of Class II words) includes words
occurring in the position of may in the frame may be good. Here
belong all modal and auxiliary verbs. Group C includes one
word not. Group D gathers all the words that occur in the
position of very in the frame: very good — quite, awfully, most,
rather, etc. Group E fills the same position as and — but, or,
not, nor, rather than — those that connect words within one
sentence. Group F is filled by the words occupying the position
of at. Group G is represented by one word do (does, did). Group
H has one word there (in there is ...). Group I — when (why,
where, how). Group J represents words standing in the place of
after (as a conjunction connecting clauses) — whenever, so,
and, but, since, etc. Group K includes well, oh, now, why (at the
beginning of the utterance). Group L — yes and no. Group M —
look, say, listen (at the beginning of a sentence). Group N —
please. Group O — let’s (let us).
On the whole, Ch. Fries’ classification has some
deficiencies: divisions are extremely complicated; classes and
groups sometimes overlap; one and the same word may belong
to several classes or groups [Иванова et al., 1981: 17].
The distributional principle of classifying words has
certain advantages if used for the word-classification in
 160

analytical languages which are languages with rather poor

morphologies. Since inflection in English is poor, syntactical
behaviour of words turns out decisive in determining their class-
membership. Nevertheless, in order to reflect the natural
division of words into word-classes it is more rational to take into
account their grammatical meaning and form, as well as
syntactical function and distributional arrangement.
If we classify notional words in accordance with their
distribution in speech and neglect or underestimate other
criteria, we may arrive at the conclusion that there exist only four
classes of words: nouns, adjectives, verbs, and adverbs. In
structural linguistics, these classes are denoted by the letters N,
A, V, and D respectively. Since the distribution of John and he is
similar in many cases (John (he) is a student. Can John (he)
skate?) both words are thought to belong to the same class N in
spite of the differences in their lexico-grammatical meanings
and paradigms.

9.2. Principles of part of speech classification

Three main criteria are singled out which are essential
for dividing words into parts of speech: meaning (semantic
criterion), form (formal criterion), and function (functional
criterion).
The lexemes of a part of speech are first of all united
by their meaning. By meaning (semantic criterion) we do not
mean the individual meaning of each separate word (its lexical
meaning) but the generalized lexico-grammatical meaning
common to all the words of the given class and constituting its
essence. This meaning is defined as the categorial meaning of
the part of speech.
The categorial meaning of the noun is ‘substance’. This
applies equally to all and every noun. Similarly, the categorial
meaning of the verb is that of ‘process’, whatever the individual
meaning of a separate verb may happen to be.
Formal criterion implies morphological characteristics:
word-building elements and grammatical categories.
Parts of speech may have some special word-building
signals, such as -er, -ment, -tion, -ness, -ship for nouns, -ize, -
ify, -en, be-, en- for verbs, -able, -ful, -less, -ish, -ous, -ive for
adjectives, -ly for adverbs, etc. However, in English, due to the
widespread use of conversion even these signals are not
 161

always reliable.
A part of speech is characterized by its grammatical
categories manifested in the paradigms of its constituents.
Nouns have the categories of number and case. Verbs possess
the categories of tense, voice, mood, etc. Adjectives have the
category of the degrees of comparison. Several parts of speech
(prepositions, conjunctions, and others) are characterized by
invariability.
Functional criterion embraces syntactical properties:
combinability and function in the sentence.
An important feature of a part of speech is its
combinability, i.e. the ability to form certain combinations of
words. A characteristic feature of nouns is their left-hand
combinability with articles, prepositions, adjectives, possessive
pronouns, other nouns. Lexico-grammatical combinability of
interjections (ouch, hurrah) is negative, i.e. they do not form
combinations with other words.
Parts of speech are also characterized by their
function in the sentence. A noun is mostly used as a subject
or an object, a verb usually functions as a predicate, an
adjective — as an attribute, etc. There is some connection
between parts of speech and parts of the sentence, but it never
assumes the nature of obligatory correspondence. The subject
of a sentence may be expressed not only by a noun but also by
a pronoun, a numeral, a gerund, an infinitive, etc. On the other
hand, a noun can (alone or with some other word) fulfil the
function of almost any part of the sentence. Prepositions,
conjunctions, particles, etc. are usually not recognized as
fulfilling the function of any part of the sentence.
There is also the question about the mutual relation of
the criteria. All three criteria do not always point the same way.
In some cases, one of them may fail (especially, the criterion of
form). Under such circumstances, it may prove necessary to
choose between them by recognizing only one criterion of the
three as decisive.
Each part of speech after its identification is further
subdivided into subclasses. This division, called
subcategorization of parts of speech, can be based on the
same principles which serve to distinguish parts of speech
(meaning, form, and function). Nouns are subcategorized into
proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and
uncountable. Verbs are subcategorized into transitive and
intransitive, actional and statal, etc. Adjectives are
 162

subcategorized into qualitative and relative. Adverbs, numerals,

pronouns are also subject to the corresponding
subcategorization.

9.3. The system of parts of speech

In accordance with the principles described above, it is
possible to distinguish the following parts of speech in English:
nouns, adjectives, pronouns, numerals, verbs, adverbs,
prepositions, conjunctions, particles, interjections, articles,
statives (the category of state), modal words [Теоретическая
грамматика, 1983: 9].
The following parts of speech are especially
subject to controversy in theoretical English grammar.
The article in Modern English presents one of the most
difficult and intricate problems of language structure. Is the
article a separate part of speech? Is it a word or a morpheme?
Is the absence of the article a special kind of article (zero
article)?
Some grammarians believe that inclusion of articles in
the parts of speech is prevented by the fact that they are
opposed to a zero article. A zero cannot be a part of speech.
Articles are believed to present a distributional characteristic of
the English noun, a purely grammatical element and not a
taxonomic class.
Other grammarians are against such interpretation.
Articles are not grammatical morphemes, they are words, and
the absence of a word cannot be regarded as a zero word. We
do not speak of zero prepositions or zero particles. Articles form
a separate class characterized by the categorial meaning of
‘(in)definiteness’, right-hand combinability with nouns, and the
function of noun specifiers.
Both the meaning and the syntactic functions of
prepositions have been the subject of controversy. Sometimes
the boundary line between prepositions and other parts of
speech is not quite clear. On the basis of sentences like They
bought chairs to sit on and the fact that many prepositions are
homonymous with adverbs, A.I. Smirnitsky thought it possible to
regard prepositions not as a separate part of speech, but as a
group of adverbs.
Other scholars are against this view. In the majority of
cases combinability of prepositions differs from that of adverbs.
Many prepositions are not homonymous with adverbs.
 163

Prepositions that are homonymous with adverbs (down, along,

before, since, near) are related by conversion, cf.: We have
never met since (adverb). — We have never met since that day
(preposition). These relations are typical of English and connect
words of different parts of speech.
The preposition as a part of speech is characterized by
its categorial meaning ‘relations (of substances)’; bilateral
combinability with a right-hand noun (or noun-equivalent) and a
left-hand word belonging to almost any part of speech; its
function of a linking word. Prepositions are not characterized by
any grammatical categories or typical stem-building elements.
The problem of conjunctions is of the same order as
that of prepositions. Some prepositions are very close in
meaning to conjunctions (during his illness = while he was ill; an
old man with his son = an old man and his son), and in some
cases a preposition and a subordinating conjunction sound
exactly the same (before, after, since). It might be argued that
prepositions and conjunctions make up a single part of speech
(connectives).
On the other hand, it seems doubtful whether we are
right in uniting subordinating conjunctions (when, as, after,
before, since) together with co-ordinating conjunctions (and, but,
or) into one part of speech and separating them from
prepositions (of, from, after, before, since), with which they have
much more in common. An idea to this effect was put forward by
the French scholar L. Tesniere who classed coordinating
conjunctions as a separate type called junctives), whereas
prepositions and subordinating conjunctions came together
under the name of translatives and were distinguished from
each other as subclasses of this large class.
In synthetical languages, prepositions are closely
connected with cases, while conjunctions have nothing to do
with them. In English, with its almost complete absence of
cases, this difference between prepositions and conjunctions is
very much obliterated. The majority of grammarians, however,
stick to the traditional view of prepositions and conjunctions as
separate parts of speech. They point out some essential
differences between prepositions and conjunctions. A
conjunction connects homogeneous elements (a noun with a
noun, a verb with a verb, a clause with a clause), while a
preposition mostly connects heterogeneous elements. A
preposition cannot introduce a clause without a connective
word, as a conjunction does, cf.: It depends on when (where,
 164

how, why) he does it, not *It depends on he does it.

The conjunction as a part of speech is characterized by
its categorial meaning of ‘connections of phenomena’.
Conjunctions are not characterized by any grammatical
categories or typical stem-building elements. They function as
linking words.
Particles are unchangeable words characterized by
the categorial meaning of ‘emphatic specification’, unilateral
combinability with words of different classes, phrases, clauses.
They emphasize, restrict, or make negative the meaning of the
units they specify. Particles only, just, merely, still, yet, even,
else, according to some grammarians, do not present a clear-
cut class in English. Being modifiers by meaning and function,
they may be considered as a subclass of limiting adverbs. What
concerns particles proper, there seems to be only one in
English: not of negation.
Interjections, according to some grammarians, clearly
fall out of the system of parts of speech. They express neither
relations, nor notions. They represent a different layer of
language, a supersyntactic element, as they express emotions,
the attitude of the speaker. Their forms are difficult to define
from the structural point of view. They are either reflections of
sounds of surprise, indignation, etc. (Ah! Oh! Ouch! Wow!), or
they draw from notional words which usually acquire a different
meaning in the emotive function (My! Come! Well!), or they form
word combinations (Dear me! My Lord! My God! Come now!). It
would be logical to call such units emotional elements without
specifying to what part of speech they belong.
Nevertheless, the majority of grammarians maintain
that the interjection must be regarded as a separate part of
speech. It expresses emotions or will without naming them. It
has no grammatical categories, no stem-building elements of its
own and practically negative combinability. It functions as a
sentence-word or as parenthetical element.
Category of state (statives, adlinks). In Modern
English there exists a certain class of words with the prefix a-
characterized by the meaning of ‘state’: He is asleep (= He is in
a state of sleep). The meaning of state embraces: a) psychic
state (afraid, ashamed, aghast); b) physical state (alive, asleep,
awake, aflame); c) state in space (aslope, asquint); d) state in
motion (afoot, astir, afloat). The words of this class are
associated almost exclusively with link-verbs: to be alive, to fall
asleep, being adrift, etc. Their main syntactical function is a
 165

predicative complement.
Those grammarians who do not recognize statives as a
separate part of speech usually consider them as a subdivision
of adjectives, maintaining that adjectives can also express state,
and function as a predicative.
Other linguists claim that adjectives and statives are
different parts of speech. There is nothing to prove that the
notion of ‘state’ cannot be the foundation of a separate part of
speech. Stem-building elements of the two parts of speech are
different. The characteristic prefix of statives is a-. Adjectives
have other affixes: -ful, -ive, -ous, un-, pre-, etc. Adjectives
possess the category of the degrees of comparison. Statives
have no grammatical categories.
The most typical combinative model of adjectives is its
right-hand connection with nouns (an ardent lover). This model
is alien to statives. This negative combinability can be explained
historically by the development of statives from prepositional
phrases like the Old English on slæpe (asleep), on life (alive),
on flote (afloat). On a synchronic basis, this peculiarity of
statives shows that they are not adjectives, but a different part
of speech. Adjectives are mainly employed as attributes, and
statives as predicative complements.
Modal words (probably, perhaps, sure, certainly) are
often treated as a subtype of adverbs — sentence modifying
adverbs or modal adverbs. This view is widely accepted in
Western linguistics.
Other linguists emphasize the distinction between
modal words and adverbs which is based on: a) their categorial
meaning: modal words express the speaker’s view concerning
the reality of the action (‘modality’); b) combinability: modal
words have negative combinability; c) syntactical function:
modal words are not adverbial modifiers but parentheses.
Modal words can denote: a) certainty: certainly, surely,
of course, undoubtedly, indeed, really; b) probability: maybe,
perhaps, possibly, probably; c) desirability/ undesirability:
happily, luckily, fortunately, unhappily, etc.
Qualitative adverbs and modal words may have the
same form and occur in the same position. The only difference
in these cases is the position in the sentence, punctuation, and
the relation between the words: He didn’t die happily (adverb).
— Happily, he didn’t die (modal word). They wanted to live
naturally (adverb). —They wanted to live, naturally (modal
word).
 166

Numerals are usually divided into two groups —

cardinal numerals denoting some numerical quantity (one, five,
twenty) and ordinal numerals denoting numerical order (first,
fifth, twentieth). The difference between these groups is
sometimes exaggerated to such an extent that they are treated
as belonging to different parts of speech. O. Jespersen and G.
Curme did not recognize the numeral as a separate part of
speech and treated it together with nouns and adjectives. A.I.
Smirnitsky claimed that only cardinal numerals form a separate
part of speech, whereas ordinal numerals are adjectives.
Language facts do not support such views. Both
cardinals and ordinals qualify substances quantitatively, as
distinct from adjectives whose qualification is qualitative.
Cardinals often denote numerical order like ordinals (lesson five
= the fifth lesson).
The numeral as a part of speech is characterized by its
categorial meaning of ‘number’; typical stem-building suffixes -
teen, -ty; unilateral combinability with nouns; functions of an
attribute, less frequently as subject, object, predicative. There
are no grammatical categories in numerals, they are invariable
Response words yes and no are characterized as a
separate class by their meaning of ‘response statement’ (they
confirm or deny a previous statement); negative combinability;
functioning as sentence-words. Some linguists object to their
being considered a separate part of speech. They are believed
to belong to a subclass of modal adverbs, modal words,
particles. Others leave yes, no, please outside the system of
parts of speech (as words which do not belong to parts of
speech).
The system of parts of speech is historically variable.
New parts of speech come into being in the course of language
progress. Old English, for instance, did not know the category of
state, the articles, the modals as separate classes of words,
though they are recognizable as such in Modern English.
Lexico-grammatical classes of words (parts of speech)
are not formed once and forever. In the course of time words
may lose some features of the class they belong to and acquire
distinguishing features typical of some other class of linguistic
units. Class-migration processes (hypostasis) are
traditionally designated substantivation, adjectivization,
adverbialization, etc. (characteristic of inflectional languages),
conversion (in analytical languages).
Most English stems can occur as words belonging to
 167

different classes: A/N — sweet, a sweet; N/V — a book, to book;

A/V — clean hands, to clean the room; N/A/V — the fat of meat,
fat meat, to fat fowls. Conversion (shift from one part of speech
to another without any morphological changes in form/structure)
is certainly one of the most peculiar features of English.

9.4. Notional and functional parts of speech. General

characteristics of function words
Notional parts of speech (nouns, pronouns,
adjectives, statives, numerals, verbs, adverbs, modal words,
interjections), out of which four are the main ones — nouns,
verbs, adjectives, and adverbs — cover about 93% of the whole
of the English lexicon and fill all the main positions in a
sentence. They are called autonomous, autosemantic, content
words, which means that they possess an independent notional
meaning of their own.
Interconnection among the main, notional parts of
speech finds evidence in an inter-class system of derivation
that can be presented as a four-stage series permeating the
lexicon: strength — to strengthen — strong — strongly, and is
reflected in regular phrase correlation: silent disapproval —
disapproving silence — to disapprove silently — to silence
disapprovingly, etc.
The derivational series that unites the notional word-
classes is called lexical paradigm of nomination. There are
lexemes with a complete paradigm of nomination (power — to
empower — powerful — powerfully) and lexemes with an
incomplete paradigm of nomination. With such lexemes the
universal character of the nomination paradigm is sustained by
suppletive completion, both lexemic (end — to end — final —
finally; good — goodness — well — to better) and phrasemic
(evidence — evident — evidently — to make evident; wise —
wisely — wisdom — to grow wise) [Blokh, 1983: 45-46].
Notional parts of speech are open classes of words,
excluding numerals and pronouns which are closed classes,
since they include a limited number of items which is not
replenished in modern languages.
Functional parts of speech (prepositions,
conjunctions, particles, articles) serve as connectors between
the notional ones. They are synsemantic, semi-notional, or
syntagmatic words. They do not have a full independent sense
and perform the function of linkage on the syntagmatic axis.
 168

Prepositions, for example, express relations and not

real objects and notions. It is much more difficult to define the
lexical meaning of a preposition than that of a noun or an
adjective, because prepositions usually have very general,
abstract meanings. Originally, a preposition like in had a
concrete local meaning. But at present in is used with such a
variety of words that it has a very vague and general meaning,
something like ‘inside some sphere’. That sphere may be local
as in London, temporal as in January, abstract as in love, in
thought, etc.
What unites prepositions, conjunctions, articles, and
particles as functional parts of speech is as follows: a) their very
general lexical meanings; b) negative isolatability (ability to
make a sentence alone); c) obligatory unilateral (articles,
particles) or bilateral (prepositions, conjunctions) combinability;
d) functions of linking (conjunctions, prepositions) or specifying
(articles, particles) words.
Another important characteristic is that they belong to
relatively small and permanent sets of words as compared with
the notional parts of speech. We rarely add to our stock articles
or prepositions, and it is equally rare for an odd one to go out of
fashion. Functional parts of speech are (relatively) closed
classes.
Alongside of functional parts of speech, grammarians
speak of the functional use of certain classes of words, e.g.,
auxiliary verbs, link verbs, and modal verbs are defined as
function words.
Function words (also form words, grammatical
words) are words that chiefly express grammatical relationships
and have little semantic content of their own. Among typical
examples of function words are prepositions, conjunctions,
articles, auxiliary verbs, pronoun it in the impersonal sentence-
type (It is raining), there in the existential sentence-type (There
is no hope).
 169

Unit 10
____________________________________

THE NOUN
____________________________________
10.1. Part of speech characteristics of the noun

The noun as a part of speech is characterized by

the following features: its categorial meaning of ‘substance’/
‘thingness’; typical word-building distinctions (-er, -ment, -ness, -
tion, -ship, etc.); grammatical categories of number, case;
combinability with articles, prepositions, adjectives, possessive
pronouns, other nouns; syntactic functions of subject, object,
and other parts of the sentence (attribute, predicative, adverbial
modifier).
Nouns are words used to refer to people, objects,
creatures, places, qualities, phenomena and abstract ideas as if
they were all ‘things’ [Yule, 1996: 88].
The noun is the main nominative part of speech,
effecting nomination of the fullest value. The noun has the
power, by way of nomination, to isolate different properties of
substances, qualities, actions, or states and present them as
corresponding self-dependent substances. Cf. He knocked
loudly at the door. — There was a loud knock at the door. Her
words were unexpectedly bitter. — We were struck by the
unexpected bitterness of her words.
Nouns differ as to their morphological composition.
Simple nouns consist of one root-morpheme: dog, cat,
box.
 170

Derived nouns are composed of one root-morpheme

and one or more derivational morphemes (prefixes or suffixes).
The main noun-forming suffixes are -age: leakage; -al:
betrayal; -ancy/-ency: vacancy, tendency; -ance: disturbance; -
ence: dependence; -dom: freedom; -hood: childhood; -ing:
meaning; -ism: tourism; -ment: agreement; -ness: darkness; -
ship: friendship; -ity/-ty: activity, cruelty; -th: growth; -y: difficulty;
-ure: failure; -ion /-sion /-tion /-ation: operation, collision; -an:
physician; -ant/-ent: assistant, student; -ee: refugee; -er:
teacher; -ist: journalist; -or: visitor.
The main noun-forming prefixes are dis-: distrust; mis-:
misunderstanding; sub-: subway, subtitle; co-: coexistence.
Compound nouns consist of at least two stems. The
main types of compound nouns are: a) noun stem + noun stem:
arm-chair; b) noun stem + preposition + noun stem: father-in-
law; c) adjective stem + noun stem: bluebell; d) verb stem +
noun stem: pickpocket; e) lexicalized phrases: forget-me-not,
pick-me-up. Compounds are considered more typical of nouns
than of any other part of speech.
Nouns may be formed by conversion from any part of
speech: light, rose, detective, calm (adjectives), swim, laugh,
knock, show, picture, doctor, bottle (verbs), home, south, back,
ups and downs, ins and outs (adverbs).
The paradigm of English nouns based on grammatical
categories of number and case consists of four forms.
Si Pl
Number n ur
Case g al
ul
ar
Common b b
o o
y y
s
Possessiv b b
e o o
(genitive) y’ y
s s’
But not every noun possesses such grammatical
categories as number and case. Some nouns have one-
member paradigms.
Combinability of nouns is variable. They have left-
 171

hand connections with articles (a day, the boy), some pronouns

(my friend, that colour, every book), most adjectives (young
children, from time immemorial), numerals (two visitors, the third
degree, page ten). With prepositions nouns have both left-hand
and right-hand connections (after classes, at the thought of), but
only left-hand connections are a characteristic feature of the
noun, since most parts of speech may have right-hand
connections with prepositions. With verbs nouns can form both
right-hand and left-hand connections (John met Peter).
A noun in the common case mау be preceded by
another noun in the possessive case (the book’s cover) and
may be followed by a noun with a preposition (the cover of a
book). English nouns can also combine with one another by
sheer contact (cannon ball, stone wall, sports event). In the
contact group the noun in pre-position plays the role of a
semantic qualifier to the noun in post-position.
Occasionally a noun may combine with a following or
preceding adverb: the then government, the government there.
It is important to remember that in English every
singular countable noun must have a determiner unless it is
in a special fixed phrase. Determiners are words which come
before nouns and are used to identify them and specify the
range of reference of the nouns. They can make a noun
specific/ definite (the child) or general/ indefinite (a child),
indicate quantity (many children) or possession (my children),
etc. [Woods, McLeod, 1990: 158]. According to their position
before a noun, determiners are classified into three groups:
predeterminers (all, both, half), central determiners (this, that,
my, her, some, any, no, every, each, much, either, neither,
enough, what, which, whose, whatever), and postdeterminers
(one, two, first, second, next, last, further, other, less, few, little).
Central determiners may be preceded by predeterminers: all the
books, all these people, all my ideas, half a kilo. Predeterminers
may be followed by postdeterminers: a second time, the many
problems.
The noun is generally associated with the article.
Because of the comparative scarcity of morphological distinction
in English in some cases only articles show that the word is a
noun.
The article is a determining unit of specific nature which
is clearly seen against the background of other determining
words. The semantic purpose of the article is to specify the
nounal referent in the most general way, without any explicitly
 172

expressed contrasts. Cf.: Will you give me this pen, Willy (= the
pen that I am pointing out, not one of your choice)? — Will you
give me the pen, please (= simply the pen from the desk)?
Some woman called in your absence, she didn't give her name
(= a woman strange to me). — A woman called while you were
out, she left a message (= simply a woman).
Another peculiarity of the article is that, in the absence
of a determiner, the use of the article with the noun is quite
obligatory, in so far as the cases of non-use of the article are
subject to no less definite rules than the use of it [Blokh, 1983:
74].
А noun may be used in the function of almost any part
of the sentence, though its most typical functions are those of
the subject and object: The girl gave him a pound (subject,
object). A dog is a man's best friend (attribute, predicative). High
above the city stood the statue of the Happy Prince (adverbial
modifier).

10.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of nouns

The most general subclasses of nouns are grouped

into four oppositional pairs: proper and common; animate and
inanimate; human and non-human; countable and un-
countable, e.g., Mary (proper, animate, human, countable
noun), cattle (common, animate, non-human, uncountable
noun).
Proper nouns are geographical names, personal
names, names of months and days of the week, festivals,
planets, ships, hotels, clubs, buildings, streets, parks, bridges,
institutions, organizations, magazines, newspapers, books,
paintings.
Common nouns can be classified into concrete
nouns, abstract nouns, and nouns of material.
Concrete nouns refer to physical objects and
substances (entities which can be observed and measured).
Semantically, they fall into nouns denoting living beings (boy,
dog), inanimate objects (table, chair), and collective nouns
which may be further subdivided into: a) collective nouns proper
denoting both a group consisting of separate individuals and at
the same time considered as a single body (family, crowd,
committee, government, group, crew, football team, enemy); b)
nouns of multitude which are always associated with the idea of
 173

plurality and denote a group of separate individuals (police,

clergy, cattle, poultry, people).
Abstract nouns refer to qualities or concepts (beauty,
truth, difficulty, honesty, happiness), events and occasions
(arrival, talk, knock, shot, meeting), feelings (love), etc.
Nouns of material (mass nouns) refer to substances,
such as gases (oxygen, air, smoke), liquids (oil, milk, water),
solids (sugar, sand, gold, wood, rock, iron, glass), or solid
masses (butter, cheese).
From the grammatical point of view, most important is
the division of nouns into countable (book — books) and
uncountable (snow, darkness, trousers) with regard to the
category of number and into declinable (man — man’s, night —
night’s) and indeclinable (table, food) with regard to the
category of case.

10.3. The category of number

The category of number of English nouns is the
system of opposed number forms (girl — girls, foot — feet)
showing whether the noun stands for one object or more than
one. The singular number shows that one object is meant; the
plural number shows that more than one object is meant.
An English noun can contain two opposed number
forms at most (boy — boys, boy's — boys'). Many nouns have
only one form (table — tables) and many others have no forms
at all (milk, news).
In the opposition boy — boys singularity is expressed
by a zero morpheme and plurality is marked by the morpheme /-
z/, in spelling -s. In other words, the singular member of this
binary opposition is not marked and the plural member is
marked. In the opposition boy's — boys' both members have
morphemes -'s, -s', but these morphemes can be distinguished
only in writing. In spoken language their forms do not differ, so
with regard to each other thеу are unmarked. They сan be
distinguished only by their combinability (cf.: a boy’s head, boys’
heads).
In a few nouns of foreign origin both members of
number opposition are marked: phenomenon — phenomena,
crisis — crises, etc. But this peculiarity of foreign nouns gets
gradually lost: instead of formula — formulae, the usual form
now is formula — formulas. Also cf.: cactus — cactuses/cacti,
focus — focuses/foci, acquarium — aquariums/aquaria,
 174

appendix — appendixes/appendices. As a result, the singular

member becomes unmarked, as typical of English, and the
plural member of the opposition gets its usual mark, the suffix -
s.
In the overwhelming majority of cases the form of the
plural morpheme is /-s/, /-z/, or /-iz/, in spelling -(e)s, e.g., books,
boys, matches. Other non-productive ways of expressing
number are vowel interchange in several relict forms (man —
men, woman — women, tooth — teeth, mouse — mice, goose
— geese, etc.) and the archaic suffix -(e)n supported by
phonemic interchange (ox — oxen, child — children, cow —
kine, brother — brethren). In some cases the plural form of the
noun is not marked, thus coinciding in form with the singular
form (zero plurals): a) names of some animals (sheep, deer,
fish, carp, perch, trout, cod, salmon); b) nationalities (Japanese,
Swiss); c) nouns expressing quantity (quid, pence, ton).
Compound nouns usually form the plural by adding -
(e)s to the last element: babysitters, gin-and-tonics. In a few
cases, it is the first element: passers-by, men-of-war. And
sometimes there is a choice: mothers-in-law/ mother-in-laws,
spoonsful/ spoonfuls. Very rarely, both elements change their
form: women doctors.
With regard to the category of number, English nouns
fall into two subclasses: countable and uncountable. The
former have number opposites (i.e. they are variable), the latter
have not (they are invariable). Uncountable nouns are again
subdivided into those having no plural forms (known as
singularia tantum) and those having no singular forms (pluralia
tantum).
Singularia tantum (which is the Latin for ‘singular
only’) include mostly material nouns (sugar, gold, water, snow),
abstract nouns (peace, love), and collective nouns (humanity,
furniture).
There are some nouns in this group which are
considered exceptional, such as singular nouns ending in -s: a)
subject names in -ics (linguistics, mathematics, statistics); b)
names of some games (billiards, darts, dominoes, ninepins); c)
proper nouns (Athens, Brussels, Flanders, Naples, Wales, the
United Nations, the United States of America); e) names of
some diseases (measles, mumps, rickets, shingles, AIDS)
[Leech, Svartvik, 1994: 41].
Some nouns can be either countable or uncountable,
depending on what particular meaning they have. Words joy
 175

and sorrow as abstract nouns are singularia tantum, e.g., He

has been a good friend both in joy and in sorrow. But when
concrete manifestations of the qualities denoted by the nouns
are meant, these nouns are countable and have plural
opposites, e.g., the joys and sorrows of life. Similarly, when
nouns wine, steel, salt, cheese, tea denote some sort or variety
of the substance, they become countable, e.g., wine — white
wines, cheese — Italian cheeses.
Geoffrey Leech and Jan Svartvik [1994: 41] argue that
some singularia tantum nouns should ‘really’ be countable,
because the substance consists of separate things: furniture
consists of pieces of furniture, hair of separate strands of hair
(or hairs), wheat of separate grains of wheat. Psychologically we
think of such things as indivisible when we use a singularia
tantum noun.
There are many countable unit nouns (partitive nouns),
as they call them, which can be used to subdivide notionally a
mass into separable ‘pieces’. Piece and bit are general purpose
unit nouns, which can be combined with most uncountable
nouns: a piece of bread, a bit of food, a piece of paper, a bit of
paint. There are also unit nouns which typically go with
particular nouns: a blade of grass, a block of ice, a pile of
rubbish, two lumps of sugar, a sheet of paper, a bar of
chocolate, a loaf of bread, a round of applause.
According to M.Y. Blokh [1983: 60], this kind of
rendering the grammatical meaning of number with uncountable
nouns is, in due situational conditions, so regular that it can be
regarded as special suppletivity in the categorial system of
number.
Pluralia tantum (‘plural only’) is mostly composed of
nouns denoting objects consisting of two parts, complex
phenomena, ceremonies: trousers, scissors, environs, outskirts,
dregs, remains, nuptials, obsequies, thanks. Here also belong
nouns with a distinct collective or material meaning: clothes,
eaves, sweets.
With words of pluralia tantum the -s morpheme is
identified as a suffix whose function is to derive a new word.
Since in these words the -s suffix does not function as a
grammatical morpheme, it gets lexicalized and develops into an
inseparable part of the stem.
Nouns of multitude like police, cattle, poultry are
pluralia tantum, judging by their combinability, though not by
form: they are only used with a plural verb: The cattle are
 176

grazing. The police here are efficient. People in the meaning of

'the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe,
nation’ is a countable noun; in the meaning of ‘persons in
general’ it belongs to the pluralia tantum. Family in the sense of
'a group of people who are related' is a countable noun; in the
meaning of ‘individual members оf this group’ it belongs to the
pluralia tantum: My family are early risers, they are already here.
Cf. My family is not large. Similar variants are observed in the
collective nouns committee, government, board, crew, etc.
The necessity of expressing definite numbers in cases
of uncountable pluralia tantum nouns has brought about
different suppletive combinations specific to the plural form of
the noun [Blokh, 1983: 60]. Here belong collocations with pair,
set, group, bunch: a pair of pincers, three pairs of bathing
trunks, a few groups of police.
There are semantic varieties of the plural forms
which may express a) definite set of objects (eyes of the face,
wheels of the vehicle); b) discreteness of fragments (ices, arts);
c) various types of the substance (wines, teas, steels); d)
intensity (‘repetition’ plural: years and years, thousands upon
thousands); e) picturesqueness (‘descriptive’/ ‘augmentative’
plurals: the sands of the Sahara Desert, the snows of
Kilimanjaro). The extreme point of this semantic scale is marked
by the lexicalization of the plural form, i.e. by its serving as a
means of rendering purely notional difference in meaning
(colours as a ‘flag’, attentions as ‘wooing’, pains as ‘effort’,
quarters as ‘abode’).
Plural and singular nouns stand in contrast as
diametrically opposite. Instances are not few, however, when
number opposition comes to be neutralized and the two
forms are interchangeable: to crack one’s brain(s), to supply
with victual(s), wild oat(s).

10.4. The category of case

The problem of case in English nouns is one of the
most vexed problems in theoretical English grammar. There are
a number of views on the problem, which can be roughly clas-
sified into three main groups: a) English nouns have only two
cases (the limited case theory); b) the number of cases is more
than two (theories of positional and prepositional cases); c)
there are no cases at all in English nouns (postpositional
theory).
 177

The most common view, called the ‘limited case

theory’, recognizes a limited inflectional system of two cases in
English: a common case (father) as the weak member of the
opposition and a possessive, or genitive case (father's) as the
strong member of the opposition. The theory was developed by
H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, V.N. Yartseva, A.I. Smirnitsky, L.S.
Barkhudarov.
Some linguists maintained that the number of cases in
English is more than two (three, four, five, or an indefinite
quantity). This view is represented by the ‘theory of positional
cases’ directly connected with the old grammatical tradition.
Linguistic formulations of the theory, with various individual
variations (the number of cases recognized, the terms used,
reasons cited), may be found in the works of J.C. Nesfield, O.
Curme, M. Deutschbein, M. Bryant.
О. Сurme and M. Deutschbein, for instance,
recognized four cases: nominative, genitive, dative, and
accusative, of which the genitive can be expressed by the -'s-
inflection and by the preposition of (the boy’s book, the book of
the boy), the dative by the preposition to and also by word-order
(give the book to the boy, give the boy the book), and the
accusative is distinguished by word order alone (I like the boy).
Unchangeable forms of the noun are differentiated as different
cases by virtue of their functional positions in the sentence.
Another view, called the ‘theory of prepositional
cases’, was advanced as a logical supplement to the positional
view of case. In accordance with the prepositional theory,
combinations of nouns with prepositions are morphological case
forms. To these belong first of all the dative case (to + noun, for
+ noun) and the genitive case (of + noun). The prepositions are
regarded as ‘inflectional prepositions’, i.e. grammatical elements
equivalent to case-forms. Prepositional cases are generally
taken as coexisting with positional cases.
Since both cases and prepositions show relations of
substances, some linguists speak of analytical cases (‘theory
of analytical cases’): to the student is said to be an analytical
dative case, of the student — analytical genitive case, by the
student — analytical instrumental case. Prepositional phrases
are regarded as analytical cases. Some linguists think that there
exist as many cases as there are prepositions.
Some grammarians approach the English noun as
having completely lost the category of case in the course of
its historical development. The lingual unit named the
 178

possessive (genitive) case by force of tradition is a combination

of a noun with a postposition (a purely syntactical form-word
resembling a preposition).
This view — the ‘postpositional theory’ — was
advanced in an explicit form by G.N. Vorontsova. Unlike
classical inflections, -'s may be attached to word-groups, as in
our professor of literature's unexpected departure, and even to
whole clauses, as in the well-worn example the man I saw
yesterday’s son. Since -s may belong to a phrase, it cannot,
then, be an inflection making an integral part of a word: it is here
part of the whole phrase, and, accordingly, a syntactical, not a
morphological element.
The existence of case appears to be doubtful and has
to be carefully analyzed. Case is a morphological category of
the noun manifested in the forms of noun declension. So we
cannot recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological
means. It is therefore impossible to accept the theories of those
who hold that case may also be expressed by prepositions or by
word order.
The extreme point of view that there are no cases in
English nouns cannot be accepted either. The following
arguments show that -'s does function as a case morpheme: the
-'s morpheme is mostly attached to nouns, not noun groups;
instances like the man I saw yesterday's son are very rare and
may be interpreted by the fact that a word-group may be made
to function as one word (a hats-cleaned-by-electricity-while-you-
wait establishment); its general meaning 'the relation of a noun
to another word' is a typical case meaning.
The category of case of nouns is recognized as the
system of opposites (such as girl — girl's) showing the relations
оf the noun to other words in speech. In I took John's hat by
mistake the case of the noun John's shows its relation to the
noun hat, which is some reflection of the relations between John
and his hat in reality.
An English noun may contain two different case forms
at most (man — man's, men — men's). Some nouns have but
one form (England — England's, cattle — cattle's). Many nouns
have no case opposites at all (book, news, foliage).
In the opposition dog — dog's, men — men's, the
common case is not marked. The possessive case is marked by
the inflection (inflectional suffix) -'s [-s, -z, -iz]. In the opposition
dogs — dogs' the difference between the opposites is marked
only in writing. Otherwise the two opposites do not differ in form.
 179

So with regard to each other they are not marked.

With regard to the category of case, nouns fall under
two subclasses: declinable, having case opposites, and
indeclinable, having no case opposites. The subclass of
declinable nouns is comparatively limited, including mostly
nouns denoting living beings (my father’s room, George's sister,
the dog's head) and a few others, notably those denoting units
of time (two weeks’ holiday, this year's elections, today’s menu),
distance (a mile’s walk), geographical and institutional names
(Europe's future, the school's history) and also some
substantivized adverbs (today's newspaper, yesterday's news).
It should be noted, however, that this limitation does
not appear to be too strict and there even seems to be some
tendency at work to use the -'s-forms more extensively: work's
popularity, the engine's overhaul life, the brain's total solid
weight, the game's history, the mind's general development,
science's influence, the wind’s easing, his smile’s bitterness, the
show’s end.
Variants of one lexeme may belong to different
subclasses. Youth meaning 'the state of being young’ belongs to
indeclinables. Its variant youth ‘a young man’ has a case
opposite (The уouth’s candid smile disarmed her) and belongs
to the declinables.
Semantic content of the possessive case is rather
complex. It may denote a) possession, belonging (genitive of
possession): Peter's bicycle; John’s passport; b) social
relationships (social-relationship genitive): her sister's friend, his
brother’s teacher; c) subjective relations (subjective genitive or
genitive of agent): Peter's arrival, the train’s departure; d)
objective relations (objective genitive or genitive of patient): the
criminal's arrest, a city’s destruction; e) authorship, origin,
source (genitive of origin): Peter's poem, his brother’s invention,
the sun's rays; f) function (genitive of destination):w omen’s
footwear; g) characteristic (qualitative or descriptive genitive): a
girl’s voice, a doctor's degree; h) quality bearer (genitive of the
quality bearer): her sister’s love, her sister's generosity; i)
relation of the whole to its part (partitive genitive): Peter's hand,
the hotel’s lobby; j) time or place (genitive of adverbial): today’s
news, evening’s newspaper; England’s team; k) measure
(genitive of measure or quantity): two months’ time, a mile's
distance.
Semantic types of the genitive are specified with the
help of transfomational correlations: Peter's bicycle → the
 180

bicycle belongs to Peter; Peter's arrival → Peter arrives; the

criminal's arrest → the criminal is arrested; Peter’s poem →
Peter is the author of the poem; women’s footwear → footwear
for women; a girl’s voice → a voice characteristic of a girl; her
sister's generosity → her sister is generous; the hotel’s lobby →
the lobby as a component part of the hotel; two months’ time →
time lasting for two months.
This semantic classification is in part arbitrary. For
example, we could claim that cow's milk is not a genitive of
origin but a descriptive genitive (the kind of milk obtained from a
cow) or even a subjective genitive (the cow provided the milk).
The combination your teacher's book has three
potential genitive meanings: the possessive genitive (your
teacher has a book), the authorship genitive (your teacher wrote
the book) and qualitative genitive (a book designed for
teachers).
Functionally, case forms of the English nouns
relate to one another in an extremely peculiar way. The
peculiarity is that the common form is also capable of rendering
the genitive semantics (in the so-called of-phrase), which
makes the whole of the genitive case into a kind of subsidiary
element in the grammatical system of the English noun. This
feature stamps the English noun declension as something
utterly different from every conceivable declension in principle
[Blokh, 1983: 63].
Unlike the possessive case, the of-phrase is freely
used with all nouns irrespective of their lexical meanings. Its
range of meaning is much wider than that of the possessive
case. Besides the ‘possessive case’ meanings already
mentioned, it may show the relations of appraisal (a man of
strong will, a look of joy, a glance of contempt, a thing of great
importance), material (a table of oak), composition (a group of
children). In general, the genitive is preferred for human nouns
(the girl’s arrival), animal nouns (horses’ hooves) and human
group nouns (the government’s policy). Of-phrase is usually
preferred for mass nouns and abstract nouns (the discovery of
helium, the progress of science). Of-phrase is believed to sound
more formal than the possessive case, e.g., head of a girl (in a
picture or sculpture exhibition programme), not a girl’s head.
In Modern English there exist some peculiar
constructions with nouns in the possessive case.
Group genitive, where the -‘s inflection is affixed to the
final part of the phrase rather than to the head noun itself: the
 181

teacher of music's room [Quirk et al., 1982: 93]. It is regularly

used with prepositional phrases (the Oxford professor of
poetry's lecture) and coordinations (an hour and a half's
discussion, a week or so's sunshine). The group genitive is not
normally acceptable following a clause, though in colloquial use
one sometimes hears examples like Old man what-do-you-call-
him's house has been painted. This girl in my class's mother
took us to the movies.
Absolute genitive, in sentences like The idea is
George's, where George's is not followed by a noun, it refers to
the noun idea mentioned previously. Cf. My car is faster than
John's (that is, than John's car). His memory is like an
elephant's.
Independent (local) genitive, in patterns like I dined
at my aunt’s or a garden party at Brown's, where the possessive
case is really independent. It does not refer to any other noun
previously mentioned. The meaning of the independent genitive
is that of locality. It denotes premises or establishments, e.g.,
the baker's, watchmaker's, dentist’s, St. Paul's.
Double genitive, which is a combination of the
possessive case and the of-phrase: a (the, that) friend of John's.
The possessive case in the construction is absolute. The
construction usually has a partitive meaning: a friend of Mary's =
one of Mary's friends. It may also be used for stylistic purposes,
mostly with ironic colouring: That long nose of John's.
10.5. Gender distinctions of the English noun
Some grammarians state that English nouns have the
category of gender expressed through the correlation of nouns
with their pronominal substitutes he, she, it. Other grammarians
refute this point of view, claiming that substitution of nouns by
pronouns is no proof of grammatical gender. The choice of he,
she, and it is based on natural distinctions of meaning, i.e.
natural gender, mainly derived from a biological distinction
between male and female.
This type of biological distinction is quite different from
the more common distinction found in languages which use
grammatical gender. In these languages, nouns are classified
according to their gender class, articles and adjectives take
different forms to agree with the gender of the noun. German
uses three genders, masculine der Mond ('the moon'), feminine
die Sonne ('the sun'), neuter das Feuer ('the fire'). Note that the
gender distinction is not based on a distinction in sex. A young
girl is biologically 'female', but the German noun das Mädchen is
 182

grammatically 'neuter'. The French word le livre ('the book') is

grammatically masculine, but we would not consider books to
be biologically male. So, the grammatical category of gender is
not appropriate in describing English [Yule, 1996: 89-90].
The grammatical category of gender is believed to
have disappeared by the end of the Middle English period.
There is no grammatical gender in Modern English. The noun
does not possess any special gender forms, neither does the
accompanying adjective, pronoun, or article indicate any gender
agreement with the noun.
Gender in English is inherently semantic, i.e.
meaningful in so far as it reflects the actual features of the
named objects.
The distinction of male, female, and neuter may
correspond to the lexical meaning of the noun (lexical way of
expressing gender): a) names of male beings — boy, man,
husband, brother, father, uncle, bachelor, gentleman, king,
monk, ox, cock; b) names of female beings — girl, woman, wife,
sister, mother, aunt, spinster, lady, queen, nun, cow, hen; c)
names of inanimate objects — table, house.
Gender distinctions may be expressed by word-
formation (lexico-morphological way of expressing gender): a)
feminine suffixes -ess, -ine, -ette: goddess, heroine; b)
compounds: boy-friend — girl-friend, policeman — police-
woman, he-cousin — she-cousin.
Sex differences can be indicated by a range of gender
(sex) markers in word combinations (lexico-syntactical way of
expressing gender): nurse — male nurse, pilot — woman pilot,
bull elephant —cow elephant, male frog — female frog.
Some masculine/feminine pairs denoting kinship have
common (dual) generic terms, e.g., parent for father and
mother, child for son and daughter, sibling for brother and sister.
There is a large class of nouns which denote personal
dual gender: artist, cook, doctor, friend, guest, student, teacher.
Some optional feminine forms (poetess, authoress, etc) are now
rare, being replaced by the dual gender forms (poet, author,
etc).
There are also some traditional associations of
certain nouns with gender apparent in the use of personal or
possessive pronouns. The moon and the earth are referred to
as feminine; the sun as masculine: the sun in his chariot of gold
and the moon in her chariot of pearl. Names of vessels (ship,
boat, steamer, cruiser) are referred to as feminine: What a
 183

lovely ship. What is she called? Names of vehicles (car) are

referred to as feminine, especially by their male owners: She is
a fine car. Names of countries are referred to as feminine:
England is proud of her poets.

10.6. Problems posed by nouns in theoretical

grammar:
‘the canon ball problem’

Of certain interest is the combinability of nouns with

other nouns. Linguists are at issue concerning such language
units as cannon ball, stone wall, speech sound, speed limit, sea
breeze, etc. The essence of the problem is whether they are
compound words (like motor-car) or word combinations, in the
latter case whether the first element is a noun or an adjective. In
linguistics, the controversy about the lexico-grammatical status
of the constructions in question has received the half-facetious
name ‘The cannon ball problem’.
The view that the first element of such units as stone
wall is a noun was defended by H. Sweet. The view that it is an
adjective or at least approaches the adjective was defended by
O. Jespersen. The view was also expressed that this element is
neither a noun nor an adjective but a separate part of speech
called an attributive noun.
Some linguists (A.I. Smirnitsy, O.S. Akhmanova)
regard the first component of these units as adjectives since: a)
they are not used in the plural (cf. a rose garden and a garden
of roses); b) nouns are used as attributes only in the possessive
case or with a preposition. Other grammarians (B.S.
Khaimovich, B.I. Rogovskaya, R. Quirk) do not find these
arguments convincing.
The first components of such units do occur in the
plural (armaments drive, munitions board, sound effects library).
The 'plural' is mostly observed when there is no 'singular'
opposite (a trousers pocket) or misunderstanding is otherwise
possible (cf. plains people and plain people). In other cases
number opposition is neutralized.
The first components of such formations may have left-
hand connections with adjectives (film exchange — new film
exchange, wall space — the red wall space), nouns in the
possessive case (a skin trunk — a cow's skin trunk), nouns in
the common case (paper writing — business paper writing),
 184

numerals (32 years practice), etc., like ordinary nouns and not
like noun-stems.
They do not share other characteristics of most
adjectives: there is no corresponding predicative function (the
bus station, not *the station is bus); they cannot be modified by
very (*a very bus station); they cannot take comparison (*a
busser station).
The basically nominal character of the first components
is shown by their correspondence to prepositional phrases with
the noun as complement: stone wall — wall of stone, love poem
— poem about love. Such a correspondence is not available for
attributive adjectives (cf. thick wall, long poem).
Hence the first components in formations like stone
wall, speech sound are nouns, not noun-stems. Consequently
these formations are noun word combinations with noun
adjuncts.
Premodification of nouns by nouns (attributive use of
nouns) is one of the most striking features in English grammar.
It can signal a striking variety of meanings: a) subject-predicate
relations (the modifying noun denotes the performer of the
action): student failure, weather change; b) object relations (the
modifying noun denotes the object of the action): money
economy, woman hater; c) qualitative meaning: science degree;
d) material: brick house; e) origin or source: oak leaves, river
sand; f) time: summer vacation; g) place: England tour; h)
comparison: eagle eye, iron nerves; i) purpose: bath robe, tooth
brush; j) instrumental relations: acid treatment, oil painting; k)
the modifying noun states the whole of which the head noun is
part: chair legs, car seats; l) identification in apposition: queen
bee, mother earth.
Such formations are current in scientific usage: room
temperature neutron bombardment effects.
Large numbers of such formations approach
compounding when the two nouns express a single idea: face
value, horse power, coal mine. Some nominals fluctuate in
spelling and may be written solid, hyphened, or separate: apple
tree — apple-tree — appletree, brain storm — brain-storm —
brainstorm.

Unit 11
____________________________________
 185

THE PRONOUN
____________________________________
11.1. Part of speech characteristics of the pronoun

The peculiarity of pronouns as a class of words is that

they are not united by any typical stem-building elements,
morphological categories, combinability, syntactical functions.
They have certain grammatical peculiarities, but what unites
them is their categorial meaning of indication (deixis), i.e. the
way they denote reality.
Pronouns are words serving to denote substances
(people or things), qualities, quantities, circumstances, etc. not
by naming or describing them, but by indicating them. To give
an example, the pronoun it indicates a thing without being the
name of any particular class of things. We use it to refer to an
object (book), place (London), organization (the BBC), or
something abstract (idea); it is often used to refer to an animal
or babies; in general statements it may refer to a situation (It is
very quiet here) [Collins Cobuild English Grammar, 1990: 29-
30].
As words of the vocabulary pronouns have extremely
general meanings which become clear only in the context or
situation. In speech, pronouns indicate particular objects or
qualities. When a speaker says I, he refers to himself, i.e. to a
particular person of definite age, height, colour of hair, etc.
When another speaker says I, he also refers to himself, but this
time it is another person with other features. Thus, the meaning
of I, general as it is, remains the same, but the objects referred
to are different.
Pronouns are traditionally recognized on the basis of
indicatory (deictic) and substitutional semantic functions.
Indication is the semantic foundation of substitution.
Etymologically the word pronoun means ‘a word used
instead of a noun’. Owing to the exceptional variability of
reference, a pronoun may replace hundreds of nouns. This
explains the fact that pronouns are used very frequently and
form a considerable part of any text, though as a class of words
they are not numerous. Pronouns can substitute not only nouns,
but other parts of speech as well. Traditionally, pronouns are
divided into noun pronouns and adjective pronouns. Some
grammarians claim that pronouns may also be used instead of
 186

numerals (some, several, many, much, few/a few) and adverbs

(here, there, now, then) as their deictic substitutes. Using the
prefix pro- in its meaning ‘instead of’, grammarians, therefore,
classify pronouns with regard to the parts of speech into pro-
nouns, pro-adjectives, pro-numerals, and pro-adverbs.
Sometimes a pronoun is correlated with one part of
speech only. But very often this is not so. This in Is this the
bike? is a pro-noun, while in He gave me this bike it is a pro-
adjective.
The boundaries of pronouns and those parts of speech
with which they are correlated are rather fluid. The word this in
this bike may be regarded both as an adjective pronoun and as
a pronominal adjective, the word here in he lives here — as a
pronominal adverb and as an adverbial pronoun. It is no
wonder, therefore, that there are many words which are
regarded as pronouns by some authors and as nouns,
adjectives, or adverbs by others.
The definition of pronouns as a separate part of speech
has caused many difficulties. More than once in the history of
linguistics the very existence of pronouns as a part of speech
has been denied. However, attempts of this kind have not
proved successful and in present-day grammars pronouns are
recognized as a separate class of words with peculiar meanings
and references to the world of reality. All of them are of double
nature, as they combine their peculiar meanings with certain
properties of other parts of speech.
Pronouns may be of different structure.
Simple pronouns contain only one morpheme — the
root: I, you, he, we, this, that, some, who, all, one.
Compound pronouns comprise more than one stem:
myself, themselves, somebody, anything, nothing, everybody.
Composite pronouns have the form of a phrase: each
other, one another.
There is no uniformity of morphological
characteristics in the groups of pronouns. Some pronouns are
invariable (each, such, all, what), some of them have the
grammatical category of case (I — me, somebody —
somebody’s), some have the category of number (this — these,
that — those). There are no other grammatical categories in the
English pronoun.
Like nouns, most pronouns in English have only two
cases. Some pronouns (somebody, anybody, nobody, one,
another) have the common (somebody) and genitive
 187

(somebody's) case. Six pronouns (personal pronouns and the

pronoun who) have the nominative (subjective) and objective
cases. The genitives of personal pronouns are traditionally
called possessive pronouns.
Nominative I, we, he, she, they, who
Objective me, us, him, her, them, who(m)
Genitive my, our, his, her, their, whose
The category of number is found in demonstrative
pronouns (this — these, that — those), the defining pronoun
other (other — others) (if not used before a noun).
As to the pronouns I — we; he, she, it — they, it must
be stated that there is no grammatical category of number here.
We is not I + I but rather I and you, I and she, I and they, etc.
Since I and we differ lexically, they do not belong to the same
lexeme, they do not form an opposition, and their number
meanings are not grammatical. We is not a form of the pronoun
I, but a separate word in its own right. In a similar way, they is
not a form of he, or she, or it, but a separate word. Similarly,
there is no grammatical category of number in the pronouns my
— our; his, her, its — their; mine — ours; his, hers — theirs;
myself — ourselves, yourself — yourselves. We may speak of
the oblique lexico-grammatical meaning of number.
Some pronouns also have person distinctions: 1st
person refers to the speaker (I, me, my, mine, myself), or to the
speaker and one or more others (we, us, our, ours, ourselves);
2nd person refers to the persons addressed (you, your, yours,
yourself, yourselves); 3rd person refers to one or more other
persons or things (he, him, his, himself, she, her, hers, herself,
it, they, them, their, etc.). Similarly, there is no grammatical
category of person in these cases.
Some pronouns have gender distinctions — separate
forms for masculine/ feminine and personal/ non-personal:
Personal: masculine he, who, somebody, nobody
Personal: feminine she, who, somebody,
nobody
Non-personal it, which, something, nothing
But there is no grammatical category of gender here.
Pronouns he, she, it, and also his, her, its; his, hers; himself,
herself, itself, are all separate words. Thus, she is not a form of
the word he but a separate word in its own right.
Some pronouns combine with verbs (he speaks, find
 188

him), while others can also combine with a following noun (this
room).
In the sentence, some pronouns may be the subject or
the object: I saw her with them. Others are attributes: Where is
my hat? Only half of us were ready. Pronouns can be adverbial
modifiers: Keep behind me! They can be predicatives: It was I
who told the police. Many pronouns may be used as subject,
predicative, object, and at the same time as attribute.
Certain pronouns may also have auxiliary functions, as
determiners of nouns (You may take this book), substitute-
words (My goal is different from that of other men), connectives
(Do you know the man who is standing at the door?), formal
subject (It is raining), formal object (I thought it wise to keep
silent).

11.2. Subclasses of pronouns

Pronouns constitute a heterogeneous class of items
with numerous subclasses. It must be borne in mind, however,
that a pronoun may belong to more than one group at the same
time. The pronoun whose may be treated as interrogative (or
connective) and possessive. The pronouns one, one's, oneself
may be grouped together as indefinite personal, or they may be
classified separately: one as personal, one's as possessive,
oneself as reflexive, etc.
Personal pronouns are the nucleus of the class. They
serve to indicate all persons and things from the point of view of
the speaker. Personal pronouns of the first person — I, we; of
the second person — thou (archaic) and you; of the third person
— he, she (for persons), it (for things), they (for both).
When used in speech most of the personal pronouns
(we, you, they, he) may acquire a generalizing force which
implies not some particular person but any person, people in
general (generic use): We must not allow children to do what
they like. You never know what may happen. He who pays the
piper calls the tune (proverb). They say she is breathtakingly
beautiful.
We has several special uses. It can refer to a single
person: the ‘royal’ or ‘editorial’ we, where it replaces I: We are
not amused. It can also refer to the addressee, especially when
talking ‘down’ to someone: How are we today? (said by a doctor
to a patient). And it can refer to a third party, as when one
secretary might say to another about their boss: We’re in a bad
 189

mood today.
David Crystal [1990: 140-141] mentions a new sex-
neutral pronoun s/he. This form is used to avoid a male bias
(S/he can apply for a grant), but it exists only in writing. In
speech, there have been more radical suggestions (hesh, po,
man, hir, co), but none has yet attracted widespread support.
Other ways of avoiding male pronoun bias are a) using both
third person pronouns (he or she); b) changing the construction
to a plural (they). The second solution causes problems when
the indefinite pronouns (everyone, somebody) are used:
Everyone knows they should attend the show. Someone’s been
objecting, haven’t they? This construction therefore tends to be
restricted to informal use.
Personal pronouns have the category of case
represented by the nominative and objective cases: I — me,
thou — thee, he — him, she — her, it — it, we — us, you —
you, they — them. The opposition of the nominative and the
objective case is realized in the opposition of the subject and
the object: She asked her.
Some facts point to serious changes in the correlation
between the nominative and objective cases taking place in
Modern English [Вейхман, 1990: 10]. The objective case is
used instead of the nominative when the pronoun is used
predicatively, when it is separated from the predicate-verb, or in
comparative constructions (especially in informal usage): It is
me (instead of It is I). Me and my wife could have fed her
anyhow. Who broke the vase? — Me. She is as shy as me. He
was a better friend to you than me.
M.Y. Blokh [1983: 76-78] claims that there is at present
no case in the English personal pronouns. What is traditionally
accepted as case-forms of the pronouns are individual forms
sustained by suppletivity and given to the speaker as a ready-
made set.
Combinability of personal pronouns differs from that of
nouns. Reference to a particular person or thing makes all
descriptions and limitations unnecessary. Such phrases as *the
handsome it or *the he sound uncommon.
Possessive pronouns indicate possession by persons
or non-persons. There are two sets of possessive pronouns —
the conjoint possessive pronouns my, thy (archaic), his, her,
its, our, your, their and the absolute possessive pronouns
mine, thine (archaic), his, hers, ours, yours, theirs. The ‘conjoint’
its has no ‘absolute’ opposite.
 190

The difference between the conjoint and absolute

forms lies in their combinability and syntactical functions. The
conjoint forms combine with nouns premodifying them as their
attributes (determiners). Absolute forms, on the contrary, cannot
combine with nouns as premodifying attributes, but perform all
other syntactical functions as substitutes: Where are the dogs?
— Mine is under the table, hers on the bed (subject). The coat
isn’t mine, it’s yours (predicative). He is a friend of mine
(postmodifying attribute). I’ve lost my pen, will you give me
yours (object). She did not go to my room, she went to hers
instead (adverbial modifier).
Possessive pronouns are usually treated as adjective
pronouns, whereas they are in reality noun pronouns or pro-
nouns, but they replace only possessive case nouns with which
they are correlated: This is the teacher's (his, her) bicycle. This
bicycle is the teacher's (his, hers). Combinability and functions
of the possessive pronouns and the ‘possessive case’ nouns
are almost identical, which justifies the view that the pronouns in
question are possessive case opposites of personal pronouns.
The only argument put forward against that view and in favour
of the opinion that the possessive pronouns are a separate
group, is as follows. If we assume that both my and mine are
‘possessive case’ opposites of I, we have then to speak of a
case opposeme within the possessive case. Therefore, it would,
probably, be more in keeping with language facts a) to treat my
(mine), her (hers), our (ours), etc. not as the possessive case of
personal pronouns but as a subclass of pronouns; b) to regard
my — mine, her — hers, etc. as a kind of case opposemes.
Reflexive pronouns are compound noun pronouns
whose second element -self shows that the first element refers
to the person mentioned previously in the sentence: myself,
himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourself, yourselves,
themselves, oneself. They indicate identity between the person
or non-person they denote and that denoted by the subject of
the sentence: He forced himself to lie absolutely still. Barbara
stared at herself in the mirror.
Reflexive pronouns usually occur as objects.
Sometimes they are used in other functions: My wife and myself
welcome you (subject). In some minutes she became herself
again (predicative). She showed me a large picture of herself as
a bride (attribute). We did it all by ourselves (adverbial modifier).
Self-pronouns are often used in apposition for
emphasis: The town itself was so small that it didn’t have a
 191

priest. It is hot in London; but I myself can work better when it’s
hot. Some scholars regard the self-pronouns used for emphasis
as a separate group of emphatic pronouns. In colloquial
speech, there is a tendency to use emphatic pronouns as
synonyms of personal ones: My wife and myself were left
behind. For somebody like myself this is a big surprise.
Demonstrative pronouns indicate directly persons or
non-persons or their properties. Usually only the pronouns this
(these), that (those), such and (the) same are regarded as
demonstrative. But even this small group is hot homogeneous.
Pronouns this — that (these — those) are correlative.
This — these, that — those are number opposemes.
The sphere of this or these is the space or time close to
the speaker and the moment of speech, whereas the sphere of
that and those is the time or space farther away from the
speaker and the moment of speech.
This may be used to introduce a new topic in familiar
speech: I saw this girl. That may express dislike: She’s awful,
that Mabel!
Both this and that can be used to establish emotional
closeness between speakers (to achieve camaraderie), e.g., we
might say ‘How is that throat?’ to a friend. A garage attendant
might say ‘Check that oil?’ to a male driver but probably not to a
female driver. In these examples, the speaker cannot use this
because the entities (throat and oil) belong to the hearer and so
are farther away from the speaker [Hatch, 1992: 210].
Pronouns such and (the) same indicate objects or
qualities by comparison with those pointed at by the speaker.
They have no correlative pronouns
Some linguists claim that the words here and there
meaning ‘in this (that) place’, now and then meaning ‘at this
(that) time’, hence and thence meaning ‘from this (that) time
(place)’ are similar to this and that. Since they do not name any
place or time, but indicate it, they are pronouns. The words so
and thus in the meaning ‘in this way’ are pronouns like such and
(the) same. They have no correlative words and indicate the
manner of actions by comparison with those pointed at by the
speaker. In consequence, demonstrative pronouns can be pro-
nouns (He regretted that), pro-adjectives (these continental
rooms), and pro-adverbs (I can never do so).
Interrogative pronouns indicate the necessity to
name persons or non-persons, or their properties. They are
used to form special questions: Who told you that? What is the
 192

charge?
Traditionally, only the pronouns who, what, which,
whose are regarded as interrogative. Interrogative words when,
where, how, why are defined as pronominal adverbs.
Some grammarians insist that the meaning that unites
interrogative pronouns is ‘an inquiry’ about some object (what,
who), its properties (whose, which, what), place of some event
(where), its time (when), cause (why), manner of existence
(how). Accordingly, this group embraces pro-nouns (what, who,
which, whose), pro-adjectives (what, which), pro-numerals (how
much, how many), and pro-adverbs (where, when, why, how).
The pronoun who is the only interrogative pronoun
which has a case opposite, whom, as in Whom did you meet?
However, we observe here a distinct tendency to substitute the
nominative case (who) for the objective (whom), which may
eventually bring about obliteration of case distinctions in the
interrogative pronouns [Вейхман, 1990: 12]: Who do you want
to save? Who are you trying to deceive? Who did you give it? I
went to the pictures. — Who with?
Pronouns who, what, which, whose, that, where, when,
why, how are called connective pronouns when they serve to
connect clauses in complex sentences. At the same time they
retain their meanings and functions of pro-nouns, pro-
adjectives, or pro-adverbs.
In accordance with their meaning and the types of
clauses they introduce they fall into two groups: conjunctive
and relative.
Conjunctive pronouns who, what, which, whose,
whoever, whatever, whichever serve to introduce subject,
predicative, object, and appositive clauses (‘noun clauses’):
What he knows is no longer a secret. I know who did it. She is
what you have made her. Compound conjunctive pronouns in -
ever may be used to introduce adverbial clauses of concession:
Don't change your plans, whatever happens. The antecedent of
a conjunctive pronoun is not expressed, the pronoun itself doing
duty for the antecedent as well.
Relative pronouns who, whom, whose, which, that
serve to introduce but one type of subordinate clauses —
relative clauses — a variety of attributive clauses. They are
always correlated with some antecedent in the principal clause:
There’s a woman over there who I can’t help noticing. I know
the games that politicians play.
Both conjunctive and relative pronouns fulfill a double
 193

syntactical function in the sentence: they are used as some part

of the subordinate clause (subject, object, predicative, etc.) and
as a connective structural element at the same time.
Reciprocal pronouns are composite pronouns each
other and one another serving to express mutuality. They show
that people do the same thing, feel the same way, or have the
same relationship: They helped each other (one another). They
hate each other.
It is traditionally maintained that each other implies only
two people or things and one another more than two, but this
rule is often ignored, one another and each other becoming
interchangeable.
Reciprocal pronouns have the category of case
represented by the common and possessive cases: each other
— each other's, one another — one another's.
Reciprocal pronouns function as objects and attributes:
You and I understand each other. They get on each other's
nerves.
Indefinite pronouns indicate persons or non-persons
or their properties in a general way, without defining the class of
objects they belong to, or the class of properties they possess.
In grammatical tradition the class of indefinite pronouns
is the most variegated and controversial of all. It is said to
include some, any, every, no (and their compounds), all, each,
either, much, many, few, little, etc. Some grammarians point out
that only the pronouns some, any and their compounds
(something, somebody, someone, anything, anybody, anyone)
really indicate things, properties, etc. in an indefinite way.
Therefore only these pronouns should be regarded as indefinite.
Indefinite pronouns can be pro-nouns (some, any, somebody,
anybody, someone, something, anything), pro-adjectives (some,
any), pro-numerals (some, any), pro-adverbs (somewhere,
somehow, anywhere, anyhow).
Compound indefinite pronouns in -body and -one have
the category of case represented by the common and
possessive cases: somebody — somebody's, anyone —
anyone's.
Indefinite pronouns regularly occur in certain types of
sentences. Some and its compounds are mostly used in
affirmative sentences, whereas any and its compounds are
used in interrogative and negative sentences: I’ve got some
money. I haven’t got any money. Have you got any money on
you? However, some and its compounds occur in interrogative
 194

sentences to which an affirmative answer is expected or invited:

Have you got some money on you? May I have some paper?
Any and its compounds may be used in affirmative sentences in
the meaning of ‘every’, ‘no matter which’: You can buy stamps
at any post-office. Anyone can tell you that.
The primary difference between some and any (and
some- and any-compounds) is that some is specific, though
unspecified (it implies an amount or number that is known to the
speaker), while any is nonspecific. This difference tends to
correlate with the difference between positive and negative
contexts [Quirk et al., 1985: 782-784].
Some is used if the idea is restricted or limited in some
way; any is used if the idea is unrestricted or unlimited. Any
applies to all or none; some applies to part [Lewis, 1986: 33-35]:
Some help would be welcome (the speaker hopes for a little
help). Any help would be welcome (the speaker will gladly
receive every kind of help).
Negative pronouns no, nobody, no one, none,
nothing, neither, nowhere indicate negation. They can be used
as pro-nouns (nobody, none, neither, nothing), pro-adjectives
(no, neither), pro-adverbs (nowhere), and pro-numerals (none).
Pronouns nobody and no one have the category of
case represented by the common and possessive cases:
nobody — nobody's, no one — no one’s.
Since Modern English admits of but one negation in a
verbal construction, negative pronouns serve to form negative
sentences: Her fiance is nowhere to be seen. No girl has died in
there to-day.
Generalizing (universal) pronouns all, both, each,
either, every and its compounds (everyone, everybody, every-
thing) give a generalizing indication of persons, things,
properties, and circumstances. This group includes pro-nouns
(all, both, each, either, everybody, everyone, everything), pro-
adjectives and pro-numerals (every, each, all, both, either), pro-
adverbs (everywhere).
Unlike the indefinite and negative pronouns, the gener-
alizing pronouns are not attached to any definite type of
sentence.
Quantitative pronouns are much, many, (a) few, (a)
little, several, enough, which may function as pro-nouns (much,
many, (a) few, several, (a) little, enough), pro-adjectives (much,
(a) little, enough), pro-numerals (many, several, (a) few), and
pro-adverbs (much, (a) little, enough).
 195

Most quantitative pronouns form opposemes of

comparison: many — more — (the) most; few — fewer — (the)
fewest; much — more — (the) most; little — less — (the) least.
This is the main reason why some grammarians qualify these
words as adjectives, at the same time pointing out their
pronominal features. Sometimes they are considered adjectival-
pronominal hybrids.
Contrasting (detaching) pronouns other, another,
otherwise indicate the detachment of some object from other
objects of the same class. They are united by the meaning ‘not
the object (property, circumstance) indicated’ and contrast
therefore with the demonstrative pronouns: this, that (book) —
another (book); these, those (books) — other (books); these,
those — others.
Other, others, other's, another, another's are used as
pronouns, other, another as pro-adjectives, otherwise as a pro-
adverb.
Both other and another have the category of case
(other — other’s, others’, another — another’s) but only other
has the category of number (other — others).
Another peculiarity of other is its combinability: it may
be used with the definite article or a demonstrative pronoun (like
nouns): Please, tell the others how matters stand. I am not
pretending but these others are.
The pronoun one stands somewhat apart, outside the
classification discussed above. We may speak of at least three
variants of this pronoun: a) an indefinite pronoun; b) an
indefinite personal or generalizing personal pronoun; c) a pro-
form.
As an indefinite pronoun it is usually a pro-adjective
with the meaning ‘a certain’ and refers to both living beings and
inanimate things: She married one Mr. Maitland. One day an old
man came to see me. It has no grammatical opposites.
As an indefinite or generalizing personal pronoun
one indicates only a person. It is a pro-noun. It has a case oppo-
site one's and is correlated with the reflexive pronoun oneself. In
certain sentences, it may acquire the generalizing meaning of
‘everyone’ including the speaker: One must do one's duty. In
other cases, one indicates ‘an indefinite person’, ‘any person’:
One couldn't be excited about a person who looked so shy.
Sometimes one serves to disguise the speaker, as in One just
can’t throw one’s self-respect to the dogs because of this sandy-
haired boy.
 196

The pro-form one (or substituting one) is a pronoun

used to replace some antecedent, a noun (or a noun
combination) previously mentioned: The work is a remarkable
one. It has a number opposite ones: Let, me have some pens.
— I'd like new ones.
The noun to be substituted should be in its indefinite
variety, i.e. it should be accompanied by the indefinite article:
otherwise its substitution by the pronoun one is not possible.
Cf.: Have you found an English teacher? — Yes, I have found
one. Have you found the English teacher? — Yes, I have found
him. One can also be used with reference to a definite object,
and in that case it is preceded by the definite article and some
limiting attribute must come either before it or after it: the larger
one, the green ones, the one which you mentioned, the ones he
bought.
Sometimes there is a choice between one and
omission: This house is bigger than my last (one). His bus broke
down, and he had to wait for over two hours for the next (one). I
know her two older children, but I don’t know the youngest
(one). In these cases it is the preceding attribute (which is
usually an adjective) that represents the omitted noun which is
to be understood from a former part of the sentence, or from a
preceding sentence.
The pro-form one may be preceded by the definite and
indefinite articles, demonstrative pronouns, adjectives, nouns,
numerals, participles, etc., like nouns, not pronouns: My new
dress, the nylon one, is a dream. This story, and it is a good and
exciting one, will be a roaring success.
The function of one is often purely structural, to support
the preceding adjective or to show that the preceding word is
used attributively, cf.: the silk and the silk one.
Personal, reflexive, indefinite, negative, and
demonstrative pronouns may be substantivized (converted into
nouns). They are preceded by articles, pronouns, prepositions,
adjectives or take the plural inflection: And who is the ‘you’ who
has intentions? There was no himself. All these were nothings.
Sixteen years of solid this.

11.3. The notion of deixis. Types of deixis and

kinds of
deictic usage
Pronouns possess deictic ability and power. Deixis as a
 197

linguistic term is borrowed from the Greek word for pointing or

indicating. It means ‘identification by pointing’. It implies
identification made by the speaker of the main parameters of
speech situation: the speaker, the time, and the place of
speaking.
There has been considerable linguistic interest in
deictic (indexical) elements which specify identity, spatial, or
temporal location of the participant(s) in an act of speech and
whose reference depends on the context of situation, e.g., I, we,
you, here, there, now, then, tomorrow, this, that, the former, the
latter.
In fact, all languages have expressions that link an
utterance to a time and space context and that help to
determine reference. These are words, then, whose meanings
cannot be given in any precise way in a dictionary because they
are dependent on context for interpretation [Hatch, 1992: 210].
The importance of context for the interpretation of
deictic elements is perhaps best illustrated by what happens
when such context is lacking. Consider finding the following
notice on someone's office door: I'll be back in an hour. Because
we don't know when it was written, we cannot know when the
writer will return. Or, imagine that the lights go out as Harry has
just begun saying: Listen, I'm not disagreeing with you but with
you, and not about this but about this. Or, suppose we find a
bottle in the sea, and inside it a message which reads: Meet me
here a week from now with a stick about this big. We do not
know who to meet, where or when to meet him or her, or how
big a stick to bring [Levinson, 1985: 54-55].
Stephen Levinson [1985] identified five major types of
deixis: person, place, time, discourse, and social.
Person deixis serves to identify persons, i.e.
participants in the speech event. Such deictic terms are used to
refer to ourselves, to others, and to objects in our environment.
Familiar ways are of course the pronouns and their associated
predicate agreements.
Personal pronouns are deictic in functional design
because they serve for the indication of the communicants: I —
the speaker, you — the addressee(s), we — both the speaker
and the addressee(s). The personal pronouns of the third
person indicate the oblique participants of the conversation or
someone (something) spoken about. Proper names used to
indicate the participants in the conversation also acquire deictic
features. In some languages, it is considered polite to address
 198

other people by name (Mister Yamaha) or role title (Teacher)

rather than with a pronoun (you or he).
Expressions such as you guys (What do you guys eat
in Alaska?) also serve the function of pointing to different people
at different times in different contexts.
Temporal (time) deixis refers to time relative to the
time of speaking. It is expressed in deictic adverbs of time/ pro-
adverbs (now, then, yesterday, today, tomorrow, this year), but
above all in tense and aspect forms of the predicate-verbs in the
utterances.
When writing, we are often confused as to how to code
time deixis. Do we write to someone as though what they are
reading happened in the reader's time or in the writer's time?
Cf.: I am writing this letter while the women's marathon is in
progress. I was writing this letter while the women's marathon
was in progress. Skilled storytellers often switch back and forth
between Simple Present and Simple Past tenses within a
narrative. The switch itself helps to highlight a change in focus,
the break between plans for a solution and the resolution, and
so forth. However, such switches also show emotional
attachment: present tense more often signals an emotional
closeness to that segment of the narrative [Hatch, 1992: 218-
219].
Spatial (place) deixis refers to how languages show
the relationship between space and the location of the
participants in the speech event. Most languages make a
distinction between locations close to the speaker (proximal)
and away from the speaker (distal). In English, this distinction is
realized in demonstratives (this/that), deictic adverbs of
place/pro-adverbs (here/there), or in phrases (in front, in back,
at our place, out back).
We use spatial deictic markers to show movement
toward or away from persons. Deictic rules govern the choices
of verbs come/ go, bring/take, etc. In log examples from phone
calls, people invite others to come over to their place and talk
about being invited to go over to someone's house [Hatch,
1992: 215].
Come/go differ not just in location of the speaker. Cf.:
The door of Henry's lunchroom opened and two men came in.
The door of Henry's lunchroom opened and two men went in.
Decide whether the action is viewed from inside or outside the
lunchroom in each case, and decide who opens the door
[Hatch, 1992: 216].
 199

Discourse deixis has to do with keeping track of ref-

erence in the unfolding discourse in which the utterance is
located. It is used to locate parts of a text in relation to other
parts. We may use a variety of deictic markers to point the way
to various parts of the discourse: phrases such as In the follow-
ing chapter, Illustrated in the following passages, In the above
figure, On page 23, pointers such as this/that (So okay this is
what I'm gonna tell you. We will return to that in a moment, but
first...), or modal words however, moreover, besides, anyway,
furthermore, well, still, although, oh, so.
The frequency of such deictic terms varies across
types of text. The more formal the discourse, the more markers
may be needed to keep the text coherent.
Social deixis is used to code social relationships
between speakers and addressee or audience. Included in this
category are honorifics, summons forms or vocatives, titles of
address, and pronouns (sir, madam, mate, your honour, sonny,
hey, you).
There are two kinds of social deixis: relational and
absolute.
Absolute deictics are forms uniformly attached to a
social role (Your Honour, Mr. President). In a sense, when we
use these, we address the ‘office’ rather than the ‘person’.
Relational deictic terms differ from absolute terms in
that they locale persons in relation to the speaker rather than by
their roles in the society as a whole. In English, relational
deictics may be lexical items (my husband, cousin, teacher),
pronouns (you, her).
It is essential to distinguish different kinds of deictic
usage of deictic expression, namely gestural usage and
symbolic usage.
Terms used in a gestural way can only be interpreted
with reference to an audio-visual-tactile, and in general a
physical, monitoring of the speech event. Instances would be
demonstrative pronouns used with a selecting gesture, as in
This one's genuine, but this one is a fake or second or third
person pronouns used with some physical indication of the
referent (e.g., direction of gaze), as in He's not the Duke, he is.
He's the butler [Levinson, 1985: 65].
In contrast, symbolic usages of deictic terms require
for their interpretation only knowledge of the basic spatio-
temporal parameters of the speech event. It is sufficient to know
the general location of the participants in order to interpret This
 200

city is really beautiful and to know when the interaction is taking

place in order to know which calendar year is being referred to
in We can't afford a holiday this year [Levinson, 1985: 65].
These two kinds of deictic usage contrast with the non-
deictic usage of the same words. Cf.: You, you, but not you, are
dismissed (gestural deictic usage). What did you say (symbolic
usage)? You can never tell what sex they are nowadays (non-
deictic usage).

Unit 12
____________________________________

THE ADJECTIVE
____________________________________
12.1. Part of speech characteristics of the adjective

The adjective as a part of speech is characterized

by the following features: its categorial meaning ‘property of a
substance’; typical stem-building affixes (-ful, -less, -ish, -ous, -
able, -ive, -ic, un-, pre-, in-, etc.); grammatical category of the
degrees of comparison; combinability with nouns, link verbs,
adverbs; syntactical functions of an attribute and predicative.
The categorial meaning of the adjective ‘properties
of substances’ should be understood as different attributes or
qualities of substances, such as their size (large, small), colour
(red, blue), position in space (upper, inner), material (wooden,
woolen), psychic state of persons (happy, furious), etc.
Adjectives may be of different structure.
Simple adjectives contain only roots: new, fresh, bad,
fat.
Derived adjectives are recognizable through
derivational morphemes (suffixes, prefixes). Some suffixes are
found only, or typically, with adjectives: -able: comfortable; -al:
musical; -ary: documentary; -en: wooden; -que: picturesque; -
ful: careful; -ic: pessimistic; -id: morbid; -ish: feverish, bluish; -
ive: effective; -less: careless; -like: warlike; -most: uttermost; -
ous: dangerous; -some: troublesome; -y: dirty, messy. The most
important prefixes are un-: unprecedented, in-: inaccurate, pre-:
premature.
 201

Some adjectives are former participles and therefore

retain participial suffixes -ing or -ed: charming, interesting,
surprising, crooked, learned, ragged, talented. Often the
difference between the adjective and the participle is not clear-
cut. Premodification by intensifiers is an explicit indication of the
adjective: The man was very offended. You are very frightening.
Compound adjectives consist of two or more stems.
They may be of several patterns: a) noun stem + adjective stem:
grass-green; b) adjective stem + adjective stem: deaf-mute; c)
adverb stem + participle stem: well-known; d) noun/pronoun
stem + participle stem: heart-breaking, man-made; e) adjective/
adverb stem + noun stem + the suffix -ed: blue-eyed, long-
legged, fair-haired.
The English adjective has neither number, nor case,
nor gender distinctions. Only the category of the degrees of
comparison is realized in the form-derivation of adjectives. An
English adjective paradigm contains three forms strong —
stronger — (the) strongest representing the positive,
comparative, and superlative degrees.
Adjectives usually combine with nouns, which they
premodify or postmodify: a black dress, since time immemorial,
the climate peculiar to this country. If there are several
premodifying adjectives to one head-word they have definite
positional order (opinion — size — age — shape — colour —
nationality/origin — material): a silly young English man (opinion
— age — origin); a huge round wooden bowl (size — shape —
material). Adjectives may also be combined with adverbs and
link verbs: She is quite healthy. He looks sad. Adjectives can
have a prepositional object: He is bad at mathematics.
The most common syntactical functions of adjectives
are those of an attribute and a predicative. Most adjectives can
be both attributive and predicative, but some adjectives can only
be used in attributive position: He is my former friend (*my friend
is former). He was a hard worker. Some adjectives are
predicative only: The girl felt unwell (*the unwell girl). I feel faint.
We are ready for hard work.

12.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of adjectives

Adjectives fall into two groups — qualitative and
relative.
Qualitative adjectives denote properties of a
substance directly (great, old, beautiful). They denote qualities
 202

of size, shape, colour, etc. Qualitative adjectives are gradable,

which means that the person or thing referred to can have more
or less of the quality mentioned: difficult, very difficult, too
difficult, not so difficult.
Most qualitative adjectives have degrees of
comparison, e.g., big — bigger — (the) biggest. Qualitative
adjectives have certain typical suffixes: -ful: careful; -less:
careless; -ous: dangerous; -ent: convenient; -able: comfortable;
-y: silvery, watery; -ish: whitish, shortish. From most of them
adverbs can be formed by the suffix -ly: graceful — gracefully.
Most qualitative adjectives can be used as attributes and
predicatives: The young man was introduced and they sat down
at the table. But you’re nearly as old as I am!
Relative adjectives describe the properties of a
substance through direct relation to other some other
substance: to materials (woollen, wooden, leathern, flaxen),
place (Northern, European, Bulgarian, Italian), time (daily,
monthly, weekly, yearly), or to some action (defensive, rotary,
preparatory). They express qualities which characterize an
object through its relation to another object.
Relative adjectives have no degrees of comparison. They
do not form adverbs with the suffix -ly. Relative adjectives have
certain typical suffixes: -en: wooden; -an: Italian; -ist: socialist; -
ic: synthetic; -ical: analytical. Relative adjectives are chiefly
used as attributes: She was a fair example of the middle
American class.
It is sometimes impossible to draw a rigid demarcation
line between qualitative and relative adjectives, for relative
adjectives may gradually develop qualitative meanings: golden
age, golden hair, leaden sleep, leaden sky [Rayevska, 1976:
89].
Qualitative adjectives are divided into descriptive,
denoting a quality in a broad sense (wonderful, light, cold) and
limiting, denoting a category, a section of a whole (previous
page, equestrian statue, medical aid, left hand).
Limiting adjectives single out the substance, impart a
concrete or unique meaning to it, specify it, and therefore can
seldom be replaced by other adjectives of similar meaning.
Among limiting adjectives there is a group of intensifiers
(complete, absolute, utter, outright, true, pure) which often form
fixed collocations with their head-word: a complete fool, a
perfect idiot, a certain winner, a real hero, an outright lie,
pure/sheer fabrication, absolute/ plain nonsense, sure sign,
 203

absolute limit.
Many adjectives may function either as descriptive or
limiting: dramatic scene — dramatic performance; foreign
manners — foreign languages; musical voice — musical
instrument.
According to some grammarians, another division of
adjectives is possible. All the adjective functions may be divided
into evaluative and specificative. For instance, the adjective
good is basically qualitative. On the other hand, when employed
as a grading term in teaching, i.e. a term forming part of the
marking scale together with the grading terms bad, satisfactory,
excellent, it becomes a specificative, not an evaluative unit in
the grammatical sense. Conversely, the adjective wooden is
basically relative, but when used in the broader meaning
‘expressionless’ or ‘awkward’ it acquires an evaluative force
and, consequently, can presuppose a greater or lesser degree
of the denoted property: The superintendent was sitting behind
a table and looking more wooden than ever. It is interesting to
note that one and the same adjective, irrespective of its being
relative or qualitative, can be used either in the evaluative
function or in the specificative function.

12.3. The category of the degrees of comparison

The category of the degrees of comparison of
adjectives is the system of three opposed forms (long — longer
— (the) longest) showing quantitative distinctions of qualities.
More exactly, it shows whether the adjective denotes the
property of some substance absolutely, or relatively, as a higher
or the highest amount of the property in comparison with that of
some (or all) other substances.
The three opposed forms are known as the positive
(long, good, beautiful), comparative (longer, better, more
beautiful) and superlative (longest, best, most beautiful)
degrees of comparison.
The positive degree does not convey the idea of
comparison. Its meaning is absolute. It is the initial stage, the
norm of some quality. The comparative degree and the
superlative degree are both relative in meaning. If we say Peter
is older than Mary, it, by no means, implies that Peter is old (he
may be five years old, whereas Mary is four), it only indicates
that Peter has more of this quality (being old) than Mary. James
is the oldest boy in our class does not signify that James is ad-
vanced in years, it just shows that he has the highest degree of
 204

this quality as compared with the rest of the class.

Some linguists claim that the positive degree does not
express any comparison by itself and therefore should be
excluded from the category. Oppositional interpretation of
grammatical categories does not admit of such an exclusion: the
non-expression of comparison by the basic form is understood
as a pre-requisite for the expression of the category as such
[Blokh, 1983: 216].
The positive degree is not marked, while the
comparative and superlative are the marked members. The
three forms of the degrees of comparison constitute a gradual
tertiary opposition.
The comparative and superlative degrees are built up
either synthetically (by inflections: bright — brighter — brightest
or suppletivity: good — better — best, bad — worse — worst )
or analytically (beautiful — more beautiful — most beautiful),
which in the main depends on the phonetic structure of the
stem, not on its meaning. If the stem is monosyllabic, or
disyllabic with a stress on the second syllable, or ending in -er, -
y, -le, -ow, the comparative and superlative degrees are usually
built up synthetically by adding the inflections (inflectional
suffixes) -er and -est respectively. In all other cases the
comparative and superlative degrees are formed analytically
with the help of the word-morphemes more and most.
Some authors treat more beautiful and (the) most
beautiful not as analytical forms of comparison, but as free
syntactical combinations of adverbs and adjectives (phrasal
comparatives and superlatives, periphrastic constructions). One
of their arguments is that less and least form syntactical
combinations with adjectives similar to those with more and
most: more beautiful — less beautiful, the most beautiful — the
least beautiful. There seems to be no sufficient reason for
treating the two sets in different ways, saying that more difficult
is an analytical form, while less difficult is not. The less/least-
combinations are defined as specific forms of comparison,
called forms of reverse comparison. Thus the whole category
of comparison includes not three, but five different forms,
making up the two series — direct and reverse.
Other authors object to such treatment. In order to
prove that more beautiful is an analytical form of the
comparative degree, they try to prove that more is a
grammatical word-morpheme identical with the morpheme -er in
spite of the utter difference in form: more and -er are identical as
 205

to their meaning of ‘a higher degree’; their distribution is

complementary (together they cover all the adjectives having
the degrees of comparison); less and -er have different, even
opposite meanings; the distribution of -er and less is not
complementary (one and the same lexical morpheme regularly
attaches both less and -er: prettier — less pretty, safer — less
safe); unlike more, less is regularly replaced by not so: less
pretty = not so pretty.
The same holds true with regard to (the) most beautiful
and (the) least beautiful. But here a new objection is raised:
most-combination, unlike the synthetical superlative, can take
the indefinite article, expressing not the superlative, but the
elative meaning (a high degree of quality irrespective of any
comparison): a most interesting book, whereas *a prettiest child
is impossible. There seems to be some difference between the
synthetical and analytical superlative.
According to M.Y. Blokh [1983: 216], the use of the
indefinite article with the synthetical superlative in the elative
function is not altogether impossible: He made a last lame effort
to delay the experiment. There is one more possibility to
differentiate the direct and elative functions of the synthetical
superlative, namely, by the absence of the article with the
superlative: Suddenly I was seized with a sensation of deepest
regret.
More and most are not only word-morphemes of
comparison. They can also be notional words. Moreover, they
are polysemantic and polyfunctional words. One of the
meanings of most is ‘very, exceedingly’. It is in this meaning that
the word most is used in the expression a most interesting book.
The notional word more in the meaning ‘to a greater extent’ can
also be used to modify adjectives, as in It's more grey than
brown. More grey is here a combination of words. It is not the
comparative opposite of grey.
These facts show that more and most in more
beautiful, (the) most beautiful are grammatical word
morphemes. Hence more beautiful, (the) most beautiful are
analytical forms. The words less and least are not word
morphemes and less beautiful, least beautiful are not analytical
forms: lest and least are ordinary words, less beautiful, least
beautiful are ordinary combinations of words.
Analytical forms of comparison effected by the
auxiliaries more and most and synthetical forms of comparison
in -er and -est cannot be referred to as always absolutely
 206

identical in function. When emphasis is intended, the analytical

forms are used instead of the synthetical ones: He looked more
stern than his father. She looked more sad than ever before.
The morphemes -er and -est cannot be stressed, while the
word-morphemes more and most can. Stress on more and most
focuses attention on the notion of degree and stress on the
adjective makes the meaning of the adjective more prominent.
Another possible reason for the change is the tendency in
English for inflections to disappear [MacAndrew, 1991: 22].
Speakers of vernacular dialects often use double or
multiple comparatives and superlatives such as more higher
and most fastest. Inflectional double forms are also found in a
limited number of words, such as lesser, worser, bestest, more
better. Double markings are used to indicate special emphasis.
In fact, even Shakespeare used double comparatives and
superlatives: This was the most unkindest cut of all. Nowadays,
double comparatives and superlatives are taboo in Standard
English except for fun (jocular use): Your cooking is more tastier
than my mother’s. I can see more better with my new glasses.
Some grammarians describe the definite article as part
of the superlative, some of them do not consider it as such. The
problem of the definite article arises when the superlative is
used in its predicative function with the article or without it: We
never became lovers, not even after you left Edinburgh, when
the temptation was strongest (the strongest). This fact may
prove that the definite article is not part of the superlative.
With regard to the category of the degrees of
comparison adjectives fall under two subclasses: comparables
(long, beautiful) and non-comparables (wooden, deaf). The
nucleus of the latter is composed of relative adjectives. Most
qualitative adjectives build up forms of comparison, but some do
not: a) adjectives that express the highest degree of a quality
(supreme, extreme); b) those having the suffix -ish which
indicates the degree (reddish, whitish); c) those denoting
qualities which are not compatible with the idea of comparison
(deaf, dead, lame). Conversely, many relative adjectives form
degrees of comparison transforming the denoted relative
property of a substance into such as can be graded
quantitatively, e.g., the most grammatical of the suggested
topics.
In certain speech environments adjectives can be used
to communicate meanings in some respect different from those
of the grammemes they belong to.
 207

1. In the combination as brave as the word brave loses

the absolute nature of the meaning of the positive grammeme. It
is used to express relative bravery: as brave as a hare.
2. In some combinations, the ‘positive degree’
grammeme can be used to express even the highest degree of
quality: Among them there was none so brave as John.
3. The ‘comparative degree’ grammeme may be
synonymous to the ‘superlative’: There was no man in the
village wiser and kinder that old Chou. She was brighter than
the rest of their children.
4. A ‘superlative degree’ adjective sometimes occurs in
speech with an absolute, elative meaning (denoting merely a
very high degree of property, without any comparison with other
objects possessing this property). Elative (absolute) superlatives
lend force and expressiveness to speech: He painted her
ingratitude in the blackest colours. I should do it with the
greatest pleasure. I am the greatest. She is most beautiful. This
is a most satisfactory result.
The expressive quality of the form consists in the
immediate combination of the two features which outwardly
contradict each other: the categorial form of the superlative on
the one hand, and the absence of comparison on the other.
In traditional grammars, elative is distinguished within
the bounds of the superlative degree, or is viewed outside the
degrees of comparison. The elative superlative, though it is not
the regular superlative in the grammatical sense, is still a kind of
a specific, grammatically featured construction. This
grammatical specification distinguishes it from common elative
constructions which are generally defined as syntactical
combinations of an intensely high estimation: an extremely
important amendment, a matter of exceeding urgency, quite an
unparalleled beauty, etc.

12.4. Substantivization of adjectives

Adjectives may be either wholly or partly
substantivized.
Wholly substantivized adjectives are adjectives
wholly converted into nouns. Such nouns may be preceded by
the article, modified by a demonstrative pronoun or adjective,
take the plural inflection and may be used in the possessive
 208

case: a native, the native, two natives, a young native's hut, etc.
Wholly substantivized adjectives may denote: a) social
rank, military rank, party, gender, nationality, race: a noble
(nobles), a Christian (Christians), a liberal (liberals), blacks,
whites; b) collection of things, substances, foods: chemicals,
valuables, eatables, greens; c) colours: greys, reds, purples,
greens.
Adjectives only partly converted into nouns take
the definite article (as regular nouns do) but are neither inflected
for the plural nor can be used in the possessive case. Such
substantivized adjectives keep much of their adjectival nature,
which we see in the possibility of qualifying them by means of
adverbs: the really happy, the fabulously rich.
Partially substantivized adjectives denote: a)
generalized or abstract notions: the fabulous, the unreal, the
unknown, the invisible; b) groups of persons: the old, the poor,
the rich, the eminent.
Adjectival derivation without a word-building morpheme
has been variously treated by grammarians. Some linguists do
not regard the substantivization of adjectives as a type of
conversion on account of their slow progress, as distinct from
the instantaneous nature of changes like doctor (n) → to doctor
(v). Partial substantivization of adjectives can be used as an
argument in favour of such views. Anyhow, in cases of full
substantivization the results do not differ from those of other
kinds of conversion.
Some grammarians (A. Kruisinga, R. Quirk) make
reference to conversion whenever a word takes on a function
which is not its basic one: the poor, the British, shreds of pink, at
his best.

Unit 13
____________________________________
 209

THE ADVERB
____________________________________
13.1. Part of speech characteristics of the adverb
The adverb as a part of speech is characterized by
the following features: its categorial meaning of qualitative,
quantitative, or circumstantial characteristics of actions, states,
qualities; typical stem-building affixes (-ly, -ways, -wise, -wards,
a-, etc.); category of the degrees of comparison; unilateral
combinability with verbs, adjectives, adverbs, less regularly with
statives and nouns; the function of adverbial modifier,
sometimes other functions (attribute).
The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing
either a property of an action, or property of another property, or
circumstances in which an action occurs [Ilyish, 1965: 152].
M.Y. Blokh [1983: 221] defines the adverb as a notional
word expressing a non-substantive property, that is, a property
of a non-substantive referent. There are two qualifying parts of
speech — first the adjective denoting qualifications of
substances, and then the adverb denoting qualifications of non-
substantive phenomena.
Adverbs may be of different word-building structure.
Simple adverbs are rather few: here, there, now,
soon, then.
In derived adverbs the basic productive suffix is -ly, by
means of which new adverbs are coined from adjectives,
participles, or numerals: occasionally, lately, slowly, charmingly,
firstly. The less common suffixes are -wise: clockwise; -ward(s):
afterward(s); -like: warlike; -most: innermost; -fold: twofold; -
way(s): sideways. Typical adverbial prefix is a-: away, ahead,
apart, across.
There are adverbs derived by conversion. A peculiar
set of converted adverbs is formed by adjective-stem
conversives, such as fast, late, hard, high, close, loud, tight, etc.
Practically all of them have a parallel form in -ly, the two
component units of each pair often differentiated in meaning. Cf.
to work hard — hardly to work at all; to fall flat into the water —
to refuse flatly.
Compound adverbs are formed of two stems:
sometimes, somewhere, nowhere, anyhow, downstairs, so-so,
willy-nilly, fifty-fifty.
A special point of linguistic interest is presented by
 210

peculiar phrasal formations at least, at most, at last, to and fro,

now and then, from time to time, treated by some linguists as
composite (phrasal) adverbs [Kobrina et al, 1985: 270],
merged or separable adverbs [Rayevska, 1976: 165]. The
term merged is meant to bring out the fact that such separable
adverbs are lexically and grammatically indivisible. This can be
seen in the unusual absence of the article before their noun
components and specialized use of the noun in its singular form
only: on foot (but not *on the foot, *on feet).
Considered in their structure, separable adverbs may
be classified as follows [Rayevska, 1976: 165]: a) preposition +
noun: at hand, at home, by heart, on foot, in turn; b) noun +
preposition + noun: arm in arm, day by day, year by year, face
to face, word for word; c) preposition + substantivized adjective:
at last, at large, in short, in vain; d) preposition + converted
verbal noun: at a guess, in a rush, on the move, on the run; e)
preposition + numeral: at first, at once, by twos; f) coordinate
phrases: by and by, on and off, on and on; g) pronoun +
adjective (participle): all right, all told, O.K. (all correct); h)
preposition + pronoun: after all, in all, at all.
Some linguists treat such adverbs as adverbial
phrases, e.g., by chance, by heart, by turns, one by one, a great
deal, a little bit, far enough, a lot of, a great deal of.
Some authors include in the word-building sets of
adverbs also formations of the type from outside, from above,
from here, from there, till now, before then, since when, up to
now, etc. However, such formations differ in principle from the
ones 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 (substantivized adverb) — a word
occupying an intermediary lexico-grammatical status between
the noun and the adverb [Blokh, 1983: 222].
The only pattern of morphological change for
adverbs is the same as for adjectives, the degrees of
comparison. Their paradigm contains three forms quickly —
quicker — quickest representing the positive, comparative and
superlative degrees.
Adverbs usually modify verbs and serve as adverbial
modifiers of time, frequency, place, manner, degree,
consequence, cause: He was then only fifteen (time). I
occasionally met people I knew (frequency). I went back inside
(place). The father held the boy tightly in his arms (manner).
 211

An adverb may modify an adjective: I led a very

pleasant life there. It is extremely good of you. She has a really
beautiful face. An adverb may also modify another adverb:
They are smoking very heavily. When adverbs modify adjectives
or other adverbs, they serve as adverbial modifiers of degree
and function as intensifiers.
Adverbs of degree can also modify certain kinds of
prepositional phrases: The nail went right through the wall. His
parents are dead against the trip. We live just outside of
Chicago.
There are a few adverbs in English which can have the
function of an attribute: He was fully master of the situation. She
was quite a child. It was rather a mess. Some adverbs signifying
place or time postmodify noun phrases: the way ahead, the trip
abroad, the journey home, the neighbour upstairs, the sentence
below, my friend here, the meeting yesterday, the world today.
In some of the phrases the adverb can also be used as a
premodifier: his home journey, the above photo, the upstairs
neighbour.
The use of adverbs in outwardly attributive positions
appears to be in contradiction with the functional destination of
the adverb — a word that is intended to qualify a non-nounal
element. However, this seeming inconsistence can be clarified
in the light of the syntactic principle of nominalization [Blokh,
1983: 222]. Cf. The world that exists today. → The world today.
Then he was the President. → The then President. The adverb
used to modify a noun actually relates to the whole
corresponding situation underlying the noun phrase.

13.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of adverbs

Adverbs may be divided into three lexico-grammatical
subclasses: qualitative, quantitative, and circumstantial.
Qualitative adverbs show the quality of an action or
state much in the same way as a qualitative adjective shows the
quality of some substance. Cf.: speaks loudly and loud speech.
The connection between qualitative adverbs and adjectives is
obvious. In most cases the adverb is derived from the adjective
with the help of the suffix -ly. Like the corresponding qualitative
adjectives, qualitative adverbs usually have opposites of the
comparative and superlative degrees.
According to their meaning, they include adverbs of
manner: well, badly, fast, quickly, clearly, suddenly, deeply,
 212

willingly, sideways, somehow, how, etc. Qualitative adverbs

usually modify verbs or statives. As they characterize the quality
of an action or state, they are inwardly bound with a verb or
stative and are usually placed as close as possible to the verb
or stative they modify.
Quantitative adverbs show the degree, measure,
quantity of an action, quality, state. In traditional grammar, they
are referred to as adverbs of degree. They may be subdivided
into several clearly pronounced sets [Blokh, 1983: 224]: a)
adverbs of high degree: very, quite, entirely, greatly, perfectly,
absolutely, considerably, pretty, much; b) adverbs of excessive
degree: too, awfully; tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically; c)
adverbs of unexpected degree: surprisingly, amazingly; d)
adverbs of moderate degree: fairly, relatively, rather; e) adverbs
of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit; f) adverbs of approximate
degree: almost, nearly; g) adverbs of optimal degree: enough,
sufficiently; h) adverbs of inadequate degree: insufficiently,
intolerably; i) adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.
Some degree adverbs tend to be distinguished in terms
of positive and negative attitude. Fairly, quite, entirely suggest a
positive meaning: It’s quite warm today. She’s entirely satisfied.
The project looks fairly promising. Rather, completely, utterly
suggest a negative meaning: It’s rather cold today. That is
completely wrong. He felt utterly exhausted.
Besides verbs and statives, quantitative adverbs
modify adjectives, adverbs, indefinite pronouns, numerals,
modals, nouns.
According to M. Y. Blokh [1983: 224], the degree
adverbs are intermediate qualitative-quantitative words, in so far
as they are used as quality evaluators. In this function they are
distinctly different from genuine quantitative adverbs which are
directly related to numerals: twice, thrice, four times, twofold,
threefold, manyfold, etc.
Circumstantial adverbs do not characterize the action
itself but name certain circumstances attending the action
described in the sentence and usually refer to the situation as a
whole.
This accounts for the fact that, unlike qualitative and
quantitative adverbs, circumstantial adverbs are not necessarily
placed near the verb, they occupy different places in the
sentence: Usually he sings well. — He usually sings well. — He
sings well usually. Circumstantial adverbs may be considered
as the most movable words. When H. Sweet speaks of adverbs,
 213

as showing almost the last remains of normal free order in

Modern English, it concerns, mostly, circumstantial adverbs.
Barring some adverbs with the -ward(s) suffix
(backwards, inwards), the -ice suffix (twice, thrice),
circumstantial adverbs have no typical stem-building elements.
They are often morphologically indivisible (north, home, down),
even more often are they related by conversion with
prepositions (in, out, behind), conjunctions (since, before),
nouns (north, home), adjectives (late, far).
Circumstantial adverbs include a) adverbs of time: now,
then, yesterday, lately, soon, afterwards, immediately,
eventually, when; b) adverbs of frequency: often, seldom,
sometimes, always, hardly ever, never, constantly, occasionally;
c) adverbs of place or direction: here, there, everywhere,
downstairs, below, abroad, inside, outside, northward(s); d)
adverbs of consequence and cause: therefore, hence,
consequently, accordingly, why, so; e) adverbs of purpose:
purposely, intentionally, deliberately.
Only a small group of circumstantial adverbs denoting
indefinite time and place have opposites of comparison. Most
adverbs of this subclass have no forms of any grammatical
category.
Circumstantial adverbs are mostly used in the function
of adverbial modifiers of time and place. But sometimes they
can be used in other functions, for instance, as attributes, e.g.,
See the notes above. The room upstairs is vacant.

13.3. The category of the degrees of comparison

With regard to the category of the degrees of
comparison adverbs (like adjectives) fall into comparables and
non-comparables. The number of non-comparables is much
greater among adverbs than among adjectives. Only qualitative
adverbs of manner and certain circumstantial adverbs denoting
indefinite time and place (soon, late, often, near, far) can form
degrees of comparison.
The category of the degrees of comparison of adverbs
is similar to that of adjectives. It is a system of three-member
opposition (soon — sooner — soonest; actively — more actively
— most actively) showing whether the characteristic the adverb
contains is absolute or relative, the comparative and superlative
members of the opposition are built up either synthetically (by
 214

means of affixation or suppletivity), or analytically (by means of

word-morphemes).
All the problems connected with the adjectival degrees
of comparison retain their force for the adverbial degrees of
comparison. Some grammarians do not admit forms like more
quickly, most quickly to be analytical degrees of comparison.
They distinguish only two types of degrees of comparison in
adverbs: the suffix type (quickly — quicker — quickest), and the
suppletive type (well — better — best, badly — worse — worst).

Unit 14
____________________________________

THE VERB
____________________________________
14.1. Part of speech characteristics of the verb

Analyzing the verb in English, grammarians

unanimously characterize it as the most complex and
capacious part of speech. The complexity of the verb is
inherent not only in the intricate structure of its
grammatical categories, but also in its various subclass
divisions, as well as in its falling into two sets of forms
profoundly different from each other: finite forms and
non-finite forms (the infinitive, the gerund, the
participle).
As a part of speech the verb is characterized by the
following features: its categorial meaning of ‘process’; typical
stem-building elements (-ize, -en, -ify, re-, under-, over-, sub-,
mis-, un-); grammatical categories of tense, aspect, time
correlation, voice, mood, person, number; combinability with
adverbs and nouns (noun equivalents) denoting the doer
(agent) and the recipient of the action; syntactical function of the
predicate.
General processual meaning is embedded in the
 215

semantics of all verbs, including those that denote states, forms

of existence, relations, types of attitude, evaluations, etc., rather
than actions.
Verbs may be of different word-building structure.
Simple verbs have only one root morpheme: go,
know, love.
Derived verbs are composed of one root morpheme
and one or more derivational morphemes. The main verb-
forming suffixes are -ate: cultivate; -ize: organize; -en: broaden;
-ify: clarify. The main prefixes are re-: rewrite; under-:
underestimate; over-: overestimate; out-: outdo, sub-:
submerge; mis-: misunderstand; un-: undo.
Sound-interchange (sound-replacive type of derivation)
is unproductive: food — (to) feed, blood — (to) bleed; so is the
change of stress (stress-replacive type of derivation): 'export —
(to) ex'port.
The most productive way of forming verbs is con-
version, especially conversion of the N→V type: book — (to)
book, man — (to) man, better — (to) better, dry — (to) dry.
Compound verbs consist of at least two stems:
blackmail, broadcast, whitewash, blindfold, baby-sit, hitch-hike,
window-shop. Composition is of low productivity in the class of
verbs.
Composite verbs consist of a verb and a word-
morpheme (post-position) attached to it. This way of forming
verbs is productive. Composite verbs fall into a) phrasal verbs
(call up, go down, set aside); b) prepositional verbs (call on, look
at, look for); c) phrasal-prepositional (put up with, look forward
to, get away with).
Prepositional verbs need a following noun phrase;
phrasal verbs can stand alone: John called on the man. *John
called on. When a personal pronoun follows the verb, it occurs
before the post-position in a phrasal verb, and after the post-
position in a prepositional verb: They called on him last week.
*They called him on. They called him up last week. *They called
up him.
Analytical verbs of the type let go, make believe, get
rid possess both integrity of nomination and that of function.
The verb is characterized by an elaborate system of
grammatical categories, some of which are, however,
controversial. These are tense, aspect, time correlation,
posteriority, voice, mood, number, person. Grammatical
categories of the English verb find their expression in synthetical
 216

and analytical forms. Some verbal categories have only

synthetical forms (person, number), others — only analytical
(voice). There are also categories expressed by both synthetical
and analytical forms (tense, mood).
Combinability of the verb is closely linked with its
lexico-grammatical meaning. Denoting an action, the verb is
naturally associated with nouns and noun-equivalents denoting
the doer of the action (its subject) and the recipient of the action
expressed by the verb (its object): Jane is doing her home
exercises. It is regularly modified by adverbs: He walked quickly.
Finite verb forms function as predicate. Non-finite
forms have other functions (subject, object, attribute, adverbial
modifier).

14.2. Lexico-grammatical subclasses of verbs

Owing to the historical development of the verb
system, English verbs fall into two groups: regular and
irregular.
Regular verbs, which go back to the Germanic
weak verbs, constitute the largest group. The past
indefinite and participle II of those verbs are formed by
the suffix -ed added to the stem of the verb. This is the
productive pattern.
Irregular verbs (about 250 in number) form their
past indefinite and participle II according to some fixed
traditional patterns going back partly to the Germanic
strong verbs, partly to the weak verbs, which underwent
some changes in the process of history. Irregular verbs
do not present a uniform group. Some of them use vowel
and/or consonant change and affixation (begin, give,
teach, buy). Others form the past and participle II without
affixation (cut, put, shed). Some make use of suppletivity
(go, be). Such verbs present a closed system and have to
be memorized.
Semantically, verbs divide into notional and
functional.
Notional verbs possess full lexical meaning.
Connected with it is their isolatability (ability to make a sentence
alone): Come! Read!
 217

Functional verbs have very general lexical meanings,

as in be, have, seem, can, may, must, etc., where the meaning
of action is almost obliterated. Functional verbs are hardly
isolatable. Their combinability is usually bilateral as they serve
to connect words in speech. They are comparatively few in
number, but of very frequent occurrence, and include auxiliary
verbs, modal verbs, link verbs, substitute verbs, representing
verbs, and verb-intensifiers.
Auxiliary verbs constitute grammatical elements of
the categorial forms of the verb. These are the verbs be, have,
do, shall, will, should, would. Some linguists speak of auxiliary
verbs as completely devoid of lexical meaning, as, for instance,
has in has written. They serve primarily to show grammatical
functions rather than to bear lexical meanings. They are words
in form only. As to their meaning and function they are
grammatical word-morphemes, parts of analytical forms.
Modal verbs (modal auxiliaries) are used with the
infinitive to show that a certain action is represented as
necessary, possible, desirable, doubtful, etc. from the speaker’s
point of view.
The number of modal verbs in English is still unsettled.
The majority of grammarians distinguish the following modal
verbs: must, can/could, may/might, shall, should, will/would,
dare, need, ought. Besides, to have and to be in some of their
uses are also classed among modal verbs. Other grammarians
add to this list let, had better, used to, and want to which is often
used instead of ought to, must and should in colloquial English:
You want to take it easy.
Modal verbs are defective verbs since they lack many
forms characteristic of regular verbs. Some of them lack the
form of the past tense. Their interrogative and negative forms
are built up without the auxiliary do. Due to the fact that they
express modal relations, they are never used as independent
parts of the sentence. They are always used in combination with
the infinitive making up part of the compound modal predicate.
Link verbs (linking verbs, copulas) introduce the
nominal part of the predicate (predicative), which is usually
expressed by a noun, an adjective, or a phrase of a similar
character. They never occur without a complement. They have
no passive forms.
Link verbs fall into three groups: a) link verbs of being:
be, seem, appear, look, feel, taste, smell; b) link verbs of
becoming: become, get, grow, turn; c) link verbs of remaining:
 218

remain, keep, stay. The most common and typical member of

this class of verbs is the verb be. Substitution of be can be used
as a test for linking verbs: The thing was (became, appeared,
seemed, remained, looked, sounded) strange.
Some authors treat link verbs as altogether bereft of all
lexical meaning. If it were so, there would be no difference
between He is old, He seems old, He becomes old, since is,
seems, becomes convey the same grammatical meanings.
Verbs with broad meaning be, do, make, have, give,
get may function as substitute verbs standing for other verbs:
He works more than you do (= He works more than you work).
Auxiliary and modal verbs may function as
representing verbs (representing the finite verb form): I don’t
know if he’s hungry, but I am (= I am hungry).
Verb-intensifier do functions as an emphatic auxiliary:
I do love you. Yes, I did have one rather interesting case lately.
Verbs are divided into subjective and objective,
depending upon their combinability with words denoting the
subjects and the objects of the actions they name.
Subjective verbs are associated only with nouns
(noun-equivalents) denoting the subject of the action: come, fly,
jump, run.
Objective verbs are associated with two nouns (or
noun equivalents) denoting the subject and the object of the
action named by the verb: give, kiss, love, interfere.
Objective verbs that are connected with their object
words directly are called transitive verbs. All the other verbs,
both subjective and objective, are called intransitive verbs.
Verbal objectivity is the ability of the verb to take any
object, direct, indirect, or prepositional. Verbal transitivity is the
ability of the verb to take a direct object.
The term transitive is freely used in English grammar
in relation to all objective verbs, not only to those of them that
take a direct object. This use is due to the close association of
the notion of transitivity not only with the type of verbal object as
such, but also with the ability of the verb to be used in the
passive voice.
According to R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J.
Svartvik [1982], all transitive verbs take a direct object; some
like give in He gave the girl an apple, also permit an indirect
object, and these are distinguished as ditransitive. A few verbs,
like make in They make him the chairman every year, take an
object complement (two direct objects at a time) and these are
 219

among the verbs referred to as complex transitive. The rest

are monotransitive.
The majority of the verbs allow both transitive and
intransitive use giving us an option of presenting an event as
involving the subject only or as involving the subject and the
object: He paints every day. — He paints vivid portraits.
There are several reasons why verbs can be used both
transitively and intransitively: a) different meanings (one
meaning is transitive, another is intransitive): The electrons run
at a speed of light. — My father runs a hotel; b) verbs do not
always need an object: I eat food slowly. — I eat slowly; c)
cognate objects (intransitive verbs can be used with cognate
objects): dance (a dance), die (a death), dream (a dream); d)
ergative verbs (can be used transitively, followed by an object,
or intransitively, without the object): An explosion shook the
room. — The whole room shook. The object of shake in the first
sentence becomes the subject of the second sentence making
the verb shake intransitive [Collins Cobuild English Grammar,
1990: 152].
Ergative verbs are a new linguistic phenomenon. It is
an important type of verbs or rather a new development of a
common meaning of the verbs. The total number of the
ergatives in modern English is large. Collins Cobuild English
Language Dictionary [1987] gives a list of 430 ergative verbs,
e.g., begin, break, burn, burst, change, close, continue,
decrease, dry, end, finish, grow, improve, increase, open, shut,
start, stop, widen, worsen, etc.
In accordance with the aspective nature of lexical
meanings, verbs are classed into terminative and non-
terminative (durative).
Terminative verbs denote actions which cannot
develop beyond a certain inherent limit and must come to an
end: arrive, catch, come, find, leave, take, start, stop, get out,
stand up, sit down.
Non-terminative (durative) verbs denote actions
which have no inherent limits and can go on indefinitely without
necessarily reaching a point where they have to stop: move,
continue, behave, hope, live, love, stand, sit, work, walk, etc.
There are verbs of double aspective character which
can potentially occur either in their terminative or non-
terminative lexico-syntactic variant: write, read, translate,
dictate, etc.
On the basis of the subject-process relation, all
 220

notional verbs can be divided into actional (dynamic) and

statal (stative).
Actional (dynamic) verbs express the action
performed by the subject: do, act, perform, make, go, read,
learn, discover. They present the subject as an active doer.
Statal (stative) verbs denote the state of their subject.
They either give the subject the characteristic of the inactive
recipient of some outward activity, or express the mode of its
existence. To this subclass belong verbs which denote a) sense
perception: see, hear; b) emotions: hate, like, care, love, please,
worry; c) wish: wish, want, desire; d) cognition and mental
processes: know, remember, think, understand; e) existence:
consist of, contain, cost, exist, seem, last; f) relations,
possession: own, possess, require, belong.
Statives do not occur in the progressive (*John is
knowing the answer); they cannot be complements of force (*I
forced John to know the answer); they do not occur as
imperatives (*Know the answer!); they cannot appear in the
pseudo-cleft construction (*What John did was know the
answer).

14.3. The category of tense

The category of tense shows the relation of the time
of the action denoted by the verb to the moment of speech. The
tense of a verb helps to indicate the time of an action or
condition.
Time is a universal non-linguistic concept with three
divisions: past, present, future. Time finds its expression in
language. The time of an action or event can be expressed
lexically with the help of: a) absolutive names of time: yesterday,
a year ago, in the past, next week, very soon, now; b) factual
expressions of time: at half past seven, in 2006; c) relative
expressions of time: after that, before that, some time later. It
can also be shown grammatically by means of the category of
tense (grammatical tense). Verbal forms denoting time relations
are called tenses.
Lexically it is possible to name any definite moment or
period of time: a century, a year, a day, a minute. The
grammatical meaning of tense is an abstraction from only three
particular tenses: the present, the past, and the future. It is the
most common and traditional interpretation of grammatical
temporality.
 221

Lexically a period of time is named directly, e.g., on

Sunday. Grammatical indication of time is indirect: it is not time
that a verb like asked names, but an action that took place
before the moment of speech. The main point of all verbal
actions is the present moment (the act of speech). Priority to this
moment is expressed by the past tense. Anticipated events find
expression in the future tense.
Grammatical meaning of tense is relative. Writes
denotes a present action, because it is contrasted with wrote
denoting a past action and with will write naming a future action.
Writing does not indicate the time of the action because it has
no tense opposites.
Time is often shown as a line, on which the
present moment is located as a continuously moving
point.
---------------------------------→-------------------------------------
Past time Present time Future
time
(includes now)
But there is no identity between grammatical
tense and time. Present and past tenses can be used to
refer to all parts of the time line. A verb in the present
tense, for instance, may be used in a statement about the
future: The bus leaves tomorrow at 7:30 a.m.
The immediate exponent of tense is the Indefinite
set (Present, Past, Future Indefinite) where the category
of tense is the basic marked feature of all the forms
(live/lives, lived, shall/will live, should/would live). In sets
other than Indefinite (Continuous, Perfect, Perfect
Continuous), tense is revealed in the forms of the
auxiliary (was done, had done, will be doing). In these
sets, tense coexists with markers of other categories
(aspect, time correlation).
Strangely enough, some doubts have been
expressed about the existence of the future tense in
English.
1. The first objection concerns the meaning of the
future tense in general: the future tense differs from the past
and the present tense — the future describes a non-factive
situation while the past and the present tense describe a factive
 222

situation. So, for instance, when we say that Mary will get
married tomorrow, we do not present the situation as a fact; we
only make a prediction or say what we think will happen.
2. The second objection concerns the expression of
future meaning by the present tense, e.g., Peter leaves for
London tomorrow or If it rains tomorrow, we will get wet.
Reference to future time can also be made by using the
constructions to be about to and to be going to. Will (or shall)
then is not the only means of referring to future events. If we
choose to say that will is the future tense marker, what is then
the status of other means?
3. The third objection concerns the meaning
peculiarities of will or shall: these auxiliaries have modal uses
which do not necessarily have future time reference, e.g., He
will go swimming in dangerous waters or He will be swimming
now.
O. Jespersen denied the existence of the future tense
in English on the ground that the verbs shall and will preserve
some of their original modal meaning (shall an element of
obligation, and will an element of volition). Combinations
shall/will + infinitive are modal phrases and one ought not to
describe them as a ‘future tense’. A similar treatment can be
found in works by structural grammarians who argue that shall
and will always preserve their modal meanings, which,
depending on the context, either dominate over the meaning of
futurity or are considerably weakened.
Some scholars [Слюсарева, 1986: 75] defined the
forms shall/will + infinitive as mood forms and replaced the term
Future Tense by Futuritive Mood.
Nowadays scholars are of the opinion that this
reasoning is not convincing. Though shall and will may in some
contexts preserve their original meaning of obligation or volition
respectively, as a rule they are free from these shades of
meaning and express mere futurity. This is especially clear in
sentences where the verb will is used as an auxiliary of the
future tense and where, at the same time, the meaning of
volition is excluded by the context, e.g., I am so sorry, I am
afraid I will have to go back to the hotel. Since the verb will does
not preserve even the slightest shade of the meaning of volition
here, it can have only one meaning — that of grammatical
futurity.
In analyzing the English future tense, modal factor,
naturally, should be thoroughly taken into consideration. The
 223

future, as a projected tense, cannot but contain an element of

prediction, supposition, modality. The future of the English verb
is highly specific in so far as its auxiliaries in their very imme-
diate etymology are words of obligation and volition, and the
survival of the respective connotations in them is backed by the
inherent quality of the future as such. Still, on the whole, the
English categorial future differs distinctly from the modal
constructions with the same predicator verbs.
Some grammarians insist on the existence of two
future tenses in English — future and future in the past.
Grammatical forms represented by should come, would
come are traditionally called the future in the past. But there is
no agreement as to the place these forms occupy in the system
of the English verb. They are defined as special forms to
express future actions if they are viewed from some moment in
the past.
Some linguists regard them as isolated forms, outside
the system of morphological categories. Others treat them as
some kind of dependent future tense and classify them with
those finite verb forms, which depend on the nature of the
sentence. Some scholars define them as a special use of
subjunctive mood forms.
According to M.Y. Blokh [1983], grammatical
expression of verbal time in English is effected in two temporal
categories — the category of primary time, and the category of
prospective time, or, contractedly, prospect. The specific feature
of the category of primary time is that it divides all the tense
forms of the English verb into two temporal planes: the plane of
the present and the plane of the past, which affects also the
future forms. The English verb acquires the two futures: the
future of the present (as prospected from the present) and the
future of the past (as prospected from the past).
I.B. Khlebnikova [1994] terms the future of the past
forms Future II. The action expressed by these forms is viewed
as a posterior past, as a future action reported by the speaker
from some time point in the past. Future II presents in itself an
independent axis of orientation, parallel to the future proper
(Future I).
Present ←-------------------------------------------------→ Past
↓ ↓
Future I ←-------------------------------------------------→
Future II
 224

According to B.S. Khaimovich and I.B. Rogovskaya

[1967], the future in the past forms are not tense forms. The
difference between will come — would come is not that of tense.
They both share the meaning of future tense. Grammatical
forms represented by should come, would come belong to the
category of posteriority showing whether an action is posterior
with regard to the moment of speech or to some moment in the
past. The first member of the opposition will come — would
come has the meaning of absolute posteriority, and the second
member possesses the meaning of relative posteriority.
Apart from shall/will + infinitive construction, there is
another construction in English which has a potent appeal for
being analyzed within the framework of the general problem of
the future tense. This is the combination be going to +
infinitive.
Grammarians distinguish two major meanings of this
construction: a) be going to — used as a statement of
intention, synonymous with intend to: What are you going to do
today? They are going to leave tomorrow; b) be going to —
used to convey the idea of an immediate future action,
synonymous with the future tense: Soon she is going to be
sixteen = Soon she will be sixteen. N.M. Rayevska [1976: 157]
terms it ‘going to-future’, a periphrastic verb-form denoting a
future action — a relative stylistic synonym of the ordinary future
tense.
It is often used in reference to the immediate future:
Look! He's going to score a goal! (I can see him moving up to
the goal-mouth). I think I'm going to faint (I already feel ill).
There's going to be a storm in a minute. (I can see the black
clouds gathering). Because of these properties it would appear
tempting to class this construction as a specific tense form,
namely, the tense form of immediate future, analogous to the
French futur immèdiat, e.g., Le spectacle va commencer. —
The show is going to begin.
Still, on closer consideration, we notice that non-
intentional uses of be going to are not indifferent stylistically.
They often display emotional colouring mixed with modal con-
notations. For instance, when one appreciates something as
going to be worth doing, one is expressing assurance of its
being so. When one labels the rain as never going to stop, one
clearly expresses one's annoyance at the bad state of the
weather. When a future event is introduced by the formula there
to be going to be, the speaker clearly implies the foresight of it,
 225

or anticipation of it, or, possibly, a warning to beware of it. The

construction can be likened to modal collocations be about to,
be on the point of also of basically intentional semantics: He is
going to score a goal is almost equivalent to He is about to
score a goal or He is on the point of scoring a goal.
Correlation of time and tense is connected with the
problem of the absolute and relative use of tenses.
Some tense is absolute if it shows the time of the
action in relation to the present moment (the moment of
speech): He works at a factory. He worked at a factory. He will
work at a factory.
But very often tense reflects the time of an action not
with regard to the moment of speech but to some other moment
in the past or in the future, indicated by the tense of another
verb. In this case the use of the tense is relative. In English
such relative use of tenses is possible with regard to some
future moment.
he works at a factory.
He will say that he worked at a factory.
he will work at a factory.
The present tense of works does not refer to the
present time but to the time of the action will say. The future
tense of will work does not indicate the time following the
present moment, but the time following the moment of the action
will say. The same holds true with regard to the past tense of
worked.
The present tense is also used relatively in adverbial
clauses of time and condition: I will stay here until he returns. If
things turn out as has been arranged, the triumph will be all
ours.
But this is impossible with regard to a moment in the
past:
*he works at a factory.
He said that *he worked at a factory.
*he will work at a factory.
The tenses of works, worked, will work cannot be used
relatively with regard to the past moment indicated by the verb
said (as it would be in Ukrainian, for instance). In English they
are, as a rule, used absolutely, that is, with regard to the
moment of speech.
he worked at a factory.
 226

He said that he had worked at a factory.

he would work at a factory.
Therefore a present tense verb may be used here only
if the time of the action it expresses includes the moment of
speech, which occurs, for instance, in clauses expressing gen-
eral statements or truths of a proverbial or scientific nature: He
said that water boils at 100º C. Similarly, a future tense verb may
be used if the action refers to some time following the moment
of speech: Yesterday I heard some remarks about the article we
will discuss tomorrow.
Such relation between the tenses of the verbs in the
sentence is called in traditional grammar the sequence of
tenses.
The rule of the sequence of tenses is usually defined
as follows. If the predicate verb of the principal clause is in the
present or the future tense, the predicate verb of the
subordinate clause may be used in any tense required by the
sense. If the predicate verb of the principal clause is in the past
tense, the verb of the subordinate clause must be used in the
past tense too. The regularity is supposed to be mostly
characteristic of object subordinate clauses.
The past tense verb is used in the subordinate clause
not because there is a past tense verb in the principal clause,
that is, as a result of the so-called sequence of tenses, but
simply in accordance with its grammatical meaning (each past
tense verb refers to the past). Since English has special forms
of the verb to express precedence or priority — the perfect
forms — the past perfect is used to indicate that an action
preceded some other action (or event) in the past: He said that
he had worked at a factory. But both in the principal and in the
subordinate clause the tense of the verb is the same — the past
tense used absolutely.

14.4. The category of aspect

Aspect is a grammatical category indicating in a
generalized way how the action designated by a verb goes on in
time.
Aspect concerns the manner in which the verbal action
is experienced or regarded. It indicates duration, repetition,
completion, or other quality of the action related to time.
The problem of aspect is controversial in English
theoretical grammar. One meets with different lines of approach,
 227

which can be briefly summarized as follows.

1. Aspect is interpreted as a category of semantics
rather than that of grammar (M. Deutschbein, A.G. Kennedy, G.
Curme).
A certain aspectual meaning can be in-built in the
semantic structure of the verb. This is lexical aspect: a)
terminative, representing an action as a whole (He went to
town); b) ingressive (inceptive), pointing to the beginning of
the action (He began to work); c) inchoative (not clearly
distinguished from the inceptive), showing that the action is
soon to take place (The apples ripen); d) effective (cessative),
showing the conclusion of an action (I ceased speaking); e)
durative (continuative, progressive), presenting an action as
continuous (Wheat grows in Canada); f) pausative, showing a
temporary stop in action (He paused for a moment); g)
resumptive, showing that the action continues after interruption
(I resumed sleeping); h) iterative (frequentative), presenting
recurrent actions (Each night the old man would walk to town); i)
conative, expressing endeavor or effort (I am trying to eat).
It is extremely important to distinguish between lexical
aspect and grammatical aspect presented as a grammatical
category in verbal forms. Lexical aspect is an inherent property
of verbs, and is not marked formally. Lexical aspect is
sometimes called Aktionsart (kind of action) especially by
German and Slavic linguists.
2. Aspect is not recognized at all as a category of
English grammar (H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, N.F. Irtenyeva).
Those who do not recognize the existence of aspect in
English treat the continuous forms as tense forms (termed
progressive, expanded, long, durative, relative), expressing
actions simultaneous with some other actions or situations.
O. Jespersen treated the form is writing as a means of
expressing limited duration, that is, in his own words, expressing
an action serving as temporal frame to another which is
performed within the frame set by that first action. Cf.: When we
arrived she was making some coffee (the arrival took place
during the coffee-making). A similar view was proposed by N.F.
Irtenyeva, who thinks that the basic meaning of the form is
writing is that of simultaneity of an action with another action.
Objections to this point of view are as follows. The
forms wrote — was writing are opposed not as tense forms.
Both of them express the same tense — the past. Continuous
forms may be used without special indications of simultaneity: I
 228

was just turning over the leaves. Simultaneous actions are very
often expressed by non-continuous forms of the verb: Her voice
pursued him as he walked up and down. Continuous and non-
сontinuous forms may express exactly the same relation of the
action to time: Moonlight was frosting the dew, and an old sun-
dial threw a long shadow. The category expressed by the
opposition of the continuous and the non-continuous forms is
not that of tense.
3. Aspect is blended with tense as an inalienable
part of the tense-aspect system (I.P. Ivanova, V.N. Zhigadlo,
L.L. Iofik).
According to I.P. Ivanova, is writing is an aspect form,
namely that of the continuous aspect, but writes is not an aspect
form at all, because its meaning is vague and cannot be clearly
defined. So the author reaches the conclusion that some finite
forms of the verb have the category of aspect, and are in so far
aspect-tense forms, while others have no aspect and are purely
tense forms.
This combined temporal-aspective interpretation of the
continuous also raises objections. In actual speech all the
grammatical meanings of a word go together in a bunch: in tells
we find present tense, active voice, indicative mood, singular
number, etc. It does not follow, however, that we are unable to
separate the category of mood from the category of tense or the
category of voice from that of aspect. By opposing tells to told
and will tell we single out the category of tense; by contrasting
tells with is telling we bring to light the category of aspect. The
infinitive proves that aspect can be separated from tense. In the
infinitive, aspect is linked with time correlation but not with
tense: to write — to be writing.
4. Aspect and tense are considered two distinct
grammatical categories (B.A. Ilyish, A.I. Smirnitsky, V.N.
Yartseva, B.S. Khaimovich, B.I. Rogovskaya, L. S. Barkhudarov,
M.Y. Blokh).
The categories of tense and aspect characterize an
action from different points of view. The tense of a verb shows
the time of the action, while the aspect of a verb deals with the
development of the action. It really shows what aspect of the
action is considered: whether the action is taken in its progress
or without that specification. The continuous forms are aspective
because, reflecting the inherent character of the process
performed by the verb, they do not, and cannot, denote the
timing of the process.
 229

The category of aspect shows the character of the

action: whether the action is taken in its progress, development
(continuous/ progressive aspect) or it is simply stated, its nature
being unspecified (non-continuous/ common aspect), as in
works — is working, has worked — has been working, to work
— to be working.
Continuous (progressive) aspect is formed
analytically by the auxiliary be in combination with the present
participle of the conjugated verb. It is expressed by the formula
be + Ving. As the marked member of the opposition it
emphasizes the duration of the process and draws the attention
to its concrete character. The common (non-continuous)
aspect as the unmarked member of the aspect opposition is
unmarked for duration.
G. Leech [1987] stresses three separate features of
the progressive aspect: a) duration (cf.: The house falls down!
and The house is falling down!); b) limited duration (cf.: We live
in France and We’re living in France); c) the action is not
necessarily complete (cf.: The man drowned and The man was
drowning).
There is a special use of the continuous aspect,
marked by the absence of the temporary element of the usual
continuous meaning. Forms of the continuous aspect are
occasionally used with the adverbs always, continually,
constantly, etc., when the action is meant to be unlimited by
time: I'm continually forgetting people's names. You are always
arriving late. He was constantly giving her little presents. The
sense here is one of persistent or continuous activity: the action
is represented as never ceasing and this gives the sentence a
stronger emotional colouring than it would have with the form of
the common aspect.
There is an element of colloquial hyperbole or
exaggeration in such sentences. Their tone is often one of
irritation or disparagement. The form of the continuous aspect is
used emotionally. Such use is consistent with the basic meaning
of the form and illustrates its possible stylistic applications.
Aspect varies its effect according to the type of
meaning conveyed by the verb. With non-terminative
(durative) verbs, the difference between the common and the
continuous aspect may be neutralized: I was sitting (sat) while
she was standing (stood). I have been living (have lived) at the
hotel for quite a while already. Such verbs are used in
Continuous only for emphasis or for some other stylistic effect.
 230

Their use in the Continuous aspect is to some extent optional

because of its redundancy.
With terminative verbs it cannot be neutralized. Cf.: He
brought her some flowers (the flowers actually reached her). —
He was bringing her some flowers (he had the flowers with him
but something prevented him from giving them to her). The
linguistic paradox of these uses is that the continuous aspect
with terminative verbs neutralizes the expression of their lexical
aspect, turning them for the nonce into non-terminative verbs
[Blokh, 1983: 164].
With the verbs of the double aspective character, such
as write, read, translate, dictate, etc. the Continuous indicates
that the verb is used non-terminatively. Cf.: I was reading a
book that evening (it’s unfinished). — I read a book that evening
(all of it).
Momentary verbs (hit, jump, kick, knock, nod, tap,
wink) refer to happenings so momentary that it is difficult to think
of them as having duration. The continuous form, in attributing
duration to them, forces one to think of a series of events, rather
than of a single event: He nodded. — He was nodding (a
repeated movement).
Transitional event verbs (arrive, die, fall, land, leave,
lose, stop) denoting transition into a state are used with the
continuous aspect to indicate an approach to the transition,
rather than the transition itself: The train was arriving. The
helicopter was landing.
Activity verbs (drink, eat, play, read) in the continuous
aspect refer to a continuing, though bounded, activity: What are
you doing? I'm writing a letter.
Process verbs (change, grow, mature, slow down,
widen, deteriorate) also tend to go with the continuous aspect
as a process ordinarily has duration, but not indefinite duration:
The weather is changing. They are widening the road.
Verbs of bodily sensation (ache, feel, hurt, itch,
tingle) and such durative verbs as wear, look (=seem), shine
can have either common or continuous aspect with little
difference in meaning: I feel hungry. — I am feeling hungry. You
look quite happy today. — You are looking well. He wore
breeches. — He was wearing a coat.
Most difficulties over the use of the continuous aspect
arise with statal (stative) verbs, which are normally
incompatible with the continuous. The impossibility of these
verbs appearing in the continuous aspect is sometimes
 231

exaggerated.
Verbs of inert perception feel, taste, and smell indicate
not only inert perception (when the sensation simply happens to
me), but also active perception (when I go out of my way to
focus my attention on some object). In the second case, they
belong to the activity category and so may freely take the
continuous form: I'm smelling the perfume. I'm feeling the
ground with my foot. I'm tasting the porridge.
Verbs of cognition are also occasionally found with the
continuous functioning, unusually, as activity verbs: I am
thinking about what you said. Surely you're imagining things. In
the first example, thinking is felt to be a kind of work or mental
exertion, equivalent to 'considering' or 'ruminating'. In the
second example imagining things means 'entertaining or
indulging yourself with illusions'. Each sentence suggests
positive mental activity.
Statal verbs of having and being may also combine
with the continuous aspect where an activity meaning may be
supplied. The verb be furnishes many examples. While it is
virtually impossible to make sense of *He is being tall or *The
trees are being green, there is no difficulty with She is being
kind, because we are able to understand kindness here as a
mode of outward behaviour over which the person has control
('she is acting kindly towards someone'), rather than as an
inherent trait of character. Similar differences of meaning are
seen in: He's a fool (It's his nature, he can’t help it). He's being a
fool (He's acting foolishly).
The verb have is used in the continuous aspect when it
is part of set phrases like have breakfast, have dinner, have a
smoke, have a walk, have a bath, etc.: You are having lunch
with me today.
Statal verbs expressing wish and emotions are also
used in the continuous form to stress the transitory, temporary
nature of the action or express great intensity of feeling: She is
looking forward to the ball tonight. Aren’t you enjoying yourself?
Are you hating it?
In present-day English, especially in spoken English,
statal verbs are found more and more frequently in the
continuous aspect either because the verb is taken in a slightly
different meaning or because of their particular application to
this very moment and special emphasis of duration. G.A.
Veikhman [Вейхман, 1990: 51-52] points out that in present-day
English any verb may be used in the continuous aspect with the
 232

exception of contain, consist, possess, prefer, suppose, and

modal verbs. Continuous aspect besides lending emotional
colouring can also render: a) intensity of perception: I thought I
was seeing a ghost; b) polite form of address: Were you wanting
a room? c) apology: Sorry, I was forgetting; d) recent action: I
thought it was some damn poacher. We’ve had a hell of a lot of
it this winter. – Knight was telling me; e) implied negation with
ironic colouring: He is helping me every day!; f) repeated action
viewed as temporary: At that time we were bathing every day; g)
unexpected, casual action: I was talking to Tom the other day.

14.5. The category of time correlation

The problem of the perfect forms in the system
of the English verb has been the subject of lengthy
discussions. Among the various views on the essence
of the perfect forms in English the following four main
trends should be mentioned.
1. The perfect is a peculiar aspect category
and as such must be included in the regular grammatical
contrasts of common and continuous aspects (B.A. Ilyish,
G.N. Vorontsova, R. Quirk, S.Greenbaum, G.Leech, J.
Svartvik)
Those who take the perfect for part of the aspect
system are up against a very serious difficulty, since
proceeding from this point of view it is difficult to explain
the nature of the perfect continuous forms, where two
aspects (resultative, perfective, or transmissive, on the
one hand, and continuous or imperfective, on the other)
seem to have merged into one which is hardly possible.
We cannot imagine a verb as having positive indications
of two aspects, two tenses, two voices, etc. at the same
time.
2. The perfect is a peculiar tense category,
which should be included in the verb paradigm along with
the ‘present’ and ‘past’ (H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, G.
Curme, M. Bryant, N.F. Irtenyeva).
The difference between the perfect and non-
perfect forms of the verb, according to the tense
interpretation of the perfect, consists in the fact that the
 233

perfect denotes a secondary temporal characteristic of

the action. It shows that the denoted action precedes
some other action or situation in the present, past, or
future.
Objections to this point of view are as follows. If
the perfect were 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. Hence it follows that the category
of perfect cannot be a tense category.
3. The perfect is part of the tense-aspect
system (tense-aspect blend view) (I.P. Ivanova).
In accord with tense-aspect interpretation, the
perfect is recognized as a form of double temporal-
aspective character, similar to the continuous. The two
verbal forms expressing temporal and aspective functions
in a blend are contrasted against the indefinite form as
their counterpart of neutralized aspective properties.
4. The category of the perfect is a specific
category different from tense and aspect (A.I.
Smirnitsky).
A.I. Smirnitsky was the first to draw attention to the fact
that perfect forms represent a grammatical category different
from that of tense. A.I. Smirnitsky called it the category of time
relation, which is not a very happy term, because it seems to
imply that the perfect is a special kind of tense. The term was
later replaced by that of time correlation. Other terms
suggested to name this category are the category of
retrospective coordination (retrospect) (M. Blokh); the
category of the perfect (taxis) (E.J. Morokhovska); the
category of temporal relativity (perfectness) (I.B.
Khlebnikova); the category of order (B.S. Khaimovich and B.I.
Rogovskaya).
The verbal category of time correlation is
constituted by the opposition of the perfect forms of the verb to
 234

the non-perfect forms. The marked member of the opposition is

the perfect, which is built up analytically by the auxiliary have in
combination with the past participle of the conjugated verb. It is
expressed by the formula have + Ven. The unmarked member
of the opposition is represented by the indefinite and continuous
forms.
The functional content of the category of time
correlation is defined as priority expressed by the perfect forms
in the present, past, or future contrasted against the non-
expression of priority by the non-perfect forms. Perfect forms
convey the meaning of priority, precedence: She has соme
(priority to the situation in the present, to the act of speech). She
had come before he phoned over (priority to the act of his
phoning over). She'll have come by that time (priority to the
point of time indicated by the adverbial expression). She is
known to have come (priority to the action of knowing).
The present perfect is often described as referring to
‘past with present relevance’, or ‘past involving the present’.
From the standpoint of strict linguistics it is clearly a species of
the present, as we cannot say of someone now deceased that
he has eaten or has been eating; the present auxiliary implies
that he is in some way present (alive), even if the action
denoted is completed or partially completed. The present
perfect is primarily used for an action continuing up to the
present. This meaning of ‘current relevance’ contrasts with the
past tense meaning: I’ve lived in Bonn for a year (I still do). I
lived in Bonn for a year (I no longer do). Have you been to the
show? (It’s still on). Did you go to the show? (when it was on).
Different kinds of adverbials are associated with the past tense
and the perfect: I saw John yesterday (a week ago, on
Tuesday). I’ve not seen John since Monday (so far, up to now).
In American English, there is a tendency to use the
past tense instead of the present perfect: Did you eat? (=Have
you eaten?) You told me already. Did they come home yet?
The lexical meaning of the verb can affect the meaning
of the perfect form in so far as the verb may denote either an
action, which is apt to produce an essential change in the state
of the object (He has broken the cup) or a process which can
last indefinitely without bringing about any change (He has lived
in this city since 2005). The meaning of result appears to be the
effect of the combined meanings of the verb as such and the
perfect form. It is quite natural that this meaning should have
more than once been taken to be the meaning of the perfect
 235

category as such, which was a misconception.

Some linguists speak of the heterogeneity of the per-
fect forms. A form like had written, they say, usually expresses
priority, but a form like has written expresses result. Thus the
present perfect, which denotes precedence to the present, i.e.
to the moment of speech, proves different from the past perfect
(pluperfect).
This difference is primarily connected with the
difference between the present and the past, and not with the
different shades of the perfect meaning. When we describe an
action prior to some past action, both actions must be
mentioned, and the notion of priority is obvious. When an action
prior to the present is described the present need not be
mentioned, since it is the act of speech. Therefore the notion of
priority is not so obvious. I have read this book can be
interpreted not as a description of an action prior to the act of
speech, but as one containing the present result of a past action
or some implicit conclusion for the present from an action in the
past, etc. The invariant of the perfect is the meaning of some
action prior to the tense marked in the auxiliary. This invariant of
perfect sets is one and the same on all temporal planes.
The syntactical context in which a perfect form is used
is occasionally a factor of the highest importance in determining
the ultimate meaning of the sentence: They waited quietly till he
had finished. But before he had answered, she made a grimace.
The action denoted by the past perfect in these sentences is not
thought of as preceding the action denoted by the past tense.
Past perfect is used in adverbial clauses of time to express a
future action viewed from the past. It shows that the action of
the subordinate clause will be completed before the action of
the principal clause.
The question How long have you been here? implies
that the person addressed still is in the place meant by the
adverb here. On the other hand, Where have you been? implies
that the person addressed is no longer in the place the speaker
is inquiring about. These two uses of the present perfect (and
similar uses of the past perfect) have sometimes been classed
under the headings ‘present (or past) perfect inclusive’ and
‘present (or past) perfect exclusive’. This terminology suggests
the idea that there are two different meanings of the present (or
past) perfect, which is surely wrong. The difference does not lie
in the meanings of the perfect form, but depends on the
situation in which the sentence is used.
 236

The present perfect is used in complex sentences both

in the main and the subordinate clause if the verbs denote two
parallel actions begun in the past and continued into the
present: I have spent the happiest evenings in years since I
have known you.
The opposition of time correlation forms may be
neutralized, the imperfect as the weak member of the opposition
filling in the position of neutralization. Very peculiar
neutralizations take place between the forms of the Present
Perfect and Present Indefinite: Where do you come from?
Characteristic colloquial neutralizations affect also some verbs
of physical and mental perception: I forget what you’ve told me
about Nick. I hear you’ve finished the project. I am informed that
your appointment has been terminated.

14.6. The category of voice

There are two main views as to the definition of the
category of voice. According to one of them this category
expresses the relation between the subject and the action. Only
these two are mentioned in the definition. According to the other
view, the verbal category of voice expresses the relations
 237

between the subject and the object of the action. In this case the
object is introduced into the definition of voice. The following
definitions of the category of voice may be considered typical.
Voice is the grammatical category of the verb which
shows the relationship between the action expressed by the
verb and the subject of the sentence, indicating whether the
action is performed by the subject (the active voice) or passes
on to it (the passive voice).
The category of voice shows whether the action is
represented as issuing from its subject (the active voice) or as
experienced by its object (the passive voice).
The category of voice expresses in grammar the
relations between the action, its agent and potential object,
which can be defined as actant relations. The traditional Greek
term for voice as a category of the verb was diathesis. The term
diathesis gained general acceptance in the theory of voices for
the designation of voice semantic relations.
In linguistics, the term diathesis alternation refers to
the fact that verbs can be used in different subcategorization
frames where they slightly change their meaning. The same
truth-conditional content can often be structured in more than
one way.
In most studies by formal semanticists of connections
between verb semantics and the semantics of NP arguments of
verbs, the emphasis has been on the following relations [Levin,
1993]: the locative alternation: He loaded hay onto the wagon.
He loaded wagon with hay; the dative shift: He gave the book to
David. He gave David the book; the causative / inchoative
alternation: Janet broke the cup. The cup broke; the middle
alternation: The butcher cuts the meat. Meat cuts easily; the
reciprocal alternation: The car collided with the bicycle. The car
and the bicycle collided.
The voice of the English verb is expressed by the
opposition of the passive form of the verb to the active form of
the verb. The active voice is unmarked, whereas passive is the
marked voice. The sign marking the passive form is the
combination of the auxiliary verb be with the past participle of
the notional verb: be + Ven.
Verbs in the passive voice may acquire almost all the
aspect, tense and time correlation forms that occur in the active
voice, except for the future continuous and perfect continuous
forms. Though the Present Perfect Continuous Passive has
been registered in use, it is used only occasionally: These
 238

questions have been being asked for months. It’s been being
built for the past three years
The category of voice differs radically from other
verbal categories. Voice is a syntactically oriented category
which may be said to be a word-order device regulating the
subject-object position and their meaningful relations. The
situation reflected by the passive construction does not differ in
the least from the situation reflected by the active construction.
What is changed, then, with the transition from the active voice
to the passive voice, is the subjective appraisal of the situation
by the speaker. For example, you could report the same event
by using an active form of a verb, as in The dog has eaten our
dinner or by using a passive form of a verb, as in Our dinner has
been eaten by the dog, depending on whether you wanted to
talk about the dog or your dinner. The first sentence features the
act of the dog, whereas the second sentence focuses on the
thing affected by the act of the dog.
It would, however, be wrong to think that active and
passive constructions are always mutually convertible.
Some verbal forms (will be singing, has been singing,
had been singing, will have been singing) have no passive
opposites.
An active construction cannot be made passive if it
contains a reflexive pronoun or an infinitive as an object: She
admired herself in the mirror, but not *Herself was admired in
the mirror. She promised to come, but not *To come was
promised.
There are no passive forms in such collocations as
take part, take courage, take flight, take alarm, lose courage,
lose heart, lose one's patience, keep one's word, etc.
Two-member passive constructions cannot be made
active since they contain no word which might become the
subject of a parallel active construction: Champagne was
served at feasts.
Using a passive form of a verb gives you the
option of not mentioning the agent (person or thing)
responsible for the action. You may want to do this for
one of these reasons [Collins Cobuild English Grammar,
1992: 404]: because you do not know who or what the
agent is (He's almost certainly been murdere); because it
is not important who or what the agent is (I had been told
that it would be perfectly quiet); because it is obvious who
 239

or what the agent is (She found that she wasn't being

paid the same wage as him); because the agent has
already been mentioned (His pictures of dogs were
executed with tremendous humour); because people in
general are the agents (Both of these books can be
obtained from the public library); because you wish to
conceal the agent's identity (The original has been
destroyed).
Pronouns one, we, you, they, someone, something, as
well as the noun people may be used in active constructions to
avoid the indication of the agent of the action: They say she’s
very bright. It is a matter of personal belief, like the pair of socks
one prefers to wear. I think someone’s calling you. Something
has upset him. But their use seems to be restricted, and English
instead often shows here a marked preference of passive
constructions.
Although there is usually no mention of the agent of the
action in passive constructions, it sometimes becomes
necessary to indicate the doer and then a by-phrase is used for
it.
The use of the agentive by-phrase is highly
restricted. It is in fact omitted in 80% of passive constructions
[Crystal, 1990: 74]. This is usually because the addition of an
agent would be to ‘state the obvious’: Jack fought Michael, and
was beaten (by Michael!).
However, with certain verbs (follow, overtake, seize,
visit, govern, control, rule, influence, confront, attend,
accompany, join, cause, bring about, mark, characterize, attract)
the passive is impossible without the mention of the agent: The
answer was followed by silence. He was accompanied by his
father. My attention was caught by the noise.
Besides a noun and very rarely a pronoun, a by-
object may be a gerundial phrase or complex, or a
subordinate clause: I was then awakened only by
knocking on the window. She was always being taken in
by what they told her.
You can also mention the instrument that the agent
used to perform the action after the preposition with: A circle
was drawn with a stick. Moisture must be drawn out first with
salt.
The passive is infrequent in speech. In writing, it is
more common in informative than in imaginative prose,
 240

especially in contexts which demand an objective, impersonal

style, such as scientific publications and news reporting.
As a rule, only transitive verbs can be used in the
passive voice. However, this general rule does not hold good for
all the verbs. The well-known exceptions are: The house has
not been lived in for a long time. This bed has not been slept in.
In English, intransitive objective verbs (I've just been
rung up by the police), verbs with fixed prepositional objects
(The dress has never been tried on) can be used in the passive.
Besides, verbs taking not one, but two objects, as a rule, can
feature both of them in the position of the passive subject: The
key was given to the receptionist. The receptionist was given
the key. This independence of voice from transitivity is a
peculiar feature of present-day English. Verbal objectivity, not
transitivity, is the main factor which predetermines the use of
English verbs in the passive voice.
The passive voice in English is to be found with
different types of verbs in various types of passive
constructions.
In direct or primary passive the subject of the passive
construction corresponds to the direct object of the active
construction: The students discussed the novel. — The novel
was discussed by the students.
In indirect or secondary passive the subject of the
passive construction corresponds to the indirect object of the
active construction. The direct object is retained unchanged
after the passive verb and therefore: The judges gave Mary the
first prize. — Mary was given the first prize by the judges
The indirect passive construction gives greater
prominence to the direct object, whereas the direct passive
construction emphasizes the indirect object: The first prize was
given to Mary implies that it was not given to anybody else.
In prepositional or tertiary passive the subject of the
passive construction corresponds to the prepositional object of
the active construction: The man referred to this book. — This
book was referred to. The peculiarity of the construction is that
the preposition sticks to the verb. Familiar examples are: The
doctor was sent for. He was taken care of. The new play was
much spoken of. His words were laughed at. You are being
made a fool of, that’s all.
Intransitive verbs used with prepositional adverbial
modifiers arrive at, come to, live in, sleep in, sit in (on) may form
passive constructions by analogy with prepositional verbs: No
 241

conclusion was arrived at (come to). His bed hasn't been slept
in. Such a dress can't be sat down in.
In accord with their relation to the passive voice, all the
verbs can be divided into two large sets: passivized verbs
(those that have voice opposites) and non-passivized verbs
(those which have not). The second subclass comprises
subjective verbs and some objective verbs of the statal subclass
like have, own, possess, belong, become, contain, cost, fall, fail,
fit, get, hold, lack, last, let, like, resemble, suit, survive, vex, etc.
The ability of a verb to be used in the passive
voice depends on its meaning. The verb have in its direct
possessive meaning cannot be used in the passive voice:
They have a beautiful house, but not *A beautiful house is
had by them. However, it is used only in the passive in
the meaning ‘to deceive’: Then, suddenly, we’re a joke;
then we’ve been had. In the meaning ‘to experience’, it is
used in the active and passive: We had a good time. A
good time was had by all.
There are also certain restrictions in the use of the
passive conditioned by the grammatical organization of the
sentence. No passive construction is possible, if the object is a
that-clause, an infinitive or a gerund. There are many verbs in
English which take a direct and an indirect object in the active
construction (bring, do, play, telegraph), but they admit only one
passive construction — the direct passive. The indirect passive
is impossible if the indirect object implies for: They bought me a
dictionary. — A dictionary was bought for me, but not *I was
brought a dictionary. The same applies to the verbs with
obligatory to (explain, describe, dictate, say, suggest something
to somebody): The teacher explained the rule to them once
more. — The rule was explained to them once more, but not
*They were explained the rule once more.
Opinions differ as to the voice system of Modern
English. Most linguists recognize only two voices in English —
the active voice and the passive voice. Besides these two, three
other voices — the so-called medial voices — have been
suggested in addition: a) reflexive (or neuter-reflexive), as in He
dressed himself; b) reciprocal, as in They greeted each other;
c) middle, as in The door opened (as distinct from I opened the
door).
Consider the following examples: I will shave and
wash. She hasn't dressed up yet. According to some linguists
 242

the real voice meaning rendered by the verbs in these examples

is not active, since the actions expressed are not passed from
the subject to any outer object. These actions are confined to
the subject. This kind of verbal meaning of the action performed
by the subject upon itself is classed as reflexive. The same
meaning can be found in combinations of the verb with reflexive
self-pronoun: I will shave myself and wash myself.
The actions expressed by the verbs in the following
sentences are also confined to the subject, but these actions
are performed by the subject constituents reciprocally: The
friends will be meeting tomorrow. Nellie and Christopher
divorced two years after their marriage. This verbal meaning of
the action performed by the subjects on one another is called
reciprocal. It can be rendered explicit by combining the verbs
with reciprocal pronouns: The friends will be meeting one
another.
The problem of the middle voice arises in connection
with the possible transitive and intransitive use of some verbs: I
opened the door. — The door opened. I boiled the water. — The
water boiled. The difference between these sentences is
considered a difference of voice: the active voice (showing an
action performed by the doer on the object) and the middle
voice, denoting a process going on within the subject, without af-
fecting any object.
The question whether there are other voices in the
English verb, besides active and passive, is open to
consideration. The majority of scholars argue that theories
about medial voices in English do not carry much conviction.
In cases like He washed himself it is not the verb that is
reflexive but the pronoun himself used as a direct object. If we
regard washed himself as an analytical word, it is necessary to
admit that the verb has the categories of gender (washed
himself — washed herself), person – non-person (washed
himself — washed itself), that the categories of number and
person are expressed twice in the word (washes himself).
Similar objections can be raised against washed each other,
washed one another as analytical forms of the reciprocal voice.
The difference between each other and one another would
become a grammatical category of the verb. Verbs can express
the reflexive and reciprocal meanings without the corresponding
pronouns: He always washes in cold water. Kiss and be friends.
Middle voice is usually expressed in English by
ergative verbs. The verb in both cases is the same and the
 243

voice is the same, too, since there is no morphological

difference, and differences of meaning and of syntactical
construction are not sufficient reason for establishing a
difference of voice.
The relation between the morphological form
of the passive voice and syntactical form of the
compound nominal predicate with the link verb be
presents another problem posed by the category of voice.
Though the two constructions are structurally alike, there
is no doubt as to their different grammatical status. If the
construction expresses an action, it is taken to refer to the
passive voice form: The door was closed by the butler as
softly as could be. If it expresses a state, it is interpreted
as a nominal predicate: The door on the left was closed.
Some linguists are against this interpretation.
According to L.S. Barkhudarov and D.A. Shteling, be +
participle II should in all cases be treated as a passive
voice form on the ground that participle II is, first and
foremost, a verb, the idea of state not being incident to
this structure, but resulting from the lexical meaning of the
verb and the context it occurs in. Likewise, G.N.
Vorontsova maintained that the passive form expresses
either an action in its development or an action as an
accomplished fact. In both cases we deal with the passive
voice.
However, this theory cannot explain the absence of an
active equivalent to My work is finished. The sentence
corresponds rather to I have finished my work than to I finish my
work, as the perfective meaning (that of result of the action) of
participle II is particularly prominent. As shown by A.I.
Smirnitsky, The table is made of wood has no corresponding
parallel with an active meaning.
It is also not clear why other link verbs may form
nominal predicates with participle II and the link verb be cannot:
to seem forgotten, to look forgotten, to be forgotten. Examples
like I was concealed and motionless, where participle II is
coordinated with an adjective, prove its combinability with the
link verb be.
According to R. Quirk, S, Greenbaum, G. Leech, J.
Svartvik, E.J. Morokhovska, the pattern be + participle II
represents two different variants of passives: actional passive
 244

and statal passive.

Actional passives are the members of the verb
paradigm and stand in opposition to the non-passive forms. The
grammatical category of voice is realized through such
oppositions.
Statal passive is not a categorial verb-form. It is a
syntactic combination of the link verb be with participle II. It
resembles semantically adjectives used as predicatives in
compound nominal predicates. The participial forms in such
cases are the derivations from the stems of statal verbs (of
physical or mental state): His fat face was worried. He was
depressed and baffled and weary.
It is not always easy to draw a borderline
between the so-called statal and actional passive, as in:
All rights are reserved. His coat was buttoned. Context
often differentiates between homonyms.
Presence of adverbial modifiers emphasizes the
dynamic meaning of the passive construction: Such
letters are often written in haste. Syntactical coordination
with active verbs often brings the idea of action into
prominence: He stepped into the coach and was borne
away. The presence of the by-phrase strengthens the
idea of action: That was done by his elder sister. The
continuous aspect is a sure sign of the passive: This work
is being done all over the world.
The role of the passive auxiliary can occasionally
be performed by the verbs get and become: He got caught
by the police. The young violinist became admired by all.
N.M. Rayevska points out that the group become +
past participle expresses primarily state: I have become very
sunburnt. G.N.Vorontsova objects to G. Curme's idea of
become as a passive auxiliary but insists on get as such an
auxiliary. Passive constructions with get seem to be increasing
in frequency, though grammarians are at present not agreed as
to their status.
Those linguists who claim that get + participle II ought
to be considered an analytical form of the passive voice suggest
the following reasons [Кулдашев, 1987]: direction of the action
towards the subject (Joy got killed); opposition to the
corresponding active (synthetical) form; functional-syntactical
completeness; explicit indication of the agent (We got stopped
by the cops) and instrument (She got shot at dinner time with an
 245

airgun); adverbial modification of the action (adverbial modifier

of time: We nearly got run over by a train when we were
crossing the lines; adverbial modifier of cause: A woman got
sent to prison for a thing like that); branching of the paradigm —
almost all tense, aspect, time correlation forms of the verb
(Sometimes everything doesn’t get said. I didn’t get arrested.
They have always got paid less); usage in the imperative mood
(Don’t get caught, don’t let it catch you. Use your head).
Those linguists who do not recognize get + participle II
as an analytical passive form point out that the verb cannot
have two or more passive voice opposites (be influenced, get
influenced, become influenced). These opposites must differ
either lexically or grammatically. In the first case get and
become are not word-morphemes. In the second case there
must be several passive voices.
Become and get always retain some of their lexical
meaning. Get usually suggest putting forth effort to gain
possession or obtain something. Cf.: He got elected Class
President (сам добився). — He was elected Class President
(його обрали).
Get draws more attention to the result than to the
action or agency, though chiefly in rather informal usage: I know
how the window got broken. Constructions with get are also
used when the speaker wants to conceal the agent's identity:
The dishes got broken.
A more gradually achieved result is expressed by
become: With the passage of time, the furniture became
covered in dust.
Constructions with get usually express a negative
evaluation or negative consequences (unpleasant event
affecting the subject): He got executed is more acceptable than
He got spared and *He got informed about it is totally
unacceptable. The bastard got convicted is a typical example in
which the expression of negative consequence is combined with
negative evaluation. Constructions with get are used in
colloquial speech to describe accidents, natural disasters, bad
weather conditions, etc.: I got kicked at the match. John got hurt
in the accident. We got caught in a heavy shower.
N.M. Rayevska [1976] points out that get is unlike be in
the primary paradigm. We can say He gets punished regularly,
but we shall hardly attest Gets he punished regularly?
According to I.B. Khlebnikova [1994], verb
constructions to which the grammatical status of the passive is
 246

sometimes attributed, such as get lost, become engaged, lack

all the features of an analytical form, their first element is not
standard, it has its own meaning of a linking verb, the
constructions themselves do not form regular paradigmatic sets.

14.7. The category of mood

Mood, closely related to the problem of modality, is
generally defined as a grammatical category expressing the
relation of the action denoted by the verb to reality as stated by
the speaker (from the speaker's point of view); the speaker's
attitude to the contents of the utterance. What is meant here is
that different moods express different degrees of reality of an
action, either representing the action as a fact that really
happened, happens, or will happen, or treating it as imaginary
phenomenon, hypothesis, speculation, desire.
In the sentences He listens attentively, Listen
attentively, You would have listened attentively if you had been
interested, we deal with the same action of listening, but in the
first sentence the speaker presents the action as taking place in
reality, whereas in the second sentence the speaker urges the
listener to perform the action, and in the third sentence the
speaker presents the action as imaginary. These different
relations of the action to reality are expressed by different
mood-forms of the verb: listens, listen, would have listened.
The problem of the category of mood is one of the
most controversial problems of English theoretical
grammar.
The number of moods in English is still unsettled.
Owing to the difference of approach, scholars have been
vacillating between two extremes — three moods (indicative,
imperative, subjunctive), put forward by many grammarians, and
sixteen moods as proposed by M. Deutschbein (der Optativus,
Voluntativus, Expectativus, Indikativus, Irrealis, Potentialis,
Konzessivus, Nezessarius, Permissivus, Dubitativus, etc.).
Between those extremes there are intermediate views, such as
that of A.I. Smirnitsky, who proposed a system of six moods
(indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive II,
suppositional, conditional).
The category of mood in the English verb has been
 247

treated in so many different ways, that it seems hardly possible

to arrive at any convincing and universally acceptable
conclusion. 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 other moods, their meanings and the names
they ought to be given, opinions today are as far apart as ever.
The difficulty of distinguishing other moods from the
indicative in English is connected with the fact that, except for
be, they do not contain a single form, which is not used in the
indicative mood. Compare the synthetical forms of go in the
three moods.
Indicative Subjunctive Imperative
go, goes, went go, went go
This is why it is difficult to represent the category
of mood in oppositions, like other categories. The
meanings of the three moods are distinguished not so
much by the opposition of individual forms, as by the
opposition of the systems of forms each mood
possesses.
In speech, the meanings of the three moods are
distinguished not so much by the forms of the verbs, as by their
distribution. Cf.: When I need a thing, I gо and buy it. We insist
that he gо and buy it. Gо and buy it.
The most common view is that in Modern English
there are three moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive),
which keep distinct in English in the same clear way as in many
other languages.
The indicative mood is the basic mood of the verb.
Morphologically, it is the most developed system including all
the categories of the verb. Semantically it is a fact mood. It
represents the action as a fact of reality. It is the most objective
or the least subjective of all the moods. It conveys minimum
personal attitude to the fact. This becomes particularly manifest
in such sentences as Water consists of oxygen and hydrogen
where consists denotes an actual fact, and the speaker's
attitude is neutral.
The use of the indicative mood does not always mean
that the action expressed by the predicate verb is true to fact.
The indicative mood merely represents an action as a fact. This
 248

is evident for such nursery rhyme sentences as The cow

jumped over the moon. The speaker may be mistaken or even
telling a lie. Grammar (and linguistics as a whole) does not deal
with the ultimate truth or untruth of statements. This peculiarity
of the category of mood should be always firmly kept in mind.
Some doubt about the meaning of the indicative mood
may arise if we consider its use in conditional sentences, e.g., I
will speak to him if I meet him. It may be argued that the action
denoted by the verb in the indicative mood is not here
represented as a fact but merely as a possibility (I may meet
him, and I may not). However, this does not affect the meaning
of the grammatical form as such. The conditional meaning is
expressed by the conjunction if, 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. On the whole, the
hypothetical meaning attached to clauses introduced by if is no
objection to the meaning of the indicative as a verbal category.
The imperative mood represents an action as a
command or request addressed to one’s interlocutor: Fight
pollution. Be yourself. Don’t make a noise. It is a direct
expression of one’s will. Therefore it is much more subjective
than the indicative mood. Its modal meaning is very strong and
distinct.
The imperative mood is morphologically the least
developed of all moods. It may be used in the affirmative and in
the negative form. The affirmative form is the plain stem of the
verb: Listen to him. The negative form is an analytical form built
up by means of the auxiliary verb do followed by not: Don’t listen
to him. The continuous and passive forms are very rare: Вe
always searching for new sensations. Be warned in time, mend
your manner.
If we wish to make a command or request more
expressive, we use the emphatic form. It is also an analytical
form built up with the help of the auxiliary do which is placed
before the notional verb: Do come over here. Do listen to me.
The imperative stands apart in the modal
representation of the action for several reasons: it does not
correlate with person, which makes it come closer to the non-
finite forms than to finite; it has no tense-aspect distinction; it is
limited to direct speech only; it has no universal coverage of
linguistic material because it has certain lexical restrictions: it is
used mostly with verbs of motion (go, stop) and physical state
(be quiet, sleep), and is not common with verbs denoting
 249

intellectual and social activity or state, emotions (feel, like,

ascribe, depend, resemble, diminish, prefer, manage).
These peculiarities distinguishing the imperative 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 seems to be no ground to deny that the
imperative is a mood.
Though the system of the imperative mood does not
contain person opposemes, it cannot be said that there is no
meaning of person in the imperative mood forms. On the
contrary, all of them are united by the meaning of second
person because it is always to the interlocutor (the second
person) that the speaker addresses order or request expressed
with the help of imperative mood forms.
Thus the meaning of second person is a lexico-
grammatical meaning common to all the imperative mood forms.
This meaning makes it unnecessary to use the subject you with
verbs in the imperative mood. But sometimes you is used for
emphasis, as in Don't you do it. Verb patterns with pronouns
have special affective connotation with fine shades of emotional
distinctions, such as intensity or emphasis, anger, annoyance,
impatience, scorn: Don’t you forget about it! You sit still over
there! Come along everybody.
Some linguists (G.N. Vorontsova) are of the opinion
that Modern English possesses analytical forms of the
imperative mood for the first and the third person built up with
the help of the semantically weakened unstressed let: Let him
come. Let us go.
There are some objections to these constructions
being regarded as analytical forms of the imperative mood.
There is some difference in meaning between Go! and Let him
go. In the second case no direct urging is expressed as it is
typical of the imperative mood. Cases like Do not let us ever
allude to those times, with the word-morpheme do, alongside of
such sentences as Let it not be doubted that they were nice,
well-behaved girls, without the word-morpheme do, show that
let has not yet established itself as a word-morpheme of the
imperative mood.
To be on the safe side, some linguists (B.S.
Khaimovich, B.I.Rogovskaya, N.M. Rayevska) assume that let-
constructions are analytical words in the making.
B.A. Ilyish answers the question whether let-
 250

constructions can be recognized as analytical forms of the

imperative in the negative. If we were to say that the formation
let + personal pronoun + infinitive is a form of the imperative, we
should have to accept the conclusion that the subject is
expressed by a pronoun in the objective case (the nominative
being impossible here), which is obviously unacceptable, as it
would run counter to all the principles of English syntactic
structure. This formation is therefore not an analytical form of
the imperative mood, and the verb let not an auxiliary of that
mood.
The subjunctive mood (the term is used to cover the
oblique mood system as a whole) is the most controversial
category in English grammar. Not only the meaning, but even
the forms and the number of oblique moods is not yet
established (including their denomination). The number of
unreal moods vacillates from one to sixteen. Probably the only
thing linguists are unanimous about with regard to the
subjunctive mood is that it represents an action as a non-fact,
as something imaginary, desirable, problematic, contrary to
reality. In all other respects opinions differ.
Many authors of English grammars divide the
subjunctive mood into several moods (or form-types), such as
subjunctive I, subjunctive II, the suppositional mood, the
conditional mood.
The suppositional mood represents the action as
problematic but not contradicting to reality, as desirable or
undesirable, suggested, advised, supposed. It has two forms:
non-perfect should write (should be writing; should be written)
and perfect should have written (should have been written).
Subjunctive I (the present subjunctive) is
considered to be close to the suppositional mood in its meaning,
but its forms are different. Subjunctive I has one form write (be
writing).
The suppositional mood and subjunctive I are
used:
1. In subject clauses after the principal clauses
denoting subjective appraisal of the action described in the
subordinate clause. The subject of such principal clause is the
pronoun it, the predicate is compound nominal and includes
adjectives and nouns with modal meaning (important,
imperative, impossible, necessary, essential, urgent, vital,
advisable, desirable) or adjectives and nouns giving estimation
(natural, strange, annoying, a pity, a shame): It is necessary that
 251

you (should) help them.

2. In object, predicative, and attributive clauses after
verbs and nouns denoting suggestion, recommendation,
demand, order, decision: He suggested that we (should) take
part in the excursion.
3. In object, predicative, and appositive clauses after
the expressions of fear (be afraid, be terrified, fear, worry,
tremble, for fear) with the conjunctions lest, in case (that): He
was afraid lest they (should) be late.
4. In adverbial clauses of purpose after the
conjunctions lest, in case, in order that, so that: Put it down lest
you (should) forget it.
Only Subjunctive I is used in simple sentences
(established or idiomatic expressions) with an optative meaning:
Long live the king! God save the Queen! God bless you! Heaven
forbid! Heaven help us. Success attend you!
Subjunctive I serves to express concession in the
following set phrases: So be it. Come what will.
Subjunctive I is found in expressions Suffice it to say
and Far be it from me: Far be it from me to contradict you.
Subjunctive I is also used in certain imprecations:
Damn it! Manners be hanged!
Subjunctive II (the past subjunctive) represents the
action as unreal, contrary to reality. It has two forms: non-perfect
were, went and perfect had been, had gone.
Subjunctive II is used:
1. In independent sentences to express a) advice (had
better): We had better stay indoors today; b) preference (had/
would rather): I had much rather we not stay. I would rather
stay; c) wish: If only I knew what to do! If only he had not missed
that chance.
2. In object clauses after the verb wish: I wish I were
young again. I wish you had asked me anything but that.
3. In predicative clauses after the link verbs be, feel,
look, sound, seem and the conjunctions as if and as though: It
seemed as though it were getting on her nerves. You look as if
you had not slept.
4. In adverbial clauses of comparison after the
conjunctions as if, as though: He smiled as if he were amused
by my joke. Не behaved as if nothing extraordinary had
happened.
5. In adverbial clauses of purpose after the
conjunctions so that, in order that, in case, lest. The modal
 252

verbs can and may are most often used: Put down my number
so that you could get in touch with me. She dressed quickly so
that she might see him sooner.
6. In adverbial clauses of unreal condition after the
conjunctions if, оn condition, in case: I'd do it at once if I were
you. The child wouldn't have cried if you had not left him alone.
7. In adverbial clauses of concession after even if, even
though: Even though he were my brother, I would cast him out.
Even if I had been a stranger he would have talked of his
misfortune.
8. After the expression it's (high) time: It’s time you
were in bed. It's time he were here. It’s time we ordered dinner.
The conditional mood expresses an unreal action the
unreality of which is due to the absence of the necessary
conditions. The conditional mood has two forms: non-perfect
should/would come and perfect should/would have come.
The conditional mood is used:
1. In sentences and clauses of implied condition after
the combination but for and otherwise: But for his help they
would not have finished the work in time. We were lucky that the
weather was fine. Otherwise we should have put off our outing.
The condition may be implied by the context: Are you
intending to marry her? I think it would be very unwise. She
would be a load on you (The implied condition is ‘If you married
her’).
2. In the principal clause of sentences with adverbial
clauses of unreal condition: If I were you I should go there at
once. If he had helped you yesterday you would have finished
your work already.
3. In the principal clause of sentences with adverbial
clauses of concession: Even if he had helped them they would
not have finished the work in time.
One of the most important differences between the
indicative and the other moods is that the meaning of ‘tense’
does not go with the meanings of subjunctive and imperative
mood. Tense reflects the real time of a real action. The
imperative and subjunctive moods represent the action not as
real, but as desired or imagined, and the notions of real time are
discarded.
Having no tense opposemes, the subjunctive mood
system makes extensive use of time correlation forms. The
perfect forms, naturally, express actions imagined as prior to the
event of speaking, actions imagined in the past: If I had known
 253

that, I should have acted differently. It is strange that he should

have spoken so. The non-perfect forms do not express priority.
The action they denote may be thought of as simultaneous with
some event or even following it: I wish he were here now. I wish
he were here tomorrow.
The passive voice and continuous aspect meanings
are expressed much in the same way as in the indicative mood
system.
Another peculiar complication in the analysis of
subjunctive mood involves the problem of subjunctive mood
auxiliaries. The verbs should and would are subjunctive mood
auxiliaries expressing unreality as proved by their contraction
(‘d). The question is less clear with the verb may when used in
such sentences as Come closer that I may hear what you say
(and, of course, the form might if the main clause has a
predicate verb in the past tense). Is the group may hear some
mood form of the verb hear, or is it a free combination of two
verbs, thus belonging entirely to the field of syntax, not
morphology? The same question may be asked about the verb
may in such sentences as May you be happy! where it is part of
a group used to express a wish, and is perhaps a mood
auxiliary.
The participation of modal verbs in the subjunctive
mood expressions is possible because modal verbs, especially
those denoting possibility, and the subjunctive mood as a
grammatical category express related concepts. The absence of
to before the infinitive makes the patterns of the conditional and
combinations with modal verbs similar: could do (could have
done), would do (would have done). Because of close affinity of
the meaning and pattern in the groups with modal verbs and
forms of mood many grammarians abroad do not distinguish
between the grammatical category of the unreal mood(s) and
modal phrases. They recognize verb-phrases with all modal
verbs as the forms of the subjunctive.
According to I.B. Khlebnikova [1994], only those modal
verbs can become part of the subjunctive mood form which
exhibit the opposition of present :: past, and can both combine
with the non-perfect and perfect infinitive. Among the modal
verbs of English, only can and may display the present-past
dichotomy (can/could; may/ might), and can combine with non-
perfect and perfect infinitive. Cases when could and might enter
the forms of the subjunctive abound in literature: The old father
might have told us if he could have risen. But he didn’t.
 254

14.8. The categories of person and number

The category of person expresses the relation
between the speaker, the person(s) addressed, and other
persons and things. The first person expresses the speaker or a
group of which the speaker makes a part; the second person,
the person(s) spoken to, and the third person, the person(s) or
thing(s) spoken about.
In Modern English the verbal category of person
has certain peculiarities.
In the present tense the expression of the category of
person is divided into three peculiar subsystems.
The first subsystem includes modal verbs (can, may,
must, ought, need, dare, etc.) that do not convey the indication
of person.
The second subsystem is made up by the unique
verbal lexeme be which has three different suppletive personal
forms: am for the first person singular, is for the third person
singular, and are as a feature marking the finite form negatively:
neither the first, nor the third person singular. It can't be taken
for the specific positive mark of the second person for the
simple reason that it coincides with the plural all-person (equal
to none-person) marking.
The third subsystem presents the regular expression of
person with the remaining multitude of English verbs. The
personal mark is confined here to the third person singular -(e)s,
the first and the second persons remaining unmarked: comes —
come.
There is no distinction of persons in the plural number.
Thus, the form know may, within the plural number, be
connected with the subject of any person (first, second, or third).
A.I. Smirnitsky thinks that owing to the presence of the
plural personal pronouns (we, you, they) person distinctions are
felt in the plural of the verb as well: we know — you know —
they know. This idea is open to criticism. If the verb itself (in the
plural) does not show any person distinctions we are bound to
admit that in Modern English the verb in the plural has no
person.
English possesses the archaic present tense person-
conjugation found in elevated speech (solemn addresses,
sermons, poetry) which has a special inflection for the second
person singular. The third and second persons are positively
 255

marked, while the first person remains unmarked: comes —

comest — come. The verb be has three explicitly marked forms,
having a separate suppletive presentation for each separate
person: am, art, is.
As regards the future tense, the person finds here quite
another mode of expression. The features distinguishing it from
the present-tense person conjugation are, first, that it marks not
the third, but the first person in distinction to the remaining two
(shall know — will know); and second, that it includes in its
sphere also the plural. These distinctions, however, are oblit-
erated through the spreading of -'ll and the extensive use of will
and would for shall and should.
Person distinctions do not go with the meaning of the
past tense in the English verb: I (he) asked.
A trace of person distinction is presented in the
archaic past tense person-conjugation with the archaic form
of the second person singular: thou wrotest, thou wert.
Thus, the expression of the category of person is
essentially confined to the singular form of the verb in the
present tense of the indicative mood (speak — speaks) and is
very singularly presented in the future tense (shall speak — will
speak). As for the past tense, the person is alien to it, except for
a trace of personal distinction in the archaic conjugation. This is
what, according to M.Y. Blokh [1983], might be called ‘little
whims of grammar’.
The verbal category of number shows whether the
action is associated with one doer or with more than one.
Accordingly, it denotes something fundamentally different from
the number of nouns. We see here not the 'oneness' or 'more-
than-oneness' of actions, but the connection with the singular or
plural doer: He eats three times a day does not indicate a single
eating but a single eater.
The verbal category of number is represented in
English in the opposition was — were and accordingly in all
analytical forms containing was — were (was writing — were
writing, was written — were written). In am — are, is — are or
am, is — are it is blended with person. Likewise in speaks —
speak we actually have the third person singular opposed to the
non-third-person-singular.
Some verbs do not distinguish number at all because
of their peculiar historical development: I (we) can, he (they)
must, others are but rarely used in the singular because the
meaning of 'oneness' is hardly compatible with their lexical
 256

meanings, e.g., to crowd, to conspire, etc. Accordingly the

category of number is but scantily represented in Modern
English.
The categories of person and number are closely
connected with each other. According to I.B. Khlebnikova
[1994], person-number should be considered a joint category,
as it has one common exponent -s in the third person singular,
present, or finds formal expression in the auxiliaries be and
have; it stands outside meaningful oppositions in the verbal
macrosystem.
As to the problem of subject-verb agreement for
person and number, this is a controversial problem. The most
important is the 'third person singular' rule for verbs in the
present tense. This states that singular subjects take singular
verbs, and plural subjects take plural verbs: a child plays,
children play. Such examples as My family are early risers, on
the one hand, and Two miles is a long way, on the other, prove
that the verb does not always follow the noun in the category of
number. In such cases, the principle of grammatical agreement
is not observed. This type of agreement is called notional
agreement (notional concord).
Concord of proximity occurs when the verb agrees
with the number of a nearby noun, rather than with the real
subject, as in No one except his friends agree with him. One in
ten take lessons.
Usage is particularly divided over none: None of the
pens is/ are on the table. The plural concord is more frequently
used, but the older tradition insists on the singular.
When two nouns are linked as subjects, there is often a
choice, depending on whether the meanings are seen as one or
as separate: Law and order is/are now established.

Unit 15
____________________________________

NON-FINITE FORMS OF THE VERB

____________________________________
15.1. Non-finite forms of the verb: general
characteristic
 257

Non-finite forms of the verb, also termed verbals or

verbids, are the forms of the verb intermediary in many of their
lexico-grammatical features between the verb and the non-
processual parts of speech (noun, adjective, adverb).
The majority of grammarians distinguish three verbids
in Modern English: the infinitive, the gerund, the participle
(including participle I and II). Some linguists distinguish the
infinitive, the ing-form (gerund and participle I grouped together)
and the participle (participle II). Some claim that the English
verbids include four forms distinctly differing from one another:
the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle, and the past
participle.
Lexico-grammatical meaning of verbids, though
essentially that of the verb, has something of the lexico-
grammatical meanings of other parts of speech. The infinitive
and the gerund denote an action partially treated as a
substance. Such dual verbal-nominal meaning can be tested by
question-transformations: Do you really mean to go away and
leave me here alone? → What do you really mean? The
participle denotes an action presented as a quality of some
substance (like an adjective) or a circumstance of another
action (like an adverb): He looked at his son with twinkling eyes.
→ What were his eyes like when he looked at his son? He said
it kneeling beside her → How did he say it?
Verbids do not possess many of the categories of
the finite verb, such as number, person, tense, and mood.
With regard to verbids some grammarians speak about
the category of relative tense. The verbids are said to express
time relatively, i.e. in relation to the action of the predicate verb
in the sentence. The action expressed by the verbids may be
simultaneous with the action expressed by the predicate verb,
precede it, or follow it. Cf.: It is better to live than to have lived.
Having looked at his watch he closed the book. He was ready to
assist them.
According to B.A. Ilyish, it seems pointless to argue
that there is a present and a past tense in the system of verbals.
The opposition between such forms as to speak and to have
spoken, and that between speaking and having spoken is based
on the category of time correlation which is much more
universal in Modern English verb than that of tense: correlation
appears in all forms of the English verb, both finite and non-
finite, except the imperative, while tense is only found in the
indicative mood and nowhere else.
 258

The category of time correlation is expressed by the

opposition of non-perfect and perfect forms in the infinitive: to
write — to have written, to be writing — to have been writing, to
be written — to have been written, in the gerund and the
participle: writing — having written, being written — having been
written.
The infinitive has the category of aspect. There is a
distinction between the common and the continuous aspect: to
speak — to be speaking, to have spoken — to have been
speaking. The gerund and the participle exhibit no such
distinction.
As to the category of voice, verbids have a distinction
between active and passive, as can be seen from the
oppositions in the infinitive: to write — to be written, to have
written — to have been written, in the participle and the gerund:
writing — being written, having written — having been written.
Verbids exhibit duality in their combinability. They
form connections with adverbs, nouns or pronouns denoting
objects of the action like finite verbs, and with finite verbs, like
nouns or adverbs. The participle, for instance, is regularly
connected with nouns, like an adjective, and with verbs, like an
adverb: We walked in the softly falling rain. He waited growing
more and more impatient.
Syntactical functions of verbids are quite different
from those of the finite verb. Finite forms regularly function as
the predicate of the sentence. Verbids are not used in this
function. They cannot express predication by themselves; they
can only be a part of predicate and, as a part of predicate, they
must always be in connection with finite forms of the verb: Her
dream was to become an actress. He ought to be present at the
lecture.
Verbids are used in any other function in the sentence:
subject, object, attribute, adverbial modifier.
One of the peculiarities of verbids is their being used
as secondary predicates to express secondary (potential)
predication in predicative complexes (complex object, complex
subject, for-to-infinitive complex, absolute constructions, etc.): I
saw them dancing. I am made to work hard. I long for you to
come. Circumstances permitting, they will be through with it by
the end of May.

15.2. The infinitive

 259

The infinitive is historically a noun derived from a

verb stem. In the course of its development it has
acquired some characteristics of the verb and is at
present the non-finite form of the verb intermediate
between verb and noun.
The infinitive is characterized by the following
features: dual lexico-grammatical meaning of an action,
process partially viewed as a substance; the word-
morpheme (analytical marker) to; categories of voice,
aspect, time correlation; combinability resembling that of
the verb and of the noun; syntactical functions of subject,
predicative, object, attribute, adverbial modifier.
The English infinitive exists in two presentation forms.
One of them is distinguished by the pre-positional marker to.
This form is called traditionally the to-infinitive, or the marked
infinitive. The other form does not employ the marker to,
thereby presenting the infinitive in the shape of the pure verb
stem. This form is traditionally called the bare infinitive, or the
unmarked infinitive.
In traditional grammar the infinitival to is usually called
a particle, but it does not possess the properties of a particle.
Particles (not, too, only, else) are characterized by their lexico-
grammatical meaning of emphatic specification. Infinitival to
does not emphasize or specify anything. All particles have
distinct lexical meanings. To has no lexical meaning whatever.
Particles are characterized by extensive combinability: they form
combinations with words of almost any part of speech. To is
connected only with the infinitive. All this clearly shows that to is
not a particle. It is a word-morpheme of the infinitive, its
analytical marker analogous to other auxiliary elements in the
English grammatical structure. Its only function is to build up
and identify the infinitive form as such. The marked infinitive
presents just another case of an analytical grammatical form.
Like other word-morphemes to can represent the whole
analytical word: Will you go? — I want to, where to represents
the analytical word (the infinitive) to go. Like other word-
morphemes, to can be separated from the rest of the analytical
word by some other word or words. Cf.: He will fully appreciate
… — In order to fully appreciate ... In such cases linguists speak
of the split infinitive: to thoroughly investigate, to clearly
define, to consistently systematize.
Unlike other word-morphemes, the word-morpheme to
 260

is not used in certain surroundings, e.g., a) after auxiliary and

modal verbs (save ought, to have, to be): He will recover soon.
You may take my book; b) after verbs of physical perception (in
complex object): I saw him cross the street; c) after the verb
know in the sense of ‘observe’: I have never known her tell a lie;
d) after the verb help: Help me get him to bed; e) after the
expressions had better, had best, would rather, would sooner,
cannot but, do nothing but, nothing to do but: You had better go
home. I would rather go for a walk than stay here. I cannot but
agree with you. She does nothing but grumble. There was
nothing to do but wait; f) in sentences with the subject
expressed by all: All they do is work; g) in special questions
beginning with why and implying a suggestion: Why not go there
right away?
When there are several infinitives with the same
function to is put only before the first infinitive: I’m to choose
who’s to come and see it first. But if emphasis or contrast is
intended to is repeated before each infinitive: To be or not to be
— that is the question.
The aspect, time correlation, and voice meanings of
the infinitive are the same as in the finites.
The perfect infinitive differs essentially from from the
perfect ing-form insofar as it can denote the completion of the
action in the future: It is necessary to have done with it tonight.
When do you expect to have finished? In some cases, it can
denote priority without pointing to the completion of the action:
To have played at children! It was so funny. Finally, it can
denote unreal actions in the past: a) after such modal verbs as
should, could, ought, might: You should have done it yesterday
(but you didn’t); b) after the past tense of verbs denoting hope,
intention, expectation, wish: I intended to have helped them (but
I didn’t); c) in infinitival sentences: To have brought Fleur openly
– yes! – but to sneak her in like this! Unreality is only one of the
peculiar modal meanings rendered by the perfect infinitive.
When the perfect infinitive is used with the present
tense of modal verbs, it expresses a speaker’s judgement in the
present concerning the probability of some prior action: It must
have stopped raining (= probably it has stopped raining). He
must have locked the door before he left (= certainly he had
locked the door before he left).
Modal meanings may be also rendered by the non-
perfect infinitive (especially in its attributive function): It is the
only thing to do (= that can be done). I’ll buy you some
 261

magazines to read on the journey (= which you may read). Note

that the active infinitive in its atrributive function is usually
passive in meaning.
Like a finite verb, the infinitive is combined with
adverbs, nouns/ pronouns denoting the subject or the object of
the action: You must handle it carefully. We expected уou to
bring the book. Like a noun, the infinitive is combined with a
finite verb as the subject or the object of the action: To land
seemed impossible. I promised to come.
The infinitive has the following functions in the
sentence: To err is human (subject). To decide is to act
(predicative). You can easily do it (part of a compound verbal
predicate). He promised to come (object). I’ve got a lot of things
to do (attribute in post position). I have come here to talk to you
(adverbial modifier of purpose). Ten days later he was well
enough to leave (of result). I’ve got more important things to do
than look at the sea (of comparison). To hear him talk one might
think that he knows everything (of condition). She was driven
away, never to revisit this neighbourhood (of attendant
circumstances). She had no choice but to obey (of exception).
To tell the truth, I’m sick and tired of this nonsense (parenthesis)
The infinitive is used as a secondary predicate in
predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject,
for-complex, and absolute complex: I saw the boy run. The girl
was seen to leave the room. It is necessary for us to start
immediately. There they remained, some of them to be entirely
forgotten.

15.3. The gerund

The gerund is a descendant of the Old English verbal
noun and the present participle. As a result of the blending of
the two forms, the verbal noun in -ing began to develop verbal
characteristics under the influence of the participle, thus
crystallizing into a new form, the gerund, which is a peculiarity of
the English language.
The gerund is characterized by the following
features: dual lexico-grammatical meaning of an action partially
viewed as a substance; the group morpheme -ing; categories of
voice and time correlation; combinability resembling that of the
verb and of the noun; syntactical functions of subject,
predicative, object, attribute, adverbial modifier.
 262

Like finite verbs, the gerund has the grammatical

categories of time correlation and voice.
We may find instances when the non-perfect gerund is
commonly used instead of the perfect gerund: a) after the
prepositions on, upon, after, without: After catching a few fish,
we prepared a delicious breakfast; b) after the verbs of
recollection, gratitude, blame, reproach, punishment, reward: I
remember meeting him in London. Thank you for coming.
The active voice form of the gerund is passive in
meaning after the verbs want, need, require, deserve, the
adjective worth: The car needs repairing (= being repaired).
Peculiar continuous forms of the gerund (being +
-ing) have been registered in use [Вейхман, 1990: 60]:
I’ve missed endless buses through not being standing at
the bus stop when they arrived. That’s what comes of
Martin being teaching again.
Like a finite verb the gerund is associated with
adverbs, nouns/ pronouns denoting the object or the subject of
the action: We enjoyed driving quickly. Repeating your
accusations doesn’t make them convincing. His returning so
soon surprised his family. Like a noun the gerund is associated
with prepositions, possessive pronouns or nouns in the
possessive case: It is the best way of doing it. I rely on her
(Mary’s) doing it properly.
Along with the split infinitive grammarians [Вейхман,
1990: 60] also make mention of a split gerund in which there is
an adverb or adverbial phrase between the gerund and its
accompanying preposition: The Reagan administration has tried
to ease the tensions by publicly downplaying trade differences
with the allies.
The gerund has the following functions in the sentence:
Reading is useful (subject). Seeing is believing (predicative).
She went on reading (part of a compound verbal predicate).
Avoid making such mistakes (object). Everybody must possess
the art of being a good neighbour (attribute). On entering the
room he came up to me (adverbial modifier of time). He was in
jail for having killed a person in a fight (of cause). You spoiled
everything by telling a lie (of manner). He left the room without
saying a word (of attending circumstances). The hall was used
for dancing (of purpose). In spite of being tired they decided to
go on with their work (of concession). He has no right to come
here without being invited (of condition).
 263

The gerund is used as a secondary predicate in

predicative complexes (gerundial predicative constructions): I
rely on John’s coming there. Your doing nothing won’t help
anybody.

15.4. The participle

The participle is a non-finite form of the verb which
has the characteristics of both verb and adjective and in some
of its functions it combines the characteristics of a verb with
those of an adverb.
There are two participles in English: participle I (the
present participle) and participle II (the past participle).
The participle is characterized by the following
features: dual lexico-grammatical meaning of a qualifying
action; special morphemes -ing (participle I), -(e)d, -t, -(e)n
(participle II); participle II is sometimes formed by internal
inflection (written) or zero suffix (put); grammatical categories of
voice, time correlation; combinability partly resembling that of
the verb and partly that of the adjective and adverb; syntactical
functions of attribute and adverbial modifier.
Participle I has voice and time correlation distinctions.
Consequently, the categorical paradigm of the present participle
of the objective verb includes four forms.
Participle II is unchangeable. It has one form asked,
written, sent, etc. which may denote the action simultaneous
with the action of the verb-predicate or prior to it. This difference
depends on the lexical character of the verb (terminative or
durative) and the context: He was a man trusted by everybody.
This is a letter written by you yesterday. When formed from
transitive verbs, it has a passive meaning: It is a house built
some hundreds years ago. But these meanings of participle II
are not grammatical meanings. They are not lexical either, since
they do not belong to the stem of the lexeme. So research is
needed to establish the nature of these meanings.
Analysis of the grammatical categories expressed in
the past participle is a matter of great difficulty, and so is the
problem of finding its place among the other participles.
Like a finite verb the participle is combined with
modifying adverbs, nouns/ pronouns expressing the object or
the subject of the action: Leaving the room hurriedly, he ran out.
Opening the door, he went out. All things considered, the offer
seems reasonable. Like an adjective the participle is associated
 264

with the modified nouns: There was nothing to be seen or

heard, not even a barking dog. Like an adverb the participle is
combined with verbs: She looked up smiling.
Participle I has the following functions in the sentence:
He came up to the crying child (attribute). Having arrived at the
station, she immediately felt cheerful (adverbial modifier of
time). Having plenty of time, we did not hurry (of cause). They
stood silently looking at one another (of manner/ attendant
circumstances). He stood still as if debating with himself (of
comparison). He could not catch up with them though working
very hard (of concession). Driving at this speed, we’ll be there in
no time (of condition). Frankly speaking, you are wrong
(parenthesis).
The main functions of participle II in the sentence are:
Her softened look gave him a new hope (attribute). When asked
he always helped me (adverbial modifier of time). Occupied by
his thoughts he didn’t hear my question (of cause). I did as
requsted (of manner). He looked at me, as if bewildered by my
question (of comparison). If asked he always helped me (of
condition). Her spirit, though crushed, was not broken (of
concession).
When it is used as predicative, it is always adjectivized
and may be preceded, like a real adjective, by adverbs of
degree and the correlatives as…as, not so…as: I was too
excited to mind it. I am very disappointed. If anyone lived there
he would be as scared as we were. It should be mentioned that
if participles were not adjectivized in this case, they would form
the passive voice. It follows that the participle proper cannot be
used as predicative.
The participle is used as a secondary predicate in
predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject,
absolute complex: I had my hair cut. Two people were seen
quarrelling. Our classes being over, we hurried home. She
stood with her eyes closed.

15.5. The gerund and the infinitive compared

As to the infinitive-gerund correlation, both forms
combine verbal and noun characteristics, so the natural
question is whether the two do not repeat each other.
Observations of the uses of the gerund and the
infinitive in texts do show the clear-cut semantic difference
 265

between the forms.

1. The gerund is more of a noun than the infinitive,
which is to some extent explained by the fact that the gerund
became part of the English verb system much later than the
infinitive. We easily notice the more dynamic, more actional
character of the infinitive and the less dynamic character of the
corresponding gerund. Furthermore, we find the cognate verbal
noun which is devoid of processual meaning altogether. Cf.: For
them to have arrived so early! Such a surprise! — Their having
arrived so early was indeed a great surprise. — Their early
arrival was a great surprise, really. The infinitive represents the
meaning as dynamic, the gerund as semi-dynamic, and the
verbal noun as static.
2. The gerund is of a more abstract nature than the
infinitive. The infinitive is mostly used with reference to a
particular occasion, the gerund being more appropriate to a
general statement: The child was not afraid of remaining alone.
But he was afraid to remain alone on such a stormy night.
3. The infinitive denotes a probable or supposed action
while the gerund renders a concrete action which is already
realized or is being realized: We hope to see you soon. I enjoy
meeting him. This means that the infinitive refers the action to
the future; the gerund — to the present or past: I like him to be
nice to you. — I like his being nice to you. I remember to see
him. — I remember seeing him.
4. The infinitive expresses a deliberate action; the
gerund — unintentional, casual, unexpected action: He was
afraid of falling. — He was afraid to jump. *He was afraid to fall.
*He was afraid to crash.
5. The infinitive expresses short, single, momentary
actions; the gerund — long, continuous, repeated actions: He
started speaking and kept on for more than an hour. — He
started to speak but stopped because she objected.
6. After the verb stop there is the difference in meaning
and function of the gerund and the infinitive: She stopped talking
to him (part of a compound verbal predicate). — She stopped to
talk to him (adverbial modifier of purpose).
Thus, the use of the gerund or the infinitive is
differentiated. Hence, the forms do not repeat, but complement
each other, being both of them inalienable components of the
English verbal system.
In Modern English the gerund is, probably, the only
usual verbid after: a) some verbs such as avoid, deny, enjoy,
 266

mind, postpone, prevent, suggest; b) certain verb-groups such

as can't help, can’t bear, can’t stand; c) verbs with fixed
postpositions such as accuse of, agree to, approve of, complain
of, depend on, insist on, object to, prevent from, rely on; d)
statives and adjectives — astonished at, aware of, capable of,
fond of, guilty of, pleased at, proud of, sure of; e) nouns with
prepositions: habit of, hope of, idea of, objection to, opportunity
of, possibility of, way of.
On the other hand, some verbs can attach the
infinitive, but not the gerund, such as hope, promise, refuse,
start out, etc.
With a number of verbs and word-groups both the
gerund and the infinitive may be used: be afraid, advise, allow,
begin, cease, continue, can (cannot) afford, deserve, dread,
fear, forbid, hate, intend, like, love, need, neglect, permit, prefer,
propose, remember, recollect, recommend, require, start, stop,
want, etc.

15.6. The gerund and the participle compared

Within the gerund-participle correlation, the central
point of analysis is the very lexico-grammatical identification of
the two verbid forms in -ing in their reference to each other. Do
they constitute two different verbids, or do they present one and
the same form? The ground for raising this problem is quite
substantial, since the outer structure of the two elements of the
verbal system is absolutely identical. It is not by chance that in
the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the
school of descriptive linguistics the two forms are recognized as
one integral V-ing, opposed, on the one hand, to the infinitive
(V-to), on the other hand, to the past participle (V-en).
According to B.A. Ilyish, the difference between the
gerund and participle I is basically this. The gerund, along with
its verbal qualities, has substantival qualities as well; the
participle, along with its verbal qualities, has adjectival and
adverbial qualities. This of course brings about a corresponding
difference in their syntactical functions: the gerund may be the
subject, predicative, or the object in the sentence, and only
rarely an attribute, whereas the participle is an attribute first and
foremost. When used as an attribute or adverbial modifier, the
gerund clearly shows its nominal character: it is always
preceded by a preposition, which is a formal mark of a noun.
Cf.: Fancy the idea of sleeping with the window open in winter
 267

(gerund). — She didn’t recognize the man standing in front of

her (participle I). We reached the river by crossing the field
(gerund). — Crossing the river the boat turned over (participle I).
The two ing-forms in question are shown as
possessing categorially differential properties establishing them
as two different verbids in the system of the English verb.

 REVISION TASKS
Choose the correct answer to complete the sentences.
1. The morpheme is a) minimal sound segment; b)
minimum grammatical form; c) the smallest meaningful part of
the word; d) the smallest independent part of the word.
2. The morpheme -s in runs is a) a zero morpheme; b)
a free morpheme; c) a form-building (grammatical) morpheme;
d) a word-building (lexical) morpheme.
3. The second formative elements of the verbs turn in,
turn up, look after, come by are a) free morphemes; b) bound
morphemes; c) covert morphemes; d) additive morphemes.
4. Prefixes in-, im-, il-, ir-, having a negative force
(invariable, impartial, illiterate, irregular, etc.) are a) replacive
morphemes; b) free morphemes; c) segmental morphemes; d)
allomorphs.
5. The word is a) a nominative unit of language; b) a
unit of information in the communication process; c) minimal
meaningful unit of speech; d) meaningful grammatical unit
formed by phonemes.
6. Grammatical forms teach and taught, go and went
belong to the same a) grammeme; b) lexeme; c) allomorph; d)
allogrammeme.
7. In accordance with the peculiarities of their stem
structure, the nouns numbskull, squarehead, halfwit, birdbrain,
bowlhead meaning ‘stupid person’ are a) simple; b) derivative;
c) compound; d) composite.
8. The system of grammatical forms characteristic of a
word (son, son’s, sons, sons’ ) is defined as a) grammatical
category; b) grammatical paradigm; c) grammeme; d) lexeme.
9. Analytical grammatical forms are built up by a) inner
inflection or sound interchange; b) outer inflection; c)
suppletivity; d) combination of at least two words, a grammatical
auxiliary and a word of notional meaning.
10. The grammatical system of Modern English is
 268

prevalently a) synthetical; b) agglutinative; c) incorporating; d)

analytical.
11. On the lexical level, analytical tendency manifests
itself in a) fixed word order; b) prepositions; c) analytical verb
forms; d) analytical verbs.
12. The growing tendency of coining phrasal verbs
(shrug off, build up, fall for, brew up, butt in) is the sign of
analytical tendency on the a) lexical level; b) morphological
level; c) syntactical level; d) super-syntactical level.
13. English, like the a) isolating; b) agglutinative; c)
inflectional; d) incorporating languages has case and number
distinctions in the pronouns.
14. English, like the a) isolating; b) agglutinative; c)
inflectional; d) incorporating languages can glue many bits
together into a long word.
15. The definition of parts of speech places them as a)
lexico-grammatical word-classes; b) lexical classes with more or
less common features; c) syntactical classes used for the
formation of the sentence; d) grammatical classes with certain
grammatical markers.
16. Syntactico-distributional principle of classifying
words into word-classes was elaborated by a) Otto Jespersen;
b) Henry Sweet; c) Charles Fries; d) Noam Chomsky.
17. Meaning, form, and function are three main criteria
essential for a) classifying words in accordance with their
distribution; b) dividing words into parts of speech; c)
distinguishing grammatical categories of a part of speech; d)
studying combinability of a part of speech.
18. The word asleep in He fell asleep quickly is a) a
modal word; b) an interjection; c) a stative; d) a particle.
19. Once in Once you speak you are dead is a) an
adverb; b) an adjective; c) a conjunction; d) a preposition.
20. Class-migration processes of parts of speech are
traditionally called a) subcategorization; b) transposition; c)
conversion; d) substitution.
21. Prepositions, conjunctions, particles, and articles
exemplify a) inter-class system of derivation; b) lexical paradigm
of nomination; c) notional parts of speech; d) functional parts of
speech.
22. The nouns Henry, The Thames, London, May are
examples of a) concrete nouns; b) proper nouns; c) common
nouns; d) abstract nouns.
23. The nouns crowd, group, government are examples
 269

of a) mass nouns; b) collective nouns; c) inanimate nouns; d)

nouns of multitude.
24. In word combinations to crack one’s brain(s),
minimum wage(s), to supply with victual(s), wild oat(s) in which
plural and singular forms of nouns are interchangeable a) both
members of number opposition are marked; b) the singular
member is marked; c) the plural member is not marked; d)
number opposition comes to be neutralized.
25. In the opposition dog :: dogs singularity is
expressed by a) zero morpheme; b) root morpheme; c) positive
morpheme; d) bound morpheme.
26. In number opposition phenomenon :: phenomena
a) both members are marked; b) both members are not marked;
c) the singular member is not marked; d) the plural member is
not marked.
27. Singular nouns ending in -s linguistics, billiards,
Wales, mumps belong to a) singularia tantum nouns; b) pluralia
tantum nouns; c) nouns of multitude; d) collective nouns.
28. The nouns trousers, pants, scissors, tongs denoting
objects consisting of two or more parts belong to a) nouns of
multitude; b) collective nouns; c) singularia tantum nouns; d)
pluralia tantum nouns.
29. The semantic variety of the plural which expresses
large amounts of substance as in the river's mighty waters is
termed a) augmentative plural; b) partitive plural; c) objective
plural; d) repetition plural.
30. The semantic variety of the plural which expresses
intensity in the presentation of the idea as in years and years
ago is termed a) repetition plural; b) descriptive plural; c)
augmentative plural; d) specificational plural.
31. The category of case of nouns shows a) whether a
noun has one or more than one referent; b) the relations of the
nounal referent to other objects and phenomena; c) the speaker
and those to or about whom he or she is speaking; d) the state
of being male, female, or neuter.
32. The most common view on the problem of case in
English nouns recognizes two cases: a common case and a
possessive (genitive) case. This view is called a) theory of
positional cases; b) theory of prepositional cases; c) theory of
analytical cases; d) limited case theory.
33. With regard to the category of case, all nouns in
English are divided into a) countable and uncountable; b)
animate and inanimate; c) declinable and indeclinable; d)
 270

human and non-human.

34. Semantic type of the genitive in her sister’s
husband can be defined as a) genitive of possession; b)
subjective genitive; c) social relationship genitive; d) qualitative
genitive.
35. Semantic type of the genitive in his parent’s
consent can be defined as a) genitive of quality bearer; b)
genitive of destination; c) objective genitive; d) subjective
genitive.
36. Semantic type of the genitive in the prisoner’s
release can be defined as a) objective genitive; b) subjective
genitive; c) social relationship genitive; d) genitive of origin.
37. That long nose of John’s exemplifies a) group
genitive; b) absolute genitive; c) independent genitive; d) double
genitive.
38. Lexico-morphological way of indicating gender
distinctions in English entails a) a range of sex markers in word
combinations (male frog – female frog); b) word formation (god
– goddess); c) common dual generic terms (parent, sibling); d)
personal dual gender (student, teacher).
39. Pronouns are words serving to denote substances,
qualities, quantities, and circumstances by a) naming them; b)
describing them; c) indicating them; d) designating them.
40. Pronouns this (these), that (those) are a) indefinite;
b) reciprocal; c) demonstrative; d) reflexive.
41. Compound pronouns with the second element -self
as in myself, himself, itself are a) indefinite; b) reciprocal; c)
relative; d) reflexive.
42. Pronouns each other, one another are a) indefinite;
b) reflexive; c) reciprocal; d) contrasting.
43. Most a) relative; b) generalizing; c) quantitative; d)
contrasting pronouns form degrees of comparison. This is the
main reason why some grammarians qualify them as adjectives.
44. Like a noun, the a) generalizing; b) indefinite; c)
contrasting; d) reciprocal pronoun other may be used with the
definite article: Please tell the others how matters stand.
45. Indefinite pronouns somewhere, somehow,
anywhere, anyhow are deictic substitutes of a) nouns; b)
adjectives; c) adverbs; d) numerals.
46. In the sentence One never sees again those whom
one wishes to see, the pronoun one is a) an indefinite pronoun;
b) an indefinite or generalizing personal pronoun; c) a pro-form;
d) a quantitative pronoun.
 271

47. The adjectives woolen, wooden are a) qualitative;

b) descriptive; c) limiting; d) relative.
48. In the pharses metallic voice, silver cloud, iron will
a) descriptive adjectives function as limiting; b) limiting
adjectives function as descriptive; c) relative adjectives develop
qualitative meanings; d) qualitative adjectives develop relative
meanings.
49. The forms more beautiful, (the) most beautiful are
a) synthetical forms of comparison; b) analytical forms of
comparison; c) double or multiple comparatives and
superlatives; d) forms of reverse comparison.
50. Yet it was the most successful party exemplifies a)
elative superlative; c) double or multiple superlative; d)
superlative degree grammeme synonymous to the comparative;
d) synthetical superlative.
51. The adverb does not express qualifications of a)
substances; b) actions; c) properties; d) circumstances.
52. Adverbs of time yesterday, soon, lately, afterwards,
eventually are regarded as a) qualitative; b) quantitative; c)
circumstantial; d) relative.
53. Adverbs of manner well, badly, quickly, deeply,
willingly are regarded as a) qualitative; b) quantitative; c)
circumstantial; d) relative.
54. Grammatical elements of the categorial forms of
the verb are a) modal verbs; b) link verbs; c) auxiliary verbs; d)
substitute verbs.
55. Verbs which introduce the nominal part of the
predicate expressed by a noun, an adjective, or a phrase of a
similar character are a) modal verbs; b) link verbs; c) auxiliary
verbs; d) representing verbs.
56. Verbs which do not usually occur in the progressive
and cannot be used as imperatives are termed: a) ergative; b)
intransitive; c) non-terminative (durative); d) statal (stative).
57. Objective verbs that are connected with their
objects directly are called a) subjective; b) transitive; c) statal; d)
dynamic.
58. Verbs which can be used transitively, followed by
an object, or intransitively, without the object as in He fired a
gun → The gun fired are termed: a) ergative; b) subjective; c)
objective; d) complex transitive.
59. The immediate exponent of tense is the a)
Indefinite; b) Continuous; c) Perfect; d) Perfect Continuous set
where the category of tense is the basic marked feature of all
 272

the forms.
60. The difference between the forms will come ::
would come is that of a) tense; b) aspect; c) absolute and
relative posteriority; d) absolute and relative priority.
61. He said he had no reason to doubt it exemplifies a)
absolute use of tenses; b) relative use of tenses; c) inchoative
aspect; d) conative aspect.
62. The verbal category of aspect indicates a) a
secondary temporal characteristic of the action; b) how the
action designated by the verb goes on in time; c) priority; d)
posteriority.
63. The difference between the forms comes :: is
coming is that of a) time correlation; b) aspect; c) tense; d)
posteriority.
64. In He started a quarrel the aspective meaning of
the verb can be defined as a) terminative; b) ingressive; c)
iterative; d) effective.
65. In Teardrops dribbled from her eyes the aspective
meaning of the verb is a) terminative; b) durative; c) iterative; d)
conative.
66. a) Were you wanting a room? b) I was talking to
Tom the other day; c) You are always wasting your money on
something; d) How are you liking your new job? illustrates a
special use of the continuous aspect marked by the absence of
the temporary element of the usual continuous meaning.
67. With a) non-terminative; b) terminative; c) actional;
d) statal verbs, the difference between the common and the
continuous aspect may be neutralized: I was sitting (sat) while
she was standing (stood).
68. With a) activity; b) momentary; c) transitional event;
d) process verbs the continous form represents a series of
events, rather than a single event: He was jumping.
69. The difference between come :: had come is that of
a) tense; b) aspect; c) time correlation; d) person.
70. How long have you been here? illustrates the use
of the Present Perfect termed a) present perfect inclusive; b)
present perfect exclusive; c) present perfect occlusive; d)
present perfect preclusive.
71. In a) She had come before he phoned over; b)
They waited quietly till he had finished; c) He knew where
Haviland lived, but he had never been there; d) It was long
afterwards that I found out what had happened the action
denoted by the Past Perfect is not thought of as preceding the
 273

action denoted by the Past Indefinite tense.

72. The sentence a) You always come dreadfully late;
b) Does she often come in the evening? c) Where do you come
from? d) When does the doctor come? illustrates neutralization
of oppositions between the forms of the Present Perfect and
Present Indefinite.
73. The category of a) aspect; b) voice; c) mood; d)
time correlation is a syntactically oriented category which may
be said to be a word-order device regulating the subject – object
position and their meaningful relations.
74. Individual attention is given to each child is an
example of a) direct or primary passive; b) indirect or secondary
passive; c) prepositional or tertiary passive; d) compound
nominal predicate.
75. The doctor was sent for is an example of a) direct
or primary passive; b) indirect or secondary passive; c)
prepositional or tertiary passive; d) compound nominal
predicate.
76. He was depressed and baffled is an example of a)
direct or primary passive; b) indirect or secondary passive; c)
prepositional or tertiary passive; d) compound nominal
predicate.
77. The so-called get-passive in the sentence We got
stopped by the cops a) suggests putting forth effort to obtain
something; b) expresses primarily state; c) draws more attention
to agency; d) expresses a negative evaluation or consequence.
78. The verbal category of mood denotes a) the
manner in which the verbal action goes on in time, e.g., as
completed or in progress; b) the relation of the action denoted
by the verb to reality from the speaker’s point of view; c) the
relation of the time of the action denoted by the verb to the
moment of speech; d) the direction of the process as regards
the participants of the situation reflected in the syntactical
construction.
79. She was speaking with difficulty, as though she had
to think hard about each word illustrates a) Subjunctive I; b)
Subjunctive II; c) conditional mood; d) suppositional mood.
80. He was afraid lest they be late illustrates a)
Subjunctive I; b) Subjunctive II; c) conditional mood; d)
suppositional mood.
81. The modal verbs a) must and may; b) can and may;
c) can and should; d) should and ought can become part of the
subjunctive mood from.
 274

82. The verbs which do not convey the indication of

person are a) link verbs; b) auxiliary verbs; c) modal verbs; d)
substitute verbs.
83. The forms a) come :: comes; b) comes :: comest ::
come; c) am :: is :: are; d) shall come :: will come exemplify
suppletive personal forms.
84. In Modern English, the category of person is alien
to a) the present tense; b) the past tense; c) the future tense; d)
the future in the past.
85. The verbal category of number shows whether a)
the verb stands for one object or more than one; b) the verb
stands for one action or more than one; c) the action denoted by
the verb has one doer or more than one; d) the verb has one
subject or more than one.
86. The category of number is represented in the
opposition a) is :: was; b) was :: were; c) is writing :: was writing;
d) shall write:: will write.
87. The distinction between the finite forms of the verb
and the verbals lies in the fact that a) verbals have no number,
person, or mood distinctions; b) verbals express predication by
themselves; c) verbals have voice and time correlation
distinctions; d) verbals take objects and are associated with
adverbial modifiers.
PART III
SYNTAX

Unit 16
____________________________________

SYNTACTICAL UNITS: THE WORD-GROUP/

PHRASE AND THE SENTENCE
____________________________________
16.1. The word-group as a syntactical unit.
Classification
of word-groups. Forms and means of
syntactical
connection in word-groups
There are two diverging views on word-groups
(also termed phrases, word combinations). One of them
 275

stipulates that a word-group must contain at least two

grammatically connected notional words — the governing head-
word and the adjoined dependent element (one of the most
persistent theories in Soviet linguistics). The inconvenience of
restricting the notion of a word-group to combinations of notional
words and syntactic subordination is that coordinate groups
(men and women) and prepositional groups (in the street, at
noon, with reference to) remain outside the classification and
are therefore neglected in grammatical theory.
To overcome this limitation, some scholars (V.V.
Burlakova, M.Y. Blokh, B.A. Ilyish, G.G. Pocheptsov, V.M.
Zhirmunsky) adopt the widest possible definition of a word-
group. Every combination of two or more words which is a
grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of some word (as,
for instance, the perfect forms of verbs) is a word-group. The
constituent elements of a word-group may belong to any part of
speech, e.g., notional words alone, notional words with
functional words, or functional words alone. This view is also
widely accepted in Western linguistics.
Another debatable problem is whether the combination
N+V (Tom ran) forms a word-group. One view is that no such
word-group exists, as the predicative combination N+V
constitutes a sentence rather than a phrase. The other view is
that the phrase type N+V (called predicative phrase) exists and
ought to be studied just like any other phrase type. The
combination N+V can be analyzed on the sentence level, but
what we can discover on the sentence level cannot affect
analysis on the phrase level.
Leonard Bloomfield, America’s prominent scholar
who laid the foundation for the theory of phrase in Western
European and American linguistics, defined a phrase as a free
form which consists of two or more lesser free forms, as poor
John or John ran away or Yes, Sir. Thus L. Bloomfield made no
distinction between predicative combinations and any other
combinations of words.
In his book Language (1933), L. Bloomfield states that
there are two kinds of phrases: a) endocentric constructions:
coordinative (serial), and subordinative (attributive); b)
exocentric constructions.
L. Bloomfield’s classification is made by means of
criteria of distribution, i.e. syntactic use, in about the following
way.
A group is endocentric if at least one of the
 276

constituents has a distribution coinciding with the distribution of

the phrase as a whole.
A group is coordinative, if it has the same distribution
as two or more of its members: boys and girls; coffee, tea and
milk.
A group is subordinative, if it has the same distribution
as one of its members: fresh milk; very fresh.
A group is exocentric if it has a distribution different
from either of its constituents. Exocentric groups may be
predicative: John ran and prepositional: with John.
L. Bloomfield points out that in any language there are
more endocentric constructions than exocentric.
Thus, in order to know whether the phrase is
endocentric or exocentric, it is necessary to examine how it
functions in a larger structure. For instance, poor John is
endocentric since its component John can replace the whole
phrase: poor John ran away → John ran away. The forms John
and poor John have, on the whole, the same function. The
word-group John ran is neither a nominative expression (like
John) nor a finite verb expression (like ran). None of the
elements constituting it can be used to substitute the whole
phrase at a higher level of analysis. Therefore it is an exocentric
construction.
It is one of Bloomfield’s merits to have shown the
importance of distribution as a criterion for classifying word-
groups. An obvious drawback, however, is that his category of
exocentric construction is a ‘catch-all’, comprising both
predicative and prepositional groups. The predicative group,
being a ‘favourite sentence-form’, should receive its unique
position in English syntax [Groot, 1975: 67].
Otto Jespersen proposed the term nexus for every
predicative grouping of words, no matter by what grammatical
means it is realized. He distinguished between a junction, which
is not a predicative group of words (reading man) and nexus,
which is one (the man reads).
Classification of word-groups is a very important
subject. Most syntactical descriptions of a language distinguish
different types of word-groups [Korunets’, 2003: 311-324].
According to the structure of the constituents and
their number, word-groups may be elemental and enlarged.
Elemental word-groups consist of two components connected
with the help of one grammatical means: nice flowers; to see
her; to read well; people of rank; he and she; all but me.
 277

Enlarged word-groups consist of structurally complicated

components: writing and reading letters; these books and
magazines; to see Mike driving a car. The number of items
which can appear as constituents of enlarged word-groups is
theoretically unlimited (as suggested by the advertising caption:
such a devilishly smooth cool creamy minty chewy round slow
velvety fresh clean solid buttery taste), but as a rule, it does not
exceed 7.
According to their function in the sentence, word-
groups are classed into those which perform the function of one
or more parts of the sentence and those which do not perform
any such function but whose function is equivalent to that of
prepositions or conjunctions: apart from, with reference to, as
soon as, as long as.
According to semantic unity between the
components, word-groups may be: a) syntactically free
combinations of words in which the elements do not repeatedly
co-occur: to analyze murder, to condemn murder; b)
idiomatically bound word-combinations (idioms) whose
meanings do not reflect the meanings of their component parts:
to scream blue murder (‘to complain very loudly’); c) fixed non-
idiomatic word-combinations (collocations) in which the
elements are specifically bound to each other, though their
meanings reflect the meaning of the collocation (in contrast to
idioms): to commit murder.
According to the syntactical and semantic
interrelations between the components, all word-groups split
into coordinate, subordinate, and predicative. This division is
based on syntagmatic relations of independence, dependence,
and interdependence.
Coordinate word-groups are formed from
components equal in rank which are connected either
syndetically (with the help of conjunctions) or asyndetically
(without conjunctions): books and magazines; to read, translate
and retell; on the beach or in the water; quick but not careless;
neither this nor that; no sun, no moon; silent, immovable,
gloomy. Coordinate word-groups are non-binary by their nature:
they may include several constituents of equal rank, though not
necessarily of the same part of speech. Coordinate word-groups
perform the function of homogeneous parts of the sentence:
There they were: stars, sun, sea, light, darkness, space, great
waters.
As to the expression of sense, coordinate word-
 278

groups may be closed or open (infinite). Closed word-groups

may consist of two components only: rivers and lakes; neither
he nor she; all but me. Open (infinite) word-groups consist of
several components the number of which may still be continued
(as by enumerating): books, note-books, bags, pens, pencils …
The coordinated units are called conjoins, and the
resulting combination is a conjoint. The order of conjoint words
can be influenced by a tendency for the shorter word to come
first: cold and rainy; big and ugly; cup and saucer; men and
women; or by considerations of etiquette: mother and I. There
are also stereotyped co-ordinations where the conjoint words
are in virtually irreversible order: odds and ends; bread and
butter; law and order; by hook or by crook; through thick and
thin; knife, fork and spoon.
By coordinating a word with itself, special meanings are
expressed, such as intensification: The car went slower and
slower; continuous action: They talked and talked; a large
number: We saw flowers and flowers and flowers all over the
garden); different kinds: There are teachers and teachers (=
good and bad teachers).
Subordinate word-groups are binary by their nature:
they consist of a head component commonly called the kernel,
kernel element, head-word, which is the nucleus of the word-
group, and of one or more subordinated elements called
adjunct, complement, or expansion. Adjuncts serve to
describe, qualify, select, complete, or extend the meaning of the
head. They may be either a single notional word or a group of
words functionally equal to it: Peter's brother; her father and
mother; take part in the games; bad for you.
According to the position of the adjunct,
subordinate word-groups fall into a) regressive (left-hand
position of the adjunct): an old house; fairly well; b) progressive
(right-hand position of the adjunct): a list of names; bad for
health; c) phrases with central position of the head framed by
adjuncts: a folded sheet of paper.
According to the morphological characteristic of
the head-word, subordinate phrases may be: substantival
(wage strike; small children; the news available; page ten; the
book there; the wish to win, the words said); verbal (to like
books; to love her; to sit reading); adjectival (very good; so
unusual; eager to know; good for you; cleverer of the two);
pronominal (he himself; we all; something new; nothing to say;
poor me; some of them; none of us); numerical (two of the girls;
 279

the first to come); adverbial (terribly well; hours later; high in the
air); statival (afraid to answer; afraid of asking; ashamed of the
deed); prepositional (at the station, in London).
Prepositional phrases are of primary interest.
Some scholars believe that the preposition is the head-
word to the adjoined nominal element (termed object of
preposition) since it governs the form of the noun. Others
emphasize the dependence of the preposition on the
noun without which it cannot function. Cf.: Where shall I
put it? — On (under) the table. But not *On (under). The
preposition introduces the noun and connects it to the
left-hand word which is truly the head-word in the larger
word-group: in London — stay in London. The preposition
is contradictory in its status: formally it dominates the
adjoined noun; functionally it is subordinated to the noun
and serves as a means of its connection with the left-
hand context.
Morphological (i.e. part of speech) characteristic of the
head-element predetermines the relationship between the
constituents in a word-group. In noun-headed word-groups
attributive relations and in verb-headed word-groups
objective or adverbial relations are established: an important
point; to see her; to stay in London.
The forms of subordination in English are: agree-
ment, government, adjoinment, enclosure (framing-up).
Agreement (concord) is a form of subordination when
the head-word requires of its adjunct to assume the same
grammatical form (correspondence in number, case, gender,
person, or some other category between syntactically
connected words). It is marked by inflections and is exceptional
in English because of its analyticity (lack of inflections in
particular). Its use is restricted in English to substantival word-
groups, in which adjuncts are demonstrative pronouns this/that
— these/those which agree with their head word in number: this
book, these books; that desk, those desks.
Government is a form of subordination when the head-
word determines the grammatical form of its adjunct, the latter
assuming the particular form, but not coinciding with the form of
the head word itself. In English, it can be observed in verbal
word-groups with the pronoun in the objective case: to see him
(her, them). Government may be verbal or prepositional: to
 280

replace them, to hear about him.

Adjoinment is a form of subordination which has no
inflectional or prepositional marking. It is marked by the word
order, more exactly, by the placement of the adjunct in the
contact position to the head, semantic dependence becoming of
greater significance. Adjoinment is characteristic of English
subordinate word-groups, and it appears specific, having in
most cases no parallels with adjoinment in synthetical lan-
gauges where it is restricted to verb-adverb relations only: saw
a boy; his notes; interesting stories; three remarks; went home;
ran quickly; looked sideways.
Enclosure (framing-up) is a form of subordination
when some element of a phrase is enclosed between the two
parts of another element. It is represented by: a) enclosure of
the premodifier between the noun-determiner (article) and the
noun-head itself: a predicate function; the then government; the
‘take it or leave it’ tradition; this recently retired officer; b)
enclosure of the indirect object between the verb and the direct
object: showed her friend a picture; gave her students an
assignment.
Predicative word-groups are structures with
predicative connection of words, built on syntactical
interdependence uniting the subject and the predicate. The
reciprocal nature of this connection consists in the fact that the
subject dominates the predicate determining the person of
predication, while the predicate dominates the subject,
determining the event of predication, i.e. ascribing to the person
some action, state, or quality.
Apart from the primary predication word-groups,
which are singled out in the sentence and comprise the subject
and the predicate (I understand, He will win, The door closed)
there also exist secondary predication word-groups,
represented in English by syntactical constructions often
referred to as predicative complexes (complex object, complex
subject, absolute constructions, etc.): them singing; the lesson
over; circumstances permitting; for them to come.
Comparative observations of predicative and non-
predicative word-groups have shown that among the latter there
are definite nominalized constructions capable of realizing
predicative relations: population growth (= the population
grows); the stormy sea (= the sea is stormy). Predicative
relations are concealed by the overt attributive relations
between the constituents of such noun-phrases.
 281

Besides subordination, coordination, and predication,

some scholars distinguish (ac)cumulative connection as a
minor type of syntactical connection between the elements in
word-groups. A word-group is identified as (ac)cumulative on
the basis of some element outside the word-group: [to write] his
friend a letter; [to see] a man for three minutes; [to come] home
early; those important [decisions]; some old [cards]. The position
of the elements is fixed (cf. *important these [decisions]; *old
some [cards]). This implies some kind of syntactical connection,
neither coordination (cf. *some and old) nor subordination (cf.
these decisions; important decisions).
Combinability of words in a word-group depends on
their lexical and grammatical meanings. It is owing to the lexical
meanings of the corresponding lexemes that the word wise can
be combined with the words man, act, saying and is hardly
combinable with milk, area, outline. Lexico-grammatical
meanings of singer (noun) and beautifully (adverb) do not go
together and prevent these words from forming a combination,
whereas beautiful singer and sing beautifully are regular word-
groups. The rules of grammatical combinability do not admit of
*boys speaks or *he am.
The role of lexical collocability is likely to be much
greater than that of grammatical combinability. In many cases
the application of apparently productive grammatical rules leads
to the generation of word-groups that are felt to be unacceptable
or at least very odd, e.g., V+N: *to eat water; *to drink a piece of
paper.
There are the following rules of collocability: a)
selection restriction rules (J.J. Katz, J.A. Fodor), showing the
kind of items with which a word in a particular meaning may
combine, e.g., the adjective honest in the old sense of ‘chaste’
would have the selection restriction ‘female’; b) rules of
semantic agreement (V.G. Gak), showing obligatory repetition
of certain components of meaning in the constituents of word
combinations, e.g., in The bird flew to its nest the seme ‘fly’ is
repeated in the verb fly and the noun bird (‘an animal with wings
and feathers that lays eggs and can usually fly’).
These rules show that the correct choice of words in
word-groups depends on the presence of some common seme
in their constituents. Syntagmatic conjunction of two or more
words without common semantic component(s) is likely to be
incomprehensible or downright nonsensical, although its
grammatical composition may be unexceptional. The classic
 282

example of such a grammatical but nonsensical sentence is

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously suggested by N.
Chomsky. Other trivial examples of nonsensical word
combinations are *to eat a book and *to write a fish [Аракин,
1972: 9]. The verb write can combine only with nouns book,
letter, text, etc. which share the seme ‘written or printed
communication’. The verb eat can combine only with nouns
denoting foodstuffs (i.e. ‘things that are edible’).
In some cases, such incompatibility of semantic
components leads to the formation of figurative meaning (in
tropes, such as metaphor, metonymy, simile, etc.): joyous
alarms; eyeless road; white sleep; breasted tree; yesterday’s
silences are much louder; a poem should be wordless. In tropes
(figures of speech), words are used in other than their ordinary
combinations and in other than their literal sense, in order to
suggest a picture or image or for other special effect.

16.2. The sentence as a syntactical unit.

Predicativity as
an essential part of the content of the
sentence
There exist many — more than three hundred —
definitions of the sentence, but none of them is generally
accepted. Of these, two definitions have been most often used
in grammar books: a) a sentence is a group of words that
expresses a complete thought (notional approach); b) a
sentence is a group of words that contains an unsubordinated
subject and predicate (formal approach).
The first of these, a ‘notional’ definition, fails because it
is wholly subjective. There is no objective standard by which to
judge the completeness of a thought. Completeness is, in fact,
very relative and depends largely on the purpose of the speaker
or writer as well as on the context, linguistic or situational. On
the other hand, the second definition is not more than half truth,
for it rules out all verbless sentences, which may be just as
complete and independent as the verb sentences: Beautiful day!
Taxi! Good.
A full sentence may range from a single word (Stop!
Go! Well? Coffee? Yes?) to an indeterminate length. In the
majority of cases people actually experience no difficulty in
separating one sentence from another in their native tongue.
This is reflected in writing, where the graphic form of each
 283

sentence is separated by punctuation marks (.!?) from its

neighbours.
It is much more difficult to identify sentences in natural
spoken conversation. Words like and are frequently used,
making it difficult for a grammarian to work out where one
sentence ends and the next begins [Hatch, 1992: 243]: When I
was 18 I got pregnant and + it was with a + a boy I’d been going
with a + a year and a half an:: we decided to get married + +
an:: I went home to tell my parents + and my dad said, “No, it
will send your mother over the edge.”
In situations where we have to speak spontaneously,
there is no time to plan far ahead, to work out where the 'full
stops' ought to go. Spoken sentences therefore have a very
different kind of structure from written sentences. Interactive talk
is often clausal or phrasal in structure. In polished writing, the
organization is sentential.
The following general points apply to any English
sentence.
1. Though a sentence contains words, it is not merely a
collection of words, but something integral, a structural unity
built in accordance with one of the syntactical patterns existing
in a given language. It is constructed according to a system of
rules, known by all the adult mother-tongue speakers of the
language. A sentence formed in this way is said to be
grammatical: I told you so. Come in. Where have you been?
The following sentences are ungrammatical: *The of a car is.
*What and why did he go?
2. All the sounds of a sentence are united by typical
intonation. Our intonation conveys information about our
emotions (anger, surprise, etc.) as well as about grammar.
3. All the meanings are interlaced according to some
pattern to make one communication. The sentence is a
minimal unit of communication distinguished by contextually
relevant communicative purpose, e.g., imparting of thoughts,
opinions, information.
4. The sentence is the basic unit of
communication distinguished from all other units by its
predicativity.
Predicativity is understood in linguistics as the
relation of the sentence to the situation of speech. It
includes relations to the act of speech, to the speaker,
and to reality (as viewed by the speaker).
The act of speech is the event with which all other
 284

events mentioned in the sentence are correlated in time. This

correlation is fixed in English and other languages grammati-
cally in the category of tense and lexically in such words as
now, yesterday, tomorrow, etc.
The speaker is the person with whom other persons
and things mentioned in the sentence are correlated. This corre-
lation is fixed grammatically in the category of person of the
verb and lexico-grammatically in such words as I, you, she,
they, student, river, etc.
Reality is either accepted as the speaker sees it, or an
attempt is made to change it, or some unreality is fancied. Cf.:
The door is shut. Shut the door. I wish the door were shut. The
attitude towards reality is fixed grammatically in the category of
mood and lexically or lexico-grammatically in words like must,
may, probably.
Predicativity is as essential a part of the content
of the sentence as intonation is of its form. The sentence
as a predicative unit of language verbalizes human
thought and represents lingually the main predicative
form of thought, i.e. the proposition.
Within a sentence, the word or combination of
words that contains the meanings of predicativity may be
called predication. The main parts of the sentence are
those whose function it is to make the predication. They
are the subject and the predicate.
In the sentence He thought of a new plan, the
predication is he thought. He indicates the person, thought —
the tense and mood components of predicativity. Thus the
sentence has predicativity plainly expressed by a positive two-
member predication.
In the sentence Tell me something, there is one-word
predication tell containing the mood component of predicativity.
The person component is only implied. The situation generally
makes it so obvious who the second person subject of
imperatives is, that its expression is the exception rather than
the rule.
The simplest relation to the situation of speech can be
found in sentences like Rain which when pronounced with
proper intonation merely states the phenomenon observed. The
noun rain, like any noun, is associated with the third person.
The present tense and the indicative mood are implied. In Tea!,
the imperative intonation expresses the difference in the modal
component of predicativity.
 285

16.3. Classification of sentences. Structural and

communicative types of sentences
Sentences may be regarded from the point of view of
their structure and their communicative value.
From the point of view of their structure, sentences
can be: a) simple or composite (compound and complex); b)
two-member (double-nucleus) or one-member (single nucleus);
c) complete or incomplete (elliptical). These three classifications
are based on different approaches to the structural organization
of sentences and reflect its different aspects.
Structural Types of Sentences
Sentence
|

Simple Composite
| |

One-member Two-member Complex

Compound
| |

Complete Incomplete Complete Incomplete

(Elliptical) (Elliptical)
Sentences with only one predication (subject-predicate
unit) are simple sentences: Still waters run deep. Those with
more than one predication are composite sentences: You
never know what you can do till you try. The difference between
compound and complex sentences lies in the relations between
their clauses.
One-member and two-member sentences differ in
the number of principal parts they contain. Two-member
sentences have two principal parts — the subject and the
predicate. One-member sentences have only one principal part,
which is neither the subject nor the predicate: An old park. Mid-
summer. Low tide, dusty water.
Complete and incomplete (elliptical) sentences are
distinguished by the presence or absence of word-forms in the
principal positions of two-member sentences. In complete
sentences, both principal positions of the subject and the
predicate are filled with word-forms. In elliptical sentences, one
 286

or both of the main positions are not filled: Could’ve been

professional. Wrong again. Ready?
From the viewpoint of their role in the process of
communication, sentences are divided into four types:
declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory.
A declarative sentence contains a statement which
gives some information about various events, activities,
attitudes, thoughts, feelings. A statement may be positive
(affirmative) or negative: I have just come back from a business
trip. I haven't seen my sister yet.
Grammatically, statements are characterized by the
subject-predicate structure with the direct order of words. They
are mostly two-member sentences, although they may be one-
member sentences: Very early morning. Statements have a
falling tone; they are marked by a pause in speaking and by a
full stop in writing.
Interrogative sentences contain questions. Their
function consists in asking for information. They are graphically
identified by a question mark. Interrogative sentences have a
number of structural and communicative modifications.
In general questions (yes-no questions), the
speaker is interested to know whether some event or
phenomenon asked about exists or does not exist; accordingly
the answer may be positive or negative, thus containing or
implying yes or no.
A general question opens with a verb operator (an
auxiliary, modal, or link verb) followed by the subject. It is
characterized by the rising tone: Is that girl a friend of yours?
Can you speak French? A negative general question adds
emotional colouring of surprise or disappointment: Haven't you
posted the letter yet? (Why?)
A tag question is a short yes-no question added to a
statement. It consists only of an operator prompted by the
predicate verb of the statement and a pronoun prompted by the
subject: You know French, don't you? George is a football fan,
isn't he?
The most usual patterns of tag questions include: a)
positive statement — negative tag — positive answer: You knew
that before, didn't you? — Yes, I did; b) negative statement —
positive tag — negative answer: You didn't know that before, did
you? — No, I didn't. The answer, however, may be unexpected,
as in: You didn't know that before, did you? — But I did.
There is one more sentence pattern with a tag question
 287

which is less frequently used: positive statement — positive tag:

You knew about it before, did you? or negative statement —
negative tag: You didn't know about it before, didn't you? This
pattern is used when the speaker comes to a conclusion
concerning some event.
Generally, the tag has a rising tone. Falling tone makes
the whole sentence sound like a statement. The speaker
actually knows the answer and can do without it: You knew
about it before, didn't you. Here the question mark may be
replaced by a full stop.
An alternative question implies a choice between two
or more alternative answers. Like a yes-no question, it opens
with an operator, but the suggestion of choice expressed by the
conjunction or makes the yes-no answer impossible. The first
part of the question before the conjunction is characterized by a
rising tone, the second part has a falling tone: Will you go to the
opera or to the concert? A yes-no answer is required when the
second part contains negation and the whole question has the
emotional colouring of anger, annoyance, or impatience: Will
they ever stop arguing or not? Did you go to the library, or didn't
you (go there at all)?
Suggestive (declarative) questions form a peculiar
kind of yes-no questions. They keep the word order of state-
ments but serve as questions owing to the rising tone in
speaking and a question mark in writing: You really want to go
now, tonight?
Suggestive questions are asked for the sake of
confirmation. The speaker is all but sure what the answer will be
(positive or negative), but by asking the question suggests the
answer: You are familiar with the town? — I spent winter here
many years ago. You still don't believe me, Aunt Nora? — No, I
don't. They are frequently used as question responses with
various kinds of emotional colouring, most often that of surprise
or incredulity: He said you were a very good teacher. — He said
that? — You sound surprised.
Pronominal questions (special questions, wh-
questions) open with an interrogative pronoun (what, which,
who, whom, whose, where, when, why, how) the function of
which is to get more detailed and exact information about some
event or phenomenon. Adverbial phrases (how long, how often)
may also function as question words. The tone is usually falling:
What makes you think so? When are you going to come back?
How can I get to your place?
 288

Word order in a pronominal question is characterized

by inversion of the operator and the subject. Inversion does not
take place when the question word is the subject or attribute to
the subject: Who came first? Whose team has won the match?
Pronominal questions are often used as short
responses. They consist of a question word or a question word
followed by a preposition: I'm leaving for home. — When? Let’s
meet again. — Where? Come again. — What for?
Question words preceded by prepositions are
employed as echo questions. The tone is rising and the
question word is heavily stressed: Let's talk about life on Saturn.
— About what? I opened the door with a pin. — With what? The
question may be reduced to the question word, with the article
repeated if necessary: Your husband was telling us all about the
chromosomes. — The what? The Boss wants to see you. —
The who? Echo questions express surprise, incredulity, or
incomprehension. Their function is to confirm, question, or
clarify what the previous speaker has just said. All types of
sentences can be echoed: John didn't like the film. — He didn't
what? Have you got my knife? — Have I got your wife? Sit
down here. — Down there? Echoes sometimes sound impolite
unless accompanied by an apologetic 'softening' phrase, such
as I'm sorry or I beg your pardon. This is most noticeable with
the question What did you say?, often shortened to What?.
A rhetorical question does not ask for any new
information. It contains a statement disguised as a question and
is always emotionally coloured. Usually it is a positive question
hiding a negative statement. No answer is expected: Who,
being in love, is poor? What is wealth without friends? Can any
one say what truth is? Do we always act as we ought to?
The declarative nature of the rhetorical question is re-
vealed also in the fact that it is not infrequently used as an
answer to a genuine question — namely, in cases when an
emphatic answer is needed: Do you expect to save the country?
— Well, who else will?
Rhetorical questions are employed in oratory and
poetry in the writer's digressions. They occur in colloquial
English too: How should I know? What difference does that
make? Where was I to go? What else could I do? Why should I
feel guilty about it?
Imperative sentences express commands which
convey the desire of the speaker to make someone, generally
the listener, perform an action: Sit down immediately. Open your
 289

textbooks. Be quick! Besides commands proper, imperative

sentences may express request (Help me!), invitation (Have a
drink with me tonight), warning (Mind your head on the beam),
persuasion, advice (Take an aspirin), good wishes (Have a nice
day!), prohibition (Don't interrupt me).
Formally, commands are marked by the predicate verb
in the imperative mood (positive or negative), the reference to
the second person, lack of subject. They are characterized by
the falling tone. In writing, commands are marked by a full stop
or an exclamation mark.
The subject expressed by the pronoun you occurs to
specify the subject for the sake of contrast: You come first, and
I'll wait a little; convey the speaker's attitude to the event, e.g.,
irritation, anger, threat: You say it again, and I'll turn you out of
here! Just you wait, Mr Higgins; soothe somebody: You be a
good girl, and don't worry.
A third-person command may begin with a noun or a
pronoun denoting the person addressed: Mary and John fetch
dictionaries. Somebody switch off the light. Don't anybody
switch off the light!
In the case of first person plural and third person
singular and plural subjects, the imperative let is followed by a
personal pronoun in the objective case: Let him try again. Let
them come in. Let us have some tea. There are two negative
constructions with let for the first person: Don't let's quarrel
about trifles. Let's not quarrel about trifles. A third-person
command admits of only one negative: Don't let him interfere in
our affairs.
Commands are sometimes expressed without an
imperative verb (verbless commands): Silence! Gently, darling.
Water, please. Careful, please. To the right! No smoking! Off
with you! Hush!
Commands can be softened and made into requests
with the help of the word please, the rising tone, a tag question,
or a yes-no question beginning with will or would: Speak louder,
please. Repeat the last word, will you? Would you do me a
favour?
The falling tone and an exclamation mark at the end of
a sentence opening with will express irritation and impatience:
Will you stop arguing! Will you be quiet!
Exclamatory sentences are used to impress the
extent to which speakers are impressed or aroused by
something. Each of the communicative sentence types, besides
 290

performing their main communicative function, may serve as

exclamations: You do look a picture of health! Hurry up! An
exclamation has a falling tone in speaking and an exclamation
mark in writing.
An exclamation as a sentence type opens with
pronominal words what or how. It has a subject-predicate
structure: What a lovely day it is! What a mess you’ve made!
How beautifully she sings! How nice she looks! Exclamatives
with the subject and predicate verb inverted are very rare. They
can sometimes be found in literary English: How often have I
cursed that terrible day!
Exclamatory sentences can be reduced to the word or
phrase immediately following what or how: What a lovely day!
What a mess! What a terrible noise! How nice!
Yes-no questions may function as exclamations owing
to the falling tone, stress on both the operator and the subject in
speaking and an exclamation mark in writing: Wasn't he angry!
Was he angry! Isn't it funny! Hasn't she grown!
Pseudo-subordinate clauses introduced by if and that,
one-member sentences conveying signals of alarm, emotional
infinitive or nominal one-member sentences followed by a
clause may also function as exclamations: If only I were young
again! That this should be the result! Fire! Bandits! To think that
she should have said so! The idea that they should have
behaved like this!

16.4. The problem of negative sentences. Negation

Both structural and communicative types of sentences
fall into affirmative sentences and negative sentences.
Do negative sentences present a special grammatical
type? There is no grammatical difference between the
sentences Nobody saw him and Everybody saw him. The
difference lies entirely in the meaning of pronouns functioning
as subjects, i.e. it is lexical, not grammatical. Since in a number
of cases negative sentence are not characterized as such by
any grammatical peculiarities, they are not a grammatical type.
They are a logical type, which may or may not be reflected in
grammatical structure: I did not find anybody. I found nobody.
Accordingly, the division of sentences into affirmative and
negative is not included into their grammatical classification.
A sentence is made negative by the particle not which
is the most widely used negator. It is put immediately after the
 291

auxiliary or modal verb. The negator not has two forms:

uncontracted and contracted. There are two possible forms of
negation contraction: one is when the operator is contracted and
the negator uncontracted: They’ve not come, and the other is
when the negator is contracted but the operator is used in its full
form: They haven’t come.
Only the full negative form is possible for the first
person singular of the verb be in declarative sentences (am
not), the form ain't is not accepted as a standard form. However,
the verb contraction I'm is possible: I'm not late. In questions,
the contracted form is aren’t (informal) or am I not: Aren’t I
early? Am I not early?
In archaic or jocular use, main verbs are sometimes
used before not: I know not what to say!
In negative questions, the place of the negator not
depends on whether it is contracted or uncontracted. The
contracted form n't is not separated from the operator, whereas
the uncontracted not comes after the subject: Don’t you see?
Do you not see?
Not can be attached to other parts of the sentence, not
only the predicate verb: It’s here, not upstairs. It’s a tiger, not a
cat. The question is important and not easy to answer.
After the verbs think, believe, suppose, imagine,
negation which belongs to the object clause is transferred to the
principal clause. This is called transferred negation: I don’t
believe he has come (= I believe he hasn’t come). I don’t think
you've heard about it.
Besides not, there are other words that can serve as
negators and make the sentence negative: no and its
derivatives — no one, nobody, nothing, nowhere, none (of), and
also neither (of), never, the conjunction neither... nor; seldom,
rarely, scarcely, hardly, barely, hardly ever, scarcely ever, little,
few.
As a rule, a sentence can contain only one negator: I
didn’t say anything to anybody. Double negatives are
sometimes possible in English, but only if both negative words
have their full meaning and this meaning is emphasized: You've
no reason not to trust me. I just couldn't do nothing. It's not only
not important, it's not a fact.
A major interest is presented by implicit negation
(implied, non-grammatical negation) in negative sentences
without negative words (Татаровська, 2004): Love! A lot you
know about love! (= You know nothing about love). Mr.
 292

Copperfield was teaching her. Much he knew of it himself (= He

didn’t know it himself). He arrogant, uncharitable, cruel. No
never!
Rhetorical questions presuppose a negative answer
and are a special form of implicit negation: Who knows? (=
Nobody knows). How do I know? What can you do? What
business is it of yours?
Lexical indicators of implicit negation are exemplified
by the verbs fail, miss, stop, cease, finish, drop, particles even,
only: Then I fail to understand you (= I can’t understand you).
Now I’m only afraid of loosing her (= Now I’m not afraid of
anything else).
Phraseological indicators of implicit negation are
exemplified by the phrases like hell, like devil, my eye, my foot,
the hell with sb (sth), God knows, the hell knows used to
express contradiction: I’ll try to help you. — Like hell you will.
Morphological indicators of implicit negation are
exemplified by verbs in the past tense: Do you love him? — I
loved him (= I don’t love him now); verbs in the imperative
mood: Catch her marrying me! and verbs in the subjunctive
mood: I wish I had it now.
Syntactical indicators of implicit negation are
exemplified by compound sentences with the conjunction but: I
tried to follow the priest, but he pulled me back (= I couldn’t
follow the priest); pseudo-subordinate clauses introduced by as
if, as though: As if I’d give up my career to bury myself in some
hole in Italy!
Implicit negation blended with irony is rendered by
means of a) inversion; b) inversion in combination with words
like fine, good, swell, excellent, precious, lovely, likely, much, a
(fat) lot; c) repetition of the noun + indeed; d) repetition of the
noun/personal pronoun + and + possessive pronoun + repetition
of the noun: The children I’m raising! A fine friend she turned out
to be. A fine product they put out! A likely story that is! Here’s a
nice scarf for you. — A nice scarf indeed! I want my revenge. —
You and your revenge.
It is also interesting to note that negative sentences
may have affirmative meaning: Blame me, if it didn’t come into
my head once or twice (= it came into my head) [Вейхман,
1990: 67-68].

16.5. Non-sentence utterances

 293

There are utterances which do not constitute sentences

—non-sentence utterances, quasi- or minor sentences. These
are speech units devoid of the binary Subject — Predicate (or a
single Subject or Predicate) structure. They may consist of a
single word or of a functionally equivalent phrase expressing
affirmation, negation, direct address, or some emotive or
incentive meanings. They are:
1. Vocatives: Charles! Mr West!
2. Yes-no utterances. These are mostly responses to
yes-no questions: Are you coming? — Yes/No.
3. Interjections: Hi! (Hey!) Oh! Dear me! Look here!
Well, I never! Goodness gracious! Eh? Hey! Tut-tut. Ugh! Ow!
Shhh!
4. Different conversational formulas: Thanks. Good-
bye. Bye-bye. Hello. Good morning. How do you do. Cheers!
Minor sentences are not constructed in a regular way.
They use abnormal patterns which cannot be clearly analyzed
into a sequence of clause elements, as major sentences can.
There are only a few minor sentence types, but instances of
each type are frequently used in everyday conversation. Minor
sentences do not follow all the rules of English grammar. For
example, in a major sentence, verbs can change their tenses
from present to past: How do you manage? — How did you
manage? But the greeting How do you do? is a minor sentence.
We cannot change its tense, and say *How did you do? Nor can
we change the pronoun and ask *How does he do? The
sentence has to be learned as a whole.

Unit 17
____________________________________

THE SIMPLE SENTENCE

____________________________________
17.1. The structure of the simple sentence

The basic pattern of a simple sentence in English is

one subject-predicate unit. It is the pattern of a two-member
sentence. There are several variations of this basic pattern,
depending on the kind of verb occupying the predicate position:
SV: John ran; SVC: John is clever / a student; SVO: John
learned French; SVOO: John gives Mary his books; SVOA:
 294

John put the plate on the table; SVA: John lives in London /
there (S = subject; V = predicate verb; C = complement; O =
object; A = adverbial modifier).
A simple sentence containing some words besides the
predication is extended. An unextended sentence contains no
other parts but the subject and the predicate (SV and SVC). The
extending elements in the above patterns are obligatory, i.e. the
sentence is incomplete if one of these elements is omitted: *I
put the book (type SVOA) and *He resembled (type SVO) are
unacceptable. A sentence may be extended not only by
obligatory elements but also by optional ones, including
attributes, certain kinds of prepositional objects, and adverbial
modifiers: John ran quickly to me. My friend John is a very
clever student.
As part of the principle of end-weight in English, there
is a feeling that the predicate should where possible be longer
than the subject, thus a principle of structural compensation
comes into force. With the SV pattern, one-word predicates are
rare. We may easily say He sang well or He was singing, but
would rarely say simply He sang. A common means of
‘stretching’ the predicate into a multi-word structure is the
construction consisting of a verb of general meaning (have,
take, give, make, do, etc.) followed by an object. The curt He
ate, He smoked, He swam can be replaced by He had a meal,
He had a smoke, He had a swim. Similarly, the habitual use of
the present or past in He smokes and He smoked can be
expressed by a SVC structure: He is/was a smoker.
A two-member simple sentence may be either
complete or incomplete (elliptical). An elliptical sentence is a
sentence in which one or more word-forms in the principal
(subject and predicate) positions are omitted. Those words can
be omitted, because they have only grammatical, structural
relevance and do not carry any new relevant information. There
are several types of elliptical sentences in English [Kobrina et
al., 1986: 8].
1. Sentences without a word-form in the subject
position: Looks like rain. Seems difficult. Don't know anything
about it.
2. Sentences without a word-form in the subject and
part of the predicate position. The omitted part of the predicate
may be either an auxiliary verb or a link verb: Not bad. Heard
nothing about him lately. Going home soon? See what I mean?
Free this evening?
 295

3. Sentences without a word-form in part of the

predicate position which may be an auxiliary or a link verb: You
seen them? Everything fixed? You sure? All settled.
4. Sentences without a word-form in the subject and
the predicate position. Such ellipses occur in various responses:
What were you thinking about? — You. Where're you going? —
Home.
5. Sentences without a word-form in the predicate
position. Such ellipses occur only in replies to questions: Who
lives there? — Jack. What's happened? — Nothing.
Ellipsis can act in apparently bizarre ways. The subject
can be ellipted in the simple sentence but not in the subordinate
clause: He’s good at his job. Knows what he’s doing. But not
*He’s good at his job because knows what he’s doing [Fawcett,
1997: 92].
It is part of the definition of ellipsis that it should be
absolutely obvious what the omitted words are. If it is unclear
what has been omitted, we cannot call a sentence elliptical. The
principle of being able to work out exactly what the omitted
words are, by looking at the context, is called the principle of
recoverability. There are three kinds of recoverability:
1. Textual recoverability: the full form of the sentence
can be found by looking at the rest of the text (the immediate
context): How was the play? — Very good (= The play was very
good).
2. Situational recoverability: the full form of the
sentence can be deduced by looking at the situation in which it
was used: Told you so, where the choice of the omitted subject
(I or we) would be evident from the people present.
3. Structural recoverability: the full form of the sentence
can be found in the speaker's knowledge of grammar (complete
grammatical construction of a given pattern): Looks like rain (= It
looks like rain). Good to see you (= It is good to see you).
Ellipsis is typical of conversational English. It is the
most vivid manifestation of speech economy. When speakers
combine a sentence with the previous sentence in speech, they
often leave out some redundant parts that are clear from the
foregoing sentence, otherwise speech would be cumbersome. A
sentence is often reduced to one word: What have you got
there? — Dynamite.
Elliptical sentences are only special cases of full two-
member sentences. In speech, one and the same two-member
sentence may be represented differently, depending on the
 296

sentence it is combined with. If the sentence John returned from

London yesterday is to be the answer to Who returned from
London? it may be reduced to John. As an answer to When did
John return from London? it may be reduced to Yesterday. In
answer to Where did John return from? it may take the form of
London. Thus, John, Yesterday, London, may be regarded as
positionally conditioned speech variants of a regular two-
member sentence John returned from London yesterday. In this
elliptical sentences differ from one-member sentences.
One-member sentences (established alongside of the
two-member ones) are of two types: nominal and verbal.
Nominal sentences are those in which the principal
part is expressed by a noun. They state the existence of the
things expressed in them. They may be unextended or
extended: Silence. Summer. Midnight. Dusk — of a summer
night. The grass, this good, soft, lush grass. English spring
flowers!
Nominal sentences are subdivided into: a) sentences
naming an object of reality: A black night; b) sentences
expressing command or request: Silence! Courage, wife!; c)
sentences with modal meaning of appraisal and emotional
colouring: That woman! The unfairness of it all!; d) wish-
sentences: Oh, the fine clothes, the handsome homes!; e)
sentences of hypothetical modality: Heley's comet, perhaps!; f)
conditional sentences: A word of complaint from Roberta to his
uncle, and assuredly he would be done for [Rayevska, 1976:
210].
Verbal sentences are those in which the principal part
is expressed by a non-finite form of the verb (infinitive or
gerund). They are mostly used to describe different emotional
perceptions of reality: To think of that! Living at the mercy of a
woman!
One-member infinitival sentences fall into a) sentences,
always exclamatory, in which the to-infinitive stands at the
beginning: To be alive! To have youth and the world before
one!; b) interrogative sentences beginning with why followed by
the bare infinitive: Why waste time? Why not stay here?; c)
imperative sentences with no subject mentioned: Get away from
me! Don’t tell him anything.

17.2. Parts of the sentence. Main and secondary

parts. Independent elements
 297

Almost every sentence can be divided into certain

components which are called parts of the sentence. This
division is based on the following criteria: a) a certain meaning
(e.g., the doer of the action (agent) for subjects); b) a certain
form or type of grammatical construction (e.g., the noun in the
common case for subjects); c) a certain position within a
sentence and syntactical connection with other parts (e.g.,
predicative, attributive, objective).
It is common in grammatical theory to distinguish
between main and secondary parts.
The main parts of the sentence — the subject and
the predicate — are considered interdependent. They make
the predication and thus constitute the backbone of the
sentence. Without them the sentence would not exist at all,
whereas all other parts may or may not be there.
Secondary parts of the sentence — object,
attribute, adverbial modifier, apposition, predicative —
modify the main parts of the sentence or each other.
Besides these two kinds of sentence components there
are independent elements, i.e. elements standing outside the
structure of the sentence, and therefore of lesser importance.
The independent elements are parentheses and direct
address.
The subject is one of the two main parts of the
sentence. It denotes the thing whose action or characteristic is
expressed by the predicate. Subjects can refer to something
that is identified, described, classified, or located; they may
imply something that performs an action, or is affected by
action, or something involved in an occurrence of some sort
[Rayevska, 1970: 94].
The subject may be expressed by nouns in the
common case (Science is not omnipotent), personal pronouns
in the nominative case (She is beautiful), other noun-pronouns
(Nothing can be done about it), numerals (Seven cannot be
divided by two), an infinitive (To understand is to forgive), a
gerund (Talking mends no holes). It may be expressed by a
phrase (Two of them were left), predicative complex (His
walking out of the room was unexpected), or a clause (What
girls want is just a wedding ring).
From the point of view of its grammatical value the
subject may be either notional or formal.
The notional subject denotes or points out a person
or a non-person: The audience cheered wildly. I know all about
 298

it.
The formal subject does not denote any person/ non-
person and is only a structural element filling the linear position
of the subject. There are two such position-fillers: it and there.
The formal subject it is impersonal when it is used in
sentences describing various states of nature, or things in
general, or characteristics of the environment, or denoting time,
distance, or other measurements: It’s spring. It is cold today. It’s
freezing.
The formal subject it is introductory (anticipatory) if it
introduces the notional subject expressed by an infinitive, a
gerund, infinitival or gerundial phrase, a predicative complex, or
a clause: It's impossible to deny this. It was no good coming
there again. It would be wonderful for you to stay with us. It did
not occur to her that the idea was his. Sentences with
introductory it can be transformed into sentences with the
notional subject in its usual position: It was impossible to deny
this. → To deny this was impossible.
Sentences with introductory it must be distinguished
from certain patterns of sentences with impersonal it: a)
sentences with the predicate expressed by seem, appear,
happen, turn out followed by an object clause (It seemed that he
did not know the place ≠ *That he did not know the place
seemed); b) sentences with predicative adjectives preceded by
too and followed by an infinitive used as an adverbial modifier of
result (It was too late to start ≠ *To start was too late); c)
sentences with the predicative expressed by the noun time
followed by an infinitive used as an attribute (It was time to take
their departure ≠ *To take their departure was time).
Sentences with introductory it must also be
distinguished from certain patterns with the notional subject it,
where the latter refers back to a noun previously mentioned: Her
voice was quite untrained but it was pleasant to listen to.
The formal subject there introduces a notional subject
in existential sentences which express the existence of a person
or non-person denoted by the subject. The notional subject
introduced by there is expressed by a noun or noun phrase,
noun-pronouns, a gerund or a gerundial phrase, a clause: There
was silence for a moment. There came the lightning. There was
nothing to do. There was no talking that evening. There did not
appear to be anything of importance. First, there is what we
might call a pattern.
The predicate is the second principal part of the
 299

sentence and its organizing centre, as the object and nearly all
adverbial modifiers are connected with and depend on it. It
denotes the action, state, or property of the thing expressed by
the subject. Traditional grammar identified the predicate by
looking for the verb. However, the verb itself is seldom the entire
predicate. The predicate is usually a more or less complex
structure with the verb at its core.
From the structural point of view, there are two main
types of the predicate: simple predicate and compound
predicate. Both these types may be either verbal or nominal.
The simple verbal predicate is expressed by a verb
or verbal phrase denoting one action (have a look, give a cry,
make a move): John runs quickly. She gave him a look and
went out.
The simple nominal predicate is expressed by a
noun, an adjective, an infinitive, or participle I. It does not
contain a link verb, as it shows the incompatibility of the ideas
expressed by the subject and the predicate (implied negation).
Such sentences are always exclamatory: My son a clergyman!
She a nun! Me a liar! Ronnie, good-looking! You sad! Hercule
Pojrot to sleep while murder is committed! She spying! Me trying
to be funny!
The compound predicate consists of two parts:
the structural (expressed by a finite verb — a phasal verb,
a modal verb, a link verb) and the notional (expressed by
a noun, an adjective, an adverb, a verbal, a phrase, a
predicative complex, or a clause). The structural part
carries grammatical information about the person,
number, tense, voice, modal and aspective meaning of
the whole predicate. The notional part contains
information about the subject.
The compound verbal phasal predicate denotes the
beginning, duration, repetition, or cessation of the action. It
consists of a phasal verb of a) beginning (begin, start,
commence, set about, take to); b) duration (go on, keep,
proceed, continue); c) repetition (would, used to); d) cessation
(stop, finish, cease, give up) and an infinitive or gerund: They
began to talk. He started training. They kept running. He used to
talk to me about it. He gave up smoking.
The compound verbal modal predicate shows
whether the action is looked upon as possible, impossible,
obligatory, necessary, desirable, planned, certain, permissible. It
consists of a modal part expressed by a modal verb or a modal
 300

expression (be able, be willing, be capable, be going) and an

infinitive: I can’t say a word. He may have to return. You are
going to attend the college.
The compound nominal predicate consists of a link
verb a) of being (be, feel, sound, look, appear, seem); b)
becoming (become, grow, turn, get, make); c) remaining
(remain, keep, stay) and a predicative (predicate complement or
subject complement): The man is my father. His voice sounded
cold and hostile. His face turned red. The noise becomes
intolerable. The girl will make a good teacher. She remained
vexed with him. The children kept suspiciously silent.
The predicative can be expressed by a noun in the
common (Her father was a teacher) or genitive case (The face
was Victoria’s), an adjective (He looked awful), a pronoun (It
was he), a numeral (He is sixty), a stative (I was awake), an
infinitive (To decide is to act), a gerund (Seeing is believing). It
may also be expressed by a phrase (She is on our side),
predicative complex (The main problem was his being away), or
a clause (That’s what has happened).
Three most typical semantic characteristics of a
predicative are: identification (London is the capital of Britain),
classification (John is a student), and characterization (The
room is dark).
The compound nominal double predicate consists of
two parts, both of which are notional. The first one is verbal and
is expressed by a notional verb (die, leave, lie, marry, return,
rise, sit, stand, shine, etc.) which links the second part (a
predicative) expressed by a noun or an adjective to the subject:
The moon was shining cold and bright. My daughter sat silent.
He died a hero. She married young. The men stood silent.
Mixed types of compound predicate are exemplified
by the compound modal nominal predicate (She couldn’t be
happy); phasal nominal predicate (He was beginning to look
sad); compound modal phasal predicate (You ought to stop
doing that).
The object is a secondary part of the sentence which
refers to any other part of the sentence expressed by a verb,
noun, noun-pronoun, adjective, stative, numeral, or, very
seldom, an adverb, completing, specifying, or restricting its
meaning.
The object can be expressed by nouns in the common
case (I saw the boys), personal pronouns in the objective case (I
saw them), other noun-pronouns (He didn’t know that),
 301

numerals (He found three of them), a gerund (He insists on

coming), an infinitive (He decided to stop). It may also be
expressed by a phrase (I had to learn how to spell words), a
predicative complex (I want it done), or a clause (I don’t know
what it was).
According to the way the object is connected to its
headword, it may be either non-prepositional (I'll see you
tomorrow) or prepositional (I'll never speak to you again).
Many verbs govern their objects by means of prepositions. They
are never used without prepositions: aim at, consist of, rely on
(upon), etc.
From the point of view of their value and grammatical
peculiarities, three types of objects are distinguished in English:
the direct object, the indirect object, and the cognate object.
The direct object is a non-prepositional object that
follows transitive verbs, adjectives, or statives and completes
their meaning. Semantically, it is usually a non-person which is
directly affected by the action of the verb: I wrote a poem. He
promised to concentrate on the idea. You like arguing, don't
you? She was ready to sing.
The indirect object also follows verbs, adjectives and
statives. Unlike the direct object, however, it may be attached to
intransitive verbs as well as to transitive ones. Besides, it may
also be attached to adverbs, although this is very rare. From the
point of view of their semantics and certain grammatical
characteristics, indirect objects fall into two types: recipient and
non-recepient.
The indirect recipient object is attached only to
verbs. It is expressed by a noun or pronoun which as a rule
denotes a person who is the addressee or recipient of the action
of the verb. It is joined to the headword either without a
preposition or by the preposition to (or occasionally for): He
gave the kid two dollars. She did not tell anything to anyone.
Will you bring a cup of coffee for me?
The indirect non-recepient object is attached to
verbs, adjectives, statives, and adverbs. It is usually a noun
(less often a pronoun) denoting an inanimate object, although it
may be a gerund, a gerundial phrase or complex, an infinitive
complex, or a clause. Its semantics varies, but it never denotes
the addressee (recipient) of the action. It is joined to its
headword by means of a preposition: I thought about it. She's
not happy about her new friend. I was amazed at her being so
shy. Fortunately for himself, he could not be present.
 302

The cognate object is a non-prepositional object

which is attached to otherwise intransitive verbs and is always
expressed by nouns derived from, or semantically related to, the
root of the verb: The child smiled the smile and laughed the
laugh of contentment. He died the death of a hero. One must
live one's own life, you know.
The verbs that most frequently take a cognate object
are: live (a life), smile (a smile), laugh (a laugh), die (a death),
sigh (a sigh), sleep (a sleep), dream (a dream), run (a race),
fight (a fight).
The cognate object is always used with words
modifying it, never alone: the death of a hero, a heavy sigh,
one's own life, etc. Together with these words such objects
modify the verb rather as adverbials than as objects: to die the
death of a hero = to die like a hero; to live a happy life = to live
happily, etc. Nevertheless, they are considered to be objects,
not adverbial modifiers, because: a) they are expressed by
nouns without prepositions; b) they may occur in the position of
the subject of a passive construction: He never doubted that life
should be lived as he lived.
The cognate object is not to be confused with the direct
object of some transitive verbs which may also be of the same
root or semantics as the verb it is attached to: sing a song, tell a
tale, ask a question, etc. The latter do not in any way modify the
corresponding verbs, but only name the object of the action.
Unlike the cognate object, such objects can easily occur alone,
without any modifiers of their own: Sing me a song. Tell them
the tale.
Sometimes a notional object expressed by a clause
may be introduced by means of the formal object called
introductory (anticipatory) it: I understand it that you are my
wife's brother. He objected to it that they should be taken to the
island too.
The attribute is a secondary part of the sentence
which characterizes a person or non-person expressed by the
headword either qualitatively, quantitatively, or from the point of
view of situation. Attributes refer to nouns and other words of
nominal nature, such as pronouns and substitute words. An
attribute forms a nominal phrase with its headword.
An attribute is expressed by adjectives (He was a little
man), pronouns (Here’s some money for you), numerals (The
third attempt gave no result), nouns in the common case (It
happened on a December evening), nouns or pronouns in the
 303

possessive case (The ocean’s vasteness was great), statives

(No man alive would ever think of it), participles (He went down
the creaking stairs), gerunds (Her walking shoes were elegant),
infinitives (You are the one to blame), adverbs (The then
government did not respond to this claim). It may also be
expressed by a phrase (He was a man of regular habits), a
predicative complex (This is a problem for you to solve), or a
clause (Everything that you may want is in the wardrobe).
An attribute may be expressed by sentences used as
hyphenated chains before the headword (‘quotation nouns’):
She looked at me with a kind of don't-touch-me-or-l'll-slap-you
air. It was a 'You-must-take-us-as-you-find-us' attitude to things.
In this 'a-place-for-everything-and-everything-in-its-place'
kitchen he felt ill at ease.
In some structures, the semantic roles of the elements
may be reversed: the first (subordinating) element becomes a
modifying word, the second (subordinated) — the modified one:
his carrot of a nose, the angel of a girl, a hell of a noise, a jewel
of a nature, a jewel of a wife, a skyscraper of a silver cup, an
orchid of a woman, a box of an office. Though logically his
carrot of a nose means that the nose is characterized as
resembling a carrot, syntactically it is the word carrot that is
modified by the of-phrase of a nose. This accounts for the
marked stylistic effect of these structures.
From the point of view of their semantic characteristics,
attributes are divided into limiting and descriptive.
A limiting attribute indicates such a quality or
characteristic of an object which makes it distinct from all other
objects of the same class or kind: It was perhaps the most
important consideration of all. Blair took the letter he held out to
her. A noun with a limiting attribute is used with the definite
article in the specifying meaning.
A descriptive attribute is used simply to describe an
object or give additional information about it: There was a
picture of Glen and a tall arrogant dark girl. The sand glittered
like fine white sugar in the sun. There was a wonderful concert
we could have gone to.
From the point of view of their connection with the
headword, attributes fall into non-detached (close) and
detached (loose).
Non-detached attributes form one sense group with
their headword and are not separated from it by commas. They
generally adjoin the headword, either premodifying (a nice girl;
 304

crimson, white and yellow flowers) or postmodifying (baskets

stuffed with towels; the habit of joking at the wrong moment) it,
and are connected with other parts of the sentence only through
the headword.
A detached attribute is only loosely connected with its
headword and is often optional from the point of view of
structure, although very important semantically. It forms a
separate sense group in speech and is accordingly separated
by commas in writing: Carrie looked about her, very much
disturbed and quite sure that she did not want to work here.
Detached attributes may be placed in preposition, post-position,
or often at some distance from the headword. Unlike non-
detached attributes, detached attributes may modify personal
and relative pronouns: A daughter of poor but honest parents, I
have no reason to be ashamed of my origins.
The apposition is a secondary part of the sentence
expressed by a noun or nominal phrase referring to another
noun or nominal phrase (the headword), or sometimes to a
clause. There are several kinds of meaning expressed by the
relationship of apposition: a) the two noun phrases are
equivalent in meaning, with one providing the name or specific
identity of the other: I spoke to my neighbour, Mr Smith; b) one
noun phrase expresses an attribute of the other: I saw the clerk,
a rather seedy type.
The apposition is similar to an attribute, as it character-
izes the person or non-person denoted by the headword: He
always admired her, a very pretty creature. Beyond the villa, a
strange-looking building, began the forest. Some grammarians
treat the apposition as a variety of the attribute (appositive
attribute).
Like the attribute, the apposition may be in preposition
or postposition to its headword. However, unlike the attribute,
which is always subordinated to its headword, words in
apposition are, at least syntactically, coordinated parts, i.e. both
the headword and the apposition are sentence constituents of
the same level: Mr Smith, the local doctor, was known to
everybody. → The local doctor, Mr Smith, was known to
everybody. However, an apposition can rarely replace the
headword in the sentence. Communicatively, the headword is
superordinate, and the apposition is subordinate.
From the point of view of their relation to the headword,
appositions, like attributes, fall into non-detached and de-
tached.
 305

Non-detached appositions form one sense group

with their headword (titles, professions, kinship terms,
geographical names): Mr Brown, Doctor Watson, Uncle Podger,
President Reagan, Queen Elizabeth, Oxford Street, Mount
Everest, the River Thames.
Detached appositions form separate sense groups
and are wider in their meaning: they may identify, supplement,
or modify the headword. They may follow the headword
immediately or be separated from it: Jolyon succeeded where
he, Soames, had failed. Cooper was taller than Mr Burton, a
strong, muscular young man.
The apposition is usually distinguished from appended
modifiers (explanatory words or phrases) which explain, clarify,
exemplify, or specify other sentence parts: In the evening, about
eight o’clock, he went to call on Denny. She wanted the
impossible, to have her youth back. Her face was very pale — a
greyish pailor.
An appended modifier is usually parenthetic and
follows the headword as an afterthought. It is a dependent part
which can refer to practically any part of the sentence and
answer the same question, but in a fuller and more detailing
way, narrowing or particularizing the notion expressed by the
headword. Therefore, the headword is usually more general in
meaning than the appended part; very often it is a pronoun:
She’s got heaps of drink there — whiskey, vodka, brandy. They
were alike, his father and he.
The connection between the appended modifier and
the headword is qualified as explanatory since it is possible to
insert namely, that is between the elements: now, (namely) at
night; an item of legislation, (namely) the housing bill.
In contrast, the apposition has attributive meaning and
can be transformed into an attributive clause: my friend, (who is)
the inspector; Lawrence Radley, (who was) a small, plump man
of fifty.
Appended parts may be joined asyndetically and in this
case they are marked off graphically by a comma or a dash:
She read an awful lot — novels, poetry, all sorts of stuff. They
may be also joined by conjunctions (and, or), explanatory words
(namely, that is, for example, for instance), intensifying particles
or adverbs (almost, just, even, especially, particularly, at least),
modal words (in fact, indeed): He had a talent for mathematics
— almost a genius for it. Language makers, that is ordinary
speakers, are not very accurate thinkers.
 306

Another way of linking the appended modifier to its

headword is the repetition of the same part with modifying
words: My object is secure happiness — the happiness of both
of us.
The adverbial modifier is a secondary part of the
sentence which modifies another part of the sentence
expressed either by a verb (in a finite or non-finite form), an
adjective, a stative, an adverb: John spoke in a whisper. It was
a very long story. I am quite aware of the situation. You speak
English rather fluently. It may refer to the whole of the sentence:
In the evening they gathered together again.
An adverbial characterizes the process denoted by the
verb from the viewpoint of situation, quality, or quantity.
Adverbials modifying adjectives, statives, and adverbs usually
denote quantity.
An adverbial modifier may be expressed by an adverb
(She sings beautifully), a noun (Wait a minute), a gerund (Close
the window before going), an infinitive (We’ve come here to
study), a participle (Sighing, Betty returned to the kitchen). It
may also be expressed by a phrase (We met ten years ago), a
predicative complex (There having been no rain, the earth was
dry), or a clause (We stayed at home because it rained).
From the point of view of their semantics, adverbials
are divided into several classes, such as adverbials of place,
time, etc.
Adverbials of place may denote place (where?),
direction or destination (where to? where from?), distance (how
far?): John lives in England. We moved to Australia in 1975. He
lives far from here.
Adverbials of time may express time (when?),
frequency (how often?), duration (how long?): We’ll meet
tomorrow. We often see each other. Have you been here long?
— A couple of hours.
Adverbials of manner show the way the action is
performed (how? in what way?) or by what means it is achieved
(by what means?): He danced badly. They arrived by ship.
Adverbials of cause (reason) denote the reason or
motive for some action (why? for what reason?): Schools were
closed because of heavy snowfall. Thanks to my parents I got a
decent education. She cried out of fear. He was trembling with
hatred.
Adverbials of purpose denote the purpose for which
something is done, aim, goal (what for? for what purpose?): We
 307

run for exercise. Jane has come to help us. I've repeated my
words for you to remember them. We hurried so as not to be
late.
Adverbials of result (consequence) are expressed
by an infinitive, infinitive phrase or complex. They refer to
adjectives or adverbs accompanied by adverbs of degree, such
as too, enough, sufficiently, so...(as): It is too cold to go out. He
spoke slowly enough for us to take notes. John was so fortunate
as to get the first prize.
Adverbials of condition denote a restricting or
modifying circumstance indispensable to some result (in what
case? on what condition?): Without faith there can be no cure.
He won't sing unless asked to. I'll come if necessary. But for you
I wouldn't be here at all.
Adverbials of concession express some idea that is
in contradiction with what is stated in the modified part of the
sentence (in spite of what?): In spite of his anger John listened
to me. With all his faults, I like him. Though a bad painter, he
had a feeling for art.
Adverbials of attendant circumstances express
some event that accompanies the event presented by the
modified part of the sentence: We walked three miles without
meeting anyone. "No," said Gabriel, turning to his wife.
Adverbials of subsequent events point out an event
following the event in the modified part of the sentence: He
hurried to the house only to find it empty. She woke to find
herself at home.
Adverbials of comparison occur in comparative
estimates: A mountain is higher than a hill. He works like a
beaver. He prospered greatly, almost as though against his will.
Adverbials of degree characterize actions, states, or
qualities from the viewpoint of their intensity (how much? to
what extent?): The story is very (extremely) long. All was
planned to the split second. Now you may read to your heart's
content.
Adverbials of measure are expressed by nouns
denoting units of measure: We walked (for) five miles. The box
weighs a ton.
Adverbials of exception denote exclusion: They were
all there except me. Our cat eats nothing but fish.
From the point of view of their connection with the
headword, adverbials are divided into non-detached and
detached.
 308

Detached adverbials being more loosely related to the

modified parts of the sentence are never obligatory. They are
separated from the rest of the sentence by intonation in
speaking and by commas in writing. Participial phrases as
adverbials tend to be detached: She then returned to her place,
not having spoken another word. Any adverbial may be
detached if the speaker wishes to emphasize its meaning: ‘He
was her father,’ said Frances, gravely.
Independent elements are not grammatically
dependent on any particular part of the sentence, but as a rule
refer to the sentence as a whole. They are optional elements:
they can be added to or removed from the sentence without the
rest of the construction being affected. They may occur in
different positions in the sentence, conveying different kinds of
nuance and emphasis.
Direct address (vocative) is the name of a person (or
non-person) to whom the rest of the sentence is addressed. It
may be emotionally charged or neutral: John, put that down and
come over here. Jenny, darling, don't say such things.
Vocatives have two main functions. They may be used
as a call, to gain someone's attention: Mike, telephone for you.
Children, dinner-time! They can be used to express a particular
social relationship or personal attitude (respectful distance or
familiarity varying from mild friendliness to intimacy): Doctor, I'm
worried about my big toe. We mustn't be late, dearest. Leave it
alone, imbecile!
Vocatives can be: a) names, with or without titles
(David, Mr Doe, Dr Smith); b) family relationship labels (mother,
father, auntie, uncle, dad, mummy); c) markers of status or
respect (sir, madam, Your Excellency, Your Majesty, Mr
President, ladies and gentlemen); d) labels for occupations
(waiter, nurse, doctor); e) evaluative labels (darling, dear,
honey, love, sweetie, idiot, pig); f) general labels (lads, guys); g)
the personal pronoun you (impolite use) (You, there's the phone
in here?) or an indefinite pronoun (Get me a pen, somebody); h)
occasionally, certain kinds of clause (Whoever you are, stop
doing that. Whoever said that, come out here).
Some vocatives can be extended by modifiers: old
man, my dear Mrs Johnson, you boys.
The vocative marker O is used only in religious
settings: O God, who knowest all things…
In formal speech, and in writing, the social rules
governing the use of vocatives are usually clear-cut. It is
 309

possible to consult etiquette handbooks to find out how to

address people of rank in the approved way. In informal speech
situations, the rules are complex and shifting. For example, love
(as in Come here, love) is not restricted to talk between people
who are on intimate terms. It is regularly used by some bus
conductors, bar staff, and others, even to people they have
never met before.
Parenthesis is a qualifying, explanatory, or appositive
word, phrase, clause, or sentence that interrupts a syntactical
construction without otherwise affecting it, having often a
characteristic intonation and indicated in writing by commas,
parentheses, or dashes: To tell you the truth, I am very tired.
Surely he had too wide a mouth. William Smith — you must
know him — is coming tonight.
As to its meaning and function, parenthesis may be of
several types. It may express the speaker's attitude to the
relation between what is expressed in the sentence and reality
(perhaps, maybe, certainly, of course, oh, dear me). It may
connect the sentence it belongs to with the preceding or the
following one (first, firstly, secondly, finally, after all, besides, by
the way, on the contrary, that is, for example). It may specify
that which is said in the sentence or express a comment
(according to my taste, in my opinion, to tell the truth, in other
words, in short, as is known, by the way).

17.3. Some special difficulties of sentence parsing

Traditional sentence parts classification has been
frequently criticized from various viewpoints. Some
linguists try to revise the existing classification with the
aim of improving it; they add new parts of the sentence to
the traditional ones. Other scholars discard this
classification altogether and suggest a completely
different way of syntactical analysis (e.g., IC analysis,
Transformational Grammar, etc.). The following
limitations of the existing classification are usually noted
[Теоретическая грамматика, 1983: 161].
1. The source of the notion of sentence parts is
logical rather than linguistic. Grammatical sentence
parsing is close to the logical division of the proposition
into two parts — subject and predicate.
 310

2. In defining parts of the sentence, priority is

given to the semantic factor and formal features are often
disregarded.
3. Traditional scheme of sentence parsing is
international. It is applied to analyze languages which
differ in their grammatical structure and, consequently,
cannot reflect their specificity.
4. Though each sentence can be parsed into
subject, predicate, object, attribute, etc., the attribution of
some of such parts may present certain difficulties.
Difficulties arise where a part of the sentence
simultaneously contains two meanings and it is not always clear
which of them is the prominent — the so-called syncretical
forms. This is usually the case with various classes of
adverbials: The work done, I felt as free as a bird (cause is
combined with time). To hear him talk, you'll think he's at least
ten years old (time is combined with condition). At home she
took off her coat (time is combined with place).
Sometimes certain difficulties in analysis may arise
from the fact that phrases, complexes, or clauses of similar
pattern can have different syntactical functions. They are then
called syntactical homonyms: I'll do it with great pleasure
(adverbial of manner). She says she's cut her finger with that
table knife (object). At last there appeared in the distance the
house with the green roof (attribute). He's always with the losing
party (predicative).
Difficulties in analysis also arise because of the
subtlety of the border-line between secondary parts
of the sentence, which makes it in some cases hardly
possible to tell an object from an adverbial, or an attribute
from an adverbial.
Some adverbials of manner may border on an indirect
non-recipient object with an instrumental meaning: He was
wounded with a bullet (an object: what was he wounded with?
or an adverbial of manner: how was he wounded?).
There is no rigid border-line between a direct object
and an adverbial of measure: The job paid her the minimum rate
(a direct object: what? or an adverbial of measure: how much?).
Sometimes, it is impossible to tell an attribute from an
adverbial of purpose: She gave me a book to read on the train
(an attribute: = which I might read or an adverbial of purpose: =
 311

in order that I might read it).

It is difficult to define whether a certain combination of
words represents one member or two members of the sentence.
This is the case with phasal verbs (begin, continue, stop, etc.).
Some scholars believe that together with their complements
they form a compound verbal predicate. Western scholars
qualify such combinations as predicate + object (began to
laugh).
Notwithstanding such limitations, the existing
sentence parts classification is still current nowadays.
According to some linguists, description of syntactic
structure in terms of sentence parts has the strongest
explanatory force in the realm of syntax [Теоретическая
грамматика, 1983: 161].

17.4. Order of sentence parts: word order

The syntactical structure of a language imposes
restrictions on the way messages may be organized in that
language. The order in which parts of the sentence may occur is
more fixed in some languages than in others. Word order in
English is relatively fixed. There are thousands of rules
forbidding speakers to put words in a certain order: I walked to
town. — *I to town walked. That's a fine old house. — *That's an
old fine house. John and I saw her. — *I and John saw her. She
switched it on. — *She switched on it.
The order of the constituents in syntactical
constructions is crucial for English. Due to its analytical
structure, syntactical functions of elements have, as a rule, no
special morphological markers (e.g., case inflections). The
position itself, or more exactly the distribution of an element,
may determine its relationship with other elements in a syntac-
tical construction.
Synthetical languages which have elaborate systems of
case inflections tend to have fewer restrictions on word order
than analytical languages like English. In Russian, for example,
both Ivan videl Borisa and Borisa videl Ivan mean 'John saw
Boris', because -a marks Boris as the object, regardless of its
position with respect to the subject and predicate verb.
The meaning of a sentence in English often depends
entirely on the order in which the elements are placed: The man
ate the fish. — The fish ate the man. They are here. — Are they
 312

here? Only I kissed Joan. — I kissed only Joan. The man with a
dog saw me. — The man saw me with a dog.
The words in an English sentence are arranged in a
certain order, which is fixed for every type of the sentence, and
is therefore meaningful. Word order fulfils several functions —
grammatical, emphatic or communicative, and linking. These
functions are manifested in different arrangements of the parts
of the sentence.
The main function of word order is to express
grammatical relations and determine the grammatical status of a
word by fixing its position in the sentence. There exist two ways
of arranging words — direct word order and inverted word
order.
The most common pattern for the arrangement of the
parts in a declarative sentence is SVO (Subject — Verb-
Predicate — Object), which is called direct word order.
Direct word order is also employed in pronominal
questions to the subject or to its attribute.
Direct word order allows of only few variations in the
fixed pattern, and then only for the secondary parts. For
instance, if there are two objects, the indirect one precedes the
direct one, or the prepositional follows the direct one: The boy
gave me no answer. The boy gave no answer to me.
As to the secondary parts of the sentence, such as
attributes and adverbial modifiers, their position is less fixed.
Usually those words that are closely connected tend to be
placed together. Accordingly, secondary parts referring to main
parts are placed close to them. Attributes either premodify or
postmodify their headwords: a bright morning; the problems
involved; the scene familiar to us.
Adverbials and different function words seem to be the
most movable parts in the sentence. Their mobility is partly
accounted for by their varied reference to different parts of the
sentence.
When referring to a verb, adverbials are placed in: a)
front position (Again he was late); b) contact preposition (He
often said it); c) interposition (He has never seen her); d)
contact post-position (They are never on time); e) end position
(Tom works carefully).
When adverbials refer to adjectives, adverbs, nouns,
numerals, or pronouns they are usually placed close to these
words, generally preceding them: He is quite a hero. Mother
was very upset about it. For adverbials allowing of different
 313

reference any change of position may result in a change of

meaning: Nearly all died. — All nearly died.
Another common pattern of word order is the inverted
word order (inversion). Inversion reverses the usual order of
words.
Any unusual position of any part of the sentence may
be treated as inversion in the broad sense of the term, e.g., This
I know (the object precedes the subject). But, for the most part,
the term inversion is used in its narrow meaning with regard to
the principal parts of the sentence. It indicates that the predicate
precedes the subject (indirect order of words). In an
overwhelming majority of cases only the structural part of the
predicate is placed before the subject: Is he writing? May I
enter? Where does he live? Cases like Away ran the horse are
comparatively rare.
Inversion, as one type of a large variety of non-
canonical word-order phenomena, has received a considerable
amount of attention over the last few decades. Studies on
inversion include approaches in various generative and
transformational frameworks, functional and (most recently)
cognitive linguistics.
M.L. Borroff [2000: 206-209] considers that inversion
and its non-inverted counterpart are word-order variants that
denote the same event and express the same proposition, but
differ in how the speaker directs the hearer (or the writer directs
the reader) to view, construe, and conceptualize the event. In
general, inversion is used to direct the hearer’s or reader's
attention to a previously unknown figure, something that its non-
inverted counterpart cannot do.
Grammarians distinguish full inversion when the
predicate precedes the subject, as in Here comes the lady of
the house, and partial inversion when only part of the
predicate precedes the subject, as in Happy may you be! Some
scholars also distinguish double inversion when parts of the
predicate are placed separately before the subject, as in
Hanging on the wall was a picture.
In some cases, inversion may be taken as a normal
order of words in constructions with special communicative
value, and is thus devoid of any special colouring —
grammatical inversion used:
1. In various communicative types of sentences: a)
general pronominal, and tag questions: Is it true? What are the
police after? You are glad to see me, aren't you? b) existential
 314

there-sentences: There has been an accident; c) exclamatory

sentences expressing strong emotions: Long live the king! d)
exclamatory sentences which are negative in form but positive
in meaning: Have I not watched them! e) negative imperative
sentences: Don't you do it.
2. In some complex sentences as a grammatical
means of subordination to join: a) conditional clauses: Were you
sure of it, you wouldn't hesitate; b) concessive clauses: Proud
as he was, he had to consent to our proposal.
3. In sentences beginning with adverbs denoting place:
Here is another example. There goes another bus.
4. In stage directions, although this use is limited to
certain verbs: Enter the King and the Queen.
5. In sentences indicating whose words or thoughts are
given as direct or indirect speech: ‘That's him,’ said Tom.
6. In statements showing that the remark applies
equally to someone or something else: I am tired. — So am I.
He isn't ready. — Neither is she. But if the sentence is a
corroboration of a remark just made, direct word order is used:
You promised to come. — So I did.
In other cases, inversion is a sort of reordering for
stylistic effect or for emphasis. The second function of word
order is to make prominent or emphatic that part of the sentence
which is more important or informative in the speaker's opinion.
These two functions (to express prominence, or information
focus, and emphasis) are different in their purpose, but in many
cases they go together or overlap and are difficult to
differentiate.
Prominence and emphasis are achieved by placing the
word in an unusual position: words normally placed at the
beginning of the sentence (such as the subject) are placed
towards the end whereas words usually occupying positions
closer to the end of the sentence (such as objects and
predicatives) are shifted to the beginning. The following patterns
of stylistic inversion are most frequent.
1. The object is placed at the beginning of the
sentence: Talent Mr Macowber has, capital Mr Macowber has
not. To this Iris also agreed. This nowadays one hears not of.
2. The predicative is placed before the subject: Horrible
these women are, ugly, dirty. A dreadful day it was for young
Dobbin.
3. The adverbial modifier is placed at the beginning of
the sentence: At your feet I fall. Off he went. Up they rushed.
 315

Front position is emphatic for adverbials of time, manner, and

degree. It is often accompanied by subject-predicator inversion:
Well do I remember the day. Many a time has he given me good
advice.
4. The predicate, expressed by the verb, precedes the
subject: Into this society came Sonia van der Merwe.
5. Both the adverbial modifier and the predicate are
placed before the subject: In went Mr. Pickwick. Down dropped
the breeze. End position is always emphatic for the subject.
6. The attribute is placed after the head-word: Once
upon a midnight dreary… The day following was to decide our
fate.
Stylistic inversion, also termed anastrophe or
hyperbaton, is considered to be a very common device in
poetry, prose, and rhetoric. Specific types of hyperbaton are
hypallage and chiasmus.
Hypallage involves an interchange of elements so that
a displaced word is in a grammatical relationship with another
that it does not logically qualify: her beauty's face for her face's
beauty.
Chiasmus involves a reversal in the order of words in
two otherwise parallel phrases: He went to the country, to the
town went she. To stop too beautiful, and too faint to go. As high
as we have mounted in delight, In our dejection do we sink as
low. The night wings sigh, the breakers roar, And shrieks the
wild sea-mew.
The third function of word order is to express continuity
of thought in sentences (clauses) following one another. This
continuity is often supported by demonstrative pronouns and
adverbs: Some people looked down on him. Those people he
despised. Women are terribly vain. So are men — more so, if
possible.
Similarly, for purposes of enumeration, a word marking
continuity is sometimes placed at the beginning of the sentence,
with the verb immediately following: Next comes the most
amusing scene.
 316

Unit 18
____________________________________

THE COMPOSITE SENTENCE

____________________________________
18.1. The structure of the composite sentence
The difference between the simple sentence and the
composite sentence lies in the fact that the former contains only
one predication (subject-predicate unit) and the latter more than
one. The composite sentence is formed by two or more
predicative lines.
In a composite sentence, each predication together
with the words attached makes up a clause. In its structure a
clause is similar to a simple sentence, but unlike a simple
sentence it forms part of a bigger syntactical unit. The English
language provides separate terms for the denomination of
sentence as an independent unit, and clause as a unit which
possesses the structure of a sentence, being at the same time a
dependent syntactical unit within a sentence.
Within a composite sentence, clauses may be linked by
means of coordination or subordination, thus forming a
compound or complex sentence respectively.
Coordination, or parataxis (from Greek para + tassein
‘to place beside’), is a way of linking grammatical elements to
make them equal in rank and function.
Subordination, or hypotaxis (from Greek hypo +
tassein ‘to put under’), is a way of linking grammatical elements
that makes one of them dependent upon the other.
In compound sentences (also termed coordinate),
the clauses are linked by coordination. Coordination is usually
signalled by a linking word, called coordinator. The most
common coordinators are and, or, but, correlatives both … and,
(n)either … (n)or). When a conjunction links two coordinate
clauses, the coordination is said to be linked, or syndetic. This
is the more usual form. When there is no conjunction, the
coordination is unlinked, or asyndetic.
Coordinate clauses that are joined have the same
 317

status in the sentence. Each coordinate clause could in principle

stand as a sentence on its own (be independent): Mary went to
York and Hilary went to Leeds (= Mary went to York. Hilary went
to Leeds).
In complex sentences, the clauses are linked by
subordination. Subordination is usually signalled by a linking
word, called a subordinator. There are many subordinators,
expressing a wide range of meanings: although, if, that, until,
when, while, in order that, as long as, in case, etc. In a few
cases, subordination can be signalled asyndetically: The trouble
is he can’t help you. Here is the man you wanted to see. He
said he would wait. Contact clauses are more common in
spoken than in written English. Inversion can also signal
subordination: Were she here, she would tell you.
In subordination, the clauses that are joined together
do not have the same grammatical status. One clause — the
subordinate, dependent, or embedded clause — is
subordinated to another — the matrix, main, or principal
clause. A subordinate clause, however important the
information rendered by it might be, presents it as naturally
supplementing the information of the principal clause: I
answered the door when Jane rang the bell. The subordinate
clause cannot stand as a sentence on its own.
In compound sentences, whole clauses are
coordinated, together with their predications (a sequential
clause refers to the whole of the leading clause). In complex
sentences, a clause is mostly subordinated not to the whole
principal clause but to some word in it which may be regarded
as its head-word. The subordinate clause always expands an
element of main clause structure: all or part of the subject,
object, predicative, or adverbial. Cf.: I know where he lives. I
know the place where he lives. The important thing is where he
lives. The only exception is the subordinate clause in Where he
lives is unknown in which it functions as the subject.
The order of clauses within a compound sentence is
often more rigid than in complex sentences. The position of a
coordinate clause is rigidly fixed in relation to the previous
clause, and cannot change places with it without impairing the
sense of the sentence: He came at six and we had dinner
together. — *And we had dinner together, he came at six. This
is a big difference between coordinate and most subordinate
clauses: Hilary went to Leeds, when Mary went to York. —
When Mary went to York, Hilary went to Leeds.
 318

Coordinators cannot be preceded by another

conjunction: *Hilary went to Leeds, and but Mary went to York.
This is another way in which coordination differs from
subordination: Hilary went to Leeds; and when she arrived, Mary
left.
These peculiarities of compound and complex
sentences account for the difference in their treatment. The
clauses of compound sentences are sometimes regarded as in-
dependent. Some linguists are even of the opinion that
compound sentences are merely sequences of simple
sentences, combinations of sentences. The clauses of a
complex sentence, on the contrary, are often treated as forming
a unity, a simple sentence in which some part is replaced by a
clause. Such extreme views are not quite justified, especially if
we take into consideration that the border line between
coordination and subordination is fluid. A clause may be
introduced by a typical subordinating conjunction and yet its
connection with the principal clause is so loose that it can hardly
be regarded as a subordinate clause at all: I met John, who told
me (= and he told me) the big news. Or, conversely, a
coordinating conjunction may express relations typical of
subordination: He looked strong and healthy, but (= though) he
hadn’t eaten for days.
Both compound and complex sentences can contain
several instances of coordination or subordination.
With multiple subordination, we must keep the different
levels of subordination apart. The main clause in a complex
sentence may have several subordinate clauses with different
functions: I see [that you have lost the key (which I gave you)].
He thought [that they would leave (when the boat arrived)]. This
is called consecutive, or successive, subordination. It forms
a hierarchy of clauses. Here each succeeding clause is
subordinate to the preceeding clause. Hence, the form of
dependence is lineal or direct. Consequently, the clauses are in
the first, second, etc. degree of subordination.
Several instances of subordination may occur at the
same level. This is parallel heterogeneous subordination:
The speakers [who represented different nations] were
unanimous in their call for peace [which is so ardently desired].
[What I said] is [what I meant].
Sometimes subordination and coordination may be
combined within one sentence, in which case we may have
compound-complex and complex-compound sentences.
 319

A compound-complex sentence is essentially a

compound sentence in which at least one coordinate clause is
extended by a subordinate one: I know [that she hates me], but
I’ll make her love me. The lightning flashed and the rain fell [as
he entered the house].
A complex-compound sentence is essentially a
complex sentence with two or more subordinate clauses joined
by coordination: I know [that you are afraid of me] and [that you
suspect me of something]. This is parallel homogeneous
subordination, or co-subordination, and the subordinate
clauses are homogeneous.

18.2. The compound sentence

A compound sentence consists of two or more
coordinate clauses of equal rank which form one syntactical
whole in meaning and intonation. The first clause is called the
leading clause, the successive clauses are called sequential.
The main semantic feature of the compound sentence
is that it follows the flow of thought; thus the content of each
successive clause is related to the previous one. The compound
sentence usually describes events in their natural order.
The clauses are sequentially fixed. The opening clause
plays the leading role, and each successive clause is joined to
the previous clause either syndetically or asyndetically. Syndetic
coordination is realized with a number of conjunctions, such as
and, but, or, nor, for; or with conjunctive adverbs so, yet, still,
otherwise, therefore, etc.
Structurally, coordinate clauses, either leading or
sequential, may belong to the same communicative types as
simple sentences: You may go, but don't be late for dinner! I
had to leave at once, for whatever else could I have done?
In writing, coordinate clauses are marked off by a
comma, a semicolon, a colon, or a dash. Sometimes they are
not separated graphically at all. In speaking, they are separated
by pauses.
From the point of view of the relationship between
the clauses, scholars distinguish four kinds of coordinate
connection: copulative, adversative, disjunctive, and
causative-consecutive, expressed not only by means of
 320

coordinating connectives, but also by the general

meaning of clauses (esp. in asyndetic coordination).
Copulative coordination implies that the events or
ideas conveyed by coordinate clauses are merely joined in time
and place. Copulative connectors are: conjunctions and, nor,
(neither)... nor, not only... but (also), as well as, conjunctive
adverbs then, moreover.
And is the conjunction most frequently used to realize
copulative coordination. It often expresses a very general
meaning of addition: He drives a car and he rides a bike.
Copulative clauses may render some adverbial
meaning — temporal, causal, conditional, resultative,
concessive, etc.
Temporal relations imply that the events are simul-
taneous or successive: The dusk was blue and the birds were
flying in it. The front door opened, and a man stepped out on the
porch.
Causal relations can be identified in the following
example: He didn’t have any money and he was ashamed (= He
was ashamed because he didn’t have any money).
In sentences beginning with a verb in the imperative
mood, the first clause implies a condition for the fulfillment of the
action in the second clause: Say one more word about it and I’ll
scream (= If you say one more word about it, I’ll scream).
The action of the verb-predicate in the sequential
clause may result from the action of the leading clause: Life’s
life, and we have to work through it ourselves somehow.
The conjunction and may also link clauses with
adversative connection (the meaning of the second clause is
contrasted to the first): Why were her own relations so rich, and
Phil never knew where the money was coming from? or
causative-consecutive connection (the meaning of the second
clause contains the consequence of the first): It was cold and
we stayed at home.
Copulative connection may also be expressed
asyndetically: The bus stopped, a lady got in, then another lady.
Adversative coordination links clauses which express
opposition, contradiction, or contrast. Adversative connectors
are: conjunctions but, while, whereas, conjunctive adverbs yet,
still, nevertheless, non-theless, conjunctive particle only.
The main adversative conjunction is but, which
expresses adversative connection in a very general way: I’m
old, but you are young. The story was amusing, but nobody
 321

laughed.
A but-clause often contains an unexpected or
contradictory consequence. It may also give the reason for
which the expected event did not take place: I wanted to call
you up, but my telephone was out of order (= I didn't call you
up). I would have called you up, but my telephone was out of
order.
Adversative coordination may also be realized
asyndetically: It didn’t warm me, it made me feel sick.
Disjunctive connection denotes choice, usually
between two mutually exclusive alternatives. Disjunctive
conjunctions are or, either... or, conjunctive adverbs else (or
else), otherwise.
The main disjunctive conjunction or introduces an
alternative. Usually, the alternatives are taken to exclude each
other: You can join us at the station, or we can wait for you at
home. Inclusive interpretations also occur, where or approaches
the meaning of and: We can eat now or we can eat later — I
don't mind which.
Correlative either emphasizes the exclusion of one of
the alternatives: Either listen to me, or I shall stop reading to
you.
The clause introduced by or may express restatement
or correction of what is said in the first clause: We were talking
about a lot of things, or rather he was talking and I was listening.
Coordinate clauses joined by disjunctive connectors
may contain an implied condition: Hurry up, or you will be late (=
If you don't hurry, you will be late). John was busy last night,
otherwise he would have come (= If he hadn't been busy, he
would have come).
Causative-consecutive coordination links clauses in
such a way that one of them contains a reason and the other —
a consequence: The weather was fine, so there were many
people on the beach. The days became longer, for it was now
springtime. The only causative conjunction is for. Consecutive
connectives are so, so that, therefore, hence, then.
Conjunction for is intermediate between subordination
and coordination. It is most often treated as a coordinating
conjunction, because its semantic application is to introduce
clauses containing an explanation or justification of the idea
expressed by the previous clause: The land seemed almost as
dark as the water, for there was no moon. Sometimes the
consequence may serve as a justification of the previous
 322

statement: John must have gone, for nobody answers the call. A
for-clause differs from a subordinate clause of reason in that it
never precedes the clause it is joined to.
So that is also intermediate between subordination and
coordination. When used after a comma in writing or a pause in
speaking, its connection with the previous clause is looser and it
performs the function of a coordinating conjunction: John is
unlikely to come soon, so that we'd better go home.
Causative-consecutive clauses may be joined
asyndetically: I thought that they were brothers, they were so
much alike. Next day his knee was badly swollen, his walking
tour was obviously over.
The commonest type of the compound sentence is a
two-clause construction. Longer sentences are divided into
open and closed in tems of semantic correlation between the
clauses.
Copulative type of connection forms open
coordinations which could continue indefinitely: Sometimes they
were too large and sometimes they were too small; sometimes
they were too far from the center of things and sometimes they
were too close; sometimes they were too expensive and
sometimes they wanted too many repairs; Roger always found a
fault that made the house unsuitable.
In the multi-clause compound sentence of a closed
type, the final part is joined on an unequal basis with the
previous ones, whereby a finalization of the expressed chain of
ideas is achieved. The most typical closures in such compound
sentences are effected by conjunctions and and but: His
fingernails had been cleaned, his teeth brushed, his hair
combed, and he had been dressed in formal black. Pleasure
may turn a heart to stone, riches may make it callous, but
sorrow — oh, sorrow cannot break it.

18.3. The complex sentence

A complex sentence is a polypredicative construction
built up on the principle of subordination. The complex sentence
of minimal composition includes two clauses — a principal one
and a subordinate one. Although the principal clause
positionally dominates the subordinate clause, the two form a
semantico-syntactic unity.
The subordinate clause is joined to the principal clause
 323

either syndetically by subordinating connectors (conjunctions,

connective pronouns or adverbs), or, with some types of
clauses, asyndetically.
Complex sentences are classified according to the
function of subordinate clauses. Functional classification of
subordinate clauses is based on the simple sentence-part
analogy. Subordinate clauses may function as different parts of
the sentence: subject, predicative, object, attribute, adverbial
modifier. Traditionally, these numerous types of clauses are
arranged in three groups: nominal clauses, attributive
clauses, and adverbial clauses.
Grammatical function of the clause can always be
tested by replacing the clause with a simpler unit, such as a
pronoun, adjective, adverb, or noun phrase. Subject: That he
didn't arrive on time is awful. → This is awful. Object: Tony
doesn't know what to do. → He doesn't know something.
Predicative: The results are what I expected. → They are
interesting. Attribute: I found a place where we could make a
fire. → I found such kind of place. Adverbial: Show me the
photos when you next visit us. → Show me them then.
Certain clauses have no correlative parts of the
sentence: I am a diplomat, aren't I? The most important part of
the sentence, the predicate, has no correlative type of clause.
From the point of view of their nominative features,
subordinate clauses are divided into three categorial-semantic
groups: substantive-nominal, qualification-nominal,
adverbial. Categorial-semantic classification of subordinate
clauses is based on the part-of-speech classification.
Substantive-nominal clauses name an event as a certain fact:
That his letters remained unanswered annoyed him. → That fact
annoyed him. Qualification-nominal clauses name an event-fact
which gives a characteristic to some substantive entity: The man
who came in the morning left a message. → That man left a
message. Adverbial clauses make their event-nomination into a
dynamic relation characteristic of another event, or a process, or
a quality: All will be well if we arrive in time. → All will be well on
condition that we arrive in time.
Since substantive nomination is primary in categorial
rank, while qualification nomination is secondary, in terms of
syntactic positions all the subordinate clauses are divided into
three groups: clauses of primary nominal positions to which
belong subject, predicative, and object clauses; clauses of
secondary nominal positions to which belong attributive
 324

clauses; clauses of adverbial positions to which belong

adverbial clauses.
Subordination joins clauses with various degree of
interdependence or fusion. Therefore, some clauses — subject,
predicative, most object clauses — are obligatory for the
completeness of main parts, which are otherwise deficient
(‘gaping’ main clauses). Cf.: I think you are right. — *I think. My
opinion was that there was something behind. — *My opinion
was. Most adverbial clauses are optional, not essential for the
completeness of the main clause. Cf.: We'll have dinner at 8
o'clock, when you come. — We'll have dinner at 8 o'clock.
According to its syntactical function and the word it
refers to, the subordinate clause may be placed before, after, or
in the middle of the main clause. If closely connected, a clause
may be joined without any punctuation mark: I know he is here.
This is the man I told you about. If the connection is rather loose
the clause may be commad off: If you should see him, give him
my regards. In some cases, especially in the case of asyndetic
connection, a subordinate clause may be separated by a dash
to mark the borderline between the clauses: The evil simply was
— he had missed his vocation.
The principal clauses of complex sentences are usually
not classified, though their meanings are not neutral with regard
to the meanings of the subordinate clauses. Cf.: He will come
because he needs your help. He will come if he needs your
help.
Semantically, the main clause generally dominates the
subordinate clause, as it contains the main information of the
utterance. However, there are cases when one part is as
important as the other and even cases when the subordinate
clause is the central informative part of the sentence and the
main clause is less important, maintaining only the immediate
communicative connection with the listener: I asked him if he
knew the man.
All nominal clauses (clauses of primary nominal
positions) have a function approximating to that of a noun or a
nominal phrase. They may fulfill the function of the basic part of
the main clause: a subject clause functions as subject of the
main clause which has no subject of its own, a predicative
clause functions as predicative to the link verb within the main
clause. An object clause refers to verbs in different forms and
functions, to adjectives, statives, and occasionally nouns, and
may be obligatory or optional. An appositive clause refers to a
 325

noun with a very general meaning and is therefore essential to

the meaning of the sentence.
Owing to their essential structural and semantic role in
the sentence, all nominal clauses are very closely connected
with the main clause, and if such a clause is removed, both
structure and the meaning of the sentence are changed or
become ungrammatical. Due to close relationship between the
clauses, the complex sentence is pronounced as one whole,
and the subordinate clause is not commad off, unless it is much
extended and contains predicative constructions or detached
parts.
A subject clause may be introduced by conjunctions
(that, if, whether, because, the way), correlatives (either... or,
whether... or), conjunctive pronouns (who, whoever, what,
whatever, which) or pro-adverbs (where, wherever, when,
whenever, how, why).
Complex sentences with subject clauses are of two
patterns:
1. With a subject clause preceding the predicate of the
main clause: What I need is a piece of good advice. Why she
left him is a mystery. That he has not returned yet is strange.
Subject clauses of this type cannot be joined asyndetically, as
the opening words signal the subordinate status of the clause.
2. With a subject clause in final position, the usual
place of the subject being occupied by formal it: It seemed
unfair to him that he should suffer more than his wife. In
exclamatory sentences the formal it may be only implied: How
wonderful that they should meet at last! (How wonderful it is...)
In this pattern of complex sentence the subject clause may be
joined asyndetically.
A predicative clause may be introduced by
conjunctions (that, whether, as, as if, as though, because, lest),
correlatives (either...or, whether...or), conjunctive pronouns
(who, whoever, what, whatever, which) or pro-adverbs (where,
wherever, when, whenever, how, why). It has a fixed position in
the sentence — it always follows a link verb (be, feel, look,
seem, appear, remain, become, sound). It performs the function
of the nominal part of the predicate.
Predicative clauses may occur as parts of two
structurally different kinds of sentences:
1. They may follow the main clause in which the
subject is a notional word of abstract semantics (thing, question,
problem, news, sensation, rule, trouble). They disclose the
 326

meaning of the subject: The fact was that he had forgotten

about it.
2. They may follow the main clause in which the
subject is expressed by the impersonal pronoun it. They
describe the situation, either directly or by means or com-
parison: It was as if they had not been there at all. It appears he
hasn't been there.
Predicative clauses should not be confused with
subject clauses. Cf.: It seems that there is no cure (predicative
clause). It seems evident that there is no cure (subject clause).
If both the subject and predicative are expressed by
clauses, the principal clause consists only of a link verb: What
he says is that he goes away. What I said was what I meant.
Predicative clauses should not be confused with
adverbial clauses of comparison. Cf.: It was as though our last
meeting was forgotten (predicative clause). He nodded
vigorously, as though it were the most reasonable statement in
the world (adverbial clause).
Predicative clauses may be joined asyndetically. In this
case they are usually separated by a comma or a dash: The
result was, his master raised his wages a hundred a month.
An object clause may be introduced by conjunctions
(that, if, whether, lest), correlatives (either…or, whether...or),
conjunctive pronouns (who, whoever, what, whatever, which) or
pro-adverbs (where, wherever, when, whenever, why, how).
An object clause may refer to any verbal form (finite or
non-finite): I don't know why I like you so much. Jon followed,
wondering if he had offended her. It may refer to an adjective or
a stative: I'm very sorry I disturbed you. He was afraid lest she
should guess his secret.
The object clause usually follows the principal clause,
though it may be placed before the principal clause for the
purpose of connecting two thoughts, the object clause denoting
something familiar, mentioned previously: Why he declined that
offer I can't tell. What she thinks it would be impossible to say.
An object clause may be joined asyndetically and in this case it
always follows the main clause: He said he would go back to
lunch at Timothy's.
An object clause may directly follow the word it refers
to (a non-prepositional object clause): I know when I am wasting
time.
An object clause may be preceded by formal it: I
like it when people are nice to me.
 327

Object clauses parallel in function to indirect

objects are very rare: You may give whoever you like any
presents.
An object clause may function like a cognate object: He
and his mamma lived what might have been thought very lonely
lives.
A prepositional object clause is joined to the main
clause by prepositions. If a preposition is very closely attached
to the preceding verb or adjective, it generally precedes the
object clause: I am not certain of what he did. I want to be paid
for what I do.
A peculiar feature of object clauses lies in their ability to
render implicit adverbial meanings introduced by the
corresponding relative adverbs of time, place, manner, cause,
etc.: How long he walked he didn’t know (time). I wondered why
he had come (cause). I asked him how he liked Paris (manner).
Attributive (relative) clauses function as modifiers to
a word of nominal character (noun, pronoun, numeral), which is
called the antecedent. Usually, an attributive clause immediately
follows its antecedent, although some types may occasionally
be distant.
An attributive clause may be introduced by relative
pronouns (who, whose, whom, what, which, that) or pro-adverbs
(when, where, whence, wherein).
Attributive clauses fall into two types, depending on the
degree of connection and the relation they bear to the
antecedent:
1. Restrictive (limiting) clauses restrict the meaning
of the antecedent, so that when the clause is left out, the sense
of the sentence is seriously impaired: I don't like girls who can't
hold their tongues. This is the man about whom we spoke
yesterday.
Contact clauses are always limiting, for both the main
and the subordinate clause complete each other: I know the
stories you have been feeding him. He was a man one always
forgot.
2. Non-restrictive (descriptive) clauses supply
additional information which does not restrict or specify the
meaning of the antecedent. They provide optional, extra
information and may be left out without any serious change in
the meaning of the sentence: I looked at my father, who began
to ask me questions. The following day, which was Wednesday,
we went to a solicitor.
 328

Some attributive descriptive clauses refer back to

whole sentences, not just to nouns: She lived in two rooms over
a teashop, which was convenient, since she could send down
for cakes and scones if she had visitors. He likes grammar —
which is remarkable. These are known as continuative
(sentential) attributive clauses. They are introduced by the
connective which, occasionally by that. They are separated by a
semicolon, a dash, or even by a full stop.
Choosing the right kind of relative clause can be
critical. Cf.: Snakes which are poisonous should be avoided.
Snakes, which are poisonous, should be avoided. The use of
the restrictive clause (the first sentence) implies that only some
snakes are poisonous, which is true. But the use of the
nonrestrictive clause implies that all snakes are poisonous,
which is false. In writing, the two types of clause are
distinguished by punctuation marks. The nonrestrictive clause is
usually preceded and followed by a comma or a dash. In
speech, the contrast can be made by adding pauses on either
side of the nonrestrictive clause, or by altering the intonation, so
that the head noun is said in a more prominent manner.
Attributive clauses can express implicit adverbial
meanings through their adverbial connectors: It was the time
when they looked now (time). There was no reason why she
should not get it (cause). It is the sanctuary where all things find
refuge (place).
An appositive clause may be introduced by
conjunctions (that, if, whether, as if, as though), conjunctive
pronouns and pro-adverbs (what, how). Appositive clauses are
not separated by a comma and cannot be joined asyndetically.
Appositive clauses disclose the meaning of the
antecedent of abstract semantics (idea, thought, feeling, fact,
impression, reason, doubt, question, thing, remark, probability):
The question how and why those people got the information still
worried him. He married you for the romantic reason that he had
fallen in love with you.
Apositive clauses look very similar to relative clauses.
Cf.: The story that I wrote was published (relative clause: that
can be replaced by which). The story that I had resigned was
published (appositive: that means ‘that is’, and cannot be
replaced by which).
Appositive clauses may refer to a whole clause: Cecilia
at once noted what Stephen in his preoccupation had not — that
Hilary had come to tell them something.
 329

Adverbial clauses are usually classified according to

their meaning (the relation they bear to the main clause) into
three groups.
1. Clauses of time and place. Their common
semantic basis is ‘localization’ — respectively, temporal and
spatial.
2. Clauses of manner and comparison. The common
semantic basis of their functions is ‘qualification’, since they give
a qualification to the action or event rendered by the principal
clause.
3. Clauses of circumstantial semantics (connected
with the meaning of the principal clause by various
circumstantial associations): clauses of attendant
circumstances, condition, cause, reason, result (consequence),
concession, purpose. The common semantic basis of all these
clauses can be defined as ‘circumstance’.
Adverbial clauses serve to express a variety of
adverbial relations and, consequently, they are introduced by a
great number of subordinating conjunctions.
An adverbial clause may qualify the whole main clause,
the verbal predicate or any verbal part, and also parts
expressed by an adjective or adverb. Its position therefore
varies; it is less fixed and rigid than that of other subordinate
clauses: it may be initial, medial, or final — depending on what
part of the sentence it refers to and on the general structure of
the main clause.
Adverbial clauses of place define the place or
direction of the action expressed in the principal clause. They
may be introduced by the connectors where, wherever,
everywhere (that): He was standing where he always had stood.
Wherever they came people greeted them enthusiastically. Why
can't we go where it's warm?
Adverbial clauses of time characterize the action in
the principal clause from the temporal point of view. They may
be introduced by the conjunctions or adverbial connectives as,
as soon as, as long as, when, whenever, while, now that, till,
until, after, before, since, once, directly, instantly, conjunctive
phrases the time (that), the day, the moment, the instant, next
time, every (each) time: When the cat is away the mice will play.
Never tell a thing to a woman till it’s done. We'll be married the
very moment we find a house. I get excited every time I see a
piano.
Every conjunction or relative adverb/phrase adds a
 330

particular shade of meaning to the temporal relation — priority,

simultaneity, sucession of actions, the beginning or the end of
the action, repetition, gradual development, coincidence of the
two actions, etc.
A special variety of complex sentence with a time
clause is presented by sentences in which the main information
is expressed in the subordinate clause, the actual meaning of
temporal localization being rendered by the principal clause:
Alice was resting in bed when Humphrey returned. This type of
complex sentence is known as inversive (semantics is taken
against syntactical structure).
Adverbial clauses of manner give some qualitative
characteristics of the action in the main clause. They may refer
to the verbal predicate or any verbal part as the only modifier of
the action expressed, to a detached attribute, or to an adverbial
modifier. They may be introduced by the conjunction as,
connective word the way. There are different types of adverbial
clauses of manner.
1. Clauses of manner which modify the predicate of the
main clause by attributing some quality to it: I'm sorry I talked
the way I did at lunch. He could do it as no one else could have
done.
2. Clauses of manner which refer to attributes or
predicatives characterizing a state or quality of a person/non-
person: He was puzzled by the situation, as one could easily be
in his place.
3. Clauses of manner which refer to an adverbial
modifier, giving additional information or explanation concerning
it: He said it with contempt, as a grown-up serious man should
treat such views.
Adverbial clauses of comparison characterize the
action in the main clause by comparing it with some real or
hypothetical circumstance or action. Clauses of comparison may
be introduced by the conjunctions as, as if, as though, than,
correlatives as...as, so…as, as...as if: Their voices rose and fell
as though they were singing together. His broken wrist healed
sooner than he desired.
Sometimes they have inverted word order: He was as
obstinate as were most of his relatives.
Adverbial clauses of condition contain some
condition (either real or unreal) which makes the action in the
main clause possible. They may be introduced by the
conjunctions if, unless, once, in case, provided (that), providing
 331

(that), suppose (that), supposing (that), considering (that), given

(that), wanted (that), granting (that), admitting (that), presuming
(that), seeing (that). They may also be joined asyndetically by
means of inversion: Had the colour of the dress been to my
taste, I should have bought it.
Depending on the relation between the subordinate
and main clauses and on the use of tense and mood forms,
conditional clauses are subdivided into three types:
1. Clauses of real condition, when the actions in both
clauses are regarded as real possible facts: If it rains, he won’t
go.
2. Clauses of open condition (unreal condition referring
to the present or future) denote hypothetical situations which
may be realized in the present or future. Accordingly, the
subjunctive mood forms are used both in the subordinate and
the principal clause: If I were you, I would change into another
dress.
3. Clauses of rejected condition (unreal condition
referring to the past) imply non-fulfillment of the condition, as the
actions or events described in the conditional clause refer to the
past and the time of their realization is over. The subjunctive
mood forms are used in the subordinate clause and in the main
clause: The film would have been more exciting if the actors had
been better.
A complex sentence may be built on conditional
clauses of type 2 and 3, thus forming a mixed type of conditional
relationship: If we hadn't been such fools, we would all still be
together. If you were more attentive, you wouldn't have made so
many mistakes.
Adverbial clauses of concession denote concessive
relations: the action described in the main clause is carried out
or takes place despite the action in the subordinate clause.
They are introduced by the conjunctions although, though, if, as,
whether...or, even if, even though, even when, though...yet;
conjunctive pronouns or pro-adverbs whoever, whatever,
whichever, whenever, wherever; conjunctive phrases no matter
how, no matter what, for all that, despite that, in spite of the fact,
despite the fact.
There are three types of concessive clauses, which
differ in their relation to the main clause and in the way they are
connected.
1. Clauses of admitted (real) concession express a real
condition, despite which the action in the principal clause is
 332

carried out. The predicate in the subordinate clause is in the

indicative mood: She could always eat, however excited she
was. Dark as it was getting (though it was getting dark), I could
still see these changes.
2. Clauses of open (hypothetical) concession express
an unreal condition, despite which the action in the principal
clause is carried out. The predicate in the subordinate clause
may be in the indicative or in the subjunctive mood: Though she
may disapprove of their discussions, she will have to put up with
them. However much advice you give him, he does exactly what
he wants.
3. Clauses of disjunctive (alternative) concession admit
two possible alternatives, both of which may be unreal, or may
refer to the future: Whether Miss Delmar be jealous or not, she
is fascinated with his work. You shall kiss me whether you will or
not
Adverbial clauses of purpose contain a contemplated
or planned action, which is to be achieved by the action
expressed in the main clause. They are introduced by the
conjunctions that, so that, lest, so as, so, in order that, for fear
that. The predicate in the subordinate clause is in the
subjunctive mood: He opened the window wide that he might
hear the conversation below. I tell you all this so that you may
understand me perfectly.
Adverbial clauses of cause express the reason,
cause, or motivation of the action expressed in the main clause.
They may be introduced by the conjunctions as, because, since,
so, that, lest, seeing (that), considering; conjunctive phrases for
the reason that, in view of the fact that, insofar as, by reason of:
Since he is still absent, we should call the police. You only say
this because you are jealous.
Adverbial clauses of result (consequence) denote
some consequence or result of the action expressed in the main
clause. They are introduced by the conjunctions so that, that,
connectives as a result, therefore, seeing that: Light fell on her
there, so that Soames could see her face. I was so tired that I
could hardly speak.
Adverbial clauses of attendant circumstance
present the event as some sort of background in relation to the
event described by the principal clause. They are introduced by
the conjunctions while and as: As (while) the reception was
going on, Mr. Smiles was engaged in a lively conversation with
the pretty niece of the hostess. The construction of attendant
 333

circumstance may be taken to render contrast: Indeed, there is

but this difference between us — that he wears fine clothes
while I go in rags, and that while I am weak from hunger he
suffers not a little from overfeeding.
In complex sentences with mutually subordinated
clauses it is impossible to state which of the clauses is the main
one and which is subordinate. There are two patterns of such
sentences.
1. Clauses of proportionate agreement (or
comparison) express a proportional relationship —
proportionality or equivalence; the more intensive is the action
or quality described in one clause, the more intensive becomes
the other, described in the following clause. They are joined by
the conjunction as (correlated with the adverb of degree so in
the other clause); correlative adverbs so...so in both clauses;
correlative particles (conjunctions) the...the, followed by the
comparative degree of adverbs (or adjectives): As time went on,
so their hopes began to wane. The bigger they are, the harder
they fall. The more he reflected on the idea, the more he liked it.
2. Mutually subordinated clauses which expresses
temporal relations — a quick succession of actions or events,
often overlapping with one another for a short period of time.
These clauses form an indivisible whole owing to correlative
elements no sooner … than, scarcely … when/before, hardly …
when and sometimes partial inversion in the first clause: No
sooner had Tom seen us than he jumped into a bus. I had
hardly finished when Holmes returned. He had not closed the
door when he heard somebody knock at it.
Pseudo-complex sentences consist of two clauses
joined according to some pattern of subordination, but different
from other complex sentences in the relation the clauses bear to
one another. There are several types of pseudo-complex
sentences.
Emphatic (or cleft) sentences fall into two patterns in
which the form of the complex sentence is used to emphasize
some part of the sentence.
1. In the first pattern, the emphasized part is placed in
the position of the predicative, which is followed by a clause.
The main clause is patterned on the model of the it-clause and
the subordinate clause may be patterned as an attributive,
temporal, or nominal that-clause: It is my friend who told rne
this. It was about eight o'clock when we arrived. It was what she
said that spoiled the impression. The subordinate clause may
 334

be joined asyndetically: It is not you I hate. The role of the main

clause is purely emphatic, as the information which is divided
between the main and the subordinate clause can be expressed
in a simple sentence: My friend told me this. We arrived about
eight o'clock. I don’t hate you. Splitting into two clauses serves
as a device for placing greater emphasis on the part occupying
the position of the predicative.
Pseudo-complex sentences of this type may be
interrogative: What is it that happened to you? What was it he
disliked so much?
A sentence can be transformed into different cleft
sentences depending on what element is to be emphasized:
John liked to read books at home. → It was John who liked to
read books at home. It was books that John liked to read at
home. It was at home that John liked to read books.
2. The second pattern of cleft sentences (called
pseudo-cleft sentences) is used to emphasize the predicate,
which is split into the operator in the subordinate subject clause
and the infinitive in the main clause: What John liked was to
read books at home. What he has done is spoil the whole thing.
Appended clauses modelled on the pattern of the
main clause are used to intensify or reinforce a statement in the
previous clause. The most common type of appended clauses
are tag questions (tags): You are tired, aren't you? You are not
ill, are you?
In non-formal style there is another form of appended
clause, which is elliptical: She is a clever girl, is your friend. He
never told me anything, did your brother. The appended part
may consist only of a nominal group: He is a clever boy, your
brother John. Such cases should not be confused with
appended clauses.
Appended clauses are used for emphasis (That’s just
perfect, that is!), correction (I think differently — we all do), or
explanation (He’s almost human, Bob is).
Absolute (or emancipated) subordinate clauses are
used absolutely as independent exclamatory sentences. They
may have the form of a conditional or comparative clause: If
only I knew his address! As though you didn't know!
Parenthetical clauses interrupt other sentences with
which they are either not connected syntactically or are only
loosely connected with separate parts of the sentence.
Parenthetical clauses are often called comment clauses,
because they do not simply add to the information given in the
 335

sentence but comment on its truth, the manner of saying it, or

express the attitude of the speaker toward it: He waited (which
was his normal occupation) and thought, like other citizens, of
the cost of living. My parents, you know, were peasants. He is,
as I told you, their only son. Nursing a wounded heart, he
thought cynically, would not lead to happiness.
Some parenthetical clauses are stereotyped
conversation formulas: you know, you see, I see, as you know,
what’s more, etc.
Parenthetical clauses may occur in front, mid, and end
position. They are usually marked off by commas, dashes, or
parentheses in writing and by a separate tone unit in speech.
Parenthetical clauses may be patterned like
independent sentences, coordinate, or subordinate clauses:
Although the evening was still light — we dined early — the
lamps were on. She cooked — and she was a good cook — and
marketed and chatted with the delivery boys. Does your
objection to tea (which I do frightfully want) mean that we're
unlikely to be alone?
Parenthetical clauses may be patterned like different
communicative types of sentences — statements, questions,
imperative or exclamatory sentences: It was — why hadn't he
noticed it before? — beginning to be an effort for her. I felt —
such curious shapes egoism takes! — that they had come
because of me.

18.4. Direct and indirect speech

Among the composite sentences we find a peculiar
type differing from the rest: He said, ‘I love you’. He said he
loved her. The first sentence is traditionally called direct speech,
the second — indirect (reported) speech.
Direct speech gives the exact words used by the
speaker or writer. They are usually enclosed by quotation
marks.
Indirect speech gives the words as subsequently
reported by someone. It usually takes the form of a subordinate
clause introduced by that (that is often omitted in informal
contexts).
There is no agreement as to the syntactical nature of a
sentence like He said, ‘I love you’. Some linguists regard it as a
simple sentence in which the quotation part functions as a
secondary part of the sentence. Others interpret it as a complex
 336

sentence in which the quotation serves as an object clause.

Some authors treat it as a compound sentence. Some scholars
think that direct speech is a peculiar syntactical unit which
should not be equated with any of the above mentioned types of
sentences. They compare the two sentences: He said, ‘I love
you’. He said he loved her. Each of them contains two
predications, so they are composite sentences, but the relation
between the predications is different. The predications of the
second sentence have, as it were, one common centre. For
both of them the first person is the author who uttered or wrote
the sentence. The moment he did it is the moment of speech in
regard to which the two actions (of ‘saying’ and ‘loving’) are in
the past. The predications of the first sentence have separate
centres: different first persons and different moments of speech.
The introductory part of this sentence (He said, ‘...’) serves to
indicate the shifting of the centre of predication. The pronoun he
points out who will be regarded as the first person in the
quotation, and the verb said shows that the moment of speech
is shifted to the past. Thus direct speech can be defined as a
syntactical unit containing two centres of predication (the term
unit is used because the quotation may contain several
sentences): He said, ‘If it had been warmer, we could have slept
out here. But it's cold and it's going to rain’.
The introductory part of direct speech may precede the
quotation, follow it, or be inserted in it: ‘I've come home, Mum,’
he said. ‘I just called’, Amos said, ‘to see my son’. When it
occurs in the middle or at the end of the sentence, the order of
the subject and predicate can sometimes be inverted: Michael
said or said Michael. The inversion is commonest when the verb
is said, and the subject is not a pronoun. Said he is literary or
archaic, and forms such as *laughed she or *complained they
are unacceptable.
The so-called 'indirect speech' does not differ
grammatically from the conventional types of sentences: He
said that he loved Mary (complex sentence with an object
clause). What he said was that he had no intention to stay (com-
plex sentence with a predicative clause). He told me to stay
(simple sentence).
The rules for changing from direct into indirect speech
found in most English grammars are rules for reducing two
predicative centres to one — that of the author. The first and the
second person of the quotation in He said, ‘I love you’ are third
persons in relation to the author, hence the change of I to he
 337

and you to her. The moment of speech of the first person of the
quotation is in the past with regard to the moment of speech of
the author, hence the change of love to loved in He said he
loved her. The correct relationship between the verbs in the
reporting and reported clauses is known as the sequence of
tenses.
In reportive sentences, the main clause (reporting
clause) is often reduced to an introductory phrase (introducing
the source of information) and the subordinate clause (reported
clause) practically absorbs all the essential information rendered
by the sentence: He said he had never heard of it. He asked me
if I wanted to stay.
The basic distinction between direct and indirect
speech often appears in a modified form in literature. There are
two main styles, illustrated below from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's
Cancer Ward [Crystal, 1990: 196].
Free indirect speech is mainly used when an author is
representing a stream of thought. It is basically indirect speech,
as is shown by the changes in tense forms. But there is no
reporting clause, and several features of direct speech are
retained (such as exclamations): He wrapped up his neck and
sat down by the wall. How dumb they all were, how submissive,
wooden almost! They were not really worthy of recovery.
Free direct speech can also represent a stream of
thought. It is basically a form of direct speech, as shown by the
present-tense forms; but there is no reporting clause to mark the
change from past-tense narrative: It was a dampish chilly
morning. People would be wearing raincoats on a day like that
back in Central Russia, but here in the south people have
different ideas of hot and cold.
 338

Unit 19
____________________________________

CONSTRUCTIONS OF SECONDARY
PREDICATION:
PREDICATIVE COMPLEXES
____________________________________
19.1. Secondary predication as a syntactical
phenomenon
One of the peculiarities of English syntax is a rather
wide use of the so-called predicative (or semi-predicative)
complexes in the function of various parts of the sentence,
which are then called complex parts of the sentence: complex
subject, complex object, complex attribute, complex adverbial
modifier, etc. They are known as constructions of secondary
predication, and usually contain a non-finite verb form instead
of a finite verb.
Predicative complexes possess only the person
component of predicativity. The other two components (tense
and mood) can be obtained obliquely from some actual
predication. That is why the complexes are always used with
some predication and that is why they are called secondary
predications.
In the sentence I saw them dancing, two actions are
named as well as the doers of those actions. But there is a great
difference between I saw and them dancing. I saw is more or
less independent. It makes a predication, the backbone of the
sentence, or the sentence itself. Them dancing can exist only in
 339

the sentence where there is a predication. The tense and mood

relations of the finite verb (saw) are then reflected in the non-
finite verb form (dancing) and it becomes a secondary
predicate.
A predicative complex contains two words which are in
predicative relation to each other (them dancing), but the
predicative relation is not grammatically explicit (cf. them
dancing and they were dancing). The presence of two
components with predicative relation within a predicative
complex makes it possible to transform any such complex into a
clause: I saw them dancing. → I saw that they were dancing. I
heard him cry. → I heard that he cried.
Predicative relation between the subject and the
predicate is the most conspicuous manifestation of full
(primary) predication. Secondary predication (also termed
potential, non-finite, or semi-predication) cannot form an
independent sentence. It exists in the sentence where there is
full (primary) predication and forms part of the sentence.
Secondary predication lacks the categories of tense and
modality, consequently predicative relation is not explicit, it is
merely stated as potential.
Secondary predication as a syntactical
phenomenon is usually considered under the heading of
transition from simple to composite sentence. The following
syntactical phenomena illustrate secondary predication:
1. Sentences with homogeneous parts (two or more
subjects, predicates, etc.): Philip ignored the question and
remained silent. → Philip ignored the question. + Philip
remained silent.
2. Sentences with half-predicative post-positional
attribute: There is a river flowing through the town. → There is a
river. + The river flows through the town.
3. Sentences with half-predicative adverbial modifier
(participial and gerundial phrases): She went away without
looking back. → She went away. + She didn’t look back.
4. Sentences with compound nominal double predicate:
The moon rose red. → The moon rose. + The moon was red.
5. Sentences in which the main and the subordinate
clauses have a common subject. These are called apokoinou
constructions (Greek ‘with a common element’): It was you
insisted on coming. → It was you. + You insisted on coming.
6. Sentences with detached constructions: The task,
when completed, seemed a very easy one. → The task was
 340

completed. + The task seemed a very easy one. Being tired, I

could not accept the invitation. → I was tired. + I could not
accept the invitation.
7. Sentences with predicative complexes: He felt the
breeze gently touching his face. → He felt the breeze. + The
breeze was gently touching his face. The windows being closed,
she did not hear the noise in the street. → The windows were
closed. + She did not hear the noise in the street.
The cited utterances do not represent classical,
explicitly constructed composite sentence-models. At the same
time, they cannot be analyzed as genuine simple sentences,
because they contain not one, but more than one predicative
lines, though presented in fusion with one another.
M.Y. Blokh [1983: 340] qualifies these phenomena as
the semi-composite sentence — a sentence with more than
one predicative lines which are expressed in fusion. One of
these lines can be identified as the leading or dominant, the
others making the semi-predicative expansion of the sentence.
The semi-composite sentence displays an intermediary
syntactical character between the composite sentence and the
simple sentence. Its surface structure is analogous to that of an
expanded simple sentence, since it possesses only one
completely expressed predicative unit. Its deep structure, on the
other hand, is analogous to that of a composite sentence,
because it is derived from two or more completely predicative
units — its base sentences, e.g., We saw him approach us. →
We saw him. + He approached us. They painted the fence
green. → They painted the fence. + The fence was (became)
green.
Semi-composite sentences are divided into semi-
complex and semi-compound ones which correspond to the
complex and compound sentences of complete composition.
There are two main causes of the existence of semi-
composite sentences and secondary predication in language.
The first cause is the tendency of speech to be
economical. As a result of this tendency, reductional processes
of syntactical condensation are developed which bring about
semi-blending of sentences. Constructions of secondary
predication make English sentences more compact as
compared with complex sentences. This fact has been
mentioned by many grammarians.
The second cause is that, apart from being economical,
the sentence with secondary predication fulfills its own purely
 341

semantic function. Secondary predication is used to show that

the events are more closely connected than the events
described in the composite sentence of full predication. Cf.: With
a yell, he sprang back, a sweat coming on his skin. → He gave
a yell, he sprang back and a sweat came on his skin.
The first sentence, with secondary predications,
expresses a semantic ranking of the events in the situational
blend, one of them standing out as dominant (sprang back), the
other as by-event (a sweat coming). The fusion (simultaneity) of
these events is emphasized. In the presentation of the detached
construction (with a yell), the fusion of the events is shown as
constituting a unity in which the attendant action forms simply a
background detail in relation to the dominant event (sprang
back).
The second sentence, with full predications, presents
these events in separate processual descriptions as they
happened one after the other, the successive order being
accentuated by the structural features of the construction, in
particular, its sequential coordinate clauses.

19.2. Predicative complexes

In traditional English grammar, the term predicative
complex (predicative construction) is commonly used to
designate units of secondary predication.
Predicative constructions are characterized by the
following features [Morokhovska, 1993: 272]: a) derivation on
the invariant pattern of a predicative unit N+V; b) morphological
variation; c) syntactical (functional) variation.
As can be seen from the pattern of a predicative unit,
predicative complexes comprise two parts, the first denotes the
doer of the action or the bearer of a certain state or quality and
the second the action (state or quality) itself, that is, serves as a
semantic predicate to the first part. The first part of the
predicative complex may be either a noun or a noun-pronoun
and is therefore called a nominal part. The second part may be
an infinitive, a participle, a gerund, an adjective, a stative, an
adverb, or a noun and is called a predicate part. Predicative
complexes with verbals are far more frequent than those with
adjectives, statives, adverbs, and nouns.
Morphological variation of the predicative construc-
tion is primarily caused by the formal variation of the verbal
constituent (i.e. its time correlation, aspect, voice forms). As a
 342

rule, there is certain compatibility between the semantics of the

verb governing the predicative complex and the form of the
verbid. The verbs of sense perception, for instance, cannot
occur with the perfect forms of the infinitive because of their
semantic incompatibility: We saw the planes zoom into the air.
The nominal constituent can assume the form of either
the genitive (N's) or of the common (N) case. The N's + Ving
complex is identified traditionally as gerundial, whereas the N +
Ving construction has been considered to be a participial one.
Syntactical variation of predicative constructions is
their functional variation which is regulated by the semantic
properties of the governing verb and by the distribution of the
complex in the sentence. In accordance with their functional
design, predicative constructions can be classified into
subjective, objective, adverbial, and attributive (complex object,
complex subject, complex attribute, and complex adverbial
modifier).
Some complexes may function as any part of the
sentence, some only as objects or subjects and others only as
adverbials.
Predicative complexes that function as objects
only are called objective constructions. Their nominal part is
a noun or a noun-pronoun (except a personal one) in the
common case, or a personal pronoun in the objective case (the
latter having given the construction its name). Sometimes their
nominal part is an infinitive or a gerund. Their second part, the
predicate one, may be an infinitive, participle I, participle II, an
adjective, or a noun.
Constructions the second part of which is a verbal
(infinitive, participle I, participle II) when transformed into
clauses, retain the predicate part, which then takes a proper
tense-aspect form and forms a simple verbal predicate: I saw
him walk up to the door. → I saw that he walked up to the door.
The objective with the infinitive construction is
much more widely used, for it may combine with a wider range
of verbs:
a) verbs of wish and intention (wish, want, desire,
prefer, should/ would like, intend, mean): He would like you to
see him in his office. I wish him to come as soon as possible.
b) verbs of attitude (like, dislike, love, hate, cannot/
could not bear, won’t have): You know I hate you to talk about
that.
c) verbs of mental activity (think, suppose, consider,
 343

believe, know, find, expect, imagine, understand): He

considered himself to be a leader. He believed Jennie to be
playing in the yard.
d) verbs of declaring (declare, report, pronounce): He
declared the whole story to be false.
e) verbs of inducement expressing order, request,
permission (order, command, force, cause, make, induce, get,
allow, permit, let, suffer): Couldn’t you get him to come? She
lets her children do what they want. The teacher made the
pupils do the work all over again.
f) verbs of sense perception (see, hear, feel, observe,
notice): They felt the earth shake under their feet.
The construction is usually used as a direct object to
verbs: I did not want him to see me there. However, it may also
occur in the function of an indirect non-recipient object after the
verbs wait (for), rely (on), listen (to), look (for), count (upon): I
rely on you to come in time. He was listening to the chairman
speak.
The objective with participle I construction
can be used with verbs of four groups:
a) verbs of sense perception (see, hear, feel, watch,
notice): There we saw the crocodiles swimming about.
b) verbs of wish (want, wish, prefer): Nobody wanted
him going there alone.
c) verbs of attitude (like, hate): I hate you talking like
that.
d) causative verbs (have, get, set, leave, keep): He got
them running his errands every day. Don’t keep her waiting.
The objective with participle II construction can be
attached to verbs of four semantic groups:
a) verbs of sense perception (see, hear, feel, notice,
find): I saw the luggage weighed. On coming back he found his
place filled.
b) verbs of mental activity (think, believe, consider,
remember): At first she thought Johnny killed.
c) verbs of wish (want, wish, prefer): I want my car
washed.
d) causative verbs (have, get, make): I had my hair cut.
You have to get it published.
Constructions the second part of which is a non-
verbal (adjective, noun) when transformed into clauses, require
the introduction of the link verb be, as they lack a verbal
component of their own: I never thought her clever. → I never
 344

thought that she was clever. The clause contains a compound

nominal predicate.
From the point of view of the governing verb semantics,
two subtypes of such constructions can be distinguished:
1. Objective constructions which can follow only some
verbs of mental activity and sense perception. They correspond
to object clauses and can always be transformed into such: I
thought it a wonderful opportunity. → I thought that it was a
wonderful opportunity. I found my life dull. → I found that my life
was dull.
2. Objective constructions which follow certain
causative verbs. The objective predicative denotes what the
thing or person expressed in the first part is or becomes as a
result of the action of the predicate verb. These constructions
can be transformed into clauses, although the resulting clauses
are not object clauses: All this made her angry. → She became
angry. He'll keep the job open for you. → The job will be open
for you.
Several verbs, such as consider, deem, feel, find,
regard, suppose, think and some others may take a complex
object the nominal part of which is expressed by an infinitive or
a gerund and is introduced by means of the position filler it. The
predicate part is an adjective or a noun, which comes
immediately after it: He thought it useless going to Paris. I
consider it a mistake to talk to him now. Such complexes can be
transformed into an object clause with two subjects: the formal
subject it and the notional subject: She found it impossible to
sleep. → She found that it was impossible to sleep.
Predicative complexes that function as subjects
only are called subjective constructions. Their nominal part is
a noun or a noun-pronoun in the common case, or a personal
pronoun in the nominative case. Their second part, the
predicate one, may be an infinitive, participle I, participle II, an
adjective, or a noun.
Constructions the second part of which is a verbal
(infinitive, participle I, participle II) when transformed into
clauses, retain the predicate part, which then takes a proper
tense-aspect form: He seemed to understand everything. → It
seemed that he understood everything.
The nominative with the infinitive construction can
be attached to a verb or phrase belonging to one of the
following groups:
1. Some verbs in the passive voice:
 345

a) verbs of saying (say, declare, state, report, rumour):

This country is said to be rich in oil.
b) verbs of mental activity (believe, consider, expect,
know, suppose, think): He has never been known to lose his
temper before.
c) verbs of sense perception (feel, hear, see, watch):
My dog was heard to bark in the yard.
2. Intransitive verbs of seeming or chancing in the
active voice (seem, appear, prove, turn out, happen, chance):
He seemed to understand everything. Money just doesn't
happen to interest me.
3. Phrases with modal meaning (to be (un)likely, be
sure, be certain): The weather is not likely to change. He is sure
to come.
Constructions with participle I or II are generally
attached to verbs of sense perception (see, feel, watch, hear):
They were heard quarrelling. He was seen surrounded by a
group of reporters.
The participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up
predicative complexes of objective and subjective types.
The two groups of complexes (infinitival and participial)
may exist in parallel, e.g., when used with some verbs of
sense perception, the difference between them lying in
the aspective presentation of the process.
The infinitive indicates completion of the action,
whereas participle I indicates an action or state going on
at a temporal point of reference: I saw Doug run across
the field. — I saw Doug running across the field. This
explains unacceptability of *I saw Bob drown, so I
rescued him. Cf. I saw Bob drowning, so I rescued him.
The infinitive indicates momentary actions,
actions of single occurrence, whereas participle I
emphasizes duration, repetition, incompleteness,
development of the action: I heard the door slam just after
midnight. — I heard the door slamming all night long.
Suddenly a telephone was heard to buzz, breaking the
spell. — The telephone was heard vainly buzzing in the
study.
Constructions the second part of which is a non-
verbal (an adjective or a noun): He was found guilty. He was
considered a genius. He was made president. When these are
 346

transformed into clauses, the link verb be must be supplied:

John is considered a good driver. → It is considered that John
is a good driver. With this type of construction the clause
resulting from the transformation always contains a compound
nominal predicate. Such subjective constructions have
corresponding objective constructions: John is considered a
good driver. — I consider John a good driver.
Predicative complexes which can be any part of the
sentence are for-to-infinitive complexes and gerundial
complexes.
For-to-infinitive construction is a predicative
complex in which the nominal part (a noun/noun-pronoun except
a personal pronoun in the common case, or a personal pronoun
in the objective case) is introduced by the preposition for, while
the predicate part is an infinitive with the analytical marker to: It
is necessary for us to start immediately. The construction
functions as:
a) subject: It was impossible for them to meet anybody.
For one to spend a summer with them was a wonderful
experience.
b) predicative: That is not for me to decide. What it all
means remains for an expert to say.
c) object: I watched for him to appear through the
bushes. He was impatient for the experiment to begin.
d) attribute: There was nothing for him to say.
e) adverbial modifier: I rang for you to show the lady
out (purpose). The chance was too good for Jack to miss it
(result).
Gerundial construction is a predicative complex in
which the nominal part is a noun/noun-pronoun in the
possessive case or a possessive pronoun: John’s (his) coming
so late surprised everyone. It may be a noun/noun-pronoun in
the common case or a personal pronoun in the objective case.
The construction may be:
a) subject: Your doing nothing won't help. Is it worth
while your quarrelling all the time?
b) predicative: The only way out is his taking the job.
c) object: She liked his worrying about his wife. He
insisted on my claims being acknowledged.
d) attribute: The prospect of someone else getting a job
moved them to strong moral indignation.
d) adverbial modifier (always introduced by a
preposition): After his being away the crisis came (time). The car
 347

slid away without my having to say anything (attendant

circumstances). In spite of its being cold the bushes swarmed
with insects (concession).
Predicative complexes that function only as
adverbial modifiers are termed absolute constructions,
where absolute means independent. Their first (nominal) part is
a noun or a pronoun which is not subordinated to any other
word in the sentence and can function as a part of the sentence
only with the predicate component of the construction.
In non-prepositional absolute constructions the
nominal part is either a noun or a noun-pronoun (except a
personal one) in the common case, or a personal pronoun in the
nominative case. Constructions of this type are called absolute
nominative constructions: I walked up the street, the dog
running behind. Soon they left, he having been unnoticed.
Dinner over, everybody rose.
In prepositional absolute constructions introduced
by the prepositions with or without the nominal part is either a
noun or a noun-pronoun (except a personal pronoun) in the
common case, or a personal pronoun in the objective case:
They marched through the valley, with eagles soaring high
above them.
Constructions with verbals (participle I or II, infinitive)
when transformed into clauses, retain their predicate part, which
then takes a proper tense-aspect form: She sat on the porch,
Mary playing with her doll. → She sat on the porch and (while)
Mary was playing with her doll. The clauses resulting from such
transformations have a simple verbal predicate. If the second
part is a form of the verb be, the predicate of the clause is a
compound nominal one: It being late, he went home. → As it
was late, he went home.
Non-prepositional: It being late, he bolted the windows.
Dinner served, she rang the bell. There they remained, some of
them to be entirely forgotten.
Prepositional: A boy lay on the pavement, with his
throat cut. You'll lose the last minutes, without someone to take
care of you.
Constructions with non-verbals (adjective, stative,
adverb, noun) when transformed into clauses, require the
introduction of the proper form of the link verb be to form a
compound nominal predicate: He marched out of the room, his
head high up. → He marched out of the room and his head was
high up.
 348

Non-prepositional: He stepped forward, his face red

with anger. Tea over, she again summoned us to the fire. I
waited, every nerve upon the stretch.
Prepositional: He stood there trembling, with his face
ablaze. He turned away, with his hand still up.
Absolute constructions function as adverbial modifiers
of
a) attendant circumstances: He went away, his farewell
unanswered. She stood there, her head full of strange ideas.
b) time: The car having stopped, the boys jumped out
onto the grass. All in the room, she called in Molly.
c) manner: The fish attacked from below, jaws agape.
d) reason: The weather being unusually mild, there was
no sleighing. Her heart full of despair, she could not say a word.
e) condition: Circumstances permitting, they will be
through with it by the end of May.
Predicative complexes differ from other
constructions of secondary predication. Transformational
analysis proves this.
Predicative complexes are the result of transformation
of two kernel sentences with different elements in one of their
syntactical positions. This feature serves as the first
fundamental basis for classifying secondary predication into
external (one-member) and internal (two-member)
(expressed by predicative complexes), since in the derived
constructions the identical element is dropped out and the non-
identical element is preserved [Сазонова, 1969: 41].
The rattle of dishes being washed came from the
kitchen is a combination of two kernel sentences: Dishes were
washed and The rattle came (from the kitchen). The first kernel
sentence is transformed into gerundial complex and inserted
into the matrix sentence as an attributive group. The two kernel
sentences retain their different subjects (dishes, the rattle) in the
transform.
Born in Glasgow, she was 23 years old is a
combination of two kernel sentences: She was born in Glasgow
and She was 23 years old. The two kernel sentences are united
by means of word sharing — they overlap round the common
subject (she). One of the kernel sentences becomes the leading
clause, while the other is transformed into semi-predicative
detached construction referring to the same subject.
Another factor of difference is the obligatory status of
predicative complexes against the optional status of detached
 349

constructions in the sentence. Predicative complexes are

obligatory elements, closely connected with their head-word.
Detached constructions function as simple secondary
parts of the sentence (attribute, adverbial). A detached
construction cannot rise to the rank of a primary member of the
sentence — it always remains secondary from the semantic
point of view. Detached constructions are not characterized by a
separate subject-predicate relation since they do not have a
separate subject (born in Glasgow). Subject-predicate relation is
established between the detached construction and some
element in the dominant clause (Born in Glasgow, she was 23
years old).
Components of predicative complexes are
interconnected by subject-predicate relation and form a
grammatical unity which functions as one complex part of the
sentence (complex subject, complex object, complex attribute,
complex adverbial modifier). Thus, predicative complexes are
characterized by two types of dependence in the sentence: a)
the subject-predicate relation of interdependence between the
components (dishes being washed), and b) unilateral
subordinate connection of object, attribute, adverbial, etc. with
the head component (the rattle of dishes being washed).

19.3. Problems posed by secondary predication in

theoretical grammar
Complex object or object and objective
predicative? Views vary on the syntactical function of the group
him run in I saw him run. The main difference is between those
who think that him run is a complex object (it stands in an object
relation to the predicate verb saw and consists of two elements),
and those who think that him is one part of the sentence, and
run another: him is the object, and run is the objective
predicative (complement) to the pronoun. The objective
predicative need not be an infinitive; it may be a participle (I saw
him running), an adjective (He made her unhappy), a stative (I
found him asleep), a noun (I consider (think) him a fool or They
made (appointed) him president).
In favour of the view that the phrase is a complex
object a semantic reason can be put forward. In some cases the
two elements of the phrase cannot be separated without
changing the meaning of the sentence: I hate you to go. ≠ I hate
you ... H. Sweet referred to the sentence I like boys to be quiet,
 350

which, as he pointed out, does not imply even the slightest liking
for boys. However, in some cases the separation of the two
elements may not bring about a change in the meaning of the
sentence: I saw him run. → I saw him …
According to M.Y. Blokh [1983: 343] some dominant
verbs of the objective with the infinitive constructions are not
used in the same essential meaning outside the constructions,
in particular, some causative verbs. Cf.: *I made him. + He
obeyed. → I made him obey. This fact, naturally, reflects a very
close unity of the constituents of such constructions, but it
cannot be looked upon as excluding the constructions from
predicative complexes.
Complex object or the noun and the infinitive used
as two objects? Some grammarians declare that with verbs of
inducement (order, command, ask, urge, allow, etc.) the
objective with the infinitive construction can have only the
passive infinitive: She would not allow the life of the child to be
risked. The teacher asked the books to be brought. If the
infinitive attached to such verbs is active, it does not form a
complex with the preceding noun/ pronoun. Each of them must
be treated separately, the noun as an indirect recipient object,
the infinitive as a direct object: He ordered them to come
(Whom? — them; what? — to come). The teacher asked Mary
to bring the books (Whom? — Mary; what? — to bring).
Complex subject or compound verbal predicate?
Some grammarians classify the complex subject construction as
a structural type of predicate — compound verbal predicate of
double orientation, which consists of two parts. The first part is
a finite verb which denotes the attitude of the speaker to the
content of the sentence: The Gadfly seemed to have taken a
dislike to her (= It seemed (to people) that the Gadfly had taken
a dislike to her). The second part denotes the action which is
(was/will be) performed by the person/non-person expressed by
the subject: The plane is reported to have been lost (= They
reported that the plane had been lost). Hence, the double
orientation to the action, the action is regarded from two points
of view: that of the speaker and that of the person (or non-
person) expressed by the subject. In consequence, complex
object is distinguished among predicative complexes, the
existence of complex subject is denied.
A.I. Smirnitsky and B.A. Ilyish do not distinguish
complex subject as a type of subject either. They claim that the
infinitive in complex subject discloses the content of the verb
 351

and is a part of a peculiar type of compound predicate.

Grammarians treat the infinitive as a predicative used after the
link verb since sentences with the infinitive and adjective after
the verbs seem, happen, appear seem to be parallel: He seems
to be happy. He seems happy.
E.J. Morokhovska [1993: 274] is of the opinion that the
subjective and objective constructions should be analyzed
together because these are isomorphic in many respects.
Moreover, the subject and object functions are performed not by
qualitatively different constructions but by one and the same
infinitival or participial complex-type. The complex is used as an
objective one in sentences with definite subjects. If the agent is
unknown or is likely to be not mentioned the complex is used in
the position of the subject and the predicate verb assumes
regularly the passive voice-form.
According to M.Y. Blokh [1983: 345], complex object is
closely related to complex subject: sentences with complex
object can be made passive, thus forming the corresponding
subject constructions: We watched the plane disappear behind
the clouds. → The plane was watched to disappear behind the
clouds.
N.M. Sazonova [Сазонова, 1969: 89] points out that it
is wrong to think that the objective and subjective constructions
are always mutually convertible. Subjective complexes after
verbs of declaring have no objective counterparts (This country
is said to be rich in oil). Objective constructions after verbs of
wish and intention have no subjective constructions (He would
like you to see him). Only with some verbs of mental activity,
inducement, and sense perception the construction can be
active and passive. Consequently, complex subject is a
separate kind of predicative construction.
Gerundial predicative construction or complex
object with the participle? Besides combining with the
possessive noun-subject, the gerund can also combine with the
noun-subject in the common case or a pronoun in the objective
case: It ended in William finding the ball. Excuse me rushing in
like this. There is a tendency to use the common case even with
such nouns which may be used in the possessive case. There
are cases, however, when the nominal element of the
construction cannot be expressed by a noun or a pronoun in the
possessive case or a possessive pronoun:
1. If it denotes a lifeless thing (such nouns have no
case distinctions): I said something about my clock being slow.
 352

2. When it consists of two or more nouns: I object to

Mary and Jane going out on such a windy day.
3. When it is a noun modified by an attribute in post-
position: Did you ever hear of a man of sense rejecting such an
offer?
4. If it is a pronoun which has no case distinctions (all,
this, that, both, each, something): I insist on both of them
coming in time.
5. To avoid contextual ambiguity: I can't fancy their
daughter entering a University college (ambiguity in the oral
possessive: daughter's — daughters').
6. To avoid some sort of stylistic ineptitude: The notion
of this woman who had had the world at her feet paying a man
half a dollar to dance with her filled me with shame.
7. When it is desirable to stress the person component
of the complex: I hate the idea of уou wasting your time.
The ing-form when preceded by a noun in the common
case or a pronoun in the objective case is said to have a
function intermediate between that of the present participle and
the gerund: I rely on John (him) doing it in time. On the one
hand, this construction is closely connected in meaning with the
gerundial construction I rely on John’s (his) doing it in time. On
the other hand, it reminds us of the objective with the participle
construction: I saw John (him) doing it. Such an ing-form is
called a half-gerund in traditional grammar.
M.Y. Blokh [1983: 246] interprets the verbid in half-
gerund constructions as a transferred participle, or a
gerundial participle.
Some grammarians do not think it expedient to have a
special name for such constructions. Examples like those given
above merely show that the subject words of the gerund may
also be nouns (pronouns) in the common case and pronouns in
the objective case. The use of the common or the objective
case form to express the agent of the action denoted by the
gerund makes it possible to use gerundial complexes with a
much greater number of nouns and pronouns. This usage is
suggestive of the further verbalization of the gerund, of some
important change in its combinability.
Gerundial predicative complex or subordinate
word-group? N’s+gerund construction is sometimes
considered a subordinate word-group because of the form of the
subject. Cf.: Doctor’s arrival, John’s coming [Структурный
синтаксис, 1972: 89]. But in the majority of cases the verbal
 353

character of the gerund prevails and the relation between the

gerund and the noun/pronoun in pre-position is perceived as the
relation between secondary subject and secondary predicate.
The fact that the gerund may be preceded by a noun in the
common case or a pronoun in the objective case testifies in
favour of secondary predication.
Complex object with participle II or conclusive
perfect? Patterns with participle II separated from the auxiliary
have, as in I have all my work done or We have it all thought out
are often referred to as intensified forms of the perfect, the so-
called conclusive perfect.
N.M. Rayevska [1976] is of the opinion that these
verbal forms go parallel with the Present Perfect and Past
Perfect as to their structure but differ essentially in their
grammatical content and stylistic value. There is a suggestion of
effort implied in such forms which makes them forcible and
highly expressive: When you came, I had my plans already
made. The following patterns are distinguished:
a) patterns grammatically synonymous with perfect
forms: I have it memorized to perfection (= I have memorized it
to perfection).
b) patterns grammatically synonymous with statal
passive: The problem had me stumped (= I was stumped).They
have all their opponents beaten. I had my window-pane broken
yesterday.
c) patterns causative in their meaning: I have my suits
made to order. I had my shoes mended.

Unit 20
____________________________________

SYNTACTICAL PROCESSES
____________________________________
20.1. What syntactical processes are. Alternational
and
derivational syntactical processes
Syntactical constructions are formed on the basis of
different syntactical processes. There are two main syntactical
 354

processes: addition and reduction. They are derivational if

they result in the derivation of a syntactical construction-type.
They are modificational or alternational if they predetermine the
extension, expansion, or other non-constructive changes of a
syntactical construction.
The realization of alternational syntactical processes
takes place in the sphere of speech manifestations of
syntactical units. That is why they differ crucially from
derivational syntactical processes which work in the sphere
of language and reflect regularities in complication or reduction
of syntactical units of different syntactical status: phrasal,
clausal, and sentential.
Alternational syntactical processes may lead to the
enlargement of a syntactical unit in the amount of its content or
form; to the reduction of the unit in the same respects, or to
some specific transformations of the unit itself. Such processes
may seem optional, but it is not really true because they
regulate the realization of the communicative competence of the
speaker, communicative intention and choice of stylistic devices
for making speech not only grammatically correct but
pragmatically effective.

20.2. Syntactical processes of the enlargement-

type
Syntactical processes of enlargement are
accomplished as addition. Addition presupposes the
enlargement of a syntactical unit due to its expansion,
extension, specification, or complication. These are
characteristically different ways of addition.
Expansion as a syntactical process is based on
conjunction, i.e. coordinate joining of elements which are
syntactically equal in rank into the expanded whole. Syntactical
expansion can be achieved by adding some homogeneous and
cognate element to any of the constituents or to the construction
itself. The construction A + N (red pencils) can be expanded in
the following ways: a) A + A + N red and green pencils; b) A + N
+ N red pencils and pens; c) (A + N) + (A + N) red pencils and
green pens.
Expansion is aimed at enlarging the content of word-
groups and sentences. Connected in this way may be various
parts of speech functioning as homogeneous parts of the
sentence.
 355

Homogeneous parts are two or more components of

the sentence which are characterized by the following features:
1. They are connected by coordination, i.e. are of equal
rank. They are joined either by coordinating conjunctions or
asyndetically: The men were cold and sick and silent. He rose,
crossed to the writing table, wrote out a cheque — and handed
it to the other man.
2. They have one and the same syntactical function in
the sentence and similar syntactical relations with other parts of
the sentence: Dora and I ate in silence (subject). The grass was
long and high and wet (predicative).
3. They are separated from each other by pauses in
speech and generally by commas in writing: She noticed the
eager, hungry lines of his face, and the desperate, worried look
of his eyes.
4. They may differ: a) in their structure: She didn't feel
well and stayed in bed (compound nominal and simple verbal
predicates); b) in the ways of expression (morphologically): The
Johnsons and I have been to five balls to-night (proper noun
and pronoun).
From the point of view of their syntactical function,
there may be homogeneous a) subjects (He and Sis didn't
discuss such things); b) predicates (She got up and dressed in a
hurry); c) predicatives (He felt little and worn and helpless); d)
objects (She had on a sweater and a skirt); e) attributes (He
wore a blue, striped shirt); d) adverbial modifiers (She had
lessons on Tuesday and on Sunday afternoons).
There are, however, cases which look very much like
homogeneous parts but which should be distinguished from
them:
1. Repetitions which name the same notion and make
the utterance more expressive: I'll never, never, never go there
again. I waited and waited.
2. Phrases where coordinated nouns refer to one
person: my son and heir, their friend and defender, her friend
and counselor.
3. Syntactically indivisible coordinated phrases in which
neither component can be removed and which make one
indivisible part of the sentence: Four and four is eight.
4. Sentences where the predicate consists of two parts
joined by the conjunction and which in this case has no
copulative meaning: Try and do it properly (= Try to do it
properly). Come and help me.
 356

Extension as a syntactical process of the addition-type

results in the multiplication of a construction due to adjunction,
i.e. by adjoining some dependent element to the construction
itself or to any of its constituents. Extension can be optional and
obligatory in case the dependent element possesses
constructive value and complements the element it is added to.
The construction A + N (red pencils) can be extended in three
different ways: a) A + N + prep + N red pencils of the ballpoint-
type; b) D + A + N very red pencils; c) (A + N) + wh-clause red
pencils which are on the table.
The A + N construction itself is formed on the principle
of extension (through adding subordinate components to an
element that is the head) and is an adjunctive (subordinate)
construction. Other examples of extended word-groups are to
see him, to read much, very well, books for reading, red from
excitement, etc.
Extension is realized in smaller and larger syntactical
units which are word-groups and sentences. Extension may be
achieved by syndetic means or (which is more often in English)
asyndetically.
Specification is a way of syntactical extension
achieved via a syntactical element modified by one or more
other complementing elements called appended modifiers
(explanatory words or phrases): Cry here on my shoulder.
Specification is based on syntactical parallelism or doubling.
Insertion results in the enlargement of a syntactical
unit due to the independent elements — direct address or
parenthesis — added to a sentence optionally: You, my friend,
will have to work harder. Unfortunately, every attempt he made
to do this had failed.
Adjoining involves modification of syntactical units by
elements (such as particles) which are traditionally not
considered parts of the sentence: Her father was just the same.
We’ll settle this right now. I even planned a rich marriage. Unlike
extension, adjoining results in closed constructions which do not
admit of further extension by modifying elements.
Complication is based on derivation and results in
structural complication of a syntactical unit (part of the
sentence). In this case, a certain syntactical unit is considered
basic, other syntactical structures are derived from it: She
laughed. — She began to laugh. Having the same syntactical
function and distribution, laughed and began to laugh differ as to
their structure. Here belong compound verbal modal and phasal
 357

predicates: They drive in the Park at five. — They can (may,

must) drive in the Park. They began (kept, went on, stopped)
driving in the Park. Simple predicates become compound.

20.3. Syntactical processes of the reduction-type

Syntactical processes of reduction result in lessening
the amount of a syntactical unit, but the unit is not destroyed, its
wholeness being compensated in its content and in its form.
Syntactical processes of the reduction-type are very
useful and important: they shorten the message and they can
make the connections of meaning easier to grasp.
Compression is a syntactical process of the reduction-
type which always accompanies expansion. Coordinated
structures allow us to shorten a sentence by omission: Freda
ate the food but (she) left the drink. Peter cut himself a slice of
bread and (he cut himself) some cheese. Her voice was high,
(was) steady, (was) uninflected. A peculiar compression of the
constructions is achieved.
In general, the same omissions cannot be made when
one of the clauses is subordinate to the others. Cf.: She was
exhausted and went to sleep. But not *She was so exhausted
that went to sleep. In the subordinate clause we have to repeat
the subject: She was so exhausted that she went to sleep.
Contamination is a syntactical process in which two
syntactical units (conjoint or adjoint) merge into one.
Contamination in the content of syntactical units is reflected
specifically in their expression side: they assume the form a
compound nominal double predicate: The moon rose red [= The
moon rose + The moon was red], or apokoinu-construction:
There is a gentleman wants to see you [= There is a gentleman
+ The gentleman wants to see you].
Apokoinu constructions are based on the omission of
the pronominal (adverbial) connective that creates a blend of
the main and the subordinate clauses so that the predicative or
the object of the first one is simultaneously used as the subject
of the second one: He's the one makes the noise at night. And
there's nothing more can be done. Perhaps it was his scars
suggested it. Such constructions produce the general
impression of clumsiness of speech and are used as a means of
speech characteristics to emphasize the irregular, careless, or
uneducated speech of personages.
In colloquial English, the position of the subject clause
in a complex sentence is open to specific contaminations: Just
 358

because you say I wouldn't doesn't prove anything. The

contamination here consists in pressing into one construction
the clausal expression of cause and the expression of the
genuine subject to which the predicate of the sentence refers.
‘De-contaminated’ construction is: Your saying that I wouldn't
doesn't prove anything.
Another characteristic type of contamination of the
subject-clause pattern is its use as a frame for an independent
sentence: You just get yourselves into trouble is what happens.
It is a feature of highly emotional speech. ‘De-contaminated’
construction is: You just get yourselves into trouble, this is what
happens.
Syntactical process of contamination involves
simultaneous use of a finite verb form in two positionally and
formally identical structures [Шпак, 1990: 1]. As a result, the
verb simultaneously performs two heterogeneous grammatical
functions and thus becomes bivalent and bifunctional: Once
when our boys were little and in summer camp we paid them
the dearly parents’ visit.
Contamination of functions (simultaneous realization of
two heterogeneous grammatical functions in one form) is
characteristic of verbs of broad semantics (be, have, get, go,
become, stand, remain, sit, lay, feel, look, appear, seem, take).
The main verb in this group is be. O.A. Shpak [Шпак, 1990: 7-8]
distinguishes seven patterns of contamination with this verb: a)
predicator and copulative operator (Anne and Adam were in
town now and grown up); b) predicator and operator of the
continuous form (The young Mexican was at the bar and
already drinking); c) predicator and operator of the passive form
(He was now under the influence and arrested); d) copulative
operator and operator of the continuous form (Her children were
grown-up and pursuing their own lives); e) copulative operator
and operator of the passive form (It is a kind of unorthodoxy and
considered thus by some); f) operator of the continuous form
and operator of the passive form (They must have been both
watching and being watched); g) copulative operator and
operator of the compound verbal modal predicate (Accidents
were lamentable but also to be expected in such a place).
Condensation as a syntactical process of the
reduction-type is closely connected with nominalization and
secondary predication, which bring about compression of
subordinate clauses: I imagined that she was beautiful. → I
imagined her to be beautiful. → I imagined her beautiful. As he
 359

was a man of few words, Uncle George declined to express an

opinion. → Being a man of few words, Uncle George declined to
express an opinion. → A man of few words, Uncle George
declined to express an opinion.
Gerundial, infinitival, participial, or nominal
constructions and complexes (nominal condensers) make it
possible to do without a subordinate clause which would be
otherwise necessary: Coming home late one evening, I heard
something which made my blood freeze in horror (= When I was
coming home …). The man injured by the bullet was taken to
hospital (= The man who was injured by the bullet …). Whether
right or wrong, he usually wins the argument (= Whether he is
right or wrong). The process of condensation is a kind of reduc-
tion implying synthesis of content. In condensed units, some
particular element is implied in the content of the phrase and is
omitted in its construction-form.
Syntactical condensation leads to laconity and lends
variety to speech. In compression by nominalization a sentence
dispenses with a subordinate clause which results in closer
cohesion of its elements and greater condensity of the whole
sentence structure grouped around one single subject-predicate
unit. This relative compactness of the English sentence and the
use of various condensers as its synonymic alternatives is one
of many syntactical features that show the analytical character
of Modern English.
In present-day English, the tendency to compactness
through nominality is brought into particular prominence.
Grammatical forms in nominalization may be illustrated by a)
one-member nominal sentences (Winter. Silence!); b) infinitival
sentences (To have her friendship!); c) noun-adjunct groups
(wage increase); d) prepositional nominal phrases (in bloom,
under repair); e) gerundial, infinitival, participial nominals and
predicative complexes with them.
Elliptical reduction (ellipsization) results in lessening
the form of a unit whereas its content remains complete.
Elliptical sentences are incomplete only in form; semantically,
they are full-sentences. Elliptical reduction occurs in oral speech
in two-member sentences. Omitted may be only one or both
principal parts of the sentence: Don’t know anything about it.
Want a drink? I suppose you’ve left school? — Last term.
Ellipsis is mostly used as a form of linguistic economy.
Substitution (replacement) as a syntactical process
of the reduction-type is achieved by means of substitute words
 360

called pro-forms. It is one of the ways to reduce constructions

with repeated components. To avoid the repetition of a word
that has already been used in the sentence, we often use
another word, which readily suggests the meaning of the given
one: When John entered the room he (= John) saw his wife
there (= in the room). Would you like a cup of tea? — No,
thanks. I’ve just had one (= a cup of tea). The hole was about as
big as that (= the hole) made by a rocket.
The means of substitution are rather various: verbs of
broad semantics, various classes of pronouns, some adverbs.
Substantival: I, he, she, it, we, you, they, that, who, etc.
Adjectival: my, his, her, its, our, your, their, this, that,
which, such.
Verbal: do so, do it, do this, do that, etc.
Adverbial: so, thus, there, thereby, therein, then, here,
now, etc.
The most frequent among the pro-forms are: the verb
do, personal pronouns, the pronoun one, and demonstrative
pronouns.
Most pro-forms replace or refer to some or all of a noun
phrase. But a few other constructions are involved.
The adverb pro-forms relate to adverbials: Fred walked
to town and I went there too.
Do relates to a part of the clause containing the verb:
Fred walked to town and I did too. As a word of a most
generalized sense, do can stand for any verb (normally a verb
denoting some action or activity), except be and modal verbs. It
need not be in the same tense, or mood, as the verb which it
replaces: You travel around the world. We would like to do that
too. I shall never love you more than I do now. Then I shall take
steps to make you. — Do.
So replaces object, predicative, or adverbial elements
or even whole clauses: His income was insufficient and likely to
remain so. John searched the big room very carefully and the
small one less so. John's leaving home. — I told you so. Along
with the pro-verb do, so replaces a predication: They have
promised to increase pensions. If they do so, it will make a big
difference to old people.
So is a substitute for that-clauses representing reported
statements, beliefs, assumptions, emotions: The government
won’t provide the money — I have heard the minister say so.
Has Ivan gone home? — I think so. Not may replace so in
negative clauses: I hope not. I’m afraid not. He may be
 361

innocent, if so, why did he give himself up? If not, why didn't he
try to escape?
It, that, this are widely used as substitutes for clauses
as well as for noun phrases: If you make a sound, you’ll regret
this. She’s having a baby. — How do you know that? After many
weeks of rain the dam burst. This resulted in widespread
flooding.
An important feature of English is formal structural
substitution. The substitute word it is used as formal impersonal
or introductory subject, or introductory object: It was foggy. It is
said that love is blind. He thought it correct to do like you have
done.
Syntactical structures with substitution are fixed
patterns of complete sentences. Substitution is always
anaphoric in character.
Apart from syntactical substitution, researchers also
distinguish lexical substitution which may be substantival
(realized by nouns of broad semantics way, thing, etc.) and
verbal (realized by verbs of broad semantics take, get, give,
make, do, have, be, etc.) [Огоновська, 1991: 15].
The noun thing with the broad meaning ‘concreteness
of any kind’ can replace various nouns: clear the breakfast
things away (= utencils); take off one's things (= articles of
clothing); do great things (= action, deed); she doesn't know a
thing about music (= facts, details); a pretty/poor thing (=
person); say the right thing (= thought, statement); she has a
thing about flying (= fear).
Similarly, the verb take with the broad meaning ‘to
cause or come into association with’ can replace various verbs:
Do you take my meaning? (= understand); take breakfast (=
eat); take an enemy town (= capture); take one's wallet (= steal),
etc.
Representation is a kind of reduction in which the
component of a syntactical unit is used to represent the content
of the whole unit: They suspected that he had given her an
apple and he had (= had given her an apple). He is working late
this week. — Yes, he was last week, too (= was working late). I
don’t know if he’s hungry, but I am. Do you think I’m selfish? —
You know I don’t. Can you believe me? — Sure I can. Are you
going to clean the car? — I could, and ought to, but I don’t think
I will.
Auxiliary verbs (be, do, have, shall, will), the link verb
be and modal verbs (can, may, must, shall, will, ought, dare,
 362

need) are the chief means of representation in Modern English.

They represent the meaning of the predicates, performing a
substituting function.
Verb-representation — the use of an auxiliary or modal
verb instead of an analytical verb-form or a modal phrase of
which it is part — is highly characteristic of the English
language. This kind of representation is found within the limits of
one sentence (She didn't count with Stella, never had, and
never would) and also in short answers in dialogue (Oh, she’s
fainted again. — No, I haven’t). The auxiliary always represents
the analytical form which was last used in the sentence.
Function verbs become thus sequence-signals by referring back
to specific full verbs or verb-headed structures.
The infinitival marker to (representing to) may
represent the infinitive: He thought of making another phone
call, but he was afraid to. I’m a fool to tell you anything. — You’d
be a bigger fool not to.
Representation is also realized by the particle not in the
following constructions [Теплий, 1992: 15-16]: a) whether +
subject + predicate + or + not: Whether you believe it or not, he
wept. Are you wondering whether I’m joking or not? b) why +
not: And he’s going to marry you? — Why not? c) subject +
auxiliary + not: Tell them about it. — I’ll not; d) subject +
auxiliary + rather/ better + not: Do you intend to tell him what
you have been telling me tonight? — I had rather not. I do not
want to go. — It is better not.
Representation may also be realized by the inflections
‘-s/-s’ representing the noun: The other voice was raised, it was
a woman’s (= a woman’s voice).
Representation results from non-anaphoric omission or
ellipsis. Representation seems to be intermediate between
ellipsis and substitution [Огоновська, 1991: 6; Теплий, 1992:
8]. In ellipsis, a whole syntactical unit is left off and made
implicit. In representation, only a part of the syntactical unit is
left off, the other remains and stands for the whole (partial
ellipsis). In substitution, one lingual unit is used instead of
another (‘totum pro toto’).
In the sphere of verbs, representation and substitution
complete each other: in synthetical verbal forms (Present
Indefinite and Past Indefinite) substitution by do is used,
whereas in analytical ones representation is used.
Representation, like substitution and ellipsis, is a
means of avoiding the repetition of various grammatical units
 363

(words or groups of words) already mentioned. These

syntactical processes are the main ways of abbreviating the
sentence, to avoid saying or writing the same thing twice.
The verb do may present some difficulties for analysis.
In interrogative and negative constructions, do functions as an
auxiliary-representing verb: Did you read that book in the end?
Did you? — I did not. In affirmative constructions, it may be both
a substituting and a representing verb. Do as a substituting
verb: He cooks as well as she does (= cooks). Have you written
to your father yet? —Yes, I did last week (= wrote to my father).
Do as a representing verb is used in a) constructions So do I, so
did they, etc.; b) emphatic constructions: I do so love you,
Martin, I do, I do.

Unit 21
____________________________________

ACTUAL SYNTAX:
FUNCTIONAL SENTENCE PERSPECTIVE
____________________________________
21.1. What functional sentence perspective is
Structural analysis of the sentence into subject,
predicate, object, etc. has been in the limelight from time
immemorial. Communicative analysis of the sentence is of more
recent origin. This approach is generally referred to as
functional sentence perspective (FSP), or actual division of
the sentence.
 364

The theory of functional sentence perspective (FSP)

was developed by the Prague School linguists (Villem
Mathesius, Jan Firbas) who pioneered most studies
investigating the interaction between syntax and communicative
function. FSP model is intended to examine communicative
properties of sentences (communicative sentence dynamics), to
reveal the significance of the sentence parts from the point of
view of their actual informative role (content) in an utterance.
The details of FSP theory are rather complex and there are
several distinct approaches within the Prague tradition itself.
The main premise in FSP theory is that the
communicative goals of an interaction cause the structure of a
sentence to function in different kinds of informative perspective.
A sentence such as John has been taken ill has a certain
syntactical structure which remains unchanged in different
communicative settings. In context, it will function in a certain
kind of perspective, depending on the purpose of
communication; for instance, it may function as a statement of a
person's state of health (John has been taken ill), as an
identification of the person affected (John has been taken ill), or
as an affirmation that the information conveyed is really valid
(John has been taken ill).
Functional sentence perspective (actual division of
the sentence) entails dividing a sentence into two sections,
one of which contains the starting point of the communication
(what we are talking about) — the theme (T), and the other —
the new information for which the sentence has been spoken or
written (what we say about the theme) — the rheme (R).
The two terms introduced by the German scholar K.
Boost and widely used by Czech linguists are Greek in origin:
theme comes from the Greek root the- ‘to set, to establish’ and
means ‘that which is set or established’. The term rheme is
derived from the root rhe- ;to say or tell’ and means ‘that which
is said or told about’. These terms are convenient because
adjectives are easily derived from them: thematic and rhematic,
respectively. Other terms adopted by scholars are: given/new,
lexical subject/lexical predicate, logical subject/logical predicate,
theme/focus, topic/comment, basis/nucleus.
Consider the following simple example: Where are we
going today? — We are going (T) to the races (R). Here the
words We are going are the starting point — the theme, and the
adverbial modifier (to the races) contains the new information —
the rheme.
 365

The rheme could be the entire sentence or part of the

sentence. Cf.: What’s on today? — We are going to the races
(R). What are we doing today? — We (T) are going to the races
(R). Who’s going to the races? — We (R) are going to the races
(T). Actual division of the sentence finds its full expression only
in concrete context, therefore it is sometimes referred to as
contextual division of the sentence.
The theme is the most important part of a sentence
from the point of view of its presentation of a message in
sequence. The theme may be characterized as the
communicative point of departure for the rest of the sentence. It
is usually the part of the sentence which is familiar territory from
which we begin the sentence as a mental ‘journey into the
unknown’.
The theme is what the sentence is about; it denotes an
object or phenomenon about which something is reported. It has
two functions: a) it acts as a point of orientation by connecting
back to previous stretches of discourse and thereby maintaining
a coherent point of view; b) it acts as a point of departure by
connecting forward and contributing to the development of later
stretches.
The rheme is what the speaker says about the theme.
It is the goal of discourse. As such, it is the most important
element in the structure of the sentence as a message because
it represents the very information that the speaker wants to
convey to the hearer. It is the rheme that fulfils the
communicative purpose of the utterance. The rheme is the basic
informative part of the communication, its contextually relevant
centre.
The two communicatively prominent parts of the
sentence, the theme and the rheme, are topically distinct: one is
the point of initiation, and the other the point of completion. This
basically means that every sentence has the structure of a
message: it says something (the rheme) about something (the
theme).
FSP approach tends to equate theme with the given
(context-dependent) and rheme with the new (context-
independent) elements. However, this is not necessarily the
case: rhematic information is always new, but thematic
information may be old and/or new. On the other hand, old
information is always thematic, but new information thematic or
rhematic [Firbas, 1987: 46].
In other words, the theme need not necessarily be
 366

something known in advance. There are sentences in which the

theme, too, is something mentioned for the first time. It is
something about which a statement is to be made. This is the
case in the following sentence: Jennie (T) leaned forward and
touched him on the knee, which is the opening sentence of a
short story. Nothing in this sentence can be already familiar, as
nothing has preceded and the reader does not know either who
Jennie is or who he is.
Between the theme and the rheme are positioned
intermediary transitional (subrhematic) elements of various
degrees of informative value which are called transition, though
many linguists still dispute about this third section of actual
division.
The transition consists of elements which perform the
function of linking the theme and the rheme. It generally
consists of the temporal and modal exponents of the verb
[Firbas, 1986: 54]. In The weather is fine, for example, is
constitutes the transition (assuming the communicative purpose
of the utterance is to state what the weather is like). Link verbs
are a clear case of verbs with a very limited notional component
whose function seems to be simply linking the theme to the rest
of the message. In fact, in many languages sentences such as
The weather is fine are verbless.
Adverbials often give information which is subsidiary to
the idea in the rest of the sentence: Again (tr) Charlie (T) is
being too clever (R)! However, a final adverbial can occasionally
contain the main information: She plays the piano beautifully
(R).
The concepts of theme/rheme are supplemented in
FSP model with a non-binary notion of communicative
dynamism (CD) that determines which elements are thematic
and which are not thematic in a sentence. Communicative
dynamism is based on the fact that linguistic communication is
not a static, but a dynamic phenomenon. By communicative
dynamism (CD) Jan Firbas [1972: 78] understands a property of
communication, displayed in the course of the development of
the information to be conveyed and consisting in advancing this
development. The degree of CD carried by a linguistic element
is the extent to which the element contributes to the
development of the communication, to which, as it were, it
'pushes the communication forward'. The theme carries a low
degree of CD because, being context-dependent, it does not
play a major role in pushing the communication forward. The
 367

rheme represents the core of the message and carries the

highest degree of CD.
Jan Firbas [1974: 22] suggests that the basic
distribution of CD is implemented by a series of elements
opening with the element carrying the very lowest and gradually
passing on to the element carrying the very highest degree of
CD. This is more or less the same as saying that theme
normally precedes rheme.
The subject of the sentence has a close relation to
‘what is being discussed’, the theme of the sentence, with the
normal implication that something new (the predicate) is being
said about a subject that has already been introduced in an
earlier sentence: Have you seen Bill? He (T) owes me five
dollars. It is clearly easier to follow a message that announces
its subject and then says something about it than the other way
round. The movement from the initial notion of subject of
utterance (theme) to the goal of utterance (rheme) represents
natural development of thought. The organization of a message
into a theme+rheme sequence is therefore the unmarked,
ordinary order of actual division which is termed direct.
Sequences which deviate from this ordinary order do
occur, e.g., sometimes the subject expresses the rheme: Who
gave you that magazine? — Bill (R) gave it to me. The actual
division with a rheme +theme organization of a message is
referred to as inverted (reverse). Inverted order is usually
marked and its function is to convey emotion of some sort: Very
ill (R) she looked, poor dear.
Each communicative sentence type has its specific
actual division features, which are revealed first and foremost
in the nature of the rheme as the meaningful nucleus of the
utterance.
Actual division of the declarative sentence presents
itself in the most developed and complete form. The rheme of
the declarative sentence makes up the centre of some
statement as such. This can be distinctly demonstrated by a
question-test directly revealing the rhematic part of an
utterance: My thoughts strayed (R) from the question. → What
did my thoughts do?
Another transformational test for the declarative rheme
is the logical superposition (the rheme is placed in the position
of the logically emphasized predicate): All sorts of forebodings
(R) assailed me. → What assailed me was all sorts of
forebodings.
 368

In composite sentences, actual division may be

represented hierarchically. Each clause will have its own theme-
rheme structure which may be subordinate to a larger theme-
rheme structure.
T1 Aristotle
thought that
t2 the earth
R1 r2 was stationary (and that)
t3 the sun, the moon, the planets, and the
stars
r3 moved in circular orbits about the earth.

T1 He
believed this (because)
t2 he
felt, for mystical reasons, (that)
R1 t3 the earth
r2 r3 was the centre of the universe,
(and that)
t4 circular motion
r4 was the most perfect.
The rheme of the imperative sentence expresses the
informative nucleus of an inducement. The thematic subject is
usually zeroed, though it can be expressed by direct address:
Don’t do it (R). Put that dam' dog down (R), Fleur (T). The
subject of inducement, however, may be shifted to the position
of the rheme: We have to do everything we can. — You (R) do it
(T). I’m tired.
The rheme of the interrogative sentence, as the
nucleus of the inquiry, is informationally open (gaping); its
function consists only in marking the rhematic position in the
response sentence.
In the pronominal (special) question, the nucleus of
inquiry is expressed by an interrogative pronoun: Why (R) did
she come to me? Who (R) are they? The gaping pronominal
meaning is to be replaced in the answer by the wanted actual
information. Thus, the rheme of the answer is the reverse
substitute of the interrogative pronoun: the two make up a
rhematic unity in the broader question-answer construction. As
for the thematic part of the answer, it is already expressed in the
question, therefore in speech it is usually zeroed: Why (R) don’t
you cry? — Because I don’t want to (R).
 369

21.2. Ways of indicating the rheme of a sentence

A special emphatic construction which gives rhematic
prominence to a particular element of the sentence is the cleft
sentence, so called because it divides a single sentence into
two separate sections, each with its own verb. Most cleft
sentence statements begin with the pronoun it followed by the
verb be, which in turn is followed by the element expressing the
rheme.
From a single sentence such as John wore his best suit
to the dance last night, it is possible to derive four cleft
sentences, each highlighting a particular element of the
sentence (subject, object, adverbial modifier): It was John (R)
who/that wore his best suit to the dance last night. It was his
best suit (R) (that) John wore to the dance last night. It was last
night (R) (that) John wore his best suit to the dance. It was to
the dance (R) that John wore his best suit last night.
Like the cleft sentence proper, the pseudo-cleft
sentence makes explicit the rheme of the communication. It is a
sentence with a wh-clause as subject or predicative: What you
need most is a good rest (R). A good rest (R) is what you need
most.
The pseudo-cleft sentence is less restricted than the
cleft sentence in that, through use of do as pro-form, it presents
the verb or predication as rheme: What he's done is (to) spoil
the whole thing (R). What John did to his suit was (to) ruin it (R).
What he is doing is ruining his health. What he has done is
ruined his health (R). In other respects, the pseudo-cleft
sentence is more limited than the cleft sentence. Only with what-
clauses does it freely commute with the cleft sentence
construction. Clauses with who, where, and when are
sometimes acceptable: The police chief (R) was who I meant.
Here (R) is where the accident took place. But whose, why, and
how do not easily enter into the pseudo-cleft sentence
construction.
In existential sentences introduced by there, the
notional subject is postponed to a rhematic position. Cf.: There
were tall birches (R) surrounding the lake. — Tall birches (T)
surrounded the lake. An additional type of such sentences
consists of there + be + noun phrase + postmodifying clause:
There's something (R) (that) keeps upsetting him. There's some
people (R) I'd like you to meet.
 370

In another more literary type of existential sentence,

there is followed by a verb other than be: There exist similar
medieval crosses (R). Not long after this, there occurred a
revolution in public taste (R). In front of the carriage there rode
two men in uniform (R).
Corresponding to there-existential sentences there are
have-existential sentences: He has several friends (R) in Paris.
The trees had loads of apples (R) on them. He has a great deal
to be thankful for (R). I've something I've been meaning to say
to you (R).
Discrimination of the rheme is achieved by
constructions with introducers, e.g., the introductory-it
construction (not to be confused with cleft sentences): It is said
that she left for Europe (R). It's no use telling him that (R). I'll
leave it to you to lock the door (R).
Sentences with introductory it can be transformed into
sentences with the notional subject in its usual position before
the predicate: It was impossible to deny this. → To deny this
was impossible. The pattern with introductory subject
accentuates the idea expressed by the notional subject,
whereas the pattern without it accentuates the idea expressed
in the predicate.
In some instances, such as the passive construction, it
is impossible to keep the clause in subject position: It is said
that she left for Europe. → *That she left for Eupore is said.
Syntactical patterns of contrastive complexes are
used to expose the rheme of the utterance in cases when
special accuracy of distinction is needed. Cf.: The table (R) is
broken, not the chair. The costume (R), not the frock, is meant
for you, my dear. The costume is meant not for your cousin, but
for you (R). The strain told not so much on my visitor than on
myself (R).
Ellipsis involves deletion of the thematic parts of
utterances (thematic reduction of sentences in context) whereby
the rheme of the utterance or its most-informative part (peak of
informative perspective) is placed in isolation. Cf.: When are you
seeing her? — Tomorrow (R). You've got the letters? — In my
bag (R). How did you receive him? — Coldly (R). The rheme is
all there is in the sentence and so it receives undivided
attention.
Syntactical means to express the rhematic quality of
the subject also include structures of predication with the
passive verb-forms and converted subject introduced by the
 371

preposition by: John (T) gave a book to Mary (R). — Mary (T)
was given a book by John (R). — A book (T) was given to Mary
by John (R).
In most cases, the by-object is the rheme of the
passive sentence. However, the by-object may not be the
rheme: Six people were killed by tornado. The rheme may be
expressed by the subject (six people) or by the predicate (were
killed).
In two-member passive constructions, the subject is
usually the rheme: No machinery (R) was needed to perform
this test. New hospitals (R) must be built. The subject of such
passive construction cannot be the rheme when the adverbial
modifier is at the end of the sentence: The experiment (T) was
performed successfully (R).
Quite apart from the grammatical contrast between
active and passive, the language possesses other grammatical
or lexical means for reversing the order of roles: John (T) gave
the book to Mary (R). — Mary (T) received the book from John
(R). Such items as give/receive, have/belong, sell/buy,
examiner/examinee, desirous/ desirable, older/younger,
above/under, before/after, etc. are termed converses, i.e. they
express the same meaning, but with a reversal of the order of
participants.
Intensifying particles and adverbs (even, only,
merely, so, too, just, particularly, especially) identify the rheme,
commonly imparting emotional colouring to the utterance: Even
Mr. Stores (R) had a part in the general debate. Only then (R)
did he sit down. We were so impressed (R) by what we heard
and saw.
Determiners, among them the articles, divide their
functions so that the definite determiners serve as identifiers of
the theme while the indefinite determiners serve as identifiers of
the rheme. Cf.: The man (T) walked up the platform. — A man
(R) walked up the platform. The whole book (T) was devoted to
the description of a tiny island on the Pacific. — A whole book
(R) is needed to describe that tiny island on the Pacific. I'm sure
Nora's knitting needles (T) will suit you. — I'm sure any knitting
needles (R) will suit you.
The role of order of words used to signal the rheme is
most evident in examples like the following: The winner of the
competition stood on the platform in the middle of the hall (R).
— On the platform in the middle of the hall stood the winner of
the competition (R). Fred didn't notice the flying balloon (R). —
 372

The one who didn't notice the flying balloon was Fred (R). Helen
should be the first to receive her diploma (R). — The first to
receive her diploma should be Helen (R). In all the cited
examples, the rheme is placed towards the end of the sentence,
while the theme is positioned at the beginning of it.
The reversed order of actual division, i.e. the
positioning of the rheme at the beginning of the sentence, is
connected with emphatic speech: Utterly unbelievable (R) it was
to all of them. Magic words (R) you are speaking now, Nancy.
How well (R) you look!
Intonation with its accent-patterns presents itself as a
universal and indisputable means of expressing the actual
division: When is John going to Spain? — John is going to
Spain (T) next week (R). Where is John going next week? —
John is going (T) to Spain (R) next week (T). Who is going to
Spain? — John (R) is going to Spain next week (T). What is
John going to do? — John (T) is going to Spain next week (R).
The universal rheme-identifying function of intonation has been
described in terms of logical accent, which amounts linguistically
to the rhematic accent and is inseparable from other rheme-
identifying means described above.
Degrees or levels of 'informativeness' are relevant to
the choice of tone. We tend to use a falling tone to give
emphasis to the main information, and a rising tone (or, with
more emphasis, a fall-rise tone) to give subsidiary or less
important information.

21.3. Ways of indicating the theme of a sentence

Constructions with the definite article or other definite
determiners identify the theme: The man (T), after looking at me
for a moment, turned me upside down, and emptied my
pockets.
Another way of pointing out the theme is a detached
(loose) parenthesis introduced by the prepositional phrases as
for, as to: As for money (T), we don’t have to worry because he
has a good job. And as to being common (T), I don’t make it out
at all clear.
Sometimes a phrase may be placed in thematic
position as a detached part of the sentence without as for: That
laughter (T) — how well he knew it! His weaknesses, his
absurdities (T) — no one knew them, better than he did. My
sister (T) — she is wife of Joe Cargery. People who collect
 373

China (T) — they cannot carry it around with them. Helen, her
mother (T), she never bakes cakes. That house on the corner
(T), is that where you live?
Such sentences are called segmented. Segmentation
implies a twofold designation, often referred to as pleonastic. It
is a special kind of reduplication: the sentence is split into two
interdependent sentence-elements related as the theme and the
rheme respectively, the former being set off in a position of an
independent unit.
Proper names, personal pronouns, and other
substitute words, because they refer to something already
mentioned or understood, normally are considered thematic in
ESP theory.
Semantically, the less of a notional component the verb
has, the more naturally it goes with the theme as a foundation-
laying element. Contextually, the notional verb is assigned
thematic status if it has already been mentioned: Do you want to
make money, Lewis? — I want (T) everything that people call
success.
Removing an element from its normal position, and
placing it at the beginning of the sentence can make the
element thematic: That (T) I knew with absolute lucidity. All this
(T) Mr. Huxter saw over the window canisters. Near her, in the
chair (T), sits a Monster.
Nominalization may also have a theme-identifying
function. In Heseltine's appointment (T) came as no surprise the
event of Heseltine's appointment is presented as theme; the
reader is assumed to know about it. Had it been new
information, it would have been presented independently in the
predicate, because this is where new information normally
occurs: Heseltine has been appointed (R) as Minister of the
Environment. This comes as no surprise.

21.4. Hallidayan approach to communicative

organization of the sentence
Any approach to describing information flow in natural
language will generally recognize that sentences are organized
in terms of theme and rheme. But different linguists give
different accounts of the way in which theme and rheme are
realized in discourse. M. Halliday and his followers have a
different approach to communicative analysis of the sentence
[Baker, 1992: 140].
 374

One of the main differences between the Hallidayan

and other approaches is that M. Halliday has always insisted
that, at least in English, the theme-rheme distinction is realized
by the sequential ordering of clause elements. Theme is the
element placed by the speaker in first position in the sentence;
rheme is whatever comes after the theme. Deviations from the
norm are then called ‘marked theme’. A marked theme is
selected specifically to foreground a particular element as the
topic of the clause or its point of departure.
Hallidayan linguists identify three types of marked
theme in English: fronted theme, predicated theme, and
identifying theme.
Fronting involves the achievement of marked theme
by moving into initial position an item which is otherwise unusual
there: Beautiful were her eyes, rather than Her eyes were
beautiful.
Predicating a theme involves using a cleft it-structure
to place the element near the beginning of the clause: It was in
China that the book received a great deal of publicity.
Identifying themes are very similar to predicated
themes. Instead of using a cleft structure, an identifying theme
places an element in theme position by turning it into a
nominalization using a wh-structure called pseudo-cleft
structure: What the book received in China was a great deal of
publicity.
In predicated themes, the thematic element is
presented as new information; in identifying themes, the
thematic element is presented as known information.
A reverse rheme-theme sequence therefore has no
place in Halliday's system. This position contrasts sharply with
that taken by Prague linguists, such as Jan Firbas, who reject
sentence position as the only criterion for identifying theme and
rheme.
An English sentence such as Well-publicized the book
was would be considered marked in both Hallidayan and
Prague linguistics. However, a Hallidayan linguist would analyze
it as a fronted theme + rheme sequence, whereas a Prague
linguist would analyse it as a reverse rheme + theme sequence.
In the Hallidayan model, the distinction between theme
and rheme is considered speaker-oriented. It is based on what
the speaker wants to announce as his/her starting point and
what s/he goes on to say about it.
A further distinction can be drawn between what is
 375

given and what is new in a message. This is a hearer-oriented

distinction, based on what part of the message is known to the
hearer and what part is new. Here again, a message is divided
into two segments: one segment conveys information which the
speaker regards as already known to the hearer. The other
segment conveys the new information that the speaker wishes
to convey. Given information represents the common ground
between speaker and hearer and gives the latter a reference
point to which s/he can relate new information.
Like thematic structure, information structure is a
feature of the context rather than of the language system as
such. One can only decide what part of a message is new and
what part is given within a linguistic or situational context:
What's happening tomorrow? We're climbing Ben
Nevis.
New
What are we doing tomorrow? We're climbing Ben
Nevis.
Given New
What are we climbing tomorrow? We're climbing Ben
Nevis.
Given
New
Two main factors contribute to the presentation of the
content of a sentence in one particular order rather than
another. One is the tendency to place new information towards
the end of the clause — the principle of end-focus. Another is
the tendency to reserve the final position for the more complex
(‘weighty’) parts of a clause or sentence — the principle of
end-weight. Since it is natural to express given information
briefly (e.g., by pronouns), these two principles work together,
rather than against one another.
The Hallidayan approach treats thematic and
information structures as separate, though often overlapping
features of discourse organization (the 'separating' approach).
Prague School linguists often conflate the two structures and
combine them in the same description (the 'combining'
approach). The two approaches are often at odds with each
other and can produce completely different analyses of the
same sentence.
The attraction of the Hallidayan view is that, unlike the
rather complex explanations of the Prague School, it is very
 376

simple to follow and apply. To some extent, it is also intuitively

satisfying to suggest that what one is talking about always
comes before what one has to say about it. Its disadvantages
include (a) its partial circularity: theme is whatever comes in
initial position and whatever comes in initial position is theme;
(b) its failure to relate descriptions of SVO languages,
particularly those with relatively fixed word order such as
English, to descriptions of languages with relatively free word
order in which, for instance, the verb often occurs in initial
position.
If theme is whatever occurs in initial position we would
have to acknowledge that some languages prefer to thematize
participants (expressed as subjects in SVO and SOV
languages) on a regular basis while other languages prefer to
thematize processes (expressed as verbs in VSO languages).
But M. Halliday does not attempt to address these preferences;
nor does he discuss language features which restrict a
speaker's choice of thematic elements. For instance, in Harway
(a Papuan language) where the verb is always final, a
speaker/writer does not have the option of thematizing
processes [Baker, 1992: 140-141].
It is possible to see Halliday's view of theme — as
whatever comes in initial position in the clause — as a reflection
of a) the nature of English as a language with relatively fixed
word order, and b) his study of Chinese, this being a language
with a special category of topic which always occurs at the
beginning of the clause.
Chinese has been identified as a topic-prominent
language. Unlike subject-prominent languages such as English,
French, and German, topic-prominent languages appear to
have double subjects: Animals, I advocate a conservation policy
(Mandarin). This field, the rice is very good (Lahu). The present
time, there are many schools (Korean). Fish, red snapper is
delicious (Japanese).
Basic understanding of both approaches — FSP and
Halliday’s system — may well prove helpful in some contexts.
The theme-rheme distinction is useful in explaining methods of
organization and development in different types of text, i.e.
illuminating certain areas of discourse organization.
 377

Unit 22
____________________________________

SEMANTIC SYNTAX
____________________________________
22.1. Semantic aspects of syntax. Case Grammar
and
Semantic Syntax
Syntax and semantics (the area of linguistics which is
the study of meaning) are closely interrelated. In linguistic
analysis along this line, distinction is made between three
levels: a) grammatical structure of the sentence; b) semantic
structure of the sentence; c) communicative organization of the
sentence (utterance).
Initially, structural linguists refused to address the
question of meaning on the grounds that it was scarcely struc-
tured and, in any case, located in the ‘black box’ of the mind
where it was unobservable and so unavailable to scientific
study. This point of view, however, was never generally
accepted. The more general opinion is well revealed in R.
Jakobson's pun Linguistics without meaning is meaningless.
Linguistics fairly quickly came to the task of modelling
meaning both at word and sentence level. At word level, it
produced concepts such as denotation, connotation,
componential analysis, semantic fields. On the level of sentence
meaning, it has developed concepts such as deep structure and
semantic roles (cases).
An original system of describing the semantic relations
in a sentence was proposed by Charles Fillmore in his paper
The Case for Case (1968). In his view, the deep structure of the
sentence (i.e. its semantic level on which the content of the sen-
tence is revealed) is the role structure of the predicate,
represented by semantic roles termed cases. Main bearers of
role meanings are noun groups.
The deep structure (proposition) of every simple
 378

sentence consists of a verb (V) and one or more noun phrases

(NP), each associated with the verb in a particular case
relationship. For example, in the sentence John broke the
window the subject is in an Agent relation to the verb. In A
hammer broke the window the subject is an Instrument and in
John broke the window with a hammer both Agent and
Instrument appear in the same sentence.
That the subjects John and hammer are grammatically
different explains the fact that the combined meaning of the two
sentences is not produced by conjoining their subjects. The
sentence *John and a hammer broke the window is
unacceptable. Only noun phrases representing the same case
may be conjoined.
Similarly, the fact that only one representative of a
given case relationship may appear in the same simple
sentence explains the unacceptability of the sentence *A
hammer broke the glass with a chisel. Both hammer and chisel
are understood instrumentally. It cannot represent a sentence
containing an Agent and an Instrument, since the noun hammer
is inanimate.
Case grammar as a form of generative grammar views
case roles (as Agent, Experiencer, Instrument, Object, etc.)
based on the semantic relationship of noun phrases to verbs, to
be basic categories in deep structure representing participants
of the situation and derives grammatical relations (as subject,
direct object, etc.) from these case roles.
The case notions comprise a set of universal,
presumably innate, concepts which identify certain types of
judgements human beings are capable of making about the
events that are going on around them, judgements about such
matters as who did it, who it happened to, and what got
changed [Fillmore, 1968: 24-25].
Deep structure cases (semantic roles) that appear to
be needed include [Fillmore, 1968, 1977a; Starikova, Alova,
1980: 14-15; Иванова et al., 1981: 244-246]:
Agentive/Agent (A), the case of the typically animate
instigator of the action identified by the verb: The car was found
by the police. In the surface structure Agent fills the position of
the subject or the object: I read the note. A note was read by
me.
Agent can be further subdivided into: a) Agent
causative, denoting an animate agent that causes the object to
fulfill an action: John threw the stone, and b) Agent permissive,
 379

denoting an animate agent that gives possibility to an object to

fulfill an action removing all obstacles: John dropped the stone.
Nominative (N) denotes an animate or inanimate
object from which comes an action: He dozed off. His eyes
twinkled. Mountains frightened him. An action connected with
Nominative is neither intentional nor purposeful.
Subject-Nominative has as its predicate only non-
actional verbs, unlike subject-Agent having as its predicate only
verbs expressing actions which can be used in the Imperative
Mood and in the Progressive Aspect: Hit the ball! He was hitting
the ball continuously. Cf.: Nominative I like the country. *Like the
country. *He is liking the country.
Instrumental/Instrument (I), the case of the inanimate
force or object causally involved in the action or state identified
by the verb: The rock broke the window. I broke the window with
the rock.
The semantic role of Instrument is a distinctive feature
of sentences with Agent causative. Sentences with Agent
permissive do not allow of Instrument in their semantic structure.
Cf.: John threw a stone with a sling and *I dropped a stone with
a sling. Noun phrase with N is common in sentences with Agent
permissive but its semantic role is different. It is termed
comitative: John dropped a stone with a stick (= a stone and a
stick).
Dative (D), the case of the animate being affected by
the state or action identified by the verb: John believed that he
would win. We persuaded John that he would win. It was
apparent to John that he would win.
Factitive (F), the case of the object or being resulting
from the action or state identified by the verb, or understood as
a part of the meaning of the verb: They made him king. The boy
dug the hole.
Locative (L) identifies the location or spatial orientation
of the state or action identified by the verb: He got into a hole.
Tell him I’m not at home.
Temporative (T) identifies the time of the state or
action identified by the verb: Stay during the summer.
Objective/Object (O), the semantically most neutral
case, the case of anything representable by a noun whose role
in the action or state expressed by the verb is identified by the
semantic interpretation of the verb itself; it denotes things which
are affected by the action or state identified by the verb; the
entity that moves or changes or whose position or existence is
 380

in consideration: John broke the window. The stone fell.

Experiencer (E) shows the perceiver of the action or
state specified by the verb: The boy was warm. The fly annoyed
the boy.
Patient (P) denotes an animate or inanimate object
(never the source) undergoing an action: He accuses Pete of it.
The window broke. On the surface structure, it often
corresponds to the object or the subject of the passive
construction: He bit his hand. The yard was not overlooked.
Patient should not be mixed up with Factitive. Cf.: The boy dug
the ground (Patient). The boy dug the hole (Factitive). Only the
first sentence allows the question What did the boy do to N?
Benefactive/Beneficiary (B) denotes the person for
whom an action is performed; a person receiving something as
the result of the action produced by the Agent: He opened the
door for his son. John sold them the book. He taught us French.
Jane has a car.
Manner (M) as a semantic role is close to that of
Instrument: John broke the window with a sling by a quick
movement. It is used in structures with Agent causative and
Agent permissive.
Cause (C) denotes a person or thing that acts,
happens, or exists in such a way that some specific thing
happens as a result; the producer of an effect: The news excited
great interest.
Counter-Agent (CA) denotes the force or resistance
against which the action is carried out: They repulsed an attack.
Source (S) denotes any thing or place from which
something comes, arises, or is obtained: Peaches come from
trees. Good results do not come from careless work.
The inventory of cases in its plentitude has not yet
been established. Other authors point out some more semantic
roles in the deep structure of the sentence.
In the works of some authors [Anderson, 1971; Liefrink,
1973] case grammar notions (Agent, Patient, Instrument, etc.)
are referred to as elementary syntactical-semantic units, units
of the deepest level of Semantic Syntax. The essence of these
units is their reference to one of the elements of a situation. We
construe some aspect of the world as an event or state involving
several participants that affect one another.
Deep structure categories are semantic categories at
the same time as being syntactical categories. They remain
syntactical because they are established on the basis of partly
 381

overt but mainly covert syntactical similarities and differences

[Liefrink, 1973: 7].
The set of semantic roles defined by the lexico-
grammatical meaning of the verb makes up the role structure
of this verb. Role structure of the verb show, for instance,
includes Agent, Beneficiary, and Patient, e.g., They showed him
the jewels. Role structure is represented in the following way:
show [ ___ A+B+P], where ___ represents the action the
wording of which is given outside the brackets. The verb’s role-
players are usually called ‘arguments’. It is the term used in
logic and mathematics for a participant in a relationship [Pinker,
1995: 107].
It is important to notice that none of the cases can be
interpreted as matched by the surface-structure relations which
include the subject, the object, the attribute, and adverbial
adjuncts in any particular language [Fillmore, 1968: 24-25], e.g.,
John is Agent in John opened the door as much as in The door
was opened by John. The key is Instrument in The key opened
the door as well as in John opened the door with the key or
John used the key to open the door. Chicago is Locative in both
Chicago is windy and It is windy in Chicago. One and the same
part of the sentence may express different roles, and one and
the same role may be expressed by different parts of the
surface structure.

22.2. Parts of the sentence semantically considered

The most typical semantic role of the subject is Agent:
John opened the letter. Apart from its agentive function, the
subject frequently has the following roles: Experiencer: I hate
you with all my soul. Instrument: But his axe would not cut the
log. Cause: The avalanche destroyed several houses. Patient:
The spades were brought. Recipient: She bought a second-
hand car. Locative: The bus holds forty people. Temporal:
Tomorrow is my birthday. Eventive (designating events or
activities): To give is more blessed than to receive. Their battle
had been won. The concert is on Thursday.
The most typical function of the direct object is that of
the Affected participant, i.e. a participant (animate or inanimate)
which does not cause the happening denoted by the verb, but is
directly involved in some other way: Many MPs criticized the
Prime Minister. Apart from the Affected Object, semantic types
of direct object are the Locative object: The horse jumped the
 382

fence, and the Effected Object (refers to something which exists

only by virtue of the activity indicated by the verb): Baird
invented television. I’m writing a letter. He made several
attempts to contact me. He gave a jump.
The most typical function of the indirect object is that
of Recepient; i.e. an animate participant being passively
implicated by the happening or state: I've found you a place.
There is only one exception to the rule that the indirect object
has the role of Recipient: this is when give (or sometimes
related verbs like pay, owe) has an Effected object as direct
object and an Affected object as indirect object: I paid her a
visit. I gave the door a couple of kicks.
Although the semantic functions of the elements
(particularly subject and object) are quite varied, there are
certain clear restrictions, such as that the object cannot be
Agent or Instrument; that a subject (except in the passive)
cannot be Effected; that an indirect object can have only two
functions — those of Affected Object and Recipient [Quirk et al.,
1982: 162].

Unit 23
____________________________________

PRAGMATIC SYNTAX
____________________________________
23.1. Linguistic pragmatics and speech act theory
At the beginning of the 1960s-70s, pragmatics (from
Greek prāgmatikỏs ‘practical’, prāgma ‘deed, act’) became part
of linguistics. The first representatives of linguistic pragmatics
were the authors of the speech act theory John Austin and
John Searle.
Speech acts are understood as basic units of
communication based on a series of analytic connections
between what the speaker means, what the sentence uttered
means, what the speaker intends, what the hearer understands,
and what the rules governing the linguistic elements are.
A speech act is understood as a performance of
 383

actions according to some rules. Pragmatic theory of speech

acts claims that in the utterance of sentences a speaker is
performing at least three kinds of acts: a) locutionary act,
characterized by locutionary force, is the utterance of a
sentence with determinate sense and reference; b)
illocutionary act, characterized by illocutionary force, is the
making of a statement, offer, promise, accusation, etc. in
uttering the words; c) perlocutionary act is the bringing about
of effects on the audience by means of uttering the words.
For instance, the utterance of ‘You can't do that’ may
have the illocutionary force of protesting, but the perlocutionary
effects of checking the addressee's action, or bringing him to his
senses, or simply annoying him [Levinson, 1985: 237].
It is of course the second kind, the illocutionary act, that
is the focus of pragmatics, and indeed the term speech act has
come to refer exclusively to that kind of act.
Linguistic pragmatics studies functional
characteristics of linguistic units in a particular context of
utterance. Context must be understood here as the situational
context within which utterances are made, including the
knowledge, beliefs and assumptions of the speaker and the
relation between the speaker and listener (social status, identity,
role, location, etc.).
Linguistic expressions having overtly the same
structure may be functionally different (i.e. have different
communicative functions) depending on the situational contexts
in which they were uttered. For instance, Come with no delay
can imply order, command, a polite request, or a kind favour.
You will remember it may have indicative modality and future
time relevance or the modal meaning of strong presumption.
What are you doing? may be a question or a strong warning. I’ll
watch you may state the fact as well as express a threat or a
promise. These sentences differ in their pragmatic aspect.
Joanna Channel [1994: 31] setting out her approach to
pragmatics, gives the axiom: semantics + pragmatics =
meaning. Pragmatics studies those aspects of meaning which
arise from language use in context and situation, with particular
reference to the assumptions and inferences which participants
make and the purposes for which they use particular utterances.
Orientation towards the literal meaning which arises
from the meaning of the components of the sentence may result
in the so-called pragmatic failure in conversational interaction.
There can be interesting discrepancies between speaker-
 384

meaning and sentence-meaning: ‘Linguistics is fascinating’ said

ironically may be intended by the speaker to communicate
‘Linguistics is deadly boring’.
A sentence is a means of realizing different speech
acts which correspond to different communicative intentions of
the speaker. The study of sentences from the perspective of their
speech act characteristics and the correlation of their pragmatic
and semantic features are the central problems of Pragmatic
Syntax.

23.2. Pragmatic types of utterances. Pragmatic

Syntax
Pragmatic Syntax makes a distinction between a
sentence as a language unit and a sentence as a component of
a speech act. The former preserves the term sentence, the
latter is termed utterance.
The sentence is the highest structure and the main
communicative language unit given by its semantic and
structural sentence type. It is actualized in speech by the
utterance which appears as actual sentence. The utterance is
defined as the issuance of a sentence, a sentence-analogue, or
sentence-fragment, in an actual context.
Analyzing pragmatic types of utterances in terms of
pragmatic speech act theory, researchers distinguish between:
a) Representatives:
• actional utterances, which characterize the subject as
an active agent of the action (in active constructions) or as a
patient who/ which is acted upon (in passive constructions): He
arrived early at the theatre. They were received courteously by an
old servant.
• performative utterances, used to denote an act
which can be carried out by speaking only in the process of
communication (the action is performed by the speaker with the
help of the statement): I promise to come soon. I announce the
meeting open.
• constative utterances, presenting the subject of
speaker’s thoughts or stating the attitude and estimation of what
s/he speaks of: The Earth is round. That’s a beautiful park. This
at last was love!
• characterizing utterances, used to describe the
subject either qualitatively or quantitatively; accordingly, they fall
into qualifying and quantifying: You are old and wrinkled and
 385

ugly. He was four feet long and God knows how heavy.
• equational utterances, with the equational
relationship between the subject and the predicate fall into
classifying and indentifying: She is a doctor. They had
decided that Phillis was the key to the problem.
• existential and existential-locative utterances,
indicating the reality/ existentiality and localization of the object
or phenomenon spoken of: This is the police station. Here is
your money.
b) Directives:
• directive utterances, which compell a hearer to an
action are subdivided into injunctive and requestive: I order
you to leave the room. Get out! Please, leave me alone.
• quesitive utterances, compelling a hearer to
speaking: Haven't you any overcoats, you boys? Aren't you
young to smoke?
c) Commissives:
• promissive utterances, in which the speaker
guarantees that what s/he promises will be true: I’ll come some
time. I'll write regularly, once a month.
• menacive utterances, in which the speaker menaces
the event the realization of which doesn't depend upon him/her:
You've hurt me in my insides and I'll hurt you back. I'll report you if
you do that.
d) Expressives:
• expressive utterances, expressing the psychological
state of the speaker, showing the attitude toward the events:
Terrible moment! Oh, heavens! Oh, what happiness! I congratulate
you. I am very sorry, but I don’t know her.
In some classifications, expressive utterances are
not represented as a separate type. They are termed
constative [Morokhovska, 1993: 433] or perfomative [Иванова et
al., 1981: 271].

Unit 24
____________________________________

BEYOND THE SENTENCE: THE PROBLEM

OF SUPERSYNTACTICAL UNITS
____________________________________
 386

24.1. The notion of supersyntactical unit

Is the sentence the highest existing syntactical unit, or
are there higher syntactical units than the sentence — units of
which a sentence is but a component part? The traditional view
is that the sentence is the limit of grammatical analysis; it is the
highest syntactical unit and that whatever units we may find of a
higher order will be not syntactical, but either stylistic, or literary.
However, this traditional view has been questioned. It
has been shown that sentences in speech do come under
broader grammatical arrangements, do combine with one
another on strictly syntactical lines in the formation of larger
stretches of both oral and written text. The necessity of
extending linguistic analysis beyond the bounds of the sentence
has been frequently emphasized.
We should naturally consider the analysis of a word
incomplete without its combinability. But if for some reason the
combinability of sentences is not regarded important, one might
think that each sentence is an absolutely independent unit, that
its forms and meanings do not depend on its neighbours in
speech. But it is not so. Very few sentences can really be called
complete or capable of standing alone. Most of the sentences
that we speak are dependent on what has been said before.
Thus, for instance, such a sentence as They got him in
is syntactically complete, and yet neither they nor him has
adequate effective meaning apart from the context, the time of
got must also be signalled by the context, and some kind of
indication for in must be implied by the context [Rayevska,
1970: 91].
The demarcation line between a sentence and a
combination of sentences is very vague. There are two peculiar
and rather important border-line phenomena between the
sentence and the sentential sequence [Blokh, 1983: 371-372].
1. Some part of a simple or composite sentence may
become detached from the rest and pronounced after a pause
with the intonation of a separate sentence. In writing, this is
often marked by punctuation: Give me those stumpy little tulips.
Those red and white ones. The connection between such
sentences is quite evident.
Placing a syntactically dependent sentence element
out of its usual sentence frame and setting it off by a full stop
like an independent unit is known as parcelling. In such
isolated positions we may find objects, predicative
complements, attributes, adverbial modifiers: She was
 387

interrupted at that point. By me. He was exhausted. Completely

finished and sick. A figure coming towards him swerved
suddenly to its left. Tall, with a swing in its walk. They rowed
close into wind. Slowly. Fantastically slowly.
Subordinate clauses may also be placed for emphasis
out of their usual sentence frame and set of by a full stop like
independent units: I thought of the future, and spoke of the past.
Because Holly wanted to know about my childhood. They are
not people, but types. Which makes it difficult to present them
convincingly.
2. The second of the border-line phenomena in
question is the opposite of parcellation. It consists in forcing two
different sentences into one: The air-hostess came down the
aisle then to warn passengers they were about to land and
please would everyone fasten their safety belts. Such
constructions are characteristic of uncareful and familiar
speech; in a literary text they are used for the sake of giving a
vivid verbal characteristic to a personage.
Thus a sentence may depend on some other sentence,
or be coordinated with it, or otherwise connected, so that they
form a combination of sentences. This connection may be
expressed by conjunctions: Give me four bunches of those. And
that jar of roses. She'd only to cross the pavement. But still she
waited.
The following sentences are connected by the
pronominal subjects: One doesn’t think of vultures as cheerful
birds, but in the air over Enchanted Rock they cavort and show
off like schoolboys. You sometimes see 30 at a time. They keep
soaring even after sundown, like kids reluctant to go inside for
the night.
The following sentences are connected by what might
be called 'pronominal predicates', and by the implicit repetition
of the notional predicate (group) of the first sentence: Come
home to tea with me. Why won't you? Do. The second and the
third sentence might be extended at the expense of the first into
Why won't you come (home to tea with me)? Do come (home to
tea with me).
Sentences in continual speech are not used in
isolation; they are interconnected both semantically-topically
and grammatically. Thus linguistic analysis must take as part of
its essential domain the treatment of units larger than the
sentence.
The supersyntactical unit (or syntactical whole,
 388

complex syntactical unity, supra-phrasal unity, suprasentential

or supraphrasal unit, supra-phrasal construction, as it is some-
times termed), is hierachically the highest syntactical unit in all
languages [Korunets’, 2003: 445]. It consists of some simple or
composite (or both — simple and composite) sentences united
around a concluded piece of information which expresses some
completed content.
The syntactical whole may be defined as a combination
of sentences presenting a structural and semantic unity backed
up by rhythmic and melodic unity [Galperin, 1971: 193]. It is a
larger unit than a sentence. It generally comprises a number of
sentences interdependent structurally (e.g., by means of
pronouns, connectives, tense-forms) and semantically (one
definite thought is dealt with).
Such a span of utterance is also characterized by the
fact that it can be extracted from the context without losing its
relative semantic independence.
To be a supersyntactical unit, a group of sentences
must meet three requirements: a) it must be about only one
topic; b) it must state only one main idea; c) all of its sentences
must be directly connected to that main idea.
Where and when you study is almost as important as
how you study. Pick a quiet place with as few distractions as
possible. Turning off the TV will help you concentrate on what
you are trying to learn. Study when you are still feeling fresh —
not late at night — and don’t wait until the last minute to study
for an important exam.
The following group of sentences looks like a
supersyntactical unit, but it is not one. It does not state one main
idea about one topic, and its sentences do not keep to one main
idea.
My brother made $200 this summer working at a farm
stand on Route 1. He says that dealing with all kinds of
customers is good experience. My father wanted me to clean
the basement, and my mother told me to wash the windows.
Yesterday I spent all my savings on a new set of skates.
A supersyntactical unit functioning as a communicative
whole consists of a number of semantically related sentences.
In writing, it corresponds to paragraph, in spoken language this
semantic unity is signalled by pausation. It is delimited in the
text by a finalizing intonation contour with a prolonged pause.
A paragraph is a traditional term used in manuscripts
 389

and printing to indicate a distinct subdivision of discourse. It

presents a distinct portion of written or printed matter dealing
with a particular idea. It is marked off by indentation at the
beginning and a break in the line at the end.
Supersyntactical units in writing are regularly
expressed by paragraphs, but the two units are not wholly
identical. The paragraph can contain more than one
supersyntactical unit; it can also contain only one sentence
(useful for creating expressive emphasis). On the other hand,
the supersyntactical unit cannot be prolonged beyond the limits
of the paragraph, since the paragraphal border-marks are the
same as those of the supersyntactical unit, i.e. a characteristic
finalizing tone, a pause. Besides, paragraphs with more than
one supersyntactical unit and one-sentence paragraphs are
more or less occasional features of the text.
The paragraph is a compositional device aimed either
at facilitating the process of apprehending what is written, or
inducing a ceratin reaction on the part of the reader. This
reaction is generally achieved by intentionally grouping the
ideas as to show their interdependence or interrelation
[Galperin, 1971: 195].
The paragraph is a group of closely connected
sentences. All the sentences work together as a unit to make
one main idea clear. This main idea is often stated in a single
sentence called topic or leading sentence. The other
(sequential) sentences give specific details that support and
help to understand that idea:
Through the centuries rats have managed to survive all
our efforts to destroy them. We have poisoned them and
trapped them. We have fumigated, flooded, and burned them.
We have tried germ warfare. Some rats even survived atomic
bomb tests conducted on Eniwetok atoll in the Pacific after
World War II.
The topic sentence is usually the first sentence.
Sometimes the topic sentence appears in the middle or at the
end of the unit.
Camels can carry both people and freight. They can
travel long distances over hot, shadeless sands, sometimes
going for ten days without water. Until the autoimobile and
airplane were invented, the camel was the only means for
transporting people across the deserts of Asia and Africa. The
camel is called the ‘ship of the desert’ — and for very good
 390

reason.
The paragraph may end with a clincher, or
concluding, sentence used to give the unit a sense of
completeness. This sentence may restate the main idea in
different words, summarize the details given, or suggest a
specific action.
The National Park Service, which was set up by
Congress in 1916, performs a variety of important jobs. It
operates parks, monuments, historic sites, and recreational
sports in 300 areas throughout the United States. In addition to
protecting and preserving these areas, the Service provides for
the comfort and safety of the millions of peole who visit the
parks every year. To do this, it operates hotels, cabins,
campgrounds, parkways, and trails. It also sends out
information about the sites it operates. Clearly, the national Park
Service accomplishes a wide range of worthwhile activities.
Many linguists are inclined to regard the sphere of
supersyntax as the domain of stylistics. Yet, there are obvious
features of a purely syntactical character in the paragraph which
must not be overlooked. That is why there is every reason to
study the paragraph in syntax of the language where not only
the sentence but also larger units of communication should be
under observation. This would come under what we may call the
‘macro-syntax’ of the language [Galperin, 1971: 195].

24.2. Supersyntactical units as textual structures

Supersyntactical units usually appear in a sequence,
such as a dialogue, a speech, a letter, or a book. Such
sequence of connected supersyntactical units is called a text.
Text is defined as the verbal record of a
communicative event; it is an instance of language in use rather
than language as an abstract system of meanings and relations
[Brown, Yule, 1983: 6].
The term text is used in linguistics to refer to any
passage, spoken or written, of whatever length, that does form a
unified whole. It is a unit of connected discourse (speech or
writing), and not merely a linearly ordered set of discrete
grammatical sentences.
A text may be spoken or written, prose or verse,
dialogue or monologue. It may be anything from a single
proverb to a whole play, from a momentary cry for help to an all-
 391

day discussion on a committee [Halliday, Hasan, 1976: 1-2].

A text is a coherent, complete unit of speech or writing.
As such, it typically consists of many sentences. But it is
possible to find a text which contains only one sentence: Danger
(a notice, bearing a warning, that is displayed or posted for
public view).
Neither supersyntactical units, nor paragraphs form the
upper limit of textual units of speech. Paragraphs are connected
within the framework of larger elements of texts making up
different paragraph groupings, i.e. larger textual unities of the
correspondingly higher subtopical status. Moreover, even larger
stretches of text than primary paragraph groupings can be
connected to one another in the syntactic sense, such as
chapters and other compositional divisions. Cf. two chapters
from J. Galsworthy's Over the River:
Chapter XXIII: ... She went back to Condaford with her
father by the morning train, repeating to her Aunt the formula:
“I’m not going to be ill.”
Chapter XXIV: But she was ill, and for a month in her
conventional room at Condaford often wished she were dead
and done with. She might, indeed, quite easily have died...
Arguments are posed for the recognition of the text
(texteme) to be the highest supersyntactical unit, i.e. the highest
structural form of language which is the integration of the
predicative and non-predicative language units.
M. Halliday and R. Hasan [1976: 2] state that a text is a
unit of language in use. It is not a grammatical unit, like a clause
or a sentence; and it is not defined by its size. A text is
sometimes envisaged to be some kind of super-sentence, a
grammatical unit that is larger than a sentence but is related to a
sentence in the same way that a sentence is related to a clause,
a clause to a group and so on: by constituency, the composition
of larger units out of smaller ones. But this is misleading. A text
is not something that is like a sentence, only bigger; it is
something that differs from a sentence in kind. A text is best
regarded as a semantic unit: a unit not of form but of meaning.
A text does not consist of sentences; it is realized by, or
encoded in, sentences. If we understand it in this way, we shall
not expect to find the same kind of structural integration among
the parts of a text as we find among the parts of a sentence or
clause. The unity of a text is a unity of a different kind.
The distinction between a text and a collection of
unrelated sentences is probably familiar to most teachers from
 392

reading their students' compositions. This suggests that there

must be certain features which are characteristic of texts and
not found otherwise. These features are commonly dealt with
under the headings of ‘cohesion’ and ‘coherence’.

24.3. Sentence connection into supersyntactical

units. Cohesion and coherence in discourse
Coherence and cohesion are networks of relations
which organize and create supersyntactical units and texts.
Coherence is the property of unity in a
supersyntactical unit or text that stems from the links among its
underlying ideas and from the logical organization and
development of its thematic content. It implies conceptual
linkage and semantic topical unity.
The ideas in a supersyntactical unit should be arranged
in a clear order and connected smoothly. The ideas may be
arranged in chronological order, spatial order, order of
importance, order that shows comparison or contrast. Semantic
interrelations formed between the component sentences of
supersyntactical units are partly similar to those existing
between the clauses of a complex sentence and may be
temporal, causal, concessive, disjunctive, etc.
However, as part of understanding of how a text is
constructed and functions, we should be able to recognize not
just the specific functions of cause, reason, time etc., but also
the more general functions of elaboration (restating or
clarifying), extension (adding to or modifying), enhancement
(extending by specification).
Coherence involves not only such matters as the
conceptual logic of how a text is structured, but also knowledge
of such things as subject matter and how the world works.
Coherence is achieved through features of general
knowledge, general implications. We often link sentences
because of our general knowledge or expectations: The
summer was long and hot. The vintage was superb. Here there
is no obvious connection in either grammar or vocabulary to link
these sentences. But anyone who knows about wine can readily
supply the missing link.
Cohesion is the property of unity in a supersyntactical
unit or text that stems from links among its surface elements, as
when words in one sentence are repeated in another, and esp.
from the fact that some words or phrases depend for their
 393

interpretation upon material in preceding or following text, as in

the sequence Be assured of this. Most people do not want to
fight. However, they will do so when provoked, where this refers
to the two sentences that follow, they refers back to most
people, do so substitutes for the preceding verb fight, and
however relates the clause that follows to the preceding
sentence.
We could say that cohesion is the surface expression
of coherence relations; it is a device for making conceptual
relations explicit. For instance, a connective such as therefore
may express a conceptual notion of reason or consequence.
However, if the reader cannot perceive an underlying semantic
relation of reason or consequence between the propositions
connected by therefore, s/he will not be able to make sense of
the text in question [Baker, 1992: 218]. Generally speaking, the
mere presence of cohesive markers cannot create a coherent
text; cohesive markers have to reflect conceptual relations
which make sense.
Cohesion entails grammatical and lexical linkage. It
occurs where the interpretation of some element in the
discourse is dependent on that of another. The one
presupposes the other, in the sense that it cannot be effectively
decoded except by recourse to it. When this happens, a relation
of cohesion is set up, and the two elements, the presupposing
and the presupposed, are thereby at least potentially integrated
into a text.
Cohesion is expressed partly through grammar (e.g.,
reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction) and partly through
lexis. M. Halliday and R. Hasan [1976: 31] refer therefore to
grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion.
The main means of grammatical cohesion include:
1. Pro-forms or deictic markers: a) The children arrived
early. They were tired. b) The Browns said they would pay us a
visit. Whenever they did so, there was always a raw.
2. Determiners: A scruffy guy appeared in the doorway.
The boy was obviously hungry.
3. Space and time adverbials: a) I increased speed.
Further on, I passed John. b) We left at 5. An hour later, we
were there.
4. Comparison: a) Six of us competed. Jack was
fastest. b) I demand the best. Your service leaves much to be
desired.
5. Conjunctions (to achieve coordination or subor-
 394

dination of textual components): Several people complained.

But I simply cannot take this matter seriously.
6. Devices that imitate conjunctions, connectors: a) I
was not invited. Otherwise, I would have been there. b) I have
several points to discuss. To begin with, there's the question of
money.
7. Morphological means, as, for instance, tense and
aspect forms of the verb, may often be used as means of
cementing sentences in supersyntactical units.
Often several features of connectivity are present to
link a pair of sentences, and in a longer passage, the different
links combine and overlap in many ways. This can be seen in
the following paragraph, where the grammatical connections are
highlighted:
Mary and I started out at about nine in the vening.
Three hours later, we reached the foot of Cook Mountain.
Neither of us was used to climbing, so we slowed down
considerably. But it was easier once we got near the summit.
And there was a marvelous view, which made all our efforts
seem worthwhile. Mary took several photos of the view. ‘It’s to
prove we got there’, she remarked. ‘I’ve got better proof than
that’, I thought ruefully, looking down at my sore feet.
M. Halliday and R. Hasan [1976] divide lexical
cohesion into two main categories: reiteration and collocation.
Reiteration, as the name suggests, involves repetition
of lexical items. In some cases, the same word or a synonym is
used and repeated throughout the text. In other cases, related
words (superordinate or general word) are used, and this
repetition of the same concept strengthens the text cohesion.
1. Repetition: There’s a boy climbing that tree. The
boy’s going to fall if he doesn’t take care.
2. Synonym: There’s a boy climbing that tree. The lad’s
going to fall if he doesn’t take care.
3. Superordinate: There’s a boy climbing that tree. The
child’s going to fall if he doesn’t take care.
4. General word: There’s a boy climbing that tree. The
idiot’s going to fall if he doesn’t take care.
Collocation, as a sub-class of lexical cohesion, covers
any instance which involves a pair of lexical items that are
associated with each other in some way. M. Halliday and R.
Hasan [1976: 131] offer the following types of association as
examples: a) various kinds of oppositeness in meaning: boy/girl,
 395

love/hate; b) associations between pairs of words from the

same ordered series: Tuesday/ Thursday, August/December,
dollar/cent; c) associations between pairs of words from
unordered lexical sets, e.g., part-hole relations: car/brake,
body/arm, bicycle/wheel; part-part relations: mouth/chin,
verse/chorus; co-hyponymy: red/green, chair/table; d)
associations based on a history of co-occurrence (collocation
proper): rain, pouring, torrential, wet; hair, comb, curl, wave, etc.
Note the cohesion created by collocation in the follwing
sentences: a) I couldn’t correct anything. My red pencil was dull,
for one thing. b) Great time! A new record! For a minute I
couldn’t believe the race clock.

 REVISION TASKS
Choose the correct answer to complete the sentences.
1. The widest possible definition of a word-group fully
accepted in Western linguistics stipulates that a word-group
must contain a) at least two grammatically connected notional
words; b) at least two grammatically connected functional
words; c) at least two grammatically connected words which
may belong to any part of speech; d) the governing head-word
and the adjoined dependent element.
2. The sentence is the basic communicative unit
distinguished from all other units by its a) signification; b) deixis;
c) implicature; d) predicativity.
3. According L. Bloomfield’s classification, the
prepositional phrases in the house, beside John, by running
away are a) endocentric; b) coordinative; c) subordinative; d)
exocentric.
4. In terms of grammatical organization, the phrases
this happening, for him to come, on him to do, him leaving are
a) subordinate; b) coordinate; c) predicative; d) attributive.
5. Phrases with postposed modifiers are exemplified by
a) the young man’s gifts, two year’s child; b) no such mistakes,
the same mistake; c) what a boy, such a day; d) the book to
read, the reading of books.
6. Pathetically agreeable, very old, fairly clear,
unquestionably guilty exemplify a) noun; b) adjectival; c) verb; d)
adverbial phrases.
7. The form of subordination in this problem, these
questions may be defined as a) agreement; b) government; c)
adjoinment; d) enclosure.
 396

8. Predicativity is understood as a) the relation of the

sentence to the situation of speech; b) the event with which all
other events mentioned in the sentence are correlated in time;
c) the main predicative form of thought; d) a specific
grammatical device of the organization of the sentence.
9. Sentences which contain one subject-predicate unit
are known as a) simple; b) composite; c) elliptical; d) one-
member.
10. Sentences which assert or deny something are
known as a) declarative; b) interrogative; c) imperative; d)
exclamatory.
11. You are joking, eh? So you knew about it before?
exemplify a) pronominal; b) tag; c) suggestive; d) echo
questions.
12. Seems difficult. Don’t know anything exemplify a)
unextended; b) one-member nominal; c) one-member verbal; d)
elliptical sentences.
13. To think of that! exemplifies a) two-member
infinitival; b) one-member infinitival; c) one member nominal; d)
elliptical sentences.
14. The subject it in It all started with Adam and Eve
can be defined as a) notional; b) formal; c) impersonal; d)
introductory (anticipatory).
15. The predicate in He drank the bottle dry is a) simple
verbal; b) compound verbal; c) compound nominal; d)
compound nominal double.
16. The object in Who suggested his taking part? is
expressed by a) noun; b) participle; c) gerund; d) predicative
complex.
17. The object in He forgot his promise is a) direct; b)
indirect recipient; c) indirect non-recepient; d) cognate.
18. The attributes in I have never seen a face so
happy, sweet and radiant can be defined as a) restrictive; b)
descriptive; c) formal; d) detached.
19. The apposition is exemplified by a) William Smith –
you must know him – is coming tonight; b) George Washington
was the first president of the United States; c) Jenny, darling,
don’t say such things; d) Walt Disney, a famous film animator
and producer, created Disneyland.
20. The adverbial modifier in He was pale with fear
belongs to adverbials of a) cause; b) purpose; c) result; d)
manner.
21. The use of vocatives is exemplified by a) Try to
 397

discover the hidden you; b) You rascal, you! c) It was like seeing
another you; d) Don't buy the bright red shirt — it just isn't you.
22. Parenthesis is exemplified by a) I am sure that he is
lying; b) Be sure to close the windows; c) Slowly but surely the
end approached; d) Surely you are mistaken.
23. Direct word order Subject – Predicate – Indirect
object – Direct object is exemplified by a) He paid twenty dollars
for the shirt; b) He paid me for my work; c) He paid me the
money; d) He paid out of his own pocket.
24. Full inversion is exemplified by a) Never again will
you watch television! b) Not for love or money shall I change
places with you! c) In vain did he try to prove that he was
innocent; d) Far away high up in the mountains lived an old wise
man.
25. Grammatical inversion is exemplified by a) In God
we trust; b) You look upset. And so is your mother; c) Young
and tender is the night! d) Under no circumstances should you
go away.
26. Stylistic inversion is exemplified by a) Hardly had
she started reading the letter when she burst out crying; b) Here
comes the dean – Yes, here she comes; c) In came Mr.
Wormwood in a loud check suit and a yellow tie; d) Should he
turn up, ask him to call us.
27. In compound sentences, the clauses are linked by
a) taxis; b) parataxis; c) hypotaxis; d) heterotaxis.
28. Strucutres of subordination with two or more
clauses which are not syntactically equal in rank and function
are known as a) compound; b) complex; c) syndetic; d)
asyndetic sentences.
29. When there is no connector linking two coordinate
clauses, coordination is a) syndetic; b) asyndetic; c) detached;
d) non-detached.
30. Contact clauses are exemplified by a) It's hard to
know how to say this tactfully; b) People say he will resign; c) It
is hard to say what is wrong; d) Let's say, for the sake of
argument, that it's true.
31. He spoke as if I were a child that needed to be
distracted exemplifies a) multiple coordination; b) consecutive
subordination; c) parallel heterogeneous subordination; d)
parallel homogeneous subordination.
32. The sentence He told me I could see for myself he
wasn’t very young and his health wasn’t very good can be
classed as a) compound; b) complex; c) complex-compound; d)
 398

compound-complex.
33. In the sentence It is good, yet it could be improved
coordinate connection can be defined as a) copulative; b)
adversative; c) disjunctive; d) causative-consecutive.
34. According to the functional classification,
subordinate clauses are divided into a) substantive-nominal,
qualification-nominal, adverbial; b) nominal, attributive,
adverbial; c) of primary nominal positions, secondary nominal
positions, and adverbial positions; d) obligatory and optional.
35. Subject, predicative, and object clauses exemplify
a) clauses of primary nominal positions; b) clauses of secondary
nominal positions; c) clauses of tertiary nominal positions; d)
clauses of adverbial positions.
36. Clauses which always follow a link verb are called
a) subject; b) predicative; c) object; d) attributive.
37. Clauses which function as modifiers to a word of
nominal character are called a) subject; b) predicative; c)
attributive; d) adverbial.
38. The subordinate clause in You may do whatever
you choose can be defined as a) subject; b) object; c)
predicative; d) attributive.
39. The undelined clause in The sun, which had been
hidden all day, now came out in all its splendour can be defined
as a) restrictive relative; b) descriptive relative; d) appositive; d)
parenthetical.
40. Continuative attributive clauses are exemplified by
a) The book, which I read last night, was exciting; b) It made me
write that letter to you which kept us apart for so many years; c)
She is most enthusiastic about her studies, which gladdens my
heart; d) He hung around for hours and, which was worse, kept
me from doing my work.
41. The subordinate clause in Since you have no
money, you can’t come is an adverbial clause of a) time; b)
cause; c) condition; d) concession.
42. Cleft sentences are exemplified by a) The bigger
they are, the harder they fall; b) You hardly know him, how can
you be sure?; c) It was I who first noticed the problem; d) He is
very gloomy, is that John of yours.
43. A syntactical unit containing two centers of
predication is defined as a) direct speech; b) indirect speech; c)
reportive sentence; d) parenthetical sentence.
44. She took the vase of roses and left the room.
Soames remained seated. Was it for this that he had signed that
 399

contract? Was it for this that he was going to spend some ten
thousand pounds? exemplify a) direct speech; b) indirect
speech; c) free indirect speech; d) free direct speech.
45. Secondary predication exists in the sentence where
there is a) oblique; b) potential; c) non-finite; d) full predication.
46. A predictive complex contains two words which are
in predicate relation to each other, but the predicate relation
within it is grammatically a) explicit; b) implicit; c) complex; d)
independent.
47. Predicative complexes possess only the a) tense;
b) aspect; c) mood; d) person component of predicativity.
48. Secondary predication is exemplified by a) I want
that job finished today; b) We can stay home if you want; c) I
talked with Louie about our plan, and he wants in; d) If you want
for anything, let him know.
49. The semi-composite sentence is exemplified by a)
The actor read his lines in a booming voice; b) How do you read
this clause in the contract? c) In your silence I read agreement
to my plan; d) He read for an hour and went to bed.
50. We consider his reply unsatisfactory exemplifies a)
complex object; b) complex subject; c) gerundial complex; d)
absolute construction.
51. We climbed the hill, with Jeff following behind
exemplifies a) complex object; b) complex subject; c) gerundial
predicative construction; d) absolute construction.
52. I consider that the story is improbable → I consider
the story improbable exemplifies the syntactical process of a)
compression; b) contamination; c) condensation; d) elliptical
reduction.
53. Say it clearly → Say it clearly and simply
exemplifies a) expansion; b) extension; c) specification; d)
complication.
54. I think as you do exemplifies the syntactical
process of a) substitution; b) specification; c) adjoining; d)
representation.
55. Lexical substitution is exemplified by a) The law got
him for doing a lot of banks; b) The law arrived at the scene
soon after the alarm went off; c) His word is law; d) It is against
the law to smoke in an elevator.
56. The main premise in FSP theory is that a) the
sentence with its basic structure consists of the verb and one or
more noun phrases, each associated with the verb in a
particular case relationship; b) a speech act is a performance of
 400

actions according to some rules; c) the communicative goals of

an interaction cause the structure of a clause or sentence to
function in different kinds of informative perspective; d) the
ability to infer the speaker’s intention is not a strictly linguistic
ability.
57. The rheme is a) the starting point of the
communication; b) the new information that the speaker wants
to convey to the hearer; c) temporal or modal expomnent of the
verb; d) the element carrying the lowest degree of
communicative dynamism.
58. In the actual division with direct organization, the
subject of the sentence is it’s a) theme; b) rheme; c) transition;
d) nucleus.
59. Inverted (reverse) actual division is illustrated by a)
What’s on today? – We are going to the movies; b) What are we
doing today? – We are going to the movies; c) Where are we
going today? – We are going to the movies; d) Who’s going to
the movies today? – We are going to the movies.
60. Correct actual division of the sentence is
exemplified by a) A heavy gale (R) troubled the ocean waters;
b) The building (R) stands at 34th Street and 5th Avenue; c)
There are patients (T) in the waiting room; d) The vase (T) is
broken, not the cup.
61. Correct actual division of the sentence is
exemplified by a) Tell him to stop (T); b) Why (R) did you
behave so badly? c) How (T) did the accident happen? d) When
are they to arrive? – Tomorrow (T).
62. A pickpocket in The watch was stolen by a
pickpocket exemplifies the case role of a) Agent; b) Nominative;
c) Factitive; d) Patient.
63. Get him before he escapes! exemplifies a) actional;
b) directive; c) constative; d) promisive utterances.
64. The supersyntactical unit is a) a complete
syntactical unit; b) any passage, spoken or written; c) a
combination of sentences presenting a structural and semantic
unity; d) a linearly ordered set of discrete grammatical
sentences.
65. The sequence You make me tired. Completely
finished and sick exemplifies a) segmentation; b) parcelling; c)
coordination; d) fronting.
66. Coherence is a) conceptual linkage and semantic
topical unity; b) lexical and grammatical linkage; c) linkage that
points back to a previously established referent; d) linkage
 401

among the surface elements.

67. The sequence with no obvious cohesive link is
exemplified by a) I've got a cold. I 'm going to bed; b) I'm going
back to bed because I've got a cold; c) She worked on the
computer the whole day without stopping. And as she worked,
she thought about the problem; d) Her work was finished, so
she turned off the computer.
68. Grammatical cohesion is exemplified by a) The
crime rate is continuing to rise. It's a national scandal; b) There
is some petty crime in our neighbourhood; c) It's a crime to let
that beautiful garden go to ruin; d) It's criminal to waste so much
good food.

REFERENCES
1. Akmajian A., Demers R.A., Farmer A.K., Harnish R.M. Linguistics:
An Introduction to Language and Communication. – 3rd ed. –
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1990.
2. Anderson J.M. The Grammar of Case. – Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1971.
3. Arnold I.V. The English Word. – 2 nd ed. – Moscow: Higher School
Publishing House, 1973.
4. Bache C. Verbal Aspect: A General Theory and its Application to
Present-Day English. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.
5. Baker C. Introduction to Generative-Transformational Syntax. –
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1978.
6. Baker M. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. – London
and New York: Routledge, 1992.
7. Bech K. Word Order: A Syntactic and Pragmatic study. – Bergen:
University of Bergen, 2001.
8. Berezin F.M. Lectures on Linguistics. – Moscow: Higher School
Publishing House, 1969.
9. Birner B. Information Status and Word Order: An Analysis of
English Inversion. – Bath: Bath Press, 1994.
10. Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. – Moscow:
Higher School Publishing House, 1983.
11. Bloomfield L. Language. – 2nd ed. – New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1969.
12. Borroff M. Degree Phrase Inversion in the Scope of Negation. –
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
13. Brown E.K., Miller J.E. Syntax: A Linguistic Introduction to Sentence
Structure. – 2nd ed. – London: Harper Collins, 1991.
14. Brown G., Yule G. Discourse Analysis. – Cambridge: Cambridge
 402

University Press, 1983.

15. Burlakova V.V. Contribution of English and American Linguists to
the Theory of Phrase. – Moscow: Higher School Publishing House,
1971.
16. Burton-Roberts N. Analysing Sentences. – London and New York:
Longman, 1986.
17. Bybee J. Morphology. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1985.
18. Channell J. Vague Language. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994.
19. Chen R. English Inversion. A Ground-before-Figure Construction. –
Berlin and New York, 2003.
20. Chomsky N. Syntactic Structures. – The Hague: Mouton, 1957.
21. Chomsky N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. – Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1965.
22. Chomsky N. Remarks on nominalization // Readings in English
Transformational Grammar / ed. by R. Jacobs, P. Rosenbaum. –
Waltham, Mass.: Ginn, 1970.
23. Chomsky N. Language and Mind. – New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1972.
24. Chomsky N. Lectures on Government and Binding. – Dordrecht:
Foris, 1981.
25. Chomsky N. Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua
Lectures. – Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1988.
26. Chomsky N. Some notes on economy of derivation and
representation // MIT Working Papers in Linguistics. – Vol. 10. –
1989. – P. 43-47.
27. Collins COBUILD English Grammar / ed.-in-chief J. Sinclair. –
London: Collins, 1990.
28. Comrie B. Tense. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
29. Comrie B. Conditionals: A typology // On Conditionals / ed. by
E.Traugott, A. Mculen, J. Reilly, and Ch. Ferguson. – Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986. – P. 77-99.
30. Cook V. Chomsky’s Universal Grammar: An Introduction. – Oxford:
Blackwell, 1988.
31. Cook V. Universal Grammar and the learning and teaching of
second languages // Perspectives on Pedagogical Grammar / ed.
by T. Odlin. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. – P.
25-48.
32. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation / ed. by J. Sinclair. – Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1991.
33. Crystal D. Rediscover English Grammar. – London: Penguin Books,
1990.
34. Daneš F. Functional sentence perspective and the organization of
the text // Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective / ed. by
 403

F.Daneš. – The Hague: Mouton, 1974. – P. 106-128.

35. Daneš F. On Prague school functionalists in linguistics //
Functionalism in Linguistics / ed. by R. Dirven and V. Fried. –
Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987. – P. 3-37.
36. Davidse K. M. A. K. Halliday's functional grammar and the Prague
School // Functionalism in Linguistics / ed. by R. Dirven and
V.Fried. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987. – P. 39-79.
37. Devos F. Contrastive grammar: tenets and criteria // Papers and
Studies in Contrastive Linguistics / ed. J. Fisiak. – Poznań, 1995. –
Vol. 30. – P. 17-29.
38. Dijk van T. Some Aspects of Text Grammar: A Study in Theoretical
Linguistics and Poetics. – The Hague and Paris: Mouton, 1972.
39. Dik S.C. Some principles of functional grammar // Functionalism in
Linguistics / ed. by R. Dirven and V. Fried. – Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 1987. – P. 101-134.
40. Downing A., Locke P. A University Course in English Grammar. –
London: Prentice-Hall, 1992.
41. Fawcett P. Translation and Language. Linguistic Theories
Explained. – Manchester, UK: St. Jerome Publishing, 1997.
42. Fillmore Ch. The case for case // Universals in Linguistic Theory /
ed. by E. Bach, R.T. Harms. – New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston, 1968. – P. 1-88.
43. Firbas J. On the interplay of prosodic and non-prosodic means of
functional sentence perspective // The Prague School of Linguistics
and language Teaching / ed. by V. Fried. – London: Oxford
University Press, 1972.
44. Firbas J. Some aspects of the Czechoslovak approach to problems
of functional sentence perspective // Papers on Functional
Sentence perspective / ed. by F. Daneš. – The Hague: Mouton,
1974.
45. Firbas J. On the dynamics of written communication in the light of
the theory of functional sentence perspective // Studying Writing:
Linguistic Approaches / ed. by C.R. Cooper and S. Greenbaum. –
New York: Sage, 1986.
46. Firbas J. On two starting points of communication // Language
Topics: Essays in Honour of Michael Halliday / ed. by R. Steele and
T. Threadgold. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1987.
47. Firth J.R. Papers In Linguistics. – London: Longman, 1957.
48. Francis G., Sinclair J. ‘I bet he drinks Carling Black label’: a riposte
to Owen on corpus grammar // Applied Linguistics. – Vol. 15. – No.
2. – 1994. – P. 190-202.
49. Freidin R. Foundations of Generative Syntax. – Cambridge, Mass.:
MIT Press, 1992.
 404

50. Fromkin V., Rodman R. An Introduction to Langauge. – 5th ed. –

New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1993.
51. Galperin I.R. Stylistics. – Moscow: Higher School Publishing House,
1971.
52. Gazdar G., Klein E., Pullum G., Sag I. Generalized Phrase
Structure Grammar. – Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1985.
53. Givon T. English Grammar. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1993.
54. Greenberg J.H. Some universals of grammar with particular
reference to the order of meaningful elements // Universals of
Language / ed. J.H. Greenberg. – Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press,
1963. – P. 58-90.
55. Groot de A.W. Classification of Word-Groups // Английская
лексикология в выдержках и извлечениях. – Л.: Просвещение,
1975. – P. 63-72.
56. Halliday M.A.K. Lexis as a linguistic level // In Memory of J.R. Firth /
ed. by C.E. Bazell. – London: Longman, 1966. – P. 148-161.
57. Halliday, M. A. K. Theme and information in the English clause //
Halliday: System and Function in Language / ed. by G. Kress. –
London: Oxford University Press, 1976. – P. 174-188.
58. Halliday M.A.K. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. – London:
Edward Arnold, 1985.
59. Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R. Cohesion in English. London: Longman,
1976.
60. Harris Z.S. Co-occurrence and transformations in linguistic structure
// Language. – 1957. – Vol. 33. – No 3.
61. Harris Z.S. Methods in Structural Linguistics. – Chicago: University
of Chicago Press, 1961.
62. Hatch E. Discourse and Language Education. – Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
63. Horrocks G. Generative Grammar. – London: Longman, 1987.
64. Hubbard Ph. L. Non-transformational theories of grammar:
Implications for language teaching // Perspectives on Pedagogical
Grammar / ed. by T. Odlin. – Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994. – P. 49-71.
65. Huddleston R. English Grammar: An Outline. – Cambridge, Mass.:
Camridge University Press, 1988.
66. Hurford J. Grammar. A Student’s Guide. – Cambridge, Mass.:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
67. Hyams N. Language Acquisition and the Theory of Parameters. –
Dordrecht: Reidel, 1986.
68. Ilyish B. The Structure of Modern English. – Moscow and
Leningrad: Prosveshcheniye Publishers, 1965.
 405

69. Iofik L.L., Chakhoyan L.P. Readings in the Theory of English

Grammar. – Leningrad: Prosveshcheniye Publishers, 1972.
70. Irtenyeva N.F., Barsova O.M., Blokh M.Y., Shapkin A.P. A
Theoretical English Grammar. Syntax. – Moscow: Higher School
Publishing House, 1969.
71. Jackson H. Discovering Grammar. – London: Pergamon, 1985.
72. Jacobs R. English Syntax. – Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
73. Jensen J.T. Morphology. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990.
74. Jespersen O. The philosophy of Grammar. – London, 1968.
75. Keyser J., Roeper Th. On the middle and ergative constructions in
English // Linguistic Inquiry. – Vol. 15. – 1984. – P. 381-416.
76. Khaimovich B.S., Rogovskaya B.I. A Course of English Grammar. –
Moscow: Higher School Publishing House, 1967.
77. Khlebnikova I.B. Essentials of English Morphology. – Moscow:
Higher School Publishing House, 1994.
78. Kobrina N.A., Korneyeva E.A., Ossovskaya M.I., Guzeyeva K.A. An
English Grammar. Morphology. – Moscow: Prosveshcheniye
Publishers, 1985.
79. Kobrina N.A., Korneyeva E.A., Ossovskaya M.I., Guzeyeva K.A. An
English Grammar. Syntax. – Moscow: Prosveshcheniye Publishers,
1986.
80. Korunets’ I.V. Contrastive Typology of the English and Ukrainian
Languages. – 2nd ed. – Vinnytsia: Nova Knyha Publishers, 2003.
81. Langacker R. The form and meaning of the English auxiliary //
Language. – Vol. 54. – 1978. – P. 853-882.
82. Langacker R. An overview of Cognitive Grammar // Topics in
Cognitive Linguistics / ed. by B. Rudzka-Ostyn. – Amsterdam: John
Benjamins, 1988.
83. Langacker R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. I:
Theoretical Preliminaries. – Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1988.
84. Langacker R.W. Concept, Image, and Symbol: the Cognitive Basis
of Grammar. – Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1990.
85. Langacker R.W. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. II:
Descriptive Application. – Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1991.
86. Leech G. Meaning and the English Verb. – 2nd ed. – London and
New York: Longman, 1987.
87. Leech G., Svartvik J. A Communicative Grammar of English. – 2 nd
ed. – London and New York: Longman, 1994.
88. Levin B. English Verb Classes and Alternations. – Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1993.
89. Levin L. Operations on Lexical Forms: Unaccusative Rules in
 406

Germanic Languages. – New York: Garland, 1988.

90. Levinson S.C. Pragmatics. – 2nd ed. – Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1985.
91. Lewis M. The English Verb: An Exploration of Structure and
Meaning. Hove, U.K.: Language Teaching Publications, 1986.
92. Lewis M. Implementing the Lexical Approach. – Hove, U.K.:
Language Teaching Publications, 1997.
93. Liefrink F. Semantico-Syntax. – London: Longman, 1973.
94. Little D. Words and their properties: Arguments for a lexical
approach to pedagogical grammar // Perspectives on Pedagogical
Grammar / ed. T. Odlin. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994. – P. 99-122.
95. MacAndrew R. English Observed. – Hove, UK: Language Teaching
Publications, 1991.
96. Matthews P.H. Syntax. – Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University
Press, 1981.
97. Matthews P.H. Morphology. – Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge
University Press, 1991.
98. Morenberg M. Doing Grammar. – Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1991.
99. Morokhovska E.J. Fundamentals of English Grammar. Theory and
Practice. – 2nd ed. – Kyiv: Vyšća Škola, 1993.
100.Owen Ch. Corpus-based grammar and the Heineken effect: lexico-
grammatical description for language learners // Applied Linguistics.
– Vol. 14. – No. 2. – 1993. – P. 169-186.
101.Palmer F.R. Grammar. – London: Penguin Books, 1983.
102. Palmer F.R. Modality and the English Modals. – 2nd ed. – London:
Longman, 1990.
103. Palmer F.R. Semantics // Хрестоматия по английской
филологии / Сост. О. В. Александрова. – М.: Высш. шк., 1991.
– С. 81-98.
104. Palmer F.R. Grammatical Roles and Relations. – Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994.
105. Perlmutter D. Impersonal passives and the unaccusative
hypothesis // Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting. – Berkeley
Linguistics Society. – 1978. – P. 157-189.
106. Perlmutter D. Studies in Relational Grammar 1. – Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1983.
107. Perlmutter D., Postal P. Toward a universal characterization of
passivization // Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the
Berkley Linguistic Society. – Berkley, Calif.: University of California
Press, 1977.
108. Pinker S. The Language Instinct. – 2nd ed. – London: Penguin
 407

Books, 1995.
109. Pollard C., Sag I. Information-Based Syntax and Semantics. Vol. I:
Fundamentals. – Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Center for the
Study of Langauge and Information, 1987.
110. Pollock J. Verb movement, UG, and the structure of IP // Linguistic
Inquiry. – Vol. 20. – 1989. – P. 365-424.
111. Poluzhyn M.M. Lecture Notes on Historiography of Linguistics. –
Vinnytsia: Foliant Publishers, 2004.
112. Quirk R. The Use of English // Хрестоматия по английской
филологии / Сост. О. В. Александрова. – М.: Высш. шк., 1991.
– С. 192-195.
113. Quirk R. Grammatical and Lexical Variation in English. – London
and New York: Longman, 1995.
114. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A University
Grammar of English. – Moscow: Vysšaja Škola, 1982.
115. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A Comprehensive
Grammar of the English Language. – London and New York:
Longman, 1985.
116. Quirk R., Stein G. English in Use. – London: Longman, 1990.
117. Radford A. Transformational Syntax. – Cambridge, Mass.:
Cambridge University Press, 1988.
118. Rayevska N.M. Present-Day English Syntax. – Kyiv: Vyšća Škola
Publishers, 1970.
119. Rayevska N.M. Modern English Grammar. – Kyiv: Vyšća Škola
Publishers, 1976.
120. Riemsdijk H. van, Williams E. An Introduction to the Theory of
Grammar. – Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1986.
121. Sampson G. Schools of Linguistics. – Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press, 1980.
122. Sells P. Lectures on Contemporary Syntactic Theories: An
Introduction to Government-Binding Theory, Generalized Phrase
Structure Grammar, and Lexical-Functional Grammar. – Stanford,
Calif.: Stanford University Center for the Study of Language and
Information, 1985.
123. Sinclair J.M. Collocation // Language Topics / eds. R. Steele and T.
Threadgold. – Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1988. – P. 321-334.
124. Sinclair J.M. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. – Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1991.
125. Solntsev V.M. Language: a System and a Structure. – Moscow:
Nauka Publishing House, 1983.
126. Starikova O.M., Alova N.P. Seminars in Theoretical Grammar. –
Kyiv: Vyšća Škola Publishers, 1980.
127. Starikova E.N., Rayevskaya N.N., Medvedeva L.M. Readings in
 408

Linguistics: Aspects of the Theory of Grammar. – Kiev: Vyšća Škola

Publishers, 1984.
128. Starikova E.N., Rayevskaya N.N., Medvedeva L.M. Readings in
Linguistics: Problems of Word-Formation. Text linguistics. – Kiev:
Vyšća Škola Publishers, 1985.
129. Studies in Relational Grammar 2 / ed. by D. Perlmutter, C. Rosen.
– Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
130. Stuurman F. Generative grammar and descriptive grammar:
beyond juxtaposition? // Reference Grammars and Modern
Linguistic Theory / ed. by G. Graustein, G. Leitner. – Tubingen:
Niemeyer, 1989. – P. 229-254.
131. Sukhorolska S.M., Fedorenko O.I. Methods of Linguistic Analysis.
– Lviv: Lviv Ivan Franko National University Publishing Center,
2006.
132. Tomlin R.S. Functional Grammars, Pedagogical Grammars, and
Communicative Language Teaching // Perspectives on Pedagogical
Grammar / ed. T. Odlin. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1994. – P. 140-178.
133. Ungerer F., Meier G., Schafer K., Lechler Sh. A Grammar of
Present-Day English. – Stuttgart: Klett van Baalen, Teus, 1984.
134. Ungerer F., Schmid H.J. An Introduction to Сognitive Linguistics. –
Harlow: Longman, 1996.
135. Wekker H., Haegeman L. A Modern Course in English Syntax. –
New York: Croom Helm, 1985.
136. Westney P. Rules and pedagogical grammar // Perspectives on
Pedagogical Grammar / ed. T. Odlin. – Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1994. – P. 72-96.
137. Wilkins D. Linguistics in Language Teaching. – London: Edward
Arnold, 1972.
138. Woods E.G., McLeod N.J. Using English Grammar: Meaning and
Form. – New York: Prentice Hall, 1990.
139. Wray A. Formulaic sequences in second language teaching:
principle and practice // Applied Linguistics. – Vol. 21. – No. 4. –
2000. – P. 463-489.
140. Yule G. The Study of Language. – 2nd ed. – Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1996.
141. Алефиренко Н.Ф. Современные проблемы науки о языке. – М.:
Флинта: Наука, 2005.
142. Аракин В.Д. О лексической сочетаемости // К проблеме
лексической сочетаемости. – М., 1972. – С. 5-12.
143. Арутюнова Н.Д. Предложение и его смысл. – М.: Наука, 1976.
144. Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого предложения
 409

современного английского языка. – М.: Наука, 1966.

145. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного
английского языка. – М.: Наука, 1975.
146. Бархударов Л.С., Штелинг Д.А. Грамматика английского
языка. – М.: Наука, 1973.
147. Бондарко А.В. Грамматическая категория и контекст. – Л.:
Просвещение, 1971.
148. Бондарко А.В. Теория морфологических категорий. – Л.,
Просвещение, 1976.
149. Булатецька Л.І. Теорія і теоретизація у лінгвістиці. –
Вінниця: Нова книга, 2004.
150. Бурлакова В.В. Синтаксические структуры современного
английского языка. – М.: Просвещение, 1984.
151. Введение в сравнительную типологию английского, русского
и украинского языков / К.К. Швачко, П.В. Тереньтьев, Т.Г.
Янукян, С.А. Швачко. – К.: Вища школа, 1977.
152. Вейхман Г.А. Новое в английской грамматике. – М.: Высшая
школа, 1990.
153. Воронцова Г.Н. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. –
М.: Изд-во лит. на иностр. яз., 1960.
154. Данеш Ф., Гаузенблас К. Проблематика уровней с точки
зрения структуры высказывания и системы языковых
средств // Единицы разных уровней грамматического строя
языка и их взаимодействие. – М., 1969.
155. Жигадло В.Н., Иванова И.П., Иофик Л.Л. Современный
английский язык. – М.: Изд-во лит. на иностр. яз., 1965.
156. Жлуктенко Ю.О. Порівняльна граматика англійської та
української мов. Посібник для вчителів. – К.: Радянська школа,
1960.
157. Иванова И.П. Вид и время в современном английском языке. –
Л.: Просвещение, 1961.
158. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая
грамматика современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая
школа, 1981.
159. Иртеньева Н.Ф. Грамматика современного английского
языка: (Теоретический курс). – М.: Высшая школа, 1956.
160. Кулдашев А. Семантика и функционирование пассивной
структуры ‘get + причастие’ в современном английском
языке: Автореф. … канд. филол. наук. – М., 1987.
161. Лешка О. Иерархия ярусов строя языка и их перекрывание //
Единицы разных уровней грамматического строя языка и их
взаимодействие. – М., 1969.
162. Медведева Л.М. Части речи и залог. – К.: Вища школа, 1983.
 410

163. Михайленко В.В. Парадигма імператива (на прикладі

давньоанглійської мови). – Чернівці: Рута, 2001.
164. Нариси з контрастивної лінгвістики. Зб. наук. праць / Відп.
ред. Ю.О. Жлуктенко. – К.: Наукова думка, 1979.
165. Огоновська О.В. Дієслівне заміщення в англійській мові. –
Львів: Світ, 1991.
166. Орлов Г.А. Современная английская речь. Особенности
синтаксиса: Уровень дискурса. – М.: Наука, 1991.
167. Падучева Е.В. О семантике синтаксиса. – М.: Наука, 1974.
168. Петрик Т.В. Синтагматика та парадигматика ергативних
дієслів у сучасній англійській мові: Автореф. ... канд. філол.
наук. – Львів, 2001.
169. Плоткин В.Я. Строй английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа,
1989.
170. Полюжин М.М. Диахронно-семантический аспект
префиксаль-ного словообразования в английском языке. – М.:
Институт языкознания РАН, 1992.
171. Порівняльні дослідження з граматики анлійської, української,
російської мов / Відп. ред. Ю.О. Жлуктенко. – К.: Наукова
думка, 1981.
172. Почепцов Г.Г. Конструктивный анализ структуры
предложения. – К.: Вища школа, 1971.
173. Сазонова Н.М. Предикативные структуры в современном
английском языке. – К.: Радянська школа, 1969.
174. Слюсарева Н.А. Проблемы функционального синтаксиса
современного английского языка. – М.: Наука, 1981.
175. Слюсарева Н.А. Проблемы функциональной морфологии
современного английского языка. – М.: Наука, 1986.
176. Смирницкий А.И. Синтаксис английского языка. – М.: Изд-во
лит. на иностр. яз., 1957.
177. Смирницкий А.И. Морфология английского языка. – М.: Изд-во
лит. на иностр. яз., 1959.
178. Соляник Н.П. Глубинно-падежный подход к исследованию
семантико-синтаксической структуры предложения //
Методы исследования семантико-синтаксической
структуры предложе-ния английского языка. – М., 1985. – С.
24-28.
179. Спорные вопросы английской грамматики / Зернов Б.Е.,
Варшавская А.Ш., Чахоян Л.П. и др; Отв. ред. В.В. Бурлакова.
– Л.: Изд-во Ленингр. ун-та, 1988.
180. Старикова Е.Н. Проблемы семантического синтасиса. – К.:
Высшая школа, 1985.
181. Степанов Ю.С. Имена, предикаты, предложения: Семиоло-
 411

гическая грамматика. – М.: Наука, 1981.

182. Структурный синтаксис английского языка / ред. Л.Л.
Иофик. – Ленинград: Изд-во Ленингр. Ун-та, 1972.
183. Сухорольская С.М. Аналитические лексические единицы в
современном английском языке (на материале
двухсоставных глагольных аналитических единиц типа let
go, make believe, get rid): Автореф. дисс. … канд. филол. наук.
– Киев, 1989.
184. Сухорольська С.М. Статус двокомпонентних дієслів типу let
go, make believe // Іноземна філологія. – 1983. – Вип. 71.
185. Сухорольська С.М. Аналітичне дієслово як прояв основної
типологічної тенденції англійської мови // Іноземна філологія.
– 1984. – Вип. 75. – С. 32-40.
186. Сухорольська С.М. Критерії ідентифікації аналітичних
лексичних одиниць // Іноземна філологія. – 1987. – Вип. 86.
187. Сухорольська С.М. До питання про слово у мовах
аналітичного типу // Іноземна філологія. – 1991. – Вип. 101. –
С. 18-25.
188. Татаровська О.В. Імпліцитне заперечення в сучасній
англійській мові // Філологічні студії. – Луцьк, 2004. – Вип. 4. –
С. 230-238.
189. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / Балашова
С.П., Бродович О.И. и др.; Отв. ред. В.В. Бурлакова. – Л.: Изд-
во Ленингр. ун-та, 1983.
190. Теплий І.М. Дієслівна репрезентація в англійській мові
(діахронічний та прагматичний аспекти): Автореф. дис. …
канд. філол. наук. – Київ, 1992.
191. Федоренко О.І. Лексична сполучуваність компонентів сталих
дієслівно-субстантивних виразів типу to give a smile, to have a
look, to make a suggestion у сучасній англійській мові: Дис. …
канд. філол. наук. – Львів, 2004.
192. Шевякова В.Е. Современный английский язык: Порядок слов,
актуальное членение, интонация. – М.: Наука, 1980.
193. Шпак О.А. Совмещение как проявление принципа речевой
экономии на уровне предложения в современном английском
языке: Автореф. дисс. … канд. филол. наук. – Киев, 1990.
194. Щур Г.С. Теория поля в лингвистике. – М.: Наука, 1974.
195. Ярцева В.Н. Контрастивная грамматика. – М.: Наука, 1981.

DICTIONARIES
1. Crystal D. A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics. – 3 rd ed. –
London: Blackwell, 1991.
 412

2. Crystal D. An Encyclopedic Dictionary of Language and

Languages. – London: Penguin Books, 1994.
3. Benson M., Benson E., Ilson R. The BBI Combinatory Dictionary of
English. – Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1990. (CDE)
4. Collins COBUILD English Langauge Dictionary. – London: Harper
Collins, 1987.
5. Random House Webster’s Unabridged Electronic Dictionary. –
Novell, Inc. 1996, 1995, 1994 (RHWUEL)
6. The Oxford Companion to the English Language / ed. by
T.McArthur. – Oxford: Oxford Univesity Press, 1992.
7. Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь / Под ред.
В.Н.Ярцевой. – М.: Сов. Энцикл., 1990.
8. Штерн І.Б. Вибрані топіки та лексикон сучасної лінгвістики.
Енцикл. словник для фахівців з теоретич. гуманіт. дисциплін
та гуманіт. інф-ки. – К.: АртЕк, 1998.