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

ЛЬВІВ
Видавничий центр Львівського національного університету
імені Івана Франка
2008
 3

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

LVIV
Lviv Ivan Franko National University Publishing Center
2008
 4

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.

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.
 5

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 ……..............................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
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
 6

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
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
 7

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 …………...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
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
 8

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

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
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
 9

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

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
 10

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 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
 11

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”.
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
 12

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 (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,
 13

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 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 'language') and
 14

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 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.
 15

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].
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
 16

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 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 (according 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 for are valid in any
 17

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.
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.
 18

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.
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
 19

[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 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.
 20

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.
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 communicates nothing.
 21

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 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
 22

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 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].
 23

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 phenomena 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.
Level Language Speech
syntactical structural pattern of the sentence concrete utterance
structural pattern of the phrase concrete phrase
lexical lexeme allolexeme or allolex
(lexico-semantic variant)
morphological grammeme allogrammeme (word-form)
morpheme allomorph
phonological phoneme allophone

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 language units:
they can be produced in speech (being built to suit a particular
momentary need), whereas language units are reproduced as ready-
 24

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. 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.
 25

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. 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 relations
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
 26

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 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
 27

____________________________________

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 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
 28

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 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
 29

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 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.
 30

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 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
 31

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 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
 32

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.
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
 33

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 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.
 34

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
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).
 35

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.
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
 36

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 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].
 37

Unit 3
____________________________________

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 grammars of
English were based on Latin grammar. They reproduced the Latin
 38

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.
Present tense, First person, singular I love amo
active voice Second person, singular you love amas
Third person, singular he loves amat
First person, plural we love amamus
Second person, plural you love amatis
Third person, plural they love amant
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. 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
 39

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 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
 40

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

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-
 41

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 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
 42

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, 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 inte-
resting 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.
 43

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 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
 44

existed. W. Jones announced clearly the relationship between three

of the great languages of 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 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
 45

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 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.
 46

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
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,
 47

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).
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
 48

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 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
 49

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 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
 50

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 vocabulary 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 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!
 51

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 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,
 52

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 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 (distributional 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
 53

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 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 environment. 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,
 54

child, etc. Consequently, we can suggest that because all of these

forms fit in the same test-frame, they are 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].
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
 55

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

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].
 56

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), 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]
 57

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
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

 58

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. 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
 59

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 (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]:
 60

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 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 mathematics. 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
 61

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 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.
 62

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.
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
 63

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 supplemented by new, more
powerful devices called transformations.
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
 64

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 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
 65

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 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
 66

actual performance, i.e. the actual use 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 noun
phrase immediately dominated by the sentence and the direct object
 67

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, 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
 68

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 (V en), 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 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).
 69

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 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:
 70

• 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 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.
 71

• embedding, accompanied by introducing a conjunctive: 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 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)
 72

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 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
 73

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 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
 74

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 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].
 75

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.

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.
 76

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
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.
 77

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.
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.
 78

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 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
 79

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.
The fundamental functionalist assumption is that language is
communication and that linguistic form serves communicative
functions. Language develops within human individuals 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].
 80

Second, there is the Functional Grammar of Simon Dik 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)
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’
 81

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.
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
 82

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 information 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.
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
 83

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.

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).
 84

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 construals of the same event.
The sentences differ in meaning because they employ subtly
different images to structure the same conceived situation. 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 configuration that
results when the walrus completes its trajectory, namely that which
finds it in Joyce's possession [Булатецька, 2004: 54].
 85

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 unnatural. 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 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
 86

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 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
 87

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 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).
 88

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 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.
 89

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 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.
 90

Unit 4
____________________________________

PARADIGMATIC AND SYNTAGMATIC

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
 91

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 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.
 92

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 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.
 93

6. Processes of intonational arrangement, i.e. application 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.
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 functional 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 characteristic 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.
 94

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.
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
 95

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 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.
 96

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 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
 97

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 constructional syntagmatic relations.
Configurational relations are found between the parts of
accumulative groupings of syntagmatically distributed elements
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.
 98

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.
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.
 99

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 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.
 100

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 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.
 101

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).
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 represent
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 principle. Gender of nouns
 102

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 category. 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 groupings. They
comprise lexical and grammatical devices of expressing the same
invariant conceptual content which are defined as components of the
field: lexical, morphological, syntactical. 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
 103

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
(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.
 104

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 —
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:
 105

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 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.
 106

Passive meaning is actualized in constructions with the verbs

get, take, achieve, attain, claim, demand, deserve, earn, 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)
 107

or, less frequently, a transitive verb (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.
Peripheral elements of the aspect field are:
2. Patterns will/would + Infinitive, used to + Infinitive, keep +
Gerund expressing the iterative (frequentative) character of the
 108

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).
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.
 109

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.
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.
 110

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 aspectual
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 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).
 111

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 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
 112

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 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
 113

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 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).
 114

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 (declarative,
interrogative, imperative) is characterized by the tendency of
functional transposition in relation to the other communicative 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?
 115

Transposition of nouns into adjectives where they render 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 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.
 116

Illustrative cases of the internal transposition of 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); 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.
 117

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.
plane of content [ substance: human thoughts
language form: meanings, lexical and grammatical

plane of expression [ substance: sounds, letters, etc.

 118

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 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
 119

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.
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.
 120

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 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
 121

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 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.
 122

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 grammatical 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:

primary
meaning

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.
 123

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 transposition of
grammatical forms leading to variation in their meaning in different
contexts, linguistic or situational.
Contextual variation of component grammatical meanings 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:
 124

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 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,
 125

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 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
 126

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 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.
 127

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.
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 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.
 128

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 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.
 129

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) 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
 130

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 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].
 131

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 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.
 132

There are word-morphemes of lexical and of grammatical

relevance. Lexical word-morphemes may change 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].
 133

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 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
 134

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 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.
 135

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 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 combined with roots.
 136

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 pronominal 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 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
 137

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 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.
 138

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 primarily.
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 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,
 139

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 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
 140

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 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-European languages
and developed into the traditional lexico-morphological principle of
 141

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)
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.
 142

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 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).
 143

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 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,
 144

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 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
subcategorized into qualitative and relative. Adverbs, numerals,
pronouns are also subject to the corresponding subcategorization.
 145

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. 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
 146

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, 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
 147

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 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.
 148

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).
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,
 149

-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 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.
 150

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.
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
 151

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).

Unit 10
____________________________________

THE NOUN
____________________________________

10.1. Part of speech characteristics of the noun

 152

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.
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.
 153

Number Singular Plural

Case
Common boy boys
Possessive (genitive) boy’s boys’
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-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.
 154

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 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 uncountable, 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
 155

with the idea of 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, 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.
 156

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 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.
 157

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 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,
 158

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 classified 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).
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
 159

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 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
 160

-'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. 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
 161

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 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
 162

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 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
 163

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 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
 164

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 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,
 165

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), 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
____________________________________

THE PRONOUN
 166

____________________________________

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 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.
 167

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 (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
 168

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 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
 169

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 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.
 170

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.
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
 171

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 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!
 172

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 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
 173

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
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
 174

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 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, everything) give a
generalizing indication of persons, things, properties, and
circumstances. This group includes pro-nouns (all, both, each, either,
 175

everybody, everyone, everything), pro-adjectives and pro-numerals

(every, each, all, both, either), pro-adverbs (everywhere).
Unlike the indefinite and negative pronouns, the generalizing
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).
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 pro-
nouns, 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 opposite one's
and is correlated with the reflexive pronoun oneself. In certain
sentences, it may acquire the generalizing meaning of ‘everyone’
 176

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.
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
 177

Pronouns possess deictic ability and power. Deixis as a

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 other people by name (Mister Yamaha)
or role title (Teacher) rather than with a pronoun (you or he).
 178

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].
Discourse deixis has to do with keeping track of reference
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 following chapter, Illustrated in the
following passages, In the above figure, On page 23, pointers such
 179

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 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
 180

____________________________________

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.
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.
 181

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 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
 182

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, 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.
 183

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 advanced in years, it just shows that he has the
highest degree of 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
 184

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 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,
 185

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 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
 186

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.
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.
 187

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 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.
 188

Unit 13
____________________________________

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 peculiar
phrasal formations at least, at most, at last, to and fro, now and then,
 189

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).
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
 190

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, 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
 191

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, 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)
 192

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 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).
 193

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 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 conversion,
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.
 194

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 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
 195

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!
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.
 196

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: 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.
 197

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 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.
 198

On the basis of the subject-process relation, all 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.
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
 199

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 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
 200

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 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 immediate 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
 201

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
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
 202

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 connotations. 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, 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.
 203

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.
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 general 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.
 204

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, 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).
 205

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 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 sundial 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
 206

the inherent character of the process performed by the verb, they do

not, and cannot, denote the timing of the process.
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. Their use in the Continuous aspect is to some extent
optional because of its redundancy.
 207

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 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.
 208

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 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.
 209

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 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.
 210

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 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).
 211

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 category as such, which was a misconception.
Some linguists speak of the heterogeneity of the perfect
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
 212

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.
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.
 213

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 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.
 214

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 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 or what the agent is (She
found that she wasn't being paid the same wage as him); because
 215

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, 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
 216

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 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.
 217

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 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
 218

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 affecting 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 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
 219

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 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.
 220

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 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 grammati-
cally. 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
 221

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 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,
 222

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 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 is evident
 223

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 intellectual and social activity or state, emotions (feel, like,
ascribe, depend, resemble, diminish, prefer, manage).
 224

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-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
 225

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 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
 226

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 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:
 227

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 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.
 228

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.

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.
 229

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 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 obliterated 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
 230

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 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.
 231

Unit 15
____________________________________

NON-FINITE FORMS OF THE VERB

____________________________________

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

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
 232

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.
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.
 233

15.2. The infinitive

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 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
 234

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 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.
 235

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.
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).
 236

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).
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
 237

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 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
 238

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 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 —
 239

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, 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
 240

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 (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.
 241

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 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 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
 242

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) 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).
 243

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.
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).
 244

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 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 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.
 245

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.
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.
 246

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 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.
 247

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 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).
 248

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. 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.
 249

As to the expression of sense, coordinate word-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; 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).
 250

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: agreement,
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 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 langauges where it is restricted to verb-adverb relations
 251

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.
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
 252

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 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.
 253

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 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
 254

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 events
mentioned in the sentence are correlated in time. This correlation is
fixed in English and other languages grammatically 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 correlation 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.
 255

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.

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
 256

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 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
 257

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
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 statements 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?
Word order in a pronominal question is characterized by
inversion of the operator and the subject. Inversion does not take
 258

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 revealed
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 textbooks. Be
quick! Besides commands proper, imperative sentences may express
request (Help me!), invitation (Have a drink with me tonight), warning
 259

(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 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
 260

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 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
 261

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. 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.
 262

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

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
 263

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: 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
 264

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?
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
 265

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 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!
 266

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
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
 267

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 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
 268

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 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 expression (be able, be
 269

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), 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).
 270

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.
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).
 271

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 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.
 272

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; 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:
 273

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 characterizes
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 detached.
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.
 274

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.
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.
 275

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 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.
 276

From the point of view of their connection with the headword,

adverbials are divided into non-detached and detached.
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 possible to consult
etiquette handbooks to find out how to address people of rank in the
 277

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.
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.
 278

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: = 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
 279

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 syntactical 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 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.
 280

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 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
 281

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 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
 282

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. 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
 283

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.

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.
 284

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 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.
 285

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.
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 independent.
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
 286

[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.
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:
 287

copulative, adversative, disjunctive, and causative-consecutive,

expressed not only by means of 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 simultaneous 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 laughed.
A but-clause often contains an unexpected or contradictory
consequence. It may also give the reason for which the expected
 288

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 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.
 289

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 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
 290

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 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
 291

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 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
 292

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 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 comparison: 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).
 293

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.
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.
 294

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.
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
 295

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.
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 particular
shade of meaning to the temporal relation — priority, simultaneity,
 296

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 (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:
 297

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 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
 298

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 con versation 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 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 over-
 299

lapping 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 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?
 300

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 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

 301

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 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.
 302

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 (complex 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 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.
 303

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
 304

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 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
 305

(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 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.
 306

The second cause is that, apart from being economical, the

sentence with secondary predication fulfills its own purely 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 construction is
primarily caused by the formal variation of the verbal constituent (i.e.
 307

its time correlation, aspect, voice forms). As a 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, believe,
know, find, expect, imagine, understand): He considered himself to
be a leader. He believed Jennie to be playing in the yard.
 308

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 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
 309

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:
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.
 310

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 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.
 311

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 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,
 312

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.
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.
 313

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
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
 314

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, 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,
 315

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 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:
 316

1. If it denotes a lifeless thing (such nouns have no case

distinctions): I said something about my clock being slow.
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 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
 317

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 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
 318

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.
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).
 319

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.
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.
 320

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 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.
 321

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 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,
 322

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 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 reduction 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.
 323

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 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
 324

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 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
 325

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, 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
 326

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 (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.
 327

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.
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.
 328

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 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
 329

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 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
 330

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.
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
 331

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).

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.
 332

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.
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
 333

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 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
 334

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). — 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) —
 335

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 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].
One of the main differences between the Hallidayan and
other approaches is that M. Halliday has always insisted that, at least
 336

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 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
 337

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 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
 338

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.

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
 339

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 structured 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 sentence 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 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
 340

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, 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
 341

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 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.
 342

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 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
 343

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 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
 344

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 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
 345

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-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
 346

qualifying and quantifying: You are old and wrinkled and 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
____________________________________

24.1. The notion of supersyntactical unit

 347

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 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.
 348

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, complex
syntactical unity, supra-phrasal unity, suprasentential or supraphrasal
unit, supra-phrasal construction, as it is sometimes 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
 349

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 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.
 350

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 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].
 351

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-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
 352

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 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).
 353

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 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:
 354

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 subordination 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.
 355

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, 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.
 356

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 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.
 357

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) 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.
 358

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 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 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.
 359

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 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.
 360

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
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.
 361

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
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
 362

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.
50. Fromkin V., Rodman R. An Introduction to Langauge. – 5 th 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.
 363

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.
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.
 364

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. – 2 nd 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
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. – 2 nd ed. – London:
Longman, 1990.
103. Palmer F.R. Semantics // Хрестоматия по английской филологии
/ Сост. О. В. Александрова. – М.: Высш. шк., 1991. – С. 81-98.
 365

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
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.
 366

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
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.
 367

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
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.
 368

162. Медведева Л.М. Части речи и залог. – К.: Вища школа, 1983.
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-
гическая грамматика. – М.: Наука, 1981.
182. Структурный синтаксис английского языка / ред. Л.Л. Иофик. –
Ленинград: Изд-во Ленингр. Ун-та, 1972.
 369

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.
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)
 370

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.