Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 80

1.

The three constituent parts of language: the phonological system, the lexical system and the
grammatical system. Phonology, lexicology and grammar as three main branches of
linguistics.
Language as a very complex phenomenon includes three different constituent parts: the
phonological system, the lexical system, thee grammatical system.
By the grammatical system of a language, we understand the whole set of regularities
determining the combination of the naming means (words and phraseological word
combinations) for the formation of utterances in speech. Language as a whole is the object of
study for Linguistics (General, Comparative, Historical, Cognitive, etc.). Different constituent
parts of the language are studied by different branches of Linguistics. (The phonological system
phonology; the lexical system lexicology; the grammatical system grammar.) Grammar
may be subdivided into 2 subbranches: Morphology and Syntax.
Morphology (M. Blokh) is the grammatical study of the word in its abstract sense.
Syntax (M. Blokh) is the grammatical study of the sentence. It deals with the structure of the
sentence on the whole and with different constituent parts of the sentence in particular. As for
practical and theoretical approaches in Grammar Studies, they are both considered linguistics
disciplines that go hand in hand and deal with grammar as a branch of Linguistics. Their aims
and approaches however vary. The aim of study in Theoretical Grammar is to enquire a scientific
conception of the object (which is presented as Grammatical System) in accordance with the
principals of both traditional and modern Linguistics. The aim of study in Practical Grammar is
to get an ability to use certain knowledge about grammatical system of a language in order to
speak, understand and write according to the established rules of the language in question.
Different aims mean different methods of study.
Lexicology is the part of linguistics dealing with the vocabulary of the language and the properties of words as the main units of language. The term vabu1ar is used to denote the system
formed by the sum total of all the words and word equivalents that the language possesses.
Phonology is a branch of linguistics. Phonology as a branch of linguistics that studies the
vocalization process and speech.

The concept of multilevel organization of language structure. Different branches of


linguistics corresponding to the different levels of language structure.

Classification of Linguistics disciplines in connection with the concept of multi-level


organization of language structure was originated in the 50th of the XX century. According to this
concept, the language structure is looked upon as a complex, consisting of several levels/layers.
Different levels of the language structure are established according to the properties of the
Linguistics units operating in speech. Some scholars point out four basic linguistic units
operating in speech: the phoneme, the morpheme, the word/the lexeme, the sentence.
The Phoneme is the smallest distinctive unit.
The Morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit.
The Word is the smallest naming unit.
The Sentence is the smallest communication unit.
Accordingly this, scholars speak of four levels:
The level of the phoneme/the phonological level (studied by phonology)
The level of the morpheme/the morphemic level (part of the morphology/morphological studies)
The level of the word/the morphological level (morphology)
The level of the sentence/the syntactic level (syntax)
Thus we have three branches: Phonology, Morphology and Syntax. As for the level of the
word the latter can be taken:
As an item of the vocabulary, and thus it is excluded from grammatical studies.
As a matter of the language structure and hence it becomes the property of the morphological
level.
According to this approach Morphology and Syntax are 2 different branches of Linguistics,
studying the units of different levels of the language structure though they are closely connected.
There is also an opinion according to which there are 6 levels of the language structure:
The phonological level (Phonology)
The morphemic level (Morphological Studies)
The morphological level (Morphology)
The phrasemic level/the level of the phrase (*the Syntax of the phrase; *Morphology)
The syntactic level (Syntax)
The level of sentence groups (Supra-Syntax)
*Nowadays there are 8 levels: - the level of the text studied by the textology or text
interpretation;
- the level of the discourse (Cognitive grammar)
Ferdinand de Saussure was also among the first scholars who defined lingual units as specific
signs - bilateral (two-sided) units that have both form and meaning.
The units of language are of two types: segmental and supra-segmental.
Segmental lingual units consist of phonemes, which are the smallest material segments of the
language; segmental units form different strings of phonemes (morphemes, words, sentences,
etc.).
Supra-segmental lingual units do not exist by themselves, their forms are realized together
with the forms of segmental units;
Morphology and syntax as branches of grammar corresponding to two adjoining levels of
language structure. Their interrelationship and boundary lines between them.
The system of word forms is the sphere of morphology that different words and their forms
dont exist for their own sake. They are produced in speech in the process of making sentences

and for this the word must assume a certain grammatical form and take a certain position in the
sentence. The position is the sphere of Syntax. At the same time the member of the sentence
(the level of sentence) is constituted by a certain part of speech (level of morphology). The
structure classification and combinability of the words is the object of Morphology. Syntax
deals with the structure classification and combinability of sentences which are built up of
words and their equivalents. (Phraseological units have the metaphors and wide vivid images.
/ ()).
In linguistics, morphology is the identification, analysis and description of the structure of
morphemes and other units of meaning in a language like words, affixes, and parts of speech and
intonation/stress, implied context.
Morphological typology represents a way of classifying languages according to the ways by
which morphemes are used in a language from the analytic that use only isolated morphemes,
through the agglutinative ("stuck-together") and fusional languages that use bound morphemes
(affixes), up to the polysynthetic, which compress lots of separate morphemes into single words.
Fundamental concepts
The distinction between these two senses of "word" is arguably the most important one in
morphology. The first sense of "word", the one in which dog and dogs are "the same word", is
called a lexeme. The second sense is called word form. We thus say that dog and dogs are
different forms of the same lexeme. Dog and dog catcher, on the other hand, are different
lexemes, as they refer to two different kinds of entities.
Inflection vs. word formation
Given the notion of a lexeme, it is possible to distinguish two kinds of morphological rules.
Rules of the first kind are called inflectional rules, while those of the second kind are called word
formation. The English plural, as illustrated by dog and dogs, is an inflectional rule; compounds
like dog catcher or dishwasher provide an example of a word formation rule.
There is a further distinction between two kinds of word formation: derivation and
compounding.
Compounding is a process of word formation that involves combining complete word forms into
a single compound form; dog catcher is therefore a compound.
Derivation involves affixing bound (non-independent) forms to existing lexemes, whereby the
addition of the affix derives a new lexeme.
In linguistics, syntax is the study of the principles and rules for constructing sentences in natural
languages.
The Sentence is the basic unit of syntax. It is different from other language units because it is a
unit of communication.
The main units of syntax are phrases and sentences.
The main difference between the phrase and the sentence is in their linguistic function. The
phrase is a nominative unit, the sentence is a predicative one.
Nomination is naming things and their relations. A nominative unit simply names something
known to everybody or a majority of native language speakers, recalling it from their memory,
e.g.: a book, a departure. A phrase represents an object of nomination as a complicated
phenomenon, be it a thing, an action, a quality or a whole situation, e.g.: an interesting book, to
start with a jerk, absolutely fantastic, his unexpected departure.

The content of the word. Its lexical, lexical-grammatical and grammatical meaning.
The lexical meaning of the word is it individual meaning or a bunch of such meanings held in a
dictionary or in memory. In speech we realize one of them when there is no pun or metaphor.
The lexical meaning characterizes the word as a unit of the vocabulary and therefore it is the
object of study for lexicology.
The lexico-grammatical meaning of the word is not individual. Quite different words, sometimes
a large number of them have the same lexico-grammatical meaning (a table, beauty, movement
lexico-grammatical meaning of substance or thingness). Lexico-grammatical meaning are of
interest to both lexicology and grammar. In grammar they are studied mostly by morphology. In
a number of cases lexico-grammatical meanings make different words (cases of conversion).
Words having the same lexico-grammatical meanings very often have the same or nearly
the same system of forms (plural number, strong/weak verbs), patterns of
combinability/collacability (art+ad+N; N+N; rare case: notional/modal verb+N, but NEVER
N+V)and syntactic functions in the sentence. The latter makes lexico-grammatical meanings in
Grammar a very interesting field of study for Syntax.
The grammatical meanings of words are not individual either. They can be attached to a
number of words that may differ greatly as far as their meanings are concerned. Eg. My cats My
brothers: the apostrophe cares the meaning of possessivity, while the individual meaning is
different. (also work-worked, create - created)
Grammatical meaning is always expressed either explicitly or implicitly. For instance: The book
reads well here the grammatical. meaning of passivity is expressed implicitly.
Grammatical meaning is a system of expressing the grammatical meaning through the
paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms-expressed by grammatical opposition, which can
be of different types:
Private
Gradual-large-larger-largest
Equipollent-am is are
By the number of the opossums opposition may be binary, ternary, quaternary and so on. Any
opposition can be reduced. The most important type of opposition is the binary-private
opposition. The other type of opposition may be reduced to this kind of opposition.
Oppositional reductions (binary)
Neutralization /weak-strong
Transposition: strong-weak
How we express grammatical meaning:
Inflexions-pen-pens,
Sound alternation- replacive morpheme-man-men,
Analitycal means with the help of analytical forms (discontinuous morphemes)
Suppletivity-different roots for grammatical forms. I-me/go-went

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations among language units.


Crucial for the systemic description of language are the two fundamental types of relations
between lingual units: paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations.
The term syntagmatic relations is derived from the word syntagma, i.e. a linear
combination of units of the same level. Lingual units form various lingual strings, sequences, or
constructions; in other words, lingual units co-occur in the same actual sequences. E.g.: He
started laughing. In this sentence we can point out syntagmatic, or linear relations between the
sounds [h+i:] = [hi:]; [s+t+a:+t+i+d] = [sta:tid];
Besides, the sentence can be connected with other sentences by syntagmatic relations in the
process of communication, in speech.
The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic, are called paradigmatic. The term is
derived from the word paradigm and denotes the relations between elements in paradigms in
the system of language. Ferdinand de Saussure called these relations associative relations,
implying the way different linguistic units are arranged and associated with each other in human
minds.
Classical grammatical paradigms are those making up grammatical categories of words, or,
morphological categories, e.g., the category of number or case of the noun: in Russian
; in English toy toys; tooth teeth; children childrens,
etc.
Paradigm, in most general terms, is a system of variants of the same unit, which is called the
invariant; paradigmatic relations are the relations between the variants of the lingual unit within
a paradigm
for example, sentences may be organized in paradigms according to the category the purpose of
communication, in such paradigms declarative, interrogative and imperative sentence patterns
of the same sentence invariant are opposed, e.g.: He laughed. Did he laugh? Let him laugh.
Since these relations cant be observed in actual speech they are also described as relations in
absentia (in the absence).
Paradigmatic relations exist not only in grammar, but in the phonetical and lexical systems
of language as well. For example, paradigmatic relations exist between vowels and
consonants, voiced and voiceless consonants, etc.; between synonyms and antonyms, in
topical groups of words, word-building models, etc.
But paradigmatic relations are of primary importance for grammar, as the grammar of language
is above all systemic.
A lingual unit has been described above as a sign a bilateral unit, which has its form and its
meaning. Thus, two language planes can be distinguished - the plane of content and the plane of
expression: the plane of content comprises all the meaningful, semantic elements contained in
the language, while the plane of expression comprises all the material, formal units of the
language

The form of the word. Types of morphemes. Positional-functional classification. A


morpheme in the descriptive linguistics. Environment and distribution.
Distributional
classification.
A word is a bigger unit of Morphology; the smallest unit is a morpheme. According to Pr.
it is the smallest meaningful unit of the language system that is positional dependent
or other elements (unlike a word).
Pr. Smirnitsky defines a morpheme as the smallest linguistic unit that has both its outer
(, sound and graphic) and inner (meaning or sense) components. Eg.: -er. We should
bear in mind that definitions of the morpheme have been changed depending on the flow of
thought in theoretical studies and on this or that trend. The first to introduce the scholarly notion
of morpheme was . In this definition the morpheme was understood as a
general term for linear word components: the root and affixes. This starting point of view was
further transformed in various linguistic schools. Thus Pr. treats morphemes as any
way to express grammatical relations. So he includes into the class of morphemes both auxiliary
words and parts of speech (eg. prepositions) and word oder. As Copenhagen linguistic school
was famous for its treating morphemes as certain grammatical meanings carried by this or that
component. Eg. . Traditional point: 2 morphemes .
, 3: case, number, gender.
Traditional (functional) class-tion of morphemes. Henry Sweet,
Smirnitsky. Study of morph.str-re in traditional gr. - 2 criteria.1) Positional:
the analysis of the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the
central ones. 2) Semantic (functional): involves the study of the correlative
contribution of the morpheme to the general meaning of the word. M-s at the
upper level are divided into root & affixal (lex.&gram.).A lot of varieties of
morphemic composition of modern E.words,but preferable model is:
prefix+root+lexical suffix+gram.suffix. Roots: concrete, material part of
the meaning of the word, affixes specificational part of the meaning.
Specifications: of lexico-semantic & grammatico-semantic character. Or 3
criteria: a) semantic properties of words (meaning), b) formal
properties (form), c) functional (syntactic f-tion).
Distributional class-tion of morphemes. In the distrib.analysis 3 main
types of distribution are discrimin.: contrastive distr., non-contrastive
distr., and complementary distr. Contr.& non-contr.distr.concern identical
environments of different morphs. (Morph is combination of phones that has
a meaning, it happens only once) The morphs are said to be in contrastive
distr. if their meanings (f-tions) are different; such morphs constitute
dofferent morphemes. Ex: returned/returning/returns. The morphs are in
non-contrastive d. if their mean.(f-tions) are identical; such morphs
constitute free variants of the same morpheme. Ex: suffixes ed & -t
(learned/learnt), -s & -i (genies/genii). As for complementary distr., it
concerns diff.environments of formally diff.morphs which fulfill one & the
same f-tion; such morphs are termed allo-morphs. Ex: a few allomorphs
of the plural suffix: -en (children), -s (toys), -a (data), -es (crises), -I (genii),
zero (trout-trout). The application of distr.analysis to the morphemic level->

cl-tion of m. on distr.lines. a) free (M which can build up words by


themselves) & bound m.( used only as a part of words hands- hand is
FREE,-S is BOUND), b) overt (hands) & covert m.( shows the minigful
absence of a M=zero M, handO),
Full & empty( M which have no meaning)
c) additive (M which are freely combined in a word
look+ed,small+er) & replacive m., (root M which replace each other
in paradigms sing-sang-sung) d) continuous ( M combined with
each other in the same word worked) & discontin.m, ( M which
consist of 2 components used jointly to build the analytical forms of the
words have worked, is working) e) segmental & supra-segmental m.
(stress n. convert v. convert)

Types of oppositions. The notion of a grammatical category in the light of the oppositional
theory. The privative opposition as the main type of the oppositions in English.
Among grammatical meanings of words we may find those which characterize the word from the
point of view that is connected with some certain grammatical aspect. Eg.: desk desks
grammatical meaning number of objects. [he] works is opposed to worked: work - worked
opposition of past vs. non-past (category of tense), work - working opposition of continuous
vs. non-continuous (category of aspect), work - have worked perfect vs. non-perfect
(category of correlation), and category of voice: passive vs. non-passive.
This grammatical means are sometimes called Homogeneous Grammatical Means (HGM).
HGM may be opposed to each other. According to the oppositional theory any grammatical
category is the opposition of grammatical meanings and grammatical forms, corresponding to
them.
Opposition, according to Pr. Blockh, - is a generalized correlation of lingual forms by means
of which a certain function is fulfilled ( ). The opposite members
have 2 kinds of features: 1) the basic feature upon which the opposition is build; 2) differential
feature (only one of the members possesses).
The simplest and the most important kind of opposition is the so-called privative/i/ binary
() opposition. A privative means that one member has a certain differential feature, and
the other doesnt. Binary means that there are 2 members opposed. The member of the
opposition that has got the differential feature is called the marked/strong (+) member of the
opposition. The member of the opposition that hasnt got the differential feature is called the
unmarked/weak (-) member of the opposition.
In Morphology we may deal with oppositions having more than 2 morphemes. They are
called more than binary or multiple. For the opposition which has 3 members we may used the
term triple. The opposition theory was first formulated in Phonology by the Czech scholar .
in his book Essentials of Phonology. This theory was further transferred be Pr.
(Czech) and in Russia by Pr. , Pr. and Pr. and his
school. This theory was also applied to morphology by this scholars.

Ways of form-building in Modern English. Synthetic and analytical grammar forms.


A structural type of a language.
Formbuilding is the building of forms of one and the same word. Care should be taken not to
mix up formbuilding (Grammar) and wordbuilding (Lexicology)/ Most scholars speak about 3
ways of how we can form words in Modern English. 1. Synthetic, 2. Analytical, 3. Suppletive.
1) The synthetic formbuilding is limited to the changes within the body of the word. In other
words, it is limited by the use of bound/close morphemes.
2) The analytical formbuilding implies the use of the auxiliary elements or in other words, the
use of free or word morphemes.
3) The suppletive way of formbuilding includes only a small number of cases: the suppletive
formations are found in the same words in a variety of Indo-European languages. This way of
formbuilding implies the use of forms derived from different stems (Eg. Good-better-the best,
go-went, I-me, etc.)
Its common knowledge that English is regarded as an Analytical language as compared with
Russian that is regarded as Synthetic. Pr. says: it is correct on the whole, but the matter
must not be exaggerated as there are no purely synthetic and no purely analytical languages
Pr. remarks that in most languages there are both synthetic and analytical
means for expression of different grammatical meanings, but their number may vary. In such
languages as Slavic (but Bulgarian), Sanskrit, Ancient Greek, Latin German, Arab, Lithuanian,
synthetic features prevail. In all Roman languages (but Latin), Bulgarian, English, Danish,
Modern Greek, etc. analytical features play a more important part.
There are also such languages, called amorphous/isolating W. von Humboldt, that practically
lack synthetic forms (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, etc.)
(Joseph Greenberg)
One of the most reliable methods for defining the degree of language synthesism was
originated in 1950 by the American scholar Joseph Greenberg. One of the essentials is to take
texts (100 words in length) in different languages and divide the number of morphemes by the
number of words. The abstract number 1 shows the greatest degree of language analytism, it
shows that the word is equal to morpheme. It is, however, not probable, that relying on that
principal we may get real figure, the more synthetic features there are in the language. Eg.:
Anglo-Saxon 2.12; Modern English 1.68; Modern German 1.97; Modern Russian 2.39;
Vietnamis 1.06; Eskimo 3.72 (it is the highest possible).
In Modern English we have such analytical features:
1. A small number of inflectional suffixes,
2. A small number of cases with vowel and consonant interchange,
3. A wide use of prepositions that express relations between words,
4. A prominent use of word order as one of the means to express syntactic relations. Synthetic
feature of English is the synthetic way of form-building.
That is why it is better to say that the English language at present is mainly analytical and
Russian is mainly synthetic.
2 major groups of word formation:
1) Words formed as grammatical syntagmas, combinations of full linguistic signs (types:
compounding (), prefixation, suffixation, conversion, and back derivation)
2) Words, which are not grammatical syntagmas, which are not made up of full linguistic signs.
Ex.: expressive symbolism, blending, clipping, rhyme & some others.
The notion of parts of speech in English. Criteria used for establishing parts of speech.

Every word is characterized by its individual feature (its lexical meaning) and some lexicogrammatical, morphological and syntactical characteristics common with those of many other
words. Thus it is possible and necessary to use two approaches to the study of the vocabulary.
Lexicology dealing with the word as an item of the vocabulary in which every word differs from
others studies words one by one. It is clear, that when studying a word as a unit of the language
structure it is not necessary to study every word separately. Words have lexico-grammatical
characteristics that are shared by many other words.
In Grammar we try to classify words according to their lexico-grammatical, morphological
and syntactical characteristics and study large classes of words which are traditionally called
parts of speech.
Morphology practically deals with the properties of different parts of speech. Parts of speech
represent the main classification of words in Grammar.
By parts of speech we mean big classes of words having certain lexico-grammatical,
morphological and syntactical characteristics in common.
The parts of speech theory is very old one. But it was only summered in the
20es of the XX century that satisfactory scientific principals for establishing
various parts of speech were formulated. The first to formulate this principles
in Russia was Pr. . According to this author
different parts of speech should be singled put on the basis of three criteria
approach. He called these three criteria meaning, form and
function.
The noun, for example, as a part of speech, is traditionally characterized by 1) the categorial
meaning of substance (thingness),
2) a specific set of word-building affixes, the grammatical categories of number, case and article
determination, prepositional connections and modification by an adjective, and
3) the substantive functions of subject, object or predicative in the sentence. In the same way, all
the other notional parts of speech are described.
Functional words, which include conjunctions, prepositions, articles, interjections, particles, and
modal words, have incomplete nominative value, are unchangeable and fulfill mediatory,
constructional syntactic functions.
Notional words, which traditionally include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and
numerals, have complete nominative meanings, are in most cases changeable and fulfill selfdependent syntactic functions in the sentence.

Contribution to the solution of this problem made by the scholars in this country.
Pr. s ideas were further elaborated and put to practice by academician V.V. Vinogradov in
reference to Russia, while Pr. put reference to English. The first
semantic criteria means taking into account lexico-grammatical characteristics of words, their
lexico-grammatical meanings and lexico-grammatical morphemes. Alone these lines we speak of
1. words having the lexico-grammatical meanings of substance (house, road, movement)
2. Words having the lexico-grammatical meanings of property (big, strong, etc.)
3. Words having the lexico-grammatical meanings of process (write, read)
4. The property of another property (quickly, surely)
5. Of number (one, first, etc.).
the second formal criteria means taking into account the morphological characteristic of words
their grammatical categories. Along these line we single out such words as having the
grammatical categories of number and case, degrees of comparison, person and number,
tense, aspect, correlation, voice and mood and so on.
The third syntactic criteria means taking into account the combinability of words on the phrase
level and their syntactic function in the sentence on the sentence level. On this principal we
single out words having the syntactic function of the subject and the object, the predicate,
the adverbial modifier and so on.
The question whether it is necessary to apply three criterias. It is so that only complex approach
can help us more or less surely to classify vocabulary into different parts of speech. Taking in
isolation the semantic criteria is not much reliable because not all nouns have the lexicogrammatical meaning of substance. But it doesnt mean that they should form a different
category. As for the morphological criteria many words havent got any grammatical categories
at all. And as for the syntactic criteria different parts of speech may function as one and the same
member of the sentence (Moscow linguistic school end of the 19th century).

Alternative theories of distinguishing parts of speech (H. Sweet, O. Jesperson, Ch. Fries).
In the history of Linguistics there have been various approaches to classification of words in
grammar. Some grammarians used only the semantic or only the formal criteria.
Pr. Henry Sweet noticed the inconsistency() that exists between morphological
and syntactic properties of parts of speech. But his attempt resulted in uniting fragments of
classes that on the whole dont show either morphological or lexical stability on the one hand
and in disentitling that on the whole demonstrate morphological and lexical stability. He offered
two classifications. In the first of them he singles out two groups: declinable (;
nouns, adjectives and verbs) and indeclinables (adverbs, prepositions, conjunction and
interjection). The second typology is based on the syntactic functions of words and wordgroups. Thus the typology comprises of the so-called noun words (nouns proper, nounpronouns, noun-numerals, infinitive and gerund)and the adjective-words (adjective proper,
adjective pronouns, adjective numerals, participial construction) and verb-words (finite forms,
the infinitive and the Gerund).
The next attempt was by Otto Jespersen () tried to unite Syntagmatic and
Paradigmatic bonds of different words, their form and function. He introduce the dual system.
The 1st aspect: the traditional parts of speech description that is done both from the point of view
of their morphology and their lexoc-grammatical meanings.
2nd: these classes are also analysed from the point of view of their importance and value in
phrases and sentences. (He gets three ranks to every word) Thus a word may be: primary (the
nuclears of the phrase and the subject of the sentence), secondary (serving as an attribute to the
primary) and tertiary (subordinated and dependent upon the secondary word). This theory is
called the theory of three ranks. It was one of the first attempts to create such a classification
that would take into account both syntagmatc and paradigmatic properties of traditional parts of
speech. But it resulted only in terminological excess and proved to be not very convenient. The
descriptive approach is connected with the name of the American scholar Charles Freeze, who
belonged to the comparatively modern trend in Linguistics called American Descriptive
Linguistics.
Pr. Freeze used only the syntactic criteria for pointing out different classes of words and he
called it distribution of words in speech. As a practical devise he used three frames. By frames
he meant model sentences in which he pointed out certain syntactic positions. And he tested all
the words from his materials in those syntactic positions. Sentences were taken from oral speech.
His data base consisted of 50 hours of telephone conversations recorded by him.
Frame A the concert was good (class 1, class 2).
Frame B the clerk remembered the tax (Class 3).
Frame C the team went there (class 4).
He pointed out 4 classes of words. Later on some other scholars began to use symbols NAVD
(D determiner) for calling these four classes of words. But there is a difference between group
N or class 1 words and the traditional noun, the same with all the rest. Class 1 is a large category
than the class of nouns for it includes personal pronouns, infinitives and so on.
Alongside the 4 syntactic classes of words, Charles Freeze also pointed out 15 groups of the
so-called function words (linking verbs, particles, prepositions, conjunctions and so on). These 4
syntactic classes are extensively used by different scholars in the USA and in Russia because
they are very convenient for partenning sentences of diverse types. E.g. the concept was good
N+be+A. But at the same time these 4 classes cannot fully replace the traditional parts of speech.
Thus this theory cannot be applied for morphological investigation.

The problem of notional and formal words.


It has been common for a long time to divide all parts of speech into 2 groups: Notional (as
noun, adjective, verb, numeral, etc.) and formal (particle, article, conjunction, etc.). But sooner
or later there comes the question about the criteria that lies () in the basis of this
classification.
Academician V.V. Vinogradov proposed to use the naming function as the criteria for this
kind of grouping. But nowadays there is a view, that every word may have a naming function.
And that is why according to this approach Academician Vinogradov may not be quite right.
Pr. Ivanova laid special stress on the syntactic characteristics of the word. E.g. A friend of mine
is coming. Traditional: 2 notional means: friend, mine.
Notional parts of speech have an independent syntactic function in the sentence. They may be
used as a certain member of the sentence. As for formal parts of speech, they havent got such an
independent syntactic function in the sentence. Not all scholars approve of this classification into
notional and formal. Pr. didnt consider this classification useful for Grammar, because
he thought the main criteria shaky enough. But most scholars still do that.
The noun, for example, as a part of speech, is traditionally characterized by 1) the categorial
meaning of substance (thingness), 2) a specific set of word-building affixes, the grammatical
categories of number, case and article determination, prepositional connections and modification
by an adjective, and 3) the substantive functions of subject, object or predicative in the sentence.
In the same way, all the other notional parts of speech are described. There are certain limitations
and controversial points in the traditional classification of parts of speech, which make some
linguists doubt its scientific credibility. First of all, the three criteria turn out to be relevant only
for the subdivision of notional words. Second, the status of pronouns and the numerals, which in
the traditional classification are listed as notional, is also questionable, since they do not have
any syntactic functions of their own, but rather different groups inside these two classes resemble
in their formal and functional properties different notional parts of speech: e.g., cardinal
numerals function as substantives, while ordinal numerals function as adjectives. p it is very
difficult to draw rigorous borderlines between different classes of words, because there are
always phenomena that are indistinguishable in their status. E.g., non-finite forms of verbs, such
as the infinitive, the gerund, participles I and II are actually verbal forms, but lack some of the
characteristics of the verb.There are even words that defy any classification at all; for example,
many linguists doubt whether the words of agreement and disagreement, yes and no, can occupy
any position in the classification of parts of speech.

13. a) The lexical-grammatical characteristics of the noun;


b) The morphological characteristics of the noun;
c) The syntactical characteristics of the noun.
The categorial meaning of the noun is substance or thingness. Nouns directly name various
phenomena of reality and have the strongest nominative force among notional parts of speech:
practically every phenomenon can be presented by a noun as an independent referent, or, can be
substantivized. Nouns denote things and objects proper (tree), abstract notions (love), various
qualities (bitterness), and even actions (movement). All these words function in speech in the
same way as nouns denoting things proper.
Formally, the noun is characterized by a specific set of word-building affixes and word-building
models, which unmistakably mark a noun, among them:
age - act of, state of, collection of - salvage, storage, forage
al - relating to - sensual, gradual, manual, natural
algia - pain - neuralgia
an, ian - native of, pertaining to
ance, ancy - action, process, state - assistance, allowance, defiance
cian - having a specific skill - magician, optician, physician
ee - one who receives the action
er, or - on who, that which - baker, carpenter, brewer
hood - order, quality - neighborhood, motherhood
ion, sion, tion - act of, state of, result of - contagion, infection, aversion
adjective (however, often the adjective is used as a noun. ex: "The Spanish" meaning the people
of Spain), etc.
A noun also has special conversion patterns (to find = a find).
As for word-changing categories, the noun is changed according to the categories of number
(boy-boys), case (boy-boys), and article determination (boy, a boy, the boy).
Formally the noun is also characterized by specific combinability with verbs, adjectives and other
nouns, introduced either by preposition or by sheer contact.
The most characteristic functions of the noun in a sentence are the function of a subject and an
object.Besides, the noun can function as a predicative (part of a compound predicate), as an
adverbial modifier, as an attribute.

Combinability of nouns with other nouns ("cannon ball" problem)


The noun in English can also function as an attribute in the following cases: when it is used
in the genitive case (the teachers book), when it is used with a preposition (the book of the
teacher), or in contact groups of two nouns the first of which qualifies the
second (cannon ball, space exploration, sea breeze, the Bush administration,etc.).
The last case presents a special linguistic problem, which is sometimes referred to as the
cannon ball problem. One aspect of the problem can be formulated in the following way: is it a
contact group of two nouns or is the first word in this phrase an adjective homonymous with a
noun? The arguments which support the former point of view are as follows: the first word in
such contexts does not display any other qualities of the adjective, except for the function (it can
not form the degrees of comparison, it cannot be modified by an adverb, etc.); besides,
sometimes the first noun in such groups is used in the plural, e.g.: translations editor. An
additional argument is purely semantic, cf.: a dangerous corner a danger signal; the
adjective dangerous describes the thing referred to by the following noun, so it is possible to ask
a question What kind of ?, while the noun danger tells us what the purpose of the signal is,
so the possible question isWhat for?
Another aspect of the cannon ball problem is as follows: can the components of such
contact groups be considered two separate words, or, as some linguists maintain, is it a kind of a
compound word? The arguments which support the former point of view are as follows: a
compound word is a stable, ready-made lingual unit, fixed in dictionaries, while most noun
+ noun groups are formed freely in speech; besides, they can be easily transformed into other
types of word-combinations (this type of transformation test is known as the isolability test),
e.g., prepositional word-combinations: a cannon ball a ball for cannon, space
exploration exploration of space, etc.; compound words as a rule need additional
transformations which explain their inner form, or etymological motivation, e.g.: a waterfall
water of a stream, river, etc., falling straight down over rocks. So, combinations like space
exploration are combinations of two nouns, the first of which is used as an attribute of the other.
They may include several noun attributes, especially in scientific style texts, e.g.: population
density factor, space exploration programmes, etc.
It must be admitted, though, that with some noun + noun word-combinations, especially
if they become widely used and are fixed in dictionaries, their status becomes mixed,
intermediary between a word and a phrase, and this is reflected by their one-word spelling and
changes in accentuation; incidentally, the lexeme cannonball today is considered a compound
word spelled jointly according to the latest dictionaries.

The problem of further classification of the noun.


As a part of speech, the noun is also characterised by a set of formal features determining its
specific status in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its word-building distinctions,
including typical suffixes, compound stem models, conversion patterns. It discriminates the
grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination, which will be analysed
below.
The cited formal features taken together are relevant for the division of nouns into several
subclasses, which are identified by means of explicit classificational criteria. The most general
and rigorously delimited subclasses of nouns are grouped into four oppositional pairs.
The first nounal subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation
of this division is "type of nomination".
The second subclass opposition differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of
"form of existence".
The third subclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the basis of
"personal quality".
The fourth subclass opposition differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis
of "quantitative structure".
Somewhat less explicitly and rigorously realised is the division of English nouns into
concrete and abstract.
The order in which the subclasses are presented is chosen by convention, not by categorially
relevant features: each subclass correlation is reflected on the whole of the noun system; this
means that the given set of eight subclasses cannot be structured hierarchically in any
linguistically consistent sense (some sort of hierarchical relations can be observed only between
animate inanimate and human non-human groupings). Consider the following examples:
There were three Marys in our company. The cattle have been driven out into the pastures.
The noun Mary used in the first of the above sentences is at one and the same time "proper"
(first subclass division), "animate" (second subclass division), "human" (third subclass division),
"countable" (fourth subclass division). The noun cattle used in the second sentence is at one and
the same time "common" (first subclass division), "animate" (second subclass division), "nonhuman" (third subclass division), "uncountable" (fourth subclass division).
The subclass differentiation of nouns constitutes a foundation for their selectional
syntagmatic combinability both among themselves and with other parts of speech. In the
selectional aspect of combinability, the subclass features form the corresponding selectional
bases.
In particular, the inanimate selectional base of combinability can be pointed out between the
noun subject and the verb predicate in the following sentence: The sandstone was crumbling.
(Not: *The horse was crumbling.)
The animate selectional base is revealed between the noun subject and the verb in the
following sentence: The poor creature was laming. (Not: *The tree was laming.)
The human selectional base underlies the connection between the nouns in the following
combination: John's love of music (not: *the cat's love of music).
The phenomenon of subclass selection is intensely analysed as part of current linguistic
research work.

Case. Definition of the category.


The system of forms represents the category of case; its expressed grammatically and shows
possessivity.
Blokh: case is the morphological category manifested in the forms of the noun declension and
showing the relation of the nounal referent to other objects and phenomena.
Ilyish: case is the grammatical category of the noun expressing the relation of the thing denoted
by the noun to other things, properties and actions, and manifested by some formal signs in the
noun itself.
Both definitions mention the grammatical form, but in Modern English relations of the nounal
referent to other things may be expressed not only be the category of case but also by some other
linguistic means (word order, prepositions).
e.g. Mike found John in the hall.
Case expresses the relation of a word to another word in the word-group or sentence (my sisters
coat). The category of case correlates with the objective category of possession. The case
category in English is realized through the opposition: The Common Case :: The Possessive Case
(sister :: sisters). However, in modern linguistics the term genitive case is used instead of the
possessive case because the meanings rendered by the `s sign are not only those of
possession. The scope of meanings rendered by the Genitive Case is the following :
a)
Possessive Genitive : Marys father Mary has a father,
b)
Subjective Genitive: The doctors arrival The doctor has arrived,
c)
Objective Genitive : The mans release The man was released,
d)
Adverbial Genitive : Two hours work X worked for two hours,
e)
Equation Genitive : a miles distance the distance is a mile,
f)
Genitive of destination: childrens books books for children,
g)
Mixed Group: yesterdays paper
Nicks school
cannot be reduced to one nucleus
Johns word
To avoid confusion with the plural, the marker of the genitive case is represented in written form
with an apostrophe. This fact makes possible disengagement of `s form from the noun to which
it properly belongs. E.g.: The man I saw yesterdays son, where -`s is appended to the whole
group (the so-called group genitive). It may even follow a word which normally does not possess
such a formant, as in somebody elses book.
There is no universal point of view as to the case system in English. Different scholars stick to a
different number of cases.
1.
There are two cases. The Common one and The Genitive;
2.
There are no cases at all, the form `s is optional because the same relations may be
expressed by the of-phrase: the doctors arrival the arrival of the doctor;
3.
There are three cases: the Nominative, the Genitive, the Objective due to the existence of
objective pronouns me, him, whom;
4.
Case Grammar. Ch.Fillmore introduced syntactic-semantic classification of cases. They
show relations in the so-called deep structure of the sentence. According to him, verbs may stand
to different relations to nouns. There are 6 cases:
1)
Agentive Case (A) John opened the door;
2)
Instrumental case (I) The key opened the door; John used the key to open the door;
3)
Dative Case (D) John believed that he would win (the case of the animate being affected
by the state of action identified by the verb);
4)
Factitive Case (F) The key was damaged ( the result of the action or state identified by
the verb);
5)
Locative Case (L) Chicago is windy;
6)
Objective case (O) John stole the book.

The question about the number of cases:


a) the positional case theory (J.C. Nesfield, M. Bryant, M. Deutschbein)
Its connected with the names of Pr. M.Deutshbein, pr. J. Nesfield, pr. M. Bryant. According to
this theory, the English noun in addition to inflectional genitive case has got four inflectional
cases. First of all, the nominative case, vocative case (the addressee of the action is mentioned
e.g. Are you coming, my friend?), dative case (e.g. I gave John a ), accusative case (e.g. a cat
caught a rat).
The uninflexional cases of the noun are taken to be supported by the parallel
inflexional cases of the personal pronouns. The would-be cases in question can be
exemplified as follows.

b) the theory of prepositional cases (G. Curme)


5 cases. This theory is connected with the name of the Dutch scholar Curm. According to this
theory, the genitive case may be expressed either by mean of s inflectional suffix or by the
preposition of. And the dative case may be expressed either by means of word order or by the
prepositions to and for.
e.g. Will you buy some toys to/for John?
3 cases. Scholars in Russia criticized these two theories very severely. They didnt find these
theories acceptable, because in them morphological mean of expression (the category of case)
are confused with some other linguistic means (word order and prepositions) that have nothing to
do with morphology.
) theory of possessive postposition (G.Vorontsova)
According to this theory, the English noun hasnt got the category of case at all. From this point
of view the s is not an inflectional suffix, instead it may be regarded as a sign of syntactic
dependence. Its a kind of form-word like preposition.
Proves:
- The expression of the nounal referents relation to other things by means of s is not the
only way to express the bond, it is optional.
- -s is found in rather few cases, the majority of nouns havent got this grammatical
category (e.g. street market, car keys).
- -s may be found not only after nouns but also after adverbs (e.g. yesterdays meeting,
todays paper) and phrases (e.g. Henry the eights wives, Prince of Waless helicopter,
man drivers rights, Mary and Johns wedding).
- It may be found at some distance from the noun it refers to (e.g. the man-I-sawyesterdays son, the fellow-whats-his-names attacks).
Pr. Ilyish considered this theory to be rather interesting because s really differs from
inflectional suffixes in the classical sense of the word. But at the same time he says that -s is still
uninflectional suffix showing the relation of the nounal referent to other things and phenomena.
Its meaning is a pure case meaning. In most cases (96%) it is found with single nouns.
d) the limited case theory (H. Sweet, O. Jesperson)
Its the oldest theory and it was advanced by the two famous scholars of the past: pr. Sweet and
pr. Jesperson. According to this theory, the noun in Modern English has 2 cases: common case
and genitive or possessive case. This theory is based on the assumption that the English noun
has got only one inflectional case form with s.
This theory was supported by many scholars. The reason is the oppositional theory. In terms of
the oppositional theory, this grammatical category is regarded by many scholars as a binary
primitive opposition consisting of two opposite members. The genitive case is marked both in
meaning and form. And the common case is unmarked. It is not so easy to define the meaning of
the possessive case. Many scholars tried to enumerate its meanings:
- My brothers room (the meaning of possessivity);
- My friends enemy (the meaning of relation reminding us of other relation);
- The presidents arrival (the relation of an action);
- The mans execution (the relation of an object);

Caws milk, an officers cap (qualitative relation).


The category of case in the light of the oppositional theory.

It contradicts the oppositional theory to a certain extent. Pr. Ilyish found rather an easy
way to solve this difficulty. In his opinion its possible to define the meaning of the
possessive case as possessivity in a wide sense of the word.
The meaning of the unmarked member is usually defined in the negative in comparison
with the marked member. Many scholars tried to enumerate the meanings of the common
case. The general meaning can be defined like this: the common case doesnt express
possessivity in the wide sense of the word.
Still another way to explain this mute problem can be found in the theory of prototypes
originated by pr. Rosch.

Case is the immanent morphological category of the noun manifested


in the forms of noun declension and showing the relations of the
nounal referent to other objects and phenomena. Thus, the case form
of the noun, or contractedly its "case" (in the narrow sense of the
word), is a morphological-declensional form.
This category is expressed in English by the opposition of the form in
-'s [-z, -s, -iz], usually called the "possessive" case, or more
traditionally, the "genitive" case (to which term we will stick in the
following presentation*), to the unfeatured form of the noun, usually
called the "common" case. The apostrophised -s serves to distinguish
in writing the singular noun in the genitive case from the plural noun in
the common case. E.g.: the man's duty, the President's decision, Max's
letter; the boy's ball, the clerk's promotion, the Empress's jewels.
The genitive of the bulk of plural nouns remains phonetically
unexpressed: the few exceptions concern only some of the irregular
plurals. Thereby the apostrophe as the graphic sign of the genitive
acquires the force of a sort of grammatical hieroglyph. Cf.: the
carpenters' tools, the mates' skates, the actresses' dresses.

The essence of number as a grammatical category.


Number is one of the grammatical categories of the noun which shows whether a noun in one of
its uses in speech denotes one object or more than one object. As any other grammatical category
it may be regarded as a set of opposite numbers.
The grammatical category of number is the linguistic representation of the objective category of
quantity. The number category is realized through the opposition of two form-classes: the plural
form :: the singular form. The category of number in English is restricted in its realization
because of the dependent implicit grammatical meaning of countableness/uncountableness. The
number category is realized only within subclass of countable nouns.
The grammatical meaning of number may not coincide with the notional quantity: the noun in
the singular does not necessarily denote one object while the plural form may be used to denote
one object consisting of several parts. The singular form may denote:
a)
oneness (individual separate object a cat);
b)
generalization (the meaning of the whole class The cat is a domestic animal);
c)
indiscreteness ( or uncountableness - money, milk).
The plural form may denote:
a)
the existence of several objects (cats);
b)
the inner discreteness ( , pluralia tantum, jeans).
To sum it up, all nouns may be subdivided into three groups:
1.
The nouns in which the opposition of explicit discreteness/indiscreteness is expressed :
cat::cats;
2.
The nouns in which this opposition is not expressed explicitly but is revealed by
syntactical and lexical correlation in the context. There are two groups here:
A.
Singularia tantum. It covers different groups of nouns: proper names, abstract nouns,
material nouns, collective nouns;
B.
Pluralia tantum. It covers the names of objects consisting of several parts (jeans), names
of sciences (mathematics), names of diseases, games, etc.
3.
The nouns with homogenous number forms. The number opposition here is not expressed
formally but is revealed only lexically and syntactically in the context: e.g. Look! A sheep is
eating grass. Look! The sheep are eating grass.

The category of number in the light of the oppositional theory. Strong member of the
opposition: ways of expressing the plural in English.
The opposition representing the category of number contains only two opposite members: the
plural number and the singular or the non-plural number. Thus we may say that this is a
privative binary opposition. The plural number is the marked member of the opposition and the
non-plural is the unmarked member.
The form of the singular number as the unmarked member of the opposition is expressed by the
zero inflectional suffix. The form of the plural number contains the positive morpheme of the
plural. This form has a number of allomorphs, that is the variants of the morpheme. The
allomorphs of the morpheme of the plural are: the s- inflectional suffix which has got in its turn
three phonetic variants (/z/, /s/, /iz/). The en- inflectional suffix exists in one set of forms (oxoxen). The plural number may be also expressed by sound interchange (man-men), sound
interchange and the ren inflectional suffix (child-children, brother-brethren).
A number of nouns have the plural form identical with the singular (dear-dear, sheep-sheep, so
on). Some nouns of foreign origin build up the form of the plural number in the foreign manner.
That is in the way this form is made in the language it is borrowed from. The major stock comes
from Latin and Greek (cactus-cacti). It is necessary t note that in the process of assimilation
some nouns of foreign origin acquire the s- inflectional suffix in the plural.
Not all nouns have the category of number as their property. Thus with regard to the grammatical
category of number we may divide the class of nouns into two big groups: countables (the nouns
that have got the category of number) and uncoutables (havent got this category).

The sphere of operation of the category of number within the morphological system of the
noun. Countable & uncountable nouns. Singularia & pluralia tantum nouns.
The uncountable nouns are outside the grammatical category of number. Yet they are treated by
the speakers of the language either as singulars or plurals. This is justified both by the form of
the nouns and their combinability.
e.g. The milk is fresh.
His wages were high.
All the nouns that havent got the category of number may be divided into two groups:
- Singularia tantum nouns include mass-nouns (milk, bread, gold, game, toast), abstract
nouns (knowledge, love, hatred), some collective nouns (peasantry, intelligentsia).
In the sub-class of s.t.n. we find a number of nouns with the s- inflectional suffix, such
as some sciences, names of some diseases, and certain games (cards, billiards).
- Pluralia tantum nouns include the names of objects consisting of two or more parts
(trousers, goods, wages), militia(), police, people havent got the s- inflectional
suffix but nevertheless are treated by the speakers as plural, it justifies their
combinability. Here also belong athletics, acoustics, ethics, hysterics and politics.

Some difficult cases within the category of number.


Some nouns in English present certain difficulties for the analysis of the category of number.
First of all, here belong rather many nouns denoting materials and some nouns denoting abstract
notions, such as snow, water, copper, iron and so on. The difficulty lies in the fact that such
words are sometimes used with the s- inflectional suffix of the plural (the snows of the Arctic).
Professor Ilyish discusses this question in detail and comes to the conclusion that such words are
not singularia tantum nouns. Some scholars suggest another approach. Professor Haimovich
and Rogovskaya find out that different semantic variants of one and the same word may belong
to different grammatical sub-classes.
e.g. water
1. The name of material (s.t.n.)
2. A large are covered with water (p.t.n.)
beauty
1. quality
2. Its concrete manifestation ().
Beer
1. Name of the material (s.t.n.)
2. Some portion of this material
3. Types or sorts of this material (p.t.n.)

a) The lexical-grammatical characteristics of the adjective;


b) The morphological characteristics of the adjective;
c) The syntactical characteristics of the adjective
The adjective as a part of speech includes words denoting different attributes of substances, that
is different properties of substances, such as size, form, colour, quality, position at space,
physical states of living-beings, psychic states. Thus the lexico-grammatical meaning of the
adjective is property. This mean is sometimes supported by special adjectival lexico-grammatical
morphemes, suffixes and prefixes. Suffixes: -ful, -less, -ive, -al, -able, -eble, -ish, -some.
Prefixes: -un, -in, -il-, -ir, -pre. At the same times many adjectives havent got any adjectival
lexico-grammatical morphemes.
The adjective in English is characterized by the scantiness() of its
morphological distinction. The only grammatical category to be mentioned in connection with
the English adjective is the category of degrees of comparison. And even this category is not the
property of the whole class.
The syntactic characteristics:
-The combinability on the phrase level.
The adjective is combined as a nucleus of a word combination with an adverb of degree. As an
agent the adjective is combined with the noun.
- The syntactic function in the sentence.
The most typical function is that of an attribute to a noun. In this function the adjective may enter
practically any part of the sentence. It may also be used as the nominal part of a compound
nominal predicate.

The problem of the subclasses


It has been common for a long time to divide adjectives into two subclasses according to their
meanings and some of their grammatical characteristics. These subclasses were called
qualitative adjectives and relative adjectives.
Qualitative adjectives denote different qualities of substances, relative adjectives denote different
properties of objects and phenomena through the medium of some other objects and phenomena
(e.g. the weather is quite Crimean).
Qualitative adjectives have got the category of degrees of comparison, relative adjectives
havent. Of course, there are some exceptions. Some qualitative adjectives havent got this
category because of their lexico-grammatical meaning (e.g. supreme, extreme). In this category
we also include such adjectives as with suffix ish, deaf, blind, lame, that contain a certain
degree in their lexical meaning, but the idea of comparison is absurd.
We cant see that this classification doesnt fully reflect the grammatical properties of the
adjectives. For example, the relation of the adjectives to the category of degrees of comparison.
Therefore there appeared at attempts to classify adjectives. Pr. Rogovskaya mentions two
subclasses: comparable and non-comparable according to the relation to the category of
degrees of comparison. Pr. Blokh is of the opinion that degrees of comparison are potentially
represented in the whole class of adjectives. Thats why for him the category of degrees of
comparison doesnt serve as the ground for classification. Pr. Blokh divides adjectives into
evaluative and specificative, relying more on their lexical meanings.

The category of the degrees of comparison.


It should be noted that the comparative and the superlative degrees denote the same property of
substance as the positive degree. Thus the forms older and the oldest dont necessarily mean
very old or extremely old. In fact they may mean quite young.
The question arises what the category of degrees of comparison shows. It shows whether and
adjective in speech denotes a property absolutely on the one hand or relatively on the other.
In comparison with the same quality some other substances have.
b) There are different approaches to this question. Pr. Smirnitsky following Pr. Jesperson,
thought there were two degrees of comparison: a positive and a relative degree, the latter existing
in the varieties: comparative and superlative. This interpretation fully corresponds to the above
given idea concerning the essence of the category of degrees of comparison. Nowadays most
scholars think that there are three degrees of comparison: a positive, a comparative and a
superlative degree.
c) In terms of the oppositional theory this category could be regarded as a triple privative
opposition with the positive degree being the unmarked member and the comparative and the
superlative degrees serving as the marked members of the opposition. Further on attention was
paid to the fact that the unmarked member was unmarked only in the form, but not in the
meaning. Thus, yet another type of the opposition was applied and thus we get the triple gradual
opposition. By many, this category is considered to be the only example of gradual opposition in
English morphology.
The meaning of the comparative degree is a larger amount of the quality of the substance, as
compared with same quality of another substance. The meaning on the superlative degree is
the largest amount of the quality. The category of the positive degree doesnt demonstrate any
definite meaning. It characterized by the absence of meaning of other members. If we interpret
the category of degrees of comparison as a triple opposition of the gradual type, the above given
definition will not fully correspond to it. Hence, the category of degrees of comparison shows
whether an adjective in speech denotes a property absolutely or relatively, indicating a larger or
the largest amount of this property.

The problem of the combinations like "more important" & "most important".
All scholars agree that there exists the morphological way to express the comparative and the
superlative degrees synthetically and the suppletive way in some cases at least.
Some scholars also point out that there exists the analytical way. Recently there appeared a view
that the combinations of more/most + adjective should be regarded as phrases or presyntactical
combinations.
To prove this the scholars put forward a number of arguments. One of the strongest arguments is
that the words more and most may combine with other parts of speech and convey
practically the same meaning.
Alongside the combinations of more and most there exist the combinations with less/least +
adjective. These combinations are treated as free syntactical combinations practically by all
scholars.
On this basis Pr. Ilyish notes that there is no sufficient reason to treat this pairs of combinations
in two different ways. Some scholars however try to defend the traditional point of view. Pr.
Haimovich and Rogovskaya try to prove that more/most + adjective are nearly grammatical
forms of two different degrees of comparison. The meanings of more and most are practically
the same as those of -er and -est.
The distribution of the forms with more and most as compared with the forms er ad est is
complementary. We can hardly say the same about less/least + adjective. Having examined
different points of view Pr. Ilyish comes to the conclusion that strict grammatical considerations
tend to the idea that more/most + adjective are free syntactical combinations.
A very interesting solution to the problem is suggested by Pr. Blokh. He agrees with Pr. Ilyish
that there is no necessity to treat more/most + adjective and less/least + adjective in different
ways. He comes to another conclusion. In his opinion these combinations belong to the category
of degrees of comparison. The latter, thus, has five forms for three degrees of comparison.

Substantivisation of adjectives.
This phenomenon is characteristic not only of English but also of other Indo-European
languages, Russian, for instance. Under certain circumstances are substantivized that is inverted
into nouns. When they undergo this process adjectives acquire the characteristics of a noun.
When they undergo this process, an adjective acquire the characteristics of a noun, to be more
exact its lexico-grammatical meaning, the grammatical category of number and case, the ability
to be used in the function of the subject and the object. In this context a word is considered to be
a noun not an adjective. In some cases we deal with complete substantivisation. In many other
cases, however, substantivisation is only partial. Such adjectives acquire only some properties of
the noun its lexico-grammatical meaning of substance, the ability to combine with the definite
article, the ability to be used in the function of the subject and the object. But they dont have the
grammatical category of number and case, the ability to combine with the indefinite article.
According to pr. Ilyish, these words are partially substantivized and occupy an intermediate
position between nouns and adjectives.
(privates,natives,,,the reach, the English, the unforgettable)

The question about the morphological status of stative words.


There are a number of words in English having the prefix a- and the general meaning of state,
such as afraid, asleep, alone, agog, adrift, alike, afloat, etc. These words are traditionally
regarded as adjectives, but if we compare some characteristics of these words with those of
adjectives, we shall see that they have some peculiarities. They are particularly different from the
bulk of adjectives as to their syntactical function.
It is well known that for the most part an adjective appears in attributive word combinations. But
words of the afraid-type are rarely used in this syntactical function. For the most part they are
used predicatively that is the nominal part of a compound nominal predicate.
This peculiarity of the afraid-type words was noticed rather a long time ago both by the
grammarians and lexicographers. That is why in the dictionary such words can be marked as
predicative adjectives.

The question about the possibility of establishing stative words as a separate part of speech.
The first to examine the characteristics of stative words in greater detail was Pr. Ilysh in 1948.
He called it the theory of Stative words. He examined the characteristics of these words on the
basis of the criteria applied for establishing different parts of speech. And he came to the
conclusion that the distinctive features of the afraid-type words were strong enough to single
them out as a separate part of speech the category of state, which is the loan ()
translation of the Russian term . Later, Pr. Ilysh gave another term the
Stative. Having examined all the characteristics of the afraid-type words he tried to prove that
they differed from adjectives not only as far as their syntactical functions work and sound, but
also in the sphere of their lexico-grammatical and morphological characteristics. First of all he
thought, that the meaning of state could be regarded as categorical, lying at the basis of different
parts of speech. From his point of view the meaning of state is different from the meaning of
property. The lexico-grammatical meaning of property is characteristic of the adjectives, while
the meaning of state is characteristic of Stative.
As for the lexico-grammatical morphemes Pr. Ilysh found that the morpheme A could be looked
upon as the lexico-grammatical morpheme of Stative.
As to their morphological characteristics, he thought that these words havent got any
grammatical categories; they are unchangeable in contrast with adjectives.
The most striking difference between the Stative and the adjectives lies in the syntactic
characteristics, they demonstrate in the combinability on the phrase level and in their syntactic
function on the sentence level. On the phrase level the most common combinative model of an
adjective is the right-hand connection with a noun. This combinative model is found with many
other parts of speech, not only with an adjective. The striking thing is that this position is alien
to the Stative. Although there are some exceptions (an aloof manner ), in general
we dont use this combinative model for the Stative. E.g. A man alive to social interests. On the
sentence level Stative words also differ from adjectives. The Stative is used only predicatively
from the point of view of Pr. Ilysh. The existence of all these considerations permitted Pr. Ilysh
to conclude that the afraid-type words made up a separate part of speech. This theory was
accepted rather broadly and the Stative was looked upon as a separate part of speech.

Arguments against and in favour of establishing stative words as a separate part of speech.
Pr. Ilysh considered stative words as a separate part of speech, but 10 years later in 1958
Pr.. published an article in which he tried to criticize the Stative theory. His arguments:
1) the meaning of state is but a variety of the meaning of property, which is a pure adjectival
lexico-grammatical meaning;
2) some words like these may be preceded by more and most. Thus they have got degrees of
comparison (more ashamed);
3) turning to the combinability characteristics, Pr. Barkhudarov couldnt but agree that such
words have some peculiarities as compared with near adjectives. But basically their
combinability is practically the same. He says that such words may combine with adverbs like
adjectives (E.g. deadly tired painfully alive). He says that words of this type could function as
predicatives and as attributes. Usually they are used in the function of post-positive attributes
(E.g. the Child asleep), less frequently they may be found in the function of pre-positive
attributes (an aloof manner, an alive one). Later on, come other scholars (especially Pr. Blokh,
Pr. Ivanova) also criticized Pr. Ilyshs theory of a Stative as a separate part of speech. They
practically repeated Pr. Barkhuudarovs criticism, but gave their own examples. They said that
state is a variety of property. Pr. Blokh: state may be expressed not only by Stative words, but
also by near adjectives, such as expectant, healthy, hungry, etc, its sure a state than a
property.E.g. a living predecessor = a predecessor alive. Some of these words may be found in
the comparative and the superlative degree. E.g. Of us all John was the most aware of the
situation. As to the combinability characteristics, Pr. Blokh and Pr. Ivanova couldnt but agree
that such words have some peculiarities. They differ at least negatively from the bulk of
adjectives. They cannot be used in some combinations in which adjectives are used. Basically,
there is hardly any difference between them. They are mainly used in the same syntactic models
and function in the sentence:E.g. The house was astir. The household was excited. We found the
house astir = We found the household excited. Stative words can also function as attributes. Pr.
Blokh gave some quantative considerations. He said that there were about a dozen of stable units
belonging to this group, and thrice as many unstable ones. At the same time, there are not so
many Stative words. This consideration also serves as a proof that Stative is evidently a
subclass of an adjective and not a separate part of speech.

Difficulties of establishing the pronoun as a separate part of speech.


Difficulties of establishing the pronoun as a separate part of speech had caused many difficulties.
Some of the pronouns seem to share the essential characteristics with the noun (he, she, one,
anybody). Some other pronouns seem to have smt in common with the adj. Hence, some think
that the pronoun was not a separate part of speech and words of this class should be distinguished
among nouns and adj. nowadays, the pronoun is regarded as a separate part of speech. It is
necessary to clear up the question about its distinctive features which may be different from other
parts of speech. Most scholars agree that the main point of differentiation b/w the pronoun and
other parts of speech lies in the fact that the pronoun denotes reality, the noun denotes
substances by naming them, the adj which attributes, properties of a substance.
Also, by naming them; as for the pronoun, it denotes both substances and their properties by
indicating them (pointing them out without naming). Thus, the pronoun is recognized on the
basis of its indicatory and substitution semantics functions. The 2 kinds of mean form a unity
in which indicatory (deictic) semantics its primary.

The question about the lexical-grammatical meaning of the pronoun.


As a matter of fact, indication is the basis of a substitution. A certain noun may be substituted by
the pronoun only because the pronoun indicates the same substance as the noun. The noun names,
the pronoun indicates. considers that it is possible to defy the lexico-grammatical meaning
of the pronoun as indication (or deixis), that pronoun may be looked upon as a separate part of
speech at least at the point view of its lexico-grammatical mean.
nowadays, the pronoun is regarded as a separate part of speech. It is necessary to clear up the
question about its distinctive features which may be different from other parts of speech. Most
scholars agree that the main point of differentiation b/w the pronoun and other parts of speech lies
in the fact that the pronoun denotes reality, the noun denotes substances by naming them, the
adj which attributes, properties of a substance.
Also, by naming them; as for the pronoun, it denotes both substances and their properties by
indicating them (pointing them out without naming). Thus, the pronoun is recognized on the
basis of its indicatory and substitution semantics functions. The 2 kinds of mean form a unity
in which indicatory (deictic) semantics its primary.

Subclasses of the pronoun.


According to traditional classification the pronoun has a number of sub classes. This number varies
depending on the scholarly trend. We may find from 9 to 11 subclasses:
1.Personal.2.Possessive(my,his)3.Reflexive(-self)4.Impathetic (-self; serves to lay emphasis):he did it himself
.5Reciprocal (each other/one another).6.Demonstrative(this, that, the same).
7.Inerrogative (which,who)8.conjunctive (whom,whose,serve to connect sentence).
9.relative (which, that)serve to introduce attributive subordinate clauses.
10,indefinite(some,any,smt)11.negative(nobody,none)12.generelazing (all, every)13.quantative(much, little,
many)14.Contrastive(other,another).
This classif is useful from pract point of view, but as far as its theory below is concerned this classification
seems more semantic that grammatical. That is why some scholars found it necessary to introduce another
classification. They point out:1.noun-pronoun (he, she, smth, smb).2.adj-pronoun (which, whose, his,
other).This classification is based on a rather more formal criteria than traditional classification. This
classification is more grammatical, but at the same time, there are noun-pronoun and adj-pr. That do not
demonstrate any form of characterization of the noun and the adj. there are some pronouns which belong to
both classes: What is this?(noun-pr.) This dictionary (adj-pr). It is possible to speak of a 2 variants of the same
pronoun, belonging to different subclasses.

Morphological characteristics of the pronoun.


The pronouns cannot be characterized by the uniformity of their morphemic characteristics, even those
belonging to one of the subclasses. N-pr. have not got the same morphemic characteristics as the noun and
adj have not got the same morphemic characteristics as the adj. N-pr. have got some characteristics similar to
those of the noun. Some of the n-pr. have the category of number and some have the category of case.
Number: a few n-pr. have the cat of number (that-those, this-these, other-others).the pronoun this/that have
the cat of noun as n-pr and adj-pr.(these are the questions we want to discuss). In this case we have n-pr.
Some of the pronoun combine with other words either in the singular or in the pl. without changing their
form (some books, money).Some pr. have not got the cat of number, cause they have always either sg or pl in
the meaning (much,every,each,few,all,many).
Case.The pr has got 2 systems of case.1.includes the common and the possessive cases (one-ones/nobody
s).2.The other system includes the nominal/objective cases. It is necessary to know that case system of pers pr
undergoes serious changes. Nowadays, there is a tendency at work to use the objective case not only in the
function of an object, but also in the function of the predicative.(It is me). Another tendency is to use the form
them or there (she/he plus self)herself and himself-themselves.

Syntactical properties of the pronoun. Combinability (phrase level) and the syntactical
function (sentence level).
The pronoun cannot be characterized by the uniformity of their combinative models. Their combinability
differs from that of the both nouns and adj that may serve as another prove that the pronoun is a separate part
of speech. There is only one noun-pronoun which have the same combinative model as the noun.
(Show me another suit. A grey one.). Some of the pronoun have the post positive agent as an attribute (smt
terrible). The pronouns are usually not preceded by an adjective as the nouns are. Some of a pronoun does
not combine with any other words (smb, he/she). Some of the adj pronouns form a right hand connection
with a noun thus serving attributively (my book, his story). But even this model doesnt complete resemble
the model A+N of the adj. A tall boy (A+N).The pronoun take the position of the article not of the adj (That
tall boy). This is the position of a determination and it is typical for articles and adj pronouns. However, there
are some other adj pronouns that take the position before determination.(All these boys). This position is
called The pre-determinate position. There is one adj pronoun with the same combinative model as the
adj.-other(The other book). As for the syntactical function in the sentences all noun-pr are used in the
function of the subject, object, predicative (. . ). Adj-pr.are used in the function
of the attribute, but if we draw a line of difference b/w the attribute and the determina, than we must say that
only the pr Other is used in the pure function of the attribute. And other adj pronouns are used in the function
of the determina as they occupied exactly the same place as the article.

The Verb. The category of tense. Definition


Verb -part of speech with grammatical meaning of process, action, performs the central role of
the predicative function of the sentence.Classificationaccord to semantic value Notional(full
nominative meaning, independent in expression of process),Functional and Semi-funct(partial
nominative value, depend on other words in denotation of process, are predicators): they are
subdivided into Auxiliary(build analytical form of notional verb have done, was lost, etc;
Link(connect predicative with subject pure link verb-to be, specifying link verbs specify
connection betw subject and its property);Modal(predicators, denote subject attitudes to actionobligation,ability,etc);Verbid introducers-introduce non-finite forms of verbs into structure of
sentence). Notional verbs subdivided into:acc to subject-process relation-Actional(action
performed by subject as active doer), Statal(denote various states of subject); acc to
combinability features-Transitive(action directed towards certain object),Intransitive and
Complimentive
Discussing the question about a definition of this grammatical category, Pr. Ilysh points out
that the basic features of this category appear the same in English as in other Indo-European
languages. Therefore he says: There since no necessity to look for a special definition of tense
for English. In English, as well, as in other languages, the category of tense reflects the objective
category of time. And upon this background expresses the relation of the time of the action,
denoted by the predicate verb and the time of utterance. In other words, the grammatical
category of tense shows the time of the action with reference to the moment of speech. This
definition is expected by most scholars. There may be some variations, but on the whole the
scholars support the above given definition. There was a time when scholars spoke about a large
number of tenses (in American linguistics they used to single out 100; traditional number 26 10
passive, 16 active). English like the other Germanic languages, and Russian, and many others
has only 2 tenses: past and non-past. It was discovered that such terms as the Present
Continuous; Present Perfect; Present Perfect Continuous and the like were combinations of
forms, constituting several grammatical classes of the verb (tense, aspect and correlation)E.g.
TENSE: past non-past,ASPECT: continues non-continues,CORRELATION: perfect nonperfect,VOICE: passive non-passive,MOOD. I have been reading blend of non-past tense,
continues aspect, perfect correlation, non-passive voice, indicative mood.

Tense as a triple opposition (B. Ilysh)


Pr. Ilysh is of the opinion that the free main divisions of the objective time are represented by 3
tenses both in English and in Russian: Present, Past, Future.
The Present tense shows that the action takes place either at the moment of speech or somehow
includes this moment.
The Past tense shows that the action precedes the moment of speech.
The Future tense shows that the action follows the moment of speech.
In terms of the oppositional theory, the category of tense may be spoken of as a triple opposition,
containing 3 opposite members. The present tense is unmarked member and the past and future
are marked members. It should be noted that many scholars had doubts about the existence
of future tense in English. Pr. Jespersen discussed this question more than once. In his opinion,
the combinations of will/ shall + V are modal phrases, that is they are combinations of the
notional verb in its infinitival form with modal verbs will/ shall. His argument, in favor of this
point of view, is that shall/ will as modal verbs has their own lexical meaning and in many cases
when we form the traditional future tense, the lexical meanings of shall/ will are retained by
these words.
The view, according to which the verb in English has not got the future opposite is supported by
rather many scholars nowadays, especially abroad. Thus prof of London University group,
describe different ways of expressing futurity rather than the future as a separate tense. In Russia,
this view was actively advanced by the Pr. Barkh. In favor of this view he put forward a number
of arguments: 1. Corresponds to Jespersens: shall/ will are modal verbs and the combinations of
shall/ will + V are modal phrases like can + V; must + V; etc. and no matter whether the
combinations of shall/ will + V express futurity or not, they cannot be taken as a specific form of
the future opposite. 2. Futurity may be expressed in English not only by the combinations of
shall/ will + V. 3. A strong argument against considering shall/ will + V as a future opposite is the
existence of the so-called future in the past forms in English. Pr. Barkhudarov considers should/
would to be the forms of shall/ will in the Past Tense. Thus if we take shall/ will + V for a future
opposite, than should/ would + V will be a union of the future and the past which is illogical and
theoretically impossible.

Future tense in English. Tense as a binary opposition (L. Barkhudarov)


The view, according to which the verb in English has not got the future opposite is supported by
rather many scholars nowadays, especially abroad. Thus prof of London University group,
describe different ways of expressing futurity rather than the future as a separate tense. In Russia,
this view was actively advanced by the Pr. Barkh. In favor of this view he put forward a number
of arguments: 1. Corresponds to Jespersens: shall/ will are modal verbs and the combinations of
shall/ will + V are modal phrases like can + V; must + V; etc. and no matter whether the
combinations of shall/ will + V express futurity or not, they cannot be taken as a specific form of
the future opposite. 2. Futurity may be expressed in English not only by the combinations of
shall/ will + V. 3. A strong argument against considering shall/ will + V as a future opposite is the
existence of the so-called future in the past forms in English. Pr. Barkhudarov considers should/
would to be the forms of shall/ will in the Past Tense. Thus if we take shall/ will + V for a future
opposite, than should/ would + V will be a union of the future and the past which is illogical and
theoretically impossible.
Pr. Barkh comes to the conclusion that the category of the tense in English is constituted by
only 2 opposite members: the Present tense and the Past tense. Then he goes on to discuss the
term Present. It doesnt seem to be a good one, because in many scholars opinion, it is not quite
correct. Here we mean that the present tense doesnt always show the coincidence of the action
with the moment of speech. Sometimes it expresses a more or less long period of time, including
the moment of speech, but not necessarily coinciding with it (the plane is taking off in 3 min).Pr.
Barkh. mentions that sometimes the form of the present may show the time following the
moment of speech: E.g. we are giving a concert tomorrow; the train leaves at 10.30. Thus it is
better to use the term non-past than present. It is particularly convenient when the category of
tense is represented as an opposition of 2 opposite members. So this category may be looked
upon as binary privative opposition. As for the meaning and forms of the members, we defined
them like this: Past is the time, preceding the moment of speech or having no association with
the moment of speech what so ever (Barkh). The meaning of the non-past we dont define at all
or do it negatively in comparison with the marked member. Thus non-past expresses the non-past
time doesnt precede the moment of speech and may be associated with it.

The category of primary time & the category of prospective time (M. Blokh)
According to Blokh it is possible to establish 2 temporal grammatical categories in English. In
his opinion the forms of past, non-past, future and future in the past constitute two different
temporal categories. They are closely connected because they are both temporal, but at the same
time they have distinctive features of their own.
The first temporal category the category of primary time is constituted by two opposite
members: past and non-past. In his opinion the future can hardly be included in this system if
only because it has two variants: the future and the future-in-the-past.
The second temporal category is the category of prospect/prospective time. It also includes
two members: future and non-future. Thus both these categories may be looked upon as binary
privative oppositions. The category of prospective time shows whether an action coincides with
some moment in the past or with the moment of speech or whether it follows that moment. So it
is purely relative because it is not necessarily connected with the moment of speech, not
always present oriented, e.g.: he said he would go there. The future in the category of prospect
has got 2 variants: the future and the future-in-the-past. In both cases it shows an after-action.
The expression of the future differs in two plains: in the present time plane of the construction
shall/will +verb, and the past time plane of the construction should/would + verb. The action
acquires an additional temporal characteristic to the expression of time in English. That is the
category of prospect.

Aspect. The Continuous forms & their interpretation by different scholars (H. Sweet,
O. Jespersen, I. Ivanova).
A-is ling representation of objective category of manner of action
As is known the morphological system of the English verb includes a set of continuous
forms. The essences of these forms and their place in English morphological system have
been interpreted in a number of ways. Pr. Henry Sweet and Pr. Jespersen regarded these
forms as a set of peculiar tense forms capable of expressing an action taking place
simultaneously with another action. They understood the category of aspect broader for
them this category expressed not only the time of the action from the point of view of time of
speech, but also some additional temporal characteristics such as simultaneity and priority.
Simultaneity is expressed by the continuous forms and priority by the perfect forms. Pr.
Ivanova understands the continuous forms as those rendering a bland of temporal and
aspective characteristics of the action. She examines these forms also within the category of
tense. But she says that these forms have a double function, on the one hand they express an
additional temporal characteristic (simultaneity), on the other they express an aspective
characteristic of the action (continuity).

The possibility of establishing a separate grammatical category of aspect (A. Smirnitsky,B.


Ilysh, L. Barkhudarov, M. Blokh). The category of aspect in the light of the oppositional
theory.
Pr. Palmer, Pr. Fransis, Pr. Smirnitsky, Pr. Ilysh, Pr. Barkh and Pr. Blokh found it
possible to regard the continuous form as categorical forms of a separate grammatical
category of the verb. The title for this category is the category of aspect or according to Pr.
Blokh the category of development. In their opinion the category of aspect is constituted by
two members: continuous vs. non-continuous/ common. In the oppositional terms the
category of aspect is a binary privative opposition with continuous being the marked
member. The meaning of the continuous aspect may be defined as continuity. Pr. Barkh adds
one more shade continuity and concreteness, that is the action is limited by a certain period
or moment of time. The meaning of the unmarked member is better defined through the
meaning of the marked member being put in negative terms. Hence, the non-continuous
aspect does not express continuity and concreteness. Pr. Barkh notes that the category of
aspect is not the property of all verbs in English. Some of them have not got this category.
These verbs can be grouped as follows:
1.Verbs of sense or physical perception, when they denote involuntary actions: feel, hear,
look, taste used as link verbs, that is when followed by an adjective indicating the subjects
emotions or physical and mental condition, e.g. she feels angry, it feels hot;
2. Verbs of mental perception
3. Modal verbs
4. Verbs of possession: possess, own, belong
5 Verbs of feeling and emotions.

Interpretations of the essence of perfect & non-perfect forms in English.


As is known, the morphological system of the English verb includes a set of Perfect Forms. The
essence of these forms is probably not quite clear even today. Pr. Henry Sweet, Jespersen
regarded these forms as peculiar tense forms capable of expressing a certain additional temporal
characteristic of the action. To be more exact, the priority to another action or to a certain
moment of time. They understood the category of aspect broader and discussed these forms as
parts of the tense system.
Pr. Ivanova. In her opinion the Perfect forms belong to the category of tense. They are looked
upon as specific tense forms, but they have a double function. On the one hand they express a
certain aspective characteristic of the action, on the other, they express an additional temporal
characteristic, that is the priority. As for the aspective characteristic it was defined in various
ways. The most popular being perfectiveness, resultedness and result.
There is a point of view that the Perfect forms belong to the category of aspect. In this
connection we may mention Pr. West, Pr. Deutschbein and Pr. Vorontsova. The aspect,
expressed by these forms has been variously defined as retrospective, resultative or perfective as
opposed to the successive, continuous and imperfective aspects.
There was still another point of view, expressed by Pulmer and Smirnitsky. According to this
idea the perfect forms may be regarded as categorical forms of a separate grammatical category
of the verb. Initially this grammatical category was called the category of time relation.
Pr. Ilysh examined these theories and tried to prove that the perfect forms have nothing to do
either with tense or with aspect. In his opinion, all the 3 tenses may be in perfect forms. And in
this case we speak about the Present, Past and Future Perfect. And if the Perfect were a tense
category, then the so-called Present Perfect for example is a union of two tenses: the Present and
some other, which is impossible. On the other hand, suppose we take 2 continuous forms: is
writing and has been writing. As they both belong to the continuous aspect, they cannot be said
to differ on an aspect line. Otherwise, we should came to the idea that one and the same form
expresses both the continuous and some other aspect, and that is impossible. Pr.Ilysh chose to
join the idea that the Perfect forms should be looked upon as a separate grammatical category
of the verb. But he preferred not the term the category of time relation, but correlation. In his
opinion, the presence of the word time in the first definition seems to bring us back to the older
idea, that the perfect is a tense category. The term correlation eliminates the possibility of
confusing this new grammatical category with the category of tense. This view was supported by
quite a number of scholars. But almost each scholar used their own term to name this category.
Thus Pr. Barkh used the term phase of action development.
Pr. and Pr. Rogovskaya used the term order,
Pr. Blokh preferred the term the category of retrospective coordination.

The category of correlation in the light of the oppositional theory.


In older theories this opposition has two members: perfect vs. non-perfect. Thus its binary
privative opposition, the perfect correlation is the marked member, non-perfect unmarked. The
meaning of the marked member may be defined as precedence or priority of the action to a
certain moment of time or a certain action.
Pr. Barkhudarov also insists on mentioning another shade of meaning that the marked member
possesses. According to him, the meaning of the marked member may be defined as precedence
or priority of the action to a certain moment of time and correlation with it. His example: He had
finished his meal, and Sally was cleaning away.
The form of the marked member. The marked member has got a positive morpheme, that is also
broken/ discontinuous. In speech different grammatical categories very often have the same
markers.

Voice. Definition of the category


Pr. Blokh defined the category of voice as follows: Voice is the grammatical category of the verb
showing the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the
syntactic construction. Pr. Ilysh: This is the relation of action to the subject.
E.g. I invited > my friends. I was invited < by my friends.
The category shows the direction of the process. In the first sentence the action begins from the
subject and goes on to the object. In the second case the direction is quite opposite. The
difference is shown by the grammatical forms of the verb. The action issues from the Object and
goes on to the Subject

The question about the number of voice opposites in the morphological system of the
English verb.
Most scholars agree that the main opposition lies between the Active and the Passive voices.
There are some scholars however who believe that there are more than two voices in English (Pr.
Ivanova, ). They recognize the so-called reflexive voice, which finds its expression
in the self-pronoun (myself, himself, etc.). E.g. He dressed himself.
Some other scholars speak of the reciprocal. It finds its expression in the reciprocal pronounce
Each Other; One Another that are looked upon as grammatical elements. E.g. They greeted each
other. The grammatical form in this case is believed to be: greated each other, constituting
Still others speak of the middle voice. It happens in cases like this: The door opened [and John
came in]; The new cell-phones are selling very well. Pr. Ilysh gives a thorough examination of
this point but doesnt express his view whether the Middle Voice exists in English or not.
Pr. , Pr. Rogovskaya tried to show that it is hardly probable that there are any other
voices in English besides the Active and the Passive Voice. In cases with the so-called reflexive
and reciprocal voice the form of the predicate verb is hardly include pronounce as unique
grammatical elements. As for the Middle Voice, Pr. and Pr. Rogovskaya presume
that there are some verbs that have 2 grammatical varints.
Pr. Barkhudarov doesnt except their idea about the existence of the reflexive/ reciprocal and
middle voices either. Instead he speaks about the Medial () reflexive and reciprocal
meanings, that have no specific grammatical forms for their expression in English.
This problem was discussed by Pr. Blokh in the same way. So there are just 2 voices: Passive
Active/ Non-passive.

Voice in the light of the oppositional theory.


The term active is not suitable nowadays in theoretical studies for it doesnt fully correspond to
the character of voice meaning. Therefore it is better to use the term non-passive to name the
unmarked member of the opposition. It is particularly convenient if we take into consideration
the oppositional theory. Thus the meaning of the marked member is defined as passivity that is
the action issues from the outside. And the meaning of the unmarked member is defined as nonpassivity as the action doesnt issue from the outside. The marked member has got broken/
discontinues, overt/ positive morpheme.

The question about the two functions of the construction "be + participle".
There is another problem in connection with the category of voice. This problem concerns 2
constructions: be + Ven (V3) and be + Participle II (adjective). The meaning are neither
grammatical nor lexical in cases: The door was closed, he was frighten, etc.
This problem has been solved differently. Pr. Barkhudarov gives a simple variant: nearly in all
cases we deal with the Passive Voice and a Simple Verbal Predicate. However he has to admit
that there are some cases when Participle II forms a compound nominal predicate. E.g. I was
interested adjectivized.
Many other scholars think that in a number of cases the categorial character of the predicate is
entirely neutralized as in the sentence the door was closed. But this categorial character can be
deneutralized by some other context: the door was closed by butler, Jolin, etc. Passive voice
simple verbal. The door on the right was closed but the door on the left was open
Participle II/ adjective.
Adverbial Modifier after the predicate may also show that this is the Passive form and hence the
simple verbal predicate. E.g. The door was closed in the evening. The Adverbial Modifier
emphasizes the dynamic character of the verb thus showing that we deal with the Simple Verbal
Predicate. It may also be emphasized by the categorial verb forms: tense, aspect and correlation:
E.g. The door has been locked.

The sphere of operation.


The category of voice is not the property of all verbs in English. It characterizes only the socalled objective verbs/ transitive. These are the verbs requiring the use of the object. E.g. Jolly
invited Marry. Some phrasal verbs may have this grammatical category. There is some
peculiarity connected with the verbs of the give-type. They have 2 passive constructions. E.g. He
gave Sally a box of chocolates. Non-objective verbs havent got the category of voice (E.g. be,
exist, run, etc.) but at the same time most grammarians give 2 examples showing that the verb
to sleep and to live may be used in the passive voice. E.g. The bed hasnt been slept in for a
long time; The house hasnt been lived in for a long time

Mood. Definition of the category.


Discussing the question of how we should define this grammatical category in English, Pr. Ilysh
noted that the basic features of this category in English seem to be the same as in Russian.
Therefore, he relied on the definition of this category given by Ac. V.V. Vinogradov, who had
formulated it with reference to Russian: Mood is a grammatical category of the verb, expressing
the relation of the action, denoted by the predicate verb to reality as stated by the speaker.
( ). Pr. Ilysh comments on this definition: the
action denoted by the predicate verb may be regarded by the speaker as a real fact (e.g. Ive just
spoken to the dean), a request or a command (Speak to the dean, will you), finally it may be
regarded as contrastive reality (If I were you, I should speak to the dean). The notion of the
Mood is closely connected with the notion of modality (
: , perhaps; ).
Modality is understood as a general linguistic category which shows reference of the statement
to the real state of things (reality). It may be expressed grammatically (the category of Mood),
lexically (by modal words: obviously, probably, maybe and modal verbs) and phonetically (by
supersegmental means). As is usually the case with lexical means, the lexical means expressing
modality is used occasionally and in more or less specified way. The grammatical means
expressing modality is universal in the sense that it is found practically in every sentence and it is
less specified and more general as compared with the lexical means.
Pr. Blokh gives his own definition of the category. In many ways it is the same, but it is worded
differently. Mood shows the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb
and the actual reality either regarding the action as a fact that happened, happens or will happen
or treating the action as a purely imaginary phenomenon.

The question about the number of mood opposites in the morphological system.
If we take the problem of Mood as a whole, we shall notice that a great deal of studies have been
concerned with this aspect. In spite of this, however, the problem remains one of the most
controversial issues in modal linguistics on the English language. Thus even now different
scholars speak of a different number of Moods in Modern English. This number varies from 2 to
16. Pr. Barkhudarov and Pr. Blokh 2 Moods; Pr. Ivanova 3; Pr. Smirnitsky and Pr.
Akhmanova 6; Pr. Max Deutschbein 16 (these are more meanings then Moods). Practically
each of these viewpoints has something in its favor. Here arraises the question why there exist so
many opinions on this problem. Some scholars (Pr. Blokh and Pr. Barkhudarov among them)
think that the reason is some objective difficulties, the complexity of the problem being one of
them. Pr. Ilysh says that it is connected with the absence of direct correspondence between
meaning and form. Sometimes the same form of the verb shows different modal meanings. In
other cases, different forms express one and the same modal meaning.
E.G. I said, I should go. (max reality)
It is necessary that I should go.
I should go, if I knew the place.
It is necessary that I should go.
It is necessary that I go.
Objective difficulties do exist, but at the same time we should note that they occur not only in
connection with the problem of Mood, but they go hand on hand with practically any
grammatical category and theoretical research. Therefore, scholars mention subjective
difficulties. Pr. Barkhudarov raised the discussion of two points: first, grammatical homonymy
and its boundaries, and two, the modal auxiliaries should/would.

Mood as a system of 6 mood opposites (A. Smirnitsky, O. Akhmanova).


The system of Mood introduced by Pr. Smirnitsky and Pr. Akhmanova included 6 moods.
They are divided into 2 groups: 2 direct Moods (Indicative and Imperative) and 4 oblique Moods
(Subjunctive 1, Subjunctive 2, Suppositional and Conditional). The Indicative and Imperative
express actions that dont contradict reality.
The Indicative Mood finds its expression in other grammatical categories. It hasnt got its own
grammatical form, although it is the basic Mood in the system. One of its peculiarities is its
connection with other grammatical categories and first of all with the category of tense. The verb
in the Indicative Mood has got the categories of tense, aspect, correlation and voice. The
Indicative Mood was called by Pr. Henry Smith the Fact Mood. Pr. Ilysh observes that when
we speak of the meaning of the Indicative Mood we should mention the meaning of the speaker.
The Imperative Mood differs from the Indicative Mood as a far as its meaning is concerned. It
expresses an action as a request from the speakers point of view. There is no certainty about the
fulfillment of this request, but the action doesnt contradict reality, it still may happen. As for the
form, some scholars didnt find any difference between the formal manifestations of the
Imperative Mood as compared with the Indicative Mood. As the result, they didnt number the
Imperative Mood in the system of Moods at all, but Smirnitsky did. According to him, the
Imperative Mood is not connected with other grammatical categories. Smirnitsky also found a
formal peculiarity adherent to the Imperative Mood that is the absence of the interrogative form
in this Mood.
The oblique Moods in Smirnitskys system are also divided into two groups: *Synthetic Moods
(Subjunctive 1, Subjunctive 2); * Analytical Moods (Suppositional and Conditional).
Subjunctive one: Modal meaning. It represents a problematic action which doesnt necessarily
contradict reality. E.G. So be it, God bless you! It coincides with the form of the bare
infinitive. It hasnt got any grammatical categories. Its use is limited to the sphere of set
expressions like God bless you, and colloquial speech Beat as you like; So be it.
Subjunctive two: Modal meaning: It represents an action as contradicting reality, something that
is purely imaginary. Form: It has got two tenses: past non-past. E.G. If I were you, I wish you
had visited me yesterday. In the present/non-past the form coincides with the past tense of the
Indicative Mood (non-perfect correlation, non-continuous aspect). In the past it coincides with
the past tense and perfect correlation of the Indicative Mood.
The Suppositional Mood: Modal meaning: according to Smirnitsky there is no difference in
meaning between the Suppositional Mood and the Subjunctive one. Both represent an action as
problematic, but not contradicting reality. The form: The Mood is formed by means of the
auxiliary should for all the persons both in Singular and Plural + the infinitive of different
types (correlation, aspect, voice). Smirnitsky also spoke of two tenses that form the
Suppositional Mood: the past and non-past/present. Should + non-perfect infinitive stands for the
non-past tense and should + perfect infinitive for the past tense ???. E.G. He insists that we
should go there. It is strange that he should have failed his exam. (
, should).
The conditional mood. The meaning of this Mood is very much similar to that of the Subjunctive
2. They both represent an action as something contradicting reality, something imaginary. E.G. If
I were you (Sub. 2), I should/would act differently (Conditional Mood). Form: As an analytical
verb it is made by auxiliaries should/would. This mood is also said to have two tenses:
present/non-past and past.

Mood as a system of 3 mood opposites (I. Khlebnikova).


In Pr. Ivanovas opinion we should speak of three Moods: Indicative, Imperative and
Subjunctive (note that there is only one oblique mood). The Subjunctive Mood is opposed to the
Indicative and Imperative Moods both by meaning and form. Pr. Ivanova treats the Indicative
and Imperative Moods very close to how Pr. Smirnitsky did it.
The Indicative Mood finds its expression in other grammatical categories. It hasnt got its own
grammatical form, although it is the basic Mood in the system. One of its peculiarities is its
connection with other grammatical categories and first of all with the category of tense. The verb
in the Indicative Mood has got the categories of tense, aspect, correlation and voice. The
Indicative Mood was called by Pr. Henry Smith the Fact Mood. Pr. Ilysh observes that when
we speak of the meaning of the Indicative Mood we should mention the meaning of the speaker.
The Imperative Mood differs from the Indicative Mood as a far as its meaning is concerned. It
expresses an action as a request from the speakers point of view. There is no certainty about the
fulfillment of this request, but the action doesnt contradict reality, it still may happen. As for the
form, some scholars didnt find any difference between the formal manifestations of the
Imperative Mood as compared with the Indicative Mood. As the result, they didnt number the
Imperative Mood in the system of Moods at all, but Smirnitsky did. According to him, the
Imperative Mood is not connected with other grammatical categories. Smirnitsky also found a
formal peculiarity adherent to the Imperative Mood that is the absence of the interrogative form
in this Mood.
The Subjunctive Mood in her system is opposed to the Indicative and Imperative Moods as the
non-fact mood. It represents an action denoted by the predicate verb as a non-fact 1. It may be a
problematic action, but it is not necessarily in contrast to reality (1). It may represent an action
which happens only in the speakers imagination and thus comes in clash with the real state of
things. Anyway, it doesnt express facts (2).
Her definition of the Subjunctive Mood is rather vague. As to the form of the later, Pr. Ivanova
tries to prove that this mood finds its expression in two sets of forms. First: two synthetic forms:
*be, give (no change, coincide with the form of the bare infinitive); *were. The rest of the forms
(knew, visited, etc.) are the non-factual forms of the Indicative Mood. In her opinion what we are
dealing with is determined by certain syntactic environments. So she blends in one system the
forms of the Subjunctive and the Indicative Moods. Second: four analytical forms: *should +
infinitive (perfect non-perfect); *would + infinitive (perfect non-perfect); *may/might +
infinitive (perfect non-perfect); * should/would + infinitive (perfect non-perfect) (
: He thought, he would go there).
Pr. Ivanova considered Pr. Smirnitsky system too complicated and wanted to make it simpler.
But she failed. One Subjunctive Mood does make the system simpler, but if we consider that her
Subjunctive Mood has two sets of forms, then the simplicity only seems to be.
From the point of view of the oppositional theory, it is not a triple opposition, because it doesnt
contain clear cut opposites that differ either in meaning or form. It is a system of three moods,
but not of three members in opposition.
According to Pr. Barkhudarov, the criticism may be caused by the form were, that is thought
to belong both the Subjunctive and the Indicative Moods without any reference to such a thing as
homonymy. He suggests that we should accept such a view if in two seemingly different
systems of forms all the forms sound quite the same, then we havent got two systems, just one.
Thus there is no need to single out the Indicative and the Imperative as in Ivanovas system they
are thought to fully correspond in form. If in two seemingly different systems of forms at least
one form sounds different from the corresponding form in the other system, then we really deal
with two systems. In this case these two systems have a number of homonyms. Thus Pr.
Barkhudarov speaks of two systems, but not the systems of Indicative and Subjunctive as
corresponding to each other, but as the system of the Indicative Mood being opposed to the
system of modal phrases.

Attempts to reduce the category of Mood to a binary opposition.


a) Mood as a binary opposition of the indicative & the imperative (L. Barkhudarov);
Pr. Barkhudarov tried to reduce this grammatical category to a binary opposition constituted by
such members: the Indicative Mood and the Imperative Mood. (
). As to the Subjunctive there is no place for
it in the morphological system of the modern English verb. Pr. Barkhudarov was the first to show
quite clearly that the Indicative Mood differ from the Imperative Mood not only in meaning, but
also in form. To prove this, he compared the forms of the Indicative, Imperative and that of the
infinitive.
Indicative
Imperative
You go home. You dont go home.
Go home. Dont go home.
Infinitive
Imperative
Go home. Not to go home.
Go home. Dont go home
As for the possibility to eliminate the Subjunctive Mood, Pr. Barkhudarov examines all the forms
traditionally known as belonging to the Oblique Moods (). He begins with synthetic
forms.
a) the forms known as belonging to Subjunctive I in Smirnitskys system God bless you. Pr.
Barkhudarov finds no difference between this mood and the Imperative Mood either in meaning
or in form.
b) were/ had been; gave/ had given. E.g.: They were expensive. // We shall go modal phrase: no
future, modal verb shall + non-continuous, non-perfect, non-passive infinitive. Compound verbal
modal predicate///. He overlooked the form were because it may be substituted by was in nearly
all cases (if I was you). There is no difference between this mood and the Indicative Mood.
c) would/ should + infinitive. According to Pr. Barkhudarov these are modal phrases. Sometimes
the system of the mood is looked upon as a triple opposition (Indicative - / Imperative + /
Subjunctive were +)
b) Mood as a binary opposition of the indicative & the subjunctive (M. Blokh).
Pr. Blokh made an attempt to reduce the category of Mood to a binary opposition. In his opinion
it is constituted by the forms of the oblique mood meaning which are opposed to the forms of the
direct mood meaning. Thus according to this theory, we may speak of two moods: Indicative (-)
vs. Subjunctive (+). As for the Imperative Mood, it is possible to eliminate it. The Subjunctive
Mood is the mood of non-reality. It represents an action as a non-fact and finds its expression in
three mood forms.
1) The spective mood form. It coincides with the bare infinitive. Pr. Blokh speaks of this mood
form not only from the structural aspect, but also from the semantic aspect (the aspect of
meaning). It shows attitude (corresponds Subjunctive I in Pr. Smirnitsky system). In Pr. Blokhs
opinion, we should unite this form with the traditional Imperative Mood, both have the same
meaning and form. He also introduces the notion of indirect inducement (
its necessary, that you go home.) One and the same modal meaning may be
expressed by means of some phrases that are looked upon as equivalents. Pr. Blokh found 3
such equivalents: 1. Should + infinitive (No matter what you should say, the project must be
considered seriously); 2. May/might + infinitive (May it be as you like); 3. Let + infinitive (lets
agree to differ)
2) The stipulative mood form (from to stipulate , ): gave, had given;
were, had been.
3) The consective (from consequence) we want to show the consequence of some unreal
condition. Forms: would/ should + infinitive.
This system is simpler than that of Smirnitskys and Pr. Blokh managed to avoid its
inconsistency, but in fact it doesnt contain 2 moods. It is not a binary opposition for the system
contains 3 different meanings of the subjunctive mood. He speaks of three varieties of the
Subjunctive mood. But these varieties form an opposition of their own, because they are clearly

opposed in form and function. Thus we have a multiple opposition that contains 4 members, 3
marked members (varieties of the Subjunctive Mood) vs. 1 unmarked member (the Indicative
Mood).

S1. The sentence & the phrase: the main difference. Predication as the main sentence
characteristic. The predicative connection of the subject and the predicate.
the term phrase acquired an extremely narrow sense and was applied only to those phrases which include not less
than 2 notional words, connected by the relations of subordination. Predicative and prepositional groups were
excluded from the phrase theory. This point of view was introduced by Vinogradov and was supported by many
Russian linguis
The Sentence is the basic unit of syntax. It is different from other language units because it is a unit of
communication. It's very difficult to give a definition of the sentence because it has many aspects. Every definition
reflects this or that aspect but it can't be considered as a universal one.
A sentence is a unit of speech whose grammatical structure conforms to the laws of the language and which serves
as the chief means of conveying a thought. A sentence is not only a means of communicating something about
reality but a means of showing the speakers attitude to it. It is rather difficult to define the sentence as it is
connected with many lingual and extra lingual aspects logical, psychological and philosophical.
Sentence definitions.
A sentence is a subject-predicate structure. Grammatical subject can only be defined in terms of the sentence.
Moreover the grammatical subject often does not indicate what we are talking about (The birds have eaten all the
fruit. It is getting cold). Besides, this definition leaves out verbless sentences. There are one-member sentences.
They are non-sentences? Conclusion a sentence is a structural scheme.
Formal D. American Descriptive Gr-r) Ch. Fries: a s-ce is a word or group of words standing between the initial
Capital letter and a mark of end punctuation or between two marks of end punctuation.
Phonetic D. M.Whitehall: an utterance ending with one of 2 intonation contours (fall>.! , rise>?) typical of the Eng.
language. A sentence is a flow of speech between 2 pauses. But speech is made up of incomplete, interrupted,
unfinished, or even quite chaotic sentences. Speech is made up of utterances but utterances seldom correspond to
sentences.
It is more preferable to describe a sentence than to define it.
The main peculiar features of the sentence are: integrity, syntactic independence, grammatical completeness,
semantic completeness, communicative completeness, communicative functioning, predicativity, modality,
intonational completeness
Predicativity is a syntactical category. It is actualized reference to reality. Logical understanding: combination of 2
parts of proposition. Formally syntactic understanding: relations of the structural components of the sentence
(subject and predicate). Semantic approach: correlation of the contents of the utterance with the situation. The latter
is most popular.
Sentence definitions.
Modality is a semantic category. It is broader a notion than predicativity, it is revealed both in grammatical elements
of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. Prof.Pocheptsov: predicativity is mood plus tense
(predicativity is broader than modality)
The features which should be included into the s-ce def.-ns are:
the s-ce is a syntactic unit;
the s-ce is an autonomous unit which isnt a part of a larger syntactic structure;
the s-ce is a structurally complete unit which is based on a certain syntactic pattern or modal and contains all the
component characteristics of this pattern.
Sentence definitions.
S-ce should possess all the parts of the s-ce preconditioned by the verbal valency. Ex. He knew O. At the same time
the s-ce doesnt necessarily express a complete thought because in many cases it may contain the words whose
lexical meaning is ambiguous and depends on the context. Ex. She did that. He knew it.
the s-ce is characterized by its own purpose of utterance. It can be a statement, a ? or a command.
The s-ce as an syntactic unit is materialized in a written or oral form. Acc-ly it should be phonetically or graphically

shaped.

blokh:The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic
pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connec-tion of words
having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the
main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.

Predication. Means of expressing predication. To become a s-ce a word or a word group must have 2
categories predicativity and modality. The correlation of the thought expressed in the sentence with the
situation of speech is called predicativity. Predicativiry has three main components: modality, time and
person, expressed by the categories of mood, tense and person. So the predicate verb is the main means of
expressing predicativity.
The person component of predicativity is also expressed by the subject. Thus predicativity is expressed by
the subject-predicate group, or predication. Predication constitutes the basic structure of the sentence.
Predicativity is also expressed by intonation, which is the essential feature of the sentence as a unit of
speech.
It should be noted, that some scholars use only one term predication to denote both the relation of the
sentence to reality and means of its expression.
A sentence may contain primary and secondary predication:
/ heard someone singing.
The group someone singing is called the secondary predication, as it resembles the subject-predicate
group, or the primary predication, structurally and semantically: it consists of two main components,
nominal and verbal, and names an event or situation. But it cannot be correlated with reality directly and
cannot constitute an independent unit of communication, as verbals have no categories of mood, tense and
person. The secondary predication is related to the situation of speech indirectly, through the primary
predications.
Chahoyan (from S-Petersburg University): one member nominal s-ces have no gr-l predicativity, but they
possess the meaning of predication, for ex. an ability to describe a situation. The conclusion is that of
three kinds of simple s-ces two-member s-ces and one-member imperative s-ce express gr-l predicativity
unambiguously, while in one-member nominal s-ces there is only the meaning of predication, but no
predicativity.

S1. The sentence & the phrase: the main difference. Predication as the main sentence
characteristic. The predicative connection of the subject and the predicate.
the term phrase acquired an extremely narrow sense and was applied only to those phrases
which include not less than 2 notional words, connected by the relations of subordination.
Predicative and prepositional groups were excluded from the phrase theory. This point of view
was introduced by Vinogradov and was supported by many Russian linguis
The Sentence is the basic unit of syntax. It is different from other language units because it is a
unit of communication. It's very difficult to give a definition of the sentence because it has many
aspects. Every definition reflects this or that aspect but it can't be considered as a universal one.
A sentence is a unit of speech whose grammatical structure conforms to the laws of the language
and which serves as the chief means of conveying a thought. A sentence is not only a means of
communicating something about reality but a means of showing the speakers attitude to it. It is
rather difficult to define the sentence as it is connected with many lingual and extra lingual
aspects logical, psychological and philosophical.
Sentence definitions.
A sentence is a subject-predicate structure. Grammatical subject can only be defined in terms of
the sentence. Moreover the grammatical subject often does not indicate what we are talking
about (The birds have eaten all the fruit. It is getting cold). Besides, this definition leaves out
verbless sentences. There are one-member sentences. They are non-sentences? Conclusion a
sentence is a structural scheme.
Formal D. American Descriptive Gr-r) Ch. Fries: a s-ce is a word or group of words standing
between the initial Capital letter and a mark of end punctuation or between two marks of end
punctuation.
Phonetic D. M.Whitehall: an utterance ending with one of 2 intonation contours (fall>.! , rise>?)
typical of the Eng. language. A sentence is a flow of speech between 2 pauses. But speech is
made up of incomplete, interrupted, unfinished, or even quite chaotic sentences. Speech is made
up of utterances but utterances seldom correspond to sentences.
It is more preferable to describe a sentence than to define it.
The main peculiar features of the sentence are: integrity, syntactic independence, grammatical
completeness, semantic completeness, communicative completeness, communicative
functioning, predicativity, modality, intonational completeness
Predicativity is a syntactical category. It is actualized reference to reality. Logical understanding:
combination of 2 parts of proposition. Formally syntactic understanding: relations of the
structural components of the sentence (subject and predicate). Semantic approach: correlation of
the contents of the utterance with the situation. The latter is most popular.
Sentence definitions.
Modality is a semantic category. It is broader a notion than predicativity, it is revealed both in
grammatical elements of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. Prof.Pocheptsov:
predicativity is mood plus tense (predicativity is broader than modality)
The features which should be included into the s-ce def.-ns are:
the s-ce is a syntactic unit;
the s-ce is an autonomous unit which isnt a part of a larger syntactic structure;
the s-ce is a structurally complete unit which is based on a certain syntactic pattern or modal and
contains all the component characteristics of this pattern.
Sentence definitions.
S-ce should possess all the parts of the s-ce preconditioned by the verbal valency. Ex. He knew
O. At the same time the s-ce doesnt necessarily express a complete thought because in many

cases it may contain the words whose lexical meaning is ambiguous and depends on the context.
Ex. She did that. He knew it.
the s-ce is characterized by its own purpose of utterance. It can be a statement, a ? or a
command.
The s-ce as an syntactic unit is materialized in a written or oral form. Acc-ly it should be
phonetically or graphically shaped.
blokh:The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a
definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose.
Any coherent connec-tion of words having an informative destination is effected within the
framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the
grammatical theory.
Predication. Means of expressing predication. To become a s-ce a word or a word group must
have 2 categories predicativity and modality. The correlation of the thought expressed in the
sentence with the situation of speech is called predicativity. Predicativiry has three main
components: modality, time and person, expressed by the categories of mood, tense and person.
So the predicate verb is the main means of expressing predicativity.
The person component of predicativity is also expressed by the subject. Thus predicativity is
expressed by the subject-predicate group, or predication. Predication constitutes the basic
structure of the sentence.
Predicativity is also expressed by intonation, which is the essential feature of the sentence as a
unit of speech.
It should be noted, that some scholars use only one term predication to denote both the
relation of the sentence to reality and means of its expression.
A sentence may contain primary and secondary predication:
/ heard someone singing.
The group someone singing is called the secondary predication, as it resembles the subjectpredicate group, or the primary predication, structurally and semantically: it consists of two main
components, nominal and verbal, and names an event or situation. But it cannot be correlated
with reality directly and cannot constitute an independent unit of communication, as verbals have
no categories of mood, tense and person. The secondary predication is related to the situation of
speech indirectly, through the primary predications.
Chahoyan (from S-Petersburg University): one member nominal s-ces have no gr-l predicativity,
but they possess the meaning of predication, for ex. an ability to describe a situation. The
conclusion is that of three kinds of simple s-ces two-member s-ces and one-member imperative
s-ce express gr-l predicativity unambiguously, while in one-member nominal s-ces there is only
the meaning of predication, but no predicativity.

The sentence: definition and classification (Ch. Fries, V. Vinogradov, M. Blokh,


B. Khaimovich & B. Rogovskaya).
1 a. The basic . And the first question of interest is connected with the problem of defining what
a sentence is. There are many definitions of this unit. Charles Fries in his book The Structure of
English 1957 mentioned more than 200 definitions. Since that time many new definitions had
appeared and even now we can hardly say there is one universal definition. This problem still
remains.
Pr. Fries dwelt in detail on several definitions. We shall discuss three of them:
1. The ancient definition (Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome). Sentence is a group of words
expressing a complete thought. There are two kinds of word groups. E.g. a fire was burning a
burning fire. Pr. Fries said that the above given definition couldnt help him to state which of
them is a sentence, which expresses a complete thought and which not, because at that time there
were no objective criteria to measure the degree of thoughts completeness. This definition is not
linguistic, it is logical. It is not strict, not precise enough.
2. Pr. Fries criticized the attempt to define a sentence as mirrored in its two main components:
the Subject and the Predicate. Sentence is a group of words having a subject and a predicate. E.g.
A dog is barking. According to this definition sentences like: Spring. Congratulations!, we can
hardly find any proper subjects or predicates, that is why these are not sentences at all.
3. After a thorough examination, Pr. Fries decided to accept the definition, given by Leonard
Bloomfield: Each sentence is an independent linguistic form not included by value of any
grammatical construction in any larger linguistic form
, ,
. On the whole it is correct. It
gives an opportunity to draw a line of difference between two kinds of word groups (see above).
This definition does help to distinguish the sentence from the non-sentential group of words. But
there are some drawbacks: 1. It is negative; 2. According to it, the level of the sentence is thought
to be the highest level, and the sentence is the highest linguistic form, not included into a larger
linguistic form. But in contemporary linguistics, the level of the sentence is not considered to be
the highest, as we also have supra-proposemic level, where a paragraph is the basic unit, and the
levels of the text and the discourse.
b. Sentence is the smallest unit of speech, expressing a more or less complete thought, having a
definite grammatical form and intonation. Every sentence contains an indication of how the
statement is connected with the reality, it is more prcised and points out 4 features: 1. The
semantic completeness; 2. The definiteness of the grammatical form; 3. The definiteness of its
intonation; 4. Its ability to express the connection between the statement into reality (it is
the most valuable). Having in view these features, it is possible to separate the first type of word
groups from the second.
c. Still more improvements of the sentence definition may be found in the manuals by
Khaimovich and Rogovskaya: Sentence is a communicative unit made up of words and of word
morphemes structurally united by predicativity and intonation.
Pochebtsov, Ivanova: Sentence is the smallest unit of speech communication, distinguished for
its ability to express predicativity and built up according to one of the patterns of the language.
Blokh: sentence is the immediate integrial unit of speech built up according to one of the
syntactic levels of the language and distinguished for a contextual relevant purpose.
The value and newness of these definitions is that they point out predicativity as one of the basic
features adherent to the sentence. By predicativity we mean the relation of the statement to the
situation of speech. Situation of speech includes the speaker, the time of the action and reality.
Thus predicativity has got three components: 1. the speaker component of predicativity, showing
whether the persons mentioned in the sentence are the speakers, the addressees of speech or the
persons spoken of; 2. the time component, showing the time of action with reference to the
moment of speech; 3. the reality component, showing the relation of the statement to reality.

(connection with the reality can be shown through: 1 phonetic means - intonation; 2 semantic
means modal verbs; 3 grammatical means (mood) look for modality)

The sentence: the problem of classification (the communicative classification, the structural
classification, classification of simple sentences).
There exist two generally known classifications of sentences: communicative and structural.
a. Communicative classification is based on the notion of the communicative type. There exist
three types of communication: - a statement; - a question; - an inducement. Thus we have three
corresponding types of sentences: *declarative those rendering statements; *interrogative
those rendering questions; *imperative those rendering inducements.
All the three types may be emotional: *declarative: what absurd fellow you are! I dont like jam!
You have never even spoken to him!; *interrogative: What can he possibly do for you?! Now
you pay for it! But how?!; *imperative: Stop kidding me!
Sometimes emotionally coloured sentences are called exclamatory and are treated as a separate
communicative type of sentences. But most scholars think this is a mistake, because each of the
three types may be emotional.
b. Structural classification is based on the number of predicative centers/lines in the sentence.
If a sentence has got one predicative center, it is simple. If more than one, than it is a composite
sentence. Composite sentences are divided into two groups according to the type of relation
between the parts of the sentence. The parts may be connected on the bases of equality and in
this case we have a compound sentence () and on the principal of
subordination, than we have a complex sentence ().
c. Simple sentences have classification of their own. One is based on the structure of
predicative units in the sentence. In most cases there are two parts: the Subject and the Predicate.
These are two member sentences (double nuclear). When a predicative center consists of only
one part we deal with one member sentences (single nuclear), E.g. the smells of spring.
The second classification is based on whether the parts of the sentence are explicitly expressed or
not. If all parts are explicitly expressed, then we deal with a complete sentence. If not, then it is
an elliptical sentence. // Walking? - ; Spring .
.// It is necessary we should take care not to mix up elliptical sentences with one
member sentences. The missing parts of an elliptical sentence may be easily added. //also
Extended unextended/non-extended//

The structure of the simple sentence. Criteria used for establishing different parts of t
Simple Sentence
In the twentieth century linguistic studies were very often connected with the structure of
linguistic units that is what we call structural linguistics (de Saussure). In Lexicology we deal
with seams as components of the words semantic structure. In Grammar there is a certain role of
complex elements such as a word combination, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph, a text and a
discourse. Each element has a structure of its own that is connected with other levels of the
linguistic system. If we take morphemes, they are built of phonemes. If take a word/lexeme, it
would be built of morphemes. If we take a phrase then the bricks will be words and lexemes.
And for this we have two accesses of relations: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. The English
scholar Mark Halliday defines a structure of a linguistic unit as such: it is a syntagmatic
framework of interrelated elements paradigmatically established in systems of classes. From this
aspect the structure of the sentence may be understood as a sequence of interrelated elements
paradigmatically established as various parts of the sentence.
There is a question about the criteria that can prove to be a reliable basis for establishing parts
of the sentence. Pf. Smirnotsky spoke of two criteria: 1. the kind of the syntactic relations
between the parts of the sentence; 2. the character of the syntactic bond between the parts of the
sentence.
If we take the first criteria, we shall have four kinds of syntactic relations:
1. The relation between the doer of the action
The President arrives.
and the action itself.
The Presidents arrival.
2. The relation between the action and its
[They] delivered the mail.
object.
The mails delivery.
3. The relation between the action and its
They delivered it in the morning.
circumstances.
The morning delivery.
4. The relation between a person or a thing and The scenery was beautiful.
a property.
The beautiful scenery.
As these examples show, this criterion alone is not sufficient because one and the same kind
of relation is reflected both in different parts of the sentence and those of a phrase. That is why
another criterion is necessary. Thus we rely on the character of the syntactic bond between the
parts of the sentence and speak of two types of bonds: 1. the predicative syntactic bond; 2. the
non-predicative syntactic bond. The latter in its turn is father subdivided into the complementary
(, ) syntactic bond and the attributive syntactic bond. The
predicative syntactic bond makes the sentence. The complementary syntactic bond is found
between the predicate and the object and the predicate and the adverbial modifier. The attributive
syntactic bond forms an attributive word combination.
Depending on their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or
several (more than one) predicative lines; sentences may be, respectively,
"monopredicative" and "polypredicative". The simple sentence is a sentence in which only
one predicative line is expressed.
The simple sentence, as any sentence in general, is organized as a system of functionexpressing positions, the content of the functions being the reflection of a situational event.
The nominative parts of the simple sentence, each occupying a notional position in it, are
subject, predicate, object, adverbial, attribute, parenthetical enclosure, addressing enclosure;
a special, semi-notional position is occupied by an interjectional enclosure. The parts are
arranged in a hierarchy, wherein all of them perform some modifying role.
Simple Sentence
Another scheme of analysis called the "model of immediate constituents" is based on the
group-parsing (, ) of the sentence which has been developed by traditional
grammar together with the sentence-part parsing scheme. It consists in dividing the whole of
the sentence into two groups: that of the subject and that of the predicate, which, in their

turn, are divided into their sub-group constituents according to the successive subordinative
order of the latter.
Profiting by this type of analysis, the IC-model explicitly exposes the binary hierarchical
principle of subordinative connections, showing the whole structure of the sentence as made
up by binary immediate constituents. he sentence.

Main and secondary parts of the sentence. Their role in expressing predicativity. Basic and
optional parts of the sentence.
It has been common for a long time to distinguish the main and the secondary parts of the
sentence. The Subject and the Predicate are regarded as main and others are taken as
secondary. Now we shall dwell upon the reason for this decision and the main difficulties.
According to Pr. Ilysh: the Subject and the Predicate constitute the backbone of the sentence.
Without them, the sentence wouldnt exist at all. Whereas all other parts may or may not be
there. And if they are there, they serve to define or modify either the Subject or the Predicate or
each other. (It is too metaphoric).
Pr. Rogovich and Pr. Khaimovskaya gave a more scientific explanation: the main parts of
the sentence are those that take part in expressing predicativity which makes a sentence. Without
predicativity there is no sentence. But it has been noticed that a sentence wont exist not only
when it hasnt got a Subject or a Predicate, but also when some secondary part is missing and it
ruins the whole sense. For example, He struck; He went. In cases as these the word groups have
the subject and the predicate, but they are not complete, not correct and contradict both
grammatical and logical rules. It is only if we add some secondary part that this group will
become the communicative unit and will turn into a real sentence. So care should be taken as far
as we rely upon the criterion of predicativity, because there are cases when predicativity alone is
not enough to make a sentence. That is why there appeared yet another approach.
In order to differentiate between those parts that are indispensible (you cannot emit them) for
the structure of the sentence and those parts that can be emitted it is possible to divide them into
two groups: 1) basic (cant be emitted) and 2) optional that a sentence may have or not. E.g.
She is [very] (optional) fond of reading (basic). He went to London [yesterday].
.
This theory led to the thought that the former distinction between the main and secondary
parts of the sentence is outdated. This observation is of great interest for theoretical studies, but
here we run against another stumbling block. We dont have equal bases for classifications. The
basis of difference between the main and the secondary parts is their ability to form the line of
predication. The basis of difference between the basic and optional parts is their ability to form
the semantic syntactic minimum of the sentence. Although we take into account that not all
secondary parts are optional and acknowledge certain prose of classifying parts of a sentence as
basic and optional still wed better use the criterion of predicativity.
Main parts of the sentence
The subject is one of the 2 main parts of the sentence:
1)It denotes the thing whose action or characteristic is expressed by the predicate.
2)It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence.
It may be expressed by different parts of speech, the most frequent ones being: a noun in the
common case, a personal pronoun in the nominative case, a demonstrative pronoun occasionally,
a substantivized adjective, a numeral, an infinitive, and a gerund. It may also be expressed by a
phrase.
The predicate is one of the 2 main parts of the sentence:
1)It denotes the action or property of the thing expressed by the subject
2)It is not dependent on any other part of the sentence.
3)Ways of expressing the predicate are varied and their structure will better be considered under
the heading of types of predicate
The secondary parts
The Object is a secondary part of the sentence expressed by a verb, a noun, a substantival
pronoun, an adjective, a numeral, or an adverb, and denoting a thing to which the action passes
on, which is a result of the action, in reference to which an action is committed or a property is
manifested, or denoting an action as object of another action.
Classification of object:

1.Prepositional and non-prepositional objects


2.Morphological types (noun, pronoun, substantivized adjective, infinitive, gerund)
3.Direct/indirect, is applied only to objects expressed by nouns or pronouns. There are sentences
in which the predicate is expressed by the verbs send, show, lend, give. These verbs usually take
2 different kinds of objects simultaneously: (1) an object expressing the thing which is sent,
shown, lent, given, etc. (2) the person or persons to whom the thing is sent, shown, lent, given,
etc.
The secondary parts
The Adverbial Modifier. The term adverbial modifier cannot be said to be a very lucky one, as
it is apt to convey incorrect ideas about the essence of this secondary part. They have nothing to
do with adverbs and they modify not only verbs.
Adverbial modifier of: Time and frequency,Place and direction,Manner and attendant
circumstances, Cause,Purpose,Result,Condition,Concession,Degree
There are several ways of classifying adverbial modifiers:
(1.)According to their meaning not a grammatical classification.
(2).According to their morphological peculiarities according to the parts of speech and to the
phrase patterns. It has also something to do with word order, and stands in a certain relation to
the classification according to meaning,adverb,preposition + noun,a noun without a
preposition,infinitive or an infinitive phrase
(3.)According to the type of their head-word is the syntactic classification proper. The meaning
of the word (phrase) acting as modifier should be compatible with the meaning of the head-word.
The secondary parts
The problem of the attribute.
The attribute is a secondary part of the sentence modifying a part of the sentence expressed by a
noun, a substantivized pronoun, a cardinal numeral, and any substantivized word, and
characterizing the thing named by these words as to its quality or property.
The attribute can either precede or follow the noun it modifies. Accordingly we use terms
prepositive and postpositive attribute. The position of an attribute with respect to its head-word
depends partly on the morphological peculiarities of the attribute itself, and partly on stylistic
factors.
Subdivision into two big supra-classes: notional and functional words.

The subject: its definition and classification.


The subject is the independent member of a two-member predication, containing the person
component of predicativity. The subject is generally defined as a word or a group of words
denoting the thing we speak about. The subject of a simple sentence can be a word, a syntactical
word-morpheme or a complex.
As a word it can belong to different parts of speech, but it is mostly a noun or a pronoun. A word
used as a subject combines the lexical meaning with the structural meaning of person. So it is
at the same time the structural and the notional subject. We may speak of a secondary subject
within a complex. The syntactical word-morphemes there and it may also function as secondary
subjects (It being cold, we put on our coats. I knew of there being no one to help them).
The analysis of sentences like He was seen to enter the house, is a point at issue. Traditionally
the infinitive is said to form part of the complex subject (Heto enter). Ilyish maintains that
though satisfactory from the logical point of view, this interpretation seems to be artificial
grammatically, this splitting of the subject being alien to English. He suggests that only HE
should be treated as a subject, whereas was sees to enter represents a peculiar type of compound
predicate.
Some grammarians (Smirnitsky, Ganshina) speak of definite-personal, indefinite-personal,
impersonal sentences, but it is a semantical classification of subjects, not sentences. If we
compare the subject in English with that of Russian we shall find a considerable difference
between them.
In Russian the subject is characterized by a distinct morphological feature the nominative case,
in English it is indicated by the position it occupies in the sentence. In Russian the subject is
much less obligatory as a part of the sentence than in English. In English the subject may be a
syntactical word-morpheme, a gerund, or a complex, which is alien to Russian.
S:
Anticipatory
Notional
Secondary/Primary
Simple/Compound
Smirn-j:
Simple/Complex
Introductory/Notional
Lexical/Psycological

The predicate: its definition and classification


The Predicate is the part of the sentence which expresses a predicative feature attributed to the
subject of the sentence. Like the subject, the predicate also carries out a triple function in the
sentence: structural, semantic and communicative.
Its structural function consists in establishing the syntactic relations with the subject and other
parts of the sentence. The semantic function of the predicate finds its expression in attributing
certain features to the subject. Its communicative function is manifested in the fact that through
the predicate and the expression of predication the sentence becomes a minimal unit of
communication.
The predicate is 'the structural and semantic centre of the sentence. In the structure of a simple,
two-member sentence the predicate usually carries out the function of the rheme, He
disappeared.
According to the form of expression predicates are divided into verbal and nominal: The moon
rose. The moon was pale. There exists a phraseological predicate (presents a combination of such
verbs as have, get, give, take and a verbal noun (give a look, take a bath, have a smoke). From
the grammatical point of view the most important characteristic of this type of predicate is not so
much its phraseological but its analytical character (all analytical structures are characterized by
idiomaticity of their components).
The verb expresses the grammatical meaning and the verbal noun expresses a lexical meaning.
The two formal types of the predicate correspond to the two main semantic types: process
predicate which expresses the action, the state or the existence of the subject and qualification
predicate which expresses the quality (property) of the subject.
The process predicate can be further subdivided into several types in accordance with the
semantic types of verbs: existential (There was a tavern in the town), statal (He slept), locative
(The elephant lives in India), relational (He had a small ranch) and actional (The car broke
down). ). The qualification predicate has three subtypes: identifying (So you are the man we
have been looking for), classifying (My friend is a student) and characterizing (My wife is a bit
of an actress. He was too German).
Structurally the predicate may be divided into simple and compound. We said good- bye - a
simple verbal predicate; It was a lovely place -simple nominal predicate. The predicate is
compounded by the introduction of modal or aspective components. We started saying good-bye
- a compound verbal predicate; It must be a lovely place - a compound nominal predicate.

Peculiarities of the attribute as a part of the sentence. The problem of the apposition as a part
of the sentence.
Attribute is a sentence member which depends on a noun in any of its sentential functions and
which, as a rule, specifies more closely, or "determines" its meaning. In inquiring about attributes
we use such interrogative pronouns as which, what or whose connected with the governing noun.
Attribute either agrees with its governing member or it is governed by it, or its dependency is not
expressed by a special form.
An attribute that agrees, at least in case, with the noun on which it depends, is called agreeing
attribute. If this attribute is represented by an adjective (a pronoun or a numeral in this status) it
agrees in case, number and gender. In rare cases there occur attributes of feminine gender
pertaining to masculine nouns as a means of emotional expression, e.g., a long-eared-Fem
An attribute that does not decline in accordance with its governing noun and, as a rule, represents
a case different from that of this noun, or is expressed by an adverb or an infinitive, is called a
non-agreeing attribute.
An attribute can be expressed by a subordinate clause, introduced by a conjunction or by a
relative pronoun. An attributive clause, however, cannot be seen in such a "pseudo-expansion"
as, e.g., I saw an angel and he had a formidable shield, nor in clauses joined by expressions such
as what, at which, etc. These are interpreted as coordination of head clauses.
A descriptive (non-restrictive) attribute is separated by commas in the sentence (the inmates,
confined in the institute, have pinched something). Such an attribute obtains the function Atr, too
(not Atr_Pa), as the case is not a parenthesis, for which it could be taken by mistake.
Afun Atr, however, can also be used in some instances in which the case is not a classical
attribute. Thus, it can be obtained by parts of addresses or parts of the text in foreign languages.
We can use it in analyzing numerical expressions as well. These problems are dealt with in
Addresses and names of persons and institutions, Foreign words in the text, and Expression with
numerals, figures in different functions.
Single attributes or homogeneous ones are usually placed before the noun modified, while
expanded attributes expressed by phrases usually stand in postposition to the noun:
Your new dress is wonderful.
You behave like a schoolboy afraid of his teacher.
Attributes can be expressed by:
1) An adjective: This big girl is very lazy.
2) A pronoun (possessive, defining, demonstrative, interrogative, relative, indefinite): I saw by
their faces that they had learned something new. Every student should know it.
3) A numeral (cardinal or ordinal): I borrowed two pounds from my brother. The second story
was very dull.
4) A noun in the common case or the genitive case: The village painter entered the pub. Her
fathers nerves would never stand the disclosure.
5) A prepositional phrase: It was an act of despair on her part.
6) An adverb in pre- or postposition to the noun modified: The after events shook the whole
town.
7) A participle or a participial phrase: She saw the lighted windows of the cottage.
8) A gerund or a gerundial phrase joined prepositionally: She admired his way of doing things.
9) An infinitive, an infinitive phrase or an infinitive construction in postposition to the noun
modified: He is a man to rely on. Here is a book for you to read on train.
10) A quotation group: I hate his dont-talk-to-me air.
Some scholars point out other parts of the sentence. Pr. Ilysh singles out the Apposition. He
defines it like this: An Apposition is a word or a phrase connected with a part of the sentence
expressed by a noun giving some additional designation (, ) to the
person [or a thing Pr. Ganshhina]. E.g. Tom, my school friend, has just arrived. / Billington, the
night watchmen, was going his rounds, with his bull-terrier Jim. / His son, a youth of sixteen,

was of lighter colour in a hair and eyes. / This event, his arrival, made us change our plan. There
are two kinds of Apposition: close (the river Thames, William the Conqueror) and loose (see
above). Many scholars think (Pr. Barkhudarov among them) that the apposition may be regarded
as a kind of an attribute. But Pr. Ilysh is against it.
He states that the apposition has its own characteristics which are not like those of the
attribute. The relations between the components in these combinations are different. An
apposition appears to have distinctive features strong enough to establish it as a separate
secondary part: it is always expressed either by a noun, or by a phrase centered around a noun,
and characterizes the person or thing in a way different from that of an attribute.
But if we accept the view point about the existence of the attribute in a broad sense of the
word (by Pr. Smirnitsky), or the structure of the category including best or salient examples (E.
Rosch) then we will come to the conclusion that the apposition falls under the category of the
attribute.

The problem of the direct address and the parenthesis as parts of the sentence.
Some scholars speak of the direct address and the parenthesis as the secondary parts of the
sentence. Pr. Ilysh gave a definition like this:the direct address is a word or a phrase denoting
the person or thing to which the speech or writing is directed. The direct address may consist of
one word or of a phrase. If it is one word, this may be the persons name or profession or title, or
it may denote a relationship between the person addressed and the speaker. If it is a phrase, this
may again be any of the types just mentioned or it may be some emotional address, whether
friendly or hostile.
E.g. John, come here. I havent seen you for ages!
As for the parenthesis, Pr. Ilysh defined as a word or a phrase expressing the attitude of the
speaker to the statement or the relation to reality.
According to Pr. Khaimovich and Pr. Rogovskaya, parenthetical elements are peculiar parts
of the sentence. a) they are characterized by negative combinability with the other words of the
sentence; b) they are not in a line with the other parts of the sentence, but parallel to them; c)they
mostly express the speakers attitude towards the content of the sentence, its relation to other
sentences or situations.
In accordance with their meaning, parenthetical elements fall into four major groups:
1) modal parenthetical elements, serving to show the attitude of the speaker towards the
relation of the communication to the real/actual state of things. E.g. He would have to buy them
out, of course. Certainly, he thought about it all the way there;
2) connective parenthetical elements, showing the chain of thoughts. E.g. He did not,
however, come. May I say, first, that I appreciate your help;
3) Explanatory parenthetical elements. E.g. He remembered suddenly one night, the first on
which he went out to dinner alone an old Malburian dinner the first year of their marriage;
4) other words inserted in the sentenced. E.g. Then who manages his business, pray?
, . But they also include into the fourth group direct address (see above
about Ilysh, )/ ( )
Many scholars regard the direct address and the parenthesis as falling out of the sentence
structure. For example, in the manual by Pr. Ganshina and Pr. Vasilevskaya they are called
independent elements and into this group they include interjections; direct address and
parenthesis. Pr. Ilysh considers this view point to be wrong in theory. A sentence should be
analyzed with all the elements it may contain. Thus Pr. Ilysh finds it possible to regard both as
the secondary parts of the sentence. On the one hand, it is right. But we shall face some
difficulties when we try to treat them as other parts of the sentence because it is difficult to name
the criterion for their appearance in the system of parts of the sentence. This difficulty still
remains.
Barkhudarov *(Isolated/detached): As parenthetical elements we may use different parts of
speech and word combinations such as: 1) modal verbs: Perhaps, I shall be unhappy, too Galsworthy; 2) adverbs: Unfortunately, he was found dead - Galsworthy; 3) prepositional
constructions: The worthy dame, to his surprise, turned very pale and very red; 4) Infinitive
constructions: she has broken a precious china and, to make the things still worth, she never told
anyone about it; 5) participial constructions: Frankly speaking, he had been amazed at this
failure; 5)clauses: You are not complaining, I hope.

Object
Blokh- the substance modifier of processial part of sent, secondary part. Is connected
with predicat/some other processual part, meaning of person/thing that are in connection with
process/property denoted by predicate.
Classification Ganshina, Vasyljeva- direct, indirect, retained, cognate, prepositional, complex.
Cognate obj after some transitive verb, similar to verb and noun in meaning, derived from the
same root (They fought a good fight,They slept a long sleep). This classification lacks
consistency.
Semantic classification based on synt bound betw object and predicate non-preposit
(connection isnt based on prepositions), prepositional introduced by prepositions.
Another classification of objects is based on the kind of syntactic bond between the Object
and the Predicate. As a result we have two kinds of Objects: non-prepositional, that follow the
predicate and the connection is non-prepositional, and prepositional objects, that are introduced
by a certain preposition. Non-prepositional Objects are further subdivided into direct and
indirect. This classification is first of all semantic, because it implies that the direct object
denotes the thing to which the process of the verb is directed. The indirect object denotes the
addressee of the action, a person or a thing, for whose benefit the action is performed. Objects
expressed by infinitival participial and gerundial groups and complexes cannot be called either
direct or indirect. They are beyond the margins of these two classes.
Both direct and indirect objects are found only after the verbs of the give-type: give, buy,
send, show. If we call an object a direct one, then there should always be its partner the
indirect object. THEY DONT EXIST WITHOUT EACH OTHER. Single objects are called
prepositional or non-prepositional without stating whether they are direct or not. Pr. Smirnitsky
and Pr. Homny also described such object that occur together but can hardly be called direct or
indirect. E.g. I asked him a question. I envy you your new garden (NOON_PREPOSITIONAL
OBJECTS).
3. The object is expressed either by a noun or by a noun equivalent. That is a personal
pronoun in the Objective case, a demonstrative pronoun, an indefinite pronoun, a substantivized
adjective, an infinitive and a gerund.
Ilyish; this cl-n can be applied only to direct/indirect objects that are expr by noun/pronoun (We
bought him a candy). Both direct, indirect objects are found oonly after verbs of given type.
Object is expr by noun, noun equivalent, pers pronoun in objective case, demonstr pronoun,
indef pronoun, substantivized adj, infinite, gerund.

Adv modifier, classification, manifestation


Adverbial Modifier is a secondary part of the sentence which modifies verbs, adjectives
and adverbs and specifies the circumstances of a happening (time, place, manner, reason, result,
etc.). Ganshina part of sent that is connected with verb predicate/adverb in any of its function,
denotes place, time, manner, degree, etc. Blokh-the property modifier of processual part of sent.
Smirnitsky classif accord to meaning 11 subclasses time measure place manner degree
cause measure result condition concession purpose exclusion
Classif accord morph peculiarities adverb, phrase pattern, noun without preposit expressing
distance, time, price, etc., noun-phrase, participle, gerund+preposit, infinitive expr
purpose/result.
Classif accord to type of head-word concerns part of sent where adv modif linked to- can be
expr by verb,verbal noun,adj,adverb. It cant be linked to non-verbal noun.
. It has been common for a long time to classify AM according to their meanings. The list may
vary due to the theoretical approach (). !!!! ADD INFORMATION!!!! But a complete
classification of Am according to their meaning is impossible to achieve. That is why the
Moscow scientific school subject that there should be two more classification introduced: 1)
according to morphological peculiarities and 2) according to the type of their head/ key word.
As for morphological peculiarities the most frequent morphological type is the adverb; a noun
with the preposition; a noun phrase (they walk side by side); a noun without any preposition
expressing extent, distance, time, price (step this way; I have waited ages); the participle (having
completed sth he did); a gerund (usually with the preposition. E.g. he left the room without
saying a word); an infinitive, usually to express purpose or result; infinitival, participial or
gerundial complexes (she left the room with the candle burning on the table).
As to the type of head word this typology concerns the part of the sentence the AM is linked
to. An AM is semantically and structurally joined to a part of the sentence expressed by a verb, a
verbal noun, and adjective, an adverb. It cannot be linked to a non-verbal noun.

12) Actual division of sentence


The notional (, ) parts of the sentence form the nominative
meaning of the sentence. The division of the sentence into notional parts can be called the
nominative division. The main components of the actual division of the sentence are the theme
and the rheme. The theme expresses smth. already known. It is a starting point of
communication, while the rheme expresses smth new. It is the communicative center of the
utterance. The theme of the actual division of the sentence may or may not coincide with the
subject of the sentence. The rheme of the actual division may or may not coincide with the
predicate of the sentence either with the whole predicate group or its part, such as the
predicative, the object, the adverbial. Example: Max bounded forward. above sentences the
rheme coincides with the whole predicate group. Example:. Who is coming late but John! There
is a difference of opinion between the parties.Here the correlation between the nominative and
actual divisions is the reverse: the theme is expressed by the predicate or its part, while the
rheme is rendered by the subject.
Historically the theory of actual division of the sentence is connected with the logical analysis of
the proposition. The principal parts of the proposition, as is known, are the logical subject and
the logical predicate. These, like the theme and the rheme, may or may not coincide,
respectively, with the subject and the predicate of the sentence. The logical categories of subject
and predicate are prototypes of the linguistic categories of theme and rheme. The actual division
finds its full expression only in a concrete context of speech. If it is stylistically neutral
construction the theme is the subject and the rheme is the predicate and this kind of actual
division is direct. The actual division in which the rheme is expressed by the subject is inverted.
- The means of expressing the rheme :1.Lexical meanings particles (only,even)2.Logical
stress3.Change of syntactic structure (It was he who did it)4.Passive voice.
- Means of expressing theme1.Definite article.2.Word order.

13) Complex sentence


The 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, in which they are interconnected.
The subordinate clause is joined to the principal one either by a subordinating connector
(subordinator) or asyndetically. The principles of classification:
Subject- object attributive- adverbial-functional
1)The subject clause expresses the theme of the actual division of a complex sentence.
Ex.What he would do next was not even spoken of. 2)The object clause denotes an objectsituation of the process. Ex. She cannot imagine what you are doing there.
3)Attributive clauses express some characteristics. Ex. I shook out my scarf which was damp.
4)Clauses of adverbial positions constitute a vast domain of syntax which falls into many
subdivisions. 5)The predicative clause performs the function of the nominal part of the
predicate, i.e. the part adjoining the link-verb (be, seem, look).
Ex. Work is what keeps life going. My only terror was lest my father should follow me. Lignose
looked as though a sculptor had moulded it. The informative value of a principal clause may be
reduced to the mere introduction of a subordinate clause; for example, the principal clause can
perform the phatic function, i.e. the function of keeping up the conversation, of maintaining
the immediate communicative connection with the listener, e.g.: I think you are a great parent; in
this sentence, the basic information is rendered by the rhematic subordinate clause, while the
principal clause is phatic, specifying the speakers attitude to the information. More than two
clauses may be combined in one complex sentence. Subordinate clauses may be arranged by
parallel or consecutive subordination. Subordinate clauses immediately referring to one principal
clause are subordinated in parallel or co-subordinated. Parallel subordination may be both
homogeneous and heterogeneous: in homogeneous parallel constructions, the subordinate
clauses perform similar functions, they are connected with each other coordinatively and depend
on the same element in the principal clause (or, the principal clause in general), e.g.: He said that
it was his business and that Id better stay off it; in heterogeneous parallel constructions, the
subordinate clauses mostly refer to different elements in the principal clause, e.g.: The man
whom I saw yesterday said that it was his business. Consecutive subordinative constructions are
formed when one clause is subordinated to another in a string of clauses, e.g.: I dont know why
she said that she couldnt come at the time that I suggested. There are three consecutively
subordinated clauses in this sentence; they form a hierarchy of three levels of subordination. This
figure shows the so-called depth of subordination perspective, one of the essential syntactic
characteristics of the complex sentence. In the previous examples, the depth of subordination
perspective can be estimated as 1. Subordinating connectors are subdivided into two basic types:
pronominal words and pure conjunctions. Pronominal connective words occupy a notional
position in the derived sentence; for example, some of them replace a certain antecedent (i.e. a
word or phrase to which the connector refers back) in the principal clause, e.g.: The man whom I
met yesterday surprised me. Pure subordinate conjunctions do not occupy a notional position in
the derived sentence, e.g.: She said that she would come early. Some connectors are bifunctional,
i.e. used both as conjunctions and as conjunctive substitutes, cf.: She said that she would come
early; Where is the letter that came today? Semantically, subordinators (both conjunctions and
conjunctive substitutes) are subdivided in correspondence with the categorial type of the
subordinate clauses which they introduce: there are substantive-nominal and qualificationnominal clausalizers (conjunctions and pronominal words), which introduce the event-fact, and
adverbial clausalizers (conjunctions), showing relational characteristics of events. Some
connective words can be used both as nominal connectors and as adverbial connectors, cf.: Do
you know when they are coming? (What do you know?) Well meet when the new house is
finished (When shall we meet?). Together with these, the zero subordinator should be named,
whose polyfunctional status is similar to the status of the subordinator that, cf.: She said that she

would come early. She said she would come early; This is the issue that I planned to discuss
with you. This is the issue I planned to discuss with you.

14) Classification of subord clauses


Subordinate clauses are classified on two mutually complementary bases: on the
functional principle and on the categorial principle. According to the functional principle they
are divided on the analogy (though, not identity) of the positional parts of the simple sentence
that underlies the structure of the complex sentence. E.g.: What you see is what you get. - What
you see (the subject, the subject subordinate clause) is what you get (the object, the object
subordinate clause). According to the categorial principle, subordinate clauses are divided by
their inherent nominative properties; there is certain similarity (but, again, not identity) with the
part-of-speech classification of words. Subordinate clauses can be divided into three categorialsemantic groups: substantive-nominal, qualification-nominal and adverbial. Substantive-nominal
subordinate clauses name an event as a certain fact, e.g.: What you do is very important; cf.:
What is very important? Qualification-nominal subordinate clauses name a certain event, which
is referred, as a characteristic to some substance, represented either by a word or by another
clause, e.g.: Where is the letter that came today?; cf.: What letter? Adverbial subordinate clauses
name a certain event, which is referred, as a characteristic to another event, to a process or a
quality, e.g.: I wont leave until you come. The two principles of subordinate clause classification
are mutually complementary: the categorial features of clauses go together with their functional
sentence-part features similar to the categorial features of words going together with their
functional characteristics. Thus, subordinate clauses are to be classified into three groups: first,
clauses of primary nominal positions, including subject, predicative and object clauses; second,
clauses of secondary nominal positions, including various attributive clauses; and third, clauses
of adverbial positions. Clauses of primary nominal positions, including subject, predicative and
object clauses, are interchangeable with each other, cf.: What you see is what you get; What you
get is what you see; Youll be surprised at what you see. The subject clause regularly expresses
the theme of a complex sentence, and the predicative clause regularly expresses its rheme. The
subject clause may express the rheme of the sentence, if it is introduced by the anticipatory it,
e.g.: It is true that he stole the jewels. The subject clause in such complex sentences is at the
same time appositive. The status of the object clause is most obvious in its prepositional
introduction (as in the example above). Sometimes it is mixed with other functional semantics,
determined by the connectors, in particular, with adverbial relational meanings, e.g.: Do you
know when they are coming? A separate group of object clauses are those presenting the chunks
of speech and mental activity processes, traditionally discussed under the heading the rules of
reported speech, e.g.: She said she would come early; Do you mean you like it?

Sentence with non-finite forms of verb


In linguistics, a non-finite verb (or a verbal) is a verb form that is not limited by a subject and,
more generally, is not fully inflected by categories that are marked inflectionally in language,
such as tense, aspect, mood, number, gender, and person. As a result, a non-finite verb cannot
serve as a predicate and can be used in an independent clause only when combined with an
auxiliary verb (e.g., "He can write" but not "He to write"). Rather, it can be said to be the head of
a non-finite clause. As such, a non-finite verb is the direct opposite of a finite verb.
By some accounts, a non-finite verb acts simultaneously as a verb and as another part of speech
(e.g., gerunds combined with articles or the possessive case); it can take adverbs and certain
kinds of verb arguments, producing a verbal phrase (i.e., non-finite clause), and this phrase then
plays a different role usually noun, adjective, or adverb in a greater clause. This is the
reason for using the term verbal; non-finite verbs have traditionally been classified as verbal
nouns, verbal adjectives, or verbal adverbs.
English has three kinds of verbals:
1. participles, which include past and present participles and function as adjectives (e.g.
burnt log, a betting man);
2. gerunds, which function as nouns and can be used with or without an article (the Running
of the Bulls, "studying" is an academically beneficial practice)
3. infinitives, which have noun-like (the question is to be or not to be), adjective-like (work
to do), and adverb-like functions (she came over to talk). If in order can precede the
infinitive ("she came over in order to talk"), then it must be acting as an adverb.[1]
Each of these kinds of verbals is also used in various common constructs; for example, the past
participle is used in forming the perfect (to have done).
Other kinds of verbals, such as supines and gerundives, exist in other languages.

The definition of the compound sentence. The problem of existence of the compound
sentence.
The compound sentence is a polypredicative construction built on the principle of coordination
(parataxis); the clauses of a compound sentence are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank,
equipotently. Paradigmatically, the compound sentence is derived from two or more base
sentences, joined as coordinate clauses. One of them becomes the leading clause (the leader
clause), and the other clauses, which may or may not include the coordinative connector, occupy
the dependent sentential position and may be called sequential clauses. Though the dependence
between the clauses of a compound sentence is not subordinative (the sequential clause is not
inserted into the position of a nominative part in the matrix sentence), the dependence is
manifested positionally: by means of differences in syntactic distribution of predicative units,
different distributions of the ideas expressed are achieved. Cf.: They quarreled and then they
made up (again); They made up, and then they quarreled (again) (the sequence of events in time
is shown as different); or, She was sick and she took some medicine (= because she was sick);
She took some medicine and she became sick (= because she took the medicine) (the sequence of
events in time and their causal-consequential relations are shown as different). There has been
some controversy concerning the syntactic status of the compound sentence: some linguists
maintain that it is not a specific syntactic construction, but a sequence of separate sentences
similar to the combination of semantically related independent sentences in speech, as in suprasentential constructions in the text. The following arguments are used to show the arbitrariness of
compound sentences: the possibility of a falling, finalizing tone between the coordinated
predicative units and the possibility of using the same coordinative conjunctions for the
introduction of separate sentences; cf.: They quarreled, but then they made up again. - They
quarreled. But then they made up again. The fact is, there is a distinct semantico-syntactic
difference between the two constructions: the closeness of connections between the events is
shown by means of combining predicative units into a coordinative polypredicative sequence,
while the connections between the events in a sequence of independent sentences are shown as
rather loose. Besides, the subordinate clauses can also be separated in the text, being changed
into specific independent sentences, but this does not challenge the status of the complex
sentence as a separate syntactic unit.

Means of combining clauses, type of connection


Coordination, just like subordination, can be expressed either syndetically (by means of
coordinative connectors) or asyndetically. Coordinative connectors, or coordinators, are divided
into conjunctions proper, e.g.: and, but, or, for, eitheror, neither nor, etc., and semifunctional connectors of adverbial character, e.g.: nevertheless, besides, however, yet, thus, so,
etc. Adverbial connectors, unlike pure conjunctions, can be shifted in the sequential clause
(except for yet and so), e.g.: The companys profits have fallen, but there is, however, another
side to this problem. The coordinate clauses can be combined asyndetically (by the zero
coordinator), e.g.: The quarrel was over, the friendship was resumed.The intensity of cohesion
between coordinate clauses can become loose, and in this case the construction is changed into a
cumulative one, e.g.: I wasnt going to leave; Id only just arrived (cf.: Id only just arrived and I
wasnt going to leave). Cumulative constructions have an intermediary status between the
composite sentence and the sequence of independent sentences.Semantically, connections
between coordinated clauses can be subdivided into two types: marked coordinative connection
and unmarked coordinative connection. A marked coordination is expressed by conjunctions and
adverbial connectors rendering adversative relations (but, however, yet, etc.), disjunctive
relations (or, either or, etc.), causal-consequential relations (so, for, therefore, thus, etc.), and
positive and negative copulative relations of events (both... and, neither nor). Unmarked
coordination is expressed syndetically by the pure conjunction and, or asyndetically, by the zero
coordinator. Relations rendered by unmarked connections are not specified in any way: they are
either pure copulative relations, or enumerative relations, or broader connective meanings, which
can be diagnosed by equivalent substitution with marked connections. Cf.: We started to sing and
he started to sing along (unmarked coordination, copulative relations); They were sitting on the
beach, the seagulls were flying above, the waves were rolling (unmarked coordination, relations
of enumeration); She was sick and she took some medicine (= so she took some medicine the
relations of result or consequence).Both unmarked and marked coordinative connections can be
additionally specified when coordinators are used with an accompanying functional particle-like
or adverb-like word, e.g.: and yet, and besides, but instead, but also, or else, etc.