Language Levels and Their Basic Units.
Language is a system of units which can be subdivided into segmental and supra-segmental. Segmental units comprise phonemes, syllables, morphemes, words,
phrases and sentences. These units are segmental because they can be singled out
within a larger line.
Supra-segmental units do not exist by themselves. They are actualized together
with segmental units which they modify introducing some modifications into their
meaning. Supra-segmental units include accent, intonation, pauses, word-order patterns.
Taking into consideration segmental units, language can be represented as a
hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of such character that units of a higher level are
analyzable into units of the immediately lower level, it means that a unit of a higher
level contains one or more units of immediately lower level.
However, this correlation does not imply that a unit of a higher level can be
treated as a mere sum of immediately lower units. The matter is that a higher unit has
a quality which is not inherent in any of lower units making it up.
For ex., the naming power of the word “upbringing” is not inherent in the
morphemes it contains or the meaning of the phrase “to beat about the bush” is not
the sum of the meanings of the words it consists of.
On the other hand a combination of units of a certain level doesn’t produce a
unit of a higher level.
For ex., the combination of phonemes < l >, < r >, < e > doesn’t make up a
morpheme, because it is meaningless and the morpheme should be meaningful, or
the combination of the morphemes < ing > and < ly > doesn’t make up a word, because it lacks naming power. But a single unit of a given level may become a unit of
a higher level if it acquires the properties of the unit of that level.
For ex., the phoneme < o > may become a morpheme without combining with
other phonemes if it gets a significative meaning like in the word “awful” or it may
become even a word if it gets naming power like “or”, “ore”, “oar”.
So we can say that though we can distinguish language units of different levels
the borders between them are not rigid.
The hierarchy of segmental language units makes it possible to identify the
following language levels:

Phonemic;

Morphemic;

Lexemic;

Phrasemic;

Proposemic (sentence level);

Supra-proposemic (text level).
1)
The basic unit of the phonemic level is the phoneme. The phoneme is
the smallest distinguishing unit of the language having no meaning of its own, the
phoneme only differentiates morphemes and words.
1
2)
The basic unit of the morphemic level is the morpheme. The morpheme
is the smallest meaningful unit of the language. Morphemes are analyzable into phonemes. The shortest morpheme includes only one phoneme. For ex., ros-y, work – er.
Morphemes express significative (понятийные) meanings which form the basis for
the nominative meaning of the word.
3)
The basic unit of the lexemic level is the word. The word is the smallest
naming unit of the language. Words name things, actions, properties etc. They are
built up by morphemes. The shortest word contains only one morpheme: “eye”,
“can”, “man” etc.
4)
The basic unit of the Phrasemic level is the phrase or word-group, which
consists of two or more syntactically connected words. Like words, phrases have
naming power, but they name more complicated phenomena: an object and its property (a red dress), an action and its property (run quickly), property of property (very
difficult).
Unlike sentences, phrases lack predicativeness, that is they do not express a
complete thought and hence, they are not units of communication.
5)
The basic unit of the proposemic level is the sentence. The sentence is
the smallest unit of communication. The sentence names a situation. Its most
essential feature is predicativeness, which means that sentence is a syntactically organized structure which expresses a complete thought.
6)
The basic unit of the supra-proposemic level is a supra-phrasal unity
which includes two or more syntactically and thematically connected sentences. Occasionally the text may be equal to one sentence, for. ex., in slogans, inscriptions.
The Basic Units of Morphology. The Theory of Oppositions
The Word and its Basic Features
The word as a unit of morphology has many aspects and presents difficulties
in defining it. The word may be defined as the largest unit of morphology and the
smallest meaningful naming unit of the language as the smallest free language unit,
as a potential sentence.
Minding the difficulty in defining the word, many linguists especially in descriptive and structural linguistics consider the morpheme and not the word to be the
basic unit of morphology.
However, the majority of linguists recognize the word as a segmental language
unit and sharing this opinion we should be able to prove that the unit we deal with is
really a word. It means that we should know the distinctive features of the word.
These features are:
1) Naming power. Words name sth and have their referents which may be of
different nature (objects, properties). The correlation between the word as a segmental language unit and its referent determines the concrete lexical meaning of a word.
However, words may lose their referential nature and serve only as formal units per2
forming different syntactic roles and rendering vague (abstract) grammatical meanings (link-verbs, auxiliaries, word-substitutes).
1)
Isolability. A word is easily singled out inside a phrase or a sentence.
2)
Uninterruptibility (indivisibility). A word can’t be interrupted by some
other word or a parenthetical enclosure: a blackboard = a black board = a black long
board.
3)
A certain looseness concerning the position of the word inside the sentence.
e.g. He ran away. Away he ran.
Thus, we can say that a word is characterized by positional independence
which brings about its looseness and isolability.
When speaking about the word it is necessary to touch upon the so-called
ANALYTICAL WORD.
By analytical words some scholars mean such word-combinations as: take up,
look up, take after. Such units are discreet (расщеплённые) in their form, because
they consist of 2 or more words, but their meaning makes them a single unit.
So when we treat them as analytical words we take into consideration only
their meaning. However, the plane of expression resists this idea, because formally
we have 2 or more isolated words, the first of which may change in form without affecting the other or others.
The last phenomenon violates the principle of indivisibility of the word. It is
even possible to put another word between the components of the “analytical word”
which also violates the notion of the word: put it on, take firm hold.
So it seems that we can’t agree to the notion of the analytical word because if
we agree to it than the boundaries of the word will become indefinite.
In such cases we should speak not of analytical words but of bound phrases.
The Morpheme and the Morphemic Structure of the Word
The morpheme is one of the basic units of morphology. The notion of the
morpheme was put forward by the Russian linguist Bodwen de Courtenay.
The morpheme is defined as the smallest meaningful unit and an elementary
part of the word. The meaning of the morpheme is purely significative. We mustn’t
mix up morphemes and syllables. The difference between them lies in the fact that
morphemes are always meaningful, while syllables, as units of phonology, lack this
feature though they may coincide with morphemes and then seem meaningful.
For ex., in the word “tables” we distinguish two morphemes: the lexical root
morpheme /table/ which denotes a class of things and the grammatical morpheme /s/
expressing plurality.
On the other hand, this word includes two syllables which are meaningless and
do not coincide with the morphemes: ta-bles.
The morpheme is analyzable into phonemes. The smallest morpheme may include only one phoneme: table-s, work-s.
Morphemes, in their turn, make up words. The shortest word may coincide
with the morpheme when it gets a naming power.
3
The ideal complete morphemic structure of the word may be presented in the
following way:
prefix + root + lexical suffix + grammatical suffix (ending, inflexion).
Roots and affixes (prefixes and lexical suffixes) make up the stem of the word.
They are word-building morphemes. Grammatical suffixes stand outside the stem of
the word and function as form-building morphemes expressing such abstract grammatical categorical meanings as number, tense, degrees of comparison etc.
We should also say that in English we can find three types of inflexions:
outer inflexions which are added to the stem of the word (e.g. shorter,
going);
inner inflexions are revealed in the alteration of the root vowel (get – got,
food – feed);
mono inflexion which is a grammatical element modifying word combinations (my son and daughter’s toys).
As for the STEM of the word, it can be:
1)
Simple when it includes only one root morpheme (dog, cats, decided).
2)
Derived when it includes one root morpheme and one or more affixes
(unreasonable).
3)
Compound when it includes 2 or more root morphemes with or without
affixes (merry-goes-round, sky-scraper).
Speaking about morphemes, we should remember that that they have two
planes and both of them should be analyzed when classifying morphemes. The matter is that morphemes may be homonymous: identical on the plane of expression and
different on the plane of content.
e.g. /er/ may be a lexical morpheme when it denotes the doer of the action
named by the root morpheme.
/er/ may also be a grammatical morpheme when it denotes a degree of comparison.
The grammatical morpheme /s/ denoting plurality is homonymous with the
grammatical morpheme /s/ expressing person, number, tense, mood, voice and it may
be homonymous with the lexical morpheme /s/ like in the words “waters”, “snows”
denoting a great amount of the named material but not plurality.
In present-day linguistics there exists the notion of the zero morpheme. Some
scholars identify it in word forms which have no inflexion in one context and get it in
another context.
Thus professor Smirnitsky speaks of three morphemes in the noun “teacher”:
root + a lexical suffix + a zero inflection expressing singularity. He says that in the
word-form “teachers” there really exist three morphemes, and the inflexion /s/ is opposed to its zero counterpart.
So the zero morpheme can be understood as meaningful absence of some
morpheme. But here appears a contradiction: the notion of the zero morpheme
doesn’t satisfy the definition of the morpheme. If the morpheme is a segmental part
of the word, it should have the plane of content and the plane of expression. The zero
morpheme lacks the plane of expression.
4
Should we agree that the zero morpheme is a morpheme, than likewise we’ll
have to agree that supra-segmental language units, which also render a certain meaning should be also treated as morphemes, but it is hardly acceptable.
So it seems more reasonable to speak not of the zero morpheme, but of the
meaningful absence of the morpheme.
In conclusion we should say that that the morpheme is the smallest, formed by
phonemes, meaningful, segmental part of the word. It can’t be divided into other
smaller meaningful units.
The Theory of Oppositions
The theory of grammatical opposition is very popular in grammar studies, because it lies at the base of all established grammatical categories.
The opposition is a generalized correlation of language units, forms, by
means of which a certain category or function is expressed.
The members of the opposition must possess two types of features: common
and differential. Common features serve as the basis for contrast, while the differential features express the function in question.
Let’s take the opposition “table - tables”. The common feature of this opposition is the expression of the category of number. The differential features are oneness
or singularity in the first member and more-than-oneness or plurality in the second
member.
The theory of oppositions was established by the Czech linguist S. Trubetskoy
in phonology. He established 3 types of oppositions:
privative;
gradual;
equipollent.
Taking into consideration the number of members of the oppositions we can
speak of binary and more-than-binary oppositions.
1) In a binary privative opposition one member is characterized by the presence of a certain differential feature, while the other member is characterized by the
absence of this very feature. The member in which the differential feature is present
is called “the marked” (strong, positive) member of the opposition. The other member of the opposition is called unmarked (weak, negative).
Let’s take the opposition /d/: /t/. The common feature of this opposition is the
fact that both members are plosive, alveolar-apical consonants. The differential feature is the presence of voice in articulation. So /d/ is treated as the marked member of
the opposition as it is voiced, while /t/ is unmarked because it is voiceless.
2) A gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which
are distinguished not by the presence or absence of some feature but by the degree of
the same feature.
Taking into consideration the degree of openness of the phoneme, we can
speak of a gradual opposition when comparing vowels: /i:, i, e, эe/.
3) An equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group of
members which are differentiated by different positive features.
5
e.g. the phonemes <k> and <t> form an equipollent opposition in which the
voiceless consonant <k> is velar while the voiceless consonant <t> is alveolar-apical.
All these three types of oppositions are identified in morphology and help to
establish grammatical categories.
e.g. the binary privative opposition book : books expresses the category of
number. The marked member is “books”. On the plane of expression it is marked by
the inflexion /s/ and on the plane of content it expresses plurality. The other member
of the opposition is unmarked on the plane of expression and on the plane of content
it denotes singularity.
Thus we can say that the semantic differential feature in this opposition is plurality and the member of the opposition “books” is marked by this seme, while the
other member lacks this seme.
Gradual oppositions are rare in morphology. A vivid example of them is the
case of the morphological category of degrees of comparison. The common feature
at the base of this opposition is the meaning of quality, which is represented as different in degree in each member.
Equipollent oppositions are also occasional in English morphology. The typical example of them is the paradigm of the verb to be (am, is, are). The first member
expresses the 1st person singular, the 2nd member – the 3rd person singular and the 3rd
member – the 2nd person singular and all the three persons plural.
Lexico-Grammatical Classes of Words
The Problem of Classifying Words
It’s well-recognized in linguistics that all words are classified into lexicogrammatical classes which are called parts of speech in traditional grammar. The
problem of classifying words has always been in the centre of attention of linguistics
because it presents a number of difficulties. Linguists have always tried to work out
such a classification which should be based on one principle as logics requires.
It is necessary to say that none of these classifications has happened to be satisfactory so far. Most linguists had to resort to some other principles to make the
classification more or less clear.
First of all, we should speak about the classification of words worked out by
Henry Sweet. He took as the basic principle the morphological properties of words
and on this principle he classified all the words into declinable and indeclinable.
However this classification failed to be better than the traditional one, because the
group of the declinable words included nouns, adjectives and verbs. All the other
words were referred to indeclinable words. Having realized that his classification
happened to be rather vague, Henry Sweet resorted to some other principles.
1) the principle of syntactic functioning. This principle made it possible for him to
distinguish the following groups of words:
(a) noun-words which can function like nouns (nouns, pronouns, infinitive,
gerund);
(b) adjective-words (adjectives, pronouns, participle, infinitive, gerund);
6
(c) verb-words (verbs and verbals).
We can see that the words of the same traditional parts of speech happen to be
included into different groups of words at once.
Sweet’s classification is not accepted but it proves that the traditional classification is more rigid and adequate.
Another theory was put forward in American linguistics by Charles Fries. He
rejects the traditional classification of words into parts of speech and works out his
own. His classification is based on the positional principle. He classifies all the
words according to the position they can take in the sentence.
Thus, he takes such sentences as “the clerk remembered the tax”, “the concert
was good”, “a good concert was there yesterday”. Fries states that words which can
be found in the position of “clerk”, “tax”, “concert” should be included into Class I.
Their peculiarity is that in the sentence such words can take the position before
words of CLASS II, which correspond to “remembered”, “was”. Words taking the
position of “good” belong to CLASS III, and finally words in the position of “there”
and “yesterday” make up CLASS IV.
It is not difficult to see that these 4 classes of words in general correspond to
the traditional parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.
However, not only nouns are included into CLASS I because Fries refers to
this class any words in the position before the words of CLASS II, and we can find
there such words as “man”, “he”, “the others”, “to live”, “writing” and that does not
correspond to the traditional classification of words.
Besides these four classes Fries distinguishes 15 more groups of words. They
are also differentiated by the positional principle.
Mostly these groups of words which he marks with letters are much wider than
the traditional formal or functional parts of speech.
For ex., group A includes words which can be found in the position of the definite article. It means words which can be used as determiners or attributive elements. So in this group we can find such words as “the”, “my”, “both”, “much”,
“Tom’s”, “no”.
But we can see that many of such words can be included into CLASS I or III.
Charles Fries says that it mustn’t embarrass us as the main thing that they can take
the position of the definite article. Ch. Fries ignores morphological features of words
and their syntactic functioning.
His classification failed to achieve the goal, because we can never be sure
what class or group we should refer this or that word to without a context and hence
this classification is not rigid. However, Ch. Fries’s classification of words is interesting because it illustrates the combining power or syntactic valency of words.
The Traditional Classification of Words
In traditional grammar words are classified into parts of speech on the basis of
3 main principles: meaning, form and function.
Meaning implies not the concrete lexical meaning of the word but a general
one, typical of all the words included into this or that part of speech.
7
Form implies morphological properties of words, the presence of some formal
language means, signifying the particular grammar categories.
Function is understood either as a syntactic valency of words or as a syntactic
positional role of the word in the sentence.
Proceeding from these principles, all the words in English are classified into
12 classes: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, numerals, articles, particles,
prepositions, conjunctions, interjections and modal words.
Nouns
The general meaning of nouns is thingness or substance.
Due to their form nouns can distinguish the morphological category of number. Some scholars speak of the morphological category of case but this opinion is
doubtful.
Commenting on the functions of nouns we should say that syntactically they
can function as any member of the sentence but the predicate. As to their syntactic
valency they can combine with adjectives, nouns (picture gallery), verbs (the child
grows), numerals, verbals (a book to read), pronouns (my book).
Occasionally nouns can combine with adverbs but in such cases adverbs become adjectivized and perform the attributive function representing a compressed
subordinate attributive clause, e.g. the then president, the room downstairs.
Adjectives
The general meaning of adjectives is property or quality. In their form most
adjectives are unchangeable, only some adjectives distinguish the morphological category of degrees of comparison, which is marked by the inflexions - er or - est or by
suppletive forms like good – better – the best.
Commenting on the functions of adjectives we should say that they can perform the functions of o an attribute and predicative. As for their syntactic valency,
adjectives can combine with nouns (a true friend), adverbs (very beautiful), linkverbs or notional verbs in nominal or double predicates (married young), pronouns
(sth new).
Notional and Functional Parts of Speech
All the parts of speech are divided into notional and functional.
Notional parts of speech have an independent lexical meaning and can function as self-dependent members of the sentence. There are 6 of them in English:
nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns and numerals. Some scholars treat numerals and pronouns as functional parts of speech.
Functional parts of speech may have a dependent meaning. They mark various
types of syntactic relations or modify notional parts of speech. Functional parts of
speech have no self-dependent syntactic functions in the sentence. There are 6 functional parts of speech in English: articles, particles, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections and modal words (certainly, of course, maybe).
8
The Field Structure of Parts of Speech
The difficulties of classifying words into parts of speech in many cases are explained by the fact that words which are traditionally included into a definite part of
speech are not homogeneous in all their properties. This fact prompted that parts of
speech should be treated as a system of units having a field structure.
The theory of the field structure of parts of speech was started in the works of
the American linguists Glisson and Sledd. This theory helps us to understand why
words of traditionally one part of speech happen to be classified into different groups
or classes like in the theory of Ch. Fries.
The complicated character of correlation between words or groups of words
within one part of speech was well investigated by the Russian linguists Admony and
Shchur. The theory they have worked out is known as the theory of grammatical or
lexico-grammatical fields.
Grammatical and first of all morphological characteristics are taken into consideration when describing the field structure of this or that part of speech.
The theory of the morphological fields of parts of speech runs that each part of
speech includes words, which possess all its characteristic features. These words
make up the nucleus of the morphological field of the part of speech. Besides these
words the part of speech may include words which possess not all but only some
characteristic features of this part of speech. These words make up the periphery of
the morphological field of this part of speech. The periphery in its turn can also be
subdivided into some groups of words which differ in their characteristic features.
e.g. words like “table”, “boy”, “street” make up the nucleus of the noun, while
words like “clothes”, “news”, “air”, “sugar” make up the periphery of the noun, because they lack such feature of nouns as the category of number.
Besides private peculiarities of the noun, which make up the periphery, make
it possible to single out such groups of nouns as “Singularia Tantum”, “Pluralia Tantum”, “Collective nouns”, “Substantivized adjectives” and so on.
But the most important fact is that words making up the periphery of one part
of speech can overlap the boundaries of this part of speech and get into the periphery
of some other part of speech, getting some of its characteristics.
So morphological fields of parts of speech can overlap each other and that explains the difficulties defining the status of such words and their classification.
For example, Substantivized adjectives like “the poor”, “the young” function
like nouns but do not differentiate the category of number on the one hand, and on
the other hand they may have degrees of comparison like adjectives (the poorest).
Verbals which make up the periphery of the morphological field of the verb
also share the characteristics of the verb and some other part of speech (noun, adjective, adverb).
When referring a word to a definite part of speech, the most significant part of
speech characteristics of this word, which are revealed in the actual context, should
be taken into consideration.
9
The Noun and Its Morphological Categories
The Category of Number
English nouns distinguish 2 number forms: Singular and Plural if they are
countable. The basic categorial meaning of number is expressed in the opposition
one/ more than one. The singular form of the noun shows that only one object is
meant, and the plural form shows that more than one objects are meant.
The form expressing plurality is the marked member of the opposition. It is
marked both on the plane of expression and on the plane of content. On the plane of
content it is characterized by the presence of the seme “plurality”, while the unmarked member lacks this seme. On the plane of expression the strong member of
the opposition is marked by an inflexion or by some other formal means which can’t
be found in the form expressing singularity.
The most typical and productive inflexion of the plural is /s/ or /es/. Alongside
with the productive means of forming Plural, there are some unproductive formal
means, indicating plurality in English. Most of them are closed groups or models.
They are:
the suffix /en/ as a survival of Old English (oxen, children, brethren);
suffixes borrowed together with nouns from other languages (phenomena, nuclei, valenki);
sound-alternation or replace of morphemes as a survival of Old English
(teeth, feet, mice).
In some cases the opposition between Singular and Plural is formally reduced
as there is no difference on the plane of expression between Singular and Plural
forms. Such cases are also rare and can be treated as survivals of Old English (sheep,
swine, deer).
In the descriptive linguistics all the inflexions making plurality are treated as
allomorphs, or variants of one and the same morpheme. This opinion is based on the
identity in the function and meaning of these morphemes. However, allomorphs
should possess not only ideal identity in meaning, they should also make it possible
to correlate them on the plane of expression (materially).
Thus, inflexions /d/ and /t/ in the verbs “decided”, “asked” can be treated as allomorphs. But the inflexions /s/ (dogs), /i/ (nuclei), /a/ (phenomena) can’t be materially correlated, so it seems better to treat them not as allomorphs but as functional
synonyms or as functional-semantic synonyms.
Countable nouns distinguishing the category of number make up the nucleus
of the morphological field of the noun. Nouns which do not distinguish the category
of number make up the periphery of the morphological field of the noun. They are
mostly uncountable nouns.
So all the nouns can be subdivided into 2 major lexico-grammatical classes:
countable and uncountable.
However, uncountable nouns can also be subdivided into several subgroups:
names of materials, abstract notions etc. But such nouns may also have lexicosemantic variants which recognize the category of number.
10
For example, names of materials or abstract notions may be treated as a peculiar type of the given one and then they can be used in the plural. It means they become countable.
For ex., the notion “joy”. “She expressed a great joy, but joys of this kind were
rare in her life”. So the border between countable and uncountable nouns or between
the nucleus and the periphery of the morphological field of the noun, may be traced
between lexico-semantic variants of the same noun.
Analyzing the periphery of the morphological field of the noun, we can identify some specific groups of nouns there. First of all we should comment on collective
nouns. Such nouns name a multitude of objects. Like countable nouns, they may
have the form of the plural when they express discrete multitude (раздельная собирательность): crowd – crowds, army – armies.
But they can also express a collecting multitude (объединительная собирательность), and then they have only the form of the Singular: the poor, the cavalry.
But the predicate verb with them is used in the Plural:
e.g. The poor were victims of the new reform.
But there are also collective nouns, which can express both collecting and discrete multitude, influencing the form of the predicate verb. The predicate verb is
used in the plural if each object of the group is meant, and it is used in the singular if
the group is treated as one unit.
e.g. The family is in the garden. The family are farmers.
Besides, the periphery of the morphological field of the nouns includes Singularia Tantum nouns and Pluralia Tantum nouns. These groups of nouns do not recognize the category of number. Singularia Tantum nouns are always used in the Singular and have no form of the Plural (money, advice, information). Pluralia Tantum
nouns usually name objects, consisting of at least two similar parts (shorts, spectacles, clothes, scissors).
Care should be taken not to mix up the grammatical suffix /s/ with the lexical
suffix /s/. The lexical suffix /s/ is either a form-building morpheme, implying no plurality like in the words “phonetics”, “politics”, “colours” (флаг) or it may denote a
great amount of material named by the noun without any idea of discreteness, like in
the expression “the waters of the Atlantic”.
Today when speaking about the category of number of nouns, some scholars
put forward the idea that the basic meaning of the category of number is not the
quantity of objects but their discreteness. First, the noun is treated as naming a discrete or indiscrete object and then if the object is discrete, arises the notion of number. It means that the category of number is a secondary one to the category of discreteness/ indiscreteness.
The Problem of the Category of Case
The problem of the category of case is one of the most disputable ones in English grammar. All the existing theories concerning this problem can be subdivided
into 3 principal groups:
11
1)
the traditional view that there are 2 cases within English nouns: common or possessive (or genitive);
2)
the number of cases is more than two;
3)
English nouns have no morphological category of case.
The difference of opinions can be explained by different approaches to treating
this category. Case is a morphological category of the noun which expresses relations between the object named by this noun and some other objects or characteristics named by some other nouns or gerunds. These relations should be expressed by
the form of the noun if it is a morphological category.
Hence, when treating this category, the opposition of inflected and noninflected forms of the noun is employed.
The inflected form is the marked member of the opposition and in English it is
called the possessive, or genitive, case. The non-inflected form is the unmarked
member of the opposition and it is called the common case: boy/ boy’s. That is the
traditional treatment of the category of case with English nouns.
The authors of the 2nd opinion proceed mainly from the plane of content ignoring the peculiarities of the plane of expression and speak of more than 2 cases, beginning with four cases (Deutschbein’s opinion) up to the indefinite number of cases
(Meshchaninov).
Today many scholars really speak of different cases but they are semantic but
not morphological and can be identified mostly on the syntactic level, that is the
structure of phrases or sentences. If we take the theories of “more-than-two cases”
we can see that on the plane of expression they are prepositional phrases or they are
expressed by word-order.
e.g. to the boy – the dative case;
the pen of the boy = the boy’s pen – the genitive case;
with the pen – the instrumental case;
in the garden – the locative case.
Such language units are not morphological but syntactic and hence the cases,
mentioned above, are not morphological but semantico-syntactic.
Moreover, the present-day investigations of the so-called possessive, or genitive, case show that this “case” can render various meanings:
a)
meanings of possession (the brother’s room);
b)
integral relations (the hotel’s hall);
c)
agent-action relations: it means that the noun names the doer of the action (Peter’s arrival);
d)
patient-action relations: the noun names the action acted upon (the
champion’s defeat – the champion was defeated);
e)
destination relations (children’s book (for children));
f)
temporal relations (today’s newspaper);
g)
quantitative relations (an hour’s walk);
h)
interpersonal relations (Tom’s friend).
12
So the opposition like boy/ boy’s does not necessarily express the meaning of
possession and so it can hardly be employed to justify the existence of the morphological category of case with English nouns.
The 3rd opinion is expressed in the works of professors Vorontsova, Mukhin,
Ilyish, Boris Alex and others.
The essence of these theories lies in the fact that they deny the existence of the
morphological category of case with English nouns.
First the existence of this category of English nouns was doubted in the works
of Vorontsova and Mukhin. They put forward the idea that /’s/ is not a regular morphological inflexion, because it can modify not only single nouns but also whole syntactic word groups.
It is necessary to say that this peculiarity was noticed even earlier by Henry
Sweet, though it did not receive a required attention there.
A thorough investigation of the formant /’s/ was carried out by professors
Ivanova and Ilyish. Their theory seems to be most argumented and objective when
presenting the language reality of modern English. The formant /’s/ has got a special
term – “the possessive”.
The following arguments can be given in favour of rejecting the morphological category of case with English nouns:
1) the formant /’s/ functions within rather a limited sphere, what is not characteristic of case forms of nouns in any language. These limitations can be formulated
thus:
a) the usage of the possessive is limited lexically. It means that it is used mostly with nouns, denoting living beings and nouns denoting time, measure, weight (an
hour’s walk). Occasionally it can be used with nouns naming inanimate objects to
stress some individual characteristic of this object (the car’s wheel meaning “the
wheel of this very car”, when we say “a car wheel” we mean a wheel of any car).
b) the possessive is restricted positionally as it is always used with nouns in
the attributive prepositional function, unless it represents a noun-phrase.
Tom’s friend
A friend of Tom’s.
The noun modified by the possessive can be placed in postposition to the head
noun, if the latter is used with a determiner, expressed by an article or a demonstrative pronoun.
A book of Tom’s
This book of Tom’s.
c) due to the homonymy of forms like boys, boy’s, boys’. The possessive is
practically not distinguished in the plural or the difference between the plural and the
possessive happens to be reduced. We can’t deny that in most cases it is really so, but
in a number of cases due to the context the possessive and the plural can be differentiated.
His mother’s voice – singular with the possessive;
The boys’ heads – plural with the possessive;
The boys are out – plural.
13
2) The possessive can be used with language unit larger than a word. Besides,
it can modify not only nouns.
Sb else’s (a pronoun) mistake.
Tom and Mary’s (phrase) parents.
Today’s (adverb) newspaper.
The man I saw yesterday’s (phrase) son.
If /’s/ were a morphological inflexion of case, then it couldn’t be separated
from the noun and could hardly be joined to some other part of speech.
Thus /’s/ is hardly a morphological inflexion.
3) As we have already said, the only syntactic function of the noun modified
by the possessive is that of an attribute and so the functioning of the possessive is
limited to an attributive noun-phrase but in this position and function we can also
find a noun not modified by the possessive: a school garden, a metro station.
The difference between the phrases with the possessive and without it is of
semantic nature: the noun modified by the possessive names some individual characteristic of the object named by the head noun, while the noun without the possessive
names some generalized characteristic of the object named by the head noun.
Hence, proper names used in the position without the possessive require a
general meaning.
Maugham’s novel = belongs to Maugham;
The Maugham manner = a generalized characteristic;
Moscow’s street = located in Moscow;
Moscow street = a generalized characteristic;
Trade-union’s action = of a particular one;
A trade union action = of any trade union.
Taking into consideration this difference, we can make a conclusion that a
noun modified by the possessive and a bare noun can be opposed only within the
narrow frames of an attributive noun-phrase. Beyond such phrases they are no longer
opposed on the basis of the meaning in question. So it seems that these contextually
opposed units express not the category of case, but a much narrower category which
professor Ivanova suggests calling the category of nominal characteristic. This category belongs not to morphology, but to syntax because it can be distinguished only
on the syntactic phrase level.
Yet, there still exists the problem where to refer /’s/ to. If /’s/ can modify units
larger than a word, then it has undergone the process of syntaxation and has become
a syntactic element, not morphological one, something like a preposition. Should we
traditionally treat it as a morphological case inflexion, then we’ll have to admit that
morphology includes units larger than a word what we don’t do with the exception of
analytical verb-forms.
Thus, we can make a conclusion that modern English nouns have no morphological category of case and units like “the boy’s” should be treated as a noun modified by the possessive.
14
The Article as a Noun Determiner
As we know from practical grammar, the English noun is used with the definite or indefinite article or it can be used without any article. The article is a morphological sign of the noun. The theoretical problem connected with the article can be
reduced to the following:
1)
the status of the article in the hierarchical language structure;
2)
the number of articles;
3)
the meaning and functions of the article.
The first problem has two principal theoretical interpretations. Some scholars
treat the word-group “an article + a noun” as a special analytical form of the noun in
which the article is treated as a special auxiliary element or a functional word. To
prove their opinion, these scholars put forward the following arguments:
a)
the article is a morphological sign of the noun;
b)
the article has no lexical meaning of its own;
c)
in some languages which have articles, the article may have the form of
a grammatical inflexion, which is not separated from the stem of the noun.
For ex, in Bulgarian: селото, линията.
Other scholars treat the article as a special functional part of speech and the
word combination “an article + a noun”, according to this point of view, is not an analytical form of the noun but a word group.
These authors say that the article is really a sign of a noun but it does not make
up an analytical form of the noun. In analytical forms the auxiliary component
should express the basic morphological categories, while the article does not express
the basic morphological category of the noun, that is the category of number.
This category is expressed by the noun itself with the help of its own formal
means. The article is treated by these authors as a determiner and so there are syntactic relations of attributive nature between the article and the noun it determines. But
we know that there can be no syntactic relations between the components of n analytical form.
The article can be replaced by some other part of speech in the same determining function without changing the meaning of the whole word-group, what is impossible for analytical forms.
A book = some books
The book = this (that) book.
But has given is not equal to have given and not equal to is given.
Finally if we should treat “the book” as an analytical form of the noun, then
why not treat likewise “this book” as an analytical form. Nobody has ever done it so
far.
Besides, the noun can change its form expressing the category of number
without affecting the definite article (the book – the books).
So it seems more convincing to share the 2nd approach and treat the article as a
functional part of speech which can make a word-group with the noun determining
the meaning of the latter.
15
When speaking of the number of articles in English, some scholars speak of
2 articles – the definite and indefinite, while others speak of 3 articles (+ zero article).
As we can see, nobody denies the existence of the definite and indefinite articles, but the difference in opinions appears when treating nouns not modified by any
article.
Some scholars speak of the omission of the article in such cases. But omission
presupposes elliptical forms. In cases of absence of the article with the noun no
omission takes place and we do not deal with ellipsis, because in elliptical forms the
omitted element can be easily restored without affecting the meaning of the wordgroup, but in the cases under analysis no article can be restored or if we try to restore
the indefinite or definite article, we’ll change the meaning of the word-group.
e.g. Will you join us? – Oh, yes, we’d be only glad to.
Here “to” represents the word-group “to join you”, which is omitted, but the
meaning of “we’d be only glad to” is equal to that of “we’d be only glad to join
you”.
On the other hand, in the sentence: “I like to read books” no article can be restored with the noun “books”, because the indefinite article can’t be used as the noun
is used in the plural. And if we try to restore the definite article which can be used
here we shall change the meaning of the sentence because we shall speak of some
definite books and not books at large.
However, we should say that the article can be omitted though in some special
stylistically or grammatically marked cases (in telegrams, newspaper headings, homogeneous coordinative groups).e.g. At the lesson both _ teacher and _ pupil should
try to understand each other.
Thus, we can say that we can hardly speak of any omission of the article. We
should sooner speak of the meaningful absence of the article in such cases.
Of late the idea of the meaningful absence of the article has developed into the
notion of the zero article which is treated as the third article. This notion is closely
connected with the notion of the zero morpheme. However, we have already agreed
that the morpheme is a segmental part of the word which can’t be zero. Moreover,
we treat the article as a word and a word can’t be zero. The word is a self-dependent
language unit which can be used or not used in the sentence or phrase but it can’t be
zero.
Hence, we reject the notion of the zero article. So we shall recognize the definite article, the indefinite article and the cases of meaningful or conventional absence
of the article.
As for the meaning, the article has no lexical meaning of its own, but it can
express a number of grammatical or semantic meanings. The articles are means of
the category of determination which expresses definiteness as opposed to indefiniteness.
This category is not morphological. It is a semantico-syntactic category, because it deals with the meaning of a word-group “the article + a noun”, which influ16
ences the meaning of the utterance when actualizing the communicative aim of the
speaker.
This category can be represented by 2 hierarchically organized oppositions.
The higher opposition contrasts the definite article against the indefinite article and
the cases of absence of the article with the nouns. On the plane of content it is
marked by the seme “identification”. The unmarked member of the opposition is devoid of this seme.
The lower opposition functions within the unmarked member of the higher
opposition and contrasts the indefinite article and the meaningful absence of the article with countable nouns in the plural against the cases of the absolute absence of articles with nouns. The semantic meaning and function of the article is to determine
the mraning of the noun in actual for the speaker aspect.
e.g. They met on _Friday. They met on a Friday. They met on the Friday.
Determining the noun in actual for the speaker aspect, the articles can render
the following meanings:
1) The indefinite article (it originates from the Old English numeral “one” and it influences its meanings):
a) classification. It means that the object is referred to a class of similar objects
as one of the class: e.g. She is a talented young scientist.
b) quantification. It means that the speaker wants to stress that only one object
is meant: e.g. She didn’t say a word. He will return in a week.
c) generalization. The speaker means any object of a class or group of similar
objects: e.g. A grey suit will do for the occasion.
d) specification. We have it with a lexico-semantic variant of a noun which
denotes a material or an abstract notion which is usually used without any article. It
happens when the noun gets some additional explicit or implicit description and is
presented in one of its possible forms of existence. It means that the speaker begins
treating this noun as a countable one and the indefinite article in such cases renders
the meaning close to that of classification or generalization.
The same happens when we deal with proper names. They become generalized
losing their unique nature. When proper nouns are used to name objects belonging to
or created by a person, the proper noun is treated by a common countable noun.
e.g. This book aroused an unusual interest with us.
He felt a passionate love of her.
A silk will do for your blouse.
She must be playing a Shopen.
I would like to buy a Repin.
The child asked for an ice-cream.
2) The definite article originates from the OE demonstrative pronoun and it influences its meanings which are:
a) identification. It means that the speaker points to a definite object picking it
out from the class or group of similar objects.
e.g. The book is rather interesting.
I don’t like the ice-cream.
17
b) generic class identification. It means that the speaker names a class of objects without a particular reference to any of its constituents (exceptions “man” and
“woman”).
e.g. The noun denotes substance.
The cat is a domestic animal.
The dog is a true friend of man.
3) The meaningful absence of the article with the noun implies the following meanings:
a) classification with countable nouns in the Plural.
e.g. My parents are __ teachers.
b) generalization with countable nouns in the meaning of “any”.
e.g. I am fond of __ cats.
c) generic identification with names of materials, abstract notions and the
nouns “man” and “woman”.
e.g. This dress is made of __ silk.
__ Love and __ devotion helped her to save their marriage.
Commenting on the meaning and functions of the article as a noun determiner
we should say that its usage is significative in most cases and rather subjective because the article can change the meaning of the noun or the utterance the way the
speaker wants it.
e.g. Would you like a / the / __ tea?
However we can’t help admitting that in some cases the usage of the article or
the absence of it doesn’t imply any special meaning, that is the usage of the article is
purely conventional.
e.g. in the original, at a glance, in a hurry, at dawn, in the morning, in detail.
Compare: To go to bed – лечь спать;
to go to the bed – подойти к кровати.
The usage of the article with geographical names is mostly conventional: Trafalgar square, the British Isles (группа островов), the United Kingdom (обозначение государства), The Baikal, Lake Baikal, Elbrus but the Caucasus.
Thus, the article, marking the left boundary of an attributive noun-phrase is a
special functional part of speech, a noun determiner which conveys some specific,
situationally significant meaning, ascribed by the speaker to the noun in an actual utterance.
The article makes up the nucleus of the functional semantic field of the category of determination.
Some Theoretical Problems of English Adjectives and Adverbs
The Category of Degrees of Comparison of Adjectives
The only morphological category of the English adjectives and adverbs is the
degrees of comparison. It is established on the basis of the gradual opposition: e.g.
brave – braver – the bravest.
18
The category denotes different intensity of some property when comparing
some objects possessing this property. This morphological category makes up the
nucleus of the functional semantic field of comparison.
When speaking about the number of degrees of comparison, some scholars
recognize 2 degrees: comparative and superlative, while others speak of 3 degrees –
positive, comparative and superlative.
The authors of the first opinion say that forms like “brave”, “slow” do not imply any comparison, they only name some property without specifying the degree of
its intensity. So they do not recognize the positive degree.
But if the forms “braver”, “the bravest” are opposed to “brave”, then all three
of them make up one paradigm and the first member of it should be termed somehow. Hence, the appeared the notion of the positive degree.
It is well-known that not all the adjectives have this morphological category.
Adjectives are subdivided into qualitative and relative. Relative adjectives denote
some property through their relation to some object: wood – wooden, child – childish, water - watery.
Qualitative adjectives denote some inherent property of an object which may
be presented as different in its amount or intensity.
So, only qualitative adjectives are characterized by the morphological category
of the degrees of comparison. But even some of them lack this category if they denote a property which can hardly be presented as different in its amount or intensity:
middle, pliant, dead, wounded, deaf, etc.
However, occasionally and in stylistically marked cases even such adjectives
may be used in the comparative or superlative degree For example, in Hemingway’s
novel “A Farewell to Arms” we can read: “You cannot be deader than dead. Todd is
the deadest of them all”.
The degree of intensity of some property may be expressed morphologically
and then we speak of the morphological category of the degrees of comparison, or
lexically.
Morphological means include inflexions: /er/, for the comparative degree and
/est/ for the superlative degree. We should also refer here a close group of suppletive
forms: good – better – best; bad – worse – worst.
Some adjectives have two parallel forms in the comparative and superlative
degrees but they differ in their meanings:
far – farther – farthest (distance); further – furthest;
near – nearer – nearest (distance); next (order);
late – later – latest (time); latter – last (order);
old – older – oldest (age); elder – eldest (age order in family relations when
the adjectives are used in the attributive function).
e.g. She is my elder sister. She is five years older than I.
The idea of comparison can also be expressed on the syntactic level with the
help of lexical means including “more” and “most”.
It is worth mentioning that most adverbs can express the degree of intensity
both morphologically and with the help of “more” and “most”.
19
e.g. quickly – quicker (more quickly).
Morphological means of expressing the degrees of comparison are restricted in
their usage:
1)
only monosyllabic qualitative adjectives can take them.
2)
bi-syllabic adjectives ending in –y, -ow, -er, -re, -ble can take them.
3)
bi-syllabic adjectives which have the stress on the 2nd syllable like
“complete”, “concise” etc.
As for the rest adjectives, they do not take any inflexions, but then there arises
the problem of the phrases like “more” and “most beautiful”.
Traditionally they are treated as analytical forms of the degrees of comparison
in which more and most are treated as auxiliaries.
The authors of this opinion proceed principally from the plane of content and
are influenced by the parallelism in the meaning of the units like “braver - bravest”
and “more beautiful – most beautiful.”
So the semantic principle predominates in this opinion. However if we accept
this point of view why not consider such word-combinations as “very beautiful’, “extremely beautiful” as analytical forms of degrees of comparison, because in the final
analysis such word-combinations also express some degree of intensity of the property. On the other hand, why not treat as analytical forms such word combinations as
“many people, more people, most people” where some comparison is also expressed.
Answering this question we deal with the first argument in favour of rejecting
the idea of analytical forms of the degrees of comparison of adjectives. The matter is
that the first component “more” or “most” is syntactically significant and lexically
meaningful what is foreign to analytical forms.
“More” and “most” have the same lexical meaning when they are combined
with adjectives and when they are combined with nouns which have no analytical
forms: more beautiful, more snow.
Hence, there should exist some syntactic relations between the components of
such phrases, which are of quantitative nature, and that is foreign to analytical forms.
e.g. a bit more beautiful, much more beautiful.
Moreover, “more’ and “most” can function independently, preserving the
same meaning, e.g. I like it more.
We should also stress that “more” and “most” are the morphological forms of
the degrees of comparison “much” and “many”.
So if we treat “more beautiful” as an analytical form of the comparative degree
then we are bound to accept that in this word the comparative degree is expressed
twice, that is on the level of the “auxiliary” component and on the level of the whole
phrase and that awakes doubts.
Hence, such word combinations should sooner be treated as free word combinations in which the adverb is used as a quantifier to the adjective while the adjective
itself is an attribute to some noun.
Thus, the morphological category of degrees of comparison exists but it is
characteristic of rather a limited group of qualitative adjectives. The greater bulk of
20
English adjectives express difference in the degree of intensity of some property with
the help of lexical means on the syntactic level.
The Syntactic Process of Substantivization of Adjectives
When dealing with adjectives we can’t help commenting on the process of Adjective Substantivization. This process is based on more or less regular ellipsis of the
noun in the attributive noun-phrases “an adjective + a noun” like “a private soldier”
and “a private”; “an official post” and “an official”; “a daily paper” and “a daily”.
Logically there arises the question of the morphological status of these words,
whether they are nouns or adjectives. To answer this question we should compare the
characteristic features of the noun and of the Substantivized adjective. We are to
mind:
a)
the category of number (the ability to form Plural);
b)
the usage with an article;
c)
the ability to be modified by an attribute;
d)
the ability to function as subject or object in the sentence;
The analysis of the language units under consideration shows that there are
cases when these units satisfy all these noun features, but there are also case when
these units possess not all but only some of the named characteristics.
e.g. The young, the poor, the wounded. These units are singular in their form
but plural in their meaning, they do not differentiate the category of number, they can
be used only with the definite article which only formally marks their nominative nature.
Traditionally cases of the first type are treated as cases of complete substantivization, while the cases of the second type are treated as cases of partial substantivization.
Yet, it seems right to say that in the first case we should sooner speak not of
substantivized adjectives but of nouns, because words like “a private” have lost all
their adjective features and have acquired all the characteristic features of nouns and
hence they do not differ from them.
Similarly we don’t speak of adverbial verbs or nominal verbs when they are
derived from adverbs or nouns by conversion.
As for the forms “the rich, “the brave”, they can be treated and called as substantivized adjectives, because they have preserved some of their adjective features
alongside with the new nominal features.
e.g. The opinion of the old, of the older, of the oldest happened to be the same.
“The old”, “the older”, “the oldest” are substantivized adjectives.
The substantivized adjectives take the intermediate position between the noun
and the adjective. They belong to the periphery of the morphological field of both:
the adjective and the noun. They can be located in the area where the morphological
fields of these parts of speech overlap the borders of each other.
The “Stone Wall” Problem
When dealing with adjectives and first of all with their syntactic functioning
21
we come across another problem which is widely known in linguistics as the “stone
wall” problem. This problem is connected with the morphological status of the first
component in phrases like N1+N2+N3+… which are typical of modern English.
The first component stands in preposition to another noun and modifies it performing the function of an attribute, such features are characteristic of adjectives. So
there arises a question whether the first component is a noun or whether it is an adjective formed by conversion from a noun. The first component in such phrases evidently undergoes the process of adjectivization on the plane of content while it remains
unchanged on the plane of expression.
So far no unanimous conclusion has been arrives at concerning the morphological status of the first component. Some authors treat it as a noun (Henry Sweet), others take it for an adjective (Otto Jespersen), some authors treat it as a special part of
speech, i.e. an attributive noun (Шубин).
Taking into consideration these three principal points of view it doesn’t seem
advantageous to agree to the 3d opinion because practically the same word with the
same meaning should be simultaneously included into 2 different parts of speech:
noun and adjective. To make it clear for us whether we deal with a noun or an adjective when operating the component “stone” we should take into consideration the
basic features of these parts of speech and apply them to the word under analysis.
So the noun is characterized by the morphological category of number. It
means that countable nouns distinguish singularity and plurality. As for the first component in phrases like “stone wall” it can be used mostly in the singular and it doesn’t
change its number what is possible for the noun “stone”. We can say one stone –
many stones, but we can’t say stones wall. Thus the first component doesn’t differentiate the category of number. This feature differs words under analysis from nouns
proper. However the morphological category of number is not characteristic of English adjectives either. Besides nouns naming materials are uncountable and don’t differentiate the category of number and in the phrase “a stone wall” the first component
sooner names material but not a concrete object. So the fact that the first component
doesn’t differentiate the category of number is not sufficient to reject its noun nature
and refer it to the adjectives.
Now let’s take the meaning. We can say that the first component sooner names
some substance like nouns and not property like adjectives because for some of such
components there exist derived adjectives: e. g. stone – stony, wood – wooden.
However as a rule the derived adjectives name some property which is only
based on its relation to the corresponding noun, but the shade of meaning of the derived adjective is mostly different from the meaning of the noun in such cases.
Cf.: a stone wall / a stony road (каменистая дорога), a stony face;
a glass door / a glassy look
The matter is that English adjectives lost their inflexions in Middle and Early
Modern English and coincided with corresponding nouns on the plane of expression.
Cf.: a stone wall – каменная стена
A wall made of stone - стена из камня
It may seem logical to think that we deal with 2 homonyms: an adjective and a
22
noun which reveal their difference only in functioning. It “stone” is used attributively
then it’s an adjective, it it’s used as subject or in some other functions typical of
nouns then it’s a noun. Yet we can doubt this opinion because adjectives can freely
function as attributes and predicatives while the words under analysis can hardly be
used predicatively:
Cf.: This is a beautiful dress. This dress is beautiful.
This is a silk dress. This dress is silk.
This is our schoolyard ≠ This yard is our school.
Hence we can conclude that the “stone” component is hardly an adjective. Besides in a number of cases it can be modified by an adjective or a possessive pronoun
or by the possessive proper like a noun, but it can’t be modified by an adverb like an
adjective.
e. g. a silk tie – a red silk tie; press information – today’s local press information
So we can conclude that the “stone” component denotes not a property but a
substance which serves as a means to name a property of some object. This property
is revealed through reference to the substance named by the first component of such
phrases. Due to its functioning the first noun in similar phrases appears to be partly
adjectivized.
Thus phrases like “a stone wall” consist of 2 nouns and can be called binoms
(биномы). In Modern English especially in official and newspaper styles word combinations of several nouns are quite common.
e. g. a Moscow metro station, coal industry unemployment rates, space exploration achievements
Such word combinations include more than 2 nouns in which each preceding
one is in the attributive function to the following one or to the rest of the group. Taking into consideration the number of components in such phrases they can be called
polynoms.
The English Verb and Its Morphological Categories
The Morphological Field of the Verb
The morphological field of the English verb is heterogeneous including several morphologically and syntactically specific groups of verbs: regular and irregular. The nucleus of the morphological field of the verb is made up by two main classes of verbs – regular and irregular. The periphery of the morphological field of the
verb includes such groups of verbs as functional verbs, modal verbs and verbals.
Regular and irregular verbs are differentiated formally depending on the way
they form their past tense and participle II. The larger group includes regular verbs
which employ the inflexion /ed/ to build their past tense and participle II. The smaller group is made up by irregular verbs which form their past tense and participle II in
some ways:
1)
by sound alternation (break - broke);
23
2)
by the sound alternation and the dental suffix simultaneously, though the
dental suffix is practically not singled out today (mean - meant, sleep - slept);
3)
by the suffix /en/ often in combinations with sound alternation in participle II forms (steal – stolen, be - been);
4)
by experiencing no formal changes due to the reduction of inflexions in
middle English (put – put - put);
5)
suppletively (go – went, be – was, were).
From the functional point of view verbs can be notional and functional (formal). Notional verbs name actions or processes and are used as predicates. Functional verbs do not name actions or processes; they only express different grammatical
categories or meanings. In most cases they are devoid or nearly devoid of their lexical meaning. Functional verbs can’t be used as primary predicates. They function only as a part of a predicate, that is as auxiliaries in analytical forms, semi-auxiliaries in
compound verbal predicates or link-verbs in nominal predicates. Being devoid of
lexical meaning, functional verbs can combine with semantically or lexically incompatible verbs: have lost, has given.
Another closed group of verbs in the periphery of the morphological field of
the verb is made up of modal verbs. They are deficient verbs because they lack a
number of grammatical categorial meanings, typical of the verbs. Modal verbs do not
differentiate person and number (I can, he can), aspect and voice, perfect and most of
them do not differentiate tense. Only some modal verbs “can” and “may” differentiate past tense forms. Modal verbs have no verbals. They do not name actions or processes but only the speaker’s attitude or evaluation of some action, process or state
named by the infinitive following the modal verb. Hence, modal verbs cannot function as primary predicates. They only modify an established type of primary predicates adding modality to it.
The periphery of the morphological field of the verb includes a heterogeneous
micro field of verbals, including infinitives, gerunds and participles. Verbal or
non-finite forms of the verbs are opposed to finite verb-forms, from which they are
derived. On the basis of this opposition we can speak of the grammatical category of
finititute. The common feature of this opposition is predicativeness because both
members are predicative units, but the marked member of this opposition, which is
the finite verb-form expresses primary predication, while the unmarked member,
which is a verbal, can express only secondary predication. Hence, they differ in their
functioning. Finite forms are used as primary predicates, while verbals can be used
as any member of the sentence but the primary predicate.
However, verbals can perform the function of a secondary predicate on the
level of a syntactic secondary predicative construction, which appears in English sentences due to the syntactic process of contamination. Verbals are intermediate between the verb and some other part of speech. Infinitives and gerunds share the features of the verb and the noun, while participles share the features of the verb and of
the adjective or adverb. So we can see that the morphological field of the verb is heterogeneous but the classes or groups of units making it up are quite distinguishable.
24
The Category of Tense
The existence of the morphological category of tense with English verbs finds
no objections in linguistic works. It is quite logical that events exist and develop only
in time. Hence, the morphological category of tense is aimed at reflecting the objective category of time. The difficulty is that we should differentiate between the objective and relative time.
The matter is that when giving a temporal characteristic of some action we
take some moment of time as a starting point. If this starting point is the actual moment of speaking, then the action taking place at that moment belongs to the present
period of time and we use the present tense. If the action precedes the moment of
speaking excluding it, then it belongs to the past and we use the past tense. If the action follows the moment of speaking then it belongs to the future and we use a future
tense. In all these cases the morphological category of tense reflects the objective
time. But in most cases the morphological category of tense reflects not the objective
but the relative time. The matter is that mostly we correlate actions not with the actual moment of speaking but with some relative moment of time or temporal center. It
is usually behind the actual moment of speaking or the objective time.
e.g. He says that he works at school.
The verb-form “says” is used in the Present tense but the action does not coincide with the moment of speaking.
Taking into consideration relative temporal centers we speak of three principal tense forms: present, past, future.
The past and the future are separated by the plane of the present and don’t get
in touch but in order to express the idea of futurity, related to the past, the English
system of tense-forms includes a special form – Future-in-the-Past.
e.g. He said that he would do his best.
Scheme 1
Past
Present
Future
Future-in-the-Past
Traditional grammar speaks of 16 tense-forms in the active voice but actually
there exist 4 tense-forms in English. All the other predicate verb-forms (is reading,
has done) are not pure tense-forms. They appear as a result of expressing not only the
category of tense, but also of some other verb categories: perfect and aspect.
The latter two categories are secondary to the primary tense category and only
modify it. So such forms as “is working, “has done” are not different self-dependent
tense-forms. They are the same basic tense forms modified by the categories of as25
pect and perfect and as a result they have compound forms different from pure tenseforms.
So when speaking about the category of tense, we differentiate 4 temporal centers reflecting objective or relative time. These temporal centers include 4 basic
tense-forms which are traditionally called Present Indefinite, Past Indefinite, Future
Indefinite and Future Indefinite in the Past and three additional verb-forms when the
tense form is modified by the categories of perfect or aspect. It means that each temporal center unites four verb-forms.
Speaking of the category of tense, we can’t but touch upon the problem of the
sequence of tenses, typical of English, but unknown in Russian. The traditional English grammar treats the sequence of tenses as a mechanical shift of the verb tense
form in the subordinate clause if the predicate verb in the principal clause is used in
the Past tense.
e.g. Я знал, что он живёт в Лондоне. I knew that he lived in London.
However, it does not seem quite right to speak of any mechanical shift. The
matter is that we should sooner speak not of the sequence of tenses but of the sequence of actions and events. It means that if the actions are simultaneous we use
tense-forms not modified by the category of perfect.
As soon as we want to stress the idea of priority of one action to another, we
modify the basic tense-form by the category of perfect.
e.g. I knew that he lived in London – simultaneity;
I knew that he had lived in London then – priority.
The category of ASPECT if it modifies the basic tense-form of the predicate
verb does not influence the sequence of actions. So what is meant by the traditional
term “sequence of tenses” is a synthesis of two categorial notions:
1)
the category of tense, which implies the relation of the action to some
temporal center;
2)
the category of perfect which implies the relations of actions to each
other or to some temporal center.
Characterizing the category of tense it is necessary to say that the formal oppositions between verb-forms expressing different tense-forms can be reduced in the
meaning of some other tense-form. The most typical cases of reduction are:
1)
the usage of the perfect tense-form or its aspectively modified variant
instead of future tense, e.g. comes – is coming to express a planned or anticipated as
well as in subordinate clauses of time and condition.
2)
The usage of the past tense-form or its aspectively modified variant instead of the Future-in-the-Past tense to express a planned or anticipated action as
well as in subordinate clauses of time and condition. E.g. She said she was leaving
on Monday and she would be glad if he came to see her off.
The established formal oppositions expressing particular tense-forms hold
good only for the indicative mood.
Oblique mood forms radically change the tense-meaning of the verb-form.
E.g. They were here last month (Past Indefinite). I wish they were here now (Subjunctive II Present).
26
The category of Aspect
The category of aspect is a verb category which denotes the character of the
development of an action or event. Care should be taken that the character of the development of an action can also be expressed not by the morphological category of
aspect but by some other lexical means, e.g. continued to work, jumped and jumped
and jumped.
As the character of the development of an action in English is often expressed
by lexical means or even remains unexpressed, some scholars, especially in this
country, doubt the existence of this category with English verbs.
Nevertheless the morphological category of aspect of the English verb is established on the basis of the privative opposition of verb-forms like: writes – is writing, wrote – was writing and so on.
Only the forms containing Participle I explicitly present the action as a process
of developing in time. They are the marked members of the opposition. They are the
forms which actually express the category of aspect. So the morphological category
of aspect is expressed by the auxiliary verb “to be” in the required tense-form and
Participle I of the notional verb. The unmarked member of the opposition does not
express explicitly the character of development of the action. It only names an action
and so it does not actually express the category of aspect.
Both members of the opposition under consideration are contrasted as continuous and non-continuous forms.
Traditionally we name forms like “is writing”, “was writing” as the Present
continuous and Past Continuous tense. Such terms do not seem to be satisfactory
from the theoretical point of view, because we deal not with different tenses in such
oppositions.
The tense is the same in both marked and unmarked members of the opposition but in the marked member the basic tense category is modified by the additional
category of aspect. If we agree that Present Continuous is a special tense form which
is contrasted to the Present Indefinite tense then we’ll have to agree that continuous
is another tense category and the action is developing in two different tenses – present and continuous – at once and that is hardly acceptable.
Hence, forms like “is writing” should be called the Present Tense of the Continuous aspect. Finally it is necessary to say that continuous verb-forms are more expressive than non-continuous and so they are very often used in colloquial speech or
for stylistic purposes even with verbs which denote a process and are not usually
used in the continuous aspect (love, like, understand etc).
Such forms as “I’m loving you” become stylistically marked and express a peculiar emotional state of the speaker.
I am not understanding you (some additional feelings are expressed).
The Category of Retrospective Coordination (perfect)
Perfect forms are widely used in English, having no corresponding forms in
Russian. They are distinguished by their form as all of them include the auxiliary
verb “have” and Participle II or when modified by the category of aspect, they also
27
include participle I. Participles name the action itself while the auxiliary verb “have”
expresses the categories of tense and mood. The problem of the status and meaning
of the perfect has always been disputable.
There are 4 principal points of view on this problem:
1.
It is a tense category;
2.
it is an aspect category;
3.
it is a tense-aspect category;
4.
it is a special self-dependent verb-category.
Let’s comment on these opinions.
1) Many linguists and the traditional grammars treat the perfect as a tense
form. This idea was put forward in the works of Henry Sweet, Irteneva, and others.
They stress that the principal meaning of the perfect is to express priority and that
implies personal relations. However this idea seems to be deficient. Let’s take such
oppositions as: writes – has written, wrote – had written etc. We can notice that in
both members of these oppositions the same tense is expressed but in the second
member the category of perfect is added. So, if the perfect were a tense form then we
should speak of two tenses in the second members, but an action can exist and develop only in one tense form (time plane). It can’t develop in two tenses simultaneously.
Hence, the perfect can’t be a special tense.
2) Other linguists – Deutschbein, West, Vorontsova – treat the perfect as a
special aspect category, the grammatical meaning of which is that of result or retrospective connection. Although we can’t deny the presence and significance of this
meaning, it is hard to agree to the idea that the perfect is an aspect form. If we take
oppositions like “has written – has been writing, had written – had been writing”, we
can see that both members express the same tense, but they differ in their aspect because the second member happens to be modified by the continuous aspect. And if
we should treat the perfect as a special aspect form then in the second member of
these oppositions we shall have to admit the presence of two aspect forms at once:
perfect and continuous. But that is hardly acceptable because the action can’t develop in two different aspects simultaneously.
3) Professor Ivanova treats the perfect as a peculiar tense-aspect form. This
opinion implies that the categories of tense and aspect are fused together in the Perfect form. So the perfect is a verb-form of double nature. As a tense form, the Perfect
expresses priority, as an aspect form it denotes the development and completion of
some action. The completion is logically based on priority and is a result of it. This
idea seems quite reasonable. However, the status of the perfect remains indefinite,
because we can’t part with the notions of tense and aspect here as well.
4) A number of authors treat the perfect as a special verb category, neither
tense nor aspect. This opinion was put forward in the works of professors
Smirnitsky, Ilyish and Blokh. Smirnitsky was the first to treat the perfect as a special
verb category. He defined it as the category of “time correlation”. The basic meaning
of this category is to bring together by contrast two temporally different actions of
stages of the same action and to express the idea of precedence of one of them.
28
However, professors Ilyish and Blokh say that the aspective characteristic of
the action is underestimated in Smirnitsky’s definition of the perfect. Besides, professor Ilyish was right to note that the idea of priority can also be expressed lexically,
e.g. First he copied the text and then he learnt it.
Emphasizing the presence of the meaning of result and completion, Ilyish defines the perfect as the category of correlation, but this notion is also rather vague.
That is why professor Blokh defined the perfect as the category of retrospective coordination, which seems to be most adequate at present. This definition implies precedence, coordination of actions, based on the completion or coordination of an action
and some moment of time to stress the resultative aspect of the action.
So, the category of perfect or retrospective coordination is a special verb category which is based on two oppositions: Perfect – non-Perfect; Perfect Continuous –
Continuous.
So we can conclude that the verb has one basic category of tense, which when
we actualize an action or event can be modified by some other verb categories, like
aspect, perfect, and voice. All of them can be treated as secondary to the primary category of tense.
The Category of Mood
The category of mood expresses the relations between the action and reality
from the speaker’s point of view. He can treat it as real, unreal, probable or as a kind
of inducement. Hence, we traditionally differentiate 3 principal types of mood in
English: the indicative, the imperative and the oblique moods. The number and types
of concrete mood forms can vary with different authors, because of the variety of
verb forms, their homonymy on the plane of expression and difference on the plane
of content.
The indicative mood presents an action or event as a real fact from the grammatical point of view. The verb in this mood form strictly distinguishes the tense category, because it names actions taking place in the objective time: present, past or
future.
The imperative mood expresses an inducement, addressed by the speaker to
the addressee. The peculiarity of this mood-form is that it does not distinguish tense,
aspect and voice categories. It is used only in actual intercourse and so it coincides
with the moment of speaking. Hence, it always has the form of the present tense.
e.g. Stay here! Don’t go there.
However, taking into consideration the meaning of the imperative mood, we
can also refer to its field some interrogative sentences which actually express not a
question, but a request or a mild command. The predicate verb-form in such sentences coincides with the indicative mood in such cases.
e.g. Will you open the door? – mild command.
Shall I do it now?
Modal verbs with an infinitive can be used in the imperative mood to express a
request, a permission, a prohibition or an order.
e.g. You may go now.
29
You mustn’t stay here too long.
You are to come at ten.
Some authors speak of the word combination with “let” as an analytical form
of the Imperative Mood. Semantically such constructions can express an inducement.
This inducement is addressed to the 1st person or to the 3rd person (Let me stay, let
him stay) and in the last case it is not direct. When treating this construction with
“let” as an analytical form of the Imperative Mood, the component “let” is treated as
an auxiliary element. It is true that in some cases “let” happens to be considerably
devoid of its lexical meaning.
e.g. Let’s do it now! Let him stay here!
However, it is difficult to agree to the idea that constructions with “let” are analytical forms of the Imperative Mood. We can give the following arguments:
1)
The pronoun or noun is an object to “let” and so there are syntactic relations between the noun and pronoun what is foreign to analytical forms.
2)
We can find secondary predicative relations between the noun or pronoun and the infinitive which follows it, thus making up a CO construction, what is
foreign to analytical forms. E.g. Let me help you.
3)
The component “let” can hardly be a pure auxiliary element, as in negative and interrogative forms it takes an auxiliary itself. In addition to that, when
transformed into a declarative sentence it becomes the predicate and takes a subject.
Hence, the prn or noun after “let” can’t be the subject of “let” as some authors think.
e.g. Will you let me do it? Don’t let us stay here. She never lets me stay there
after ten.
Table 2
Will you let me do it?
Don’t let us stay here.
She never lets me stay
there after ten.
(aux)
(aux)
(subject) (predicate)
So the word combinations with “let” can be treated as a means of expressing
the meaning of the Imperative Mood, but it is not an analytical form.
The imperative mood is formed by the infinitive without the particle “to”, but
unlike the infinitive it takes the auxiliary in the negative and interrogative forms:
e.g. Don’t forget it. I want not to forget it.
When treating Oblique Moods we can say that it is one of disputable questions
in English grammar. Different authors speak of different types and number of
oblique moods. Oblique moods denote unreal or problematic actions and so they
can’t express objective time and do not distinguish tense-forms like the Indicative
Mood. Oblique Moods denote only relative time relations, that is simultaneity and
futurity as one time-plane and priority as the other time-plane.
Oblique moods have a range of forms including:
1)
Synthetic forms which coincide with the forms of the indicative mood:
e.g. I wish he came. It’s time he were there.
2) Analytical forms which coincide with the forms of the Indicative Mood or
with free word-combinations (a modal verb + an infinitive).
30
e.g. I wish he had done it. I suggest that he should do it.
3) The form of the infinitive without the particle “to”:
e.g. I suggest that he stay a little longer. (Subjunctive I).
Phone me if he be ill.
Due to the variety of forms which express identical or nearly identical meanings, it is impossible to make up regular paradigms of Oblique Moods.
Hence, some authors take into consideration mostly the plane of content and
distinguish a certain number of Oblique Moods, while other scholars pay more attention to the plane of expression and speak of some other kind of Oblique Moods.
The extreme points of view are expressed by Deutchbein who speaks of 16
moods in English and by Barhudarov who denies the existence of the morphological
category of Mood with English verbs.
The most popular in grammar has become the system of moods put forward by
Smirnitsky. He speaks of 6 moods:
The Indicative mood;
The imperative mood;
Subjunctive I;
Subjunctive II;
The Conditional Mood;
The suppositional Mood.
Though this system is not ideal it has its merit of being most known and popular with learners of English. The main drawbacks of this system are:
1) Subjunctive I and Suppositional Mood are differentiated mostly by their
form, being identical in their meaning, e.g. It is necessary that he should be present
there. It’s necessary that he be present there.
2) The term ‘the conditional Mood” is not quite appropriate, because this
mood form is mostly used to express not the condition but the consequence, e.g. He
would support (expresses consequence) me if he were (expresses condition) here
now.
The Conditional Mood denotes an unreal action and it is built with the help of
the auxiliary verbs “should” or “would” and a non-perfect infinitive to express simultaneity or futurity or a perfect infinitive to express priority. The conditional Mood is
used in simple sentences with an implied condition or in the main clause of a complex conditional sentence.
e.g. If he were not busy, he would call on me. He would undoubtedly have
joined us. But for the late hour I would go there. Do it now, otherwise you would be
sorry to have wasted your time.
Subjunctive II denotes an unreal action. In its form it coincides with the Past
Indicative not modified by the Perfect, when expressing priority. Subjunctive II is
used in different subordinate clauses or sometimes in simple sentences with an implied consequence.
e.g. If only he were not so light-minded! It’s time he came. I wish he had paid
some attention to it. She behaves as if she were not to blame. I’d rather you had followed the doctor’s advice. It is not as if she had never thought of it.
31
The Suppositional Mood and Subjunctive I denote a problematic action which
is not contrary to reality. The Suppositional Mood is built with the help of the auxiliary verb “should” and the infinitive, while Subjunctive I coincides in its form with
the infinitive without the particle “to”. They express the same meaning and differ only stylistically. Subjunctive I is more typical of American English and newspaper
style.
e.g. Ring me up if he should arrive (arrive). It is necessary that everybody
should be present there (be present). The suggestion is that you should take the floor
at the meeting. She shut the window lest the child should catch a cold.
Taking into consideration the fact that the Oblique Mood forms coincide with
the forms of the indicative mood, there arises the problem of their homonymy or
polysemy. Many authors think that we deal with grammatical homonyms which coincide in their form but differ in their grammatical meaning.
Other scholars think that homonymy should be restricted only to the forms of
the Suppositional Mood, on the one hand, and the word-combination “the modal verb
“should” + an infinitive” on the other hand.
In all other cases they speak of polysemy, because the verb-forms have the
same lexical meaning and are identical on the plane of expression. The difference in
their grammatical meaning is brought about by the syntactic context.
e.g. He lived there (priority, past tense, indicative mood, a real action).
He said that he lived there (simultaneity, past tense, indicative mood, a real action).
If only he lived there! (simultaneity, SII present, an unreal action).
So it seems more logical to speak of contextual polysemy of verb-forms.
Stressing the role of the syntactic context in differentiating mood-forms, we can put
forward an idea that the category of mood is sooner not a morphological category but
a contextual or syntactic category of the sentence.
We proceed from the fact that a verb-form by itself fails to identify Mood. It
acquires the concrete Mood-idea only when used in a syntactic context, that is, in a
sentence.
The Category of Voice
The grammatical category of voice expresses the relations between the Subject
and the Predicate showing whether the Subject is the doer or recipient of the action.
The category of voice is recognized when we deal with an action. Strictly
speaking, all the linguists do not deny the existence of the Active and Passive Voice
forms.
The planes of expression and content differentiate these two basic voiceforms. The marked member of the opposition is the passive voice-form. On the plane
of expression it is marked by the presence of the auxiliary verb “to be” in the required tense-form and Participle II of the notional verb. On the plane of content these
two verb-forms are also contrasted showing that the unmarked member of the opposition is the doer or source of the action.
e.g. He opened the door (the doer of the action).
32
The wind opened the door (the source of the action).
The door was opened by the wind (the recipient of the action).
When we deal with the Passive voice form, the actual doer of the action may
remain unexpressed if it is of secondary significance or unknown, but when we want
to specially name the doer of the action, it can be introduced with the preposition
“by”. We should also remember that a means of an action should be introduced with
the preposition “with”.
e.g. This book was written by a young writer. = A young writer wrote the
book.
The book was covered with a newspaper. = Somebody covered the book with
a newspaper.
In a number of cases the opposition between Active and Passive voice-forms
can be reduced. We may have verb-forms which are active on the plane of expression and passive on the plane of content. In such cases the predicate verb usually denotes not an action but a kind of property.
e.g. This book sells well. This material wears well. The shop closes at 8
o’clock.
When dealing with the Passive Voice we are to comment on its coincidence
with the nominal predicate on the plane of expression.
e.g. The door was closed by a watchman.
The door was closed but the window was open.
In the first sentence we deal with an action performed by a definite agent,
while in the 2nd sentence a state is expressed. “Was closed” in the 2nd sentence is
parallel to “was open” which a Compound Nominal Predicate is, and so, likewise,
“was closed” is a Compound Nominal Predicate.
But “was closed” in the 1st sentence expresses an action and so it is a Simple
Verbal Predicate in the Passive voice.
The principal difference between the homonymous forms like “was closed”
lies on the plane of content, whether an action or state is expressed.
The idea of action can be expressed not only by the introduction of an agent or
means of the action. It can also be hinted at by adverbial modifiers of manner, comparison, result or purpose.
e.g. The door was closed slowly.
The window was closed for the rain drops not to fall on the floor and furniture.
The door was closed as if something heavy had fallen down with a crash.
When a form like “was closed” is used as a chain in a sequence of actions,
then it is undoubtedly a passive voice form.
e.g. The cab rode away, the gate was closed and the pupils ran back to their
classrooms.
In spite of the fact that we differentiate two basic voice-forms, some authors
speak of some other voice-forms, like the Reflexive Voice, the Reciprocal Voice and
the Middle Voice.
33
Reflexive Voice
The problem of the Reflexive voice arises when we deal with such language
units as “a verb + a reflexive pronoun”.
e.g. He hurt himself; she found herself in the yard; they dressed themselves.
Some authors say that in such cases we deal with a special reflexive voiceform in which the reflexive pronoun is treated as an auxiliary element. It means that
they take similar units for analytical forms. Other scholars speak of free wordcombinations in such cases. They say that the units under consideration consist of a
verb in the active voice and an object to it, expressed by a reflexive pronoun.
At present the 2nd opinion seems to be more convincing and some arguments
can be given in its favour:
1) The reflexive pronoun denotes an object at which the action named by the
verb is directed. In such phrases the reflexive pronoun can be replaced by some other
word denoting an object or the verb can take two or more homogeneous objects, that
is a reflexive pronoun and some other nouns or pronouns. The syntactic relations between the verb and the reflexive pronoun are similar to those between the verb and
the other homogeneous object. So if we consider that there are syntactic relations between the verb and the reflexive pronoun then it is not an analytical voice-form, but a
free word-combination.
e.g. He hurt himself or he hurt his finger, or he hurt him and himself, he hurt
himself and his friend, he dressed himself and his younger brother.
2) The reflexive pronoun can take its own appositive attribute and it means
that it can have independent of the head word syntactic relations, what is foreign to
analytical forms, because the latter are treated as one unit.
Hence, the reflexive pronoun getting into syntactic relations of its own can’t
be an auxiliary element. It is a self-dependent member of the sentence, that is an object.
e.g. He was defending himself, a victim of the plot. (an apposition to “himself”).
3) The meaning of the verb in most cases is not changed when we add a reflexive pronoun or drop it. The reflexive pronoun fills in the position of an object
opened by the verb due to its transitive nature and syntactic valiancy [ei] in the process of producing a sentence. Not to fill it in can make the verb phrase or the sentence grammatically incomplete or deficient.
e.g. He hurt … (grammatically incomplete).
Moreover, sometimes when the subject and the object of the predicate verb
denote the same agent, the reflexive pronoun can be easily omitted when the verb is
used intransitively and that is foreign to auxiliaries in analytical verb-forms.
He dressed himself = he dressed;
He washed himself = he washed.
The omitted reflexive pronoun can be easily restored and should be restored
when the verb takes two or more homogeneous objects.
e.g. He dressed and his younger brother – wrong.
He dressed himself and his younger brother – right
34
4) The reflexive pronoun has independent of the predicate verb syntactic relations with the subject, because it agrees with it in gender, number and person and
that is foreign to analytical forms.
He dressed himself. They dressed themselves.
The reflexive pronoun is in secondary appositive relations with the subject and
it can easily be separated from the verb to modify the subject when it becomes rhematic or the communicative centre of the utterance and that is impossible for analytical forms.
e.g. He hurt himself. It was he himself who was hurt.
However, those who recognize the existence of the Reflexive voice say that
there are such verb-phrases with a reflexive pronoun which deny all or nearly all the
arguments given above. They mean such phrases as: to find oneself, to pride oneself,
to behave oneself.
We can’t say “he found himself and all the others in the yard”. The matter is
that in such phrases the reflexive pronoun happens to change the meaning of the
verb.
e.g. He found the book. He found himself in the street.
He behaved outrageously (вызывающе).
He behaved himself (должным образом).
To choose any point of view remains with the scholar. Nevertheless, it seems
more reasonable to agree that in English there is no special reflexive voice. Mostly
we deal with a free word combination, consisting of a verb in the Active Voice and a
reflexive pronoun as an object to it. But there is a group of reflexive verbs which
make up a lexico-semantic group. These verbs establish phraseological units with reflexive pronouns similar to bound phrases like: give up, look after, look for.
The Reciprocal Voice
Some authors speak of a special reciprocal voice, when treating such wordcombinations as: greeted each other or praised one another.
We can treat this problem the same way as the problem of the reflexive voice,
but we can say at once that the relations between the verb and the reciprocal pronoun
are even looser than those between the verb and the reflexive pronoun.
1) First of all it seems quite possible that the reciprocal pronoun can be coordinated with some other noun or pronoun in the function of an object and so it has
syntactic relations with the verb what is foreign to analytical forms.
e.g. They kissed each other and the child. They passed one another and all the
guests. So the reciprocal pronoun can hardly be an auxiliary.
2) Besides, the verb can freely function without the reciprocal pronoun in the
same meaning.
e.g. They kissed and felt into a lively talk. They smiled and parted.
3) Sometimes a reciprocal pronoun can be joined to the verb with a preposition
which marks the syntactic relations between the verb and the pronoun what is foreign
to analytical forms.
e.g. They smiled to each other.
35
The reciprocal pronoun does not change the meaning of the verb. So it seems
logical to consider that “a verb + a reciprocal pronoun” is not an analytical verb-form
of the reciprocal voice. It is a free word-combination, in which the verb takes an object expressed by a reciprocal pronoun.
The Middle Voice
Some authors speak of a special voice-form when comparing such sentences
as:
I opened (1) the door and The door opened (2).
They say that in the 2nd sentence the verb is used in the middle voice. We can’t
deny that though there is no difference between the verb-forms on the plane of expression, there is some difference between them on the plane of content. In sentences
like “I opened the door” the subject is the doer of the action which is directed at
some object. So it is a pure case of the Active Voice.
But in the sentence “The door opened” the Subject is not the doer of the action, it is sooner acted upon. So, on the plane of content it is close to the Passive
Voice.
Taking into consideration the mixture of two principal voice-forms: active and
passive in one verb-form, some scholars arrive at the conclusion that in the form like
“opened (2)” we should speak of a special voice-form which they suggest calling
“the middle voice”.
However it does not seem the best way out. Without a context the verb forms
like “opened (1)” and “opened (2)” can not be opposed to each other, but without an
opposition no morphological category can be established.
The difference between “opened (1)” and “opened (2)” is sooner of semantic
nature and it can be revealed only on the syntactic level. The difference in the meaning happens to be caused by the lexical character of the verb, that is whether it is
transitive, intransitive or medial. If the verbs are transitive the action of the verb is
directed at some object which is an obligatory positional element for them. If the
verb is intransitive it requires no object. Medial verbs, unlike both transitive and intransitive, don’t require an explicit member of the sentence, denoting the doer of the
action or agent. It means that they can’t have any subject in the structure of the sentence, but the English declarative sentence structurally requires the presence of the
Subject before the predicate the position of the subject is filled in by the object of the
action. Thus, we can’t say “opened the door” in the meaning “открылась дверь”, so
we say “the door opened”.
In such cases we can speak of using verbs of medial meaning. Medial verbs
are a special type of transitive verbs which do not require any subject or agent.
However, we are to understand that transitive, intransitive and medial verbs
are not necessarily different lexemes. There can be the same lexeme which can be
used transitively, intransitively or medially in the Active Voice, influencing the
structure of the sentence.
e.g. He stepped and broke the ice (transitive verb, active voice).
Many people broke in those conditions (intransitive verb, active voice).
36
The ice broke easily (medial verb, active voice).
Moreover, medial verbs can’t be used in the Passive voice, because they do
not presuppose any doer of the action in the structure of the sentence, while Passive
voice-forms do that.
Thus, speaking of the category of voice we can say that the English verb differentiates two morphological voice-forms – active and passive. Being of a general
character, the active voice admits some variations in its principal meaning and that is
reflected in the syntactic structure of the sentence. The most typical of such variations are the so-called Reflexive, Reciprocal and Middle Voice-forms.
The Phrase Theory
The Notion of the Phrase
The phrase is the basic unit of syntax. Phrases make up sentences. The smallest phrase consists of two words. The phrase may become a sentence if it acquires its
features. The phrase is differentiated from a sentence, because it is not a unit of
communication. Like a word a phrase is a unit of nomination, but unlike the word the
referent of a phrase is of a composite character: an object + its character (red pencil);
an action + its character (do immediately).
When we say that a phrase consists of at least 2 words we should differentiate
it from an analytical form. Analytical form is treated as one unit with no syntactic relations within it. One of the components of the analytical form is an auxiliary element while the other is a notional element. The analytical form appears and exists
only when its two obligatory components are used together to express one grammatical meaning:
Has given – analytical form;
Has a book – a phrase.
The notion of the phrase is based first of all on syntagmatic relations. The
phrase is any syntactically organized group of words in a syntagmatic line. The
phrase is a language unit characterized by the plane of expression and the plane of
content.
Words of functional parts of speech don’t change the lexical meaning of the
notional word. They only modify the syntactic function or semantic role of the notional word without making an analytical form of it. The referent of such word combinations remains of a simple nature. However we can’t name such word combinations as words as they actually consist of two or more self-dependent words. Hence,
such word-combinations can be placed somewhere between words and phrases proper. We can name them as quasi-phrases because they satisfy the notion of the phrase
on the plane of expression but differ from them on the plane of content.
There are also cases when a word-combination includes a notional word and
the functional one. And the latter changes the meaning of the notional word (give up,
look for). They are not analytical forms either and consist of two or more words. On
the plane of expression they satisfy the notion of the phrase, but on the plane of content they are equal to words.
37
Some scholars name them phrasal verbs. But the actual state of such words
remains indefinite. It seems that they should also be treated as quasi-phrases.
Types of Syntactic Relations within a Phrase and Methods of Their Realization
When we make up phrases they must be syntactically connected and must get
into some kinds of syntactic relations with each other.
In proper phrases consisting of at least two notional words we can find coordinative, subordinative, interdependent and accumulative relations.
Coordination is such a type of syntactic relations when the connected words
are of equal syntactic status, independent of each other. Usually they have one common word beyond the phrase which dominates them. Words within a coordinative
phrase make it possible to mark their relations with the help of a coordinative conjunction (neither … nor, and, but, or, not only but also etc.)
He spoke German fluently, with pathos – He spoke German fluently and with
pathos.
But it is impossible to say: “He spoke Germen and fluently”.
A coordinating phrase is not closed. Theoretically it can include any number
of constituents but practically such phrases include not more than 15 constituents.
Subordination is such a type of syntactic relations which is based on syntactic
inequity of connected constituents. It means that one of them dominates the other(s)
and is called a head word or a nucleus of a phrase.
Interdependence is such a type of syntactic relations when both constituents
of a phrase are equal and mutually dependent on each other. Mostly we find such relations between primary and secondary subject and predicate. Some authors
(Mukhin) use the term “predicative” to name such phrases, but it seems better to
choose the term “interdependent” (Elmslev) to characterize syntactic relation within
such phrases because the term “predicative” evokes associations with a sentence,
while a sentence is a unit of a higher lavel than a phrase.
Cumulative relations are those which appear between language units only because they are constituents of a larger syntagmatic line. Let’s take the phrase “his
friend a letter” from the sentence “He wrote his friend a letter”.
The words “friend” and “letter” are members of one sentence, of its predicative group. Moreover if we replace them, what is structurally or syntactically possible, there appears the preposition “to”, which marks the presence of syntactic relations between them.
We can’t treat this phrase as subordinative, because it is difficult to say which
of the words is the head word. This phrase can’t be coordinative either because we
can’t use a coordinative conjunction between its constituents. It is not the case of interdependence as well, because both members don’t depend on each other and can
function independently.
So it is possible to call such phrases or syntactic relations as cumulative.
Cumulative phrases can consist of:
1)
two typically different objects;
38
2)
morphologically and semantically different attributes: these new timely
trade union actions;
3)
a number of adverbial modifiers: Walked in the park last night quickly
to the river;
4)
An object + an adverbial modifier.
There are some methods of realizing syntactic relations between the constituents of the phrase. It has become traditional in grammar to speak of tree methods:
1)
agreement (concord);
2)
governing;
3)
adjoining.
By agreement we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when
a formal correspondence between word forms is observed. In English we can speak
of agreement only in some cases because of the lack of inflexions to mark the syntactic relations. These cases are:
1)
sometimes between the subject and the predicate: The boy runs – The
boys run.
2)
Between the determiner expressed by a demonstrative pronoun and a
noun: this book – these books.
3)
Between the head word and a reflexive pronoun: he did it himself - she
did it herself.
By governing we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when
there comes a change in the form of the governed word under the influence of the
governing or head word. This method is also rare in English. But sometimes we can
find it in English: he asked him (not his), he took care of her (not she).
Bu adjoining we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when
words getting into syntactic relations don’t change their form. This method is most
typical of English syntax, e.g. sat silent, sat silently, a young man, a young girl.
Classification of Phrases
Phrases can be classified on different principles. Taking into consideration the
nature of syntactic relations within phrases they can be classified as coordinative,
subordinative, interdependent and cumulative.
If we take into consideration a part-of-speech nature of the head word in subordinative phrases they can be classified as nominal (red pencil), adjectival (very
brave), verbal (speaks English), adverbial (very quickly), pronominal (something
new), infinitival (to stay late), gerundial (his reading), participial (walking slowly,
recently built).
From the structural point of view it is important whether there is a head word
within the phrase or not.
Hence, all the phrases can be subdivided into nuclear and nuclear-free. By nuclear phrases we understand those in the syntactic structure of which there is one
constituent dominating the other. They are typical subordinative phrases.
Taking into consideration the position of the head word, all nuclear phrases are
subdivided into progressive and regressive. We have a progressive nuclear phrase
39
when the head word precedes the dependent word (or words), e.g. a book of poems,
asked a question.
We have a regressive nuclear phrase when the head word follows the dependent word or words, e.g. a young tree, very soon.
By nuclear-free phrases we understand those which contain no head word.
Mostly such phrases are coordinative, interdependent or cumulative.
Nuclear-free phrases in their turn can be subdivided into dependent and independent. Independent nuclear-free phrases are those which are recognized as grammatically organized structures without any additional context, e.g. a boy and a girl –
no head word; she entered – no head word.
Dependent nuclear-free phrases can be recognized as grammatically organized
structures with the help of some additional context. Usually they are cumulative
phrases, e.g. his own (house), (send) him a telegram.
Thus phrases can be classified on different principles and when characterizing
a phrase, several characteristics should be named to identify its concrete status
among other phrases:
 a diligent student. It’s a subordinative, nuclear, regressive noun-phrase;
 black and white. It’s a coordinative, nuclear-free independent phrase;
 our new (teacher). It’s a cumulative, nuclear-free dependent phrase;
 he knows. It’s an interdependent, nuclear-free, independent phrase.
The Sentence Theory
Simple Sentence as the Basic Unit of Syntax. The definition of the Sentence
The sentence is the basic unit of syntax. Due to the fact that it has many aspects it is difficult to give a complete definition of it. As a means of forming and expressing thoughts it is characterized from its logico-grammatical aspect. As a syntactic construction which reflects a situation of reality it is characterized from its syntactic and semantic aspects. As a unit of communication it is characterized by actual division and pragmatics. So it is clear that it is hard to give a definition of the sentence
which could reflect all its aspects.
However when dealing with sentences we should be sure that we really deal
with a sentence and not with some other segmental language unit. It means that we
should know the specific features of the sentence. The sentence takes the top position
in the hierarchy of language units.
Like words and phrases, the sentence is a naming unit. It names a situation of
reality, but unlike words and phrases, the sentence is a unit of communication. Only
a sentence can form and render a complete thought. Communicativeness presupposes
all other basic features of the sentence, such as predicativeness, intonation pattern,
syntactic and semantic structures. The sentence is mostly not a ready-made unit. It is
formed and produced by the speaker in the actual process of communication.
Thus the draft definition of the sentence can be formulated the following way:
The sentence is a syntactic structure, which is used in communication acts to form
and render complete thoughts about situations of reality. It is characterized by
40
nominative, communicative and pragmatic aspects. All these three aspects of the
sentence are closely interconnected and presuppose each other.
Classification of Sentences
Sentences can be classified on different principles. According to the structural principle all the sentences are classified into simple and composite, when the fist
ones are treated as monopredicative, as they contain one subject-predicate line, while
the other are treated as polypredicative, as they contain more than one subjectpredicate lines.
e.g I looked at the picture.
I looked at the picture which was hanging on the wall.
According to the principle of obligatoriness of members of the sentence we
differentiate extended and unextended sentences. Unextended sentences include only syntactically and semantically obligatory members.
e.g. He put the book on the table (unextended).
He put the book of poems on the table in the corner of the room.
According to the principle of availability of the main members of the sentence, sentences can be divided into one-member and two-member. The presence
of the both main members of the sentence makes it two-member.
e.g. He is tall – two-member sentence.
Winter. What a frosty day. Come here. – one-member sentences.
Depending on the nature of the subject, sentences are divided into definite
personal, indefinite personal and impersonal. The sentences are definite personal
when the action or property named by the predicate can be ascribed to some concrete
object, process or abstract notions.
e.g. The book is interesting.
To swim across the river was difficult.
Love of life helped them to survive.
The sentence is indefinite personal when the action named by the predicate
can’t be ascribed to a concrete object. In such sentences the subject can be expressed
by indefinite personal pronouns: by the pronouns “they, you, we” in a general sense,
by nouns like “people, students”. They do not point to or name concrete object.
e.g. They say he is a good doctor.
The impersonal sentence contains the predicate which names an action or
property which can’t be ascribed to any object.
e.g. it’s cold.
Taking into consideration the communicative aim of the speaker, we differentiate declarative sentences which express a statement, interrogative sentences which
express a question and imperative sentences which express an inducement. These
communicative types of sentences are characterized by specific word order and intonation patterns.
Due to the small number of inflexions the word order is of considerable significance in any of the communicative types of sentences. It is rather fixed in modern
English. In the declarative sentence it is typical to observe a direct word order – Sub41
ject – Predicate – Object. Declarative sentences are looser in the structure of the sentence. Inverted word order is also possible but it’s used only when we want to rhematize or emphasize some component of the sentence.
e.g. The photo was on the wall.
But: Written on the back of the photo was his name (тема).
In actual intercourse the role of word order may be reduced thanks to the intonation pattern and structurally a declarative sentence can render the meaning of an
interrogative and imperative sentence.
He lives in Bryansk?
You’ll go and take it (inducement).
Interrogative sentences differentiate several sub-types which have peculiarities
in word order and intonation patterns. Traditionally we speak of general, special, alternative and disjunctive questions though the latter two can be treated as variants of
the first two types. The general question contains a request about the reality of predicative relations and hence it requires an affirmative and negative answer in reply.
e.g. Did he answer well? Yes.
The special question contains a request which is aimed at getting some definite
information. The character of the required information is signaled by the interrogative word (who, when, why).
Sometimes intonation patterns can transform interrogative sentences into imperative.
e.g. Will you open the door?
All the communicative types of sentences can be affirmative or negative in
their form. We should differentiate two types of negation: general and secondary. We
have a general negation when it concerns the subject-predicate relations. Such sentences can be called negative.
e.g. I don’t understand you.
Nobody can do it better.
I saw nobody. (отрицание касается субъектно-предикативной линии)
The negation is secondary when it concerns only some secondary member of
the sentence, which is usually an optional member. Such sentences are mostly treated
as affirmative:
The book was lying not on the shelf but on the table.
I smiled at him not to discourage him (отрицание не касается субъектнопредикативной линии).
The actually existing difference between the general and secondary negation
make it possible for them to be used in one sentence.
e.g. I didn’t tell anything to him not to confuse him.
Besides, declarative, interrogative and imperative sentences, as the basic
communicative types, we can make use of secondary types of sentences in speech
acts. They usually lack any subject-predicate line and it is not the case of ellipsis.
The subject-predicate line in such sentences cannot be restored, because it is not contextually omitted, but such structures take the position of a sentence in speech and so
they can be called as quasi-sentences. To the group of quasi-sentences we refer:
42
1)
Vocatives: John! Come here!
2)
Interjections: Oh! Dear me!
3)
Meta-communicatives which mark the beginning or the end of communication: Hello! Bye-bye!
Quasi-sentences can be treated as sentences because in our speech they take
the position of a regular sentence and function like it. But on the other hand, unlike
regular communicative types of sentences, they can be included into the structure of
a simple sentence or can be joined within one utterance.
e.g. Good-bye, John! Good-bye!
John! You must do it!
Oh, I/m not sure of it, John!
But we can’t join together in one simple sentence two communicatively different sentences:
e.g. we can’t say “Did john come, John came?”
The Composite Sentence
The Simple sentence is structurally opposed to the composite one. The basic
difference between them lies in the fact that the simple sentence is monopredicative,
as it contains one subject-predicate line, while the composite sentence is polypredicative, as it contains more than one subject-predicate lines. The simple sentence reflects one situation of reality, while the composite sentence reflects more than one
situations related to each other.
Clauses within the composite sentences are syntactically and semantically
connected contributing to the general meaning of the sentence.
Traditionally we speak of 2 main types of composite sentences: compound and
complex.
Clauses within the compound sentence are coordinated. Coordination implies
equal rank of joining clauses. Strictly speaking, clauses within the compound sentence do not depend on each other and do not presuppose each other syntactically,
but they get into close semantic relations and so they lose their absolute communicative independence,
e.g. I opened the room and she entered the room.
Clauses within the compound sentence can be joined syndetically and asyndetically,
e.g. His head ached, his mouth was dry and he looked quite miserable.
The number of clauses within a compound sentence is not limited, but principally it depends on the amount of information the speaker wants to present.
The complex sentence is that one which consists of at least two clauses of unequal rank that is one clause dominates the other or others. The complex sentence includes: a principal (main clause) and one or more subordinate clauses.
So the complex sentence is a polypredicative unit which is arranged on the
principle of subordination.
Subordinate clauses can be joined to the main clause or between themselves
syndetically or asyndetically,
43
e.g. He said that she was out. He said she was out.
Syndetic means include:
1) subordinating conjunctions which do not perform a syntactic function
within the clause (till, until, if, since etc);
2) conjunctive words which can be relative pronouns or conjunctive adverbs (who, which, what, where, when), which are treated as syntactically significant
within the clause.
e.g. I don’t know whether (conjunction) he likes it.
I don’t know what (conjunctive word) makes him think so.
Very often we can come across the case of homonymy between words of different parts of speech.
e.g. The book that (relative pronoun)is lying on the table is mine.
He said that (conjunction) the book was interesting.
Then there arises the problem of classifying subordinate clauses. They can be
classified on two principles:
1)
on the basis of correlation with the members of the sentence;
2)
on the basis of correlation with parts of speech.
According to the first principle subordinate clauses are treated as functionally
similar to some member of the sentence, but as this member of the sentence reflects a
situation it is expressed by a subordinate clause. This correlation between a clause
and a member of the sentence can be proved by a reducing a subordinate clause to a
non-predicative unit,
e.g. I don’t know who is absent = } I don’t know that.
He is absent because he is ill =} He is absent because of illness.
Thus, we differentiate:
1. Subordinate Subject clauses which are usually fused together with the main clause.
e.g. What is done cannot be undone.
It is obvious that some radical measures should be taken.
2. Subordinate Predicative clauses which are also fused together with the main
clause.
e.g. He looked as if he were deadly tired.
His suggestion was that we should join the excursion.
3. Subordinate object clause.
He knows what should be done.
4. Subordinate attributive clauses which can be of descriptive or limiting character.
He is a person who is always ready to help you (of descriptive character).
The room which I entered (of limiting character) was small and dark.
5. Subordinate adverbial modifier clauses of time, place, manner, cause, result, purpose, condition, concession, comparison, attending circumstances.
When he came I had already finished my work.
6. A complex sentence like a simple one can be modified by a parenthetical clause.
John insists, and I agree with him, that we should vote for this candidate.
According to the 2nd principle subordinate clauses can be subdivided into nominal (substantival), adjectival and adverbial.
44
Nominal clauses are those which name an event as a fact and can be replaced
by a noun or a pronoun.
She understood what he hinted at = He understood that.
Adjectival clauses are those which name an event as a kind of characteristic of
some nominal unit. They can be replaced by demonstrative pronouns in the attributive function.
He denied the fact that he had betrayed him = He denied that fact.
Adverbial clauses express dynamic relations or characteristics of some event,
process or quality. Such clauses can be replaced by adverbs or adverbial phrases.
Let’s meet when classes are over = Let’s meet then.
Both classifications do not contradict each other and can be regarded as mutually complimentary.
Actual Division of the Sentence. Text Formation Based on the Actual Division
of the Sentence
The notional parts of sentence form, taken together, the nominative meaning of
the sentence. The division of the sentence into notional parts of speech can be called
the nominative, grammatical or syntactic division.
Alongside the nominative division of the sentence, the idea of the so called
“actual division” of the sentence has been put forward in theoretical linguistics. The
purpose of the actual division of the sentence, called also the “functional sentence
perspective”, is to reveal the significance of the sentence parts from the point of view
of their actual informative role in an utterance.
The main components of the actual division of the sentence are the theme and
the rheme. The theme expresses the starting point of the communication, i.e. it denotes an object or a phenomenon about which something is reported (informative part
“already known” by the listener). The rheme expresses the basic informative part of
the communication, its contextually relevant centre (the part “not yet known” by the
listener). Between the theme and the rheme are positioned transitional parts of the actual division of various degrees of informative value (these parts are sometimes
called “transition”).
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, in its turn, may or may
not coincide with the predicate of the sentence. In the following sentences the correlation between the nominative and the actual division is the reverse: the theme is expressed by the predicate, while the rheme is rendered by the subject:
Through the open window came the purr of an approaching motor car.
There is a difference of opinion between the parties.
The actual division in such cases is called “inverted”.
The informative significance of utterance components is rendered by quite definite, generalized lingual constructions. The functional purpose of such constructions
is to reveal the meaningful centre of the utterance (i.e. its rheme) in distinction to the
starting point of its content (i.e. its theme). That is why the phenomenon which is
called the “actual division of the sentence” belongs to syntax.
45
Among the formal means of expressing the distinction between the theme and
the rheme, investigators name such structural elements of language as word order patterns, intonation contours, constructions with introducers (it, there), syntactic patterns
of contrastive complexes, constructions with articles and other determiners, constructions with intensifying particles.
The rheme is usually placed towards the end of the sentence, while the theme
is positioned at the beginning of it. This kind of positioning the components of the
actual division corresponds to the natural development of thought from the starting
point of communication to its semantic centre, i.e. from the “known data” to the “unknown (new) data”:
It was unbelievable to all of them.
You look so well!
The positioning of the rheme at the beginning of the sentence may be connected with emphatic speech:
Utterly unbelievable it was to all of them.
How well you look!
Among constructions with introducers, the there-pattern provides for the rhematic identification of the subject without emotive connotations:
Tall birches surrounded the lake. / There were tall birches surrounding the
lake.
Emphatic discrimination of the rheme expresses by various parts of the sentence is achieved by constructions with the anticipatory it:
Grandma gave them a moment’s deep consideration. / It was a moment’s deep
consideration that Grandma gave them.
Syntactic patterns of contrastive complexes are used to expose the rheme of the
utterance in cases when special accuracy of distinction is needed:
The costume is meant not for your cousin, but for you. – The costume, not the
frock, is meant for you, my dear.
The definite determiners serve as identifiers of the theme while the indefinite
determiners serve as identifiers of the rheme:
The man walked up and down the platform. – A man walked up and down the
platform.
Intensifying particles identify the rheme, commonly imparting emotional colouring to the whole of the utterance:
Mr. Stores had a part in the general debate. / Even Mr. Stores had a part in the
general debate.
We were impressed by what we heard and saw. / We were so impressed by
what we heard and saw.
It should be noted that intonation presents itself as a universal and indisputable
means of expressing the actual division. The “logical accent” is inseparable from the
other rheme-identifying means described above, especially from the word order patterns.
The actual division of the sentence is an active means of expressing functional
meanings, and, being organically connected with the context, it is not so much con46
text-governed as it is context-governing. One of the most important manifestations of
the immediate contextual relevance of the actual division is the regular deletion (ellipsis) of the thematic parts of utterances in dialogue speech:
“How did you receive him?” – “Coldly” (J. Galsworthy).
In other words, the thematic reduction of sentences in the context, resulting in
a constructional economy of speech, performs an informative function in parallel
with the logical accent: it serves to accurately identify the rheme of the utterance.
In a neutral context the rhematic part of the sentence tends to be placed somewhere near the end of it. This holds true both for the simple and complex sentences,
so that the order of clauses plays an important role in distributing primary and secondary information among them:
The boy was friendly with me because I allowed him to keep the fishing line.
As I allowed the boy to keep the fishing line, he was friendly with me.
Table 3
As I allowed the boy to keep the fishing he was friendly with me.
line,
theme
rheme
Of course, the clause order is not the only means of indicating the informative
value of clauses in complex sentences; intonation together with various lexical (emphatic particles) and constructional rheme-forming elements plays here also a crucial
role.
The rheme of one utterance often becomes the theme of another one:
He tried to open the door. The door wouldn’t open.
Besides one part of the text can become a generalized starting point (theme) for
the following events (rheme). For example, the description of a fine afternoon can be
followed by the description of some event that happened on that very day.
The Syntactic and Semantic Structures of the Sentence in Correlation
As a segmental language unit the sentence has a definite syntactic structure or
it is grammatically formed. The significance of the form can be illustrated if we take
such a meaningless construction as “A digdled wogle gugled a wiggle digle.” Though
we conceive nothing from this sentence, we can treat it as a grammatically complete
one because all the members are grammatically formed and find themselves in clear
for analysis syntactic positions and relations. Should we exchange the arrangement of
constituents of this or any other sentence, we can fail to receive a sentence.
Cf.: I have many things to do. +
I have to do many things. +
I have things to do many. –
I to do many things have. –
Members of this sentence are syntagmatically connected making up a hierarchy
of dependent phrases.
On the syntactic level or on the plane of expression the sentence consists of a
number of syntactic positions which are to be filled in to form a sentence. Thus in the
47
sentence we can find the syntactic positions for: subject, predicate, object, attribute
and adverbial modifier. Besides we can find some secondary constituents, which
modify the basic syntactic positions, such as determiners, intensifiers, quantifiers.
The sentence as a syntactic structure can also include appositions, parenthetical, interjectional and addressee enclosures which modify it. Members of the sentence perform
not only syntactic functions they are also characterized by definite semantic functions
on the plane of content of the sentence. So they should sooner be called semanticosyntactic elements.
On the plane of content the sentence is a definite semantic structure according
to the verb-centric conception of the sentence (Fillmore, Chafe, Nelson, Bogdanov,
Slusareva).
An elementary sentence consists of a constant element, which is the predicate,
and a number of alternative elements which are presupposed by the predicate and are
called arguments and actants of the predicate. The number and types of obligatory
actants is determined by the semantic and syntactic valency of the predicate-verb.
The predicate opens a number of obligatory positions for actants which perform definite semantic and syntactic functions or roles. Thus an elementary sentence is an unextended one.
The number and types of semantic roles of the members of the sentence is under study. It was started in the works of Tesniere (Теньер), Charles Fillmore, Wallace Chafe and others. Charles Fillmore distinguished 6 principle semantic roles for
actants. In later research works this number was increased as linguists began to take
into consideration more particular details. E.g. Апресян speaks of 50 semantic roles
but of late the most popular in linguistic studies has become the 14-member system
of semantic roles for actants which was put forward by professor Bogdanov. This
system is taken as a basic one with 2 or 3 modifications of different actants. The semantic structure of the sentence can include the following actants of the predicate:
1) the agent (агент, агенс, агетив); it is a semantic role of the actant which identifies
an object performing the action named by the predicate-verb.
E.g. I read the text. The text was read by me.
2) the patient (the objective – объект, объектив, пациенс, пациентив); it is a semantic role of the actant which identifies an object acted upon.
E.g. I read the text.
3) the factitive (the resultative – фактитив, результатив); it is a semantic role expressing the result of the action named by the predicate-verb.
E.g. He wrote a letter. The boy dug a hole.
4) the instrument (инструментатив); it is a semantic role which denotes an object
with the help of which the action is performed.
E.g. He opened the door with the key.
5) the mediative (медиатив); it is a semantic role which names a means employed
while performing an action.
E.g. He wrapped the purchase with some brown paper.
6) the causative (каузатив); it is a semantic role of the actant denoting the cause
which brings about the state, quality or action named by the predicate-verb.
48
E.g. The houses were grey with soot. He ran to catch the bus.
7) the locative (локатив); it is a semantic role of the actant which denotes the location of the actualized situation.
E.g. He stood under a tree. He was broad in shoulders.
8) the beneficient (бенефициант); it is a semantic role of the actant which denotes a
person in whose favour of harm the action is performed.
E.g. She was gives flowers. He betrayed his uncle.
9) the descriptive (дескриптив); it is a semantic role of the actant which denotes an
object being characterized by identifying its or his properties.
E.g. The book was interesting.
10) the experiencive (экспериансив); it is a semantic role of the actant which denotes
a living-being experiencing something under the influence of another object or circumstances.
E.g. He felt exhausted after the day’s work. It was difficult for the old man to
make out figures.
11) the perceptive (перцептив); it is a semantic role of the actant which denotes an
object that is the subject matter of one’s perception.
E.g. He remembered Mary, his classmate. He saw a book on the table.
12) the elementative (элементатив); it is a semantic role of the actant which denotes
powerful forces of nature causing some changes or acting upon something.
E.g. The wind opened the door. The boat was turned over with waves.
Dealing with the semantic structure of the sentence we should also realize that
predicates can be of different semantic nature as well. Irrespective of their syntactic
form they can express an act, a process, a state, a quality, existence. Semantically
significant are also the syntactic relations within the sentence.
Speaking of the correlation between the semantic and syntactic structures of
the sentence or between the planes of content and expression it’s necessary to say that
there is no strict correspondence between them. It means that the participants of the
same situation of reality reflected in the sentence can perform different semantic roles
in actual utterances. The sentence of one syntactic structure can correspond to different semantic structures or one semantic structure can be represented differently on the
syntactic level.
E.g. Subject-Predicate-Object (syntactic structure)
agent-P-objective He opened the window.
beneficient-P-objective She was given flowers.
agent-P-factative He dug a hole.
beneficient-agent-objective + P (semantic structure)
She was given flowers by him.
He gave her flowers.
Flowers were given to her by him.
49
An Elementary Sentence and Its Modification in Speech Acts
As we have already said the sentence names a situation of reality in actual for
the speaker aspect. It’s obvious that the number of situations of reality is endless and
likewise the number of sentences reflecting them is also endless. So it has always
been a problem for linguists to work out an optimal classification of situations and
the language units naming them. Now it is recognized that all the situations can be
generalized and reduced to a certain number of typical ones. Such typical situations
are reflected by elementary sentences which on the syntactic level can be modeled as
(S – Subject, P- Predicate, O – Object, D – Adverbial Modifier):
S-P
S-P-O
S-P-O-D and others.
Moskalskaya
An elementary sentence is an unextended one which satisfies one of the established generalized models or schemes. A generalized model is a configuration of semantico-syntactic elements the presence of which is presupposed by the valency of
the predicate-verb. But the matter is that a verb can combine with a number of obligatory and optional elements. An elementary sentence includes only the predicate-verb
and obligatory elements or members. So such sentence is an unextended one: Px –
позиции, открываемые глаголом
Pxy (take – who, what)
Pxyz (give – who, whom, what)
In our actual intercourse we operate these elementary sentences but as a rule
we add some optional elements or modify the obligatory members to reflect the situation in the aspect we want to do it. Thus we use in sentences intensifiers, determiners,
quantifiers, temporal markers. Besides the information of elementary sentence can be
enriched or specified due to a number of syntactic processes which can bring about
not only semantic but also syntactic extension of the elementary sentence.
The most frequently used syntactic processes modifying the elementary sentence include:
1) the expansion (extension) which is a syntactic process when a syntactic element is added and joined to another one of the same syntactic status.
E.g. I waited and waited for him. He said it hopelessly and with despair. He
wrote about his love, jealousy an hopes.
2) the contamination (compression) which is a syntactic process of joining two
or more phrases or sentences into one where the conjoint unit is represented by some
of its structural elements.
E.g. The moon rose pale. I saw him enter the house - any secondarypredicative construction
What to say was beyond me = It was beyond me what I had to say.
3) the complication which presupposes changing the form of the language unit
from less composite to more composite.
E.g. He laughed. He began to laugh.
50
4) the inclusion which is a syntactic process when the sentence is modified by
a parenthetical, interjectional, addressee enclosures or by appositions.
E.g. Certainly, I don’t like it. Dear me, your clothes are very dirty. John, come
here at once!
5) the parcellation; this syntactic process presupposes adding some information
to the utterance or singling out some information from the utterance for the sake of
emphasis or rhematization. Parcellates can be separated by a full stop.
E.g. Jane, from behind the door, called me.
I met her. In the garden. Under the cherry-tree.
They stayed there, for a week. Last autumn.
6) the syntactic processes of substitution and representation are employed as
anaphoric means of cohesion in text formation.
The substitution presupposes that a part of the sentence or even the whole sentence is substituted for a functional word (an adverb, a demonstrative or some other
pronoun) to avoid repetitions or to compress the information by deleting (omitting)
that one which is known.
E.g. I have a red pencil and a blue one.
He often comes late. So do I. And the teacher doesn’t like it.
You are happy. You even look it.
The syntactic process of representation presupposes the usage of a part of utterance to represent the whole of it. Representation is based on deletion and ellipsis.
E.g. He invited me to go to the park. But I didn’t want to.
Will you help me to do it? Certainly, I will.
The Text
Sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation: they are interconnected
both semantically and syntactically. It has been recently shown in linguistics that
sentences in speech come under certain grammatical arrangements and combine with
one another on strictly syntactic lines in the formation of larger stretches of both oral
talk and written text.
The general idea of a sequence of sentences forming a text implies a strictly
topical stretch of talk, i.e. a continual succession of sentences centering on а common
informative purpose. This understanding of the text is syntactically relevant, because
the text is interpreted аs a lingual element (the supra-sentential construction) with its
two distinguishing features: 1) semantic (topical) unity, and 2) semantico-syntactic
cohesion.
The primary division of sentence sequences in speech is based on the communicative direction of their component sentences. From this point of view monologue
sequences and dialogue sequences are discriminated. In a monologue, sentences connected in a continual sequence are directed from one speaker to his one or several listeners. Thus, the sequence of this type can be characterized as a оnе-direction sequence.
E.g.:
51
It was in the spring of his thirty-fifth year that father married my mother, then a
country school teacher, and in the following spring I came wriggling and crying into
the world. Something happened to the two people. They became ambitious. The
American passion for getting up in the world took possession of them.
As different from this, sentences in a dialogue sequence are uttered by the
speakers-interlocutors in turn, sо that they are directed, as it were, to meet one another. The sequence of this type is characterized as a two-direction sequence.
E.g.: Teacher: Hawkins, what is a synonym ?
Student: It’s a word you use in place of another when you cannot spell the other one.
The direction of communication should be looked upon as a deeper characteristic of the sentence-sequence than its outer formal presentation (i.e. a monologue vs a
dialogue). In order to emphasize these deep distinguishing features of the two types
of sequences we named them by the types of the sеntence-connection used.
The formation of a one-direction sequence is based on syntactic cumulation of
sentences (as different from syntactic composition building composite sentences).
The supra-sentential construction of one-direction communicative type is called a
cumulative sequence or a "cumuleme".
The formation of two-direction sequence is based on its sentences being positioned to meet one another. This type of sentence-connection is termed "occursive".
The supra-sentential construction based on occursive connection is named by the
term "occurseme".
Prom the hierarchical point of view the occurseme as an element of the system
occupies a place above the cumuleme, because the occurseme can be constructed by
two or more cumulemes, but not vice versa. E.g.:
"I sее your opponent Miss Stoker has just arrived. Would you care to say
something about the little incident earlier in the week?" - "I would just like to say
this. A rather clumsy attempt has been made to take advantage of a perfectly ordinary
piece of good manners. But I intend to fight this election".
Prom the functional point of view the cumuleme and occurseme are regarded,
respectively, as topical and exchange-topical components of the text in general. The
cumuleme represents an instance of the monologue text or "discourse"; the occurseme constitutes a part of the dialogue text, or "conversation".
Sentences in a cumulative sequence can be connected either "prospectively" or
"retrospective1у". Prospective ("epiphoric", "cataphoric") cumulation is effected by
the connective elements that relate the given sentence to one that is to follow it. In
other words, a prospective connector signals a continuation of speech: the sentence
containing it is semantically incomplete. Very often prospective connectors are notional words that perform the cumulative function for the nonce. E.g.:
Let me tell you one thing. Вill Sampson and Margo Channing are getting married.
As different from prospective cumulation retrospective ("anaphoric") cumulation is effected by connective elements that relate the given sentence to the one that
precedes it and is semantically complete by itself. Retrospective cumulation is the
52
more important type of sentenee-connection of the two; it is the basic type of cumulation in ordinary speech. E.g.:
You are an improbable person, Eve, and so am I. We have that in common.
On the basis of the functional nature of connectors cumulation is divided into
two fundamental types: conjunctive cumulation, and correlative cumulation. Conjunctive cumulation is effected by conjunction-like connectors. To these belong : 1)
coordinative and subordinative conjunctions; 2) adverbial and parenthetical sentenceconnectors: then, yet, however, consequently, hence, besides, moreover, nevertheless,
etc. Cf.:
I wanted to play for time: the longer it took for the official opinion to crystallize the better. But I was in an awkward position. He was as realistic as a man could
be. Yet, like most realistic men, he detested having the hard truth brought to him by
another.
Correlative cumulation is effected by a pair of elements one of which, the
"succeedent" refers to the other, the "antecedent", used in the foregoing sentence. By
means of this reference the succeeding sentence is related to the preceding one, or
else vice versa. As we see, by its direction correlative cumulation may be either retrospective or prospective, as different from the conjunctive cumulation, which is only
retrospective.
Correlative cumulation is divided into substitutional connection, and representative connection. Substitutional cumulation is based on the use of substitutes.
E.g.:
Rose was speaking carefully. He knew precisely what Douglas was aiming at.
Representative cumulation is based on representative elements which refer to
one another without the factor of replacement. It may also be achieved by repetition.
Cf.:
Gilbey took a capsule, and closed his eyes. He sat there with his eyes closed,
hand on heart, for some minutes. A good many of them were lonely, pointlessly lonely. They were irremediably lonely in the teeming town, lonely, and also frightened.
A cumuleme (cumulative supra-sentential construction) is formed by two or
more independent sentences making up a topical syntactic unity. The first of the sentences in a cumuleme is its "leading" sentence, the succeeding sentences are "sequential".
The cumuleme is delimited in the text by a finalizing intonation contour (cumuleme-contour) with a prolonged pause (cumuleme-pause). The cumuleme, like a
sentence, is a universal unit of language, because it is used in all the functional varieties of speech, such as: literary, newspaper, scientific, poetical, colloquial, etc. styles.
The basic semantic types of cumulemes are "factual" (narrative and descriptive), “modal” (reasoning, perceptive, etc.) and "mixed". Cf. the following factual and
modal cumulemes:
She was looking older that night, the skin reddened round her cheek-bones. But
it made no difference to her prettiness (descriptive cumuleme). That's what I аm asking you. I want you to give him room to manoeuvre (reasoning cumuleme). The basic
53
semantic and syntactic properties of the two principal types of supra-sentential constructions are shown in the table.
Table 4
Types of constructions instance of a monologue
instance of a dialogue
criteria
text
text
functional criterion
discourse
conversation
communicative direc- one-direction sequence
tion of sentences
type of sentence con- cumulative sequence (cumuleme)
nection
semantics of compo- factual cumul- modal cumuleme
nent sentences
eme
two-direction
sequence
occursive sequence
(occurseme)
-
Cumuleme in writing is regularly expressed by a paragraph, but the two units
are not wholly identical: 1) the paragraph as a stretch of written text is always delimited by a new (indented) line at the beginning and an incomplete line at the close;
with the cumuleme it is not always the case, it being a unit of both written and oral
speech; 2) the paragraph is a polyfunctional unit of written speech representing on
paper both, the cumuleme and the parts of the occurseme; 3) the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain more than one cumuleme; 4) the paragraph in a monologue speech can contain only one sentence (usually expressing emphasis), which is
impossible with the cumuleme.
On the other hand, the cumuleme cannot be prolonged beyond the limits of the
paragraph. In spite of all the differences described above, the paragraph as a literarycompositional (and not a purely syntactical) unit of the text, does as a rule present a
cumuleme: the two units, if not identical, are closely correlative.
The introduction of the notion of cumuleme in linguistics helps specify the two
peculiar syntactic phenomena which are located on the border-line between the sentence and the sentential sequence. The first of these is called "parcellation”. The parcellated construction ("parcellatum") presents two or more collocations (“parcellas")
separated by a sentence-tone but related to one another as parts of one and the same
sentence. In writing the parts, i.e., respectively, the "leading parcella" and the "sequential parcella" are delimited by a full stop (finality mark). E.g.: Each of them carried a notebook, in which whenever the great man spoke, he desperately scribbled.
Straight from the horse's mouth.
The parcellated construction is produced as a result of transforming a sentence
into a cumuleme effected for the purpose of adding topical significance to the sequential parcella (see the above example).
The second of the border-line phenomena in question is the opposite of parcellation, it consists in forcing two different sentences into one, i.e. in transposing a cumuleme into a sentence. The cumuleme-sentence construction is characteristic of uncareful and familiar speech; in a literary text it is used for the sake of giving a vivid
verbal characteristic to a personage or exposing his mental perceptions. E.g.: He kept
54
thinking he would write to her - he had no other girl acquaintance now; and just before he entered art school he did this, penning a little note saying that he remembered
pleasantly their ride; and when was she coming ?
As is sееn from the example, one of the means of transposing a cumuleme into
a sentence in literary speech is the use of half-finality punctuation marks (here: a dash
and a semicolon).
Neither cumulemes nor paragraphs form the upper limit of textual units of
speech. Above the process of cumulation as syntactic connection of separate sentences, supra-cumulation should be discriminated as connection of cumulemes and
paragraphs into larger textual unities (i.e. paragraph or cumuleme groupings).
Stretches of text larger than primary paragraph groupings can be supra-cumulated to
one another forming such textual unities as chapters and other compositional divisions.
Glossary
The phonological system determines the material, or phonetic, appearance of
language units. It is studied in phonology.
The lexical system includes the naming units of the language (words, wordcombinations) and it is studied in lexicology.
The grammatical system deals with word-forms and rules for connecting
them into phrases and sentences for the purpose of communication. It is studied in the
science of grammar.
Grammar as a part of language macrosystem dynamically connects language
as a system of signs with speech as the usage of signs and so it determines the lingual
process of speech-making.
So the subject matter of the science of grammar as a linguistic discipline is
to investigate and interpret language categories and functions which underlie the process of speech-making.
By grammatical category we understand a general meaning according to
which some word-forms are opposed or correlated.
The grammatical meaning is understood as a general meaning of word-forms
which are included into a grammatical category (the category of tense: present, past,
future, future-in-the-past meanings).
By the grammatical form we understand morphological characteristics of the
given type or class of words or the structural properties of a phrase or sentence.
Analytical forms look like free word combinations but they must be differentiated.
We should also differentiate analytical verb-forms from bound word combinations like give up, take part, etc. The difference is that in the bound word combination neither of the components can be treated as auxiliary.
By the grammatical function we mean syntactic properties of word-forms or
communicative properties of sentences.
55
Morphology is the part of grammar which studies word-forms and their categories while syntax deals with phrases, sentences and operating them in the process
of speech-making.
The plane of content comprises (includes) semantic elements of the language
while the plane of expression is restricted (ограничен) to the material, formal elements of the language.
In cases of polysemy and homonymy 2 or more units of the plane of content
correspond to 1 unit of the plane of expression.
In cases of synonymy 2 or more units of the plane of expression correspond to
1 basic unit of the plane of content.
Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between language units
in a segmental sequence.
Paradigmatic relations are intrasystemic relations. It means they are relations
between the forms of the same word.
Segmental language units are units which can be singled out within a larger
line. Segmental units comprise phonemes, syllables, morphemes, words, phrases and
sentences.
Supra-segmental units are units which do not exist by themselves. They are
actualized together with segmental units which they modify introducing some modifications into their meaning. Supra-segmental units include accent, intonation, pauses, word-order patterns.
The phonemic level is the level the basic unit of which is the phoneme.
The phoneme is the smallest distinguishing unit of the language.
The morphemic level is the level of segmental language units the basic unit
of which is the morpheme.
The morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of the language.
The lexemic level is the level of segmental language units the basic unit of
which is the word.
The word is the smallest naming unit of the language.
The phrasemic level is the level of segmental language units the basic unit of
which is the phrase.
The phrase is two or more syntactically connected words which name complicated phenomena of the world.
The proposemic level is the level of segmental language units the basic unit
of which is the sentence.
The sentence is the smallest unit of communication, having predicativeness
and naming a situation.
The supra-proposemic level is the level of segmental language units the basic
unit of which is the a supra-phrasal unity
A supra-phrasal unity includes two or more syntactically and thematically
connected sentences.
Naming power is the ability of the word to name objects of reality.
Isolability the ability of the word to be separated within a phrase or a sentence.
56
Uninterruptibility is the inability of the word to be interrupted by some other
word or a parenthetical enclosure.
Looseness means relatively different positions which the word can take in the
sentence.
The morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit and an elementary part of the
word.
The opposition is a generalized correlation of language units, forms, by
means of which a certain category or function is expressed.
Neutralization is that type of the reduction of the oppositions when the unmarked member of the opposition is used as the marked one.
Transposition is that type of reduction of oppositions when the marked member is used instead of the unmarked one. Transposition usually brings about a certain
stylistic effect.
So the zero morpheme can be understood as meaningful absence of some
morpheme.
The opposition is a generalized correlation of language units, forms, by
means of which a certain category or function is expressed.
In a binary privative opposition one member is characterized by the presence
of a certain differential feature, while the other member is characterized by the absence of this very feature.
A gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are
distinguished not by the presence or absence of some feature but by the degree of the
same feature.
An equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group of members which are differentiated by different positive features.
It’s well-recognized in linguistics that all words are classified into lexicogrammatical classes which are called parts of speech in traditional grammar.
Notional parts of speech have an independent lexical meaning and can function as self-dependent members of the sentence.
Functional parts of speech may have a dependent meaning. They mark various types of syntactic relations or modify notional parts of speech.
The theory of the morphological fields of parts of speech runs that each part of
speech includes words, which possess all its characteristic features. These words
make up the nucleus of the morphological field of the part of speech. Besides these
words the part of speech may include words which possess not all but only some
characteristic features of this part of speech. These words make up the periphery of
the morphological field of this part of speech.
The article is a morphological sign of the noun.
The category of the degrees of comparison denotes different intensity of
some property when comparing some objects possessing this property.
From the functional point of view verbs can be notional and functional (formal). Notional verbs name actions or processes and are used as predicates. Functional verbs do not name actions or processes; they only express different grammatical
categories or meanings.
57
The morphological category of tense is aimed at reflecting the objective category of time.
The category of aspect is a verb category which denotes the character of the
development of an action or event.
The category of retrospective coordination implies precedence, coordination of actions, based on the completion or coordination of an action and some moment of time to stress the resultative aspect of the action.
The category of mood expresses the relations between the action and reality
from the speaker’s point of view.
The indicative mood presents an action or event as a real fact from the
grammatical point of view.
The imperative mood expresses an inducement, addressed by the speaker to
the addressee.
Oblique moods denote unreal or problematic actions.
The grammatical category of voice expresses the relations between the Subject and the Predicate showing whether the Subject is the doer or recipient of the action.
The simple sentence is monopredicative, as it contains one subject-predicate
line, while the composite sentence is polypredicative, as it contains more than one
subject-predicate lines. The simple sentence reflects one situation of reality, while
the composite sentence reflects more than one situations related to each other.
The complex sentence is that one which consists of at least two clauses of unequal rank that is one clause dominates the other or others.
The complex sentence is that one which consists of at least two clauses of unequal rank that is one clause dominates the other or others.
Coordination is such a type of syntactic relations when the connected words
are of equal syntactic status, independent of each other.
Subordination is such a type of syntactic relations which is based on syntactic
inequity of connected constituents.
Interdependence is such a type of syntactic relations when both constituents
of a phrase are equal and mutually dependent on each other.
Cumulative relations are those which appear between language units only because they are constituents of a larger syntagmatic line.
By agreement we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations
when a formal correspondence between word forms is observed.
By governing we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when
there comes a change in the form of the governed word under the influence of the
governing or head word.
By adjoining we understand that method of realizing syntactic relations when
words getting into syntactic relations don’t change their form.
The sentence is a syntactic structure, which is used in communication acts to
form and render complete thoughts about situations of reality. It is characterized by
nominative, communicative and pragmatic aspects.
58
The theme expresses the starting point of the communication, i.e. it denotes
an object or a phenomenon about which something is reported (informative part “already known” by the listener). The rheme expresses the basic informative part of the
communication, its contextually relevant centre (the part “not yet known” by the listener).
The text is interpreted аs a lingual element (the supra-sentential construction)
with its two distinguishing features: 1) semantic (topical) unity, and 2) semanticosyntactic cohesion.
59