802.0-5 (075.8) 81.

2 - 923 75

75 : . - IV , / .. . - : - , 2006. - 408 .
I8N 5-9758-0202-4

..

. , . III - IV . .. , .. .. .

linguists take pains to set up their rules following a careful analysis of the way the English language actually works. Nonetheless, there is no gainsaying the fact that English grammar is far from being simple.

MRH L G OP OO Y INTRODUCTION Why Study Grammar?

1.

The study of grammar goes back to the time of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Indians, and from its earliest days has caught the interest of the learned and the wise. As a result, the subject has developed around itself a scholarly, and somewhat mysterious atmosphere. In the popular mind, grammar was practised chiefly by a race of shadowy people, grammarians, and was of no practical use to ordinary people. The early English grammars met with a negative reaction for two reasons. 1.Textual samples selected for analysis or commentary were commonly taken from literary, religious, or scholarly sources. Informal styles of speech were ignored, or condemned as incorrect. This meant that the language which most children used and heard around them received no positive reinforcement in grammar lessons. To many, accordingly, the subject became distant and unreal. 2.Children were made to analyze English texts by applying the categories and terminology of Latin grammar which were alien to English. To many, accordingly, the subject seemed arbitrary and arcane. Nowadays, things have changed fundamentally. Modem

If you want to communicate intelligibly, however, you must know grammar because the rules controlling the way a communication system works are known as its grammar [D. Crystal]. People master the grammar of the native and foreign languages in different ways. Mastering the grammar of the native language is to a considerable degree an unconscious process, especially when we are young children. Mastering the grammar of a foreign language is a conscious, reflective process. The History of English Grammars There does not exist a generally accepted periodization of the history of English grammars, but it is possible to divide it into two periods. The first period is the age of pje_scientific__^ammar beginning at the end of the 16th century and lasting till about 1900. It includes two types of grammars: early descriptive and prescriptive. Early descriptive grammarians [e.g. W. Bullokar] merely described language phenomena. By the middle of the 18 th century, when many of the grammatical phenomena of English had been described, descriptive grammar gave way to prescriptive grammar [R. Lowth], which stated strict rules of grammatical usage. The main drawback of prescriptive grammar lies in the fact that it subjected to criticism many constructions and forms used by educated English people. The second period is the age of s,ci_ejitific.grammar. By the end of the 19th century, prescriptive grammar had reached the peak of its development. A need was felt for a grammar of a higher type, which could give a scientific explanation of the grammatical phenomena. The appearance of H. Sweet's grammar in 1891 met this demand. There are three chief methods of explaining language phenomena, namely by means of: 1) historical grammar, 2) comparative grammar, and 3) general grammar. Historical grammar tries to explain the phenomena of a language by studying their history. Thus. Old English nouns had gender, number, and case distinctions. There were three grammatical genders (masculine, feminine, and neuter), two numbers (singular and plural), and four cases (nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative). The decay of noun inflections that began in the Middle English period is due to the following:

1) the functional devaluation of inflections: some of their syntactic functions came to be expressed by prepositions and word order, i.e. by analytical means; 2) the Scandinavian invasion. The two languages (English and Scandinavian) were closely related. Since the roots of the words often sounded alike, the speakers tended to ignore the inflections which hindered the process of communication. The loss of inflections, which began in the Middle English period, resulted in the disappearance of the grammatical category of gender and the reduction of the case paradigm in Modern English to two forms: common and genitive. Comparative grammar compares the grammatical phenomena of a language with those of cognate languages, i.e. languages that are related to it through having arisen from a common parent language. Thus, the suppletive case system of personal pronouns is common to all the languages of the Indo-European family. Cf.: Russian: x-Meux; English: I-me; German: ich - mich. General grammar is not concerned with the details of one language or a family of languages, but with the general principles which underlie the grammatical phenomena of all languages. Thus, all languages, according to H. Greenberg, have pronominal categories involving at least three persons and two numbers. The period of scientific grammar may be divided into two parts, the first - from the appearance of H. Sweet's book till the 3940's, when there were only two types of grammars: prescriptive [J.C. Nesfield] and explanatory [C.T. Onions; H.R. Stokoe; G. Curme; H. Poutsma; E. Kruisinga; O. Jespersen]; the second -from the 1940's, when several new types of grammars appeared: 1) structural (descriptive) grammar, 2) transformational grammar, 3) communicatively orientated grammar, 4) semantically orientated grammar, 5) pragmatically orientated grammar, 6) textual grammar. The aim of structural grammar [Ch. Fries] is to give a formalized description of language system as it exists, without being concerned with questions of correct and incorrect usage. The purpose of transformational grammar [Z. Harris; N. Chomsky] is to show how different sentences are derived from a few kernel sentences, e.g.:

The door opened. The door did open. Did the door open? Communicatively orientated grammar [V. Mathesius; J. Firbas] studies the theme-rheme integration in a sentence. The theme is a part of a sentence seen as corresponding to what the sentence as a whole, when uttered in a particular context, is about. The rheme is a part of a sentence communicating information relative to whatever is indicated by the theme. For instance, in Our biggest problem is lack of money (Longman Language Activator), the theme is our biggest problem, and the point of the sentence is to explain what it is. The rheme, then, is lack of money. Semantically orientated grammar [Ch.J. Fillmore; W.L. Chafe] concentrates its attention on the semantic structure of sentences. Pragmatically orientated grammar [J. Austin; J. Searle] focuses its attention on the functional side of language units. Textual grammar places text in focus. The authors suggest different methods of text analysis ranging from formal [Z. Harris] to semantic [T. van Dijk] and pragmatic [V. Bogdanovj. The aims of the analysis are also different. The authors of the first period [Z. Harris; V. Waterhouse] put forward the idea of the dependence of the text type on the type of sentences making it up. The authors of the second period [W. Hendricks; T. van Dijk] explore the text as a whole and try to discover the lower units which constitute the given text. M.A.K. Halliday makes an attempt at giving a theoretical basis of text grammar. Objects and Tasks of Grammar Grammar may be regarded either from a practical or a theoretical point of view. From the practical point of view, grammar is the art of language. The main object of practical grammar is to help the student acquire master)' of the native or foreign language. From the theoretical point of view, grammar is the science of language. The task of theoretical grammar is to provide an insight into the structure of the language under examination in the light of the general principles of linguistics. The latter requires serious consideration of moot points with an obligatory suggestion of a way to solve the particular problem involved. In other words, practical

grammar is prescriptive, while theoretical grammar pursues analytical aims. The Main Branches of Grammar The field of grammar is generally divided into two domains: morphology and syntax. Morphology studies the grammatical structure of words and the categories realized by them. Thus, a morphological analysis will divide the word girls into the root girl and the inflection -s, which realizes the plural number. Syntax studies the grammatical relations between words and other units within the sentence. Most of a traditional grammar of English was devoted to aspects of morphology, called accidence in those days. Accidence is defined by J.C. Nesfield as 'the collective name for all those changes that are incidental to certain parts of speech.' Thus, accidence dealt with such matters as the number, gender, and case of nouns, and the voice, mood, number, person, and tense of verbs, as well as the question of their classification into regular and irregular types. Although syntactic matters in J.C. Nesfield's grammar are to be found throughout the book, only two chapters are officially assigned to the subject. By contrast, most of a modern grammar of English is given over to syntax. There is relatively little in the English language to be accounted for under the heading of inflectional morphology, and in some grammars the notion of morphology is dispensed with altogether, its concerns being handled as the 'syntax of the word'. 2. MORPHOLOGICAL UNITS Grammatical units represent bilateral elements possessing a directly observable material structure and directly unobservable content (or meaning). They form a hierarchy of interconnected elements, a rank scale. The position of a unit on this or that step of the rank scale depends on its size: the longer is the unit, the higher is its position on the scale. The lowest grammatical unit is the morpheme. L. Bloomfield defines the morpheme as 'a minimal meaningful unit'. It is not clear from his definition what kind of meaning is understood. There are,

as is well-known, inflectional, i.e. grammatical, and derivational, i.e. lexical morphemes. Inflectional morphemes form new grammatical forms of the same word, e.g.: play -plays -played. Derivational morphemes form one word from another, e.g.: govern government. A comparison of inflectional and derivational morphemes has led J. Muir to the conclusion that they are radically different. Inflectional morphemes are not recursive; only one inflectional morpheme may occur in the structure of any word, e.g.: runs. Derivational morphemes may be recursive, e.g.: boy + ish + ness. If both a derivational and an inflectional morpheme occur in the structure of a word, then the derivational morpheme must precede the inflectional morpheme, e.g.: novel + ist +s. Inflectional morphemes form morphological sets, e.g.: eat eats - ate - eating ~ eaten. Derivational morphemes do not form morphological sets and so cannot be fully accounted for in grammar; they may be considered to be on the border of grammar and lexicology. Russian linguists single out word formation (cjioeoo6po3oeanue) into a specific branch of linguistics, clearly distinct both from morphology and lexicology. An inflectional morpheme as a unit of morphology is an exponent of grammatical meaning. The grammatical meaning of an inflectional morpheme is purely relational: it is revealed only by contrast with some other morpheme. Thus; the morpheme -ed is felt to render the meaning of the past tense because it is opposed to the morpheme -(e)s of the present tense. Inflectional morphemes are always bound morphemes. They cannot occur alone; they always form part of a grammeme (or word form). The next grammatical unit on the rank scale is the word (a free naming unit) and its grammeme [I.B. Khlebnikova], When we speak of a word as a grammeme we disregard its lexical meaning but concentrate our attention on the kind of grammatical information it gives, e.g. the grammeme speaks shows the present tense, third person, singular number. A grammeme may be analytical in

structure, e.g. has spoken. An analytical grammeme is equivalent to one word on the rank scale as it expresses one lexical and one grammatical meaning. Inflectional morphemes and grammemes are characterized by a definite material structure of their own. (I.B. Khlebnikova does not recognize the existence of the so-called zero inflectional morphemes, as 'zero', in her opinion, means no morpheme at all.). They can be registered and enumerated in any language. Therefore, the system of morphological units is a closed system. Not every word, especially in analytical languages, is at the same time a grammeme. For instance, the noun milk is not a grammeme because it is not marked either for the grammatical category of case or the grammatical category of number common to English nouns. Nevertheless, I.B. Khlebnikova holds that every word is a unit of grammar as a part of speech. Parts of speech are usually considered a lexico-grammatical category since, on the one hand, they show lexical groupings of words; on the other, these groupings present generalized classes, each with a unified abstract meaning of its own. The latter makes parts of speech a grammatical notion since wide-range abstraction is characteristic of grammar. The linguistic relationships between forms fall into two fundamentally distinct types: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and L Svartvik call syntagmatic relationships chain relationships, paradigmatic relationships -choice relationships. The chain relationship is an 'and' relationship, whereas the choice relationship is an 'or' relationship. Thus, if two units X and Y occur one after another in a larger unit, they are in a chain relationship: X + Y, e.g.: The rain has stopped (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). But if X and 7 can be substituted for one another in a larger unit, they are in a choice relationship: X/Y, e.g.: I saw the cat/dog/house (P.H. Matthews). Inflectional morphemes, words as parts of speech, and grammemes are paradigmatic by nature. They unite similar units on one paradigmatic axis to form a paradigm in which units relate to each other by association with some category. For instance, the inflectional morphemes and grammemes of tense form a paradigm the members of which are associated on the ground of the
10

grammatical category of tense e.g.: plays - played - will play. Words as parts of speech are characterized by a set of paradigms predetermined by the part of speech nature of the word, e.g. nouns have number and case paradigms. But inflectional morphemes, words as parts of speech, and grammemes are not purely paradigmatic. They possess certain syntagmatic characteristics, too. The syntagmatic properties of inflectional morphemes are realized at the grammeme level; the syntagmatic properties of words as parts of speech and grammemes are realized at the word combination, sentence, and sentencoid levels. The paradigmatics of inflectional morphemes, words as parts of speech, and grammemes makes up the morphological system of the language [I.B. Khlebnikova]. 3. GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY, MEANING, AND FORM Definition of Grammatical Category A.A. Shakhmatov and G.N. Vorontsova identify the grammatical category with grammatical meaning, F.F. Fortunatov -with grammatical form. However, there exist neither formless grammatical meanings nor meaningless grammatical forms. That's why the majority of linguists regard the grammatical category as a two-fold unity of grammatical meaning and grammatical form. Grammatical Meaning Grammatical meaning is closely interwoven with lexical meaning. Tradition says that the difference between grammatical and lexical meaning lies in the degree of the inherent abstraction. Lexical meaning is considered to be concrete, grammatical meaning -abstract [H. Sweet]. There is no gainsaying the fact that grammatical meaning is usually more abstract than lexical, for it concerns itself not with concrete meanings of separate words, but with meanings characteristic of whole classes of words, e.g. the grammatical II

meaning of number is characteristic of nouns, the grammatical meaning of aspect is characteristic of verbs, etc. In the opinion of M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, however, it is not a higher degree of abstraction that differentiates grammatical meaning from lexical meaning, for lexical meaning also represents a generalized reflection of reality. Some lexical meanings, according to M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, are even more general than grammatical meanings. Compare the lexical meaning of the word time and the grammatical meanings of verbal tenses (present, past, or future). What is more, the same meanings (e.g. the meanings of 'defmiteness - indefmiteness') can be represented differently in different languages. In English, they are grammatical (articles serve the purpose of their realization). In Russian, they are lexical because in Russian there are no constant grammatical means to express the meanings of 'deflniteness - indeflniteness'. Other linguists [e.g. V.M Nikitevich] hold that the difference between grammatical and lexical meanings lies in their content. Lexical meaning is naming; grammatical meaning is relational: it expresses the relations between words in sentences. Grammatical meaning is really opposed to lexical meaning as relational to naming. But if one follows M.I. Steblin-Kamensky and goes deeper into it, he will see that grammatical meaning does not always express relations in the proper sense of the word.. Let us take the grammatical meaning of number in nouns. It does not realize any relations; it only actualizes a certain property common to things, namely plurality. According to another current conception, the difference between grammatical and lexical meanings lies in the form of their expression [R.S. Ginzburg, S.S. Khidekel, G.G. Knyazeva, A.A. Sankin]: lexical meaning is rendered by words and word combinations, grammatical meaning - by forms of words, stress, word order, etc. But there exist words that convey purely grammatical meanings, e.g. auxiliary verbs, articles, and other function words. In view of the fact that language is an immediate actuality of thought, M.I. Sieblin-Kamensky suggests that grammatical and lexical meanings should be differentiated with regard to thought. Lexical meanings form the basis of thought; hence, they are 12

independent. Grammatical meanings organize thought; hence, they are dependent on the lexical meanings they accompany. Since grammatical meanings only help organize thought, the question arises whether they reflect any relations of extra linguistic reality. The majority of linguists think that grammatical meanings are heterogeneous in this respect. The first classification of grammatical meanings goes back to A.A. Shakhmatov who singled out three types of grammatical meanings. !. Grammatical meanings based on the phenomena of extra linguistic reality, e.g. the meaning of number in nouns that reflects the existing distinctions between one and more than one. 2.Grammatical meanings based on the subjective attitude of the speaker to the phenomena of extra linguistic reality, e.g. the meaning of mood in verbs. The indicative mood presents the action as real; the imperative and the conjunctive as something desired, probable, or problematic. 3.Grammatical meanings predetermined linguistically, e.g. the singular or plural form of the demonstrative pronouns this and that depends on the singular or plural form of the following nouns. Cf: this house - these houses (R, Murphy), that room - those rooms (R. Murphy). The classification will only profit if every stage of analysis is based on one principle. At the first stage, we classify grammatical meanings in accordance with the presence or absence of extra linguistic basis into those that reflect extra linguistic reality and those that have nothing to do with extra linguistic reality. At the second stage, grammatical meanings that reflect extra linguistic reality are further subdivided in accordance with the presence or absence of subjective evaluation of the speaker into subjectiveobjective and objective. Each part of speech has a specific set of grammatical meanings. The English noun, for instance, has the grammatical meanings of number and case, the adjective - the grammatical meanings of degrees of comparison. However, in view of the fact that parts of speech possess the structure of a field, with a compact core and a diffuse periphery, the grammatical meanings characteristic of a certain part of speech are not obligatorily to be found in all the words of the given part of

speech. They are always common to the words forming the centre of 13

this or that part of speech, i.e. the words that possess the lexicogrammatical meaning of the pan of speech in question. Thus, the grammatical meaning of number is characteristic only of countable nouns that denote things in the proper sense of the word. Uncountable nouns, which have the grammatical meaning of 'thingness', lack the grammatical meaning of number. Grammatical meaning is always realized in this or that form.

Grammatical Form
The logicians [e.g. F.L Buslaev] identity grammatical form with sound form. A.A. Potebnya has proved that sound changes do not always bring about changes in grammatical meaning, e.g.: Kynu caxapa/caxapy_. The sound forms are different (a, y); the inherent grammatical meaning is the same. It is the meaning of the accusative case. Neither can we identify grammatical forms with form-building components as N.P. Nekrasov does. The main drawback of this conception is that outwardly dissimilar forms can render identical grammatical meanings., and vice versa: different grammatical meanings can find expression in similar forms. Cf.: Who did they arrest? - Whom did they arrest? (M. Swan). It's me. -It'si(M. Swan). He drinks like a fish (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Have you arty soft drinks? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Besides, if we looked upon grammatical form as a formbuilding component, we would be bound to recognize the existence of formless words and even of formless languages. This conclusion is quite naturally drawn by F.F. Fortunatov. It is theoretically wrong. Form represents inner organization of content. It follows from it that there are no formless grammatical meanings. It goes without saying that grammatical forms are heterogeneous. They comprise form-building components, auxiliary elements, word order, intonation, and many other means. In other words, the grammatical form is the sum total of all the formal means constantly employed to render this or that grammatical meaning. K. Pike and A.V. Bondarko qualify the sum
14

total of grammatical means used to convey a certain grammatical meaning as a grammeme. For instance, the present tense grammeme comprises the zero exponent for the first and second persons singular and plural and the third person plural and the inflection (e)s for the third person singular. (A zero exponent represents meaningful absence of any outward sign which serves the purpose of rendering some grammatical meaning when opposed to forms with positive inflections.). The past tense grammeme comprises the inflection ~(e)d for regular verbs and vowel change, consonant change, etc. for irregular verbs. The future tense grammeme comprises the analytical combination of the infinitive with the auxiliary verb -will. Homogeneous grammemes, i.e. grammemes possessing a common generalized grammatical meaning, build up a grammatical category. Thus, the generalized grammatical meaning of tense, lying at the basis of the present, past, and future tense grammemes, generates the grammatical category of tense. According to A.V. Bondarko, the notions 'grammatical form', 'grammeme', and 'grammatical category' build up a three-level hierarchy. The grammatical form constitutes the lowest ladder on the rank scale, then comes the grammeme as a unity of homogeneous grammatical forms, then - the grammatical category as a unity of homogeneous grammemes. A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following characteristics of the grammatical form. 1. It never characterizes the word as a whole. Otherwise, we would have to speak not of grammatical, but of lexico-grammatical categories. Take, for instance, the category of gender in Russian, where nouns do not change in accordance with the existing genders but as whole units refer to this or that concrete gender. Cf.: cmoji - (zero exponent) - masculine, deeowa - (the inflection -a) - feminine, OKHO - (the inflection -o) - neuter. 2. One and the same form can render the meanings of different grammatical categories, e.g.: The sun rises in the east (M. Vince. K. McNicholas), where the inflection -s shows that the verb rise is in the third person, singular number, present tense, indicative'mood, non-continuous aspect, active voice.
15

3.But one form cannot combine in itself two meanings of one and the same grammatical category. Thus, no form exists which could simultaneously render the meanings of two cases or two numbers. That's why we say that the present perfect is not a tense form, but one of the members of a specific grammatical category of phase. If perfect were a tense form, we would have a unity of two tenses in one form (present and perfect in present perfect, past and perfect in past perfect, future and perfect in future perfect), which is clearly out of the question. 4.There are no isolated grammatical forms. Each grammatical form makes part of this or that grammatical category. Types of Grammatical Forms The ways of building up grammatical forms depend on the structure of the language. Linguists usually draw a distinction between two main types of form-building: synthetic and analytical. Synthetic forms are built up by a change in the body of the word. Analytical forms consist of at least two words, one rendering the grammatical meaning, the other the lexical meaning of the analytical complex. Inflected languages, such as Russian, resort to synthetic forms, primarily. Analytical languages, e.g. English, give preference to analytical forms. The latter, however, does not mean that inflected languages never make use of analytical forms or that synthetic forms are alien to analytical languages. Synthetic and analytical forms go hand in hand. It is not the presence or absence but the relative proportion of synthetic and analytical forms that differentiates languages. Synthetic Forms To synthetic forms belong affixation and sound interchange. Affixation Affixation consists in attaching grammatical morphemes to the root. Affixes are traditionally divided into prefixes that come

before the root to which they are joined; suffixes that come after the root to which they are joined; and infixes that are inserted within the root. 16

Prefixation Those who recognize the existence of aspects in Old English say that prefixation was used to form the perfective aspect, e.g.: wntan - gewnlan, nsan - orison. The majority of linguists, however, think that the Old English prefixes ge~ and a- cannot be regarded as a means of expressing aspect distinctions, i.e. as grammatical prefixes for two reasons. In the first place, the opposition 'prefixed verbs - prefixless verbs' was not common to all the verbs in the language. In the second place, both prefixed verbs and prefixless verbs could render the meanings of completeness and incompleteness. Doubtful in Old English, grammatical prefixation has completely disappeared in Modern English. Infixation Infixation has never been typical of English. A.I. Smirnitsky thinks that the component -n- in stand, as opposed to stood, can perhaps be regarded as an infix of the present tense. P.M. Berezin doubts the possibility of regarding the component -n- here as an infix with a specific meaning of the present tense because it is the only example of an infix used to differentiate the present tense of verbs from other forms, although Indo-European languages like Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit made a considerable use of infixes for similar purposes. Suffixation Of all the types of affixation, suffixation is the commonest. For instance, we find suffixation in the category of number in nouns [the suffix -(e)s of the plural number], in the category of degrees of comparison of adjectives (the suffix -er of the comparative degree and the suffix -est of the superlative degree), etc. In spite of the fact that suffixes play an important role in Modern English, they are rather few in number. The scarcity of grammatical suffixes is easy to .^ung^ersjand^, In,.the__firet r-rjlace English is an analytical language, oor in

place, there are a lot of zero exponents in Modern English (the zero exponent of the singular number in nouns, the zero exponent of the positive degree in adjectives, etc.)- In the third place, English is rich in homonymous suffixes, i.e. suffixes that have the same form but realize different grammatical meanings. Some homonymous suffixes characterize one part of speech, e.g. [boiz], where the suffix [z] admits of two interpretations. On the one hand, we may regard it as a suffix of the plural number; on the other hand, we may look upon it as a means of forming the genitive case. Other homonymous suffixes mark off different parts of speech, e.g. [driyks], where the suffix [s] may represent the third person, singular number, present tense, indicative mood, non-continuous aspect, active voice of a verb or the plural number of a noun.
Sound Interchange

Analytical Forms Analytical forms admit of several interpretations. Some linguists think that synthetic forms represent words, analytical -combinations of words [P.H. Matthews]. If we accepted this definition, we would be bound to admit that all languages are analytical because the number of word combinations is always greater than the number of words. Other linguists say that analytical forms are easily divided into their components as opposed to synthetic forms that represent more closely connected units [V. Tauli]. In this case, the notion of analytical form loses its defmiteness because the question arises how to gauge the degree of integrity of the components under examination. Some linguists identify analytical forms with phraseological units. This conception is theoretically wrong since phraseological units constitute a specific level of language structure [A.V. Kunin], clearly distinct from the grammatical level to which analytical forms belong. Traditionally, the analytical form is defined as a unity of a notional word and an auxiliary word. In the opinion of L.S. Barkhudarov and D.A. Shteling, the first component in the analytical form is devoid of lexical meaning, the second has lost its grammatical characteristics. According to A.I. Smirnitsky, the first component in the analytical form always retains some of its lexical meaning. He adduces the following proofs. 1. Perfect and passive forms are identical in their second component (Participle II). Cf: has written is written. Nevertheless, we never fail to distinguish these forms because their first components has and is are lexically different. A.I. Smirnitsky is right: perfect and passive forms are easily distinguished in the language. But they are grammatical forms, so it seems more likely that it is not the lexical, but the grammatical meanings of the first components that help differentiate them.

Sound interchange is not a productive means of form-building in Modern English, although in Old English it played an important role. Sound interchange may be divided into vowel and consonant interchange. Historically, vowel interchange falls under ablaut (or gradation), which is found in the forms of irregular verbs (e.g. to meet - met ~ met), and umlaut (or mutation), which occurs nowadays in the plural number of some nouns (e.g. man - men, woman women). By means of sound interchange nouns differentiate the category of number, e.g.: foot-feet (vowel interchange), wife - wives (consonant interchange); adjectives differentiate degrees of comparison, e.g.: much - more - most (vowel and consonant interchange); pronouns differentiate cases and numbers, e.g.: thou - thee (vowel interchange). this ~ these (vowel and consonant interchange); irregular verbs differentiate their main forms, e.g.: to sing - sang - sung (vowel interchange), to send ~ sent - sent (consonant interchange). Sound interchange is often combined with affixation, e.g.: they-them.

18

19

2. The first component of an analytical form may be used independently in short answers, which also testifies to its having a certain lexical meaning. Cf.: Are you listening to the radio? Yes, I am (R. Murphy). Does he work hard? - Yes, he does (R. Murphy). Did you pack the bags yourself? - Yes, I did (P. Viney). However, it is not only words with full or weakened lexical meanings that can be used in an independent function in the sentence. Take, for example, the so-called prop-words that are completely devoid of any lexical meaning and still perform the function of this or that part of the sentence, e.g.: I'd like a pound of apples. - Which ones? - The red ones (M. Swan), where the prop-word ones is a direct object. B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya hold that the first component in the analytical form has no lexical meaning. Otherwise, we would have to admit that writes is -written represent two different words, not grammatical forms of one and the same word. That's why it seems better to exclude the first component of an analytical form from lexical units. The latter, of course, does not mean that the first component in the analytical form is an 'empty' word. It carries the grammatical meaning of the analytical complex, and grammatical meaning is one of many types of meaning. Lexically, the first components of analytical forms are heterogeneous. Some have become pure auxiliaries; others still preserve their original lexical meanings to a certain extent, for analytical forms go back to free word combinations, where each component was used in accordance with its own lexical meaning. The first group of analytical forms are analytical forms in the proper sense of the term (e.g. the continuous aspect - he is sleeping; the perfect phase she has cooked dinner, etc.). The second group comprises transitional cases that cause much controversy among linguists. Strictly speaking, when the first component preserves some of its lexical meaning, the complex should be regarded as a combination of words and not as a word form. However, one should not disregard the nature of the conveyed meaning and the current tendencies in the development of the language. For instance, linguists are still at variance as to how to treat combinations with more and most (more beautiful - most beautiful). On the face of it,
20

they should be referred to free word combinations because the first components more and most belong to notional words. But if one bears in mind that they realize the same grammatical meanings of degrees of comparison as the suffixes -er and -est and that the number of analytical forms in Modern English is constantly on the increase, then one will find it possible to regard them as analytical degrees of comparison in the making (in the process of being made). Structurally, analytical forms are word combinations; functionally they are equivalent to words. The analytical way of form building is productive in Modern English, especially in the system of the verb. T h e l en g th of an a n a l yt i c a l f o r m , a c c o r d in g t o I.B. Khlebnikova. is usually limited to four items for two reasons. First, the limited span of immediate memory. The analytical form is a regressive structure, which means that the main meaningful item of the construction is placed at the end, and a human being cannot grasp and hold in his memory a longer unit with a single generalized meaning. The depth hypothesis was formulated by G.A. Miller and V. Yngve. Second, considerations of euphony are very important, too. Analytical forms cannot form a system without the existence of parallel synthetic formations. There is a growing tendency in Modern colloquial English to abbreviate the first finite auxiliary component of an analytical form. Contraction is to be found in the forms of the present, past, and future tenses, continuous aspect, perfect phase, conjunctive mood, and passive constructions. Cf: I've got a cousin who lives in Athens (M. Swan). Who'd you talk to? (J.D. Salinger). /'// call you tomorrow (B. Gutcheon). Don't go out now. It's raining (R. Murphy). We've bought a new car (R. Murphy). PA have told you earlier if I'd known (Get Your Tenses Right). It's broken (V. Evans). The most frequent type of contracted auxiliary verb is with personal pronouns, e.g.: You're wasting your time (P. Viney). Contracted auxiliary verbs also occur in the following cases.
21

1. With some indefinite, negative, and interrogative pronouns, Someone's comin' out (E. O'Neill). What's going on here"? (H. Pinter). 2.With some adverbs introducing direct questions, e.g.: Where 've I been since supperl (T. Williams). 3.With proper names and other nouns, e.g.: Charlie's helping Phoebe sort out the computer (B. Gutcheon). That kid's got talent (S. Heym). But they are less frequent than contracted auxiliary verbs with personal pronouns. According to V.V. Buzarov, contracted auxiliary verb forms are not used if the nominal component ends in the same sound, e.g.: The gas has gone out (H. Pinter). In our opinion, the occurrence of a similar sound in the nominal component makes the auxiliary verb contraction highly improbable, too, because it is usually impossible to pronounce the resultant sound combination, e.g.: What'd" he do? - Frankly, I'd just as soon not go into details (J.D. Salinger). Finite auxiliary verbs are generally not abbreviated when they are stressed, i.e. in affirmative general questions, short answers to general questions, and tag-questions. Cf.: Have the police been hereyetl (E.S. Gardner). Does your sister still live in Canada? Yes, she does (M. Foley, D. Hall). You haven't met my wife, haveyoul (M. Swan). The only exception to the rule is the auxiliary verb do in the present indefinite. When opening general questions in colloquial speech, it can sometimes be contracted. Thus, instead of saying Do you have any of the letter si (E.S Gardner), we can say D'you have any of the letters! The contraction of a finite auxiliary verb results in its losing a vowel. Since all English words, including function words, always comprise a vowel, contracted forms of auxiliary verbs cannot be regarded as words.

What is more, words are autonomous. Contracted auxiliary verbs are not autonomous: they are joined to the preceding nominal component by an apostrophe. In view of the fact that contracted auxiliary verbs render grammatical meaning and are not autonomous, we find it possible to qualify them as grammatical morphemes. According to J. Barren, the auxiliary verb, over time, has become an affix supplying information regarding tense, aspect, and other verbal categories to the whole sentence. The morphemic status of contracted auxiliary verbs seems indisputable. However, the question arises if they can be regarded as traditional inflectional morphemes. Traditional inflectional morphemes form an organic whole with the base of the word. Contracted auxiliary verbs are separated from the nominal component by an apostrophe. Traditional inflectional morphemes create word forms (or grammemes). Contracted auxiliary verbs cannot form new grammatical forms of the nominal component because they belong to different parts of speech. We suggest that contracted auxiliary verbs should be called specific grammatical morphemes. The use of contracted auxiliary verbs brings about a significant redistribution of predicative categories in the English sentence. In sentences with full forms of auxiliary verbs, the predicative categories of modality and tense are expressed in the verbal component, the predicative category of person usually in the nominal component. In sentences with contracted forms of auxiliary verbs, all the predicative categories find their expression in the nominal component. This is a peculiarity of the English language. In Russian, only the verbal component can render all the predicative categories. Suppietive Forms Suppletive forms go back to different roots, e.g.: good - better - best. According to A.I. Smirnitsky, different roots constitute suppletive forms on the following conditions. 1. If they fully coincide in their lexical meaning, e.g.: go w ent gone.
23

22

The three forms have the same meaning of moving. 2, If there are no synonymous non-suppletive forms to express the same grammatical meaning, e.g.: good - better - best. The meanings of a higher and the highest degree of the given quality can be conveyed only by suppletive forms. The nonsuppletive forms *gooder - goodest do not exist. 3. If other words of the same category have non-suppletive forms to express the same grammatical meaning. Thus, the forms good - better - best are qualified as suppietive degrees of comparison of the adjective good because the English language has a great number of adjectives that form degrees of comparison nonsuppjetively. Cf.: nice nicer - nicest, big - bigger - biggest, etc. English nouns have no suppletive forms. True, some regard people as a suppletive plural from person. But the noun person has another plural form, persons, which is non-suppletive, and suppletive forms cannot be synonymous with non-suppletive formations. In the second place, the noun people has a collective meaning that is alien to the noun person. As to suppletive forms, they must be lexically identical. That's why A.I. Smirnitsky draws the conclusion that people is not a suppletive plural from person. Conditions of Singling Out Grammatical Categories Grammatical categories are singled out on the following conditions, 1. When the generalized grammatical meaning is to be found in this or that modification in all the constituents. Thus, the opposition of the singular and the plural numbers (a pen -pens) lies at the basis of the grammatical category of number because both forms comprise numerical characteristics: oneness - in the singular, more than oneness - in the plural. In the case of to see (infinitive) - seeing (Participle I) - seen (Participle II), we also deal with forms of one word. Nevertheless, they cannot be regarded as constituting a specific grammatical category since they do not possess any grammatical meaning characteristic of all the three members.
24

2. When the generalized grammatical meaning has constant grammatical forms of its expression. For instance, we speak about the grammatical category of aspect in verbs because its generalized grammatical meaning of showing the way in which the action develops is usually expressed in two ways: continuous and noncontinuous forms, e.g.: Where are the children? - They are playing football. Tfjey always play football after school (V. Evans). 3. When there are at least two constant grammatical forms of expressing the grammatical meaning in question. Isolated grammatical forms do not constitute grammatical categories because the grammatical category is the genera! in the particular. A.I. Smirnitsky writes apropos of this, 'No language can be found with one grammatical person or one case. One person or one case is nothing but the absence of the grammatical category of person and case in the language. Every grammatical category must be represented by at least two forms.' In other words, grammatical categories represent systems of grammemes with homogeneous generalized grammatical meaning. A.V. Bondarko regards the grammatical category not only as a system but also as a property, a property of a certain part of speech. For instance, the grammatical category of number is a property of the noun; the grammatical category of tense is a property of the verb, etc. 4. PARTS OF SPEECH There are different approaches to classifying words into parts of speech. Parts of Speech as Morphological Categories In the epoch of universal grammars constructed on the basis of the inflected Latin language, parts of speech were regarded as morphological categories, i.e, while classifying words into parts of speech, linguists took into consideration only their morphological characteristics. The morphological principle would have been invulnerable if all the languages had been inflected and if all the words belonging
25

to this or that part of speech had shared its typical morphological categories. But alongside of inflected languages, there are analytical languages, such as English, with poorly developed morphologies. On the other hand, there are a lot of words in every part of speech that lack all or at least some of its paradigms. Thus, most abstract nouns and relative adjectives are morphologically invariable, while verbs of sense perception stand outside the category of aspect (they are generally not used in the continuous aspect). Parts of Speech as Syntactic Categories The syntactic principle, taking function as a starting point, is far more universal than the morphological principle. In Russian, it was first applied to the classification of words by A.M. Peshkovsky. In English, elements of the syntactic principle are used by the founder of English grammar, H. Sweet. Having divided parts of speech into declinable, i.e. capable of inflection (nouns, adjectives, verbs), and indeclinable, i.e. incapable of inflection (adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections), he could not help noticing that not all words are functionally homogeneous. Thus, some pronouns function as nouns, e.g. I, they, etc., while others function as adjectives, e.g. my in my book, that in that man. The same is true of numerals. Three in three of us is a noun-numeral, in three men -an adjective-numeral. As for verbals, they represent a class of words intermediate between verbs, on the one hand, and nouns and adjectives, on the other. They do not express predication but keep all the other meanings and grammatical functions of the verb from which they are formed. Noun-verbals comprise infinitives and gerunds. Cf.: / wanted to go, but she wanted to stay (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). We're thinking of going to France for our holidays, but we haven't decided for certain yet (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Adjective-verbals comprise participles, e.g.: in a melting voice (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). The syntactic (or functional) principle is consistently applied to the classification of words by American structural linguists. The representatives of the American linguistic school have made the
26

notion of syntactic function more precise by identifying it with a fixed position in the sentence. Analyzing the sentence The concert was good there, Ch. Fries singles out four main positions in the English sentence. The words that might substitute the word concert, in his opinion, should be regarded as words of Class I (traditionally called nouns); those that might substitute the word was - as words of Class IT (traditionally called verbs); those that might substitute the word good - as words of Class III (traditionally called adjectives); those that might substitute the word there - as words of Class IV (traditionally called adverbs). True, the coincidence is not complete. Ch. Fries's four classes comprise the bulk of the vocabulary. At the same time, Ch. Fries finds it possible to single out 15 Groups of function words. Group A - the words that can occupy the position of the definite article in the sentence The concert was good there (Ch. Fries): no, their, John's, each, this, etc. They serve as markers of Class I words. Group B - the words that can occur in the position of may in the sentence The concert may be good there (Ch. Fries): might, can, could, will, would, must, etc. They serve as markers of Class II words. Group C - the word not, e.g. The concert was not good (Ch. Fries). Group D - the words that can occur in the position of very immediately before a Class III word: quite, fairly, rather, too, etc., e.g.: The concert was very good (Ch. Fries). Group E - the words that can stand in the position of and in the sentence The concert and the lectures are and were interesting and profitable now and earlier (Ch. Fries). All the words of this group stand only between words of the same class: the concerts and the lectures (Class I), are and were (Class II), interesting and profitable (Class HI), now and earlier (Class IV). Only a very few words make up this group: and, or, nor, but, rather than, etc. Traditionally they are called coordinators.
27

Group F - the words that can stand in the position of at in the sentence The concerts at the school are at the top (Ch. Fries). The words of Group F are generally followed by Class I words but may be preceded by words of Class I, Class II, or Class III. Traditionally, they are called prepositions. Group G - the word do that appears in various forms: do, does, did: Do/Did the boys do their work promptly1? (Ch. Fries). The boys do/did not do their -workpromptly (Ch. Fries). Group H - the word there: There is a man at the door (Ch. Fries). Group I - the words used in the position of when in the sentence When was the concert good? (Ch. Fries). They operate as signals of question sentences. Group J - the words that stand in the position of after in the sentence The orchestra was good after the new director came (Ch. Fries). The words of Group J introduce dependent clauses. Group K the words well, oh, now, and why that occur very frequently at the beginning of response utterance units, e.g.: Well, do it your own way (Ch. Fries). Oh, I have another suit (Ch. Fries). Now, I just wish you both could see it (Ch. Fries). Why, it would be nice if you would (Ch. Fries). Group L - the words yes and no, e.g.: Yes, I know (Ch. Fries). No, he's not here now (Ch. Fries). Group M - the words look, say, listen, etc. used as attention-getting signals, e.g.: Listen, did you get any shoes? (Ch. Fries). Look, I want to ask you two questions (Ch. Fries). Group N - the word please in request sentences, e.g.: Please take these two letters (Ch. Fries). Group O - the form let's that turns a request sentence into a request or proposal that includes the speaker, e.g.: Let's do the invitations right away (Ch. Fries). As is seen from the composition of the four classes and fifteen groups of words, Ch. Fries's classification of pans of speech often unites into one class heterogeneous phenomena (e.g. Group A includes pronouns, numerals, adjectives, and even nouns in the
28

genitive case). It is not surprising for, on the one hand, one and the same function can be fulfilled by different parts of speech (for example, almost all parts of speech are registered in the function of the subject); on the other hand, one and the same part of speech can perform different functions (e.g. nouns occur in the functions of all parts of the sentence). Parts of Speech as Grammatical Categories A. A. Reformatsky and L.S. Barkhudarov define pans of speech as grammatical categories, i.e. they take into account both their morphological and syntactic characteristics. This conception is, certainly, a step forward in comparison, with the one-sided morphological and syntactic interpretations. However, there is no gainsaying the fact that some morphologically non-marked words are unmistakably referred to this or that part of speech even when taken in isolation, i.e. in the absence of both morphological and syntactic characteristics. Thus, on hearing just one invariable word r.aKady but knowing that it is the name of a bird, writes L. V. SCerba, all linguists will qualify it as a noun. It follows from it that meaning is a most important factor in classifying words into parts of speech. Parts of Speech as Lexico-Gratnmatical Categories The Dutch linguist O. Jespersen was one of the first to postulate the necessity of a three-fold approach to the classification of words into parts of speech. He writes, Tn my opinion, everything should be kept in view: form, function, and meaning/ Nowadays, the majority of linguists, both in Russia and abroad, regard parts of speech as lexico-gramrnatical categories. This conception seems to be the most convincing. The only trouble is that the three mentioned criteria do not always point the same way. Let us take such units as the rich and the poor. Semantically (they have the meaning of 'thingness') and functionally (they can perform the functions of subject and object), they are, certainly, nouns. But they lack the most typical morphological categories of nouns - case and number.

29

The Field Structure of Parts of Speech As the authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English put it, nouns can be more or less 'nouny'. A typical noun has singular, plural, and genitive forms; it can be preceded by the definite or the indefinite article; and it typically refers to a person or thing, or some other entity. Such nouns are boy, dog, etc. Yet in the class of nouns we regularly include words that have only some of the features characteristic of nouns, e.g. information (which is invariable and cannot be preceded by the indefinite article) and Sarah (which does not normally occur in the plural or combine with articles). In view of it, one should regard parts of speech not as boxes with clear-cut boundaries, but as formations with a compact core and a gradual transition into a diffuse periphery. Those language units that comprise all the characteristic features of a part of speech constitute the centre of the part of speech. The peripheral phenomena are those that lack some characteristics of the given part of speech or have a number of features of another part of speech but still belong to the given part of speech. Thus, the centre of the lexico-grammatical field of nouns is constituted by those nouns that have all the characteristic properties of nouns: 1) semantic - denote 'thingness', 2) morphological - have the categories of case and number, 3) syntactic can perform the functions of subject and/or object. But what about the periphery? The absence of what noun properties shifts a noun into the periphery of the class of nouns and the absence of what noun properties changes the nature of the noun completely and places it in the periphery of some other part of speech? In other words, which of the three criteria: meaning, form, or function is the most important in the process of differentiating parts of speech? The use of the morphological criterion is limited by the fact that there are a lot of languages in the world that have few or no morphological forms at all. The syntactic criterion is not reliable either because many of the same orthographic words (orthographic words are word forms separated by spaces in written text) can function as different parts of speech. Cf.:

Put a little round of butter on each steak (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - noun. Tne little boy's eyes grew round with delight (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - adjective. The field has a fence all round (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - adverb. We sat round the table (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English)- preposition. L.V. Scerba's analysis of the word xamdy has proved quite convincingly that in classifying words into parts of speech meaning is most important. Practically everybody agrees that nouns denote 'thingness', verbs - actions and processes, adjectives - properties of things, adverbs - properties of actions and processes, etc. The thing that raises doubts is the nature of part-of-speech meaning. The Nature of Part-of-Speech Meaning According to Y.M. Skrebnev, part-of-speech meaning is lexical. But lexical meaning is always more or less concrete, while part-of-speech meaning is rather abstract. Traditionally, part-of-speech meaning is looked upon as lexico-grammatical. On the one hand, it is lexical because it appears on the basis of the concrete lexical meanings of the words constituting the part of speech in question. On the other hand, it is grammatical because, as opposed to lexical meaning proper, it does not create words as such; it only accompanies the lexical meaning of words. Recently, there appeared a tendency to regard part-of-speech meaning as purely grammatical. To prove his theory, O.P. Sunik gives examples of nouns whose generalized meaning of 'thingness' has nothing to do with concrete things. Cf.: beauty, knowledge, etc. So, what is part-of-speech meaning, after all? To answer this question, one should bear in mind that parts of speech have primary and secondary meanings. Primary meanings are basic and etymologically prior to secondary meanings. They are usually found in words that denote concrete things, actions, processes, and properties, i.e. primary meanings of parts of speech are lexicogrammatical. Cf.: table, run, red, etc.

30

31

Secondary meanings are the result of a much higher degree of abstraction. They generally iose the connection with concrete images and can be qualified as grammatical. Cf.: the meaning of 'thingness' in the verbal noun opposition, the meaning of process in the adjectival verb soften, the meaning of property in the verbal adjective irritable, etc. Parts of Speech as Onomaseotogical Categories E.S. Kubryakova thinks that the essence of parts of speech lies in different relations of words to extra linguistic reality, i.e. in the onomaseological aspect. E.S. Kubryakova has worked out a multi-stage classification of parts of speech. At the first stage, all words are divided into those denoting things, i.e. nouns, and those denoting non-things (or properties). Words expressing properties are subjected to further analysis into those denoting temporal properties, i.e. verbs, and those denoting non-temporal properties. The latter also fall into two sub-groups: non-temporal properties of nouns, i.e. adjectives, and non-temporal properties of verbs, i.e. adverbs. Numerals render the above-mentioned meanings through a quantitative characteristic, pronouns - by substituting nouns and adjectives. Notional and Structural Parts of Speech Traditionally, parts of speech are classified into notional (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) and structural (prepositions, conjunctions, etc.). Many Russian linguists nowadays deny the existence of structural parts of speech because they only possess a certain generalized grammatical meaning of relation, but lack all the other properties of parts of speech: they do not name anything, are morphologically invariable, and have no syntactic independence in the sentence. Some call them 'particles of speech'. Most English grammarians stick to the classification of parts of speech into notional and structural. True, they use other terms. They call notional parts of speech lexical words, structural parts of speech - function words. They differentiate them on the following grounds.
32

1.Lexical meaning. Lexical words are the main carriers of meaning in a text. Function words have no lexical meaning: they provide the mortar that binds the text together. As a rule, function words serve two major roles: indicating relationships between lexical words or larger units, or indicating the way in which a lexical or larger unit is to be interpreted. 2.Stress. In speech, lexical words are generally stressed, function words are usually unstressed. 3.Morphology. Lexical words may take inflections that distinguish different grammatical forms of the same lexical unit. Function words are generally invariable. 4.Head of phrase. Lexical words can be the heads of phrases; function words cannot be the heads of phrases. Cf.: her gold watch (D. Biber et al.) - noun phrase, can see (D. Biber et al.) - verb phrase, so lucky (D. Biber et al.) - adjective phrase, very quickly (D. Biber et al.) - adverb phrase. 5. Length. Lexical words may consist of a single morpheme, but they are often more complex in structure. Function words are characteristically short and lack internal structure. 6. Openness. Lexical words form open classes of words; function words are members of closed classes. Closed classes are highly restricted in membership, while open classes have very large numbers of members. Open classes are so called because they readily accommodate the addition of new members. The two main avenues for the introduction of new members are: 1)borrowing from other languages (as with the noun sputnik. for example), 2)regular word formation processes, e.g. we can easily form new nouns with the suffix -ee, adjectives - with the suffix -ish, verbs with the suffix -ize. and adverbs - with the suffix -wise. Cf: gossip - gossipee, bird - birdish, period ~ periodize, crab - crabwise.

A third avenue for adding to the membership of a class, very rarely used in comparison with the other two, is the creation of a new simple stem from the phonological resources of the language, e.g. nylon, which was coined in the 1930's.
33

Closed classes, by contrast, are highly resistant to the addition of new members, though the term 'closed' should not be taken to imply that expansion is strictly impossible. Thus, we may find that new prepositions develop out of verb forms (e.g. regarding) and sequences of orthographic words (e.g. on account of). But while the development of new function words is a very slow process that may take centuries, the creation of new lexical words may be instantaneous. 7. Frequency. Function words are frequent and tend to occur in any text, whereas the occurrence of individual nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs varies greatly in frequency and is bound to the topic of the text. In addition to lexical arid function words, the authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English single out inserts. Inserts are a relatively newly recognized category of word. They do not form an integral part of a syntactic structure, but are inserted rather freely in the text. They are often marked off by intonation, pauses, or by punctuation marks in writing. They characteristically carry emotional and interactional meanings and are especially frequent in conversation. The authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English refer to inserts: 1)interjections; 2)greetings and farewells; 3)discourse markers, e.g.: Oh this 'II be a good idea! - Right, we can do this (D. Biber et al.); 4) attention signals, e.g.: Hey look - that's the way to do it (D. Biber et al.); 5) response elicitors, e.g.: Pat, come over here in about twenty-five minutes, okay! (D. Biber et al.); 6) responses, e.g.: Let's go and see Pip. - Okay (D. Francis); 7) hesitators, e.g.: Not West Italy? ~ Well. Rome was suggested (A Corpus of English Conversation); 8)thanks; 9)the politeness marker please', 10) apologies;
34

11) expletives, e.g.: Oh Jesus, Ididn !t know it was that cold (D. Biber et al.). As with function words, inserts are generally invariable. They may consist of a single morpheme (yes, no, please, etc.) or of an invariable lexicalized sequence (you know, I mean, excuse me, etc.). Inserts sometimes have a deviant phonological structure, e.g.: hm, ukhuh, ugh, etc. Inserts contain some sub-groups that are more or less closed, e.g. greetings, farewells, and response words yes and no. Other types of inserts can be created rather freely. Inserts are more marginal than lexical words and function words. It can indeed be doubted whether some of the forms in our conversation should be recognized as words at all. But there is no doubt that they play an important role in conversation. If we are to describe spoken language adequately, we need to pay more attention to them than has traditionally been done. What Language Units Do We Classify into Parts of Speech ? Traditionally, it is only words that are classified into parts of speech. According to NJ. Avaliany, L.I. Rojsenson and A.M. Lyatina, word combinations can be referred to parts of speech, too, on condition that they are grammatically, semantical!}', and phraseologically equivalent to words. This conception, however, makes the boundaries of parts of speech rather vague since it is very difficult to say which word combinations have already turned into word equivalents and which have not. Development of Parts of Speech The category of parts of speech is slowly but constantly changing. For instance, the adjective in Old English had three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter; two numbers: singular and plural; five cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and instrumental; and three degrees of comparison: positive, comparative, and superlative. In Modern English, the adjective has become an uninflected part of speech except for the category of degrees of comparison in qualitative adjectives.
35

5. THE NOUN General Characteristics The English noun is a pan of speech that is characterized by the following features. 1.. Meaning: a) generalized lexi co-grammatical primary meaning of 'thingness', e.g.: table, chair, lamp, etc.; b) generalized grammatical secondary meaning of'thingness', t.g.:joy, peace, milk, etc. 2. Cpmbinabijity with: a) verbs, both in preposition and in postposition, e.g.: He closed the door ... (S. Sheldon), The door closed (I. Murdoch); b) adjectives, usually in preposition, e.g.: She was a beautiful girl... (J. Cheever); c) prepositive nouns, both in the genitive and in the common case, e.g.: ... and the evenings were long and happy, because Robert's father was there (N. Hale), I saw it in the Chicago newspaper (F.S. Fitzgerald); d) prepositive articles and other determiners, e.g.: Wait a minute (E. Hemingway), The father tried his best... (W.C. Williams), My heart sank a little (W.S. Maugham); e) prepositions, e.g.: He read a letter from his wife to me (T. Mori); 3. Syntactic .Functions: a) subject, e.g.: Father decided to take a holiday from his office... (S. Leacock); b) object, e.g.: You love your parents, don't you? (J.D. Salinger). 4. MorphologicaJ Structure. As far as their morphological structure is concerned, nouns fall under the following types; a)simple, b)derived, c)compound. 36

Simple nouns have neither prefixes nor suffixes, e.g.: book, pen, pencil, table, chair, lamp, etc. Derived nouns have either a prefix or a suffix or both. Noun derivational prefixes typically do not change the word class; i.e. the prefix is attached to a noun base to form a new noun with a different meaning, e.g.: group - subgroup. Noun derivational suffixes, on the other hand, often change the word class; i.e. the suffix is often attached to a verb or adjective base to form a noun with a different meaning. Cf.: agree (v) agreement (n), effective (adj) effectiveness (n). There are, however, also many nouns that are derived by suffixes from other nouns, e.g.: infant (n) infancy, (n). Apart from derivation by affixes, there is also zero derivation (or conversion). Adjectives and verbs may be converted to nouns. The noun often acquires more specific meanings with conversion. Cf: White (adj) You could see the whites of his eyes (D. Biber et aL). Walk (v) Let's go for a walk (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Affixes vary in frequency and productivity, i.e. the extent to which they are used to build new words. Noun derivational prefixes are considerably less frequent and less productive than noun derivational suffixes. A reason why derivational prefixes are less productive than derivational suffixes is perhaps that many of them are of Greek origin, whereas almost all the suffixes are of Romance or native Germanic origin. It is noticeable that the two most productive prefixes are in fact Latinate ones: co- and sub-. Cf.: cochairman, sub-committee. The productivity of the Greek prefixes hyper-, mono-, and poly- could be due to the fact that they arrived in English more recently and are frequently used nowadays to create new lexical items, mainly in specialized scientific areas. Cf.: hyperinflation, monosyllable, polysyllable. Although derivational suffixes are characterized by a higher frequency of occurrence than derivational prefixes, there are
37

extensive differences in the productivity of noun derivational suffixes. The suffix -ion is by far the most productive, e.g.: action, communication, education, operation, situation, etc. The derivational suffixes -ity, -er, -ness, -ism, and -ment are relatively productive, too, e.g.: ability, writer, darkness, realism, development, etc. Since in academic discussions frequent reference is made to abstract concepts that usually find their expression in derived abstract nouns, derivational affixes are by far the most productive in academic prose. In compound nouns two or more than two words are combined to form a single noun. In English, compounding is a highly productive process. Cf.: eye-witness, lamp-post, bigwig, cookbook, rocking-chair, income, self-control, etc. Practice varies as to whether to represent a compound as two orthographic words, one unbroken orthographic word, or a hyphenated word. Partly this is because there is no clear dividing line between compounds and free combinations. Compounds are over twice as frequent in news than in conversation. It is not surprising, for the overall frequency of nouns in conversation is much smaller than in news. What is more, the greater variety of compound patterns in news fits in with the tendency of this register to use a more varied vocabulary. 'Noun + noun compounds' are the most productive type structurally, e.g.: newspaper. The next most common types of compounds are those consisting of adjective 4- noun and those beginning or ending with a particle, e.g.: highway, feedback, outfit. 5- Mprphplo^cal.Categones. Nouns that possess a generalized lexico-grammatical primary meaning of 'thingness' and are consequently placed in the centre of the noun field have the morphological categories of case and number.

The Category of Case Definition of Case The notion of case goes back to Ancient Greece. However, they understood it differently then. Thus, Aristotle defined cases as deviations from names and verbs due to the logically dependent position in the sentence, i.e. according to Aristotle, both nouns and verbs had cases. The Stoics restricted the use of the term 'case1 to noun paradigms. They were the first to call them 'nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, and instrumental'. Nowadays, case is usually regarded as a morphological form of a declinable word used to express a certain meaning or to denote a certain relation to other words [C.T. Onions]. B.A. Ilyish gives another definition. In his opinion, case is a category of the noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and another thing, property, or action. This definition does not stand criticism: being a linguistic notion, case cannot connect objects of extra linguistic reality. Number of Cases Linguists are still at variance as to the number of cases in Modern English. Representatives of universal grammar speak of 6 cases, i.e. they apply the Latin system to the English language. But English has its own peculiarities that should not be disregarded. For example, as opposed to inflected Latin, Modem English is an analytical language. J.C. Nesfield mentions 5 cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative remarking at the same time that the genitive is the only case that is now indicated by change of form. The other cases have lost their case inflections and are indicated only by grammatical relation. When a noun is used as subject, it is said to be in the nominative case, e.g.: Rainfalls (J.C. Nesfield). When a noun is used for the sake of address, it is said to be in the vocative case, e.g.: 39

38

Are you coming, my friend"? (J.C. Nesfield). When a noun is a direct object, it is said to be in the accusative case, e.g.: Mary took the money (M. Vince, K. McNicholas). When a noun is an indirect object, it is said to be in the dative case, e.g.: 1 gave the boy a penny (J.C. Nesfieid). If we stick to the definition of case as a morphological category, we shall have to admit that neither nominative, nor vocative, nor accusative, nor dative exist in Modern English because there are no formal distinctions between them. According to G. Curme, there are 4 cases in Modern English: nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative. These cases did exist in Old English. In the course of time, however, the original nominative, dative, and accusative coincided in one form that is opposed nowadays to the inflected genitive. But G. Curme thinks that the relations that were earlier expressed by special case inflections are now indicated by word order and prepositional combinations. However, case is a morphological category, and word order is a syntactic factor. As for the theory of the so-called analytical cases that consist of a preposition and a noun, it is debatable, too. B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya deny their existence on the following grounds. 1.Every grammatical category should comprise a limited number of members. If we referred prepositional combinations to case forms, the number of cases would grow immensely, and we would be merely creating the illusion of classification. 2.Analytical forms are generally singled out as opposed to synthetic forms. With prepositional constructions, it is different. They are often synonymous with the so-called synthetic cases, e.g.: the house of your neighbour = your neighbour's house (O. Jespersen). 3. There is much subjectivity in the choice of prepositions. M. Bryant and H. Whitehall single out 3 cases in Modern English nouns by analogy with case forms of personal pronouns: nominative, genitive, and objective.

40

Pronouns: Nouns:

Nominative he man

Genitive his man's

Objective him ma

Criticizing this point of view, A.I. Smirnitsky puts forth the following arguments. 1.Nouns and personal pronouns belong to different parts of speech. 2.The group of personal pronouns is rather small. That's why it is doubtful that the case system of personal pronouns could influence the case system of nouns. What is more, nouns lack special inflections for the nominative and the objective. The majority of linguists recognize the existence of 2 cases in Modern English: common and genitive. The common case is unmarked both in meaning and in form. It has a very general meaning that is specified by means of word order and prepositions and that may be characterized only negatively as a non-genitive form. It is represented by a zero exponent. Nouns in the common case can perform any syntactic function in the sentence. Cf.: Suddenly the weather changed (L. Untermeyer) - subject. He touched my hand (G. Jones) - direct object. The grocer gave the baby a stick of candy ... (H. Garland) -non-prepositional indirect object. Mrs. Hail did not ask about her affairs (H. Garland) -prepositional indirect object. He was a shy man (B. MacLeverty) - predicative. She's in the souvenir shop (English Course) - attribute. He had not seen Mabel for seven years (W.S. Maugham) -adverbial. Genitive Case Form of the Genitive Case The genitive case is marked both in meaning and in form. The regular way of forming the genitive case of singular nouns is by adding 's, e.g.: 41

My sister's little girl fell downstairs (J. Cheever). There are two ways of forming the genitive case of plural nouns. If the plural ends in -s, we just add an apostrophe, e.g.: Even grandmothers' dreams don't always come true... (D.H. Lawrence). If the plural does not end in -s, we add 's, e.g.: The children's toys are new (R. Quirk et al.). Meaning of the Genitive Case The central meaning of the genitive case is that of possession. e.g.: Vinny would inherit her mother's money (D.H. Lawrence). That's why A.I. Smirnitsky suggests that the genitive case should be called the possessive case. The meaning of possession, however, is not the only meaning of the genitive case. In Old English, the genitive case had a wide range of meanings. Nowadays, the scope of meanings of the genitive case has narrowed. Nevertheless, linguists, both abroad and in this country, mention several semantic types of the genitive case. 1. Possessive genitive, e.g.: Mrs. Johnson's passport Mrs. Johnson has a passport (R. Quirk etal.). 2. Subjective genitive, indicating the doer of the action, e.g.: the people's choice The people chose (S. Greenbaum). 3. Genitive of source, denoting such relationships as authorship and origin. Cf.: the general's letter > The general wrote a letter (R. Quirk et al.). Australia's exports the exports that come from Australia (S. Greenbaum). 4. Objective genitive, indicating the object of the action, e.g.: Kennedy's assassination Somebody assassinated Kennedy (S. Greenbaum). 5. Temporal genitive, denoting a period of time, e.g.: ten days' absence > The absence lasted ten days (R. Quirk et al.).

6. Equational genitive, establishing the identity of the referent, The distance is a Barkhudarov). 7. Genitive of destination, e.g.: a women's college a college for women (R. Quirk et al.). The semantic classification, in the opinion of R. Quirk and his co-authors, is in part arbitrary. For example, one could claim that cow's milk is not a genitive of origin (milk from a cow) but a subjective genitive (The cow provided the milk}. No wonder that L.S. Barkhudarov sometimes finds it difficult to name the kerne! sentence from which the construction with the genitive case has been derived, e.g.: Nick's school (L.S. Barkhudarov). Of course, Nick's school could be transformed into Nick goes to school, but such transformations can be regarded only as quasi transformations [Z. Harris] because they do not give an opportunity to clearly formulate the rules of generating constructions with the genitive case. Types of Nouns Used in the Genitive Case (L.S. In Old English, the genitive case was freely formed from all nouns. In Modern English, the genitive case is restricted to the following nouns. 1. Personal names, e.g.: George Washington's statue (R. Quirk et al.). 2. Personal nouns, e.g.: the boy's new bicycle (R. Quirk et al.). 3. Animal nouns, in particular those denoting 'higher animals', e.g.: the horse's tail (R. Quirk et al.), the dog's collar (R. Quirk et al.). 4. Collective nouns, which emphasize the aspect of 'organized individuals1, in particular those denoting authoritative and other organizational bodies, e.g.: the government's economic plans (R. Quirk et al.), the committee's decision (R. Quirk et al.)5. Geographical names: continents: Europe's future (R. Quirk et al.), countries: China's development (R. Quirk et al.),
43

mile's

distance

42

states: Maryland's Democratic senator (R. Quirk et al.), cities and towns: London's water supply (R. Quirk et al.), universities: Harvard's Department of Linguistics (R. Quirk et al.). 6. Locative nouns denoting regions, institutions, heavenly bodies, etc. They can be very similar to geographical names, and are often written with initial capital letters, e.g.: the world's economy (R. Quirk et af,), the Club !s pianist (R. Quirk et al.), (he hotel's entrance (R. Quirk et al.), (he school's history (R. Quirk et al.). 7. Temporal nouns, e.g.: a day's work(R. Quirk et al.), a moment's thought (R. Quirk et al.), today's payer (R. Quirk et al.). 8. Other nouns of 'special relevance to human activity', e.g.: the mind's development (R. Quirk et al.), the body's needs (R. Quirk et a!.), my life's aim (R. Quirk et al,), the book's true importance (R. Quirk et ai.), the play's philosophy (R. Quirk et al.), the novel's structure (R. Quirk et al.), a word's function (R. Quirk et al.), television's future (R. Quirk et al,), duty's call (R. Quirk et al.), the poll's results (R. Quirk et al.), the treaty's ratification (R. Quirk et al.). Use of the Genitive Case

Other independent genitives have become conventional, and they need no supporting noun head in the context. They generally refer to people's homes, shops, restaurants, bars, firms, and other places. R. Quirk and his co-authors call them local independent genitives. Cf.: We 'H meet at Bill's (R. Quirk et al.). / bought these buns at the baker's (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Let s have dinner at Tiffany's (R. Quirk et al.). I'm going to the dentist's (R. Quirk et al,). Elliptical independent genitives are relatively rare in all registers. Local independent genitives are more frequent, but still rare compared with dependent genitives. Conversation makes the most frequent use of independent genitives. Independent genitives reflect the greater simplicity of phrases in conversation.
Choice between S-Genitives and Of-Phrases

As to its use, the genitive case fails under dependent and independent. Dependent genitives are used with the nouns they modify and come before them, e.g.: He stared at his aunt's face (J.C. Gates). Independent genitives occur without a following head noun. Many independent genitives involve ellipsis. In elliptical genitives, the head noun can be inferred either from the preceding or from the following context. Cf.: My car is faster than John's (R. Quirk et al.). Mary's was the prettiest dress (R. Quirk et al.).
44

The genitive meaning can be rendered by a noun as head of a prepositional phrase with of. The (^phrase is normally used with inanimate concrete nouns, e.g.: the roof of this house (R. Quirk et al.). The choice between the i'-genitive and the q^phrase, according to the authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, varies depending upon a number of factors, the most important of which are: register, the type of dependent noun, semantic relations between head and the dependent phrase, the complexity of the dependent phrase, the information status of the dependent phrase, and specific collocations. Register. S-genitives are outnumbered by o/-phrases in all registers. The far greater frequency of ey^phrases in all registers may be due to the fact that postmodification produces a less dense and more transparent means of expression. The frequency of o/phrases represents the current state of a historical shift towards of that has been ongoing ever since Old English, where inflected genitive predominated. News has by far the highest frequency of the ^-genitive, presumably because it represents a good way of compressing information. The low frequency of j-genitives in academic prose in
45

part reflects the suojcC* .patter of academic prose, where human beings and relationships play a less important roie than in other registers. Academic prose has by far the highest frequency of o/phrases because the postmodiiying structure makes it clear which words go together and opens up more possibilities of qualifying the dependent noun. The...type..pX.dependent..npun. Nouns with human/personal reference tend to occur with the s-genitive rather than an o/-phrase. Nouns with inanimate concrete reference and abstract impersonal nouns tend to occur in an of-phrase rather than the ^-genitive. Plural nouns are generally more likely to occur in e/-phrases than singular nouns. Semantic..relations.between_.head.arid.._dependent; phrase. To indicate the object of an action, one usually resorts to an q^phrase. To render the meaning of possession and to denote the doer of an action, one generally makes use of the ^-genitive. The..complexj^....of...^e...deE^4eQt..feMe. Most typically, 5-genitive constructions are used in one-word dependent phrases. In contrast, of-phr&ses are commonly used in much longer dependent phrases. The., information....^ S-genitives, coming before the head noun, are generally preferred for presenting given information; y/parases, following the head noun, are preferred for presenting new information. The choice agrees with one of the main ordering principles at the clause level, namely the information principle, stating that new information should be distributed later in the clause. Specific....collocations. Genitives tend to occur in fixed collocations. Cf: at death !s door, life's work, out of harm 's way. The genitive with the word sake is particularly productive, e.g.: for God's sake, for goodness' sake, for heaven 's sake., for old time 's/times' sake, etc.

Double Genitive The double genitive is a special construction in which the independent genitive occurs in an of-phrase, e.g.: He is a good friend of my husband's (S. Gibbons). Constructions with of plus a possessive pronoun are often alternatives to double genitives. Cf.: a friend of Deborah's (D. Biber et al.), a friend of hers (D. Biber et al,). The double genitive is far less common than corresponding constructions with possessive pronouns. The low frequency of the double genitive may in part be due to the fact that it competes with ordinary postmodi tying q^-phrases. Cf: a friend of Deborah's * a friend of Deborah (D. Biber et a!.). For the corresponding constructions with possessive pronouns there is no such alternative: a friend of hers > *a friend of her (D. Biber et al.). The construction with of plus a possessive pronoun is particularly common in fiction. The postmodifier in the double genitive must be definite and human, e.g.; an opera of Verdi's (R. Quirk et al.). The head noun in the double genitive must be essentially indefinite. That's why it is most typically preceded by the indefinite article if it is expressed by a common noun in the singular or by such words as some, several, and the like. Cf.: a friend of the doctor's (R. Quirk et al.), some friends of Jim's (R. Quirk et al.), several pupils of his (R. Quirk et al.). As a consequence of the condition that the head must be indefinite, the head cannot be a proper noun. Thus, while we can say Mrs. Brown's Mary (R. Quirk et al.), we cannot say *Mary of Mrs. Brown's (R. Quirk et al.). Neither can the head combine with the definite article. When the noun preceding the o/-phrase has definite reference, the sgenitive would be used in preference to the double genitive, e.g.: Johnny's good idea instead of *the good idea of Johnny's (D. Biber et al.).

But the double genitive is commonly found with demonstratives, e.g.: that irritating habit of her father's (R. Quirk et al.). Group Genitive Sometimes the genitive suffix is attached not to the head noun, but to the last word of a genitive phrase. It is the so-called group genitive. The group genitive is most common with of-phrases and coordinate phrases. Cf.: the Museum of Modern Art's Director (R, Quirk et al.), a minute or two's rest (B. Biber et al.). Linguistic Status of's G.N. Vorontsova denies the existence of the genitive case in Modem English. She offers the following proofs. 1. The use of the genitive case inflection 's is optional It generally occurs with reference to human beings. With nouns denoting inanimate things and abstract notions, the genitive case relation is rendered by the o/-phrase, e.g.; / sat at the foot of the bed... (E. Hemingway). The mysteries of storm and the rain and tide were revealed (J. Galsworthy). What is more, even those nouns, which do admit of the genitive case, often resort to the o/phrase to render the meaning of the genitive case. Cf.: From the corner of my eye I had seen something small and white fly from Julian's body (L. Durrell). / could not see the body of Julian... (L. Durrell). 2. One and the same inflection ('s) is used both in the singular and in the plural, which is usually not to be found in other languages. Cf.: English: the man's hat (V. Evans) - genitive singular, the men's umbrellas (V. Evans) - genitive plural. Russian: McuibvuKa ~ genitive singular, - genitive plural.

3. The genitive case inflection goes back not to the Old English genitive ~es, but to the formations of the kind the king his head. 4. The 's does not make an inseparable part of the structure of a word. Sometimes the 's refers to a whole group of words, e.g.: The University of Minnesota^ President (R. Quirk et al.). The function of the 's, according to G.N. Vorontsova, is parallel to that of a preposition, except that it is placed after the noun phrase. That's why G.N. Vorontsova calls it 'a postposition' (noc&enoe). R. Quirk and his co-authors call it an 'enclitic postposition'. An enclitic is an independent word in syntax that forms a phonological unit with the word that precedes it [P.M. Matthews]. A.I. Smirnitsky does not share G.N. Vorontsova's conception. He looks upon the 's as a grammatical morpheme of case. Here are his arguments. 1.Its general meaning 'the relation of a noun to another word' is typical case meaning. 2.Although the use of the genitive case is relatively restricted in Modern English and the o/-phrase is very often used in the same sense, the inflected genitive can be formed from any noun. Cf.: ... he challenged the house's silence (W. Deeping). ... the clock's tick was as heavy as feet (J. Hanley). ... he could see her shoulders' softness... (D.H. Lawrence). 3.One and the same inflection occurs both in the singular and in the plural only in nouns that form the plural in an irregular way, and such nouns, as is well known, are very few. 4.Historically, the 's goes back to the Old English genitive case inflection -es. The latter can be proved by comparing English with the Scandinavian languages, which had very much in common. In the Scandinavian languages, the genitive case had been developing in the same way, although the possessive construction the king his head was alien to them. 5.The 's can be separated from the noun it modifies, but cases of the kind the University of Minnesota's President are not as

numerous as those where the 's morpheme is attached to the noun it modifies. According to B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya,

they constitute only about 4%.

48

49

6. The existence of certain lexical restrictions in the use of the inflected genitive also testifies to the fact that the 's cannot be included into one group with prepositions for the use of a preposition is generally determined by the meaning of the preposition itself and not by the meaning of the noun it introduces. 7. Finally, the 's differs from English prepositions phonetically, in not having a vowel. L.S. Barkhudarov thinks that neither of the two interpretations is convincing. On the one hand, we cannot follow G.N. Vorontsova and say that the 's is a word. 1.In the English language, all words comprise a vowel. 2.If the 's were a word, then it would be impossible to account for the morphological structure of such constructions as the boys' friends, where one and the same morph [z] would have to be regarded as a morpheme when rendering the grammatical meaning of the plural number and as a word when rendering the grammatical meaning of the genitive case. The latter is absurd. On the other hand, the 's is hardly a traditional morpheme, as A.L Smirnitsky thinks. Really, if the 's were a traditional morpheme, the preceding sequence of elements would have to be looked upon as a compound word, for a traditional morpheme always makes part of a word. The structure of inflected genitive case forms, however, runs counter to the current definition of the word, according to which we cannot insert into the word any other word, word combination, or clause. In the constructions under examination, this can be done. Cf.: A week's sunshine * a week or so's sunshine (R. Quirk et al.). The conjunctional combination or so is inserted between the head noun week and the 's. The teacher's room ~ the teacher of music's room (R. Quirk et al,). - The prepositional combination of music is inserted between the head noun teacher and the 's. The boy's brother the boy who lives across the street's brother (A. Hill). - The clause who lives across the street is inserted between the head noun boy and the 's. (True, according to R. Quirk and his co-authors, the group genitive is not normally acceptable when the postmodifi cation is a clause.). Hence, L.S. Barkhudarov draws the conclusion that the 's is neither a word nor a traditional morpheme. It is a specific
50

morpheme that can be attached not only to single words but occasionally also to combinations of words. Different Approaches to the Study of Case There are different approaches to the study of case as a morphological category. Many traditional studies have examined various uses of case. More recent work has been directed toward the analysis of the case systems of different languages. A great deal of research, early and late, has been devoted to an understanding of the evolution of case notions and of case morphemes. For Ch.J. Fillmore and his adherents, case is not an element of the surface, but of the deep structure of a sentence. The deep (or basic) structure of a sentence, according to Ch.J. Fillmore, consists of a verb and one or more noun phrases, each associated with the verb in a particular syntactic-semantic (or case) relationship. ChJ. Fillmore singles out 7 semantic cases. 1. Agentive the case of the typically animate instigator of the action indicated by the verb, e.g.: John opened the door (ChJ. Fillmore). The door was opened by John (Ch.J. Fillmore). 2. Instrumental - the case of the inanimate force or object involved in bringing about the action or state indicated by the verb, e.g.: The key opened the door (Ch.J, Fillmore). John opened the door with the key (Ch.J. Fillmore). John used the key to open the door (ChJ. Fillmore). 3. Dative - the case of the animate being affected by the state or action indicated by the verb, e.g.: John believed that he would win (ChJ. Fillmore). We persuaded John that he would win (ChJ. Fillmore). It was apparent to John that he would win (ChJ. Fillmore). 4. Factitive - the case of the object or being resulting from the action or state indicated by the verb, e.g.: John built the house (ChJ. Fillmore). 5. Locative - the case that identifies the location or spatial orientation of the state or action indicated by the verb, e.g.: Chicago is windy (ChJ. Fillmore). It is windy in Chicago (ChJ. Fillmore). 51

6. Benefactive - the case of the typically animate being who benefits from the action or state indicated by the verb, e.g.: Jennie got skipping-ropes for the twins that day... (M. Spark). 7. Objective - the semantically most neutral case. ChJ. Fillmore thinks that the concept of the objective case should be limited to things which are affected by the action or state indicated by the verb, e.g.: John opened the door (ChJ. Fillmore). The door was opened by John (ChJ. Fillmore). The key opened the door (ChJ. Fillmore). John opened the door with the key (ChJ. Fillmore). John used the key to open the door (ChJ. Fillmore). The door opened (ChJ. Fiflmore). A semantic case may correspond to varying roles (or forms) in the surface structure. For instance, Locative in the sentence It is windy in Chicago corresponds to an adverbial; while in the sentence Chicago is windy it is represented by the subject. The number of semantic cases varies from author to author. R. Schank singles out 5 semantic cases, ChJ. Fillmore, W.L. Chafe, V.G. Gak and I.P. Susov - 7, D.G. Lockwood - 9, V.V. Bogdanov - 14, Y.D. Apressyan - 25. N.N. Leontyeva - 50. The higher the degree of detailization, the greater is the number of the singled out semantic cases. To determine the optimum degree of detailization is extremely difficult. However, one thing is clear: when the number of semantic cases grows indefinitely, the classification loses its definiteness and finally disappears. A.P. Guminsky denies the central role of the verb in the sentence and places the noun in focus. In his opinion, there exist only two semantic cases: ucxodnu^uu and soMUKaiouiuu, e.g.: John loves Mary (E.K. Brown, I.E. Miller). The simplicity of the binary approach is tempting. But simplicity should not be an end in itself. The question arises: does it contribute to a better understanding of the semantic structure of the sentence? The answer is lNo\ The abstraction of the binary semantic case system is so high that it can hardly be successfully applied in the process of analysis without some detailization.

The Category of Number From a logical point of view, the distinction is between one and more than one. The corresponding grammatical distinction is between singular and plural, e.g.: a table - tables. Some linguists say that the essential meaning of the category of number is not that of quantity, but that of discreteness. The plural, according to them, denotes something consisting of distinguishable parts, e.g.: spectacles, scissors, trousers, etc. [E.A. Korneyeva, N.A. Kobrina. K.A. Guzeyeva, M.I. Ossovskaya]. These nouns do indicate discrete things consisting of two parts. But we are hardly justified in referring them to the plural number because they have no singular counterparts, and the plural and the singular are correlative notions: when there is no singular, we cannot speak about the plural, and vice versa. So, the generalized grammatical meaning of number is that of quantity. In Modern English, it is represented by the opposition 'oneness (singular) - more than oneness (plural)'. At first sight, it may seem that the difference between the singular and the plural is not grammatical, but lexical since, for example, table (singular) and tables (plural) denote different objects of extra linguistic reality [F.F. Fortunatov]. However, we know that the meaning of a word cannot be identified with the thing it is used to denote. Besides, we should not disregard the fact that the idea of plurality usually has constant grammatical forms of its expression. In English, it is the inflection ~(e)s, e.g.: a lamp lamps, a box - boxes. (The inflection -es is added after -s, -ss, -ch, -sh, -tch, -x, -z, and -o.). We can only speak of 'more than one', i.e. of the plural, in regard to things, which, without being identical, belong to the same kind [O. Jespersen]. Plurality, thus, presupposes difference, but if the difference is too great, it is impossible to use words like 'two' or 'three'. For instance, a brick and a musical sound are not two. Some linguists single out two other types of the plural: lexicalized plural and the plural of approximation.

52

53

The so-called lexicalized plural either introduces new shades of meaning into the singular or comes to render a totally different meaning. Cf.: Tragedy is lack of experience (D.H. Lawrence). He's had many odd experiences (R. Quirk et a!.). Colour (ifeem) - colours (<pnaz), The form of lexicalized plural is identical with that of grammatical plural: -(e)s. But the meaning of lexicalized plural is always different from the corresponding singular. That's why it should be excluded from the grammatical category of number, for the components of the grammatical category of number should be lexically identical. The plural of approximation, mentioned by O. Jespersen, in our opinion, is closer to lexical forms, for though, like grammatical plural., it ends in -(e)s and denotes several objects, the objects do not belong to the same kind, e.g.: There are many things people remember about the sixties (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor), where sixties does not mean 'one sixty + another sixty + ...', but 'sixty' + 'sixty-one' + 'sixty-two', and so on till 'sixty-nine'. The combinability with singular verbs and the substitution by singular pronouns testifies to the word-building, i.e. lexical, and not the form-building, i.e. grammatical nature of the morpheme -(e)s in formations of the kind the sixties, the nineties, etc. Cf.: The sixties was a time when young people used to do whatever they wanted (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor). There are many things people remember about the sixties. Some remember it for mini-skirts, hippies, and the flower children (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor). In other words, only those forms are qualified by us as plural that introduce the grammatical meaning of 'more than oneness', without changing the lexical meaning of the singular form. The category of number in English is represented by the opposition of the singular and the plural. The singular form denotes 'oneness'; it is the non-marked member of the opposition. The plural form denotes 'more than oneness'; it is the marked member of the opposition. The regular way of forming the plural is by adding the -(e)s inflection.
54

There are several irregular ways of forming the plural. 1. Voicing of final consonant + -s plural. Some nouns ending in -/or ~fe form their plurals by changing the ending to -ves, e.g.: a knife - knives. Others have regular plurals as well, e.g.: a scarf- scarves (scarfs). 2. Mutation plurals. In a few nouns, the plural is formed by mutation, i.e. a change in the vowel, e.g.: a man - men, a woman - women, afoot feet, a tooth teeth, etc. 3. -en plurals, e.g.: an ox - oxen. Children, the plural of child, combines a vowel change and the irregular ending -en. 4. Zero plurals. Countable nouns that have the same form for singular and plural are said to have zero plural, e.g.: a sheep - sheep, a deer - deer. 5. Foreign plurals. In many learned words scholars have introduced the plural as well as the singular form from foreign languages, e.g.: curriculum - curricula, formula -formulae. There is. however, a strong tendency to inflect such words in the English way, especially in everyday speech, e.g.: a formula -formulas. There is no special form for the common (or generic) number. The meaning of the generic number in English is rendered in the following ways: 1)the singular without any article, e.g.: Man should be lonely (J. Updike); 2)the singular with the indefinite article, e.g.: A barking dog does not bite (Proverb); 3)the singular with the definite article, e.g.: The early bird catches the worm (Proverb);

55

4) the plural without any article, e.g.: But rich people do have their problems (N. Monsarrat). As regards the category of number, all English nouns can be divided into two classes: countable and uncountable. Countable nouns are those that have the opposition 'singular - plural', e.g.: a book - books. Uncountable nouns do not call up the idea of any definite thing with a certain shape or precise limits. They are either material, e.g.: silver, water, butter, gas, etc., or abstract, e.g.: leisure, music, success, tact, etc. Those uncountable nouns that always combine with singular verbs and are substituted by singular pronouns are called Singularia Tantum. Most Singularia Tantum are singular in form. Cf.: Sugar is not fashionable any more (O. Wilde). Take the money out and countJt (M. White). / know my hair is_ beautiful... (Th. Hardy), Some Singularia Tantum end in -s. They are: 1) the noun news, e.g.: Well, \vhatj_ the news? (W. Deeping); 2) nouns ending in -ics that denote subjects, sciences, etc., e.g.: Mathematics has the same educational function as classics used to have (M. Swan); 3)names of certain diseases ending in -s, e.g.: Measles takes a long time to get over (M. Swan); 4)names of some games ending in -s, e.g.: DraughtsJs an easier game than chess (M. Swan). The final -5 in ail these cases, however, is not an inflection of the plural number. Singular collective nouns that refer to groups of people (e.g. family, team, government, etc.) may be treated as either singular or plural. They are treated as plural, especially in British English, when the focus is on the group as individuals. In these cases, a plural verb is used, and the group is referred to by the pronouns they and who, e.g.: My family are wonderful. They do all they can for me, I don't know any other family who_ would do so much (M. Swan). They are treated as singular when we see the group as an impersonal unit. In these cases, a singular verb is used, and the
56

group is referred to by the pronoun it and the words which and that, not who, e.g.: The average family (which now consists of four members at most) is a great deal smaller than it used to be (M. Swan). Those uncountable nouns that always combine with plural verbs and are substituted by plural pronouns are called Pluralia Tantum. Most Pluralia Tantum end in -s. Cf.: My trousers are getting too small round the waist (M. Swan). The nurse's wages were good (W. Collins). Where_are my scissors? (A.S. Hornby). The sugar-tongs were too wide for one of her hands, and she had to use both in wielding them (Ch. Bronte). Some Pluralia Tantum lack the final -s. They include the following nouns: I)people, e.g.: Were there many people at the meetingl (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 2)police., e.g.: The police have caught the murderer (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 3) cattle, e.g.: All his cattle were grazing in the field (R. Quirk et al.); 4)poultry (farmyard birds), e.g.: Where are your poultry? (R. Quirk et al.)1; 5) livestock (animals kept on a farm), e.g.: Our livestock are not as numerous as they used to be (R. Quirk et al.); 6) vermin, e.g.: These vermin cause disease (R. Quirk et al). According to A.I. Smirnitsky, both Singularia and Pluralia Tantum have the category of number. His point of view, however, does not seem convincing. Every grammatical category must be represented by an opposition of at least two forms. In the case of Singularia and Pluralia Tantum, we deal with one form only. That's why it seems more reasonable to accept the conception of
But the noun poultry is treated as singular in the sense of'meat', e.g.: Poultry is cheaper than meat at the moment (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
57

V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik and say that both Singularia and Pluralia Tantum stand outside the grammatical category of number. The Category of Gender Traditionally, gender is defined as a morphological category that finds its expression in special noun inflections of gender and that is closely tied to the sex of the referent. "There is no unity of opinion concerning the category of gender in Modern English. Old English nouns distinguished 3 grammatical genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. H. Sweet finds the same 3 genders in Modern English. Criticizing the conception of H, Sweet, A.I. Smirnitsky emphasizes that in Modern English it is not nouns, but the things they denote that are classified into the so-called genders. For instance, there is no formal difference between the nouns boy and girl. But the noun boy is considered to belong to the masculine gender, the noun girl - to the feminine gender. In other words, gender in Modern English nouns is expressed lexically. 1. By using totally different nouns, e.g.: father mother, son - daughter, uncle - aunt, man - woman, bull cow, etc. 2. By using derived nouns with masculine and feminine suffixes: -er/-or, -ess, e.g.: waiter - waitress, actor - actress. 3.By using compound nouns in -man and -woman, e.g.: policeman -policewoman. 4.By using a modifier denoting sex, e.g.: boy-friend - girl-friend, _ he-goat - she-goat, Tom-cat Pussy-cat, male nurse, female officer, woman doctor, etc. 58

English speakers use masculine terms more often than feminine terms. There are two reasons for the preference of male terms over female terms. 1.The continuing male sex bias in English society where men still hold more positions of power and authority than women. 2.The masculine terms are often used to refer to both sexes, but not vice versa. In recent decades, efforts have been made to avoid masculine bias by using gender-neutral compound nouns in -person instead of -man or -woman, e.g.: Mrs. Ruddock said she had been nominated as spokesperson for the wives (D. Biber et al.). However, this trend has had limited success so far. O. Jespersen and J. Vendryes define gender not as a morphological but as a syntactic category because it finds its expression in grammatical agreement. In the opinion of J. Vendryes, when there is no agreement, gender disappears. The loss of inflections, which began in the Middle English period, resulted in an almost complete disappearance of agreement. Thus, gender in Modern English is expressed neither morphologically, i.e. by special inflections of gender, nor syntactically, i.e. by forms of agreement. Gender in Modem English is a purely lexical category.

The Semantic Classification of Nouns

The semantic classification of nouns still causes much controversy among linguists. According to W.L. Chafe, the distinction between countable and uncountable nouns is most important. V.V. Bogdanov takes the opposition "animate ~ inanimate' as a starting point for his noun classification. We side with Y.S. Stepanov in regarding the relation to extra linguistic reality as a basis for a semantic classification of nouns. At the first stage, in accordance with the presence or absence of direct connection with extra linguistic reality, all nouns are divided into those denoting objects and those denoting non-objects, i.e. abstract notions. Objects are further subdivided into those having clear-cut boundaries and those having no definite boundaries, i.e. material nouns, e.g.: water, milk, sand, etc. Objects 59

having clear-cut boundaries fall into living and non-living, i.e. things, e.g.: pen, table, chair, etc. Living objects can be animate and inanimate, i.e. plants, e.g.: rose, tulip, lily, etc. Animate living objects either lack person characteristics (animals), e.g.: cat, dog, fox, etc. or possess person characteristics (people). Nouns denoting things, people, and sometimes plants and materials can be classified into two large classes: common, e.g.: pen, cat, boy, rose, water, etc. and proper, e.g.: Britain, Rex, John, Burgundy, etc. Common nouns generally draw a distinction between singularity and plurality. Cf.: This is a hat. - These are hats (A.S. Hornby). This is a child. ~ These are children (C.E. Eckersley). The only exception is constituted by common material nouns, where the plural suffix, as a rule, introduces a new shade of meaning that is incompatible with the grammatical plural. Cf.: Th e wa t e r f e e l s v e r y c ol d o n wi nt e r m o r n i n g s . . . (C.E. Eckersley). Where are we going, Grandpa? - To wash in the waters of bitterness (A.J. Cronin). In common nouns denoting people and sometimes animals, the dichotomy 'singularity - plurality' is supplemented by collective nouns, e.g.: people, police, cattle, etc. Collective nouns denoting people, in the opinion of R. Quirk and his co-authors, possess person characteristics when they combine with plural verbs and/or are substituted by plural pronouns, e.g.: The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal (R. Quirk etal.). The gender differentiation of singular and proper nouns, suggested by V.V. Bogdanov, seems superfluous for the English language because English nouns lack the grammatical category of gender. Non-objects (or abstract notions) are classified into terms, e.g.: sentence, noun, verb, etc. and non-terms, e.g.: remark, beauty, honesty, etc. The subdivision of non-objects into terms and non-terms comes very close to the subdivision of objects, possessing definite boundaries, into proper and common. Both terms and non-terms are registered in the singular and in the plural. Cf.:

noun - nouns, remark ~ remarks. However, the plural member of the opposition in non-objects is characterized by a far lower frequency of occurrence than its singular counterpart. 6. THE ADJECTIVE General Characteristics The following features are commonly considered to be characteristic of adjectives. 1 - Meaning: a) generalized lexico-grammatical primary meaning of non-temporal property, e.g.: black, big, clever, etc.; b) generalized grammatical secondary meaning of non-temporal property, e.g.: comfortable, national, graceful, etc. 2. Combinability with: a)nouns, mostly in postposition, e.g.: He was a pleasant fellow (T. Mori); b)verbs in preposition, e.g.: / married young (M. Burgess); c) adverbs of degree in preposition, e.g.: ... he was a deeply emotional man (S. Sheldon); d) prepositional combinations in postposition, e.g.: It is full of clean payer (W. Deeping). 3. Syntactic.Functions: a)attributive, b)predicative. In attributive function, the adjective is part of a noun phrase: it generally precedes and modifies the head noun, e.g.: She had a small child in her arms (W.S. Maugham). Predicative adjectives characterize a noun phrase that is a separate clause element. Predicative adjectives have two syntactic roles: subject predicatives and object predicatives. Subject predicatives complement a copular verb, characterizing the noun phrase in subject position, e.g.: She was wonderful to me (D. Robins).

60

61

Object predicatives follow a direct object, making a predication about that noun phrase, e.g.: He made the children happy (R. Quirk et al.). In news and academic prose, attributive adjectives are much more frequent than predicative adjectives, which reflects the heavy reliance of these registers on noun phrases to present information. Predicative adjectives are somewhat more frequent in fiction than in the other registers, in part because fictional descriptions sometimes include sequences of subject predicative adjectives, such as: What she intended to be was gay, pleasure-giving, exuberant, free, beautiful, healthy (D. Biber et al.). In conversation, attributive and predicative adjectives are both relatively rare because conversation is more verbal than nominal. The roughly equal frequency of predi cati ve and attributive adjectives in conversation is in keeping with the general reliance on a clausal rather than nominal presentation of information. Cf.: You got a cold? - No. Just a bit sniffy. Cos I'm ~ I am cold. And I'll be all right once I've warmed up (D. Crystal, D. Davy). 4. Morphological Structure. As far as their morphological structure is concerned, adjectives fall under the following types: a)simple, b)derived, c)compound. Simple adjectives have neither prefixes nor suffixes, e.g.: green, high, low, fat, etc. Derived adjectives have either a prefix or a suffix or both. Derived adjectives are usually formed from nouns and verbs. The most productive adjective-forming suffix is -al, e.g.: international local, natural, formal, usual, etc. The derivational suffixes -ent, -ive, and -ous are moderately common, too. Cf.: different, present, innocent, silent, excellent; active, attractive, expensive, negative, relative', serious, curious, dangerous, famous, nervous, etc. The derivational suffixes -ate, -ful, and -less are relatively rare in all registers. Cf: private, moderate; 62

beautiful, useful; helpless, useless, etc. Although the suffixes -like and -type are even less common, they have interesting uses. As a matter of fact they retain the meanings of like and type as separate words, and are therefore near the boundary between affixation and compounding. Cf.: business-like, child-like; Hollywood-type, Mr.-Smith-type, textbook-type, etc. Adjectives can be derived from other adjectives by the negative prefixes un-, in-, and non~, e.g.: unhappy^ inattentive, nonexistent, etc. In the last three examples, prefixation is combined with suffixation. Derived adjectives are by far the most common in academic prose. They are moderately common in news, and are relatively rare in fiction and conversation. English grammarians mention participial adjectives. Evidently, they can also be regarded as derived adjectives, namely as adjectives formed by zero derivation (or conversion) from -ing and -erfparticiples. Cf.: Predicative Use His views were very surprising. The man seemed very offended. (R. Quirk et al,). Attributive Use His surprising views. The offended man.

Often, the difference between the adjective and the Participle is not clear-cut. The verbal force of the Participle is explicit for the -ing form when a direct object is present, for the ~ed form - when a fry-agent phrase with a personal agent is present. Cf: You are frightening the children (R. Quirk et al.). The man was offended by the policeman (R. Quirk et al.). For both participle forms, premodification by the intensifier very is considered an explicit indication that the forms have achieved adjective status. Cf.: You are very frightening (R. Quirk et al.). The man was very offended (R. Quirk et al.).
63

However, there is a rising tendency nowadays to use the intensifier very not oniy before participial adjectives in -ed but also before -ed participles. Cf.: The man was very offended (R. Quirk et ai.). The man was very offended by the policeman (R. Quirk et ai.). Attributive uses outnumber predicative uses for both -ing and -ed participial adjectives. Compound adjectives are made from a combination of more than one word and represent compact, integrated forms of expression, which are not easy to produce 'online' except for lexicalized components, such as tongue-lied, old-fashioned, etc. No wonder that compound adjectives are common in the written registers, but are relatively rare in conversation. Formally, compound adjectives take many shapes. Adjectives can be added to other adjectives, e.g.: grayish-blue. Compounds can also be composed of an adjective and a noun, e.g.: full-time. Many adjective compounds involve participial forms, e.g.: highlyeducated, good-looking, etc. But adverb-adjective sequences constitute by far the most productive type of compound adjectives, especially in news, e.g.: politically-independent, fiercelycompetitive, etc. Reduplicative compounds are more productive in conversation than in the other registers because they are lexicalized (the two parts rarely occur separately) and because they serve an emotive purpose (they usually play on sounds), e.g.: wishy-washy - thin and without strength; watery; without determination or clear aims and principles; roly-poly - fat and round. 5. Morphological .Categories^ In Old English, adjectives were inflected for case, gender, number, and degrees of comparison. In Modern English, only qualitative adjectives are marked for the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. Cf.: nice nicer - nicest, beautiful more beautiful most beautiful. The class of adjectives can be represented as a lexicogrammatical field. The centre of the lexico-grammatical field of adjectives is constituted by those adjectives that possess a lexicogrammatical meaning of non-temporal property, have degrees of comparison, and can be used both attributively and predicatively. 64

Adjectives that lack one or more of these defining characteristics form the periphery of the lexi co-grammatical field of adjectives.

Classes of Adjectives
According to their meaning and grammatical characteristics, adjectives can be classified into qualitative and relative. Qualitative adjectives denote qualities of a substance directly, e.g.: small, brown, quick, etc. Most qualitative adjectives have degrees of comparison, e.g.: small - smaller - smallest. From most qualitative adjectives adverbs can be formed by the suffix ~ly, e.g.: quick -quickly. Qualitative adjectives are used both attributively and predicatively. Cf.: What wonderfully blue eyes you have, Ernest] (O. Wilde) -attribute. They are quite, quite blue (O. Wilde) - subjective predicative. Relative adjectives express qualities of a substance through their relation to materials (wooden), place (Italian), time (weekly), or action (preparatory), i.e. indirectly. Relative adjectives have no degrees of comparison. They do not form adverbs by the suffix -ty. Relative adjectives are chiefly used as attributes, e.g.: ... he found at the bottom of the box a pair of wooden skates which had been Kate's when she was a child (AJ. Cronin). There are no hard-and-fast lines between qualitative and relative adjectives. A relative adjective can acquire the meaning of a qualitative adjective. Cf.: wooden walls = walls made of wood (A.S. Hornby), a wooden smile = an inexpressive smile (A.S. Hornby). V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik mention also quantitative adjectives. This class comprises such words as many, much, little, and few. Like qualitative adjectives, they have degrees of comparison. Cf.: many, much - more - most, little - less - least, few -fewer fewest, e.g.: We have much work to do (R.A. Close). George did more work than anyone else (R.A. Close). The most work is often done by the quietest worker (R.A. Close). I have very little tune for reading (A.S. Hornby). Please make less noise (R.A. Close). 65

George gives me the least trouble (R.A. Close). Fortunately, there were very few people down there at the time... (A.M. Burrage). There were fewer people today than yesterday (R.A. Close). Harry made the fewest mistakes (R.A. Close). But as opposed to qualitative adjectives, which express qualities of an object directly, and in contrast to relative adjectives, which denote qualities of an object indirectly, the so-called quantitative adjectives characterize the given object numerically. just as numerals do. Thus, it is open to discussion whether many, much, little, few can be considered adjectives. If one gives precedence to form, one should refer them to adjectives because they have degrees of comparison. If one considers meaning to be the most important factor, one should exclude them from the class of adjectives and refer them to numerals, or rather to pronouns because their numerical characteristics are extremely general. Cf: Jive tables (numeral), some tables (pronoun), many tables (the so-called quantitative adjective). Degrees of Comparison

Adjectives that Lack Degrees of Comparison As a rule, only qualitative adjectives admit of degrees of comparison because they denote properties capable of appearing in different degrees, e.g.: fine -finer -finest. But some qualitative adjectives stand outside the category of comparison. They are: 1)adjectives that express the highest degree of a quality, e.g.: supreme, extreme, etc.; 2)adjectives having the suffix -ish, e.g.: reddish, whitish, etc.; 3)adjectives with a negative meaning, e.g.: illiterate; 4) adjectives expressing incomparable qualities, e.g.: deaf, dead, lame, etc. Writers sometimes use them in degrees of comparison for stylistic effect, e.g.: Mrs. Thompson, Old Man Fellows' housekeeper, had found him deader than a doornail when she went upstairs to see what had kept him so long before breakfast (R. L. Mangum). Relative adjectives have no degrees of comparison. Number of Degrees of Comparison The next question is how many degrees of comparison the English adjective has. With qualitative adjectives, which can denote degrees of a given quality, three types of comparison are possible: 1)comparison to the same degree, 2)comparison to a lower degree, 3) comparison to a higher degree [O. Jespersen; R. Quirk et al.]. Comparison in relation to the same degree is expressed by as ... as, e.g.: She's as pretty as her sister (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Comparison in relation to a lower degree is expressed by less and least, e.g.: This problem is less difficult than the previous one (R. Quirk et al.). This is the least difficult problem of all (R. Quirk et al.). For higher degree comparisons, English has a three-term formal contrast: positive, comparative, and superlative. The 67

Linguistic Status of the Category of Degrees of Comparison The problem of degrees of comparison has given rise to much controversy. First of all, there is no unity of opinion concerning the character of this category in Modem English. Some linguists think that degrees of comparison should be treated as a lexical category. In their opinion, long - longer - longest represent three different words, not forms of one and the same word. Criticizing this point of view, A.l. Smirnitsky says that longlonger - longest are not different words, but forms of the same word because they have the same stem long and are consequently characterized by identical lexical meaning.

66

so-called positive degree of comparison, as O. Jespersen rightly points out, is rather negative of comparison, than positive, e.g.: They are all strong men (A.S. Hornby). That's why H. Sweet, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya mention only two degrees of comparison, namely the comparative degree and the superlative degree. However, there is little justification for excluding the socalled positive degree from the classification because although it does not imply any comparison, it forms the basis for comparison. R. Quirk and some other English grammarians call the positive degree the absolute degree. The comparative degree indicates that the quality is found in the person or thing described in a higher degree than in some other person or thing, e.g.: The man in the middle is stronger than the man on the left (A.S. Hornby). The superlative degree denotes the highest degree of a quality, e.g.: He is the strongest of the three men (A.S. Hornby). The classification of degrees of comparison put forward by A.I. Smirnitsky, on the whole, does not differ from the traditional classification. He also speaks about the positive, the comparative, and the superlative degrees. But taking meaning as a starting point, he finds it possible to combine the comparative degree and the superlative degree into one group that he calls 'relative' and to oppose it to the positive degree. The meaning of-the positive degree, in his opinion, is absolute. It is the norm of some quality, so to speak. As to the comparative and the superlative degrees, they are both relative in meaning. Thus, if one says Mrs. Black is three years younger than her husband (A.S. Hornby), one does not mean that Mrs. Black is young. She may be 75 years old, whereas her husband is 78. The sentence only indicates that Mrs. Black has more of this quality (being young) than her husband. So, the meaning of the comparative degree is relative. If one says Mary is the youngest in the family... (Lingaphone English Course), one does not mean that Mary is a little girl. One simply emphasizes that Mary has the highest degree of this quality (being young) as compared with the rest of the family. Thus, the meaning of the superlative degree is also relative.
68

Taking into consideration the relative character of meaning of the comparative and the superlative degrees, as opposed to the positive degree, A.I. Smirnitsky thinks there is good ground to speak of two forms of comparison only: the positive degree and the relative degree. The latter (the relative degree) exists in two varieties - the comparative degree and the superlative degree. Synthetic and Analytical Forms of Degrees of Comparison The problem of forms of degrees of comparison is also controversial. Monosyllabic adjectives, i.e. adjectives consisting of one syllable, and the disyllabic adjectives ending in -er, -ly, -le, -y, and -w, form the comparative degree by the suffix -er and the superlative degree - by the suffix -est. Cf: The days get longer... (B. Zaffran, D. Krulik). ... these were the longest days of the year (J. Cheever). The examination was easier than we expected (R. Murphy). The day we were married was the happiest day of my life (M. Fuchs, M. Bonner). This is a synthetic way of forming degrees of comparison. The existence of synthetic forms of degrees of comparison is recognized by the majority of linguists. As to the combinations with more and most, less and least, the question is debatable. First, we shall discuss the problem of the combinations with less and least, e.g.: less important - least important. To qualify these constructions as analytical degrees of comparison, we must prove that they represent analytical forms of the adjective important. Analytical forms are generally opposed to synthetic forms. As to combinations with less and least, they have no parallel synthetic forms to express a lower degree of this or that quality. True, according to G, Curme and G.N. Vorontsova, the existence of correlation with corresponding synthetic forms was absolutely necessary only in the Middle English period, when the first analytical forms came to be used. Now, when there are a lot of analytical forms in the system of the English language, they may appear independently, by analogy with other analytical forms. Thus, the combinations with less and least, in their opinion, were coined by analogy with the analytical forms built on the pattern 'more/most + adjective'. This, however, is a debatable point since all the other
69

analytical forms in the English language have parallel synthetic forms. What is more, the words less and least do not either lose or weaken their lexical meaning as auxiliary elements in analytical forms should, e.g.: I found the memory much less vivid... (W. Deeping). So, the adjectival combinations with less and least are free word combinations, not analytical forms of degrees of comparison. Now we shall take up the problem of the combinations with more and most, e.g.: Let's talk about something more interesting (R. Murphy). He's the most interesting person I've ever met (R. Murphy), According to V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik, they are also outside the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. First, more and most form combinations with adjectives similar to those with less and least: more beautiful - less beautiful, most beautiful - least beautiful, e.g.: Oh, I'm the most sensible person here - and Lucille is the least sensible (C.E. Eckersley). Since the forms less beautiful and least beautiful are not degrees of comparison, the combinations with more and most cannot be considered degrees of comparison either. Second, combinations with most can be used with the indefinite article to express a very high degree of quality, e.g.: A most tragic thing happened to her early in the war (W. Deeping). This meaning is not to be found in the synthetic superlative degree. Constructions of the type *a prettiest girl do not occur in the English language. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the combinations 'more + adjective' and 'most + adjective' are forms of degrees of comparison. This argument is not convincing since in the sentence 'A most tragic thing happened to her early in the war' most is not the superlative degree of much, but an independent word, an adverb synonymous with very. Finally, V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik consider it wrong to refer the forms with more and most to degrees of comparison because more and most fully retain their lexical meaning. They really do. Cf.:
70

You'll be more comfortable if you turn the seat down (C.E. Eckersley). They were the most beautiful children she had ever seen (S. Sheldon). However, the conception of V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik is not universally accepted. The majority of linguists think that such combinations as more beautiful and most beautiful are analytical degrees of comparison or, at least, analytical degrees of comparison in the making. They offer the following proofs. First, polysyllabic qualitative adjectives like beautiful express properties that can be present in different degrees and therefore they can have degrees of comparison. Second, the analytical degrees of comparison with more and most have corresponding synthetic forms in -er and -est. Cf.: more beautiful -prettier, most beautiful -prettiest. Third, analytical forms In Modern English are constantly on the increase. All the above-mentioned arguments sound rather convincing. English grammarians do not use the terms synthetic and analytical forms of degrees of comparison. They speak of inflectional and phrasal comparison. The essence of the two sets of terms is the same. The relative infrequency of phrasal comparison reflects the generally lower frequency of polysyllabic adjectives, especially in conversation. Inflected comparative degree adjectives are about twice as frequent as inflected superlative degree adj ecti ves. The comparatively low frequency of superlatives in academic writing probably reflects a general reluctance to make extreme claims. In contrast, news reportage has the greatest frequency of superlatives, probably reflecting a focus on the extreme in the interests of attracting readers. If the superlative is used attributively, the definite article or some other definite determiner is required. Cf.: Anna is the/their youngest child (R. Quirk et al.). Delia is the most effective publisher in the office (R. Quirk et al.). Delia is our most effective publisher (R. Quirk et al.).
71

The choice between inflectional and phrasal comparison, as has already been shown, is largely determined by the length of the adjective. Although monosyllabic adjectives normally form the comparative and superlative degrees by inflection, most monosyllabic and disyllabic adjectives can also form their degrees of comparison with more and most. Phrasal forms are usually used for emphasis in spoken English. Cf.: You should be more proud of the things you've already achieved (M. Foley, D. Hall). / think this is the one she is the most proud of (M. Foley, D. Hail). In conversation, adjectives are occasionally doubly marked for degree, carrying both inflectional and phrasal markers. Cf.: // 's much more warmer in there (D. Biber et al.). She's a bit more nicer than Mrs. Jones (D. Biber et al.). Irregular Forms of Comparison Besides the already mentioned synthetic and analytical forms of degrees of comparison, there are irregular forms. A few adjectives have suppleti've forms of comparison that are derived from different roots, e.g.: good - better - best, bad'- worse - worst. Cf.: Is Lucille a good dancerl (C.E. Eckersley). You 're a much better cook than your mother was, Elisabeth (S. Sheldon). The best women are divorced... And the best men are married (A. Sillitoe). A few adjectives have two sets of degrees of comparison, e.g.: old - older - oldest (age in general), old- elder - eldest (age within the family). Cf: She is an old woman... (I. Shaw). His friends were older than Vivian (S. Sheldon). ... White's was one of the oldest clubs in England... (S. Sheldon). My elder brother was in a car accident last week (M. Swan). The eldest daughter does all the housework (M. Swan). Since the second set of forms (elder - eldest) has a meaning slightly different from the meaning of the positive degree (old), they
72

can hardly be regarded as grammatical forms of degrees of comparison, but should be qualified as separate lexical units which originally were, perhaps, grammatical degrees of comparison of the adjective old. Absolute Use of the Superlative Degree Adjectives in the superlative degree imply limitation, that's why the noun modified by an adjective in the superlative degree always combines with the definite article or one of the definite determiners, e.g.: It was one of the worst days for him (N. Hale). Since adjectives preceded by the definite article are easily substantivized, the superlative degree is often used absolutely, either with the head noun mentioned before or without any noun whatsoever. Cf: Their pool was perhaps the oldest in the country... (J. Cheever). ... the villa in Sardinia was her favourite. It was by no means the largest, but it was the most colourful, the friendliest (S. Sheldon). ... let's hope for the best (Lingaphone English Course). But if the worst comes to the worst, don't blame me (Lingaphone English Course). Substantivization of Adjectives Adjectives can be substantivized, i.e. become nouns. When adjectives are converted into nouns, they no longer indicate properties of substances, but come to express substances possessing these properties. In English, the process of substantivization is easier than in Russian due to the scantiness of inflections. Substantivization can be whole and partial. Adjectives wholly converted into nouns acquire not only the grammatical meaning of nouns but also their typical morphological and syntactic characteristics: 1) ability to form the plural, e.g.: All natives have good hands and feet (W.S. Maugham);
73

2) ability to be used in the genitive case, e.g.: He is investigating the ancients' conception of the universe (R. Quirk et al.); 3) ability to be used with the indefinite article, e.g.: I spoke the language like a native... (W,S. Maugham); 4) ability to be modified by an adjective, e.g.: My uncle is my nearest living relative (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 5) the functions of subject and/or object in the sentence, e.g.: A native -was silently rowing up-stream... (W.S. Maugham) subject; The government of the island treated the natives badly (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - object. More often substantivization is but partial. In the case of partial substantivization, adjectives acquire the grammatical meaning of nouns ('thingness'), the noun combinability with the definite article or some other definite determiner, and the noun functions of subject and/or object, e.g.: The poor must stand together everywhere (Th. Dreiser) subject. ... it seems to me I saw everybody but the dead (S. Bellow) -object. However, they lack the grammatical categories of case and number and never combine with the indefinite article. A.I. Smirnitsky thinks that in order to become a noun, an adjective must acquire number distinctions. That's why he does not recognize partial substantivization and treats cases like the rich, the poor, etc. as the use of adjectives without nouns. But the category of number is common only to countable nouns. Uncountable nouns stand outside the category of number. Nevertheless, nobody denies them the status of nouns. So, the argument of A.I. Smirnitsky is not convincing. R. Quirk and his co-authors do not recognize the existence of partial substantivization either. They treat cases of the kind the brave, the weak, etc. as adjectives, not as nouns converted from adjectives. They single out three types of such adjectives.

Type A: the innocent. Adjectives that can premodify personal nouns (the young people} can be noun-phrase heads (the young} denoting classes, categories, or types of people. These adjectives are restricted to generic reference and combine with plural predicate-verbs. They can be premodified and postmodified. Cf.: The extremely old need a great deal of attention (R. Quirk et al.). The young in spirit enjoy life (R. Quirk et al.). Although adjectives functioning as noun-phrase heads generally require a definite determiner, they can function without a determiner if they are conjoined or are used in an o/-construction. Cf: He is acceptable to both old and young (R. Quirk et al.). The number of jobless/unemployed is rising (R. Quirk et al.). Type B: the Dutch. Some adjectives denoting nationality can be noun-phrase heads. The adjectives in question are restricted to words ending in (i)sh, -ch, and -ese. These noun phrases have generic reference and combine with plural predicate-verbs. Unlike Type A, Type B cannot be modified by adverbs. However, they can be modified by prepositive adjectives, postpositive phrases, and relative clauses. Cf.: The industrious Dutch are admired by their neighbours (R. Quirk et al.). The Irish who live in America retain sentimental links with Ireland (R. Quirk et al.). Type C: the mystical. Some adjectives can function as noun-phrase heads with abstract reference. Type C is restricted chiefly to certain fixed expressions. Thus, for example, the supernatural, the exotic, the unreal are more likely to occur than the lovely, the foreign, the exciting. They include, in particular, superlatives. Like Type A, they can be modified by adverbs. Unlike Types A and B, Type C adjectives functioning as noun-phrase heads combine with singular predicate-verbs. Cf.: The very best is yet to come (R. Quirk et al.).

74

75

The conception of R. Quirk and his co-authors seems as vulnerable as that of A.I. Smirnitsky. Really, if cases of the kind the brave, the weak, etc. are adjectives, how can they function as heads of noun phrases? We shall follow those linguists who recognize the existence in Modern English of both whole and partial substantivization of adjectives. Adjectivization of Nouns The question of adjectivization of nouns presents a number of difficulties, too. Here we shall deal with such constructions as stone wall, peace talks, etc. In the opinion of B.A. Ilyish, it is practically impossible to prove whether stone in stone wall is a noun or an adjective. H. Sweet thinks that the first component in these constructions is a noun because it lacks the category of degrees of comparison. However, many adjectives have no degrees of comparison either. E.P. Shubin also refers the first component in constructions of the type stone wall to nouns. But taking into consideration that it always performs the function of an attribute, he finds it necessary to slightly modify the conception of H. Sweet by calling the first component an attributive noun. The term attributive noun stresses the transitional nature of such nouns, their tendency to turn into adjectives. According to O. Jespersen, they have already turned into adjectives. He puts forward the following arguments to prove his point of view. In the first place, they can combine with adjectives, e.g.: her Christian and family name (O. Jespersen). In the second place, they can be followed by the prop-word one, e.g.: two gold watches and a silver one (O. Jespersen). In the third place, they can be modified by prepositive adverbs, e.g.: on merely business grounds (O. Jespersen). In the fourth place, some of them can have degrees of comparison, e.g.: in a more everyday tone (O. Jespersen), in the most matter-of-fact way (O. Jespersen).
76

The divergence of views, in our opinion, is due to the gradual process of adjectivization. The latter is reflected in dictionaries. Thus, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English presents family and business as nouns. For silver it has two entries: silver (n) - a soft whitish precious metal, silver (adj) - made of silver. Solid and hyphenated compounds of the type everyday, matter-of-fact are qualified there as adjectives. Only time will show whether all the attributive nouns will turn into adjectives proper, but their adjectivization is an indisputable fact. It seems reasonable to follow D. Crystal and say that at the present stage nouns, which appear in the position associated with adjectives, form a 'mixed' word class.
The Problem ofStatives

A. Vostokov was the first to draw attention to a specific nature of statives in the system of the Russian language. But he did not study the problem closely. It was L.V. Scerba and V.V. Vinogradov who singled out such words as xonodno, ctipo, eece.io, stcwib into a separate part of speech. The first grammarian to mention statives in English was B.A. Ilyish. He thinks that words of the category of state, for instance, asleep, alive constitute a separate part of speech because they possess semantic, morphological, and syntactic characteristics of their own. Semantically, he says, statives are marked by the presence of a seme of state, as opposed to adjectives that express non-temporal property, e.g.: ... he had been asleep for some time... (J.K. Jerome), which means that he had been in a state of sleep for some time. In the opinion of L.S. Barkhudarov, the meaning of state is merely a variety of the meaning of non-temporal property typical of adjectives. So, in his opinion, statives do not differ from adjectives as far as their meaning is concerned. Morphologically, statives seem to stand apart from adjectives, for they have a specific prefix a- and lack the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. On closer inspection, the absence of degrees of comparison does not prove anything. On the one hand, there are a lot of adjectives that stand outside the grammatical
77

category of degrees of comparison. On the other hand, some of the so-called statives form degrees of comparison just like most qualitative adjectives, e.g.: The two main meals of the day, lunch and dinner, are both more or less alike (Lingaphone English Course). As for the prefix a-, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English regards it as an adjective-forming prefix. B.A. Ilyish thinks that statives possess the category of tense. He is asleep, in his opinion, refers to the present tense as opposed to He was asleep, which is past, and to He will be asleep, which is future. However, this point of view does not seem convincing. If one analyses the above-mentioned sentences, he will see that the category of tense finds its expression in the copular verb be (is, was, will be), not in the stative asleep, which, in itself, cannot express any tense distinctions. In other words, if the so-called statives do have morphological categories, it is the morphological category of degrees of comparison that they possess, common to adjectives. The combinability of statives and adjectives, according to L.S. Barkhudarov, is also alike. Thus, both adjectives and statives can be modified by adverbs and prepositional combinations. Cf: She was very happy (W.S. Maugham). In a minute she was fast asleep (P. Abrahams). He was conscious of a sense of adventure (W. Deeping). Yet he was aware of a sense of unreality (W. Deeping). The only thing that differentiates statives from adjectives is their syntactic function in the sentence. Adjectives are generally used both attributively and predicatively, statives - mainly predicatively: She is aloof from her classmates (S. Sheldon). ... his soul was ablaze with bliss (M. Twain). / was aware again of that feeling of discomfort (D. du Maurier). The criterion of syntactic function, however, is hardly sufficient for qualifying the words of a category of state as a separate part of speech, clearly distinct from adjectives. In the first place, some 'statives' can be and are used attributively, especially when they are premodified. Cf: an alert manner (R. Quirk et al.), an aloof character (R. Quirk et al.),
78

a somewhat afraid soldier (R. Quirk et al.), the fast asleep children (R. Quirk et al.), the wide awake patient (R. Quirk et al.). In the second place, there are some indisputable adjectives that are restricted to predicative position. The most common are those referring to the health or lack of health of an animate being, e.g.: He felt iWpoorfy/faint (R. Quirk et al.). That's why we shall look upon words with the prefix a- as a specific subclass of adjectives. 7. THE ADVERB Although the adverb as a separate part of speech was singled out in Ancient Grammar, its boundaries in English are still rather vague because the adverb is the most heterogeneous of all the English word classes. R. Quirk and his co-authors write that it is tempting to say simply that the adverb is an item that does not fit the definitions for other word classes. Nevertheless, modern grammars try to make adverbs less of a 'dustbin' class by identifying their main semantic, syntactic, and morphological characteristics. Classes of Adverbs and Their Characteristics Russian linguists generally draw a distinction between two classes of adverbs: qualitative and circumstantial. Qualitative adverbs have the following characteristics. 1. Meaning. Qualitative adverbs have a generalized grammatical secondary meaning of non-temporal property of a non-substantive referent, e.g.: quickly, slowly, nervously. 2. Combinability with: a) verbs in preposition and in postposition, e.g.: She sings beautifully (A.S. Hornby), I deeply regret the mistake (A.S. Hornby); b) adjectives in postposition, e.g.: Her exam results were very good (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); c) adverbs in preposition, e.g.: She sings verv_ well (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 79

3. Syntactic.Functions. Qualitative adverbs modify the verbal component of predication and perform the function of an adverbial of manner,
G*

The children were playing happily (A.S. Hornby). 4-Mprpholpgical.Stnjcture. Simple qualitative adverbs are very few, e.g.: well, hard, fast, etc. Most qualitative adverbs are derived. They are generally formed from adjectives with an -fy suffix, e.g.: calm - calmly. The present-day suffix -fy goes back to the Old English suffix -lie that was an adjective-forming suffix. A few adjectives with the suffix -fy have survived in Modern English, e.g.: friendly, lively, lovely, lonely, etc. They have no corresponding adverbs. To express an adverbial meaning one resorts to periphrastic constructions of the type: in a friendly way, in a lively manner, etc. In a number of cases there are two adverbs of the same root: one with the suffix ~fy, the other - without the suffix -ly. The adverb with the suffix -ly usually has a more abstract or a figurative meaning; the adverb without the suffix -ly generally has a more concrete meaning. Cf.: She threw the ball high into the air (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). She speaks very highly of your work (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Sometimes there is no essential difference between the adverb with the suffix -ly and the adverb without the suffix -ly. Cf.: Samuel laughed loudly (J. Steinbeck). They laughed loud and long (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). When the derived and the simple qualitative adverbs coincide in their meaning, there is a growing tendency to use in conversation the adverb without the suffix -ly, particularly in colloquial American English, e.g.: The big one went so slow (D. Biber et al). The derivational suffixes -long and -ward(s) are not productive in the domain of qualitative adverbs, e.g.: headlong ), sideways (SOKOM, HCKOCH).

5- Morphological,Categories. Qualitative adverbs have the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. Cf: fast -faster -fastest, clearly - more clearly - most clearly. Circumstantial adverbs have the following characteristics. 1. Meaning. Circumstantial adverbs denote various circumstances attending an action, e.g.: here, there, yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc. 2. Combinability with: a) notional verbs in preposition, e.g.: How long have you lived here? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); b) the copular verb be in preposition, e.g.: They^re here! (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); c) nouns in preposition and in postposition, e.g.: the meeting yesterday (R. Quirk et al.), that man there (R. Quirk et al.), an outside door (R. Quirk et al.), the then President (E.A.M. Wilson); d) adverbs in preposition and in postposition, e.g.: Come and sit over here (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English), far beyond (E.A.M. Wilson); e) prepositions, e.g.: She lives a few miles from here (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); f) prepositional combinations in postposition, e.g.: They travelled far from home (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 3. Syntactic.Functions. When circumstantial adverbs modify the verbal component of predication, they perform the function of an adverbial, e.g.: Come here (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). When circumstantial adverbs modify the predication as a whole, they perform the function of a situational modifier and are usually placed in the initial position, e.g.:

80

81

He opened the doo*. Now the noise was very loud (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). When circumstantial adverbs combine with a copular verb, they perform the function of a predicative, e.g.: We 're nearly there (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). When circumstantial adverbs modify a substantival component, they perform the function of an attribute. Cf.: We shall need outside help for this job (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). The light outside faded (J. Parsons). 4. Morphological ..Structure. Circumstantial adverbs are usually either simple, e.g.: now, then, soon, here, there, etc. or compound, e.g.; sometimes, somewhere, everywhere, downstairs, etc. Derivative circumstantial adverbs are few, e.g.: backward(s), forward(s), homeward(s), etc. As for phrasal adverbs of the type: on purpose, at last, from time to time, etc., we qualify them as adverb equivalents because they consist of several words. 5. MprpholPBicalCate^gries. Most circumstantial adverbs are invariable. The adverbs often, soon, and late have the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. Degrees of Comparison Comparative and superlative forms are used more commonly for adjectives than adverbs. English adverbs usually have two degrees of comparison: positive and comparative. The superlative degree of adverbs is used very rarely. Most adverbs are invariable. It is only qualitative adverbs and the circumstantial adverbs often, soon, and late that have degrees of comparison. The category of degrees of comparison of adverbs is similar to that of adjectives: simple adverbs are marked inflectionally for comparative and superlative degrees; derived adverbs in -ly form their degrees of comparison with more and most. Cf.: hard - harder - hardest, late - later - latest, carefully more carefully - most carefully.

The only exception is the adverb early formed by conversion from the adjective early, which is inflectionally marked for the comparative and the superlative degrees: early - earlier earliest. In some cases, an adverb can be made comparative either with the -er inflection or with the use of more. Cf.: slowly - slower (more slowly), quickly - quicker (more quickly), often - oftener (more often). Oftener is used by a small number of writers in fiction. All the other registers use more often, The qualitative adverbs well and badly have suppletive forms of comparison that are derived from different roots: well - better - best, badly - worse - worst. The adverb far has two sets of degrees of comparison: far -farther -farthest, far -further -furthest. In British English, both sets of degrees of comparison are used to refer to distance, with no difference of meaning: I have to walk farther/further than him (V. Evans). In American English, only farther is used in this sense. The Conception ofAJ. Smirnitsky According to A.I. Smirnitsky, circumstantial and qualitative adverbs are too heterogeneous to be united in one class. First of all, they differ semantically: circumstantial adverbs give an external characteristic of an action; qualitative adverbs give an internal characteristic of an action. Second, they differ syntactically. Since circumstantial adverbs give an external characteristic of an action, they are not inwardly connected with the verb they are said to modify and do not form a word combination with it. Circumstantial adverbs usually refer not to the verb, but to the sentence as a whole. Giving an inward characteristic of an action, qualitative adverbs are inwardly bound with the verb of the sentence and form with it an attributive word combination similar to that formed by an adjective with a noun. Cf.: 83

82

He speaks slowly. A slow speech. They live happily. A happy life. Qualitative adverbs can modify not only verbs but also adjectives. The relationship between a qualitative adverb and the adjective it modifies is similar to that between an adjective and the noun it modifies. Cf.: wonderfully beautiful ~ wonderful beauty, awfully dark - awful darkness. Circumstantial adverbs freely combine with the verb be, e.g.: We shall soon be there (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). Qualitative adverbs generally do not combine with the verb be. One of the few exceptions is the adverb well, e.g.: I'm quite well, thank you (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). All is well that ends well (Proverb). Third, circumstantial and qualitative adverbs differ morphologically. Circumstantial adverbs have no regular connection with any other part of speech. As for qualitative adverbs, they are usually formed from adjectives with an -ly suffix, which is a productive adverb-forming suffix in Modern English. Since qualitative adverbs have the same stem as adjectives, dictionary compilers very often do not make a separate entry for them. Just like qualitative adjectives, qualitative adverbs have degrees of comparison. In view of the fact that qualitative ^adverbs in -ly are semantically, syntactically, and morphologically closer to adjectives than to circumstantial adverbs, A.I. Smirnitsky suggests that they should be regarded as grammatical forms of adjectives. Adjectives, in his opinion, have two forms: adjectival and adverbial. The adjectival form is used in the function of an attribute to a noun. The adverbial form in -ly is used in the function of an attribute to a verb or an adjective. In other words, A.I. Smirnitsky recognizes the existence of circumstantial adverbs only. There is a grain of truth in his conception. However, since most linguists refer formations in -ly to qualitative adverbs, we shall regard them as adverbs, too. Adverbs can name properties and circumstances or point to them. L.S. Barkhudarov and D.A. Shteling call adverbs that point to
84

properties or circumstances pronominal adverbs because, just like pronouns, they have a very general meaning, e.g.: then, when, there, here, where, somewhere, anywhere, nowhere, everywhere, thus, so, how, sometimes, always, ever, never, etc. Some pronominal adverbs, the so-called conjunctive adverbs, introduce direct questions and dependent clauses. Cf.: When did that happen? (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). / don't know when that happened (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya single out a third class of adverbs - quantitative adverbs that show the degree, measure, or quantity of an action, quality, or state. This class, in their opinion, includes such adverbs as very, rather, too, nearly, greatly, fully, hardly, quite, utterly, twofold, etc. Cf.: It's very warm today (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). She was a rather big woman... (W.S. Maugham). This dress is too small for me (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The train was nearly full (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). My mother was quite a passionate woman (J.D. Salinger). English grammarians do not classify adverbs into qualitative, circumstantial, and quantitative. They merely enumerate the semantic categories covered by adverbs. Thus, D. Biber and his coauthors mention 7 semantic types of adverbs: adverbs of place, time, manner, degree, additive adverbs (too, also, etc.), stance adverbs (probably, definitely, actually, really, apparently, mainly, typically, unfortunately, frankly, etc.) and linking adverbs (first, secondly, thirdly, altogether, namely, therefore, thus, though, however, etc.).

85

8. THE VERB General Characteristics

The following features are commonly considered to be characteristic of the verb. 1. Meaning. Verbs have either a generalized lexico-grammatical primary meaning of temporal property, e.g.: run, sleep, eat, etc. or a generalized grammatical secondary meaning of temporal property, e.g.: quicken, nationalize, etc. 2. Cpmbinabijity. A. Intransitive verbs combine with nouns in preposition; transitive verbs combine with nouns both in preposition and in postposition. Cf.: Your brother is waiting downstairs (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). No servants had entered the room (N. Monsarrat). B. Intransitive verbs may combine with adverbs in postposition, e.g.: She smiled and laughed easily (Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English). C. Intransitive and copular verbs may combine with adjectives in postposition, e.g.: They both lay still for a long time (E. Caldwell). George grew red in the face (W.S. Maugham). 3..Syntactic:..Functions. Notional verbs perform the function of a predicate; auxiliary, copular, aspectual, and modal verbs make part of a predicate. Cf.: The British invented football (L. and I. Soars). /'// wake them (R. Lardner). Bill became serious (J. Steinbeck). We stopped working at tea-time (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). You can use my computer (P. Viney). 4. .Morphological .Structure. Verbs can be simple (ask, say, come, go, etc,), derived, and compound. Derived verbs have either a prefix or a suffix or both. Verb derivational prefixes usually do not change the word class; i.e.
86

a verb prefix is attached to a verb root to form a new verb with a changed meaning, e.g.: cook overcook. The most common verb derivational prefixes are: re- (rewrite), dis- (dislike), over(overeat), un- (unpack), mis- (mislead), and out- (outgrow). Verb derivational suffixes usually change the word class; i.e. a verb suffix is attached to a noun or an adjective base to form a verb with a different meaning, e.g.: class - classify, black-blacken. There are few derivational suffixes used for verb formation. The most productive verb derivational suffixes are: -ize/ise (characterize), -en (moisten), -ate (differentiate), and -(i)fy (notijy). The most productive way of forming new verbs is zero derivation (or conversion), e.g.: a book (n) - to book (v), better (adj) - to better (v), etc. Another productive means of verb building is back formation, i.e. the creation of a new word from a false derivative by omitting the elements traditionally qualified as suffixes. Cf.: a beggar (n) - to beg (v), an editor (n) - to edit (v). Blends, i.e. verbs formed by means of merging parts of two words into one, are also characterized by a high frequency of occurrence in Modern English. Cf: grumble = growl + rumble, clash = clap + crash, flush =flash + blush. The method of clipping consists in the cutting of one or several syllables of a word. Clipping is not typical of verbs since clipped verbs are generally formed by means of conversion from the corresponding clipped nouns. The derivational process can be represented in the following way: a telephone (n) - a phone (n) <clipping> - to phone (v) <conversion>. Sound interchange is not productive either, e.g.: food feed, blood - bleed. Neither is the change of stress, e.g.: 'export - (to) ex'port,
87

'transport (to) trans'port. At the synchronic level, it is only verbs with prefixes or suffixes that are truly derived. The derivative nature of verbs formed by means of conversion, back formation, blending, clipping, sound interchange, and change of stress becomes evident only at the diachronic level. Synchronically, they are regarded as simple verbs. Compound verbs include at least two stems, e.g.: broadcast, whitewash, etc. Compounding is not a productive means of forming new verbs. The so-called phrasal verbs consist of two words: a verbal stem and an adverbial particle, which is usually referred to as postposition and, strictly speaking, should be excluded from the class of verbs. However, since the meaning of phrasal verbs often cannot be predicted from the meanings of the individual parts, English grammarians regard them as a subclass of verbs. In our opinion, they had better be called verb equivalents. Here are a few examples: find out - discover, obtain information, give in yield, bring up - raise, educate. This is one of the most productive ways of forming new verbs. No wonder that R. Courtney compiled a dictionary of phrasal verbs. Unfortunately, it includes not only combinations of verbs with postpositions but also combinations of verbs with prepositions. The use of a preposition often does change the meaning of a verb. Cf.: look after, look at, look for, etc. But the preposition makes part of the following noun phrase, not of the verb. Cf.: Who will look after the children while you go out to work? (R. Courtney). A cat may look at a king (L. Carroll). Are you still looking for a job? (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). That's why combinations of the kind look after, look at, look for, etc. can hardly be called phrasal verbs or verb equivalents. 5. MprpkQlQSical. Categories. Morphologically, the verb is the most developed part of speech. It has the grammatical categories of person, number, tense, aspect, phase, posteriority, mood, and voice.

Major Verb Classes

Morphplogical .Classes of Verbs The English verb has three basic forms: infinitive, past indefinite, and Participle II. According to the way the past indefinite and Participle II are formed, verbs are divided into regular and irregular. Regular verbs go back to the so-called weak verbs in Old English. They form the past indefinite and Participle II by the suffix -(e)dft\aH originated from the verb do, e.g.: to move - moved - moved, to look - looked - looked. Since they constitute the majority of verbs, it is logical to call them regular verbs. Besides weak verbs, Old English had seven classes of strong verbs that distinguished their main forms by means of vowel gradation. In the course of time, radical changes have taken place in the domain of strong verbs. Some strong verbs have joined the weak conjugation; some have dropped out of use altogether. Nowadays, about 200 verbs depart from the regular way of forming the past indefinite and Participle II. Hence, the term 'irregular verbs'. English grammarians single out seven classes of irregular verbs in the modern language. 1. Class 1 verbs take a voiceless -t suffix to mark both the past indefinite and Participle II. It can replace a final -d of the infinitive, or it may be added to the infinitive. Cf.: to build - built - built, to learn - learnt ~ learnt. 2. Class 2 verbs take a -t or -d suffix to mark both the past indefinite and Participle II, with a change in the infinitive vowel. Cf.: to feel-felt-felt, to sell - sold - sold. 3. Class 3 verbs take the regular -ed suffix for the past indefinite but the -(e)n suffix for Participle II, e.g.: to show - showed shown. 4. Class 4 verbs have no suffix for the past indefinite but take the suffix ~(e)n for Participle n, with a change in the infinitive vowel for one or both. Cf.: 89

88

5. C lass 5 verbs have the past indefinite and Participle II marked only by a change in the infinitive vowel, e.g.: 6. Class 6 verbs have past indefinite forms and Participle II forms identical to the infinitive forms, e.g.:
to cut - cut cut. to go - went gone, to be was, were - been. to begin - began - begun, to sit - sat - sat.

to give - gave - given, to break - broke broken.

Have got in American English has a meaning roughly equivalent to have as a lexical verb, e.g.: Look at that face. He hasn 'tgot any teeth (D. Biber et al.). This example means He doesn't have any teeth/He doesn't possess any teeth rather than the true perfective use of get with the meaning He hasn't obtained any teeth. Have you got an exam on Monday? (D. Biber et al.). We have got ourselves into a rut (D. Biber et al.).

In British E nglish, both the sim ple and the perfective meanings are typically realized have got.Cf: by Nptional/Semi-Ngtipnal/Fun^ Taking into consideration the lexical m eaning and the syntactic function of verbs, linguists divide them into notional, semi-notional, and functional. A notional verb possesses a full lexical meaning of its own and forms a simple verbal predicate, e.g.:

1. Class 7 verbs have one or more suppletive forms, e.g.:

M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya think that the seven classes of irregular verbs can be reduced to three main types: consonantal, vocalic, and unchangeable. There is no one-to-one correspondence between the group of regular and weak verbs, on the one hand, irregular and strong verbs, on the other. The group of regular verbs includes etymological ly both weak and strong verbs, e.g.: grip, glide, lie, help, swallow, wash, shave, laugh, walk, while in the group of irregular verbs etc.; there are a number of etymologically weak verbs, e.g.: put, hide, send, teach,etc. For many verbs, regular and irregular variants can be used both as past indefinite and Participle II forms, e.g.:
to burn - burnt (burned) - burnt (burned), to dream - dreamt (dreamed) - dreamt (dreamed), to learn - learnt (learned) - learnt (learned), to smell - smelt (smelled) - smelt (swelled), to spoil - spoilt (spoiled) - spoilt (spoiled).

The historical trend is towards a greater use of the regular -ed pattern. So it is not surprising that American English has a stronger preference for the regular variant of these verbs than British English. It is unexpected, however, to find conversation more conservative than the written registers in using the irregular forms. The verbget has two irregular Participle II variants that occur following have: got and gotten. The form gotten is used in American English and almost always has a perfective meaning, e.g.:
/ can't believe Ginger's bike hasn't gotten stolen yet (D. Biber et al.). 90

Actions speak louder than words (Proverb). The group of semi-notional verbs is constituted by aspectual verbs and verbs with a modal shade of meaning which do not weaken or lose their lexical meaning but which cannot form a predicate by themselves. They make part of a compound verbal aspective or modal predicate. Cf.: It started raining (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). She wants to go to Italy (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). Functional verbs either lose or weaken their lexical meaning, but retain all the grammatical meanings common to the verb. In a sentence, they form part of a predicate. Functional verbs include auxiliary, copular, and modal verbs. I did not answer (T. Chevalier).

Auxiliary verbs constitute the first component of an analytical form of a simple verbal predicate, e.g.: e.g.: Copular verbs form part of a compound nominal predicate,

My daughter is tired today (T. Chevalier). It is customary to classify copular verbs into three groups: 1)copulas of being, e.g.: be, feel, look, smell, taste, etc.; 2)copulas of becoming, e.g.: become, grow, get, turn, etc.; 3)copulas of remaining, e.g.: remain, continue, keep, stay, etc. 91

Modal verbs form part of a compound verbal modal predicate, / could go back to my parents (T. Chevalier). Auxiliary, copular, and modal verbs can also function as verbsubstitutes. In this case they are stressed. Cf: / hear the tour went wonderfully. - It did (S. Sheldon). But I-want you to be proud of me. -lam (S. Sheldon), Change your mind. -I can't (S. Sheldon). Auxiliary, copular, and modal verbs are referred to the class of intensifiers when special emphasis is put on them, e.g.: / am telling the truth -you must believe me (M. Swan). // was a nice party] (M. Swan). Imperative sentences and declarative sentences with the predicate-verb in the present or past indefinite are made emphatic by means of the intensifier do, which is always pronounced with strong stress. Cf.: Do sit down (M. Swan). Ida like the sun on my face (T. Chevalier). She does talk a lot, doesn 't she? (M. Swan). Why didn 'tyou tell him? -Idid tell him (M. Swan). Semantic.Domains.of Verbs Although many verbs have more than one meaning, D. Biber and his co-authors find it possible to classify verbs into seven major semantic domains. 1. Activity verbs. Activity verbs primarily denote actions and events that could be associated with choice, and so take a subject with the semantic role of agent, e.g.: bring, buy, carry, come, give, go, leave, move, open, run, take, work, etc. Cf: / bought this car from Chris (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). We went to France for our holidays (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 2. Communication verbs. Communication verbs can be considered a special subclass of activity verbs that involve communication activities (speaking and writing), e.g.: ask, announce, call, discuss, explain, say, shout, speak, state, suggest, talk, tell, write, etc. Cf.: I told him my name (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).
92

George wrote me that he couldn 't come (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 3. Mental verbs. Mental verbs denote a wide range of activities and states experienced by humans. They do not involve physical action and do not necessarily entail volition. Their subject often has the semantic role of recipient. They include both cognitive meanings (e.g. think, know, etc.) and emotional meanings expressing various attitudes or desires (e.g. love, want, etc.), together with perception (e.g. see, taste, etc.) and receipt of communication (e.g. read, hear, etc.). Cf: / don 't know what he wants (T. Chevalier). I love you (D. Robins). Can you see that ship on the horizon? (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). / read that the new director is Spanish (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 4. Causative verbs. Causative verbs, such as allow, cause, enable, force, help, let, acquire, permit, etc. indicate that some person or inanimate entity brings about a new state of affairs. Cf.: His illness caused him to miss the game (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). / helped him find his things (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). 5. Occurrence verbs. Occurrence verbs report events (typically physical events) that occur apart from any volitional activities. They include such verbs as become, change, happen, develop, grow, increase, occur, etc. Cf.: H e b e c a m e a d o c t o r ( A. S . H o r n b y , A . P. C o w i e , A.C. Gimson). In autumn the leaves change from green to brown (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 6. Existence verbs. Existence verbs report a state that exists between entities, e.g.: be, seem, appear, exist, live, stay, contain, include, involve, represent, etc. Cf.: The book seems quite interesting (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). 93

This atlas contains fifty maps... (A.S, Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). 7. Aspectual verbs. Aspectual verbs, such as begin, continue, finish, keep, start, stop, etc. characterize the stage of progress of some other event or activity. Cf.: / began to cry silently (T. Chevalier). My parents kept encouraging me to study (M. Swan). Richard stopped playing and came towards us (D. Robins). Aspectiye Character of Verbs The first attempt to classify verbs in accordance with their aspective character was made by E. Kruisinga and H. Poutsma. However, neither was a success because both failed to distinguish the aspective character in the meaning of the verb from the grammatical category of aspect. G.N. Vorontsova has overcome this drawback. She regards the distinction between terminative verbs, non-termi native verbs, and verbs of double nature as lexical. Terminative verbs, in her opinion, denote an action implying a certain limit beyond which it cannot go on. They answer the question ^fmo cdejiamb? Cf.: come, bring, stop, rise, reach, catch, leave, etc. Thus, in the verb come the internal limit is constituted by the moment of coming. When this limit is reached, the action is regarded as completed. No further development is possible. Non-terminative verbs denote actions that do not imply any limit. They answer the question ^imo dejiamb? Non-terminative verbs are few in number. As a rule, they are verbs denoting state, e.g.: go, sleep, exist, stand, sit, speak, etc. The absence of the internal limit in non-terminative verbs is relative, of course. We are born and we die. Nevertheless, we qualify the verb live as nonterminative. The aspective character of verbs of double nature varies in accordance with the situation. Cf: When it's a nice day I walk to work, otherwise I go by bus (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - non-terminative meaning. We must have walked ten miles today (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - terminative meaning.

The division of verbs into terminative, non-terminative, and verbs of double nature, suggested by G.N. Vorontsova, is not devoid of drawbacks either. According to V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik, there are no grounds for qualifying the distinction as lexical since the meanings of terminativeness and nonterminativesness do not constitute words as such but only accompany the lexical meaning of words, which is characteristic of grammatical meanings. The opposition 'terminative verbs - nonterminative verbs', however, does not form a grammatical category because to constitute a grammatical category grammatical meanings must have constant grammatical forms of their expression. As for the distinction of terminative and non-terminative verbs, it is not based on any difference in form. Such grammatical meanings are called dependent grammatical meanings. Syndetic. Classes, of Verbs In accordance with their combinability, verbs are usually divided into transitive and intransitive. Transitive verbs, in the opinion of H. Sweet, combine with a direct object, e.g.: Boys like jam (H. Sweet). Verbs that do not take a direct object after them are called by him intransitive, e.g.: He fell (H. Sweet). This definition is easily applied to inflected languages, such as Russian, for instance, in which the direct object is expressed by a substantive word in the accusative case. In English, things are different. The almost complete absence of inflections makes it difficult to distinguish between direct and indirect objects. Thus, in the sentence / gave David a book (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A,C. Gimson) both the indirect object David and the direct object a book are inflectionally non-marked. That's why A.L Smirnitsky gives the following definition: transitive verbs are those that take non-prepositional objects; intransitive verbs are those that take prepositional objects. L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Shteling, N. A. Ko b r i n a , E. A . K o r n e y e v a , M . I . Os s o v s k a y a a n d K.A. Guzeyeva widen the domain of transitive verbs by including into them verbs that combine with prepositional objects, e.g.: He was waiting for me (T. Chevalier). It is impossible to make a sharp distinction between transitive and intransitive verbs because transitive verbs can be used

94

95

intransitively and intransitive verbs are often converted into transitive by a slight change of meaning. Cf.: He sold the car at a good price (E.A.M. Wilson). His new novel is setting well (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). He worked hard (O. Jespersen). He worked his servants hard (O. Jespersen). That's why O. Jespersen suggests that we should speak not of transitive and intransitive verbs, but rather of transitive and intransitive use of verbs. Following O. Jespersen, V.L. Kaushanskaya and her coauthors, L.S. Barkhudarov and D.A. Shteling propose drawing a distinction between the primary and secondary meaning in verbs. Accordingly, they single out two verb classes. 1.Verbs whose primary meaning is transitive and whose secondary meaning is intransitive. Here belong such verbs as sell, read, act, etc. 2.Verbs whose primary meaning is intransitive and whose secondary meaning is transitive. Here belong such verbs as work, walk, run, etc. Unfortunately, it is not always easy to say which meaning is primary and which is secondary. The Grammatical Categories of Person and Number Person and number in Indo-European languages are expressed simultaneously, i.e. a morpheme expressing person also expresses number. English verbs distinguish two numbers - singular and plural. Nowadays, the only distinction between the singular and the plural is that the third person singular of the present tense, indicative mood, non-continuous aspect, non-perfect phase, active voice ends in ~(e)s in the singular. Modal verbs have no -(e)s in this case because their present tense form was originally past. In the past and future, the English verb has no number distinctions but for the only example was as opposed to the plural were. The category of person in Modern English has certain peculiarities, too. 96

1. The only person inflection of English regular verbs in the present tense is the -(e)s of the third person singular, e.g.: He studies. The verb be has special forms for the first, second, and third persons. Cf.: lam, you are., he/she/it is. 2.Person distinctions do not go with the meaning of the past tense in English. 3.As regards the future tense, the first person singular and plural (shall) is opposed to all the rest (will). These distinctions, however, are being gradually obliterated a) through the ousting of the verb shall by the verb will; b) through the spreading of the contracted form '// for all persons in the singular and in the plural. In all other cases, it is generally the personal pronoun in the function of the subject that indicates the person and number of the verb. B.A. Ilyish regards pronouns in the nominative case as verbal prefixes rendering the grammatical meanings of person and number. hi the opinion of A.I. Smirnitsky, personal pronouns preceding a finite verb can hardly be regarded either as being or tending to become verbal morphemes similar to the -(e)s morpheme of the third person singular. He puts forward the following arguments. 1. Personal pronouns in the nominative case can be used not only as subjects. For instance, in formal English they are used as predicatives and adverbial s of comparison: It is I (M. Swan). It was he (M. Swan). He was older and so much wiser than I (D. Robins). 2. They can move about in the sentence. Cf.: He gets up at 7 o'clock (R. Murphy) - before the predicateverb. Does he get up at 7 o 'clock? - inside the predicate-verb. 3. They can be coordinated with the help of conjunctions, e.g.: Neither you nor I could do it (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). 4. They can be coordinated with nouns, e.g.: Neither my father nor I were there (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 97

The arguments of A.I. Smirnitsky prove rather convincingly that personal pronouns in the function of the subject are independent words, not grammatical morphemes of person and number. Neither can they be treated as auxiliary elements of analytical words. In the first place, they are not used when a verb has a nounsubject. Thus, we say Lara rose to her feet (S. Sheldon), not *Lara she rose to her feet, which would be natural if she rose were an analytical word. In the second place, if a personal pronoun with the following verb formed an analytical word, cases of the kind Doesn 't matter (W. Trevor) would be impossible. But they do occur in English. So, the English verb can express number independently in the absence of a personal pronoun in the nominative case. The Grammatical Category of Tense

The verb usually denotes processes, and processes proceed in time. The concept of time is common to all mankind and is independent of language. Time is universally conceived as something having one dimension only, thus capable of being represented by a straight line: A: Past B: Present
C: Future

The main divisions of objective time are past, present, and future. Or, rather, we may say that time is divided into two parts: the past and the future, the point of division being the present moment, which has no dimension but is constantly fleeting. It is the borderline where the nature becomes the past. In reality, the relation between the present, the past, and the future is much more complicated. The present is reflected in speech not as a mere point, but as a more or less long period of time including the present moment. The past is the time preceding the present moment. The future is the time following the present moment. Neither of them includes the present moment. Tense is a verbal category that represents linguistic expression of time relations, so far as these are indicated in verb forms. Many linguists look upon tense distinctions as the main characteristic of
98

the verb. However, one should not overestimate the role of the category of tense in the system of the verb. In the first place, there exist languages that do not have the category of tense in the verb, e.g. the Hopi language. In the second place, languages that do have the category of tense may have a number of verbs that are invariable in so far as tense distinctions are concerned. For instance, the verb ought in English has only one form, i.e. it stands outside the grammatical category of tense. In the third place, time distinctions can be expressed not only by forms of verbs, i.e. grammatically, but also lexically, e.g.: on the 11' of February, at nine o'clock in the morning, etc. B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya mention the following points of difference between lexical and grammatical expression of time. 1.Lexically, it is possible to name any definite moment or period of time: a century, a month, a week, a day, an hour, a minute, a second, etc. The grammatical meaning of tense is an abstraction from only three tenses: the present, the past, and the future. 2.Lexically, a period of time is named directly, e.g.: on Monday. The grammatical indication of time is extremely generalized. Thus, a verb in the past tense shows that the action took place in the past, without saying when exactly. 3.The lexical meaning of time is absolute; the grammatical meaning of tense is relative. For instance, goes denotes a present action because it is contrasted with -went denoting a past action and with will go naming a future action. In Old English, there existed two tenses: the present and the past Cf.: Ic cume (I come). Ic com (I came). There was no special tense form for the future. Actions referring to the future used to be expressed by the form of the present tense, often in conjunction with an adverbial, e.g.: Ic ga sona (I soon go). Very often the idea of futurity became clear from the context only. The starting point of the present-day analytical future tense form was the free phrase 'sculan (willan) + infinitive'. The

development of the future tense belongs to the Middle English

99

period, when the verbs \villan and sculan gradually lost their primary lexical meaning and became auxiliaries, O. Jespersen denies the existence of the future tense in English. On analyzing the constructions with shall and will, which are generally looked upon as future tense forms, O. Jespersen draws the conclusion that the verbs shall and will retain, to a certain degree, their original lexical meanings of volition and obligation and cannot be treated as pure tense auxiliaries, although they approach that function especially when applied to atmospheric conditions, e.g.: On June the twenty-first the sun will rise at 3.42 ana" set at 5.75 (AS. Hornby). Speaking about the future tense, A.I. Smirnitsky also stresses the fact that it stands somewhat apart from the present and the past. The future tense represents something as not yet realized; consequently, it is often modally coloured. Besides, the verbs shall and -will, used to render futurity, are not always mere auxiliaries. In a number of cases, especially when will is used with the first person and shall - with the second and third persons, they preserve their modal meaning and cannot be looked upon as tense auxiliaries. Cf.: I will do as Hike (A.S. Hornby). You shall suffer for this\ (M. Swan). Nevertheless, A.I. Smirnitsky recognizes the existence of the future tense as a grammatical form. Sentences of the type: Tomorrow will be Sunday (A.S. Hornby) and My father will be seventy-five in May (A.S. Hornby), in his opinion, express mere futurity, free from any modal shades of meaning. The wide use of the contracted form 'II both for shall and will also testifies to the fact that the verbs in question lose their respective meanings and turn into pure auxiliaries. R. Quirk and his co-authors, D. Biber and his co-authors also deny the existence of the future tense in English, but for a different reason. They say that English verbs are not inflected for the future tense. Really, English verbs are inflected only for present and past tenses. But English is an analytical language, and it often expresses grammatical meanings not by inflections, but by auxiliary words. The future tense is just a case in point. Linguists who regard perfect and continuous forms as tense forms find a lot of tenses in Modern English [e.g, H. Sweet]. If 100

perfect and continuous were tense forms, we would have a unity of several tenses in one form, e.g.: present and perfect in present perfect; present, perfect, and continuous in present perfect continuous, etc. But one grammatical form cannot express several grammatical meanings characteristic of the same grammatical category, i.e. one form cannot express two or more tenses simultaneously. Consequently, perfect and continuous cannot be regarded as tense forms. There exist only three grammatical tenses in Modern English: present, past, and future. A close study of present and past tense forms has led D. Biber and his co-authors to the conclusion that the present tense is strongly associated with mental verbs and existence verbs, while the past tense is strongly associated with activity verbs and communication verbs. The distribution of present and past tense forms differs considerably across registers. The preference for present tense forms is particularly strong in conversation and academic prose, but for quite different reasons. In conversation, the reliance on present tense reflects the speakers' general focus on the immediate context. Academic prose, on the other hand, uses the present tense not so much to focus on the immediate context, as to convey the idea that the propositions are true, regardless of time. In contrast, fiction writers use past tense forms much more frequently than present tense forms. In fact, many fictional narratives are written entirely in the past tense, with present tense verbs being used only in the direct speech attributed to fictional characters. News uses both present and past tense forms to about the same extent. All the verbal categories, the category of tense including, can be represented in the form of oppositions. The theory of oppositions has been worked out on the basis of phonology by N. Trubetzkoy, a representative of the Prague linguistic school. It was also N. Trubetzkoy who wrote on the applicability of the opposition theory to grammar. A morphological opposition is a contrast of two morphological units possessing a ground for comparison and a basis for distinction. In the category of tense, we have two oppositions: present - past and present - fature. 101

The ground for comparison in these oppositions is the relation to the present moment. The present tense includes the present moment; the past tense excludes the present moment, expressing priority to it; the future tense also excludes the present moment, expressing posteriority to it. Each member of tense oppositions has a specific form. The present tense is homonymous with the base of the verb [in the third person singular the inflection -(e)s is added]; the past tense is characterized by the dental suffix -(e)d\ the future tense is formed by means of the word will with the following infinitive. Since all the members of tense oppositions are characterized by their own specific meaning and form, tense oppositions are referred by T.B. Khlebnikova to equipollent oppositions. Oppositions as paradigmatic phenomena are realized on the syntagmatic axis in speech situations, which can create conditions where one of the differential features of the opposition may prove irrelevant in the given context. The unmarked member that possesses a more general meaning appears in the position of neutralization. In the process of morphological neutralization, it is not the form that is neutralized, but the meaning, or rather one component of the meaning relevant for the given opposition and on which the opposition is built. Consequently, those oppositions are generally neutralized, the relations between whose members are not polar. In view of the fact that tense oppositions are equipollent, i.e. polar, they refer to permanent oppositions. The Grammatical Category of Aspect Aspect is a verbal grammatical category showing the way in which the action develops. The modern English aspect based on the contrast of continuous and non-continuous forms begins to take root in the Middle English period. The continuous aspect goes back to the Old English free phrase 'beon/wesan + Participle I'. The problem of aspect in Modern English admits of four interpretations: 1)aspect is a semantic category, 2)there is no category of aspect in Modern English,

3) the category of aspect is closely connected with the category of tense and cannot be severed from it, 4) the category of aspect is a specific grammatical category. The semantic classification of aspects in English is carried out by G. Curme who finds it possible to single out five aspects: 1) the durative aspect representing the action as continuing, e.g.: Mother is baking a cake now (V. Evans); 2) the ingressive aspect directing the attention to the initial stage of the action or state, e.g.: She began crying (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson); 3) the effective aspect directing the attention to the final point of the activity or state, e.g.: We stopped talking (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson); 4) the terminative aspect indicating an action as a whole, e.g.: She read about the murder in the paper (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 5) the iterative aspect naming a succession of like acts, e.g.: When we were children, we would go skating every week (M. Swan). The grammatical category of aspect, like any grammatical category, should have constant grammatical forms of its expression. In G. Curme's classification, it is only the durative and the terminative aspects that can be looked upon as grammatical aspects since to express the durative aspect we usually employ the ing-form, and the terminative aspect is generally associated with the base of the verb. As for the so-called iterative, ingressive, and effective aspects, they cannot be referred to the grammatical category of aspect because they lack constant grammatical forms of their expression. H. Sweet and O. Jespersen deny the existence of the category of aspect altogether. They look upon continuous forms as tense forms. If it were so, continuous forms would represent a unity of two tenses: present and continuous in present continuous, past and continuous in past continuous, future and continuous in future continuous. But we know that no grammatical form exists that could combine in itself two meanings of one and the same grammatical category.

102

103

V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik and some other linguists think that the category of aspect forms an inseparable whole with the category of tense. The majority of linguists, however, are of opinion that although the grammatical categories of aspect and tense are interrelated, they can and should be separated for linguistic analysis because they characterize the verbal action from different angles: tense refers the action to this or that time sphere, aspect describes the manner in which the action develops in this time sphere. The majority of linguists speak of two aspects in Modern English: continuous and non-continuous (or common). The continuous aspect is marked both in form ('be + Participle P) and in meaning (it represents an action in its development). The noncontinuous aspect is unmarked both in form (no characteristic pattern 'be + Participle F) and in meaning (it represents an action as simply occurring with no reference to its duration). Having analyzed the opposition of continuous - noncontinuous aspects, I.B. Khlebnikova draws the conclusion that it can be qualified as a privative opposition, one member of which is characterized by the presence of a certain feature, the other - by Hie absence of the same feature. Since the relations between the members of the privative opposition of aspect are not polar but isomorphous, i.e. have points of contiguity, the opposition of aspect can be neutralized on the syntagmatic axis. According to the rules of neutralization, the unmarked non-continuous aspect finds itself in the position of neutralization because it has a more general meaning and no specific formal exponent. We can consider as neutralization of duration those cases when the present indefinite is used instead of the present continuous in describing the things that happen, e.g.: Smith passes to Webster, and Webster shoots and it's a goal\ (M. Swan). This type of neutralization is often found in stage remarks. However, neutralization of duration is more common on the axis of the past. Cf: They were dancing while he was playing the guitar (V. Evans) - no neutralization. 104

They danced while he was playing the guitar - partial neutralization. They were dancing while he played the guitar - partial neutralization. They danced while he played the guitar - complete neutralization. Aspect neutralization is typical of non-terminative verbs, e.g.: They were all sitting round the fire (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). * They all sat round the fire. With terminative verbs, aspect neutralization is impossible, for it usually brings about a change of meaning. Cf.: We were meeting them at the concert hall, but we didn 't know which entrance they were waiting at (M. Foley, D. Hall). / met Jill at the bus stop this morning (Longman Language Activator). The terminative verb meet in the continuous aspect describes an arranged action that was about to take place at some later time. The terminative verb meet in the non-continuous aspect denotes an action that took place in the past. The Grammatical Category of Phase The category of phase is constituted by the opposition of perfect and non-perfect forms. The perfect form goes back to the Old English construction 'habban + direct object + attributive Participle IT'. The verb habban first weakened and then lost its lexical meaning. As for Participle II, it gained in importance. Its verbal nature was strengthened and it became syntactically connected immediately with the verb habban. The word order was changed, too. The perfect form came into existence: 1have/hadwritten my letter. The perfect form admits of four interpretations: 1)perfect is a tense form, 2)perfect is an aspect form, 3)perfect is part of the tense-aspect system, 4)perfect is a specific form of the category of phase. H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya look upon perfect forms as tense forms. If perfect were a tense form, the present perfect, for instance, would represent a unity of two 105

tenses: present and perfect. But one grammatical form cannot express two grammatical meanings of the same grammatical category. Hence, perfect is not a tense form. In the opinion of G.N. Vorontsova, R. Quirk and his co-authors, D. Biber and his co-authors, perfect is an aspect form. The grammatical meanings of completion and lack of completion of events or states do form the grammatical category of aspect in Russian. Cf.; dejiamb - cdejiamb, nucamb - ttanucamb, etc. In English, they can hardly be regarded as constituting the grammatical category of aspect. If perfect forms were aspect forms, we would have two aspects in perfect continuous forms, and it has been postulated that one grammatical form cannot express several grammatical meanings of the same grammatical category. So, perfect should be excluded from the grammatical category of aspect. V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik qualify perfect as part of the tense-aspect system. However, perfect is neither a tense nor an aspect, although it is closely connected with the two. A new approach to the problem is suggested by A.I. Smirnitsky. He thinks that the opposition of perfect and nonperfect forms builds up a specific grammatical category, a category of time relation. The term is not a happy one since it fails to differentiate the new category from the category7 of tense, which also realizes time relations. The American linguist M. Joos suggests that the category in question should be called a grammatical category of phase. The term phase is borrowed from physics. The non-perfect phase shows that the action and its effect are in one phase. Cf.: When she was young she lived in a small flat (V. Evans). The perfect phase emphasizes that the action and its effect are in different phases, e.g.: She had already left when I got home (V. Evans). Formally, the opposition of perfect and non-perfect phases is a privative opposition: the perfect phase is based on the pattern 'have + Participle II', the non-perfect phase lacks this pattern. But if we take meaning into consideration, we shall see that both members are logically equal, which is characteristic of equipollent oppositions: the non-perfect phase expresses simultaneity, the perfect phase 106

expresses priority. That's why I.B. Khlebnikova qualifies the opposition built up by perfect and non-perfect phases as equipollento-privative. The Grammatical Category of Posteriority The forms 'should/would + infinitive', used to denote a future action from the point of view of the past, present a debatable problem. They are not aspect forms because they can be used in the continuous aspect, e.g.: Little did we know that we would still be waiting in three hours' time (M. Foley, D. Hall). Neither are they phase forms because they can be used in the perfect phase, e.g.: The Cabinet thought the crisis would have finished before the election (M. Foley, D. Hall). No wonder that V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik, G.N. Vorontsova and B.A. Ilyish qualify them as the fourth tense in the system of the English verb. However, the difference between shall wait/finish - should wait/finish and will wait/finish - would wait/finish is not that of tense: both are future. According to A.I. Smirnitsky, the forms 'should/would + infinitive' are not tense forms, but mood forms. Here is his way of reasoning. In the first place, they are formally identical with the conditional mood. In the second place, they occur in indirect speech, and in indirect speech the meanings of future in the past and dependent unreality come close together. A detailed study of the forms in question shows that they are not mood forms. If we compare the sentences djlex said she would meet us there again the next day at 3.30 (M. Foley, D. Hall) and If I had more money. I would move (M. Fuchs, M. Bonner), it will become evident that formal identity ('would + infinitive' in both cases) does not signal identity in meaning and function. In the sentence 'Alex said she would meet us there again the next day at 3.30', would meet is opposed to will meet and denotes a real action following some other action in the past. In the sentence 'If I had more money, I would move', would move cannot be opposed to will move. It denotes an imaginary action simultaneous with or following the moment of speech.
107

In the opinion of B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya, the opposition 'shall/will + infinitive should/would' + infinitive' forms a category of posteriority. The forms 'shall/will + infinitive' show that the action is posterior to the present moment; the forms 'should/would + infinitive' indicate posteriority to some moment in the past. Cf: I'll see you later (V. Evans). He said he would see me later (V. Evans). Since all the members of the posteriority opposition are characterized by their own specific meaning and form, the posteriority opposition should be referred to permanent equipollent oppositions.
The Grammatical Category of Mood

2. The syntactic character of the category of mood also manifests itself in the fact that it is common to one of the principal parts of the sentence, namely the predicate. Hence, we can draw the conclusion that mood is a grammatical category realizing the attitude of the speaker to the thought expressed in the sentence which finds its expression in the morphological forms of the verb and at the same time has a number of syntactic properties. Depending on the attitude of the speaker to the thought expressed in the sentence, all moods, in the opinion of O. Jespersen, fall into three main groups: fact-mood (indicative), will-mood (imperative), and thought-mood (conjunctive). The Indicative Mood The indicative mood is a fact-mood. Using it, the speaker presents something as a fact, e.g.: The moon goes round the earth and the earth goes round the sun (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). Sentences of the type: If it snows, we 'II make a snowman (V. Evans) pose a serious problem. Some linguists say that the action denoted by the verb snows in the indicative mood is represented here not as a fact but as a possibility. B.A. Ilyish, however, thinks that the hypothetical meaning is introduced into the clause by the conjunction if and does not affect the meaning of the verbal form snows. Since the indicative mood represents an action as real, it seems to lack the seme of subjective evaluation common to the category of mood. No wonder that D."N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, A.M. Peshkovsky and some other linguists exclude the indicative mood from the grammatical category of mood. The majority of linguists, however, recognize the existence of the indicative mood as a specific grammatical form opposed to the imperative and the conjunctive moods, because using the predicateverb in the indicative mood, the speaker also expresses his attitude to the action in question by qualifying it as real. Morphologically, the indicative mood is the most developed system including all the categories of the verb.

H. Sweet thinks that mood expresses different relations between the subject and the predicate. Criticizing H, Sweet, O. Jespersen points out that it would be much more correct to say that mood expresses certain attitudes of the mind of the speaker towards the content of the sentence. The expression of the speaker's attitude may be different. First of all," it may be rendered with the help of this or that intonation pattern. In the second place, we can make use of lexical means, such as modal words and modal verbs. And, finally, there are grammatical devices - special forms of predicate-verbs. Taking all this into consideration, O. Jespersen remarks that we speak of mood only if this attitude of mind is shown in the form of the verb. Thus, mood is a grammatical, or rather a morphological category. V.M. Nikitevich considers that the morphological category of mood has a number of syntactic characteristics, too. 1. The typical meanings of moods undergo various modifications in different syntactic constructions, i.e. sentences. For instance, depending on the context, the imperative mood can express a command, a request, an entreaty, etc. Cf.: Don't smoke in your room! (V. Evans). Open the window, pleasel (V. Evans). Do forgive me-1 didn 't mean to interrupt (M. Swan).

108

109

The Imperative Mood The imperative mood is a will-mood. It is a direct expression of the speaker's will. Therefore, it is much more subjective than the indicative mood. Morphologically, the imperative mood is the least developed of all moods. Old English had two synthetic forms of the imperative mood: for the second person singular and plural. Nowadays, there is one synthetic form that is homonymous with the infinitive without the marker to. The continuous and passive forms are very rare, Since the imperative mood is homonymous with the infinitive, E. Kruisinga and D. Bolinger identify it with the infinitive. However, the imperative and the infinitive differ in several points. 1. They build up their negative forms on different patterns. Negative imperative is formed with the help of don't; negative infinitive is formed by means of not. Cf.: Don't wake up the haby\ (V. Evans). To be or not to be, that is the question.,. (W. Shakespeare). 2, They are characterized by diverse distribution: the imperative usually has no left-hand connection, while the infinitive has both right-hand and left-hand connections. Cf.; Listen carefully (R. Murphy). I want you to listen carefully (R. Murphy). Still controversial is the problem of forms of the imperative mood. If synthetic forms are recognized by the majority of linguists, the problem of analytical forms is still open to discussion; Some linguists (G.N. Vorontsova is one of them) think that the verb let with the following infinitive forms an analytical construction because let in such cases is devoid of its primary lexical meaning and performs the function of an auxiliary element. G.N. Vorontsova's conception, however, is criticized by a number of linguists. V.N. Zhigadlo, IP. Ivanova and L.L. Tofik deny the existence of analytical forms of the imperative mood in the English language because the verb let, in their opinion, can be used in accordance with its primary lexical meaning of allow. They are right. There are, at least, two different 'lets' in Modern English. When the verb let combines with a personal pronoun in the first person plural, us, it loses its lexical meaning and can be regarded as an imperative mood auxiliary, e.g.:
110

Let's play in the gardenl (V. Evans). When the verb let combines with a personal pronoun in the first person singular, me, or with a personal pronoun in the third person (singular or plural), him, her, and them, it retains its primary lexical meaning. However, since these constructions also comprise an element of inducement and taking into consideration that with the first person plural personal pronoun us the verb let has already turned into a pure auxiliary, we follow B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya and look upon the combinations of let with first person singular and third person singular and plural personal pronouns as analytical imperative mood forms in the making. N.F. Irtenyeva denies the existence of the imperative mood in English on the following grounds: 1)the imperative mood has no tense forms, 2)the imperative mood lacks person distinctions, 3) the imperative mood cannot be used in interrogative sentences. N.F. Irtenyeva is right: the imperative mood has no tense forms. However, it is but natural. Imperative sentences realize non-real modality; and in the domain of non-real modality tense characteristics are irrelevant. As for the lack of person distinctions in the imperative mood, we do not think N.F. Irtenyeva is right. Both synthetic and analytical forms of the imperative mood are united by the meaning of 'second person' because it is always to his interlocutor that the speaker addresses his command or request expressed by imperative mood forms. The fixed nature of person characteristics does not require the use of special person markers. According to G.N. Vorontsova, analytical imperative mood forms with let comprise first or third person characteristics. In our opinion, analytical imperative forms are heterogeneous. Those forms that combine with personal pronouns in the first person singular and with personal pronouns in the third person (singular or plural) are addressed to the second person. The latter becomes evident when imperative sentences are made two-member, e.g.: You let me run thisl (W. Faulkner). Those forms that combine with a personal pronoun in the first person plural address the inducement both to the interlocutor and

ill

the speaker, i.e. constructions with let's are characterized by a synthesis of second and first person characteristics. In questions, the imperative mood is not used. But the definition of mood, according to B.A. Ilyish, does not say anything about the possibility of using a form belonging to this or that mood in one or more types of sentences. So, there seem to be no grounds for denying the existence of the imperative mood in English as N.F. Irtenyeva does. Characterizing the imperative mood, V.V. Vinogradov writes that it belongs to the periphery of the verbal system, for it is constantly acquiring more and more features in common with interjections. Although both the imperative mood and interjections express volition directly, we cannot identify them. First, interjections are invariable. The imperative mood has affirmative and negative forms. Secondly, interjections give only a general idea of volition, sentences with the imperative mood of a verb are semantically concrete: they name the necessary action. Cf.: Sh! You'll wake the baby (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Stop making such a noise\ (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The Conjunctive Mood The conjunctive mood is a thought-mood. It expresses supposition, possibility, desire, etc. I.B. Khlebnikova regards the conditional mood (would do, should do, would have done, should have done) and the subjunctive mood (were, did, had been, had done) as constituents of the conjunctive mood paradigm, e.g.: S C Why, Lester, if I were in her position, I would let you go (Th. Dreiser), Historically, the subjunctive and the conditional were two different moods. Now, they have become varieties of a single conjunctive mood. Their common nature is evident enough.

1.Although the subjunctive expresses a condition and the conditional - the consequence of that condition, the general categorical meaning of both moods in English is the same: it is the problematic supposition of an action. 2.Neither the subjunctive nor the conditional possesses the category of tense because in the domain of non-real modality tense characteristics are irrelevant. 3.The aspect opposition is characterized by a low frequency of occurrence. 4.Both the subjunctive and the conditional draw a distinction between simultaneity (non-perfect forms) and priority (perfect forms). Non-perfect forms place the unreal action in the temporal plane of the present-future. Cf.: I wish he were with us now (V. Evans). / -wish my father would give me more pocket money (V. Evans). Perfect forms place the unreal action in the temporal plane of the past, e.g.: If he had passed his exams, he would have gone to university (V. Evans). In other words, there is no opposition between the subjunctive and the conditional, but there is syntactically motivated coexistence: the conditional occurs in the subordinating clause, the subjunctive - in the subordinate clause, e.g.: S C If I were you, I wouldn't be in a hurry to do anything, Lester (Th. Dreiser). The use of the conditional in the subordinating clause, which is more independent than the subordinate clause, makes the conditional a free category. As a free category, the conditional mood is sometimes used independently, with the condition implicitly included in various parts of the sentence or inferred from

the context, e.g.: In the circumstances any one would have done the same

(W.S. Maugham).

112

113

The subjunctive is generally used in the subordinate clause. Therefore, it is a subordinate category. The independent use of the subjunctive is rare, e.g.: If only I were young again (M. Foley, D. Hall). In object clauses, after verbs of desire, both moods can be found, but with a difference in meaning. 'Wish 4- subjunctive' expresses a desire for something to be different in the present, e.g.: 1 wish I had more time (M. Foley, D. Hall). 'Wish + conditional' expresses a desire for someone to change their deliberate behaviour in the present or future, e.g.: I wish you'd stop shouting. I'm not deaf you know (M. Foley, D. Hall). We cannot use would for an impossible change, one which the subject has no control over, e.g.: / wish sports cars weren 't so expensive (M. Foley, D. Hall). So, the verbs would and should are conjunctive mood auxiliaries. But what about combinations with modal verbs? According to I.B. Khlebnikova, the conjunctive mood is based on the format!ves of the past tense. Among the English modal verbs, only can and may display the present - past dichotomy (can -could; may might), and at the same time combine with the nonperfect and perfect infinitive. On closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that could and might can hardly be considered auxiliaries of the conjunctive mood. 1. They retain their lexical meaning of possibility, while the conjunctive mood auxiliaries should and would are devoid of lexical meaning. 2. They carry stress, while the first component in the conjunctive mood grammeme (should/would) is unstressed. 3. Contractions like I'd hove come are impossible with the verbs could and might and are quite common with the conjunctive mood auxiliaries should and would. The so-called present conjunctive [/ suggest we go to the theatre (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson)] also stands outside the paradigmatic system of the conjunctive mood. First, it has neither aspect nor phase. Second, it is interchangeable with other variants of the conjunctive mood. Cf.:
114

My uncle suggested that I get a job in a bank (M. Swan). My uncle suggested that I should get a Job in a bank (M. Swan). Third, it has a stylistic colouring in British English, where it sounds rather official. Thus, the conjunctive mood in Modern English comprises two basic moods: the conditional and the subjunctive with the further subdivision of each into non-perfect (Conditional 1, Subjunctive I) and perfect (Conditional II, Subjunctive n). The grammatical category of mood comprises two oppositions: indicative - imperative, indicative - conjunctive. In the opinion of I.B. Khlebnikova, they are privative oppositions. As far as grammatical meaning is concerned, they can be regarded as privative because the indicative mood is a fact-mood, while the imperative and the conjunctive are non-fact moods. Formally, they are rather equipollent, for all the members of the mood oppositions have their own specific forms. That's why it seems better to refer mood oppositions to equipollento-privative oppositions. The Grammatical Category of Voice Definition of Voice Voice is a morphological category that manifests itself in the forms of the verb. At the same time, the category of voice has a number of syntactic characteristics because it is realized in such a syntactic unit as the sentence. Voice is a category of the verb that indicates the relationship between the subject and the predicate-verb of the sentence. The active voice shows that the subject of the sentence is the doer of the action expressed by the predicate, e.g.: The woman opened the door... (Th. Hardy). The passive voice shows that the subject does not act, but is acted upon, e.g.: The door was opened by a Chinese girl... (W.S. Maugham).

115

A.I. Smirnitsky thinks that the category of voice expresses the direction of the action. In the active voice, the process denoted by the verb issues from the subject and is directed outside: AV: S The woman opened the door. In the passive voice, the process indicated by the verb characterizes the grammatical subject from without: PV: S * The door was opened by a Chinese girl. L.S. Barkhudarov is of opinion that in the case of the passive voice the process indicated by the verb does characterize the grammatical subject from without As for the active voice, it is not always that the process denoted by the verb issues from the subject and is directed outside. He analyzes the following three cases. 1. The door opened (A. Christie). The subject here denotes neither the agent nor the object of the action. It indicates the thing inside which the action is going on. 2. He dressed... (W. Deeping). The subject in sentences like these indicates both the agent and the object of the action. The action issues from the subject and then returns to it. 3. They kissed again... (P. Swinnerton). In such cases, the subject also expresses both the agent and the object of the action. But as opposed to sentences of the type He. dressed, the subject here indicates a number of persons or things, and every member of the group performs the action not on himself, but on another member of the same group. Taking all this into consideration, L.S. Barkhudarov finds it necessary to modify the conception of A.I. Smirnitsky. He also represents the active and passive voices in the form of an opposition. But this opposition, in his opinion, is privative not only in form (the passive voice is characterized by the discontinuous morpheme be + -en; the active voice lacks this characteristic), but also in meaning (in the case of the passive voice, the action of the verb is directed onto the subject from without; in the case of the active voice, the action of the verb is not directed onto the subject from without). 116

Recently, however, the privative character of the voice opposition has been called in question by A.V. Bondarko. Privative oppositions can be neutralized on the syntagmatic axis. Since the voice opposition is never neutralized, it is doubtful that it can be regarded as privative. But what kind of opposition is it then? The question is still open to discussion. The Passive Voice Voice Auxiliaries In Old English, there existed the free phrase 'beon/weorl>an + Participle II of a transitive verb'. In Middle English, the verb weorPan fell into disuse; the verb beon began to lose its lexical meaning. The full development of the passive form belongs to the Middle English period. The existence of the voice auxiliary be is universally recognized. According to G.A. Veikhman. there is a rising tendency in Modern English to use the auxiliary get instead of the auxiliary be. English grammarians, however, state that the gef-passive is rare and restricted primarily to conversation. The gel-passive often reflects an unfavourable attitude towards the action. Thus, the utterance How did that window get opened? (R, Quirk et al.) typically implies that the window should have been shut. Since most gel-passives are used as stative passives, they cannot take an agent specified in a fcy-phrase. However, the gelpassive conveys a more dynamic sense than the he-passive: the feepassive generally simply describes a state, while the gel-passive describes the process of getting into the state, with a resultant meaning similar to become. Cf.: The chair was broken (R. Quirk et al.). The chair got broken (R. Quirk et al.). Linguistic Status of the Passive Voice H. Poutsma does not recognize the existence of an independent passive voice. He looks upon it as the reverse of the active voice. But a passive construction is not always a converted active construction. The impossibility of the passive transformation may be due to the nature of the direct object. Thus, an active 117

construction cannot be made passive when the direct object in the active construction is expressed by: 1) a reflexive pronoun, e.g.: He saw himself in the mirror (R. Quirk et al.); 2) a reciprocal pronoun equivalent, e.g.: They told each other about their families (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 3) a noun with a possessive determiner referring to the same person as the subject of the sentence, e.g.: He cut his face while shaving (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson); 4) a clause, e.g.: John told us that he'd seen you in town (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 5) an infinitival phrase, e.g.: We hope to see you soon (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson); 6) a gerundial phrase, e.g.: I've enjoyed talking to you about old times (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). Sometimes there is no passive construction because the verb and the direct object are so closely connected that they form a set phrase and cannot be separated, e.g.: / suddenly caught sight of her in the crowd (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). In a number of cases, the impossibility of the passive transformation is due to the semantic nature of the verb. Thus, the passive cannot be used with verbs denoting state, such as resemble, suit, possess, etc., e.g.: That colour doesn't suit her (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). *She is not suited by that colour. She resembles her mother (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). *ffer mother is resembled by her. Types of Passive Constructions In Russian, it is only transitive verbs that admit of the passive construction. In English, M. Joos singles out three types of passive constructions. 118

1. Primary passive. The subject of a primary passive construction corresponds to the direct object of a parallel active construction, e.g.: The door was opened by a girl (J.B. Priestley). A girl opened the door. 2. Secondary passive. The subject of a secondary passive construction corresponds to the indirect object of a parallel active construction, e.g.: We were shown a room (O. Goldsmith). > He showed us a room. The presence of a prepositional fry-object expressing the agent is optional both in primary and secondary passive constructions. The passive construction with a by-phrase is called the long passive, without a Ay-phrase - the short (or agentless) passive. Although approximately four out of five English passive sentences have no expressed agent, in some passive sentences the agent is obligator)', e.g.: The music was followed by a short interval (R. Quirk et al.). > *The music was followed... 3. Tertiary passive. The subject of a tertiary passive construction corresponds to a prepositional object or an adverbial of aparalle! active construction, e.g.: They were never heard of again (W. Deeping). > Nobody ever heard of them again. The bed had not been slept in (O. Jespersen). > Nobody had slept in the bed. Tertiary passive embraces constructions with fixed prepositions attached to the verb, e.g.: That's a thing I've not been accused of before (W.S. Maugham). The child shall be taken care of somehow (G. Eliot). Use of the Passive Voice The passive voice is used in the following cases. 1. When the agent is unknown or cannot easily be stated, e.g.: The two sons were killed in the Great War (W. Deeping).

119

2. When the agent is self-evident from the context, e.g.: He was elected Member of Parliament for Leeds (O. Jespersen). 3. When there is a special reason for not mentioning the agent, e.g.: Enough has been said here of a subject which will be treated more fully in a subsequent chapter (O. Jespersen). 4. When the agent is indicated, the reason why the passive voice is preferred is generally the greater interest taken in the object of the action than in its agent, e.g.: His son was run over by a motor-car (O. Jespersen). Naturally, we are more interested in the fact who was run over than by what. 5. The passive voice may facilitate the connection of one sentence with another, e.g.: They married, and he went back to the front and was killed (S. Sheldon). The human actor (or agent) is not important in academic prose. Hence, a high frequency of passive constructions, which allow the objects of study to be the subject of sentences, thereby giving them topic status. The extensive use of passive constructions also gives a sense of objective detachment from what is being described, as required by the Western scientific tradition. Passive constructions are also common in news. True, news has somewhat different reasons for the use of the passive, especially the short passive. The focus of a news story is often an event that involves a person or institution. The agent of this event may be easy to guess, uninteresting, or already mentioned. Furthermore, presenting only the new information can save space, which is desirable in newspaper writing. It is natural in such cases to omit the agent and use the passive voice. For example, reference to 'the police' is omitted in the following sentence: Doherty was arrested in New York in June (D. Biber et al.). In contrast, conversation is generally much more concerned with the experiences and actions of people. It, therefore, usually expresses the agent as subject and rarely uses the passive voice.

Meaning of the Passive Voice

According to G. Curme, C.T. Onions, L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Shteling and G.N. Vorontsova, the combination 'be + Participle II' should in all cases be treated as a passive voice form. C.T. Onions writes apropos of this: The forms of the passive voice have two distinct meanings: 1)they may express continuous or habitual action, e.g.: / was annoyed by mosquitoes all night (R. A. Close); 2)they may express the state resulting from an action, e.g.: His office is closed. Come back tomorrow (E.S. Connell). The majority of linguists, however, think that we deal with two different constructions here. When the combination 'be + Participle II* indicates an action, it should be looked upon as the passive voice; when it renders the meaning of state, it should be qualified as a compound nominal predicate with the verb in the active voice. R. Quirk and his co-authors call it 'pseudo-passive'. Be with Participle II constitutes the passive voice in the following cases. 1. When the agent of the action is indicated with the help of a 6y-phrase, e.g.: They were thus introduced by Holly (J. Galsworthy). 2. When the verb is in the continuous aspect because it is generally action verbs that admit of the continuous aspect, e.g.: When Milly got to the stables, a horse was being saddled (G. Eliot). 3. When the verb is in the perfect phase because it is generally action verbs that admit of the perfect phase, e.g.: You have been told three times this week that she is coming home for her health (B. Shaw). 4. When the verb is in the future tense because it is generally action verbs that admit of the future tense, e.g.: ... your luggage will be brought straight away (Lingaphone English Course). 5. When the verb is qualified by an adverbial of place, time, or frequency because it is actions that we place in space and time, e.g.: Sir Percy and his lady were conducted to the platform (D.H. Lawrence). I'll be dressed in a minute (E. Hemingway).
121

120

Tfie c hamber maid' s c urio sity wa s r ou sed at once (J.B. Priestley). 6. When there is another verb in the sentence, in the active voice, e.g.: People passed him and were passed by him (W. Deeping). When Participle II makes part of a compound nominal predicate with the verb in the active voice, it can often be modified by the word very or some other intensifying word, e.g.: She is very excited about getting a part in a film (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

The Problem of the Reflexive Voice The most popular view is that there are two voices in English: active and passive. The problem of the reflexive voice arises in connection with verbs followed by sd^pronouns, e.g.: He seated himself on the grass... (P. Abrahams). The reflexive voice is mentioned by H. Poutsma, H. Whitehall, V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik. The subject of the reflexive voice, in their opinion, acts on itself. To recognize the existence of the reflexive voice, we must prove that the reflexive pronoun forms with the verb an analytical form and that it cannot perform an independent syntactic function in the sentence. The most striking peculiarity of pronouns is that they can be used both as notional and as auxiliary elements. Reflexive pronouns are not an exception either. In sentences of the type: But he never trusted himself (D.H. Lawrence), It surprised even herself (D.H. Lawrence), the reflexive pronouns himself and herself function as notional elements, namely as objects. In sentences of the type: He found himself in Upper Street... (W. Deeping), Arline threw herself face down on the bed and sobbed (I. Shaw), the reflexive pronouns himself and herself function as auxiliary elements, hi such cases, the combination of a verb with the following reflexive pronoun could be regarded as a specific reflexive voice on condition that the reflexive pronoun could not be omitted. But auxiliary self-pronouns can and often are omitted, e.g.:

Andrew washed and dressed and ten minutes later was running down the road towards the shop (Ch. Culshaw). When auxiliary self-pronouns can be omitted, the verb is evidently in the active voice. When auxiliary ^//"-pronouns cannot be omitted, two interpretations seem possible. On the one hand, we can regard the combination of a verb with the following reflexive pronoun as a specific reflexive voice. On the other hand, we can say that we deal in such cases with phraseological combinations of reflexive pronouns with verbs in the active voice.

The Problem of the Reciprocal Voice Still controversial is the problem of the reciprocal voice formed by a verb with one of the following pronominal combinations: each other or one another, e.g.; We love each other (J. Galsworthy). They knew one another very well indeed... (D.H. Lawrence). Since the pronominal combinations each other and one another function as objects, they cannot form analytical forms with the verbs love and knew. Consequently, there are no grounds for singling out the reciprocal voice as a specific grammatical form.
The Problem of the Middle Voice The problem of the middle voice arises in connection with sentences of the type: The door opened (W. Deeping). Some say it is passive. Morphologically, it is not passive because it lacks the pattern 'be + Participle IF. Semantically, it is different from the passive construction, too: in the passive construction, the subject is acted upon; in the sentence The door opened, the subject is neither the agent nor the object of the action. As L.S. Barkhudarov puts it, the subject here indicates the thing inside which the action is going on. Syntactically, it is not identical with the passive construction either. In the passive construction The door was opened, the agent of the action can be introduced: The door was opened by a girl (J.B. Priestley). The construction The door opened does not allow the introduction of an agent.

122

123

E.G. Shubnaya does not find this argument convincing. She says that over 70% of passive constructions contain no mention of the agent either, but we still qualify them as passive. However, E.G. Shubnaya does not take into consideration that the mention of the agent in the passive, though optional, is theoretically and practically possible, while in sentences of the type The door opened it generates an ungrammatical construction: The door opened (W. Deeping). > *The door opened by a girl. Since cases of the type The door opened are semantically, syntactically, and morphologically different from passive constructions, we do not find it possible to follow E.G. Shubnaya in qualifying them as functional synonyms of passive voice forms. The next question is: do they constitute a specific type of construction with the so-called middle voice, or can they, perhaps, be referred to as active? Voice is a morphological category, first and foremost. Morphologically., The door opened is active. However, the majority of linguists [e.g. V.M. Nikitevich; I.B. Khlebnikova; A.M. Mukhin] question the validity of a purely morphological approach to the category of voice. Voice does not characterize the verb as a part of speech. Voice meanings come to be realized only on the syntactic level of the sentence. Syntactically, opened in the sentence The door opened is different from the active voice. The verb in active sentences is generally followed by a direct object, e.g.: The woman opened the door... (Th. Hardy), while the verb in sentences of the type The door opened can combine only with an adverbial, e.g.: The door opened in wards (Longman Dicti onary o f Contemporary English). Semantically, they are not identical either. In the active sentence The woman opened the door, the subject the woman is the agent of the action; in the sentence The door opened, the subject the door indicates the thing inside which the action is going on. But the active voice constitutes the non-marked member of the voice opposition. The non-marked member of an opposition has a very general meaning. In view of this, perhaps, L.S. Barkhudarov is right when he says that the indication of a thing inside which an

action is going on constitutes a variety of the meaning of the active voice. If we look upon voice as a morphological category, first and foremost, and regard the indication of a thing inside which this or that action is going on as a variety of the meaning of the active voice, we shall be bound to acknowledge that there is no middle voice in English.
9. NON-FINITE FORMS OF THE VERB General Characteristics

To non-finite forms of the verb (or verbals), tradition refers the infinitive (to take), the gerund (taking), Participle I (taking), and Participle II (taken). All English verbals were originally names. But in the course of time they have been acquiring more and more verbal force. Nowadays, they share the properties of verbs and names (nouns, adjectives, and adverbs). Lexically, verbals do not differ from finite verbs. Morphologically, they have some features that differentiate them from finite verbs and some features that unite them with finite verbs. As opposed to finite verbs, verbals lack the grammatical categories of person, number, tense, and mood. But just like finite verbs, all verbals have the grammatical categories of phase and voice. The infinitive also has the grammatical category of aspect. Syntactically, verbals share the characteristics of finite verbs and names. Their verbal nature manifests itself mainly in their combinability: they may take any kind of object or adverbial that a finite verb might take. Their nominal nature reveals itself in their syntactic functions. Those verbals that do the work of verbs and nouns perform the functions typical of nouns (subjects, objects, predicatives, etc.); those verbals that do the work of verbs and adjectives/adverbs, perform the functions typical of adjectives and adverbs (attributes and adverbials). In contrast to finite verbs, verbals can never form a predicate by themselves, although they can form part of a predicate, both simple and compound.

124

125

The Infinitive In Old English, the infinitive was a fully inflected verbal substantive, ft had two forms. 1.The uninflected infinitive representing the nominative and the accusative of a verbal noun, e.g.: wntan. 2.The inflected infinitive used mostly after the preposition to. This form had the suffix -ne and represented the dative case of a verbal noun, e.g.: to writanne. The inflected infinitive with the preposition to expressed direction or purpose. When in the Middle English period -ne, the inflection of the dative case, was lost, the two forms of the infinitive merged into one. The preposition to gradually lost its lexical meaning and turned into a formal sign of the infinitive. Nowadays, it is often called a particle. B.S. Khaimovich and B.L Rogovskaya prove quite convincingly that the infinitival marker to is not a particle. 1. Particles as a part of speech are characterized by the lexico-grammatical meaning of 'emphatic specification'. The infinitival to does not emphasize or specify anything. 2.All particles have distinct lexical meaning. The infinitival to has no lexical meaning whatsoever. 3.Particles form combinations with words of almost any part of speech. To is connected only with the infinitive. The to-infinitive, according to M.Y. Blokh, constitutes an analytical form. He puts forward the following arguments to prove his point of view. 1. As is the case with other analytical markers, the infinitival marker to can be used to represent the whole infinitival construction, e.g.: Perhaps tomorrow you might be able to come to the hospital -with me... -No, I don't want to (S. Hill). 2. Like other analytical markers, it can also be separated from its notional element by a word or phrase, usually of adverbial nature, forming the so-called split infinitive, e.g.: He prepared to silently accompany her (O. Jespersen). The split infinitive is quite common in English, especially in conversation, although a lot of people consider it 'bad style'. 126

On the one hand, the arguments of M.Y. Blokh sound convincing. But if the infinitival marker to were an auxiliary part of an analytical word, it would be impossible to omit it. In the vast majority of cases, the infinitive is used with the marker to. But there also exists in English the so-called bare infinitive, i.e. infinitive without the marker to. The bare infinitive is used in the following cases. 1. After the auxiliary verbs do, does, did, and will, e.g.: Don't move (T. Chevalier). She does not speak Italian (V. Evans). He didn't watch television yesterday (R. Murphy). He'tt be here any minute (J. Galsworthy). 2. After modal verbs, except the verb ought, e.g.: Soldiers must obey orders (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A. C. Gimson). You should call him (H. Fielding). At first I could not meet his eyes (T. Chevalier). She ought to understand (M Swan). 3. After the modal expressions had better, would rather, would sooner, cannot (choose) but, might as well, etc. Cf.: You had better mind your own business (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). I'd rather play tennis than swim (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). I'd sooner die than marry you (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). I cannot but think so (A. Trollope). We might as well walk (R. A. Close). 4. After the combinations do nothing save/but, nothing to do but, e.g.: The boy had nothing to do but watch the sheep and think (G. Bates). There was nothing left to do but wait (M. Wilson). 5. When the infinitive makes part of a complex object: a) after verbs of sense perception, e.g.: / haven't heard anyone call me (O. Wilde), I saw Brown enter the room (J. Braine), I_watched her cross the street (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson),

127

/ felt the blood rush into my cheeks, and then leave them again (W. Collins), Did you notice anyone leave the house1? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); b) after the verbs make, let, have and very often after the verb help. Cf,: What made you get up so early? (R. Kipling). I Jet my mother answer (T. Cheval ier), / won't have you say this sort of thing (J. Galsworthy), Help me get him to bed (M. Swan). 6. In sentences beginning with Why? and Why not?, which have a weakened seme of interrogation, Cf.: Why worry! (R.A. Close). Why not relax? (R.A. Close). In both cases, the speaker does not ask for information, but gives the interlocutor a piece of advice. 7. In sentences, comprising two infinitives linked by the conjunctions and, or, and but, the second infinitive is usually used without the marker to. Cf.: I'd like to lie down and go to steep (M. Swan). Do you want to have lunch now or wait till later? (M. Swan). /'// do anything but work on a farm (M. Swan). As has already been mentioned, the infinitive combines verbal features with those of the noun. Verbal Features of the Infinitive The verbal features of the infinitive are of two kinds: morphological and syntactic. Morphologically, the verbal nature of the infinitive manifests itself in the grammatical categories of aspect, phase, and voice. The category of aspect finds its expression in the opposition of noncontinuous and continuous forms. The non-continuous infinitive stresses the fact of the action, the continuous infinitive -the progress of the action. Cf.: / expect him to fail the exam (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). // 's nice to be sitting here with you (M. Swan).

The continuous infinitive is very seldom used, almost exclusively in the active voice. The category of phase finds its expression in the opposition of non-perfect and perfect forms. Being the marked member of the phase opposition, the perfect infinitive usually denotes an action prior to the action expressed by the finite verb, e.g.: She said she was sorry to have missed you (M. Swan). After such verbs as mean, expect, intend, and hope, used in the past indefinite, the perfect infinitive shows that the hope (or intention) was not realized, e.g.: I meant to have telephoned, but I for got (M. Swan). Being the non-marked member of the phase opposition, the non-perfect infinitive has a wider range of meanings than the perfect infinitive. The typical meaning of the non-perfect infinitive is that of succession. The non-perfect infinitive expresses succession in the following cases. 1. When it is an adverbial of purpose, e.g.: The traveller stopped to rest (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). 2. When it is part of a compound verbal predicate. Cf: You must stay in bed (V. Evans) - compound verbal modal predicate. I hope to see you this evening (R.A. Close) - compound verbal modal predicate. .ft began to rain (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) compound verbal aspective predicate. 3. When it is an object of a verb of inducement, e.g.: Father advised him to buy the bonds (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). When the non-perfect infinitive is associated with a verb denoting an emotional state (e.g. astonish, exasperate, relieve, shock, surprise, wonder, like, etc.), it expresses an action preceding the action rendered by the finite verb, e.g.: We were surprised to hear the news (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). And, finally, the non-perfect infinitive can express an action simultaneous with the action of the finite verb, e.g.: We watched them go (E. Walker, St. Elsworth).

128

329

The voice opposition in the infinitive is similar to that in finite verbs. Cf.: There is no time to lose (Th. Dreiser) - active infinitive. There is no time to be lost (G. Eliot) - passive infinitive. After the verb be the active infinitive often renders the grammatical meaning common to the passive infinitive, e.g.: This house is to let (R.A. Close). <= Someone wishes to let the house> You are not to blame for what happened (R.A. Close). <= No one should blame you for what happened.> Syntactically, the verbal nature of the infinitive manifests itself in the following characteristics. 1. Its right-hand combinability with objects, adverbials, and predicatives when the infinitive happens to be a copula. Cf.: Arlene -wanted to buy a fur coat (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - object. The train was to leave at midnight (E. Hemingway) -adverbial. I'm likely to be very busy tomorrow (M. Swan) - predicative. 2. Its left-hand combinability with a subjectival member denoting the doer of the action expressed by the infinitive, e.g.: We -want them to build a house (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). 3. The function of realizing the verbal component of primary predication when the infinitive makes part of a simple or compound predicate. Cf.: I'll fall off(S. Hill) - part of a simple predicate, / didn 't touch anything (S. Hill) - part of a simple predicate. His ambition was to write (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - part of a compound nominal predicate. Ann can type fast (V. Evans) - part of a compound verbal modal predicate. He began to cry again.., (S. Hill) - part of a compound verbal aspective predicate. 4. The function of realizing the verbal component of secondary predication when the infinitive makes part of a complex member of the sentence or forms a parenthesis. Cf: She could see him smite (E. Hemingway) - complex object.

To cut a long story short, we finally reached London at four in the morning (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) -parenthesis. Nominal Features of the Infinitive The nominal features of the infinitive are only syntactic. The infinitive performs almost all syntactic functions characteristic of the noun: subject (often after the introductory it), predicative, object, attribute, and adverbial. Cf: To err is human, to forgive, divine (J. O'Hara) - subject. It's easy to make mistakes (M. Swan) - subject. My intention is to get into Parliament (A. Trollope) -predicative. / have never learnt to read or write (W. Collins) - object. They will make another attempt to cross the river tonight (R.A. Close) - attribute. / merely came back to water the roses (O. Wilde) - adverbial of purpose. In all syntactic functions, the infinitive can be used: 1)alone, i.e. without any words depending on it, e.g.: Leila had learnt to dance at boarding school (K. Mansfield); 2)as headword of an infinitival phrase, e.g.: Some speakers hesitate to choose the right word (R.A. Close); 3) as part of an infinitival predicative construction. There are three predicative infinitival constructions in Modern English: 1)the objective-with-the-infirutive construction, 2)theybr-to-infmitive construction, 3)the subjective infinitive construction. In the objective-with-the-infinitive construction, the infinitive is in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or a personal pronoun in the objective case. The objective-with-the-infinitive construction performs the function of a complex object in the sentence, e.g.: We do not allow people to smoke in the lecture halls (M. Swan).

130

131

After verbs of sense perception and causative verbs, the infinitive in the objective-with-the-infinitive construction is used without the marker to. Cf.: I felt him move (E. Walker, St. Elsworth). He made me do it (E. Walker, St. Elsworth). The only exception is the causative verb cause, after which the infinitive is used with the marker to: What caused the plants to die? (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). In the /or-to-infinitive construction, the infinitive is in predicate relation to a noun or pronoun preceded by the preposition for. The/or-to-infmitive construction performs the functions of the following parts of the sentence: 1) complex subject, usually after the introductory it, e.g.: ... it is a shame for people to spend so much money this way (Th. Dreiser); 2) complex predicative, e.g.: That was for him to find out (G. Eliot); 3) complex object, e.g.: We are waiting for the rain to stop (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson); 4) complex attribute, e.g.: There is nobody here for him to play with (E. Hemingway); 5) complex adverbial, e.g.: He stepped aside for me to pass (D. du Maurier). In the subjective infinitive construction, the infinitive is in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or a personal pronoun in the nominative case. The subjective infinitive construction occurs in sentences with the finite verb in the passive voice. The infinitive in the subjective infinitive construction is always introduced by the marker to. The subjective infinitive construction performs the function of a complex subject in the sentence, e.g.: Mr. Bob Sawyer was heard to laugh heartily (Ch. Dickens). Due to the presence of a passive verb in the sentence, the subjective infinitive construction is more characteristic of literary than colloquial English.

The Gerund The gerund is a peculiarity of the English language. It is not to be found in other Germanic languages. The gerund goes back to the Old English verbal noun in -ung. In the course of time, it has acquired a number of verbal characteristics so that now the gerund shares the properties of nouns and verbs. Nominal Features of the Gerund The nominal nature of the gerund reveals itself at the syntactic level, namely in its combinability and functions. Like the noun, the gerund can be preceded by: 1) a preposition, e.g.: I'm tired of watching television (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 2) a noun in the genitive case or a possessive determiner. Cf.: I remember Tom's complaining about the poor service in this hotel (V. Evans). / remember his complaining about the poor service in this hotel (V. Evans). Like the noun, the gerund can perform the functions of the following parts of the sentence. 1. Subject, e.g.: Swimming is my favourite sport (R.A. Close). // is awfully hard work doing nothing (O. Wilde). There was no mistaking the expression on her face (W. Collins). 2. Object, e.g.: I like swimming (R.A. Close). I'm fond of swimming (R.A. Close). 3. Predicative, e.g.: My favourite sport is swimming (R.A. Close). 4. Attribute, both prepositional and non-prepositional. Cf: He was born with the gift of winning hearts (E. Gaskell). ... do you like these running shoes'? (J.C. Richards, J. Hall, S. Proctor). 5. Adverbial, e.g.: ... one side of the gallery was used for dancing (G. Eliot).

132

133

Verbal Features of the Gerund

The verbal nature of the gerund reveals itself at the morphological and syntactic levels. Morphologically, the verbal nature of the gerund manifests itself in the grammatical categories of phase and voice. The category of phase finds its expression in the opposition of non-perfect and perfect forms. The perfect gerund always denotes an action prior to the action rendered by the finite verb, e.g.: He was ashamed of having shown even the slightest irritation (A. Bennett). Being the non-marked member of the phase opposition, the non-perfect gerund is more flexible in meaning. In the first place, it can denote an action simultaneous with the action expressed by the finite verb, e.g.: Hike walking in the rain (M. Swan). In the second place, the non-perfect gerund can render an action following the action denoted by the finite verb, e.g.: We are thinking of going to France for our holidays (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). In the third place, non-perfect gerund can express an action prior to the action indicated by the finite verb if it is used: 1) after the verbs remember, thank, forget, excuse, forgive, etc., e.g.: / don *t remember hearing the legend before (Th. Hardy), Thanks for coming (M. Swan); 2) after the prepositions on, upon, after, before, without, etc., e.g.: Upon receiving the telegram, we cancelled the trip (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). After walking about ten yards, he found the hat among the leaves (Th. Hardy). The category of voice is represented by the opposition of active and passive forms, e.g.: He liked neither reading aloud nor being read aloud to (W.S. Maugham). Being the non-marked member of the voice opposition, the active gerund can also render the meaning common to the passive

gerund. Thus, after the verbs need, want, require, deserve and the adjective worth the active gerund renders passive meaning. Cf.: My coat needs mending (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). This job wants doing at once (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The book is well worth reading (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). Syntactically, the verbal nature of the gerund manifests itself in the following characteristics. 1. Its right-hand combinability with objects and adverbials, e.g.: Sweeping the floor was one of Jack's duties (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Sitting on a park bench was his favourite pastime (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). 2. The function of realizing the verbal component of primary predication when the gerund makes part of a compound nominal or compound verbal predicate. Cf.: The only remedy for such a headache as mine is going to bed (W. Collins). I kept glancing at her through the rest of the play (J. Braine). 3. The function of realizing the verbal component of secondary predication when the gerund forms part of a complex member of the sentence, e.g.: Forgive my speaking plainly (Th. Hardy) - complex object. ... there is no chance of their getting married for years (J. Galsworthy) - complex attribute. The Gerund and the Infinitive

The gerund and the infinitive have much in common since both have some nominal and some verbal features. Nevertheless, the gerund and the infinitive are not identical. The gerund is more of a noun than the infinitive [H. Sweet] because it can be introduced by a preposition and modified by a noun in the genitive case or by a possessive determiner.

134

135

Some verbs are followed either by a gerund or an infinitive with little difference of meaning, others - with considerable difference of meaning. 1. The verbs begin and start can be followed by a gerund or an infinitive usually with no real difference of meaning. Cf.: She started looking around at all the animals (V. Evans), She started to look around at all the animals (V. Evans). It is perhaps more common to use a gerund when we are talking about the beginning of a long or habitual activity, e.g.: How old were you when you first started playing the piano? (M. Swan). After the verb begin, the gerund is less common than the infinitive. The gerund is not used: a) when the verbs begin and start are in the continuous aspect, e.g.: / was beginning to get angry (M. Swan); b) when the verbs begin and start are followed by the verbs understand and realize, e.g.: She began to understand what he really wanted (M. Swan); c) when the subject denotes a thing, not a living being, e.g.: The clock began to strike (N.A. Kobrina et al.). 2. Be afraid + infinitive = be too frightened to do something. Be afraid of+ gerund = be afraid that what is referred to by the gerund may happen. Cf.: I'm afraid to drive over the old bridge (V. Evans). She is afraid of breaking her leg if she jumps over the wall (V. Evans). The gerund is always used when we are speaking about things that happen to us unexpectedly, without our wanting or choosing them, e.g.: I'm afraid of'crashing (M. Swan). 3. After propose, attempt, intend, continue, can't bear and be accustomed to, both gerund and infinitive are possible with little difference of meaning, but the infinitive is more common after the verbs propose, attempt, and intend. Cf.: I can't bear getting/to get my hands dirty (M. Swan). He intends to double the advertising budget (M. Swan).
136

4. With the verbs like, hate and prefer, the gerund expresses a more general or a habitual action, the infinitive - a specific single action. Cf.: Hike walking in the rain (M. Swan). / heard you talking and I didn 't like to disturb you, so I went away (M. Swan). 5. With the verbs remember, forget and regret, the difference in the use of gerund and infinitive is connected with time. The gerund refers to things that happened earlier, before the remembering/forgetting/regretting took place; the infinitive refers to things that will happen after the remembering/forgetting/regretting: remember/forget + gerund = remember/forget what one has done, or what has happened; remember/forget + infinitive = remember/forget what one has to do; regret + gerund = be sorry for what has happened; regret + infinitive = be sorry for what one is going to say. Cf.: / shall always remember meeting you for the first time (M. Swan). Remember to go to the post office, won '/vow? (M. Swan). I shall never forget seeing the Queen (M. Swan). She's always forgetting to give me my letters (M. Swan). / don't regret telling her what I thought, even if it upset her (M. Swan). / regret to inform you that we are unable to offer you employment (M. Swan). 6. Stop + gerund = stop what one is doing, or does. Stop + infinitive make a break or pause in order to do something. Cf.: I really must stop smoking (M. Swan). Every half hour I stop to smoke a cigarette (M. Swan). 7. Go on + gerund = continue what one has been doing. Go on + infinitive = change; move on to something new. Cf.: How long do you intend to go on playing those ... records'? (M. Swan). He welcomed the new students and went on to explain the college regulations (M. Swan). 8. With interested, the gerund refers to what will or may happen, and the infinitive refers to what has happened. Cf.:
137

I'm interested in -working in Switzerland (M. Swan). / was interested to read in the paper that scientists have found out how the universe began (M. Swan). 9. The verbs allow, advise, forbid, and permit are followed by a gerund when there is no personal object. When there is a personal object, they are followed by an infinitive. Cf.: Sorry, we don 7 allow smoking in the lecture room (M. Swan). We don't allow people to smoke in here (M. Swan). 10. Mean + infinitive - intend to do something. Mean + gerund = involve doing something. Cf.: He means to move to Newcastle (V. Evans). Working harder means getting more money (V. Evans). 11. Would prefer + infinitive (implies specific preference). Prefer + gerund (implies general preference). Cf.: I'd prefer to have an early night tonight (V. Evans). I prefer reading a book to watching TV(V. Evans). 12. Want + infinitive = wish to do something. Want + gerund (implies that something needs to be done). Cf: / want to find a better job (V. Evans). Your dress wants cleaning (V. Evans). 13. Try + gerund - make an experiment; do something to see what will happen. Try + infinitive = attempt to do something difficult. Cf.: Try putting in some more vinegar - that might make it taste a bit better (M. Swan). Please try to understand (M. Swan). 14. Sorry is used with an infinitive when we apologize for something that we are doing or about to do, e.g.: Sorry to disturb you - could I speak to you for a momentl (M. Swan). When we apologize for something that we have done, we use a perfect infinitive, or for + gerund, or a /fort-clause. Cf: Sorry to have woken you up yesterday (M. Swan). I'm sorry for waking/having woken you up yesterday (M. Swan). I'm sorry that I woke you up yesterday (M. Swan).

The Gerund and the Verbal Noun

The verbal noun, from which the gerund has developed, has not dropped out of use. Nowadays, the two forms co-exist. O. Jespersen does not differentiate them. But they should be distinguished because they are different. The gerund has nominal and verbal features; the verbal noun has no verbal features at all It lacks the grammatical categories of phase and voice, and it never combines with an object or an adverbial. But the verbal noun has more nominal features than the gerund. First, it can be used in the plural, e.g.: Our likings are regulated by our circumstances (Ch. Bronte). Second, it can be used in the genitive case, chiefly before the noun sake, e.g.: I'm not talking just for talking's sake (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Third, it can combine with both articles and other noun determiners. Cf.: A good beginning is half the battle (Proverb). Did democracy have its beginnings in Athens'? (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). Fourth, the verbal noun can be modified by attributes, both prepositive and postpositive. Prepositive attributes are usually expressed by adjectives, postpositive - by prepositional word combinations. Cf.: When learning a foreign language, it's important to make a good beginning (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). / can't quite grasp the meaning of these figures (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
Participle I

In Old English, Participle I had the suffix -ende. Towards the end of the Middle English period, Participle I came to be formed by the suffix -ing under the influence of the verbal noun in -ung (-ing). Participle I is a non-finite form of the verb that has a triple nature: verbal, adjectival, and adverbial.

138

139

Verbal Features of Participle I The verbal nature of Participle I reveals itself both at the morphological and syntactic levels. Morphologically, the verbal nature of Participle I manifests itself in the grammatical categories of phase and voice. The category of phase in Participle I finds its expression in the opposition of non-perfect and perfect forms. Perfect Participle I indicates that the action denoted by Participle I is prior to that denoted by the finite verb, e.g.: Having completed the job, the men left early (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). <First, the men completed the job; then they left.> Non-perfect Participle I, being the non-marked member of the phase opposition, has a more flexible meaning. It generally suggests that the action denoted by Participle I is simultaneous with that of the finite verb, e.g.: He looked at the carpet -while waiting for her answer (J. Galsworthy). Non-perfect Participle I can denote an action following the action of the finite verb, e.g.: John fell, hurting his knee (N.A. Kobrina et al.). With some verbs of sense perception and motion, such as see, hear, look, come, arrive, seize, turn, etc., non-perfect Participle I is used to express priority, e.g.: Hearing a footstep below he rose and went to the top of the stairs (Th. Hardy). Coming close to the rock, we saw a strange sight (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). The category of voice in Participle I finds its expression in the active and passive forms. Cf: Trembling with excitement, Sara waited for her friends (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Being left alone, Pauline and I kept silence for some time (Ch. Bronte). Syntactically, the verbal nature of Participle I manifests itself in the following features. 1. Its right-hand combinability with objects, adverbials, and predicatives when the participle happens to be a copula. Cf.: 140

Having finished the dress, Mary packed it carefully in a box (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - object. Having recovered completely, Ted left the hospital (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - adverbial. All being well, we should arrive by tomorrow (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - predicative. 2. Its left-hand combinability with a subjectival member indicating the doer of the action denoted by Participle I, e.g.: Can you see the girl dancing with your brother*? (M. Swan). 3. The function of realizing the verbal component of primary predication when Participle I makes part of a simple verbal or compound nominal predicate. Cf.: She is reading a newspaper (V. Evans). It is very distressing to me, sir, to give this information (Ch. Dickens). 4. The function of realizing the verbal component of secondary predication when Participle I makes part of a complex member of the sentence or forms a parenthesis. Cf.: We saw an old man lying on the road (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Generally speaking, men can run faster than women (M. Swan). Adjectival and Adverbial Features of Participle I The adjectival and adverbial features of Participle I manifest themselves at the syntactic level, namely in the iunctions of attributes (both prepositive and postpositive) and adverbials. The prepositive attribute is usually expressed by a single participle, the postpositive attribute and the adverbial - by a participial phrase. Cf.: / think it is only a passing shower (D. du Maurier). Hike the girl sitting on the right (M. Swan). Putting down my newspaper, I walked over to the window and looked out (M. Swan). Participle I and the Gerund Participle I and the gerund are homonymous in form: 'the stem of a verb + the suffix -ing'. They are also identical in their verbal 141

characteristics, both morphological (the categories of phase and voice) and syntactic (the combinability with objects, adverbials, predicatives, and subjectival members). True, the subjectival member in predicative constructions with the gerund is usually expressed by nouns in the genitive case or by possessive determiners, while in predicative constructions with Participle I it is generally expressed by nouns in the common case or by personal pronouns in the objective case. Cf: I'm annoyed at John's forgetting to pay (M. Swan). Please excuse my coming late (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). / saw a small girl standing in the goldfish pond (M. Swan). I saw him leaving the house (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). However, there is a rising tendency nowadays to use the common case of nouns and the objective case of personal pronouns as subjectival member of a gerundial construction, which blurs the distinction between the gerund and Participle I, e.g.: Who told you of your wife being there! (H. Sweet). I do not like him coming here so often (H. Sweet). In the gerundial predicative construction, the common case of a noun is preferred to the genitive case in the following cases. 1. When the noun denotes an inanimate object or thing, e.g.; / cannot accept the notion of school-life affecting the poet to this extent (H. Sweet), 2. When the noun has the plural suffix -s, e.g.: The rule against visitors entering this bureau is strict (A. Bennett). 3. When some other pans of the sentence depend on the noun, e.g.: Upon my application for her being refused, I had resigned my own post (Ch. Bronte). H. Sweet calls the ing-form in such cases a 'half-gerund', H.W. Fowler-a 'fused participle'. Since Participle I and the gerund are identical in their form and verbal characteristics, E. Kruisinga, L.S. Barkhudarov, E.M. Gordon and I.P. Krylova regard them as one form, which they call the ing-form. The latter is debatable. First of all, Participle I and the gerund differ in meaning. Participle I expresses
142

an action as characterizing a person or thing (like an adjective) or as modifying another action (like an adverb). The gerund expresses an action in its most general sense, actually naming it, and therefore looks more like a noun. This is most evident when they function as predicatives or attributes. As predicative, Participle I gives a qualitative characteristic to the subject, e.g.: When she finished speaking, the applause was deafening (Longman Language Activator). The gerund does not qualify the subject, it rather identifies the subject by revealing its meaning, e.g.: One of my bad habits is biting my nails (M. Swan). As attribute, Participle I denotes an action that the person or thing performs or experiences, e.g. a running stream (i.e. a stream which is running). The nuclear stress is on the noun stream as in all adjective-noun word combinations. Cf: a 'running "stream, a 'deep "stream. The gerund usually reveals the meaning of the modified noun, which never denotes the performer of the action, e.g. running shoes does not mean 'shoes that are running', but 'shoes used or intended for running1. The attributive gerund running here is a label for a subclass of shoe and could be replaced by a noun, e.g. sports shoes. The nuclear stress is on the ing-form as in all noun-noun word combinations. Cf: "running 'shoes, "sports 'shoes. However, there are cases that admit of two interpretations. For instance, a hunting dog may be 'a dog for hunting' and 'a dog that hunts'. The difference in meaning brings about a difference in syntactic functions. Being more of a noun, the gerund can function as subject and object. Participle I cannot be used as subject or object. The typical syntactic Sanctions of Participle I are those of attribute and adverbial. True, the gerund can also function as attribute and adverbial. But one should bear in mind one important point of difference. When used as attribute or adverbial, Participle I, like an adjective or an adverb, is never preceded by a preposition. On the other hand, when the gerund is used as attribute or adverbial,
143

it is preceded by a preposition as nouns usually are in these functions. So, it seems better to differentiate Participle I and the gerund. Their main differential features, according to V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik, are 1) the possibility of substituting the personal pronoun in the objective case by a possessive determiner in predicative constructions and 2) the nature of the introductory verb. Some verbs, phrasal verb equivalents, and predicative word groups, as is well known, combine only with gerunds, e.g.: avoid, burst out. deny, enjoy, excuse, finish, forgive, give up, mind, put off, accuse of, approve of, depend on, feel like, insist on, look like, insist on, object to, prevent from, rely on, succeed in, suspect of, thank for, think of, give up the idea of, look forward to, not to like the idea of to miss an/the opportunity of, be capable of, be fond of, be guilty of, be pleased at, be proud of, be surprised at, be worth (while), etc. Cf.: They burst out laughing (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He enjoys travelling by train (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). She had finished dressing when the telephone rang (Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English). Would you mind opening the window! (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). / don't mind helping you with the dishes (V. Evans). / don't approve of smoking in bed (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). / don't feel like dancing now (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He insists on speaking to you personally (Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English). The old lady thanked me for helping her across the road (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). / did think of visiting him, but I've changed my mind (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). / look forward to receiving your reply as soon as possible (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). // looks like being a fine day (A.S. Hornby, A.P, Cowie, A.C. Gimson).

I strongly object to being treated like a child (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Who can prevent us from getting married? (A.S. Hornby, A.P- Cowie, A.C. Gimson). They suspected him of giving false evidence (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He's quite capable of neglecting his duty (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). I'm very fond of being looked at (0. Wilde). Politicians of all parties are guilty of ignoring this serious problem (D. Biber et al.). ... she ... is proud of being so pretty (C\\. Dickens). We were surprised at finding the house empty (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). It's worth while seeing that film (V. Evans). Participle I and the Adjective Some linguists [e.g. R.A. Close] think that when the ing-form indicates a characteristic feature of the person or thing referred to by the noun, it turns into an adjective, e.g.: We saw an interesting film about African wildlife (Longman Language Activator). Other linguists [e.g. IP. Ivanova, V.V. Burlakova and G.G. Potcheptsov] are of opinion that the ing-form can be qualified as an adjective if it is not derived from a verb, e.g.: heartbreaking (there is no verb heartbreak}. If the ing-form is derived from a verb, it should be referred to Participle I, e.g.: loving, surprising, etc. The argument put forward by I.P. Ivanova, V.V. Burlakova and G.G. Potcheptsov would have sounded convincing if adjectives had never been formed from verbs. But they are, and rather often. Cf: eat - eatable, differ ~ different, etc. According to N.A. Kobrina, E.A. Korneyeva, M.I. Ossovskaya and K.A. Guzeyeva, the process of Participle 1 adjectivization is a hard fact.

act active,

144

145

The adjectival properties of Participle I come to the fore in the functions of prepositive attributes and predicatives. Cf.: What a charming young man\ (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He was charming, good-looking and in his early forties (Longman Language Activator). Adjectivized participles behave like adjectives. 1. They can combine with adjectives proper, e.g.: ... Mrs. Foster was and had always been a good and loving wife (R. Dahl). 2. They can be modified by adverbs of degree, e.g.: The Vice Chairman has a very charming wife and four children (Longman Language Activator). 3. Sometimes they form degrees of comparison, e.g.: The most interesting thing about dinosaurs is the fact that they all died out so suddenly (Longman Language Activator). 4. Adverbs can be formed from them by the suffix -/>', e.g.: loving ~ lovingly: They looked at each other lovingly (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Participle II Participle 11 is the oldest non-finite form of the verb. In Old English, Participle II of strong verbs ended in -en (some irregular verbs still retain this suffix, e.g.: written, forgiven, etc.). Participle II of weak verbs ended in -d or -t. For English grammarians, Participle II is the only participle because they unite Participle I and the gerund in one ing-form. Many Russian linguists regard Participle I and Participle II as one non-finite form of the verb [e.g. V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik; B.S. Khaimovich, B.I. Rogovskaya; V.L. Kaushanskaya and her co-authors, etc.]. But Participle II stands apart not only from Participle I but also from all the other verbals. It seems to be more of an adjective, than of a verb. In the first place, its main meaning is that of state resulting from a certain action. And the meaning of state is more common to adjectives than to verbs. 146

In the second place, Participle n lacks the verbal categories of phase and voice. In the third place, Participle II performs the syntactic functions of attribute and predicative that are typical of adjectives. Cf.: We passed through several deserted villages whose inhabitants had fled (Longman Language Activator). The beach was deserted and unsafe for bathing according to the guidebook (Longman Language Activator). In the fourth place, Participle II, just like adjectives, can be modified by adverbs of degree, e.g.: I'm very pleased you've decided to come (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). In the fifth place, just like adjectives, Participle II is often made negative by the prefix un~, e.g.: finished unfinished. In the sixth place, Participle II may form part of compound adjectives, e.g.: state-owned. In the seventh place, adverbs can be formed from Participle II with the help of the suffix -fy. Cf.: excited - excitedly, unhurried unhurriedly, Nevertheless, we are not justified in referring Participle II to adjectives because, just like other verbals, it has certain verbal characteristics, too. First, Participle II does not always have the meaning of state. When Participle II is formed from a non-terminative verb, it does denote state, e.g.: a -well-known writer. When it is formed from a terminative verb or a verb of double nature, it denotes a completed action, e.g.: a murdered man. Second, although Participle 11 lacks the voice opposition, it does not mean that it has no voice meanings whatsoever. Participle II of transitive verbs is passive in meaning, e.g.: The house was furnished by an interior designer (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Participle II of intransitive verbs is active in meaning, e.g.: an escaped prisoner, a grown-up daughter (M. Swan). Third, Participle II can combine with objects, e.g.: The army, surprised by the attack, fled into the woods (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Fourth, Participle II can be modified by an adverbial, e.g.: 147

The house, remodelled recently, is very attractive (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Fifth, it can take part in realizing primary predication as part of a simple verbal or compound nominal predicate. Cf.: Mr. Hooper has gone to London (S. Hill), In spite of himself, Val was impressed (3. Galsworthy). Sixth, it can take part in realizing secondary predication in predicative constructions, e.g.: / really must have my watch repaired (M. Swan). Predicative Constructions with Participles

In the prepositional absolute participial construction, the participle is in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or, very rarely, to a personal pronoun in the objective case. The construction is usually introduced into the sentence by the preposition with and in most cases performs the function of an adverbial of attendant circumstances. Cf.: They were walking on again, with Hugh calmly drawing at his pipe (J.Lindsay). The daughter sat quite silent and still, with her eyes fixed on the ground (Ch. Dickens).
English and Russian Non-Finite Forms of the Verb Compared

The English participle forms four predicative constructions: 1)the objective participial construction, 2)the subjective participial construction, 3)the nominative absolute participial construction, 4)the prepositional absolute participial construction. In the objective participial construction, the Participle is in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or a persona! pronoun in the objective case. The objective participial construction performs the function of a complex object in the sentence. Cf.: / heard someone laughing (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). The governor wants it done quickly (A. Bennett). In the subjective participial construction, the participle (mostly Participle I) is in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or a personal pronoun in the nominative case which is the subject of the sentence. The subjective participial construction performs the function of a complex subject in the sentence, e.g.: They were heard talking together (W. Collins). In the nominative absolute participial construction, the Participle is in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or a personal pronoun in the nominative case; the noun or pronoun is not the subject of the sentence. The nominative absolute participial construction expresses various adverbial relations. Cf: // being now pretty late, we took our candles and went upstairs (Ch. Dickens). This duty completed, he had three months' leave (Th. Hardy).
148

The system of Russian non-finite forms of the verb is different from the system of English verbals. First, in Russian there is no gerund. Second, Russian participles can be declined. Third, there is a specific non-finite form of the verb in Russian - the so-called deenpwacmue. As opposed to Russian non-finite forms of the verb, English verbals can have a subjectival member of their own, different from the subject of the sentence, e.g.: The sun having set, we decided to return home (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). In Russian it is only the infinitive that can have a subjectival member of its own, different from the subject of the sentence, e.g.:
Ona eenejia etuy ebiMbimb Maiuuny.

10. THE PRONOUN Semantic Characteristics

The meaning of the pronoun as a separate part of speech is difficult to define. In fact, some pronouns share essential semantic peculiarities of nouns, e.g.: she, while others have much in common with adjectives, e.g.: her. Like nouns and adjectives, pronouns denote things and properties of things, but they do not name them as nouns and adjectives do. The pronoun is a part of speech which points to things and properties without naming them. Pronouns,
149

according to V.V. Vinogradov and A.I. Smirnitsky, have a very general relative meaning that varies in accordance with the changing situation. For instance, the pronoun / may indicate a woman, a man, a child, and even an animal or a thing in fairy tales. Taken in isolation, the pronoun is practically devoid of any meaning whatsoever. Nouns and adjectives are quite different in this respect. Thus, the indication of an object by means of the noun table does not depend on the speaker or situation. The estimation of properties is, certainly, more subjective, but still nobody will call a square table round or an ugly man - handsome. O. Jespersen thinks that if we took the relative character of meaning as a basis for singling out pronouns into a separate part of speech, we would have to refer such words as yesterday, today, tomorrow, right, left, father, mother, John, etc. to pronouns, too, because they also change their meaning in accordance with the situation. There is a grain of truth in it since, for example, no concrete day exists which is always called yesterday. Nevertheless, according to A.I. Smirnitsky, we are not justified in including the words yesterday, today, tomorrow, and the like into the class of pronouns, for they indicate time in the way substantives do. Thus, using the word yesterday, we mean a definite period of time, namely a day, not a second, an hour, a week, or a year. Such generalization is to be found only in pronouns proper.
Morphological Characteristics

It is impossible to speak of a pronominal system of inflections because pronouns constitute a heterogeneous group. The Category of Gender Pronouns lack the grammatical category of gender. Personal, possessive, and reflexive pronouns express sex distinctions lexically, e.g.: he -- she, his - her (hers), himself- herself. Cf.: He told me all about it (P.O. Waterhouse). She felt sorry for the poor woman behind the door (S. Sheldon). She did not move her hand (W.S. Maugham). He put out his hand to take hers... (W.S. Maugham). Wilmer threw himself on his knees by the chair,.. (W. Deeping). When she came back she was herself again (Th. Hardy).

The grammatical category of number is found in the demonstrative pronouns this, that and the indefinite pronoun other: this - these, that - those, other - others. Cf.: ... / look awful in this blue dress (English Course). I should like to try on these dresses (Lingaphone English Course). I loved that movie (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S, Proctor). ... those nights were long (W.S. Maugham). Husbands and wives never listen when they talk to each other, only when the other is talking to somebody else (E. Fowler). You are not fair to the others (L. Voynich). Some linguists think that personal pronouns have the grammatical category of number, too. They look upon we as the suppletive plural of / and they as the suppletive plural of he, she, or it. Suppletive forms must be lexically identical. We, however, does not mean / + /, but rather / + you, or / + she, or / + he, or / 4 they, cto- The same is true of them. They does not always mean he + he, or she + she, or it + it. It may as well mean he + she. That's why personal pronouns are generally said to stand outside the

Structure Pronouns fall under simple, e.g.: we and compound, e.g.: ourselves. Derivative pronouns do not occur in the English language. Many linguists recognize the existence of phrasal pronouns, e.g.: each other, one another. Since it is only' words that are classified into parts of speech and the so-called phrasal pronouns represent combinations of words, it is better to call them not pronouns, but pronoun equivalents.

150

151

grammatical category of number [B.S. Khaimovich, B.I. Rogovskaya; B.A. Ilyish]. Many linguists think that reflexive pronouns have the grammatical category of number, too. At first sight, they really do. Cf.: And then I dressed myself and came away to find you (Th. Hardy). This is where we wash ourselves, Eliza... (B. Shaw). It's yourself, boy(A.L Cronin). Well, I hope, you'll both enjoy yourselves (J. Galsworthy). What would he do with himself! (D.H. Lawrence). When she washed herself, the cat washed itself... (C.E. Eckersley). They blamed themselves for the unlucky marriage (Th. Hardy). But if we go deeper into it, we shall see that the reflexive pronouns ending in -selves can hardly be looked upon as grammatical plural forms from the corresponding reflexive pronouns ending in -self for, just as in the case with personal pronouns, themselves, for example, does not mean himself+ himself or herself + herself, etc. It may mean himself'+ herself, etc. We can speak of grammatical plural only in regard to persons or things which, without being identical, belong to the same kind. Since the so-called singular and plural reflexive pronouns have different referents, they cannot be regarded as constituting the grammatical category of number. The Category of Case The indefinite pronouns everybody, everyone, somebody, someone, anybody, anyone, nobody, and one have the common and the genitive case just like nouns. Cf.: ... you knew almost everybody (K. Mansfield). Nobody was spending any money (D.H. Lawrence). Everybody's business is nobody's business (O. Jespersen). Anybody can see it (J. Galsworthy). It's anybody's right (J. London). Only one with a constitution of iron could have held himself down, as Martin did(L London).
152

/ know exactly what it feels like to be held down on one's back (J. Galsworthy). Personal pronouns, as well as the interrogative and relative who, draw a distinction between the nominative and the objective cases. R. Quirk and his co-authors call the nominative case the subjective case because pronouns used in the nominative case perform the function of the subject in the sentence. Cf.: /- me, he -him, she her, we - us, they - them, who - whom. The personal pronouns it and you have the same form for both cases: i"r - it, you -you. So, they either stand outside the grammatical category of case or have homonymous case forms. There is a tendency in Modem English to use the nominative case of personal pronouns only in the function of the subject that is followed immediately by the predicate-verb, e.g.: You don *t understand (P.G. Wodehouse). The objective case is used everywhere else. Cf.: Have you given him the book? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). We 're mad, you and me... (B. Forbes). You are the only person who has ever seen Ram. - Me? (A. Powell). They 'd tell me themselves. - Not them (M. Duffy). It wasn 't me (J.C. Gates). Obviously no one can do it but him (A.E. Lindop). Jack was three or four years older than me (W. Cooper). You are as conventional as them all (A. Laski). In the interrogative pronoun who, the objective case form whom tends to be replaced by the nominative case form who, especially if the question ends with a preposition, e.g.: Who could she trustf (A. McCall). Who can he take after"? (R. Sheridan). Whom can be used in a more formal style, and it is necessary after a preposition. Cf.: Whom did they arrest! (M, Swan). With whom are you going? (M. Swan). tn identifying relative clauses, whom is unusual, especially in conversational English. It is generally either left out or replaced by who or that. It is almost impossible in clauses that end with a preposition. Cf: 153

/ think you should stay faithful to the person you are married to (M. Swan). / think you should stay faithful to the person who/that you are married to (M. Swan). In non-identifying relative clauses, which are separated from their noun-heads by commas, whom has to be used as an object, e.g.: The small man in the raincoat, whom nobody recognized, turned out to be Olivia's first husband (M. Swan). But non-identifying relative clauses are common to written, not to conversational English. Syntactic Characteristics Pronouns can be used both as notional and as auxiliary elements. When used as notional words, they perform the function of this or that part of the sentence. When employed as auxiliary elements, they help express various grammatical meanings. Personal pronouns, for instance, render the grammatical meanings of person and number. B.A. Ilyish thinks that unstressed personal pronouns, preceding a finite verb, are well advanced on the way towards becoming a kind of verbal prefix of person and number. Etymologically, the word pronoun means 'a word used instead of a noun'. This meaning reflects to some extent, the role of pronouns in the language. Pronouns can replace hundreds of nouns. That's why pronouns are used very frequently and form a considerable part of any text, though as a class of words they are not numerous. But this definition is not suitable to all pronouns. For instance, in the sentence It snows (B. Zaffran, D. Krulik), the pronoun it does not take the place of any noun. If you try to substitute a noun for //, you will find none that will quite do. The best possible substitute is The snow (snows), but this, in the opinion of J.B. Opdycke, is a ridiculous repetition. So, the pronoun it in the sentence It snows stands independent of all noun reference or relationship. What is more important, pronouns substitute not only nouns but also adjectives. Taking into consideration that the syntactic functions of pronouns are similar to those of nouns and adjectives, 154

H. Sweet denies the existence of pronouns as a separate part of speech. Pronouns, in his opinion, form a special subclass of nouns and adjectives. Accordingly, he distinguishes noun-pronouns and adjective-pronouns. Noun-pronouns perform the functions of subject and object typical of nouns, e.g.: She laughed (J.C. Gates) - subject. The children will hear you (S. Sheldon) - object. Adjective-pronouns, being pointing, not naming words, function not as attributes, but as determiners that specify the reference of nouns, e.g.: Your husband has come (D.H. Lawrence). Personal pronouns are always used as noun-pronouns. Possessive pronouns are functionally heterogeneous. Possessive pronouns in the conjoint form (my, his, her, its, our, your, their) are always used as adjective-pronouns; possessive pronouns in the absolute form (mine, his, hers, its, ours, yours, theirs) are always used as noun-pronouns. Cf.: Did it ever cross your mind that I might have married Anna because I fell in love with her? - No. Did it ever cross yours! (S. Sheldon). The majority of pronouns have both noun and adjective functions. Cf.: Oh, look at this bracelet, Carlos (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor). - Here the pronoun this is an adjective-pronoun modifying the noun bracelet. How much is this*? (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor). - Here the pronoun this is a noun-pronoun used absolutely, without a noun. The similarity of functions, however, is no excuse for uniting pronouns with nouns and adjectives. They differ not only semantically and to some extent morphologically, as is evident from the above given material, but also syntactically, which becomes evident if we analyze their combinability. Noun-pronouns, just like nouns, combine with postpositive and prepositive verbs. Cf.: Claud produced a pocket-knife (R. Dahl). He saw me the next night... (W. Saroyan). But as opposed to nouns, noun-pronouns generally do not combine with articles and are not modified by prepositive 155

adjectives. Compare the regular occurrence of combinations of the type Poor child] (D. Robins), on the one hand, and the rare use of combinations of the type Silfy me (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English), on the other. Adjective pronouns, just like adjectives, combine with nouns in postposition. Cf.: The tall youth beside him was his son Bert (R. Dahl). Her face lit up suddenly (W. Deeping). But as opposed to adjectives, adjective-pronouns cannot form combinations with preceding adverbs. Summing it all up, we can say that there is no uniformity of morphological and syntactic characteristics in the groups of pronouns. Pronouns form a class chiefly on the basis of their semantic peculiarities. In this respect, pronouns constitute a specific part of speech, for in all other parts of speech formal characteristics are of paramount importance because they are systemic. New Approach to Pronouns According to N. Shvedova and A. Belousova, pronouns form a basis for the main notional categories in the language. The authors describe in detail seven notional categories: 1)animate being - who, 2)property - what kind, 3)possession - whose, 4)number - how many, 5)place where; direction - where to, where from, 6)choice which, 7)time when. All the notional categories draw a distinction between three degrees of definiteness: definiteness, indefmiteness, and nonexistence. Lexicon, morphology, syntax, text structures, and phraseology take part in the formation of the notional categories. But each notional category has a pronoun as headword. Cf.:

Who - animate being Definiteness - /, you, he, she; Indefmiteness - somebody, someone; Non-existence nobody. Whose -possession Definiteness - my, your, his, her; Indefmiteness - somebody's, someone *s; Non-existence - nobody's. In other words, pronouns are indispensable in building up the notional categories of all languages. 11. THE NUMERAL Semantic Characteristics The numeral, like the pronoun, is a part of speech that is singled out on the basis of its specific meaning. Numerals possess a generalized lexico-grammatical meaning of number. The lexicogrammatical meaning of number should not be confused with the grammatical meaning of number. 1. The lexico-grammatical meaning of number is the generalization of the lexical meanings of individual numerals :five, ten, fifty-seven, etc. The grammatical meaning of number is the generalization of only two grammatical meanings: singular and plural. 2. The lexico-grammatical number indicates definite plurality, e.g.: twenty, forty, etc. The grammatical plural number shows indefinite plurality, e.g.: boys. Numerals indicate either a definite number or the position in a series. Accordingly, we distinguish cardinal and ordinal numerals. Cf.: That was three years ago (J. Cheever). In the third year of their marriage, Anna became pregnant (S. Sheldon).

156

157

Morphological Characteristics Structure Numerals can be simple, derived, and compound. The cardinal numerals up to ten and the ordinal numerals first and second are simple. The cardinal numerals eleven, twelve and the ordinal numeral third are historically derived. Nowadays, their etymology is forgotten and they are looked upon as simple words. The numerals from 13 to 19 are derived numerals. They are formed from the corresponding simple numerals three, four, five, etc. by the suffix -teen, e.g.: six - sixteen. Mind the difference in the spelling of the stem in three - thirteen and five -fifteen. Cardinal numerals with the suffix -teen have two stresses: the main stress is on the suffix, the secondary stress is on the stem, e.g.: seventeen, nineteen, etc. If a re^tt-numeral is followed by a noun with a stress on the first syllable, the suffix -teen loses its stress, e.g.: sixteen pencils. O. Jespersen refers teen-numerals to compound words. His conception does not stand criticism. The tiling is that English compound words always consist of a combination of words, each of which can stand alone as a separate word. The word teen in Modern English does not exist. Teen in Modem English is certainly a suffix, although it goes back to the numeral ten. Cardinal numerals indicating tens are formed from the corresponding simple numerals by the suffix -ty, e.g.: seven -seventy. Mind the difference in the spelling of the stem in two -twenty, three thirty, four -forty, and five -fifty. Cardinal numerals with the suffix -ty have one stress on the stem. Ordinal numerals, with the exception of first, second, and third, are formed by adding the suffix -th to the corresponding simple cardinal numerals, e.g.: four-fourth. Mind the difference in the spelling of the stem in five -fifth, eight - eighth, nine - ninth. When ordinal numerals are formed from cardinal numerals indicating tens, the final -y is changed into -ie before the suffix -th, e.g.: twenty twentieth. The numerals from twenty-one to twenty-nine, from thirtyone to thirty-nine, etc. are compound. In Old English, they represented free word combinations. Compound numerals are hyphenated. 158

When ordinal numerals are formed from compound numerals, it is the second component that takes the suffix -th: twenty-four -twenty-fourth. Numerals over 100 are usually regarded as phrasal numerals, e.g.: two hundred and fifty-six. Since it is only words that are classified into parts of speech and the so-called phrasal numerals represent combinations of words, it is better to call them not numerals, but numeral equivalents. In numerical combinations including hundreds and thousands, the words denoting tens or units, if there are no tens, are introduced by the conjunction and. Cf.: 265 two hundred and sixty-five, 3050 three thousand and fifty, 9671 nine thousand six hundred and seventy-one, 104 one hundred and four. Numerals denoting fractions should be regarded as numeral equivalents, too, because they never consist of one word, hi vulgar fractions, the numerator is expressed by a cardinal numeral, the denominator by a substantivized ordinal numeral. The numerator and the denominator may be joined by a hyphen, e.g.: '/s one/a third, 2 /3 two thirds, etc. Somewhat apart stand the vulgar fractions of the kind: */2 one/a half, % one/a quarter, % three quarters. In mixed numbers, the numerals denoting fractions are joined to the numerals denoting whole numbers by means of the conjunction and, e.g.: 3!/s three and one eighth. The noun following a vulgar fraction is used in the singular. The combination is spoken in the following way: % mile - half a mile, 2 /3 ton two thirds of a ton, % hour - three quarters of an hour. The noun following a mixed number is used in the plural. The combination is spoken in the following way: l*/2 kilometres - one and a half kilometres (one kilometre and a half),
159

r/3 pounds - one and a third pounds (one pound and a third), 2Vs tons ~ two and a third tons (two tons and a third), In decimal fractions, every number is denoted by a cardinal numeral. We can use zero (American), nought (British), or oh (the least technical) for the number 0. In decimal fractions, the numerals denoting fractions are joined to those denoting whole numbers by means of the word 'point' (mowa). If the whole number is zero, it is often not spoken. Cf.: 0.125 (zero, nought, oh) point one two five, 12.305 one two (twelve) point three nought five. The noun following a decimal fraction is used in the singular if the whole number is zero, e.g.: 0.25 ton (zero, nought, oh) point two five of a ton. If the whole number is not zero, the noun following a decimal fraction is used in the plural, e.g.: 1.25 tons one point two five tons. Morphological Categories In Old English, numerals had the grammatical category of case. Nowadays, English numerals are invariable. Syntactic Characteristics Combinabilitv The combinability of numerals is rather limited. As a rule, they form combinations with nouns. Numerals usually precede the nouns they modify. Cf.: Mr. and Mrs. Brown had two daughters and two sons. (L.A. Hill). ...in the second half of the match he nearly scored another goal... (L.A. Hill). Nouns modified by cardinal numerals in preposition are generally used without any article, e.g.: / could see six men with six dogs (D.H. Barber). But when the situation or the context makes them definite, they are used with the definite article, e.g.: He was looking at the five boats coming in (J. Aldridge). 160

After a time he was aware that he had been seen by one of the three men he had been watching (C. McCullers). Nouns modified by ordinal numerals in preposition are in most cases preceded by the definite article, e.g.: February is the second month of the year (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). The noun modified by a prepositive ordinal numeral combines with the indefinite article if the ordinal numeral acquires the meaning 'another' or 'one more', e.g.: In other words I think I'd like a second opinion (A. Berkeley). Postposition of numerals is less common. Cardinal numerals occur in postposition with some nouns denoting pages, paragraphs, chapters, parts of books, acts and scenes of plays, lessons in textbooks, apartments and rooms, means of transport, and grammatical terms. Cf.: This subject is dealt with in Chapter 5 (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Turn to page 44 (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Hamlet kills the King in Act 5 (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Flight BA 726 from Amsterdam has now arrived (BBC London Course). Nouns modified by cardinal numerals in postposition are always used without any article. Postmodifying ordinal numerals occur in combination with certain proper nouns, mostly those denoting the members of wellknown dynasties. Postmodifying ordinal numerals are always used with the definite article, e.g.: King Edward IY (the fourth) (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The combinability of numerals with other parts of speech is rare. Numerals sometimes combine with: 1)pronouns in preposition, e.g.: every three days, 2)adjectives in preposition, e.g.: the last two weeks, 3)particles in preposition, e.g.: only three books, 4) prepositional combinations in postposition, e.g.: one of them,
161

5) the copular verb be, usually in preposition, e.g.: She's forty-six (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Syntactic Functions The most typical syntactic function of cardinal numerals is said to be that of an attribute. Comparing the combinations five books and new books, A.I. Smirnitsky comes to the conclusion that in spite of the seeming identity in function, the component five cannot be looked upon as an attribute. First, in contrast to attributive adjectives, which reveal this or that property of the headword, cardinal numerals indicate the exact number of persons or things. Second, attributive words (especially in inflected languages) agree as far as possible with the word they modify, e.g.: xopomax nosoda, where the head noun no^o^a makes the preceding attributive adjective take the form of the nominative case, singular number, and feminine gender. With cardinal numerals, it is quite different. Here it is the meaning of the numeral, i.e. of the modifying word, that predetermines the form of the head noun. Cf.: one boy, but two boys. Taking into consideration the specific role played by cardinal numerals in the sentence, A.I. Smirnitsky suggests that they should be qualified not as attributes, but as a specific part of the sentence. However, he does not give it a name. Ordinal numerals he refers to adjectives because they share the grammatical characteristics of adjectives. Like adjectives, they admit of no number distinctions and have no case forms. The only thing that differentiates them from adjectives is that they have no degrees of comparison. But many adjectives have no degrees of comparison either. As to B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya, they think that ordinal numerals stand closer to cardinal numerals than to adjectives. They put forward the following arguments. 1. Each cardinal numeral has a corresponding ordinal numeral. 2. Both cardinal and ordinal numerals give a quantitative characteristic as distinct from adjectives whose qualification 162 is qualitative.

3.Only numerals have the suffix -th. 4.The words ten - tenth are opposed only grammatically. The first component ten has a zero inflection, the second - tenth - the inflection -th. The lexical meaning of the two words is the same. Following V.G. Admony, many linguists represent the class of numerals as a linguistic field. Cardinal numerals constitute the centre of the field. Ordinal numerals form the periphery of the field because they share the features of two classes: those of numerals and adjectives. Substantivization of Numerals Like adjectives, numerals can be substantivized. Substantivized numerals acquire the following characteristics of nouns. 1.A generalized grammatical meaning of 'thingness'. 2.Ability to be used in the plural, e.g.: There are hundreds among the members of this club (J. Galsworthy). 3. Combinability with articles and prepositions. Cf.: You haven't had a single five this term. You'd better work a bit harder next term (J. Povey, I. Walshe). He got a first in Modern Languages (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). It's after four (E.A.M. Wilson). We arrive on the first (E.A.M. Wilson). 4. The syntactic functions of subject and object. Cf.: Two can play (at) this game (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson) - subject. Formfours\ (E.A.M. Wilson) - object. Cardinal numerals are more often substantivized than ordinal numerals. On the other hand, some nouns turn into numerals, e.g. pair, dozen, score, etc. When they become numerals, they lose the grammatical category of number and the head noun is usually introduced without the preposition of, e.g.: 24 is two dozen (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). According to the Bible, we can expect to live for three score years and ten (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
163

Numerals in Dates Great Britain: 3(rd) January 1985 - the third of January nineteen eighty-five. USA: May 4, 1985 - May fourth, nineteen eighty-five. Numerals in Telephone Numbers Each digit is spoken separately, i.e. no figure above nine is used. 0 is pronounced oh in Great Britain. In US usage, zero may replace oh. The figures are usually grouped rhythmically in pairs (pairing from the right), e.g.: 7325 - seven three two five. But there is a tendency to use rhythmic triplets, especially for six-figure units, e.g.: 510364 -five one oh (zero) three six four. If the two digits of a pair are the same, the word double is usually used, e.g.: 264454 - two six double four five four, An exception is the GB emergency call 999, which is always nine nine nine. In numbers which include a code number, the code is to be separated by a pause, e.g.: 01- 629 8495 - oh one six two nine eight four nine five. The notional status of pronouns and numerals is debatable. If we take into consideration the criteria used by English grammarians for differentiating notional (or lexical) and structural (or function) words (see the lecture on Parts of Speech), we shall see that they stand much closer to function words. 12. FUNCTION WORDS Function words, as opposed to lexical words, render grammatical meaning. They serve two major roles: indicating relationships between lexical words or larger units, or indicating the way in which a lexical word or larger unit is to be interpreted. Function words are heterogeneous. D. Biber and his co-authors distinguish the following classes of function words: 1)determiners, 2)pronouns, 3)auxiliaries (primary and modal), 4)prepositions, 5)adverbial particles, 6)conjunctions (coordinators and subordinators), 7)wA-words, 8)existential there, 9)the negator not, 10)the infinitive marker to, 11)numerals (cardinals and ordinals). Determiners Determiners are function words used to specify the kind of reference a noun has. Determiners vary in the kind of noun head they occur with. The three classes in question are countable singular nouns, countable plural nouns, and uncountable nouns. English grammarians give a wide definition of determiners. They include into them all subclasses of pronouns and numerals that are used with a noun head. Sometimes more than one determiner occurs in the same noun phrase, e.g.: all the books, hi such cases, the determiners occur in a fixed order. English grammarians draw a distinction between three groups of determiners: 1)central determiners (the most common type): articles, demonstrative determiners, possessive determiners, whdeterminers, and specifying genitives; 2)predeterminers (which precede central determiners when both occur): all, both, half and multipliers like double, once, and twice; 3) postdeterminers (which follow central determiners). Postdeterminers fall into two subgroups: a) ordinal numerals and the semi-determiners same, other, former, latter, last, and next; b) cardinal numerals and quantifying determiners.

164

165

Articles Articles are the most common and most basic of the determiners. The occurrence of the articles varies depending upon the type of noun. The indefinite article is used with singular countable nouns. It narrows down the reference of the head noun to one indefinite member of the class, e.g.: / bought a newspaper (R. Murphy). The so-called zero article signals indefmiteness with uncountable and plural countable nouns. Cf.: He wants power (H. Innes). They need teachers badly (E.R. Braithwaite). The definite article combines with both countable and uncountable nouns. It specifies that the referent of the noun phrase is assumed to be known to the speaker and the addressee. The definite article makes the reference clear either by pointing to the situation (situational reference) or by referring to the neighbouring text - preceding (anaphoric reference) or following (cataphoric reference). Cf.: He opened the middle window, filling the room with cold air (T. Chevalier) - situational reference. // was a little bird And the bird was whistling overhead (D.H. Lawrence) - anaphoric reference. The (kings she said were not funny... (D. Robins) -cataphoric reference, Reference is generic when a noun phrase refers to the whole class rather than to an individual person or thing. In English, the indefinite article, the definite article, and the so-called zero article can be used for generic reference. The indefinite and definite articles are generally used with singular countable nouns, the socalled zero article - with plural and uncountable nouns. Cf: A friend in need is a friend indeed (Proverb). The devil is not so black as he is painted (Proverb). Actions speak louder than words (Proverb). Money talks (Proverb).

Possessive Determiners Possessive determiners specify a noun phrase by relating it to the speaker/writer (my. our), the addressee (your) or other entities mentioned in the text or given in the speech situation (his, her, its, their). Possessive determiners correspond to personal pronouns (my - /, our - we, your - you, his - he, her - she, its - it, their ~ they). Possessive determiners make noun phrases definite. Cf: My words at least had their effect (T. Chevalier). Closely related to possessive determiners are specifying genitives consisting of a noun phrase and a genitive suffix, e.g.: This is Peter's umbrella (V. Evans). Demonstrative.Jjetej^miriers The demonstrative determiners this/these and that/those are similar to the definite article in conveying definite meaning. However, in addition to marking an entity as known, they specify the number of the referent (this, that - singular, these, those -plural) and whether the referent is near (this, these) or distant in relation to the speaker (that, those). In addition, the demonstrative determiners are stressed, whereas the definite article is almost always unstressed. Like the definite article, the demonstrative determiners can make the reference clear either by pointing to the situation, or by referring to the preceding or following text. Cf: / saw Mrs. Jones this morning (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Shall we adopt these methods or those! (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Who -was that man J saw you talking to? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Those sweets you gave me -were very nice (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

166

167

Quantifiers Some determiners specify nouns in terms of quantity and are therefore called quantifiers. They combine with both indefinite and definite noun phrases. In the latter case, they are generally followed by the preposition of. Cf.: Most people take their holidays in the summer (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). But most of the day was spent upstairs (C. McCullers). Quantifiers can be broadly divided into four groups. 1. Inclusive: all, both, each, and every. All refers to the whole of a group or a mass; it combines with both countable and uncountable nouns. Both is used with reference to two entities with plural countable nouns. Cf.: All children hate exams (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Don't go to that awful man and spend all that money (D. Biber et al.). Both her parents are doctors (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Each and every refer to the individual members of a group and combine only with singular countable nouns. Each stresses the separate individual; every ~ the individual as a member of the group. Cf: We want every child to succeed (M. Swan). Each child will find his own personal road to success (M. Swan). 2. Large quantity. Many and much specify a large quantity: many - with plural countable nouns, much - with uncountable nouns. They are typically used in interrogative and negative contexts. Cf.: Do you know many people! (R. Murphy). They didn 't ask me many questions (R. Murphy). Do you drink much coffee1? (R. Murphy). There isn 't much milk in the fridge (R. Murphy). Other determiners specifying a large quantity are a great/good many (with plural countable nouns), a great/good deal (with uncountable nouns), plenty of, a lot of, and lots of. Cf: 168

There are a great many reasons why you shouldn 't do it (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). We received a good many offers of support (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). A great deal of money has been spent on the new hospital (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He has had to spend a good deal of money on medicines (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). There are plenty of eggs in the house (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). A lot of people speak English (R. Murphy). We 've played lots of matches this season (M. Swan). 3. Moderate or small quantity. Some usually specifies a moderate quantity and is used with both uncountable and plural countable nouns, Cf.: I've just made some coffee (R. Murphy). There are some beautiful flowers in the garden (R. Murphy). Determiners specifying a small quantity are a few, few, and several with plural countable nouns, and a little and little with uncountable nouns. A few and a little are close in meaning to some; few and little suggest that the quantity is less than expected. Cf: Last night I wrote a few letters (R. Murphy). I've read it several times (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A,C. Gimson). He is not well known. Few people have heard of him (R. Murphy). She didn't eat anything, but she drank a little water (R. Murphy). In summer the weather is very dry. There is little rain (R. Murphy). 4. Arbitrary/negative member or amount. Any denotes an arbitrary member of a group, or an arbitrary amount of a mass. It combines with both countable and uncountable nouns. Either has a similar meaning, but it is used with groups of two and combines only with singular countable nouns. Both any and either are typically used in negative and interrogative contexts. Cf.: They didn 'I make any mistakes (R. Murphy). Are there any letters for me this morning*? (R. Murphy). / haven't got any money (R. Murphy).
169

Have you got any money'? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). She's lived in London and Manchester, but doesn 't like either city very much (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). No and neither have negative reference, the former -generally, the latter - with reference to two entities. Cf.: / have no socks (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Neither road is very good (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Numerals Cardinal numerals are related to quantifiers, but differ from them in providing a numerical rather than a more general specification. Ordinal numerals specify nouns in terms of order. They are similar to the so-called semi-determiners. Cf.: Brazil beat France by two goals to one (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). That's the second time you've asked me that (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). When the two types of numerals occur together in one noun phrase, ordinal numerals normally precede cardinal numerals, e.g.: In the first two minutes of the match, the Garden School boys came very close to the City School's goal... (L.A. Hill). Semi-determ iners In addition to determiners proper, there are some determiner-like words which are often described as adjectives. However, they differ from adjectives in that they have no descriptive meaning and primarily serve to specify the reference of the noun. Moreover, they are characterized by special co-occurrence patterns with other determiners. Most semi-determiners co-occur only with the definite article. There are four major pairings of semideterminers: same and other, former and latter; last and next; certain and such.

1. Same and other. Same may be added after the definite article to emphasize that the reference is exactly to the person or thing mentioned before,

e.g.That's the same man that asked me for money yesterday (M. Swan). Other is the opposite of same and specifies that the reference is to something or somebody different from the person or thing mentioned previously. It may be added after the definite article, the indefinite article (taking the form another), and possessive determiners, or it may occur as the only determiner in indefinite noun phrases, e.g.: She is cleverer than the other girls in her class (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Will you have another cup of tea? (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). 2. Former and latter. Former and latter may be added after the definite article to discriminate between the first and the second of two things or people already mentioned. Cf.: Of Nigeria and Ghana, the former country has the larger population (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). If offered red or white, I'd choose the latter wine (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Former and latter can also be used with reference to time.

3. Last and next. Last and next are like ordinal numerals in specifying items in terms of order. They regularly combine with the definite article or some other definite determiner, except when used in deictic time expressions, with present time as the situational point of reference (such as last week, next Thursday, etc.). Cf.: George was the last person to arrive (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).
When you 've finished this chapter go on to the next one (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). We went there last Sunday and we're again going next Sunday (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

170

171

4. Certain and such. Certain and such differ from the other semi-determiners in being used only in indefinite noun phrases. Certain singles out a specific person/thing or some specific people/things. Such refers to a person/thing or people/things of a particular kind. Cf.: There are certain reasons why this information cannot be made public (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Such people as him shouldn't be allowed here (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Wh-determiners ^-determiners are used as interrogative clause markers and relativizers (i.e. words that introduce relative clauses). Cf: Whose house is this? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Which shoes shall I wear, the red ones or the brown ones? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). That's the man whose house was burned down (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). / told him to go to a doctor, which aavice he took (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).

Pronouns
D. Biber and his co-authors refer to function words those pronouns that are used absolutely, without a head noun. They regard them as function words because they do not give a detailed specification, but serve as pointers requiring the listener or reader to find the exact meaning in the surrounding text or in the speech situation, e.g.: / saw the accident (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) -personal pronoun. Jane saw me at the game (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - personal pronoun. Who told you this? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - demonstrative pronoun. She hurt herself (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - reflexive pronoun.
172

They told each other about their families (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - reciprocal pronoun equivalent. But this dog isn't mine! It's his (V. Evans) - possessive pronouns. Somebody took my coat (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - indefinite pronoun. Which is your car? (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) -interrogative pronoun. This is the dog which was lost (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - relative pronoun. In addition to pronouns, there are some other function words which recapitulate a neighbouring expression, with the effect of reducing grammatical complexity. The following are the most important. 1. The pro-form so, which replaces clauses or verb complements, e.g.: Do you think it will rain? - Yes, I think so (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). 2. The pro-predicates do and do so. Cf.: She likes jazz, and I do as well (M. Swan). Put the car away, please, - I've already done so (M. Swan).

Auxiliaries
D. Biber and his co-authors draw a distinction between auxiliaries proper (or primary auxiliaries) and modal auxiliaries. The primary auxiliaries specify the morphological categories of the lexical verb. The modal auxiliaries are largely concerned with expressing 'modality', i.e. such concepts as ability, permission, necessity, obligation, etc. Cf.: He has just painted the room (V. Evans) - primary auxiliary, perfect phase. You must follow (he school rules (V. Evans) - modal auxiliary, obligation.

173

Prepositions Tradition says that prepositions are function words that indicate relations between nouns or noun equivalents and some other words in the sentence, e.g.: 1) to think of somebody (the preposition of indicates the relations between the pronoun somebody and the verb to think); 2) free from danger (the preposition from shows the relations between the noun danger and the adjective free). Many prepositions in English correspond to case inflections in other languages. According to B.A. liyish, prepositions express relations between objects of extra linguistic reality. For instance, in the sentence The ball is in the box (V. Evans), the preposition in indicates relations in space between two things: the ball and the box. The latter seems highly debatable. Being a linguistic notion, the preposition cannot serve the purpose of expressing relations between objects of extra linguistic reality. According to M.Ganshina and N.Vasilevskaya, prepositions have no lexical meaning. In the opinion of B.S Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya, prepositions do have lexical meaning, but as opposed to the lexical meaning of nouns, adjectives and other notional (or lexical words), which always name things, properties, etc., the lexical meaning of prepositions is extremely general and weak because prepositions lack the naming function. Cf.: The accident occurred under the bridge (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). The accident occurred near the bridge (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). The accident occurred above the bridge (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). The accident occurred behind the bridge (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). The accident occurred beneath the bridge (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). R. Quirk and his co-authors think the meanings of space and time to be most typical of prepositions, although they mention also such meanings rendered by prepositions as cause, goal, origin, and some others.

D. Biber and his co-authors draw a distinction between free and bound prepositions. Free prepositions have an independent meaning; the choice of a free preposition is not dependent upon any specific words in the context. In contrast, bound prepositions often have little independent meaning, and the choice of a preposition depends upon some other word (often the preceding verb). The same prepositional form can function as a free or a bound preposition. Cf.: There is a picture on the wall (V. Evans) - free preposition. Good health depends upon/on good food, exercise and getting enough sleep (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson) - bound preposition. Although some prepositions can be both free and bound, many prepositions are always, or almost always, free: above, across, against, along, among(st), before, behind, beside, between, beyond, during, inside, near, opposite, outside, past, since, till, toward(s), under, until, etc. In addition, phrasal prepositions are normally free. As far as their makeup is concerned, prepositions fall into the following groups: 1)simple, e.g.: in, on, at, for, with, etc., 2)derivative, e.g.: behind, below, across, etc., 3)compound, e.g.: inside, outside, within, etc. Some linguists speak of the so-called phrasal prepositions. Here belong the groups out of, because of, in front of, etc. Just like prepositions proper, they always stand before the word they govern, are introduced into speech ready-made, and have the same meaning of showing relations between a noun or a noun equivalent and some other word. Cf.: A woman is getting out of her car (V. Evans). Agnes was sitting on the bench in front of our house (T. Chevalier). On the other hand, phrasal prepositions are different from prepositions proper. They consist of two or more words which are spelt separately. Such groups are on the way to becoming full prepositions and in grammars of the future may be classified as such. At present, according to G.L. Morosova, they should be looked upon as preposition equivalents. Prepositions are invariable. They have no grammatical categories.
175

174

Syntactically, prepositions are characterized by bilateral combinability with a right-hand noun or noun equivalent and a left-hand word belonging to almost any part of speech. There are cases in the English language, however, when the left-hand connection is lost As characteristic examples we can quote the titles of some novels, e.g.: Under the Tree (Th. Hardy), Of Human Bondage (W.S. Maugham), etc. The meaning and function of the preposition become clear if we compare the actual title of W.S. Maugham's novel Of Human Bondage with a possible variant Human Bondage, without a preposition. In the title Of Human Bondage, the preposition of is used as it is used in the phrase speak of something. So, in the title the preposition implies that the author is going to speak of human bondage. That's why it will perhaps be right to say that the right-hand connection of prepositions is always explicit, while the left-hand connection may be implicit. Being runction words, prepositions lack accentuation and syntactic independence in the sentence. Since the word preposition comes from two Latin words which mean placed before, prepositions should be put before the nouns or noun equivalents they introduce. In informal style, however, the preposition is often placed at the end of the clause. The deferment of a preposition is obligatory in the following cases. 1. In passive clauses, e.g.: Has the room been paid for! (R. Quirk et al.). 2. In clauses with infinitival phrases or infinitival predicative constructions, e.g.: He's impossible to work with (R. Quirk et a!.). 3. In clauses with gerundial phrases or gerundial predicative constructions, e.g.: He's worth listening to (R. Quirk et at). With interrogative and relative noun phrases as prepositional complement, there are often alternative positions available: one formal - with the preposition in the normal place before the complement, the other informal - with the preposition deferred to final position. Cf: At which house did you leave the car? (R Quirk et al.) -formal. Which house did you leave the car afl (R. Quirk et al.) -informal.
176

The old house about which I was telling you is empty (R. Quirk et al.) - formal. The old house which I was telling you about is empty (R. Quirk et al.) - informal. In general, it is the most common and short prepositions which can be deferred, in particular spatial prepositions. Adverbial Particles Adverbial particles are a small group of short invariable forms with a core meaning of motion and result. The most important are: about, across, along, around, aside, away, back, by, down, forth, in, off, out, over, past, round, through, under, etc. While prepositions have a special relationship to nouns, adverbial particles are closely linked to verbs. As opposed to prepositions that usually precede nouns, adverbial particles generally follow verbs. Adverbial particles are used in two main ways: 1) to build phrasal verbs, 2) to build extended prepositional phrases. Cf.: My aunt brought up four children (R. Courtney). We were going back to the hotel when it happened (D. Biber etal.). Conjunctions A conjunction is a function word which joins syntactic units: words, parts of clauses, clauses, sentences, etc. Traditionally, conjunctions are subdivided into coordinating and subordinating. Coordinating conjunctions (or coordinators) link elements of equal rank. Cf.: I fell and broke my arm (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). It was a nice little place and Mr. and Mrs. Witle were rather proud of it (Th. Dreiser). Subordinating conjunctions (or subordinators) serve to introduce a dependent clause, e.g.: We came here because it was cheap (J. Updike). When I turned around Agnes had gone (T. Chevalier).

17?

uniform right-hand distribution (generally a noun). However, even

178

Coordinators are usually classified into additive (and), adversative (but), and disjunctive (or). Subordinators fall into three major subclasses. 1.The great majority of subordinators introduce adverbial clauses: after, as, because, since, (al)though, while, etc. (See the above given examples). 2.Three subordinators introduce degree clauses: as, than, and that, e.g.: Pro/its are higher than they were last year (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 3. Three subordinators introduce complement clauses: if, that, and whether e.g.: It was uncertain whether she would recover (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). As far as their makeup is concerned, conjunctions fall into the following groups: 1) simple, e.g.: and, but, so, though, etc.; 2) compound, e.g.: however, nevertheless, notwithstanding, etc.; 3)phrasal, e.g.: as soon as, on condition that, in order that, as if, as though, in case, etc.; 4)correlative. Correlative conjunctions usually consist of two parts which always go together, e.g.: both ... and, either ... or, neither ... nor, as ... as, etc. Care must be taken to make each member of the correlative conjunction stand as closely as possible to the words or other elements that they connect. Cf.: We visited both New York and London (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Either the dog or the cat has eaten it (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). He drove as fast as he could (M. Swan). Prepositions, in the opinion of M. Bryant, have much in common with conjunctions. First, many prepositions are homonymous with conjunctions, e.g.: after, since. Second, sometimes prepositions and conjunctions indicate similar relations. Cf.: / with my friend and my friend and I. As regards their form, both are invariable. Their meaning is abstract and vague. The preposition differs from the conjunction in having a more

functionally prepositions are acquiring more and more features in common with conjunctions. Just like conjunctions, prepositions now often occur at the head of a clause, e.g.: There is much in what you say (J.B. Opdycke). Since prepositions and conjunctions are close semantically, morphologically and even syntactically, it is, perhaps, possible to unite them into one group of connectives. Wh-words pfTi-words are used in two ways: as interrogative clause markers and as relativizers. Cf.: What will happen to her nowl (H. Fielding). Mr. Miller, who lived next door, moved to Canada (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Existential 'there' It is often described as an anticipator)' subject. No other word behaves in the same way, heading a clause, expressing existence, e.g.: There is a blackboard in the classroom (V. Evans). The Negator 'Not' The main use of not is to make a whole clause negative, e.g.: I did not make up an answer fast enough (T. Chevalier). Apart from negating whole clauses, not has various other negative uses, e.g.: not all, not many, etc. The Infinitive Marker 'To' I was glad to leave (T. Chevalier). Numerals D. Biber and his co-authors refer those cardinal and ordinal numerals to function words that occur as heads of noun phrases. Cf.: Four of the yen traders have pleaded guilty (D. Biber et al.).
179

Three men will appear before Belfast magistrates today on charges of intimidation. A fourth will be charged with having information likely to be of use to terrorists (D. Biber et al.). When cardinal and ordinal numerals are used as heads of noun phrases, they are substantivized and can be regarded as nouns, not numerals. The conception of function words suggested by English grammarians seems extremely convincing. If we accept it, we shall avoid most of the difficulties that linguists face in trying to describe pronouns and numerals by analogy with nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs (see the lectures on The Pronoun and The Numeral). Since the article is the most frequently used function word, we shall dwell on it at greater length. 13. THE ARTICLE Is the Article a Word or a Morpheme?

According to J. Vendryes and M.D. Fridman, the article is a grammatical morpheme of the noun. Really, the article, just like the morpheme, functions as an exponent of grammatical meaning. In Bulgarian, Romanian and some other languages the suffix form of the article also testifies to its morphemic nature. In English, however, the article, unlike the morpheme, is autonomous: 1)it never makes one word with the noun, 2)it can be separated from the noun by an adjective, e.g.: He is a clever workman (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). That's why A.I. Smirnitsky, T.V. Sokolova and other linguists think that the English article is not a grammatical morpheme, but a separate word. M.D. Fridman raises the following arguments against this point of view. 1.The criterion of solid or hyphenated spelling is not a reliable one because it allows of various fluctuations. 2.It is not only words but also grammatical morphemes that can move about in the sentence, e.g. the woman next door's husband (M. Swan), where the grammatical morpheme - 's standing
180

in logical connection with the noun woman is attached to the noun door. The second argument of M.D. Fridman sounds rather convincing. But the number of cases in which a grammatical morpheme is separated from the element it modifies is very small, practically it is limited to the genitive case inflection - '5. M.D. Fridman thinks that the only objective criterion of an element being a word and not a morpheme is its ability to function in an absolute position. Since the article lacks this ability, it should be qualified as a morpheme. M.D. Fridman is right: articles are practically never used independently. But the same is true of prepositions, conjunctions, etc. This syntactic 'defectiveness', according to V.V. Vinogradov, is one of the main points of difference between the so-called notional (or lexical) and structural (or function) words. Thus, M.D. Fridman's treatment of articles as grammatical morphemes does not stand criticism. The article in English is not a grammatical morpheme, but a word. This conception is shared by the majority of Russian and foreign linguists. Is the Article a Lexical or a Function Word?

Articles have all the characteristic features of function words: they lack the naming function, syntactic independence, morphological variability, and phonetic accentuation. Meaning of Articles The meaning of articles is very difficult to define. According to T.N. Sergeyeva, the English article has only lexical meaning. The conception of T.N. Sergeyeva does not stand criticism. The definite article originated from the demonstrative pronoun se, the indefinite article - from the numeral an, and pronouns and numerals are not lexical, but function words that have no lexical meaning. Traditionally, the use of articles is qualified as a grammatical phenomenon, for it is said to be dependent on the semantic character and the syntactic function of the following noun. On the face of it, the use of the indefinite article is really limited to countable nouns in the singular. On closer inspection, 181

however, it becomes evident that there is no direct correspondence between the use of articles and the semantic nature of the noun. For instance, countable nouns in the singular are sometimes used without any article, while the so-called uncountable nouns are often registered with the indefinite article. Cf: Man is mortal (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). A cold fear had come upon her (P.O. Wodehouse). The syntactic function of the noun does influence the choice of an article. Thus, predicatively countable nouns in the singular usually occur with the indefinite article, e.g.: It's a bad habit (L Updike). Nevertheless, there are numerous exceptions from the rule. Thus, if the countable noun in the singular used predicatively is modified by a limiting attribute, it occurs with the definite article, e.g.: This is the ring the Doctor gave me, my engagement ring (Ph. Incledon). If a predicative noun denotes a post, which can be occupied by one person at a time, either no article or the definite article is used. Cf.: Mr. Henderson is manager, not under-manager any longer (J. Lindsay). If he tells you to do something, you do it, because he's the boss (Longman Language Activator). No article is used with singular predicative nouns after the verbs turn, commence, appoint, elect, etc., e.g.: Ken Livingstone was elected mayor of London in May 2000 (Longman Language Activator). The predicative nouns son and daughter take the definite article when modified by an o/-phrase, though there may be several sons and daughters in the family, e.g.: He is the son of Father's best friend (P.G. Wodehoase). All this leads T.N. Sergeyeva to the conclusion that it is neither the semantic character of the noun nor its syntactic function that predetermines the appearance of this or that article. Articles, in her opinion, are used exclusively in accordance with their respective lexical meanings. However, articles are not lexical, but function words. 182

Does it mean, then, that articles belong to empty words as j. Grimm, A. Gardiner and S. Mamonova think? M.L SteblinKamensky answers the question in the negative. If articles were empty words, there would be no difference between The book was criticized, on the one hand, and Book was criticized, on the other. But the two constructions are clearly not identical. The first is qualified as a normal English sentence. The second is looked upon either as grammatically wrong or as having quite another meaning, namely that some person, Book by name, was criticized. Although articles lack the naming function, they are not devoid of meaning. Articles serve the purpose of rendering grammatical meaning. As far as the grammatical meaning of articles is concerned, four theories have been put forth. 1.The article is a means of expressing the meanings of 'definiteness - indefiniteness' [O. Jespersen; G. Curme; E. Kruisinga; B.S. Khaimovich, B.I. Rogovskaya]. 2.The article is a means of realizing the meanings of given and new information [O.I. Moskalskaya; K.G. Krushelnitskaya]. 3. The difference of articles is based on the numerical principle [V.J. Propp]. 4. The article is a means of distinguishing between the general and the particular [A.I. Smiraitsky; M.V. Nikitin; Z.K. Dolgopolova; M. Ganshina, N. Vasilevskaya; T.V. Sokolova]. The generally accepted is the theory of 'definiteness -indefiniteness'. Under the terms 'definiteness indefiniteness', P. Christophersen understands 'familiarity unfamiliarity' of the object which is spoken about. The person or thing becomes definite when spoken about for the second time, e.g.: There is a cat on the sofa. The cat is sleeping (V. Evans). A woman came to the door. Nick followed the woman up the flight of stairs (E. Hemingway). Sometimes the whole situation is sufficient to show what is meant. Cf.: The car -was going badly (D. Robins). ffe tiptoed out of the room, trying not to wake the baby (Longman Language Activator). The unique character of a person or thing also makes it definite, e.g.: She looked up at the sky (E. Brace). 183

The moon shone brightly (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie. A.C. Gimson). Paris is the capital of France (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). A number of linguists, however, point out quite rightly that the meanings of 'defmiteness - indefmiteness' fail to account for all the cases. Thus, S. Mamonova draws the attention of linguists to sentences of the type He has a mother, where the indefinite article cannot have the meaning of indefiniteness. Proceeding from the theory of 'defmiteness - indefmiteness', we shall also fail to explain the use of the indefinite article with abstract nouns because the notion of indefmiteness is incompatible with their semantics. But they do occur with the indefinite article, e.g.: He had a deep fear of death (C. McCullers). There was a short silence (J.D. Salinger). An original approach to the problem is suggested by O.I. Moskalskaya and K.G. Krushelnitskaya. The article, in their opinion, serves the purpose of differentiating between the two main parts of the sentence: the theme that contains known or given information and the rheme that renders new information. The theme is usually marked off by the definite article, the rheme - by the indefinite article, e.g.: An old woman is coming into the living room (V. Evans). However, we side with V.P. Batanin who writes that there is no direct correspondence between the communicative division of the sentence into theme - rheme and the grammatical category of 'definiteness - indefmiteness'. Thus, in the sentenced clean hand wants no washing (Proverb), the thematic noun phrase clean hand comprises the indefinite article. As a result, the communicative principle can be regarded only as a minor factor in the use of articles. The founder of the third theory is V.J. Propp. He thinks that the difference between the articles is based on the numerical principle. Both the definite and indefinite articles, according to him, denote 'oneness', but in the case of the indefinite article we have the incorporating class in view (eduHcmeenHocnib a <pone OKpysicaioutezo e?.o MHOOtcecmea), the case of the definite article in the incorporating class is wholly disregarded (eduHcmeennocmb 6e3
184

eeo Mnowtecmea). When the numerical principle cannot be applied, we do not use any article. The numerical principle of V.J. Propp does not help us differentiate articles in Modern English, for the definite article, just like the indefinite article, presupposes the presence of the incorporating class. Compare the following two definitions of the indefinite and definite articles given by English grammarians. The indefinite article singles out one member of a class of referents named by the noun5 [A Practical English Grammar]. 'The definite article can be used before a count noun singular, a count noun plural, or a mass noun. One of its chief functions is to indicate that the speaker is referring to a particular example, or to particular examples, of a class of thing' [R.A. Close], So, the presence or absence of the incorporating class cannot be regarded as a differential feature of the indefinite and definite articles since it is present in both. What is more, the numerical principle is easily applied only to countable nouns in the singular. According to T.V. Sokolova, the most convincing interpretation is put forth by A.I. Smirnitsky, M.V. Nikitin, Z.K. Dolgopolova, M. Ganshina, N. Vasilevskaya and some other linguists who hold that the article is a means of distinguishing between the general (the indefinite article) and the particular (the definite article). The indefinite article is used to refer a thing to a certain class and is therefore a classifying article. The definite article serves to single out an object or several objects from all the other objects of the same class. That's why the definite article is an individualizing article. A.F. Rodionov is of opinion that the English article has both grammatical and semantic meanings. The classifying meaning of me indefinite article and the individualizing meaning of the definite article are also regarded by him as grammatical meanings. But if articles rendered only these grammatical meanings, every noun would have to be used with one of the two articles because all nouns either name or single something out. However, it is not so. Nouns often occur without any article. That's why A.F. Rodionov draws the conclusion that the grammatical meanings of classification and mdividualization are not the only meanings of English articles. English articles, in his opinion, possess certain semantic 185

characteristics, too. Thus, the use of an article is usually a sign of the underlying object having quite definite boundaries (or form), e.g.: a table, the girl, etc. The absence of an article, on the other hand, testifies to a diffuse character of the boundaries or to the absence of any boundaries in the notion to be realized in the language, e.g.: milk, honesty, etc. The conception of A.F. Rodionov seems rather convincing. We shall look upon the English article as such a function word that possesses the grammatical meanings of classification and individualization and a semantic meaning connected with a more or less definite character of boundaries in the underlying notion. The next disputable problem is whether the grammatical meanings of classification and individualization are the only grammatical meanings of the indefinite and definite articles. B.A. Ilyish compares the following sentences. The dog has come home (B.A. Ilyish). The dog is a domestic animal (B.A. Ilyish). There is a hill behind our house (B.A. Ilyish). A hill is the opposite of a valley (B.A. Ilyish). Of course, it is at once obvious that the dog in the sentence The dog has come home names an individual dog, whereas in the sentence The dog is a domestic animal it represents a class of dogs as distinct from a class of cats, horses, tigers, etc. The same can be said about the noun phrase a hill in the second pair of sentences. The question, then, is whether the article itself (definite or indefinite) has two distinct meanings, or whether the meaning of the article is the same in the analyzed pairs of sentences, and the difference in meaning between them depends on some other factors. The majority of linguists think that both the definite and indefinite articles have several meanings. The definite article is assumed to have the following meanings. 1. A demonstrative meaning, e.g.: This was the Major who so far had not spoken (J. Aldridge). 2. An individualizing meaning, e.g.: The light in my study is poor (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). 3. A generic meaning, e.g.: The rose is my favourite flower (R. Murphy).

The indefinite article is assumed to have the following meanings. 1. A numerical meaning, e.g.: For a moment she did not know what to say (D. Robins). 2.A classifying meaning, e.g.: She is a doctor (R. Murphy). 3.A generic meaning, e.g.: A blind man -would be glad to see (Proverb). <= Any blind man would be glad to see.> B.A. Ilyish, however, is guided by the principle, 'Do not state differences if this is not strictly necessary'. In short, the principle amounts to this: whenever a word or a word form appears to have different meanings in different contexts, look for that element of its meaning which is always there and does not depend on any context, i.e. the invariant. According to B.A. Ilyish, both the definite and the indefinite articles have one grammatical meaning: the definite article - that of individualization, the indefinite article - that of classification. As for the difference in meaning between the sentences The dog has come home and The dog is a domestic animal, it proceeds from other sources. First of all, we see that the predicates in the two sentences belong to different types. The first sentence, The dog has come home, has a simple verbal predicate with the verb come in the present perfect; the second sentence, The dog is a domestic animal, has a compound nominal predicate with the copula be in the present indefinite. The verb in the present perfect is most likely to express a concrete action, while the group 'copula in the present indefinite + predicative' is most likely to express some general characteristic. These grammatical points are supplemented by some lexical points, hi the first sentence, the verb come and the adverb home denote a concrete physical action and the place to which it is directed, while in the second sentence the predicative a domestic animal denotes a zoological idea and thus proves that by the dog we mean not an individual dog, but the whole species. So, the grammatical meanings of classification and individualization seem to be the only grammatical meanings of the indefinite and definite articles. AH the registered modifications are predetermined by the context.

186

187

188 Morphological Characteristics English articles are invariable. They are characterized by a simple structure. Syntactic Characteristics Foreign linguists think that the English article is polyfunctional. Thus, H, Poutsma and O. Jespersen mention the following functions of the English article: classifying, individualizing, generic, etc. According to E.A. Reiman, the English article is monofunctional: it specifies the noun. The concrete ways in which articles specify nouns, in the opinion of E.A. Reiman, constitute their respective meanings or, to be more exact, shades of their two main grammatical meanings of classification and individualization. Number of Articles Three theories exist concerning the number of articles in Modern English. 1.There are two articles in English: definite and indefinite [H. Poutsma; H. Sweet; L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Shtelingj. 2.There are three articles in English: definite, indefinite, and zero [A.I. Smirnitsky; O.S. Akhmanova; N.F. Irtenyeva; F.A. Litvin; T.N. Sergeyeva; R. Quirk and his co-authors; D. Biber and his co-authors]. 3.There are four articles in English: definite, indefinite, zero, and partitive [E.N. Zvereva]. Obviously, there are two material articles: the definite article the and the indefinite article a/an. Thus, the distinction is between a language and the language. However, a third variant is possible: There are ways of communication without language (Longman Language Activator), where the same noun language occurs without any article. Naturally, the question arises how this third variant is to be treated. The older grammatical tradition described it as 'omission of article', which is obviously inadequate since there is not the slightest reason to believe that the article in such cases was ever omitted.

That's why many linguists look upon the absence of article as a special kind of article, namely a zero article. Some grammarians [e.g. F.A. Litvin] under the term 'zero article' understand any absence of article. The. majority of linguists, however, are of opinion that we should differentiate between the zero article, on the one hand, and omission of article, on the other. We speak about the so-called omission of article when the article is not used where we naturally expect to find it in accordance with the rules. Thus, articles are omitted in the following cases: 1) in newspaper headlines and book titles, e.g.: Judge refuses to drop charges against princess (Reuters), Key to the Door (A. Sillitoe); 2)in signs, e.g.: Post Office; 3)in stage remarks, e.g.: Lan takes letter from pocket and she almost snatches it (M. Brand); 4) in telegrams, e.g.: A thousand regrets but week-end off 'phoning you later. R. (D. Robins); 5) in poems for the sake of rhyme, e.g.: I met a Woman as I went walking; We got talking, Woman and I. I met a Puppy as I went walking; We got talking, Puppy and I (A. A. Milne); 6) in dictionaries, etc. In all these cases, the omission of an article is a question of conciseness of style, and the definite or indefinite article can easily be inserted without affecting the meaning. Cf.: Judge refuses to drop charges against princess * The judge refuses to drop the charges against the princess. Following A.I. Smirnitsky, T.N. Sergeyeva excludes all cases of stylistically preconditioned omission of articles from the notion of the zero article and qualifies the latter exclusively as 'meaningful absence of article'. The next question is what meaning the so-called zero article has. According to T.N. Sergeyeva, the zero article has a generalizing force devoid of any classification or individualization. 189

Z.K. Dolgopolova does not share this point of view. In her opinion, the so-called zero article does not have any specific grammatical meaning as opposed to the indefinite article. Having analyzed sentences of the type Water is a liquid (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English), she comes to the conclusion that there are absolutely no grounds for saying that the material noun -water with the zero article expresses a more general meaning than the material noun liquid with the indefinite article. Both the indefinite and the zero articles commonly express non-specific reference [D. Biber et al.]. The only difference lies in the fact that the indefinite article usually combines with nouns realizing notions with clear-cut boundaries, while the so-called zero article specifies nouns the underlying notions of which lack any definite form. This difference, according to A.F. Rodionov, is purely semantic. Grammatical classifications cannot be based only on semantic criteria. Consequently, we are hardly justified in singling out a third, zero article. Besides, the idea of the zero article would be sound if the article were a morpheme. But the English article is a word, and the absence of a word cannot be regarded as a zero word. True, articles are not lexical, but function words. Function words, according to A.L Smirnitsky, can be represented as zeros. But we side with B.A. Ilyish who writes that even the notion of a zero function word seems very doubtful. Really, we never speak of zero prepositions, for example. So, it seems better to deny the existence of the zero article in English. Z.K. Dolgopolova is right: the so-cailed zero article is nothing but a grammatical variant of the indefinite article. E.N. Zvereva singles out a fourth article in Modern English: the partitive article some, e.g.: / need some money (R. Murphy). Please give me some milk (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). We side with English grammarians who exclude the partitive some from articles and refer it to a specific subgroup of determiners called quantifiers, namely those quantifiers that specify a moderate quantity. Thus, there are two articles in English: definite and indefinite. The indefinite article has two forms: positive and zero. 190

S Y N T A X

Syntax is often regarded as the heart of grammar because the main function of language - the communicative function - is realized at the syntactic level. Little variation in the grammatical structure of English words is another reason why syntax forms the dominant element in a modern English grammar. Syntax is a many-sided phenomenon. The following aspects of syntax can be singled out: 1) logical syntax, 2) psychological syntax, 3) formal syntax, 4) semantic syntax, 5) communicative syntax, 6) pragmatic syntax. Logical,syntax goes back to Antiquity. The Stoics were the first to use the term 'syntax'. Logical syntax dominated in linguistics till the middle of the 19th century. The logical school did not differentiate syntactic and logical categories. Compare the following definitions of the sentence and its parts given by English grammarians. 'A sentence, - writes W.J. Hort, - is a collection of words placed to communicate ... some proposition or assertion.' 'The subject is that which is spoken about. The predicate is that which is said of the subject' [G. Curme], Syntactic and logical categories are indeed closely interwoven. However, there can be no identity between them because they represent categories of two different branches of science. The following facts prove it unequivocally. First, the proposition is traditionally defined as a type of thought that comprises assertion or negation. It is only declarative sentences that make direct statements. Hence, the question arises if we are justified in referring interrogative and imperative constructions to the class of sentences, too. Second, all propositions have a binary structure: subject + predicate <cy&-beKm + npeduxam>. (Some logicians single out a third element in the structure of the proposition: a copula. But, as a rule, the copula is included into the predicate.). As for sentences, they can be not only two-member but also one-member, e.g.: Tell me the bad news first (S. Sheldon). And finally, the grammatical subject and predicate do not always correspond to the logical subject and predicate, e.g.: / know that and Charles knows that (E. O'Connor), where the grammatical subjects 7 and Charles realize the logical predicates, while the grammatical predicates know and knows realize the logical subjects.
191

In the second half of the 19th century, as a reaction against these shortcomings of logical syntax, there emerged psjcjtio logical syntax whose adherents denied any connection between syntax and logic, the sentence and the proposition. They declared that the sentence expresses not a logical, but a psychological proposition. The psychological proposition is defined by them as a combination of a psychological subject and a psychological predicate connected into a unity by a wilful act of the speaker. As we have already shown, there are no grounds for identifying syntactic and logical phenomena. On the other hand, we are hardly justified in opposing them because, in spite of being different, syntactic and logical phenomena are cognate. The main contribution of the psychological school to linguistics consists in the fact that its representatives noticed an important detail: the absence of direct correspondence between sentence parts and the components of the psychological proposition. According to H. Paul, for instance, any sentence part can function as psychological subject and psychological predicate. Linguists in English-speaking countries did not develop the ideas of psychological syntax. Traditional syntax is formal because it focuses on a study of the structure of syntactic units. The term 'syntax' comes from Latin 'syntaxis' and earlier from Greek 'syn + tassein' which means 'together + arrange'. In other words, most syntactic units consist of several components. The components of syntactic units stand in certain relations to one another. The relations between the components of syntactic units find their expression in different types of syntactic connection. That's why types of syntactic connection and language means of their expression constitute one of the problems that formal syntax tries to solve.

1. TYPES OF SYNTACTIC CONNECTION

Traditional grammar singles out 3 types of syntactic connection: 1) coordination, 2) subordination, and 3) interdependence (or correspondence).
Coordination

Coordination is such a device that links up elements of the same rank. The typical morphological way of expressing coordination is the conjunction 'and', e.g.: soft and low (H. Field). Enumerative intonation plays an important role in joining the components of asyndetic syntactic units, e.g.: my husband, my family, my home (R. MacDonald). According to V.A. Beloshapkova, coordination can be 'open' and 'closed'. 'Open' coordination unites any number of components and we can always add at least one more, e.g. in laughed and shouted and sang (W. S. Maugham), there are three components, but we can add a fourth: laughed and shouted and sang and danced 'Closed' coordination always unites two components, e.g.: It's too bad, but I can't do anything about it now (R. Gordon). 'Open' coordination can be both syndetic and asyndetic. 'Closed' coordination is always syndetic. 'Open' coordination makes use of copulative and disjunctive conjunctions. Cf: presidents and kings and movie stars (W. Saroyan), moon or no moon (W.S. Maugham). 'Closed' coordination prefers adversative conjunctions, e.g.: nothing but a memory (W.S. Maugham). 'Open' coordination allows the occurrence of conjunctions before any component of the syntactic unit, e.g.: and the women, and the children, and the animals (G.S, Lewis). m 'closed' coordination the conjunction always introduces the second component.

192

193

Subordination
Subordination links up elements of different ranks which are called 'head' and 'adjunct', e.g.: a long silence (H. Innes), where silence is the head, and long is an adjunct. There are several kinds of subordination. First, subordination falls under predetermined and free. Tn predetermined subordination, the head predetermines the form of the adjunct. For instance, by the meaning of 'thingness' the noun is predisposed to combine with an adjective. In inflected Russian, the noun head also predetermines the morphological categories of the modifying adjective (case, number, gender), e.g.: B mf&ocmnoM MO.wanuu (H.M. ^epHbiuieBCKaa), where the adjective mmocmnuu is in the prepositional case, singular number, and neuter gender because the same categories are to be found in the head noun MoJivanue. In analytical English, the noun head only fixes the place of the modifying adjective. Single word adjectives usually occur in preposition to the noun they modify, e.g.: a long way (E.R. Braithwaite). In free subordination, the form of the adjunct is predetermined not by the head but by the semantics of the adjunct, e.g.: the table at the window (if it is at the window), the table in the corner (if it is in the corner), the table near the door (if it is near the door), etc. Second, subordination can be obligatory and optional. In the case of obligatory subordination, the head regularly combines with a certain adjunct. Thus, neither in English nor in Russian can we use the verb 'be' (naxodumbcx) without this or that locative. Cf.: to be in Moscow HaxoaHTbca B MOCKBC, to be on the beach - HaxOAHTtcs Ha niisBKe, to be in the yard - HaxoOTTbcs BO .asope, etc. Taken in isolation, the verb 'be' (naxodumbCfi) is structurally and semantically incomplete. Optional subordination is characterized by a much less rigid connection between the head and the adjunct. For instance, nouns can combine with adjectives, but this combinability is optional, not obligatory. Thus, we can say: Wait, Harry. Your father and I are going to buy you a nice bicycle soon (L.A. Hill), using an adjectivenoun word combination nice bicycle,, or: Harry, your father and I 194

ore going to give you a bicycle next month ... (L.A. Hill), using only the head noun bicycle. Predetermined subordination is often obligatory; free subordination is often optional. However, the two pairs of notions sometimes diverge. On the one hand, subordination can be predetermined but optional (for example, the combinability of nouns with adjectives). On the other hand, subordination can be obligatory but free (for example, to be in Moscow). It is obligatory in the sense that without an adjunct the infinitival head loses its structural and semantic completeness. However, it is by no means predetermined, Cf.: to be in Moscow, to be on the beach, to be in the yard, etc. Morphologically, subordination is generally subdivided into agreement, government, and adjoinment. We find agreement in those cases where the head makes the adjunct take a similar morphological form. Agreement is typical of Russian and other inflected languages, e.g.: xopoiuan no^o^a, xopoiuuu nenoeeK, xopotuee nnambe, where the adjective xopouiuu agrees in gender, number, and case with the following nouns. In Old English, adjectives also agreed in gender, number and case with the following nouns. The loss of inflections, however. caused an almost complete disappearance of agreement, so that now only the demonstrative pronouns this and that agree in number with their headwords. Cf.: this house - these houses (R. Murphy), that house - those houses (R. Murphy). Agreement refers to predetermined but optional subordination. In government, the adjunct does not reproduce the morphological categories of the head, but its form, nevertheless, is predetermined by the head. Thus, the English notional verb demands the use of the following personal pronoun in the objective case, e.g.: Teach me (I. Shaw). Government falls under several types: prepositional and nonprepositional, verbal and nominal, strong and weak. Taking into consideration the way in which the components are joined together, we can draw a distinction between non-prepositional and 195

prepositional government. Non-prepositional government is achieved directly, without any prepositions, e.g.: Tell me (Miss Read). Non-prepositional government is characteristic of inflected languages. It is widely spread in Russian, e.g.: juo6uji demeu (H.M. HepHbimeBCKaa), and was often resorted to in Old English. In analytical Modern English, the sphere of non-prepositional government has narrowed to three cases: 1) the use of the objective case of personal pronouns after notional verbs in the function of object, e.g.: She followed me upstairs (Gr. Greene); 2) the use of the objective case of the interrogative pronoun who in the function of object in formal English, e.g.: Whom did she go out to meet? - You think she -went to meet someone? -Ido (A. Christie); 3) the use of the objective case of the relative pronoun who in the function of object or attribute, e.g.: / asked her whom Mark had married (P.P. Read). The great whom he adored laughed at him (W.S. Maugham). The use of the objective case of the interrogative and relative pronoun who should be qualified as variable government because of the rising tendency to use in the functions of object and attribute the nominative case form who instead of the objective case form whom. Cf: Who could she trust? (A. McCall). You know who I mean, don 'tyou? (Ch. Hobhouse). I don't like people who lose their tempers easily (M. Swan). In prepositional government, the dependent component is joined to the head by means of a preposition. Since prepositions constitute a characteristic feature of analytical languages, English makes a wide use of prepositional government, e.g.: I'm looking for Ann (R. Murphy). The morphological nature of the head gives us an opportunity to single out nominal and verbal government. Cf.: Key to the Door (A, Sillitoe) nominal government., ate them (Th. L. Thomas, K. Wilhelm) - verbal government. With regard to the structural and semantic necessity of the adjunct, government is classified into strong and weak, (The 196

distinction goes back to A.M. Peshkovsky.). Strong government is predetermined and obligatory, e.g.: // suits them (S. Gainham). I belong to another world (O. Henry). Weak government is structurally free and optional, but communicatively very important, e.g.: a man of the eighteenth century (St. Ellin). Since the so-called weak government is structurally free and optional, V.V. Vinogradov, A.M. Mukhin and a number of other linguists exclude it from the sphere of government. By the way, in the opinion of A.M. Mukhin, who follows L.V. Scerba, government, by which he understands strong government, belongs to the lexical, not the morphological or the syntactic level of the language. Semantics does play an important role in government (no wonder mat government is reflected in dictionaries: vt - verb transitive, vi - verb intransitive). However, the form of its realization should not be disregarded either. Adjoinment is such a device in which the components of syntactic units are joined without any change in the morphological forms. Their dependence finds its expression in meaning, word order, and function. Since English is very poor in inflections, adjoinment constitutes the most usual type of linking syntactic components, e.g.: longpractice (J. Braine), trembled slightly (H. Innes). Adjoinment generally refers to free optional subordination. In addition to agreement, government and adjoinment, some linguists single out enclosure, when an element is inserted between the other components of a syntactic unit. The most widely known case of enclosure in English is the putting of a word between an article and the noun to which the article belongs, e.g.: a strong woman (I. Shaw), where the adjective strong is enclosed between the indefinite article and the noun woman. The majority of linguists, however, regard enclosure as a subclass of adjoinment. Subordination realizes the following syntactic relations: 1) attributive (e.g.: an old man - J. Braine); 2) objective (e.g.: left his table ~~ Th. L. Thomas, K. Wilhelm); 3) adverbial (e.g.: Please listen carefully - R. Murphy).
197

Apposition

Tradition says that subordination also realizes appositive syntactic relations. This view does not stand criticism for subordination presupposes dependence of one element on another and the components of apposition are logically equal because they have the same referent, e.g.:
Uncle Andrew was very tall and very thin (C.S. Lewis). Uncle Andrew

Referent Apposition, in our opinion, forms a specific type of syntactic connection, clearly distinct from subordination.
Correspondence

They were heard talking together (W. Collins) - complex subject. The only thing to do is for you to whip him, Edward (K. Mansfield) - complex predicative. She heard him open the door (St. Heym) - complex nonprepositional object. She waited for him to reply (Longman Essential Activator) -complex prepositional object. There was need for him to be economical (J. London) -complex attribute. The boy stood aside for me to go by (J. Galsworthy) -complex adverbial. Absolute secondary predication is more independent: it modifies the primary predication as a whole, e.g.: Charlie -watched her, his face dark with hatred(A. Maltz). Isolation

Correspondence (the term of L.S. Barkhudarov) links up interdependent elements. Correspondence realizes predication. In predication, the verbal component says something of the nominal component. Predication can be primary and secondary. Primary predication forms a sentence because its components (the subject and the predicate) comprise explicit markers of the predicative categories of modality, tense and person: the subject in Modern English usually renders the predicative category of person (first, second, third), the predicate - the predicative categories of modality (real, non-real) and tense (present, past, future), e.g.: / saw it in London (J. Braine), where the subject / renders the predicative category of the first person, the predicate saw - the predicative categories of real modality and past tense. Secondary predication is heterogeneous. One can differentiate between two types at least: bound secondary predication and absolute secondary predication. Bound secondary predication forms a unit inside primary predication. It is usually called a complex part of the sentence. Cf.: 198

G.N. Vorontsova singles out a third type of secondary predication - free secondary predication. To free secondary predication G.N. Vorontsova refers: 1) loose attributes, e.g.; It is a fine summer morning - sunny, soft and stttl (J.K. Jerome); 2) loose appositives, e.g.: It was Margot, a neighbor and a friend (J. Irving); 3) loose situational modifiers, e.g.: Last night, everything was closed (R. Lardner). Loose attributes, appositives, and situational modifiers do introduce an element of additional predication into the basic syntactic unit. However, as the so-called free secondary predication lacks a nominal component of its own, we can hardly refer it to interdependence (or correspondence). This type of syntactic 'connection' should rather be called isolation (o6oco6jieHue}.
Accumulation

The representatives of the St. Petersburg linguistic school single out a fourth type of syntactic connection - accumulation. 199

Accumulation links up elements whose connection becomes evident only when we take into consideration a third element that does not make part of the group. For instance, there seems to be no connection between the components in the combination 'his friend a letter'. But the preceding verb 'to write' shows that they are syntactically connected: (to write) his friend a letter. What type of syntactic connection is it? It is clearly not coordination because the components are not equal in rank and cannot be joined by means of the conjunction and. It is not subordination either as the components cannot be analyzed in terms of 'head' and 'adjunct'. Perhaps, it is interdependence? The answer is 'no', for each noun can function without the other. Cf: to write his friend, to write a letter. Nevertheless, these nouns are syntactically connected because their position is fixed. If we change their order, we must change the form of one of them. Cf.: (to write) his friend a letter > (to write) a letter to his friend. The term 'accumulation', suggested by the St. Petersburg linguistic school, reveals the amorphous nature of this type of syntactic connection. On the sentence level, accumulation can be found in the following cases: 1) in chains of prepositive attributes expressed by different parts of speech, e.g.: ... and then to her own surprise she burst into tears (N. Cato) - her is a determiner, own is an adjective; 2) in combinations of semantically heterogeneous objects, e.g.: / brought him a present (B. Gutcheon) - him is a personal object, a present is a non-personal object; 3) in combinations of objects and situational modifiers, e.g.: / leave home at eight-thirty (J. Cheever) - home is an object, at eight-thirty is a situational modifier of time. Parenthesis Somewhat apart from the above-mentioned types of syntactic connection stands parenthesis. Parenthetic elements are traditionally described as having no syntactic connection with the basic structure 200

of the sentence. The traditional conception seems open to criticism. Parenthetic elements are really never integrated into sentences in the sense that they could be omitted without affecting the structure of the sentences or their meaning. But as parenthetic elements function only inside sentences, they cannot be said to have no connection at all with them [B.A. Ilyish]. A.M. Mukhin regards parenthesis as a specific type of syntactic connection that he calls 'introductory syntactic connection'. Parenthesis introduces the following elements into the structure of the basic syntactic unit: 1) modal elements showing the speaker's attitude to the thought expressed in the basic syntactic unit, e.g.: This is perhaps his finest novel yet (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 2) connective elements showing the connection of thoughts, e.g.: In the first place, I don't want to go, and in the second place, lean't afford to (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 3) insertions (ecmaeKu) giving additional information related to, but not part of the main message comprised in the basic syntactic unit, e.g.: One of the first to make it in modern times (some Greeks had known it long before) was Leonardi da Vinci (Biber et al.). The parenthetic nature of modal and connective elements is universally recognized. The type of syntactic connection with the basic syntactic unit of insertions still presents a debatable problem. In Western European and American linguistics, insertions are not differentiated from parenthetic elements. A distinction between these two types of parentheses is drawn in Russian linguistics. The following criteria, according to Russian scholars, help us differentiate insertions and parenthetic elements. 1.The structural-semantic criterion: a considerable diversity of insertions versus the stereotyped nature of parenthetic elements. 2.The criterion of position: insertions cannot be used at the beginning of the basic syntactic unit, while parenthetic elements can occur in any of the following positions: initial, medial, and final. 3. The prosodic criterion in speech and the punctuation criterion in writing. In speech, insertions are marked off by longer pauses than parenthetic elements. In writing, they are marked off by

201

punctuation marks of strong separation: parentheses and dashes while parenthetic elements are marked off by punctuation marks of less strong separation commas. 4. The communicative criterion: insertions can function as the rheme or part of the rheme in the basic syntactic unit, while parenthetic elements are never rhematic. All these arguments sound rather convincing, but they provide no answer to the question: What type of syntactic connection are insertions introduced into the basic syntactic unit by? In our view, it is a variety of parenthesis because just like parenthetic elements, insertions are never integrated into the structure of the basic syntactic unit. E. Novoseletskaya draws a distinction between three kinds of insertions: informative, auxiliary, and modal. Informative insertions create a secondary information plane in regard to the main information comprised in the basic syntactic unit, e.g.: We'll see if Mary Drawer (that's the niece) can give us any help (A. Christie). Auxiliary insertions are typical of scientific texts. As a rule, they contain reference to; 1) the source of the given information, 2) the part of the paper where the information is given, and 3) nonverbal components of the text: graphs, tables, diagrams, etc. that illustrate the given information, e.g.: The relative stability is even more pronounced in the heavy nuclei (see Table 2.1) (J.M. Irvine). Modal insertions express the speaker's attitude to the information comprised in the basic syntactic unit, e.g.: ... our experienced officer was now of opinion that the thief (he was wise enough not to name poor Penelope whatever he might privately think of her!) had been acting in concert with the Indians ... (W. Collins). Phatic elements serving to establish, keep up and terminate the verbal act of communication, for example, direct address, interjections, and formulas of etiquette are heterogeneous. Those phatic elements that do not form a separate sense-group and are pronounced in the same way as the unstressed syllables of the preceding sense-group, in our opinion, are introduced into the sentence by means of parenthesis, e.g.: Cream and sugar? Cream, please (P. Viney).
202

Parenthetic phatic elements usually occur in the middle or final position. Those phatic elements that form a separate sense-group and possess an independent intonation pattern are introduced into the sentence by means of accumulation and can be used in an absolute position, e.g.: Let us know if there's anything we can do. - Thank you, I'll do that (N. Church, A. Moss). -> Thank you. I'll do that. To sum up. Seven types of syntactic connection can be singled out: 1)coordination, 2)subordination, 3)apposition, 4)interdependence (or correspondence), 5)accumulation, 6)isolation, 7)parenthesis. But there is nothing magical in the number 'seven'. Linguists are free to make any modifications in the suggested classification that they think necessary.

The communicative function of language is realized on the syntactic level. That's why syntax studies language units that are used in the process of communication and their constituent parts. They are words, word forms (cnoeoi^opMU\ word combinations, clauses, and 'communicatives' 2. WORD AND WORD FORM The word is essentially a lexical unit. The word form is essentially a morphological unit. It is a word in this or that grammatical form, e.g.: now, HODKOM. The syntactic aspect of words and word forms manifests itself in their ability to combine with other words and word forms. Grammars of inflected languages, such as Russian, devote special sections to a study of the syntax of word forms. Since Modern English is very poor in word forms,
203

English grammarians do not regard a word form as a specific syntactic unit. 3. WORD COMBINATION Word Combination in Russian and Foreign Linguistics The theory of word combination in Russian linguistics has a long tradition, going back to the 18 century. No corresponding theory is distinguished in Western European or American linguistics. True, the term 'phrase' goes as far back as the 18* century when it was used by R. Lowth. However, the attention of early English grammarians was chiefly focused upon the description of the grammatical devices of joining words. At the beginning of the 20th century, the tone of grammatical discussion became more scholarly. O. Jespersen introduced the theory of three ranks that concerns the mutual relations of words in word combinations. Analyzing the example terribly cold weather, O. Jespersen states that the words are not on the same footing. The word weather is grammatically most important, while the words cold and terribly are subordinate to it. The word weather is defined by the word cold, and the word cold is defined by the word terribly. Thus, we have three ranks: the word weather is primary, the word cold is secondary, and the word terribly is tertiary. O, Jespersen discusses only word groups formed by combinations of primaries with secondaries. He distinguishes two main types of combinations in which a secondary is joined to a primary - junction and nexus. In a junction, the joining of the two elements is so close that it is often substituted by a separate word, e.g.: The warmest season - summer (O. Jespersen). In traditional grammar, O. Jespersen's junction corresponds to subordination. In a nexus, something new is added to the conception contained in the primary. In other words, nexus designates predicative relations. According to O. Jespersen, nexus falls into two subtypes: independent and dependent. He considers a nexus to be independent when it forms a whole sentence, i.e. when it gives a complete bit of information, e.g. The dog barks (O. Jespersen). A dependent nexus, in his opinion, forms only part of a sentence, e.g.: I hear the dog bark (O. Jespersen). Although O. Jespersen draws a distinction between different levels of subordination and clearly opposes subordination and predication, he fails to define the word combination. This drawback is overcome by L. Bloomfield. However, L. Bloomfield's definition cannot be considered a happy one, for defining a word combination as a free form which consists of two or more free forms, he lumps together predicative and non-predicative combinations of words, as is evident from his classification of word combinations into endocentric and exocentric. In endocentric word combinations, according to L. Bloomfield, at least one of the components (or both) has a function coinciding with the function of the word combination as a whole, e.g.: poor Maggie, where the component Maggie can stand for the whole word combination poor Maggie. Cf: Poor Maggie sat down again... (G. Eliot). Maggie sat down again... Or: he and his wife, where both components he and his wife can stand for the whole group he and his wife. Cf.: He a nd hi s wi fe li st e n e d t o th e s ix o ' cl o c k n e ws (A.S. Hornby). * He listened to the six o 'clock news. His wife listened to the six o 'clock news. Exocentric word combinations unite such components neither of which can stand for the whole word combination. Here we have: 1) predicative combinations, e.g.: Catherine blushed (E. Hemingway), which is not equivalent either to Catherine or to blushed; 2) prepositional combinations, e.g.; He won't take you with him (St. Minot), where we cannot omit either the preposition with or the pronoun him. We cannot say: *He won't take you him. *He won't take you with. As you see, both endocentric and exocentric combinations comprise heterogeneous phenomena. Endocentric combinations include subordinate and coordinate groups of words; exocentric combinations include predicative and prepositional groups of words. 205

204

Linguistic Status of Word Combination It is not settled yet whether the word combination is a specific unit of syntax. Three interpretations have been put forth: 1) the word combination is not a specific unit of syntax; syntax studies nothing but sentences; 2)the word combination is the only unit of syntax; 3)the word combination is one of syntactic units. F. I . B us l a e v, M . G a n s h i n a a n d N . V a s i l e v s k a ya , V.L. Kaushanskaya and her co-authors are of opinion that syntax deals with sentences only. The exclusion of word combinations from the sphere of syntax, according to A.I. Smirnitsky, causes a disregard of the rules of joining words that exist irrespective of the fact whether a word combination makes part of a sentence or not. F.F. Fortunatov and A.M. Peshkovsky, on the contrary, are of opinion that the word combination is the only syntactic unit. If the word combination were the only syntactic unit, it would not be clear how to treat one-word sentences. A.M. Peshkovsky looks upon them as a specific kind of word combination, which is theoretically wrong. However, the existence of one-word sentences is not the most important argument against restricting the sphere of syntax to word combinations. The main drawback of the conception lies in the fact that it does not differentiate between the word combination and the sentence. And they must be distinguished because they are different: the word combination represents a naming unit of language [V.V. Vinogradov; N.Y. Shvedova; O.B. Sirotinina; M.Y. Blokh], the sentence is a means of communication [O. Jespersen; A. Gardiner; Y.M. Skrebnev], We regard the word combination as one of syntactic units, alongside of words, sentences, etc. Words That Form Word Combinations Another debatable problem is what language units can build up a word combination. Most foreign linguists think that a word combination is a unity of any words, including the group 'preposition + noun* [S. Greenbaum; D. Crystal].

Combinations with prepositions do play an important role in all languages, analytical in particular. But the essence of the word combination consists in the adjunct narrowing the notion rendered by the head, e.g.: English books (A.S. Hornby). books
English books

Prepositions as function words cannot narrow the notion comprised in the following noun or noun equivalent because they are semantically, syntactically, and phonetically weak. Hence, they should be excluded from the sphere of word combination [V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik; G.N. Vorontsova]. Following the majority of Russian linguists, we think that the term 'word combination' can be applied only to such groups of words that contain at least two notional words forming a semantic and a grammatical whole. Syntactic Relations That Build Up Word Combinations Two or more notional words can be joined by means of predication, coordination, accumulation, apposition, and subordination. The question arises if all these syntactic relations build up word combinations. Western linguists of the past made no distinction between a sentence, i.e. a predicative group of words, and a word combination. Nowadays, things have changed. In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, D. Crystal writes, 'A phrase is a syntactic construction which typically contains more than one word, but which lacks the subject-predicate structure usually found in a clause.' Most Russian linguists postulate a separate existence of 'sentence' and 'word combination' because they serve different purposes. A sentence is based on predication, and predication consists in saying something about

206

207

something so that its purpose is communicative. A word combination has no such aim. It is employed for naming things qualities, actions, etc. True, some linguists [V.G. Gak; T.A. Tulina] say that the naming function does not differentiate the word combination and the sentence, for the sentence is also a kind of name. It is the name of a situation. There is no denying the fact that every level of language structure contributes to the creation of naming units. But in some language units the naming function is primary (e.g. in words and word combinations); in others it is secondary (e.g. in sentences). The problem of coordinate groups of words is controversial, too. Traditionally, linguists single out coordinate groups of words into a special type of word combinations [H. Sweet; E. Kruisinga; L.S. Barkhudarov; V.A. Beloshapkova]. V.N. Yartseva leaves the question open, saying that even if such groups as men and women could be referred to word combinations, one should bear in mind their specific nature. Really, as opposed to word combinations proper, each component of a coordinate group of words renders a new, but homogeneous notion. Cf.: English books (A.S. Hornby).
books
English books

But: books and notebooks

--and...................

That's why we exclude coordinate groups of words from word combinations. [See on this point: V.V. Vinogradov; V.N. Zhigadio, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. lofik; O.B. Sirotinina]. Accumulation, in our opinion, does not form a word combination either. Just like coordination, accumulation unites independent notions that are heterogeneous, into the bargain. Neither do we recognize the existence of appositive word combinations, e.g.: Uncle Jack (O. Wilde). Qualifying apposition as a kind of attribute [H. Sweet; N.Y. Filitcheva], syntactic tradition proceeds from the assumption that it is always easy to draw a line of demarcation between the head and the adjunct. However, it is rather rare the case. Already A.M. Peshkovsky has drawn the attention of linguists to numerous difficulties in finding the apposition and the element to which it is apposed. And even nowadays linguists are still at variance as to the right answer to this question. Thus, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya think that the apposition is constituted by the proper noun; V.N. Zhigadio, I.P. Tvanova and L.L. lofik - by the common noun. I.G. Saprykina is right: the differentiation of the head and adjunct in appositive groups of words is impossible because both components are logically equal: they give different names to one and the same person or thing, e.g.: Uncle Jack (O.Wilde). Only groups of words based on subordination can be regarded as word combinations because only subordination unites notional words into a semantic and grammatical whole. The semantic integrity of a subordinate word combination manifests itself in the fact that its components render one notion: the head names it, and the adjunct narrows it. The semantic integrity leads to the grammatical consolidation of the components of a subordinate word combination as a result of which it is only the head that can substitute the whole word combination. For instance, instead of saying: The little boy was tying in bed (K. Mansfield), we can say: The boy was lying in bed, with the head boy representing the subordinate word combination little boy. The second variant, *The little was lying in bed, with the adjunct little standing for the subordinate word combination little boy is out of the question because it fails to render any independent notion, but serves the purpose of narrowing the notion of the following head boy.
209

208

Valency

The valency of the head determines the occurrence of this or that adjunct. The term 'valency' was originally used in chemistry for the combinatory potential of atoms. The French linguist L. Tesniere introduced it into linguistics. According to L. Tesniere, only verbs possess valency characteristics, e.g.: (Toby) shook his head (S. Sheldon). Nowadays, linguists have come to the conclusion that valency is not restricted to verbs. Adjectives and nouns possess valency characteristics, too. Cf.: ... (but I'm) capable of making my own decisions (S. Sheldon). (It's got) a sort of greenish blue roof(D. Crystal, D. Davy).
Classifications of Word Combinations

Word combinations are classified according to different criteria. Semantically, word combinations are classified into free and phraseologically bound. In free word combinations, the components retain their original lexical meaning, e.g.: (There was) a long pause (S. Sheldon). Free word combinations are made up in speech for each given occasion. In phraseologically bound word combinations, one or both components weaken or lose their original lexical meaning, e.g.: a lame duck ~ a person or enterprise that is not a success and has to be helped; a rainy day -~ a time of financial hardship; a square meal ~ a meal which offers enough good food to satisfy one. Phraseologically bound word combinations cannot be freely made up in speech. They are reproduced in speech as ready-made units which are semantically and functionally closer to words than to word combinations. Morphologically, word combinations are classified in accordance with the part-of-speech nature of the head. The first morphological classification was suggested by B. Jonson in the 17 century. He singled out noun and verb word combinations. 210

B. Jonson's morphological classification is being elaborated nowadays. L.S. Barkhudarov, for instance, distinguishes: 1)noun word combinations, e.g.: nice apples (BBC London Course); 2)verb word combinations, e.g.: saw him (E. Blyton); 3)adjective word combinations, e.g.: perfectly delightful (O. Wilde); 4)adverb word combinations, e.g.: perfectly well (O, Wilde); 5)pronoun word combinations, e.g.: something nice (BBC London Course). Although the head in a word combination can be expressed practically by any notional part of speech, it is only noun and verb word combinations that are characterized by a high frequency of occurrence. The part-of-speech nature of the adjunct should be taken into consideration, too. In this case, one speaks of noun-adjective word combinations, e.g.: rich people (N. Monsarrat), verb-noun word combinations, e.g.: wanted money (M. Gilbert), etc. In the third place, word combinations are classified according to the number of their components into simple and complex. Simple word combinations always comprise two components: the head and an adjunct, e.g.: told me (A. Ayckbourn). The binary pattern constitutes the language model of word combination. But in speech triple, quadruple and more complex patterns of word combinations are sometimes found, which is generally the result of the head or adjunct expansion in the sentence, e.g.: terribly cold weather (O. Jespersen), where the adjunct cold is expanded by means of terribly. Sometimes the word combination as a whole is expanded, e.g.: a private cigarette case (O. Wilde). In the fourth place, word combinations are classified according to the syntactic relations between the head and the adjunct. Here one distinguishes attributive word combinations, e.g.: an old man (C. Hare); objective word combinations, e.g.: sold cats (L-E. Reeve); and word combinations with qualitative adverbials, e.g.: ran swiftly (W. Faulkner). Temporal and causal syntactic
211

relations are not characteristic of the word combination, for they do not build up an integral whole with the head and should be regarded as parts of sentences rather than of word combinations, e.g.: He paused a moment (St. Leacock). In the fifth place, word combinations are classified according to the predetermined or free nature of the adjunct. Word combinations based on agreement and strong government are generally predetermined; word combinations based on weak government and adjoinment are generally free. In the sixth place, word combinations are classified according to the obligatory or optional occurrence of the adjunct. Word combinations based on strong government are usually obligatory; word combinations based on agreement and adjoinment are mostly optional. Word Order in Word Combinations Each type of word combination is characterized by a specific word order. Preposition of the adjunct is typical of word combinations with agreement and the adjoinment of attributes; postposition of the adjunct is found in word combinations with government; the place of an adjunct in word combinations with adjoinment is more free. The violation of the word order in word combinations takes place only in sentences for the sake of increasing or decreasing the communicative value of one of its components.

4. ESSENCE OF PREDICATION The essence of predication consists in establishing the relationship between the content of the clause and reality. Predication is realized in the grammatical categories of objective modality, tense (in the case of real modality), and person [V.V. VinogradovJ. The predicative category of person (first, second, third) finds its expression either in the inflection of the verbal component (e.g. the inflection -s signals the third person singular in the present indefinite) or in the nominal component. When the nominal component is expressed by a personal pronoun, it serves as a lexical exponent of the predicative category of person. When the nominal component is expressed by a noun or a pronoun that does not distinguish persons, they serve as onomaseological exponents of the third person, common to the class of things [E. Krivchenko]. The predicative categories of objective modality and tense find their expression in the verbal component of predication. According to G.A. Zolotova, there are two types of objective modality: real and non-real. Objective modality is expressed by means of the category of mood. The indicative mood renders the meaning of real modality, I'm waiting, Mrs. Page (A. Cronin). The imperative mood and the conjunctive mood realize the meaning of non-real modality, e.g.: Shut the door! (J. Irving). / would have seen him. There's not a soul in sight (W. Faulkner). In the case of real modality, tense characteristics are relevant, too[A.I. Smirnitsky]. Cf.: / want to talk to you (M. Brand) - present tense. He lit the gas and sat down (Th. Dreiser) - past tense. I'll call you tomorrow (B. Gutcheon) - future tense. Since the predicative category of person in analytical English generally finds its expression not in the verbal, but in the nominal component, most English clauses contain a subject and a predicate. To render the predicative categories of modality, tense, and (sometimes) person, the predicate must always contain a finite form
213

The word, word form, and word combination are potentially non-predicative syntactic units, although, as O. Jespersen rightly points out, nouns in themselves sometimes contain elements of predication, e.g.: on account of her pride <= because she was proud> (O. Jespersen). 7 saw the King's arrival (O. Jespersen). The dog's barking was heard all over the place (O. Jespersen). A clause is a potentially predicative syntactic unit. 212

of the verb. That's why English grammarians call subject-predicate clauses finite clauses. 5. FINITE DEPENDENT CLAUSES Finite clauses can be dependent and independent. A finite dependent clause is a clause that is embedded in a larger structure as a clause element or as part of a clause element. In traditional grammar, finite dependent clauses are called subordinate clauses. Different classifications of finite dependent clauses have been put forth: 1) morphological, 2) syntactic, 3) formal, 4) functional, 5) structural-semantic. Morphological Classification The authors of the morphological classification identify finite dependent clauses with parts of speech. C.E. Eckersley, for instance, speaks of noun clauses, adjective clauses, and adverb clauses. A noun finite dependent clause, in his opinion, does the work of a noun, i.e. performs the functions of subject, subject predicative, and object typical of nouns, e.g.: What I gave you now will bring joy (C.S. Lewis) - subject clause. This is what I call living (K. Chopin) - subject predicative clause. He had known that she would refuse (A. Cronin) - object clause. An adjective clause does the work of an adjective, i.e. performs the function of an attribute typical of adjectives, e.g.: Did you see those two women who just went into the hotel? (A. Christie). An adverb clause does the work of an adverb, i.e. performs the function of an adverbial typical of adverbs, e.g.: When I woke I looked around (E. Hemingway). Finite dependent clauses and parts of speech resemble each other functionally. But this kind of similarity, in the opinion of B.A. Ilyish, cannot be regarded as sufficient grounds for classifying finite dependent clauses according to parts of speech. Finite dependent clauses possess predication. As for parts of speech, they 214

are non-predicative units. One can never understand the essence of a predicative construction through a non-predicative phenomenon. Syntactic Classification The authors of the syntactic classification are guided by the syntactic function that finite dependent clauses perform in the matrix clause. (A matrix clause is a clause that a dependent clause is inserted into. S. Greenbaum calls it a host clause. The traditional term for a matrix clause is a main clause.). The syntactic principle was first suggested by F.I. Buslaev. This classification has been current for over a hundred years all over the world. Nowadays, it is widely used, too. Finite dependent clauses function in the matrix clause as subject, subject predicative, object, attribute, and adverbial. Subject, subject predicative, and object clauses are often called eompjement clauses because they are used to complete the meaning relationship of a verb, either lexical or copular. There are two major structural types of finite complement clauses: thai-clauses and w/io-clauses. The complementizer that is characterized by a higher frequency of occurrence than the complementizer who. The position of complement clauses in analytical English is predetermined grammatically: subject complement clauses - before the predicate-verb, object complement clauses - after the predicateverb, subject predicative clauses - after the copular verb in the matrix clause. Cf: What is done by night appears by day (Proverb) - subject clause. I don't know what came over me (S. Sheldon) - object clause. The great thing is that we are enjoying ourselves (A. Christie) - subject predicative clause. However, in actual use subject complement clauses rarely occur in the pre-predicate position. The dummy subject it is usually used in the ordinary subject position, and the subject complement clause is moved outside its normal position. The effect is said to be one of extraposition. Cf.:

215

What you say doesn't matter (D. Crystal). - The subject clause is in its common initial position. It doesn 't matter what you say (D. Crystal). - The subject clause is in extraposition. An object complement clause can also occur in extraposition after the dummy object it. Normally, this only happens when there is an adjective connected with the dummy object it, e.g.: George made it clear that he disagreed (M. Swan). / think it important that we should keep calm (M. Swan). Complement clauses are closely integrated with the matrix clause in which they are embedded. They cannot normally be left out without injuring the structure of the matrix clause. Their freedom of movement is limited (apart from extraposition). 4dye?'feial.c!ause.s. are mostly optional and have some freedom of positioning: both initial and final placement are common. Adverbial clauses are regularly marked by a subordinator indicating their semantic relationship to the matrix clause. The following semantic types of adverbial clauses are generally singled out. 1. Place Clauses. They refer to position or direction. The most common place subordinators are where and wherever, e.g.: You may park your car where there is a parking sign (R.A. Close). He seems to make friends wherever he goes (Longman Language Activator). 2. Temporal Clauses. They show whether the situation in the matrix clause occurred before that of the temporal clause, at the same time, or at a later time. The most common temporal subordinators are after, before, since, until, and when, e.g.: He looked up when I came (G. Jones). 3. Conditional Clauses. They state the condition that is necessary for the realization of the action expressed in the matrix clause. The most common conditional subordinators are //(positive condition) and unless (negative condition: 'if not'), e.g.: If you -wait a minute I will light a match (W.S. Maugham). You won't get back unless you start now (G. Greene), 4. Concessive Clauses. They indicate that the situation in the matrix clause is unexpected in view of what is said in the concessive clause. The most common concessive subordinators are though and although, e.g.:
216

Although my car is very old, it still runs very well (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 5. Reason Clauses. They express such notions as reason (reason is something which explains or excuses an action) and cause (cause is something which produces a result) for what is conveyed in the matrix clause. The most common reason subordinators are because, as, and since, e.g.: Johnny Brooklyn was my friend because we had been brought up together (W. Saroyan). 6. Purpose Clauses. They state the purpose of the action expressed in the matrix clause. The most common purpose subordinators are so that and in order that (the second is more formal), e.g.: She's studying English at night school so that she can go to university (Longman Language Activator). He sold it in order that he might live more comfortably (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 7. Result Clauses. They refer to a situation that is or was the result of the situation described in the matrix clause. The most common result subordinators are 50 and so that (the second is more formal), e.g.: We planted many shrubs, so (that) the garden soon looked beautiful (R. Quirk et al). 8. Manner Clauses. They refer to the manner of the action expressed by the verb. The most common manner subordinator is as, e.g.: Do as I say (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 9. Comparison Clauses. They involve a comparison with what is conveyed in the matrix clause. The most common comparison subordinators are as and than, e.g.: He is not as old as me (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). You 're younger than Iam(G. Greene). 10. Proportion Clauses. They also involve comparison. The most common proportion subordinators are as and the fronted correlative the ... the in combination with adjectives in the comparative degree, e.g.: The harder he worked, the happier he felt (R. Quirk et al.).
217

Attributive. Clauses. English scholars usually call them relative clauses. The classification of relative clauses goes through two stages. At the first stage, relative clauses are classified according to the nature of their antecedent. A distinction is drawn between nominal and sentential relative clauses. The antecedent of a nominal relative clause is a noun or noun phrase in the preceding matrix clause. The antecedent of a sentential relative clause is the whole preceding matrix clause. Cf.: He showed me a photo that upset me (M Swan). He tore up my photo, which upset me (M. Swan). In the first case, it was the photo that was upsetting; the relative clause just refers to this noun. In the second case, it was not the photo that was upsetting, but the fact that somebody tore it up. The whole matrix clause He tore up my photo is the antecedent of the relative clause which upset me. At the second stage, relative clauses are classified into restrictive (defining) and non-restrictive (non-defining) in accordance with the meaning intended by the speaker or writer. A restrictive relative clause identifies the antecedent. For instance, in Is that the woman who wants to buy your car? (M, Swan), the relative clause who wants to buy your car tells us which woman is meant A non-restrictive relative clause does not identify the antecedent but gives additional information about it. For instance, in I've just met that Mrs. Smith-Perkins, who wants to buy your car (M. Swan) the identity of the woman is already known (Mrs. SmithPerkins), and the relative clause who wants to buy your car just gives additional information about her. Restrictive and non-restrictive clauses differ in a number of respects: the type of antecedent, the choice of relativizers, intonation and punctuation characteristics, etc. Antecedents expressed by common nouns can take both restrictive and nonrestrictive relative clauses. Proper nouns are generally not modified restrictively, since they are identified uniquely. They combine with restrictive relative clauses only when some kind of specification is needed, e.g.: It wasn't the Charlie he had known ... (C. Wood). In the second place, restrictive and non-restrictive relative clauses make use of different relativizers. (Relativizers are relative pronouns which, who, whom, whose, that; and relative adverbs -

where, when, why), fffc-relative pronouns, such as which and who, are the most often used relativizers with non-restrictive clauses. Who usually occurs with animate head nouns, which - with inanimate head nouns. Cf.: / discussed if with my brother, who is a lawyer (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The train, which takes only two hours to get there, is quicker than the bus, which takes three (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Restrictive relative clauses may also be introduced by who and which, e.g.: A postman is a man who delivers letters (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Did you see the letter which came today? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). But they are often substituted by that, especially in a conversational style, e.g.: I've lost the bananas that I bought this morning (M. Swan). The relativizer may be omitted from restrictive clauses if it is not the subject of the clause. In such cases, it is usual to speak of an potential relativizer, e.g.: I've lost the bananas I bought this morning (M. Swan). The reiativizer whom in restrictive clauses is unusual: we either leave it out or use that instead, e.g.: There's the man (that) we met in the pub last night (M. Swan). The relativizer whom is necessary only after a preposition, e.g.: The people with whom he worked regarded him as eccentric (M. Swan). In conversational English, however, it is much more common to put prepositions at the end and to leave out the relativizer, e.g.: The people he worked with thought that he was a bit strange (M. Swan), In non-restrictive clauses, the relativizer whom is used in a formal style, e.g.: This is Mr. Perkins, whom you met at the sales conference (M. Swan).

219

The relativizer whose is typically used to mark a possessive relationship between a human head noun and some other noun phrase, e.g.: When I looked through the window I saw a girl whose beauty took my breath away (M. Swan). But sometimes the relativizer whose can be used to mark other genitive relationships with completely inanimate, sometimes abstract, head nouns, e.g.: In Wasdale there is a mysterious dark lake, whose depth has never been measured (M. Swan). It was a meeting whose importance I did not realize at the time (M. Swan). The relativizer whose introduces both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses. Cf.: That's the man whose house was burned down (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - restrictive clause, This is Felicity, whose sister you met last week (M. Swan) -non-restrictive clause. The relativizers where, when, and -why can also introduce both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses, but they usually occur at the head of restrictive clauses. The relativizer where is generally used after place head nouns., the relativizer when - after time head nouns, the relativizer why- after the head noun reason. Cf.: This is the buildins where I work (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). That summer marked the time when their carefree childhood really ended (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). You are the reason why I left school (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Relative clauses with the head noun time are often used with a potential relativizer. Cf: By the_tirrie you receive the letter 1 will be on my way home (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). It's time they paid the money back (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). You say that every time you come in this door (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). In the third place, restrictive and non-restrictive clauses possess different phonetic and punctuation characteristics. 220

Restrictive clauses are not usually separated from the matrix clause in any way- In speech, there is no pause; in writing, commas are not used. As for non-restrictive clauses, they are often separated from the matrix clause by pauses or intonation changes in speech and by commas in writing. The fourth point of difference concerns the nature of their structural integration with the matrix clause. Restrictive clauses are closely integrated with the matrix clause in which they are embedded and cannot be left out. Non-restrictive clauses are not structurally integrated with the matrix clause and can easily be left out. Although the omission of non-restrictive clauses leaves the matrix clause structurally complete, it does bring about a certain change in its meaning: it becomes less informative. Nominal relative clauses can be restrictive and nonrestrictive; sentential relative clauses are always non-restrictive. Although finite dependent clauses are functionally similar to parts of simple independent clauses, they are not identical with them. As opposed to parts of simple independent clauses, finite dependent clauses possess predication. That's why they express our thoughts in a more complete, a more detailed manner. A member of a simple independent clause is like a picture; it merely names this or that phenomenon, its quality, or action. A finite dependent clause is like a drama or process. It presents everything in its development. Formal Classification The authors of the formal classification take into consideration the way in which finite dependent clauses are joined to matrix clauses. Thus, A.M. Peshkovsky draws a distinction between syndetic and asyndetic finite dependent clauses. Syndetic finite dependent clauses are introduced by explicit subordinates; asyndetic finite dependent clauses are introduced by potential subordinators. The following finite dependent clauses are usually syndetic: subject, subject predicative, non-restrictive relative, restrictive relative when the subordinator performs the function of the subject in the clause, and adverbial. Object clauses and restrictive relative clauses whose subordinator is not the subject of tiie clause can be both syndetic and asyndetic. In a formal style, they are usually syndetic, in conversational English - asyndetic.
221

Functional Classification R. Long has worked out a functional classification of finite dependent clauses into declarative and interrogative. As a matter of fact, the classification is not functional, but structural because it is based on the structural peculiarities of the clauses under examination. Thus, to declarative R. Long refers finite dependent clauses that are built on the model: 'subject + predicate verb + object + adverbial', with the possible introduction of that at the head, e.g.: I wish I could get a word with him alone (C.S. Lewis). I saw at once that he was dead (A. Christie). Interrogative finite dependent clauses, in his opinion, are built on the same model as declarative clauses but are introduced by one of the wfc-words that are used to form questions, e.g.: He did not finish what he was going to say (W,S. Maugham). <Cf.: What was he going to say?> The thing that raises doubts here is that R. Long includes into this group also clauses with though, as, once, unless, -whether, if, and -while at the head, in spite of the fact that they never form direct questions, although some of them (e.g. whether, if} can introduce indirect questions, e.g.: Even though 1 didn't understand a -word, I kept smiling (M. Swan). He was as old as I am (H,E. Bates). Once she arrives, we can start (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Unless the government agrees to give extra money, the theatre will have to close (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The man who answered the door was not sure whether Miss Verinder was at home or not (W. Collins). / don't know iff can help you (M. Swan). Structural-Semantic Classification Finally, finite dependent clauses can be classified according to the degree of their semantic and structural integration into the matrix clause. This criterion allows to draw a distinction between two types of clauses: obligatory and optional. Obligatory finite
222

dependent clauses form a semantic and structural whole with the matrix clause and, consequently, cannot be left out. The connection of optional dependent clauses with the matrix clause is rather loose. As a result, they can easily be left out. Obligatory clauses include complement clauses, restrictive relative clauses, and adverbial clauses mat contain the second part of a correlative subordinator (for example, comparative clauses, proportion clauses, etc.). Adverbial clauses introduced by non-correlative subordinates and non-restrictive relative clauses make up the class of optional clauses. 6. NON-FINITE DEPENDENT CLAUSES According to English grammarians, dependent clauses can be not only finite but also non-finite [R.A. Close; R, Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik and many others]. The verb in a finite dependent clause, as we have seen, is a finite verb. In a nonfinite clause, the verb is non-finite: an infinitive, participle, or gerund. Two participles are generally distinguished: Participle I with the suffix -ing and Participle II with the suffix -ed. The Gerund, like Participle I, is formed by adding the suffix -ing to the stem of the verb. Since there is no external difference between Participle I and Gerund, E. Kruisinga suggested that they should be called ing-forms. Nowadays, many English grammarians classify non-finite dependent clauses into infinitive clauses, ing-clauses., and ed-clauses. Infinitive clauses are sometimes subdivided into infinitive clauses with the marker to and infinitive clauses without the marker to. A finite dependent clause always has a subject. In contrast, non-finite dependent clauses can be constructed without a nominal component, and usually are. Following G.N. Vorontsova, we call the nominal component in non-finite clauses not a subject, but a subjectival member because although it is functionally similar to the nominal component in finite clauses, it is formally different from it. The nominal component in finite clauses (or the subject), is formally independent: nouns in the function of the subject are used in the common case, personal pronouns - in the nominative case. As for the nominal component in non-finite clauses, it can have a dependent form. For instance, when it is expressed by a personal
223

pronoun (which is rather often the case), it is always used in the oblique objective case. Besides, in a number of cases it can be introduced by a preposition. What is more, subject and predicate are correlative notions: when there is no predicate, we cannot speak about the subject. And in non-finite clauses, there is no predicate as only finite verbs can form predicates. Infinitive Clauses with 'to': without a subjectival member: The best thing would be to tell everybody (R. Quirk et al.); with a subjectival member: The best thing -would be for you to tell everybody (R. Quirk et al.). Infinitive Clauses without 'to': without a subjectival member: / think it helps support our style of policing structure (S. Greenbaum); with a subjectival member: / won't let you talk like that (S. Sheldon). Ing-Clauses: without a subjectival member: Leaving the room, he tripped over the mat (R. Quirk et al.); with a subjectival member: Her aunt having left the room, I declared my passionate love for Celia (R, Quirk et al.). Ed-Clauses: without a subjectival member: Covered with confusion, I left the room (R. Quirk et al.); with a subjectival member: The daughter sat quite silent and still, with her eyes fixed on the ground (Ch. Dickens). Infinitive and ing-clauses are characterized by a higher frequency of occurrence and a wider range of syntactic roles than ed-clauses. Among dependent clauses, English grammarians also include verbless clauses. Verbless clauses are treated as reductions of finite or non-finite clauses with the verb be. Cf.: When ripe, these apples will be delicious (R. Quirk et al.)"* When these apples are ripe, they will be delicious. Breakfast over, he went to his counting house (Ch. Bronte). Breakfast being over, he went to his counting house. The verbless clause in the first example lacks a subjectival member; the verbless clause in the second example has a subjectival member: breakfast.
224

Non-finite and verbless dependent clauses are never marked for modality and tense, and are marked for person only when there is a subjectival member. They do comprise an element of predication: non-finite clauses - due to the presence of a non-finite form of the verb, verbless clauses - due to isolation. But it is secondary, not primary predication. Since finite clauses, on the one hand, non-finite clauses and verbless clauses, on the other, are predicatively heterogeneous, we see no grounds for calling them by the same term 'clause'. We quality as dependent only finite clauses, i.e. clauses one of whose elements is a finite verb. 7. INDEPENDENT CLAUSES Independent clauses can be both finite and verbless. They are never embedded in a larger structure as a clause element or as part of a clause element. But they may contain embedded clauses or be coordinated with clauses on the same level. The authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English mention three major types of independent clauses: simple, complex, and compound. A simple independent clause represents a single clause, e.g.: I'll ring her up tonight! (H.E. Bates). A complex independent clause is a combination of a matrix clause with one or more dependent clauses, e.g.: If the police win, you generally hear all about it. If the police lose, you generally hear nothing (W. Collins). A compound independent clause is a combination of two or more coordinated independent clauses, e.g.: 7? had begun to rain, and she had returned to the house early (S. Sheldon). Independent finite clauses correspond to what is generally defined as sentences. They are used to perform speech-act functions. The question arises if simple, complex, and compound sentences are the only communication rendering syntactic units. In our opinion, they are not. We suggest a multistage classification of communication rendering syntactic units based on their inherent predication. At the first stage, we draw a distinction between predicative and non-predicative syntactic units. The latter ar referred to as 'communicatives'
225

8. NON-PREDICATIVE SYNTACTIC UNITS 'Commuicatives' are characterized by semantic, communicative, and syntactic indivisibility. Their semantic integrity manifests itself in the lack of motivation (the meaning of 'communicatives' cannot be deduced from the meanings of their components); the communicative unity - in the impossibility to differentiate between the theme (the starting point of the utterance) and the rheme (the part of the utterance communicating information about the theme); their syntactic indiscreteness - in the inapplicability of the model of parts of the sentence ('communicatives' cannot be analyzed in terms of parts of the sentence). Cf.: Have you seen him since that night? - No (I. Shaw). But fortunately the -weather forecast is OK for this week. -Great (P. Viney). 9. TYPES OF PREDICATIVE SYNTACTIC UNITS At the second stage, we identity predicative syntactic units. Predicative syntactic units are heterogeneous. There are two major types of predicative syntactic units: sentences and sentence-ids. Sentences The sentence is probably the most familiar of all grammatical terms. We are introduced to it in our early school years, if not before. It might therefore be thought that sentences are easy things to identify and define. The opposite turns out to be the case. The traditional definition of the sentence states that the sentence expresses a complete thought. The trouble with this definition is that it requires us to know what a complete thought is. Up to now, nobody has given a satisfactory answer to this question. So, traditional grammar tries to define one unknown notion in terms of another unknown notion. Structural linguists try to define the sentence formally. Thus, L. Bloomfield writes, 'A sentence is an independent linguistic form, not included by virtue of any grammatical construction in any larger linguistic form.'
226

In general, formal criteria are the least vulnerable. But the question arises how to define whether the form under examination is independent or whether it is included in some larger structure. In the opinion of Ch. Fries, conjunctions can be regarded as signs of inclusion. They really can, e.g.: I do it because I like it (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). / work in an office, and I do other work as well (I. Murdoch). But sometimes there are no conjunctions, and still a form is felt to make part of another, e.g.: I know he will never return (J. Fowles). / work, I have to sleep (T. Capote). Other linguists think that punctuation helps us draw a distinction between a sentence and its parts. The criterion of punctuation is quite lucid, of course, but it is applicable only to written texts. Trying to give a formal definition of the sentence, A.H. Marckwardt turns to such phonetic characteristics as pitch and pause. Phonetic devices play an important role in identifying sentences. However, they are found only in oral speech (punctuation gives a poor representation of phonetic devices), and even there they are rather subjective, varying from speaker to speaker. A. Gardiner and Y.M. Skrebnev are of opinion that the only relevant feature of the sentence is its ability to serve the purpose of communication, i.e. they view the sentence as a unit of communication. The communicative function does differentiate the sentence from the phoneme, the morpheme, the word, the word form, and the word combination. But the communicative function cannot be regarded as a distinguishing feature of the sentence either, for it is also common to units larger than the sentence and to language as a whole. We think it necessary to elucidate the communicative definition of the sentence by reference to such a structural characteristic as predication. Formal characteristics are of great importance because there are no formless meanings. Sentences possess independent explicit predication. Explicit predication presupposes the presence of morphological exponents of the predicative categories of modality and tense and morphological,
227

lexical, or onomaseological exponents of the predicative category of person. Explicit predication is considered to be independent when it has no introductory subordinates Sentencoids 'Sentencoid' is a comparatively new term in linguistics. By sentencoids we mean syntactic units that lack the structure of an independent finite clause. In Russian traditional grammar, they are usually called 'incomplete sentences' (nenojinue npedjioofcenux\ in English and American linguistics - 'elliptical sentences' [G.L. Kittredge, F.E. Farley; W.O. Birk; R. Gunter], 'minor sentences' [L. Bloomfield; Ch. Hockett; D. Crystal], or 'sentence fragments' [J.L. Morgan; V. McClelland, J.D. Reynolds, M.L. SteeL I. Guilloryj. The term 'minor sentences' might lead one to the conclusion that they are of secondary importance to conventional (or major) sentences. In written language, it is really so. According to D.A. Conlin and G.R. Herman, minor sentences in written English constitute only 1 per cent. But in everyday conversation the socalled minor sentences are as important as major sentences. The terms 'incomplete sentences', 'elliptical sentences', and 'sentence fragments' emphasize their structural deficiency. Short 'fragmentary' units really do not have the structure of independent finite clauses. But does it testify to their structural deficiency? We think not. They are used mainly in conversation. Conversation is typically carried out in face-to-face interaction with others. Speakers usually share a lot of background knowledge. Because it relies on situation and context for meaning, conversation can do without the syntactic elaboration that is found in written language. Consistent with this factor of syntactic non-elaboration, conversation has a very high frequency of 'fragmentary' syntactic units that are as informative in conversation as independent finite clauses (or sentences). Since 'fragmentary' syntactic units are structurally different from sentences, they should not be called sentences. J.R. Aiken and M. Bryant suggested that they should be called 'non-sentences'. In our opinion, the term is not a happy one because it only tells us that 'fragmentary' syntactic units are not sentences, but it does not tell 228

us what they are. We think the term 'sentencoids' is better. By using it, we stress that, on the one hand, sentencoids are different from sentences, on the other hand, that they are similar to them (the suffix -oid means 'similar to'). They are different from sentences in the sense that they lack independent explicit predication. At the same time, they are similar to sentences because, just like sentences, they belong to communication rendering syntactic units. W.O. Birk writes apropos of this, 'By actual structure, of course, they are not sentences... By usage, though, they are sentences...' The absence of independent explicit predication does not mean that sentencoids are non-predicative syntactic units. There are three major predicative types of sentencoids. 1. Sentencoids that have dependent explicit predication, e.g.: I have no desire to disappoint you. - Why should you disappoint me? - Because Pm not twenty-five (J. Collins). The sentencoid Because I'm not twenty-five is marked for real modality, present tense, and the first person. So, its predication is explicit. The sign of dependence is the subordinator because. 2. Sentencoids having implicit predication that becomes clear from the context or situation (we might use the abbreviation 'consituation'), e.g.: What school do you go to? - Boarding school (S. Hill). The sentencoid Boarding school is not explicitly marked for any predicative category, but we can infer from the consituation that the sentencoid refers to real modality, present tense, and first person. 3. Sentencoids that are characterized by a fusion of explicit and implicit predication, e.g.: Twilight (J. Joyce). A nice moon, that (Th. Dreiser). What's got into you? - Nothing (A. Ayckbourn). In all these examples, the predicative category of the third person is explicit, and the predicative categories of real modality and present tense are consituationally bound (or implicit). The implicit predicative categories of modality and tense in sentencoids can be represented by two kinds of syncretic zero exponents: paradigmatic and syntagmatic. Sentencoids with
229

paradigmatic zeros, just like sentences, realize their communicative potential even when taken in isolation . Cf.: The afternoon of a winter''s day (G. Gordon). You sure about that? (J. Collins). Silence in the court! (G. Gordon). Just a minute (E. Hemingway). Out with you (B. Shaw). What a strange place! (I. Murdoch). Sentencoids with syntagmatic zeros outside the consituation realize only the naming functions of their constituents. Cf.: Is it any use asking you anything, Poirot? - Not at this moment (A. Christie). They want to stay. How long for? - They didn 't .say (H. Pinter). Tomato juice. - Yes, sir (M. Brand). 'Sentence Representatives' Somewhat apart stand the so-called 'sentence representatives' (penpesenmanmu npednocHcenuu) that are used to avoid the repetition of the notional (or lexical) verb and the words that follow it, e.g.: Why don 'tyou run away then? -1 did (S. Hill). They have some features in common with sentences and sentencoids and some features that mark them off as a specific syntactic unit. Like sentences, they have independent explicit predication. Like sentencoids with syntagmatic zeros and sentencoids that have dependent explicit predication, they become communicative units only within a certain consituation. Outside the consituation, they lack not only the communicative function, like the above-mentioned sentencoids, but also the naming function because they usually consist of a personal pronoun or some other deictic element and an auxiliary, modal, or copular verb. Cf.: You must have loved him a lot. - / did (S. Sheldon). Help me. -1 can't (A. Wesker). Who is the teacher, you or I? - You are (Lingaphone English Course).
2

Extended 'sentence representatives' can include an attribute if the nominal component of predication is expressed by a noun and an adverbial. But extended 'sentence representatives' are characterized by a low frequency of occurrence. Cf.: You wa nt to s ave mo ne y? - I neve r di d i n my lif e (T. Williams). English grammarians usually regard 'sentence representatives* as elliptical sentences [D. Biber, S. Conrad, G. Leech], There is a grain of truth in their conception, for the omitted part can easily be restored from the context, e.g.: Help me. -1 can't (A. Wesker) / can *t help you. But if we do restore it, we get a syntactic unit typical of written speech. Conversational English has a grammar of its own. That's why its grammatical phenomena should be studied in themselves. 'Clause Representatives' In addition to 'sentence representatives', there are 'clause representatives' (penpesenmanmbi KJiays) in English that have independent or (less often) dependent explicit predication and always make part of larger syntactic units, e.g.: I married him, didnV1? - Oh, yes, you did (J. Osborne). Why can't they see behind them? ~ Because they can't that's why (A. Ayckbourn). 10. STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATIONS PREDICATIVE SYNTACTIC UNITS OF

At the third stage, we describe the structural properties of predicative syntactic units. Two-member and One-member Syntactic Units First, we take into consideration the way in which predication is realized in them. In sentences and 'sentence representatives', predication finds its expression either in two members or in one member. Accordingly, sentences and 'sentence representatives' are classified into two-member and one-member. In analytical English, 231

We speak here of relative communicarive independence of sentences and senieacoids with paradigmatic zeros. Their true communicative independence they gain only in the consituation.

230

where the verbal component of predication usually lacks person distinctions, the common type of sentence and 'sentence representative' is two-member that has a subject and predicate, e.g.: / returned to my room (M. Spark). Y ou r e al l y do w an t t hi s , d on' t y o u , La r r y ? - 1 d o (P. Benchley). As to the essence of one-member sentences and 'sentence representatives', opinions differ. A.A. Shakhmatov, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya identify the principal part of a one-member sentence either with the subject or with the predicate. The majority of linguists, however, think that a one-member sentence is a sentence having only one member, which is neither the subject nor the predicate because the notions of subject and predicate, as V.V. Vinogradov has rightly pointed out, are correlative notions. One-member sentences are typical of inflected languages. In analytical languages, one-member sentences are few. In English, imperative sentences and imperative 'sentence representatives' are surely one-member, e.g.: Wait a moment (A.M. Burrage). Please don't say anything else (J. Parsons). I just want to leave this in here. -Do (H. Pinter). By means of the imperative mood of the verb and a specific intonation contour, imperative sentences and imperative 'sentence representatives' realize non-real modality. In the sphere of non-real modality, tense characteristics are irrelevant. The absence of the person paradigm does not mean that imperative sentences and imperative 'sentence representatives' are not marked for the predicative category of person. The thing is that imperative sentences and imperative 'sentence representatives' generally address the command or request to the second person. The fixed nature of person characteristic makes the use of a special exponent of person redundant, although sometimes it does appear in the form of the personal pronoun you. hi these cases, imperative sentences become two-member. Cf: You try to eat something (W. Faulkner). You let me run this! (W. Faulkner). When inducement is addressed both to the addressee (the second person) and to the speaker (the first person), it finds its
232

expression in a specific morpheme, -'s, sometimes - in the personal pronoun us, e.g.: Lefjgo(V.Woolf). Let us catch them (L. Becke). There are two types of declarative sentences that lack the nominal component of predication just like imperative sentences. They are declarative sentences referring to the third person singular present indicative and declarative sentences referring to the first person singular and plural future indicative. Cf.: Doesn't sound like a problem (B. Gutcheon). Shan't stay in this house any longer (O. Wilde). Since their verbal component is marked for all the predicative categories, we think they could also be regarded as one-member sentences. Most grammarians, however, are of opinion that one-member sentences constitute a language phenomenon, and the abovementioned declarative sentences represent speech modifications of two-member sentences. They are speech modifications, but they are conventional speech modifications and as such are worth studying in themselves. What is more, the notion of a one-member sentence, like any linguistic notion, is a matter of definition. If we started on the assumption that a one-member sentence is a syntactic unit whose predication finds explicit expression in one member, then the above-mentioned declarative sentences could be regarded as onemember sentences. Tradition qualifies as one-member also infinitive and nominal sentences. Infinitive sentences are said to realize non-real modality, to refer to the future tense, and to be impersonal, e.g.: To think of the Weldons separating! (D. Parker). Nominal sentences are said to realize real modality, to refer to the present tense, and to actualize the meaning of the third person, e-g.: Dusk - of a summer night (Th. Dreiser). Since infinitives and nouns always lack explicit modality and tense characteristics, we refer them not to sentences, but to sentencoids. One-member sentences are characterized by a low frequency of occurrence in English. English people think that one-member imperative sentences are not polite enough even in combination
233

with the word please. The primary sphere of use of the bare imperative is the army. In everyday communication, English people prefer milder forms of inducement, such as Can/Could you,.., Will/Would you..., etc. [I. Sternin, T. Larina, M. Stemina], e.g.: Will you ask them to call a carriage, please? (O. Wilde). Declarative sentences, referring to the third person singular present indicative, are usually formed on the basis of the so-called impersonal verbs, which are not many, e.g.: H on e s t l y , I s c a r c e l y k no w hi m. - D o e s n ' t m a t t e r (W. Trevor). The sphere of declarative sentences, referring to the first person singular and plural future indicative, is limited due to the present-day tendency to use will with all persons. Sentencoids are classified according to the type of the inherent predication into three types: 1) sentencoids that have dependent explicit predication, 2) sentencoids that have implicit predication, 3) sentencoids that are characterized by a fusion of explicit and implicit predication. This classification has already been discussed. Monopredicative - Potypredicative Syntactic Units Second, we take into consideration the volume characteristics of the predication in sentences, 'sentence representatives', and sentencoids. A distinction is drawn between monopredicative and polypredicative sentences, 'sentences representatives', and sentencoids. Monopredicative syntactic units comprise one primary predication; polypredicative syntactic units include more than one primary predication. Declarative - Interrogative - Imperative Exclamative Monopredicative Syntactic Units Monopredicative sentences (and 'sentence representatives') are further classified into declarative, interrogative, imperative, and excJamative. Traditional grammar calls it a functional classification. Declarative sentences are said to make statements; interrogative sentences are said to ask questions; imperative sentences are said to make requests and give orders; exclamative sentences are said to express strong feelings. It would be well and good if it were always 234

the case. Unfortunately, it is not so. The so-called declarative sentences not only make statements but also ask questions, give orders, and express strong feelings. Cf.: The new room is better? - Yes, sir (J. Fowles). In future you'll keep away from my wife. It's an order (H. tines). You're killing me! (W.C. Williams). The so-called interrogative sentences not only ask questions but also make statements and requests and express strong feelings. Cf.: How can I climb that? (P.H. Mathews). <It implies / can Y climb it.> Will you come in? (J. Galsworthy). <It implies Come in, please!> Now, isn't he a terrible fellow! (J. Joyce). <It implies He is a terrible fellow!> The so-called imperative sentences not only make requests and give orders but also make statements and express strong feelings. Cf.: Spare the rod and spoil the child (Proverb). <It implies If you spare the rod, you will spoil the child. > Don't be so stupid! (M. Swan). <It expresses annoyance> Exclamative sentences comprising an emphatic do, does, did or opening with what and how seem to be monofunctional. Cf: I never did love him! (R. Lardner). What eyes he's got! (A.M. Burrage). How melancholy it was! (J. Joyce). The classification of monopredicative two-member sentences into declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamative was only conceived as functional. In practice, it was carried out on a structural basis, namely the order of subject and predicate in relation to each other [H. Sweet; D. Biber et al.; G.G. Potcheptsov]. In declarative sentences, the subject precedes the predicate, e.g.: My mother died soon after (D. Robins). In declarative 'sentence representatives', the subject comes before the operator standing for the predicate, e.g.: Who'll run the business while I'm away? - I will (J. Collins).
235

In interrogative sentences and 'sentence representatives', the auxiliary part of the predicate precedes the subject. The notional part of the predicate in interrogative sentences follows the subject. In 'sentence representatives', the notional part of the predicate is never used. Cf.: Do you have a car? (S. Sheldon), We could get a double room. - Could we? - Oh, yeah. (K. Burke). Where did she get my address? (J. Carey). We can't be in the forest, anyway. Why can't we? (S. Hill). In imperative sentences and 'sentence representatives', there is usually no subject. Cf.: Give me the dictionary (E.S. Gardner). Perhaps I should fry again?- Don't (J. Osborne). Exclamative sentences begin with what or how, followed by the word the speaker wants to emphasize, and continue with the 'subject-predicate' pattern, e.g.: What a pleasant surprise it would have been! (P. Abrahams). How beautifully you sing! (M. Swan). 'Sentence representatives' have no specific exclamative structure. Since most sentencoids lack the 'subject-predicate' pattern, their classification into declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamative is purely functional. Cf.: Wh ere a re you g oing to sta y? - With my people (J. Galsworthy) - declarative sentencoid. I've decided to write a little statement for the Echo... - The college paper? - The college paper (J. O'Hara) - interrogative sentencoid. Home! Go home\ (J. London) - imperative sentencoid. Last night at that banquet I thought France was saved. Such speeches! Such songs! And so many swords upraised! (U. Sinclair) exclamative sentencoids.
Positive ~ Negative Syntactic Units

All the monopredicative syntactic units can be positive and negative. The question arises if negation can be regarded as a structural characteristic of predicative syntactic units. We think it
236

can, but on two conditions. First, if it denies or rejects the proposition as a whole. Second, if it has constant grammatical means of its expression. English grammarians draw a distinction between two kinds of negation: local negation and clausal negation. The scope of local negation is usually restricted to a single word that is not a verb. Cf: No one answered him (W, Golding). And now she had nobody to protect her (J. Joyce). They never talk (J. Thurber). You never talk anything but nonsense. - Nobody ever does (O. Wilde). What happened? - Nothing (J. Collins). In all these cases, the propositions as a whole are positive. In other words, local negation cannot be regarded as a structural characteristic of a monopredicative syntactic unit. It is lexical, not grammatical. With clausal negation, the whole proposition is denied. Clausal negation has constant grammatical means of its expression: the negator not or its contracted form n 't is added after the operator, e.g.: / haven't made up my mind yet (I. Shaw). Ann isn't a doctor (V. Evans). Oh, that is nonsense. - It isn't (O. Wilde). If there is no auxiliary verb and the main verb is not the copula be, the auxiliary verb do has to be inserted as dummy operator. Cf: I know (W.S. Maugham). ~* I don't know (H.E. Bates). You promised me.* I didn't promise (J.D. Salinger). Go to sleep (J. Irving). Don't go to sleep (K. Mansfield). Since sentencoids usually lack the predicate-verb, the scope of clausal negation in them is restricted to sentencoids with dependent explicit predication, e.g.: Why hasn't he come to-night? - Because he wasn't asked (D.H. Lawrence). As clausal negation, which is attracted to the predicate-verb, denies the proposition as a whole and has constant grammatical means of its expression, it constitutes a structural characteristic of monopredicative syntactic units. In contrast to local negation that is lexical, clausal negation is grammatical. So, positive and negative sentences, 'sentence representatives', and sentencoids with clausal
237

negation can be regarded as two different structural types of monopredicative syntactic units. English monopredicative syntactic units can comprise only one negation: either clausal or local, e.g.: She didn't reply (J. Collins) - one clausal negation. I never heard of it (S. Sheldon) - one local negation. In Russian monopredicative syntactic units, clausal negation can go hand in hand with several local negations. Cf.: Nobody ever tells me anything (M. Bond) - one local negation. HuKmo HUKOzda nunezo ne paccK03bieaem, One clausal Mne and three local negations. 11. SENTENCE MODELS Drawbacks of the Model of Pans of the Sentence Monopredicative two-member sentences are analyzed in terms of subject, predicate, object, attribute, adverbial, etc. The traditional model of parts of the sentence distinguishes between principal parts of the sentence (subject, predicate) and secondary parts of the sentence (object, adverbial, attribute, etc.). Secondary parts of the sentence are said to depend on principal parts. It would be well and good if the notion of dependence figured only in the opposition of principal and secondary parts. However, many linguists are of opinion that the predicate also depends on the subject. If the predicate does depend on the subject, then it is not clear why they refer it to principal, not to secondary parts of the sentence. What is more, it is very difficult to differentiate secondaryparts of the sentence on the basis of the traditional model of parts of the sentence. But the main drawback of the traditional model of parts of the sentence, according to G.G. Potcheptsov, lies in the fact that, although the so-called parts of the sentence are singled out on the basis of the sentence, linguists generally study them irrespective of the sentence, taking into consideration only the mutual relations of these or those parts. In other words, the study of parts of the sentence is displaced into the sphere of word combination.

Distributional Model Since the model of parts of the sentence has a number of weak points, linguists began to look for new models. In 1914, with the publication of L. Bloomfiled's Introduction to the Study of Language, there appeared a new theory of descriptive grammar, which put on a firm basis the inductive rather than the deductive approach to language analysis. L. Bloomfield and his adherents set out to describe language as it exists, without being concerned with questions of correct and incorrect usage. In doing so, they directed their attention to the formal features of language. The shift of American linguists' attention from meaning to form at the beginning of the 20 century was quite natural. In the first place, descriptive linguistics developed from the necessity of studying half-known and unknown languages of the Indian tribes. They had no writing, and therefore the first step of work was to be keen observation and rigid registration of linguistic forms. In the second place, the languages of the Indian tribes have little in common with the Indo-European languages; they are languages devoid of morphological forms of separate words. That's why descriptive linguists could not analyze sentences in traditional terms. The generally accepted method of linguistic description became that of distribution. The distribution of an element is the sum total of all environments in which it occurs. The distribution is defined by means of substitution. Thus, Zand Fare included in the same element/* if the distribution of X is in some sense the same as the distribution of Y, e.g. the words door, window, table, bed, etc. can be included in one class with the word fire because they can occur in the same environment. Cf.: She was sitting close to the fire (W. Faulkner), She was sitting close to the door. She was sitting close to the window. She was sitting close to the table. She was sitting close to the bed. The distributional method is not a new idea in the history of English grammar. But traditional grammar was guided by this method only in practice, whereas structural linguistics has given

238

239

recognition to the distributional method within the theory of grammar. One of the representatives of structural linguistics is Ch. Fries. He challenges the conventional logical approach to the grammatical analysis of a sentence, declaring that in the study of sentence structure the use of meaning is unscientific. True, Ch. Fries draws a distinction between two kinds of meaning: lexical and structural. The term 'lexical meaning' is assigned to the dictionary definitions of words; 'structural meaning' - to those signals that show grammatical function. Lexical meanings in grammar, he writes, are redundant; structural meanings are fundamental and necessary. An English sentence, in his opinion, is not a group of words as such - i.e. a group of lexical units - but rather a structural pattern made up of classes and groups of words which are properly identified by formal markers and by their position in the pattern. For instance, the English sentence Then he spoke to me (A. Maltz) has the following distributional model (DM): Then he spoke to me. 4 la 2-d F lb, where 4 is a word of Class 4 (traditionally - an adverb); la and lb are words of Class 1 (traditionally - nouns), having different referents; 2-d is a word of Class 2 (traditionally - a verb) in a past tense form; F is a word of Group F (traditionally - a preposition). As opposed to the traditional model of parts of the sentence, the distributional model of Ch. Fries is purely formal. So, one might be led to believe that it meets the requirements of structural sentence analysis. However, if one goes deeper into it, he will see that things are not as easy as that. Since the main structural characteristic of a sentence is the presence of predication, structural sentence analysis should deal with defining the role of sentence components in realizing predication. Ch. Fries does nothing of the kind. He regards the sentence as a linear sequence of words with no reference to their participation in the realization of predication. The linear model can generate only the simplest sentence structures. Even this it sometimes cannot do properly as it does not indicate the groupings inside the sentence and the syntactic relations between them. No wonder that the distributional model of Ch. Fries cannot explain the difference between such sentences as:

The police shot the man in the red cap. The police shot the man in the right arm. la 2-d A 1D F A 3 I1 A According to Ch. Fries, these sentences are built on the same model (A T 2-d A lb F A 3 lc). However, even at first sight it is evident that the sentences are not identical: the first means that the police shot a man who had a red cap on; the second - that the police injured the man's right arm. In the case of more complex sentence structures, the linear distributional model turns out ineffective. Thus, it fails to generate passive constructions, negative, interrogative, and polypredicative sentences. What is more, the linear distributional model wholly disregards the functional nature of the singled out sentence components. And it must be taken into consideration because the sentence is a communicative syntactic unit. Model of Immediate Constituents The model of immediate constituents (ICM) represents the sentence not as a linear sequence of words, but as a hierarchy of two-part constructions on a series of levels. The largest immediate constituents of the simple sentence The warm sun excited the little girl (J. Cheever) are the noun phrase (NP) - the warm sun and the verb phrase (VP) - excited the little girl. The boundary between mem goes between the word of Class 1 (N) - sun and the word of Class 2 (V) -excited. Each part, in turn, is subject to further analysis. The noun phrase the warm sun has two immediate constituents: the determiner the and the noun phrase warm sun. The noun phrase warm sun consists of the word of Class 1 sun and the word of Class 3 warm. The verb phrase excited the little girl also comprises two immediate constituents: the word of Class 2 excited and the noun phrase the little girl. The noun phrase the little girl is analyzed into the determiner the and the noun phrase little girl. Finally, in the noun phrase little girl the word of Class 1 girl is separated from the word of Class 3 little.

240

241

So, the above-mentioned sentence will look like this in the immediate constituents model: The Layer 4 Layer 3 Laver 1 warm sun excited the little girl ANP warm sun excited Adj warm Fig. 2. The immediate constituents model is more powerful than the distributional model. It has certain advantages both in analyzing and generating sentences because it indicates the groupings of the immediate constituents and the order in which the generation of a sentence must proceed. At the same time, it is not devoid of drawbacks either. Just like the distributional model, the immediate constituents model fails to elucidate the role of ultimate constituents in realizing predication. At first sight, the largest immediate constituents of a sentence - the noun phrase and the verb phrase - represent the nominal and the verbal components of predication respectively. On closer inspection, it becomes evident that the notions of 'noun phrase' and 'verb phrase' are much wider, for in addition to the nominal and verbal components proper they comprise various modifiers. In other words, the immediate constituents model does not draw a distinction between the predicative basis of a sentence and its expansion, to say nothing of differentiating the expansion according to its modifying the predication as a whole or part of it. The model of immediate constituents has a limited sphere of application: it deals only with isolated simple sentences. The nature of polypredicative sentences and the interrelations between active -passive, declarative - interrogative, and affirmative - negative constructions remain obscure. N sun V

excited the little girl

T
the

he little girl little girl

The ultimate constituents (UCs) of a sentence are words. Some linguists suggest that the analysis into immediate constituents should not stop on the level of words, but go on till we reach the level of morphemes. If we accepted this conception, we would be bound to say that the sentence The warm sun excited the little girl has five layers because the word of Class 2 (V) - excited is derivative and can be broken up into the root excit- and the suffix -ed. However, as R.S. Wells rightly points out, the immediate constituents of such a syntactic unit as a sentence should be independent of each other in their distribution, and bound morphemes lack syntactic independence. The immediate constituents model helps not only analyze but also generate sentences. The generation of a sentence can be represented in the form of a 'derivation tree'. The derivation tree is drawn as two branches forking out from the sign S (sentence). Each branch has nodes in it from which smaller branches fork out. Each node corresponds to a phrase; the two forking branches correspond to the immediate constituents of the phrase. In other words, the generation of a sentence first involves classes and groups of words. Concrete lexical elements are chosen on the lowest level. The generation of a sentence always proceeds with the change of one element at the application of each rule. The diagram below is a derivation tree for generating simple sentences with a transitive verb:

But even the analysis of isolated simple sentences in the immediate constituents model leaves
242

much to be desired. First, it

243

does not answer the question how to treat homogeneous parts. Some linguists look upon them as constituting one immediate constituent. Others are of opinion that homogeneous parts should be further subdivided. Second, it fails to solve the problem of function words (prepositions, conjunctions, etc.). Some single them out into a separate immediate constituent; others treat them together with this or that notional word. And last but not least, studying isolated sentences and underestimating the criterion of semantics, the immediate constituents model appears ineffective in bringing to the fore the points of difference between: 1) free and phraseological units, e.g. He showed the white feather (A.B. KVHHH) both as a phraseological unit and as a free word combination has the same tree: He showed the white feather

2) structurally identical but semantically different units of the

John is eager to please John is easy to please (N.F. Irtenyeva) type: John

is eagerJeay) to please is eaggr (easy) eager (easy) to to please

is He
showed the" showed the white feather the white feather white feather white Fig. 3. feather Fig. 4. According to the model of immediate constituents, these sentences are identical. But they are different. In the first sentence, 'John is eager to please', John is the agent: he is eager to please somebody. In the second sentence, 'John is easy to please', John is not the agent, but the recipient of the action: it is easy for people to please John. Dependency Tree Dependency grammar (DG) also presents the generation of a sentence in the form of a sentence tree, but the dependency tree (DT) is constructed on a different principle from the derivation tree in immediate constituents grammar. The derivation tree does not draw a distinction between governors and dependents. In the dependency tree, according to D.G. Hayes, the relation between every pair of minimal syntactic units, by which words are meant, is that of direct dependency. Cf.:

244

245

ICG

DG

/ talked to Jo (W. Trevor) I _______ ------------ talked

large glasses (L.E. Reeve)

large glasses (L.E. Reeve)

to

The establishment of certain hierarchies inside the sentence is, no doubt, a considerable contribution of dependency grammar to the theory of linguistics. The thing that raises doubts here is the validity of regarding the verb as the only root of all dependency trees, e.g.: Jack spoke loudly (W. Gol din g) spo ke

Jo Fig. 7. One-member imperative sentences have one root, e.g.: Put the thing on the table (J.R. Baker) put

Jack loudly

thing

1
the

The verb does play an important role in realizing predication, the main structural characteristic of the sentence, because the predicative meanings of modality and tense find their expression in the verb. But in addition to modality and tense, predication comprises person characteristics. In inflected languages, the verb admits of person distinctions. So, in inflected languages the verb can be looked upon as syntactically central unit. In analytical English, things are different. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the English verb lacks person characteristics (the only exception in the domain of regular verbs is the inflection -s of the third person singular in the sphere of the present tense). In analytical languages, person characteristics generally find their expression in the nominal component of predication, i.e. in analytical languages there are usually two syntactically central units, and dependency trees in them should have two roots: nominal and verbal, e.g.: 246

t h e
Fig. 8. Then, there arises the problem of the nature of the verbal root. The representatives of dependency grammar think that the verbal root is constituted by the notional verb, e.g.:

247

One morning a new man -was sitting at this table (J. Collier) sitting

One morning a new man was sitting at this table (J. Collier) wasjiitting

new man-

morning one

new

mornin one table

table

man-

I this this Fig. 9. It really is, when we deal with a synthetic form of the verb (see Fig. 6,7,8), But when the predicate-verb is in an analytical form, all the predicative categories (modality, tense, and sometimes person) are rendered by the auxiliary verb. In this case, we are hardly justified in restricting the verbal root of the dependency tree to the notional verb. The conception of the French scholar L. Tesniere, who widens the notion of the verbal root by including into it the predicate-verb as a whole, seems more convincing. Cf: Fig. 10. Don't be cross with your sweetheart (F.S. Fitzgerald) don't be cross with

1
sweetheart
^r

your Fig. 11.

248

249

The merit of the dependency tree lies in the fact that it defines the most important sentence element. However, it fails to elucidate the role of other sentence components in realizing predication because it wholly disregards the functional criterion indispensable for the analysis of such a communicative phenomenon as the sentence. The singled out minimal syntactic units do build up a hierarchy of several levels, but the levels are formal and hence -functionally heterogeneous. Thus, in Fig. 6, the second level includes such heterogeneous units as the nominal component of predication Jack and the adverbial loudly, which modifies the verbal component of predication spoke.

Transformational Model
As opposed to the distributional model, the immediate constituents model, and the dependency tree, which deal with isolated sentences, the transformational model (TM) of Z.S. Harris and N. Chomsky discloses the existing relations between various sentence types (e.g. positive - negative, declarative - interrogative, etc.). Transformational analysis begins with the assumption that certain sentences are basic or kernel and other sentences are derived from them by means of transformational rules. The fundamental aim in the linguistic analysis of a language is to find a set of transformational rules (that make up the grammar of the language) by which all the grammatical, and only grammatical, sentences of the language can be generated. But what are the criteria for determining what is grammatical and what is not? The notion 'grammatical', writes P.A. Gaeng, cannot be identified with 'meaningful' because a grammatical sentence can be meaningless, e.g.: Oysters living on the moon don't whistle (P.A. Gaeng). 'Grammatical', surely, is not a synonym of'authentic', since a grammatical sentence can be a lie, e.g.: My grandfather was President of the United States.

'Grammatical' does not mean 'capable of being said' as anything is capable of being said, e.g.: Fry don 't stickle never Harold seeming (P.A. Gaeng). 'Grammatical' means simply 'corresponding to the grammar'. The native speaker of a language has a set of rules in his mind, an internal grammar, so to speak, which enables him to judge whether a given sentence is grammatical or not. It is this intuitive knowledge of the language as a system that enables the native speaker to produce and understand sentences which he may have never said or heard before. So, structuralists rely on their own intuition as speakers of English in distinguishing between grammatical and ungrammatical constructions. All kernel sentences contain two main parts: a noun phrase (NP) and a verb phrase (VP): S -> NP -r VP. This formula, according to P. Roberts, means not only that a kernel consists of a NP and a VP, but that the NP comes first and the VP second; in other words, all kernel sentences are declarative. Kernels are few in number. Z.S. Harris mentions 7 types of kernel sentences in the English language. NV: He paused (J. Joyce). NVN: She left the room (A. Christie). NVPN: Barbara looked at Peter (E, Blyton). N is N: Tony is a student (V. Evans). N is A: Susan is American (V. Evans). N is PN: She is from London (V. Evans). N is D: Their secret is out (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). R.B. Lees thinks that the basic structures may be reduced to two: NV and N is N/A. All the other sentences of the language are obtained by applying one or more transformations to kernel sentences. Kernel sentences, as basic structures, are characterized by a high frequency of occurrence. Transformed sentences are naturally more rare. Transformations should be performed in accordance with certain rules. The generation of negative sentences, for instance, goes through two stages. First, the kernel declarative sentence is made emphatic either by introducing the accented function word do before the verb if it is in the present or past indefinite or by stressing the copular verb be, proper, or modal auxiliary, Cf: 251

250

The door opened (E. Blyton). The door did open. He's afraid of his sister (J. Irving). -^ He is afraid of his sister. His fingers were trembling (M Quin). > His fingers were trembling. We must see them (L Collier). * We must see them. Then the emphatic sentence is transformed into negative by inserting the negation not (or its contracted variant n't} after the stressed do, be, modal, or proper auxiliary. Cf.: The door did open. > The door did not (didn 't) open. He is afraid of his sister. > He is not (isn't) afraid of his sister. We must see them. We must not (mustn 't) see them. His fingers were trembling. > His fingers were not (weren't) trembling. Negative sentences are formed directly from kernel declarative sentences: 1) with the help of negative substitutes, e.g.: Every one can leave. > No one can leave (E. Hemingway); 2) by introducing negative words, such as never, nowhere, etc., e.g.: He touches wine (D. Parker). He never touches wine (D. Parker). The generation of general questions also goes through two stages. 1. The kernel declarative sentence is changed into emphatic, e.g.: He likes cucumbers (D. Parker). -* He does like cucumbers. 2. The function word does changes positions with the noun phrase, the resulting structure comes to be pronounced with a rising tone; a general question comes into existence: He does like cucumbers. * Does he like cucumbers'? Special questions generally make a third stage necessary when some component of a general question is substituted by an interrogative word, e.g.: Does he like cucumbers? - What does he like! Special questions to the subject and its attribute are derived directly from kernel declarative sentences by substituting the subject or its attribute for an interrogative word, e.g.:
252

The people said nothing (J. Aldridge). Who said nothing1? The fat boy thought for a moment (W. Golding). What boy thought for a moment? The intonation contour of the transformed special question is the same as that of the kernel declarative sentence. The procedure of the passive transformation is as follows: 1)the second noun phrase is placed before the verb, 2)the verb is expanded according to the formula of the passive voice be + -en, 3)the first noun phrase with the preposition by at the head is put after the verb (the third step is optional), e.g.: / sent some beautiful roses (R. Lardner), Some beautiful roses were sent (by me). The transformational model is also effective in producing complex sentences. Thus, two sentences can be joined into a complex sentence by w/2-relativizers or subordinates. Cf.: This is the place. They met last in this place. This is the place where they last met (N.F. Irtenyeva et ah). He did not come. He was ill. -~* He did not come because he was ill (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.)So, as an inter-sentence model, the transformational model is the most powerful among those discussed above, although it is not devoid of weak points either. For instance, it does not help analyze impersonal sentences, sentences of the kind / am prettier than her (M. Swan), sentences with homogeneous parts, and sentences with non-finite forms of the verb. As an intra-sentence model, it has certain advantages, too. Thus, it is only the transformational model that helps explain the difference between John is eager to please, where John is the agent of the action, and John is easy to please, where John is the recipient of the action. Cf.: John is eager to please. John eagerly pleases everybody. John is easy to please. > It easily pleases John. However, being primarily formal, the transformational model cannot be consistent in classifying sentence components according to their role in realizing predication. The so-called kernel sentences do remind one of the predicative basis of a sentence. On closer inspection, however, it becomes evident that the two notions are by no means identical because Z.S. Harris's list of kernel sentences
253

comprises not only the predicative basis proper but also its expansion (e.g.: NVN, NVPN). As for the expansion of the predicative basis, it is treated indiscriminately in the transformational model, although it does present a rather heterogeneous phenomenon. There is a very ramified (with many branches) set of nominalizing transformations in English. Nominalizing transformations nominalize a sentence, i.e. change it to a form that can appear in one of the NP (noun phrase) positions of another sentence and keep the same relations between their form classes that characterize the sentences from which they are derived. Cf: The seagull shrieked the shriekfing) of the seagull (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.) - actor action. The man has a son * the man's son (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.) possession. The question arises why native speakers of English frequently use N-transforms. The first reason is that no lexicon can be large enough to contain names for all the things about which at some time or other we shall speak and for which we must have distinct names. The second reason for using N-transforms is that they make English sentences more compact as compared with complex sentences. The transformation of nominal izati on is mostly applied to kernel sentences. The study of nominalized kernel sentences has shown that the main procedures applied at the syntactic level are the following: 1)deletion of be, have and of the verbs of the same groups, such as contain, consist, lie, stretch, etc.; 2)the introduction of prepositions (mostly, the preposition of} between the two noun phrases; 3)permutation of the noun phrases. Cf.: The information is of some value > the information of some value (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.). The room has three windows + the room with three windows (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.). The table has three legs > the legs of the table (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.). 1) the derivation of a noun from the verb or adjective,
254

2) the transformation of a finite verb into an mg-form with a possessive subject or embedding it between the determiner and the

noun, 3) th e tra n sfo rm a tio n o f a fin ite ve rb i nto a n in fin itiv e preceded by 'for + noun' as subject. Cf.: He manages the bank the manager of the bank * (N.F. Irtenyeva etal). The bird sings * bird's singing; the singing bird; for the the bird to sing<is natural> (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.).
Passive transforms can be also nominalized. The operations applied are: 1) deletion of be, 2) embedding of Participle II between the determiner and the noun, e.g.: The bear was killed * the killed bear (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.). Three degrees of nominalizatiort can be distinguished. 1. The slightest degree of nominalization, when the only trait of nominalization is the capability of a finite clause to stand in the NP position, e.g. How you manage on your income is a puzzle to me (The New Webster's Grammar Guide).

2. The low degree of nominalization, when the N-transform, capable of standing in the NP position, is a non-finite form of the
verb, e.g.: / suggested going home (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson), 3. The highest degree of nominalization, when the nominal structure has no verb, finite or non-finite, e.g.: The girl is pretty * the pretty girl (N.F. Irtenyeva et al.). Structural Sentence Patterns The structural sentence patterns, singled out by N.Y, Shvedova in the sixties of the 20th century, comprise only the predicative minimum of a sentence. Cf.: N! - Vf Jlec uiyMum (PyccKas rpaMMarHKa). NI - Ni - Bpam - yvumeJib (PyccKaa rpaMMaTHKa). N! - Adj! n(WH_ .j, Pe6enoK yMHw.it (PyccKaa rpaMMaiHKa)3.
3

At the morphemic level, the following procedures are used:

N stands for a noun, V - for a finite verb, Adj - for an adjective, the icdex, stands for the nominative case f (the first case in the case paradigm).

255

Starting on the assumption that the sentence is a unit of communication, first and foremost, T.P. Lomtev, D.N. Shmelev and many others question the validity of a purely formal approach to the definition of a structural sentence pattern. They say that a structural sentence pattern must be not only formally but also communicatively sufficient to realize a certain situation. In the opinion of V.A. Beloshapkova, the two interpretations of structural sentence patterns supplement each other, representing, as it were, two different levels of abstraction: a higher level of abstraction in the case of orientation on the predicative minimum and a lower level of abstraction in the case of orientation on the communicative minimum. Accordingly, she suggests that a distinction should be drawn between minimal and expanded structural sentence patterns. The differentiation of the predicative basis of a sentence and its expansion is, no doubt, a considerable step forward in sentence analysis. Of great importance are also the syntactic (word order) and morphological characteristics of all the sentence components. However, since every practical grammar devotes special sections to the ways of expressing parts of the sentence, with the sole difference that it does this in words, not in symbols, we shall perform sentence analysis in the traditional terms of parts of the sentence.
Groups of Pans of the Sentence

Having defined the sentence as a syntactic unit possessing independent explicit predication, we suggest that pans of the sentence should be singled out and studied with respect to their role in realizing predication. Three groups of parts of the sentence can be singled out: 1) parts of the sentence realizing predication, 2) parts of the sentence modifying the predication as a whole, 3) parts of the sentence modifying either the verbal or the nominal component of predication. Predication finds its expression in the principal parts of the sentence: subject, predicate, and the principal part of a one-member sentence, e.g.: I'm so glad (M. Spark) - subject. I see a child (S. Barstow) - predicate.
256

Look very carefully (C. McCullers) - principal part of a onemember sentence. Predicative expansion is of two kinds, hi case it modifies the predication as a whole, we deal with situational modifiers (cumyawnbi), which usually place the predication in time or space, come in the initial position (before the subject), and are often set off by a comma. Cf.: That evening, Toby telephoned the director at home (S. Sheldon). In the distance, he could see the tall chimneys of the factory (Longman Essential Activator). When the predicative expansion modifies only part of the predication, forming a word combination with it, its components build up secondary parts of the sentence. Secondary parts of the sentence include objects, qualitative adverbials, obligatory circumstantial adverbials, and attributes. Objects, qualitative adverbials, and circumstantial adverbials modify the verbal component of predication. Cf.: She could not see his face (W.S. Maugham) - object. Heplayedvery badly (W.S. Maugham) - qualitative adverbial. He's on his way from the airport (S. Sheldon) - circumstantial adverbial. Attributes modiiy either the nominal component of predication or a nominal element in the verbal component of predication. Cf.: The lovely music began (D. Robins). She plunged into the warm water (S. Sheldon). 'Sentence representatives' consist of a subject and an operator standing for the predicate. The majority of sentencoids, due to the absence of explicit predication, defy the structural analysis into parts of the sentence. The only exception is constituted by sentencoids with dependent explicit predication, e, g.: Why did you give it to Audrey? - Because she wanted it (A. Christie), where the sentencoid Because she wanted it consists of the subject she, the predicate wanted, and the objectit.

257

12. THE SUBJECT Definition of the Subject

The traditional definition of the subject is logical. Thus, G. Curme writes, 'The subject is that which is spoken of.' However, the subject is a unit of structural sentence analysis. Since the main structural characteristic of the sentence is predication, the subject should be defined with respect to its role in realizing predication. Viewed from this angle, the subject represents the nominal component of predication; in analytical English, it is practically the only indication of person.
Formal Features of the Subject

In inflected Old English, the subject had the form of the nominative case. In Modem English, it is only the personal pronouns /, he, she, we, and they that have a distinct form for the nominative case. (The personal pronouns you and it have the same form for the nominative and the objective cases.) When the subject is expressed by a noun, the morphological criterion fails because nowadays English nouns lack the nominative case. The existing common and genitive cases can both be used in the function of the subject Cf.: TIte traveller made no reply (P.G, Wodehouse). St. Paul's is one of the principal sights of London (O. Jespersen). True, the common case is characterized by a much higher frequency of occurrence in the function of the subject than the genitive case. However, the common case is polyfunctional. It would not be an exaggeration to say that it can perform all the syntactic functions in the sentence. Cf: She is a doctor (V. Evans) - subjective predicative. Have you done all your homework! (Longman Essential Activator) - object. She was all alone in a strange city (Longman Essential Activator) - adverbial. The guests began to arrive around noon on the feast day (T. Chevalier) - attribute.
258

Even Pieter the father was there... (T. Chevalier) -appositive. On those Sundays I felt very confused (T. Chevalier) -situational modifier. Does it mean, then, that the subject in Modern English is formally marked only when it is expressed by the personal pronouns 1, he, she, we, and they1? Certainly not. I.E. Khlebnikova is perfectly right in stressing that those categories the expression of which is made necessary by the needs of communication do not disappear from a language, and if this or that form falls into disuse, another takes its place. The same happened to the subject in English. With the disappearance of the nominative case in the system of the noun, word order has come to play an important role in singling out the subject. In declarative sentences, the subject normally precedes the predicate; in interrogative sentences, the subject generally occurs inside the predicate. Cf.: They are dancing (V. Evans). Are they dancing! (V. Evans). He gets up at 5 o'clock in the morning (V. Evans). When does he get up? The only exception is constituted by questions to the subject and its attribute, in which the subject, as in declarative sentences, precedes the predicate. Cf.: Who left the door open? (M. Swan). Which costs more? (M. Swan). Semantic Properties of the Subject

The subject is typically the theme (or topic) of the sentence. It usually refers to information that is regarded by the speaker as given. Hence, when it is expressed by a common noun, it generally combines with the definite article, e.g.: The white hat is Mother !s (V. Evans). The subject performs a number of semantic roles in the sentence. With transitive action verbs, the subject often denotes an agent, i.e. the wilful initiator of the action, e.g.: He closed the door... (H. Fielding). The subject may also express the inanimate external causer of an event, e.g.:
259

A sudden gust of wind blew the door shut (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). In other cases, the subject identifies the instrument or means used by an agent to perform an action, e.g.: The key opened the door (ChJ. Filtmore). Although the subject is often associated with agency, it may express a number of non-agentive roles. With very many stative verbs (denoting relationship and mental states of perception, cognition, and emotion), we find a recipient subject, e.g.: / could just hear the music in the distance (Oxford Collocations Dictionary). Verbs denoting position in space combine with a positioner subject. The positioner role is particularly common with intransitive stance verbs, such as sit, stand, lie, live, stay, remain, etc. Cf: / have lived in London most of my life (R. Quirk et ah). They are staying at a motel (R. Quirk et al.). My friend is sitting in a chair near the door (R. Quirk et ah). Transitive verbs related to stance verbs, such as carry, hold, keep, wear, etc. can also combine with a positioner subject. Cf: The hijacker was holding a revolver (R. Quirk et al.). He kept himself upright (R. Quirk et ah). Many English intransitive verbs combine with an affected subject, i.e. a role typically found with direct objects, e.g.: She drowned in the river (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Affected subjects are normal in passive constructions, e.g.: TV was invented by Baird (V. Evans). An important role of the subject is eventive. Cf: The match is tomorrow (R. Quirk et al.). The Norman invasion took place in 1066 (R. Quirk et al.). The explosion caused many casualties (R. Quirk et ah). Other, less common semantic roles of the subject, are local and temporal. Cf: Chicago is too windy (R. Quirk et ah). Yesterday was sunny (R. Quirk et al.). Local and temporal roles are generally expressed by adverbials and situational modifiers rather than the subject. Cf: It is too windy in Chicago (R. Quirk et ah). // was sunny yesterday (R. Quirk et ah).
260

The pronoun it is often used as a semantically empty subject, particularly in speaking about time, atmospheric conditions, and distance. Cf.: It's 9 o'clock (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). It's bitterly cold outside (Oxford Collocations Dictionary). It is not far to York (R. Quirk et al.). The predicates here do not suggest any participant involved semantically, but it is obligatorily inserted simply to complete the structure of the sentence grammatically. Special types of dummy subjects are found in existential sentences, sentences with extraposition, and sentences with clefting. Existential sentences are sentences, in which the existence of something is asserted or denied. In English, they usually begin with the dummy subject there. Cf.: There's a wasp in your hair (P.H. Matthews). There are no children in this house (M. Swan). A sentence with extraposition is a sentence where dummy // fills the subject slot, and the subject clause is placed after the predicate, e.g.: It is clear that it will not be simple (D. Biber, S. Conrad, G. Leech). A sentence with clefting is a sentence, in which the information is broken into two clauses, to provide extra focus to one piece of information. Sentences with clefting often begin with the dummy subject it, e.g.: // was his voice that held me (D. Biber, S. Conrad, G. Leech). Structural Types of Subjects Structurally, subjects fall into four types: simple, complex, discrete, and clausal. A simple subject is expressed by a single notional word or a non-clausal combination of words. Cf: The police are close to solving the mystery of the missing murder weapon (Oxford Collocations Dictionary). Air travel has lost much of its mystery (Oxford Collocations Dictionary). A complex subject consists of two components linked by secondary predication, e.g.: They were seen taking the train to
261

Paris (S. Sheldon), where the components they and taking are linked by secondary predication. True, some linguists [for instance, V.L. Kaushanskaya and her co-authors; B.A. Ilyish] regard the participle taking as part of a compound predicate, were seen taking the train. B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya question the validity of such an approach on transformational grounds. The passive construction They were seen taking the train to Paris is generated from the active construction People saw them taking the train to Paris, in which the combination them taking the train is undoubtedly a complex object. And the object of an active construction corresponds to the subject of a parallel passive construction. Since them taking the train is a complex object in the active construction, in the passive construction it corresponds to the complex subject they ... taking the train. Sentences beginning with it and there present a debatable problem. Cf.: It's delightful to watch them (O. Wilde). There were only two children in front of him now (F. O'Connor). Some linguists think that we deal with complex subjects here: it..........to watch (them), there..........(only two) children. A complex member of the sentence consists of two parts linked by means of secondary predication. Even a cursory glance at the two examples will suffice to convince anybody that secondary predication is alien to them in spite of the fact that their subjects also comprise two components, because the relations between these components have nothing to do with the relations between the subject and the predicate. The second element here does not characterize the first. As a matter of fact, both elements indicate one and the same phenomenon: the first (if, there) points to it, the second (to watch, children) names it. English grammarians call the initial it and there in the above given sentences 'introductory subjects' [M. Swan], 'grammatical subjects' [R. Quirk et al.], 'anticipatory subjects' [P.H. Matthews], 'dummy subjects' [D. Biber et al.], etc. That's why we exclude sentences beginning with it and there from constructions with complex subjects. Their subjects are discrete, but by no means complex. Discrete subjects 262

are generally resorted to for the sake of emphasizing the subject in analytical languages where the place of the subject is grammatically fixed in the thematic initial position. The use of a discrete subject allows one to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak: by putting the dummy subject (it or there) before the predicate, one generates a grammatical sentence; by introducing a notional subject (to watch, children) and removing it closer to the rhematic final position, one gets an opportunity to increase the communicative value of the subject without violating grammar rules. A clausal subject is a finite clause possessing primary predication, e.g.: How the disease started is one of medicine's greatest mysteries (Oxford Collocations Dictionary).
13. THE PREDICATE Definition of the Predicate

The traditional definition of the predicate is logical. Thus, G. Curme writes, 'The predicate is that which is said of the subject.' However, the predicate, just like the subject, is a unit of structural sentence analysis. Viewed from this angle, the predicate represents the verbal component of predication. In inflected languages, the predicate renders all the predicative categories: modality, tense, and person. In analytical languages, the predication building power of the predicate is more restricted: here it generally serves as an indication of modality and tense, person characteristics being comprised in the nominal component of predication.
Boundaries of the Predicate

As opposed to the subject, that has definite morphological and syntactic means of expression and hence causes almost no difficulties in the process of singling it out, the predicate presents one with a lot of controversial points, Of course, word order in analytical languages is of great help. In declarative sentences, the predicate follows the subject; in interrogative sentences, the auxiliary part of the predicate precedes the subject, the notional part of the predicate comes after it. 263

However, the syntactic criterion of word order fails to define the boundaries of the predicate. No wonder that one and the same sentence admits of different interpretations as far as the predicate is concerned. Three approaches stand out especially clearly. Some linguists [for example, A.A. Potebnya; J.C. Fernald] identify the predicate with the verb. There is no gainsaying the fact that the verb plays an important role in realizing predication because it possesses morphological mood and tense forms indispensable for expressing predication. Others [the vast majority] are of opinion that the presence of the verb constitutes a necessary, but not a sufficient property of the predicate as a means of realizing the verbal component of predication, for the essence of predication is not restricted to the set of the verbal categories of modality, tense, and person. Predication always actualizes a certain situation, i.e. communicates something, On the syntagmatic axis, an isolated verb often displays communicative deficiency. As a result, the boundaries of the predicate are widened to embrace also those elements that impart communicative independence to a structurally autonomous unit. The third group of linguists [W.N. Francis; A.A. Hill; P. Roberts; G. Scheurweghs; J. Sledd; R.W. Zandvoort] gives the widest possible definition of the predicate, including into it all the verbal complements and modifiers. The latter, according to O.B. Sirotinina, constitutes the socalled speech predicate. The notion of the language predicate, in her opinion, is much narrower. For the English language, the predicate can be tentatively defined as the verbal component of predication realizing the grammatical categories of modality, tense, sometimes - person, and communicatively sufficient for the characterization of the nominal component of predication. When one component meets these requirements, the predicate is considered to be simple: when two or more components are necessary, we speak of compound predicates. Classification of Simple and Compound Predicates The majority of linguists think that the simple predicate can be only verbal, expressed by a finite verb in a synthetic or analytical form. Cf.:

But he never found him (S. Barstow). You haven'/ told me your name (H.E, Bates). The authors of practical grammars [V.L. Kaushanskaya et al., L.S. Barkhudarov, D.A. Shteling and some others] refer to the simple verbal predicate phraseological units of the type: They had dinner (St. Leacock). Their way of reasoning is clear enough: the components of a phraseological predicate form an indivisible unit expressing one idea, which, in a number of cases, can as well be conveyed by a single verb. Cf.: They had dinner (St. Leacock). -> They dined (W. Deeping). It goes without saying that the components of a phraseological unit comprising a verb should be regarded as one member of the sentence, namely the predicate, for the verb, as a rule, undergoes a considerable change of meaning in the phraseological unit. Cf.: He took the box from his pocket (St Benet). He loved his books and took great care of them (Oxford Collocations Dictionary). As a matter of fact, the verb, making part of a phraseological unit, becomes meaningful only within the phraseological unit. However, what kind of predicate do phraseological units constitute? The semantic equivalence to the verb, in our view, can hardly be regarded as sufficient grounds for referring phraseological units to simple verbal predicates. Simple predicates make use of one component that turns out structurally and communicatively sufficient for the characterization of the nominal component of predication. In the case of a phraseological unit, we deal with two components: the first characterizes the nominal component of predication structurally, from the point of view of the grammatical categories of modality, tense, occasionally - person; the second helps actualize the situation. Such discreteness is typical of compound, not simple predicates. That's why we side with those who regard the so-called phraseological predicate as a subtype of the compound predicate. B.A. Ilyish thinks that the simple predicate can be also nominal. We do not share this conception on the ground that the nominal component cannot, by itself, realize the predicative categories of modality and tense.
265

264

The compound predicate falls under verbal and nominal. The compound verbal predicate is further subdivided into several types. 1. The compound verbal modal predicate. It comprises a modal verb or its equivalent and an infinitive, e.g.: A moment may ruin a life (D. Cusack). Nobody was able to answer this question (M. Spark). In the opinion of O. Jespersen, the infinitive after modal verbs and their equivalents should be regarded as a specific member of the sentence, clearly distinct from the predicate, namely an object. O. Jespersen's point of view does not stand criticism because modal verbs and their equivalents, being semanticafly deficient, can characterize the nominal component of predication only structurally. 2. The compound verbal aspective predicate. It consists of a finite verb indicating the beginning, duration, end, or repetition of an action followed by an infinitive or gerund. Cf.: He began to laugh (D. du Maurier). Piggy went on speaking (W. Golding). His heart stopped beating (J. Galsworthy). She kept walking about the kitchen (J. Hanley). B.A. Ilyish and L.S. Barkhudarov deny the existence of the compound verbal aspective predicate. They consider that his work in the sentence He began his work (B.A. Ilyish) and to work in the sentence He began to work (B.A. Ilyish) are identical in function: both can be qualified as objects to the verb began. Really, aspective verbs generally require a complement, substantival or verbal. But in spite of the seeming identity of substantival and verbal complements, there is a certain point of difference between the two. Infinitives and gerunds, as non-finite forms of the verb, are naturally more closely connected with the finite verb than nouns. In view of this, infinitives and gerunds after aspective verbs are regarded by us as parts of compound verbal aspective predicates, nouns - as objects. In addition to the compound verbal modal predicate and the compound verbal aspective predicate, G.G. Potcheptsov singles out: a) compound verbal predicates, expressing the attitude of the

b) compound verbal predicates, expressing the reality or nonreality of the action, e.g.: I feigned to read (H.G. Wells). All these predicates, in our opinion, comprise a modal shade of meaning and can be included as a subclass into the group of compound verbal modal predicates. The compound nominal predicate is also heterogeneous. The compound nominal predicate proper comprises a copular verb devoid of lexical meaning (in English there is only one empty copular verb - the verb be) and a predicative. The term 'copular verb' is not a happy one because the true function of a copular verb is not a connecting one. It expresses the predicative categories of tense, mood, sometimes - person. The predicative is the semantic centre of the compound nominal predicate: it either characterizes the referent of the subject or identifies the subject referent. Cf: / was angry at the delay (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Who's that? - It's John (M. Swan). The predicative can be expressed by a noun, an adjective, a pronoun, an adverb, a participle, a word combination, etc. Cf.: He is a waiter (V. Evans). Kitty was silent (W.S. Maugham). Who's that? ~ It's me (M. Swan), Their secret is out (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He seemed puzzled (E. Queen). It's a wonderful story (J. Irving). In the second type of compound nominal predicates, the grammatical centre of the predicate possesses a certain lexical meaning so that one can draw a distinction between: 1) copular verbs of being: feel, look, seem, smell, taste, etc., e-g.: You look happy (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English); 2) copular verbs of becoming: become, grow, get, turn, etc., e.g.: The sound of footsteps grew louder (Longman Language Activator); 267

subject to the action, e.g.: / want to write (E. Hemingway);

3) copular verbs of remaining: remain, continue, keep, stay, etc., e.g.: For a moment he remained silent (A. Christie). However, just like the empty copular verb be, semi-notional copular verbs are communicatively and, consequently, syntactically deficient in the sense that they cannot form the predicate in the absence of a predicative. Cf: You look happy (E. Queen). *You look.,. The sound of footsteps grew louder (Longman Language Activator). * The sound of footsteps grew... For a moment he remained silent (A. Christie). > *For a moment he remained... The second type of compound nominal predicates, in our opinion, exists in two varieties: free compound nominal predicates in which the meaning of the predicate is the sum total of the meanings of its components (see the above given examples), and phraseologically bound compound nominal predicates in which the meaning of the predicate is not directly deduced from the meanings of its components (for detailed treatment see the problem of the phraseological predicate). Then there exist sentences of the type: In a bed in the corner of the room her little boy is lying ill (O. Wilde). A.A. Shakhmatov was the first to draw the attention of linguists to a specific character of their structure. They consist of a subject (in our case - her little boy), a simple verbal predicate (in our case - is lying), and a third member (in our case - ill) whose syntactic nature admits of several interpretations. O. Jespersen calls it a quasi predicative. But this is a purely negative characteristic. It only states that the third component is not a predicative. But what is it? According to H. Paul, the third component should be called a predicative attribute. The term is not a happy one either since predicative and attributive relations are not identical notions. G. Curme calls the third component a predicative appositive, which again leads to the confusion of two basically different syntactic relations: apposition and predication. The word ill in the sentence Her little boy is lying ill refers to the subject boy, just like a predicative proper in sentences with compound nominal predicates. Cf.:
268

Her little boy is lying ill.

4

Her little boy is ill, It is obvious that the word ill in the sentence Her little boy is lying ill characterizes the subject predicatively, not attributively. Nevertheless, A.A. Shakhmatov and M.N. Galinskaya think that we cannot call it a predicative. A predicative always presupposes the presence of a copular verb, hi such cases as Her little boy is lying ill, there is no copular verb, for the element lie fully preserves its lexical meaning and is communicatively and, consequently, syntactically independent, forming a simple verbal predicate. At the same time, ill makes part of predication. That's why A.A. Shakhmatov suggests that it should be called a second predicate. But the predicate is an independent member of the sentence. As for the element ill, it fails to form a grammatical sentence with the subject boy in the absence of the verbal component is lying. Hence, it is not a predicate proper. Besides, the predicate characterizes only the nominal component of predication. The element ill in the sentence Her little boy is lying ill fulfils two functions. On the one hand, it describes the state of the nominal component when it undergoes the action in question. On the other hand, it introduces an adverbial characteristic of the action. In view of this, L.D. Tchesnokova calls the element ill in the sentence 'Her little boy is lying ill' dynneKcue. In inflected languages, dyweKcue agrees with the nominal component of predication and is governed by the verbal component of predication. In analytical English, where agreement has almost completely disappeared, dyruteKCue does not formally agree with the nominal component of predication; dynneKcue in English is connected with the nominal component of predication only through semantic correlation. The relationship between dynjiexcue and the verbal component of predication in English is similar to that in inflected languages. JfynneKCue is governed by the verbal component: its form is strictly predetermined: a noun, an adjective, or an adjectivized participle. Since the component /// in the sentence Her little boy is lying ill not only characterizes the subject boy predicatively but also has a form typical of a predicative, we shall regard it as a predicative.
269

At the same time, there is no gainsaying the fact that the verb lie is both semanticaily and communicatively independent and forms a simple verbal predicate. In other words, we have a fusion of two predicates here: simple verbal and compound nominal. Mixed types of predicates are rather many. 1.The compound modal nominal predicate, e.g.: He ought to be here now (K.A. Porter). 2.The compound aspective nominal predicate, e.g.: / began to feel hungry (D. du Maurier). 3.The compound modal aspective predicate, e.g.: He ought to stop doing nothing and criticizing everybody (J. Lindsay).
Type of Syntactic Connection of the Predicate with the Subject

The next problem that arises in connection with the predicate is the type of its syntactic connection with the subject. Most authors of practical grammars [e.g. M. Ganshina, N. Vasilevskaya; V.L. Kaushanskaya and her co-authors, etc.] think that the English predicate agrees in number with the subject, i.e. when the subject is in the singular, the predicate is bound to be in the singular, and when the subject is in the plural, the predicate is bound to be in the plural as well. With the exception of the verb be, the subjectpredicate agreement is limited to the present tense. Cf.: A bird sings (O. Jespersen). Birds sing (O. Jespersen). / was tired last night (R. Murphy). We were tired after the journey... (R. Murphy). This conception, however, is open to criticism. In the first place, the essence of agreement lies in subordination. If the predicate does agree with the subject, then it is not clear why we qualify it as a principal and not as a secondary pan of the sentence. In the second place, agreement is a syntactic device of building up word combinations, and the combination of subject and predicate forms a unit of a higher level - a sentence. And last but not least, the predicate does not always follow the subject in the category of number, e.g.: The family live in Denver (Th. Dreiser), where the predicate is plural, although the subject is singular. 270

From a logical point of view, according to H. Sweet, there is no inconsistency in this, for the now family combines the idea of a single body of people with that of the separate individuals of which it is composed. Whenever the statement is meant to apply to the separate individuals, we make use of a predicate-verb in the plural, e.gThe family live in Denver (Th. Dreiser). A singular predicate-verb, on the other hand, implies that the speaker is not thinking of the individuals, but rather of the whole collective body, e.g.: Our family was French, on my Father's side (Th. Dreiser). A.M. Peshkovsky was the first to pay attention to this divergence between formal agreement and agreement in meaning. In the opinion of A.I. Smirnitsky, there is no formal agreement whatsoever. Even in such cases as The boys are getting up (A.S. Hornby), the predicate-verb is in the plural not because the grammatical subject boys is in the plural, but because the underlying logical notion presupposes plurality. The connection between the predicate and the subject, according to A.I. Smirnitsky, is indirect: it is predetermined by their mutual orientation on the subject of thought. Schematically, it can be represented like this: Grammatical Subject AGrammatical Predicate

Predicate of Thought Note: symbolizes seeming connection; symbolizes real connection. *

It follows from the scheme, that the category of number in the predicate-verb (a) is independent of the same category in the grammatical subject (A). Both the grammatical subject and the grammatical predicate render the meaning of number, and in this respect the grammatical predicate is just as independent as the grammatical subject. 271

The only difference, in the opinion of L.S. Barkhudarov, lies in the fact that the meaning of number in the grammatical subject can be realized in two ways: 1)morphologically, i.e. with the help of this or that inflection, e.g.: boys; 2)semantically, i.e. through the meaning of a certain word or word combination, e.g.: family. In the predicate-verb, the meaning of number is always realized morphologically, and when we are confronted with the problem of choosing the right form for the predicate-verb, we are always guided by the semantics of the grammatical subject. L.S. Barkhudarov calls such type of syntactic connection correspondence. The principal part of one-member sentences has much in common with the predicate of two-member sentences. But as opposed to the predicate of two-member sentences, the principal part of one-member sentences generally comprises person characteristics and lacks correspondence with the nominal component of predication. 14. THE DETERMINER N.Y. Shvedova was the first to single out the determiner (demepMUHanm) in Russian. To determiners she refers independent sentence modifiers, which give a subjective-objective or adverbial characteristic of the predication as a whole and generally occur in the initial position. Subjective determiners can hardly be called independent sentence modifiers as they usually realize the nominal component of predication and are consequently structurally obligatory, e.g.:
CtiHUpey noeesjio (K. CHMOHOB).

fljut podumejieu mbi onxmb MOJiwuwKa (H.K). To his parents, his behaviour -was astonishing (G. Leech, j. Svartvik). Adverbial determiners (or situational modifiers) <cianyawnu> are common both in Russian and in English. Cf.:
Ha TlytUKUHCKOU nnou^aou npodaeanu iteemu (JI.M. JleoHOB).

Somewhere below, in the dark stand of trees, Rail was sitting (R. Nelson). English grammarians mention the ability of some adverbs and prepositional phrases to modify the sentence as a whole, but they do not single them out into a specific part of the sentence. Neither do Russian linguists studying the English language. 15. THE OBJECT Definition of the Object One of the differential features of the object is its correlation with the subject. Just like the subject, the object is expressed by a noun or a noun equivalent. In the process of the passive transformation, the object usually becomes the subject of a passive construction, e.g.: Bell invented the telephone (V. Evans). The telephone was invented by Bell (V, Evans). They didn't offer Ann the job (R. Murphy). -* Ann wasn't offered the job (R. Murphy). The job wasn't offered to Ann (R. Murphy). Nobody ever heard of them again. > They were never heard of again (W. Deeping). Perhaps, that is the reason why O. Jespersen defines both the subject and the object as primary words connected with the verb of the sentence. A primary word is not subordinated to any other word. The subject meets this requirement. The object does not, for the object depends on the predicate-verb not only semantically but also formally. The signs of formal dependence are as follows: 1) the use of personal pronouns in the oblique objective case, e.g.: You surprise me (A. Christie);
273

Subjective determiners are not typical of the analytical English language. Perhaps, in sentencoids of the type Away with you (B. Shaw), the component with you can be regarded as a subjective determiner. Objective and adverbial determiners modify the predication as a whole and are structurally optional. Objective determiners do exist in English, but they are characterized by a lower frequency of occurrence than in Russian. Cf.:
272

2) the bound nature of some prepositions in prepositional objects, e.g.: He insisted on speaking to her (W.S. Maugham). What is more, O. Jespersen can be reproached with terminological inaccuracy. Defining the object, he points out that it stands in close relation to the verb. But the verbal component of predication is not restricted to the verb. In a number of cases, it also comprises a substantival element. That's why we define the object as a secondary part of the sentence that modifies not the verb, but the verbal component of predication, denoting the person or thing to which the action of the verb passes on. Thus, in the sentence This house is full of painful recollections (A. Sh. Hardy), the prepositional object of painful recollections expands the whole verbal component of predication is full that consists of the copular verb is and the adjective///. Classifications of Objects The problem of classifying objects is even more debatable. G. Curme takes form as a starting point. He mentions four types of objects: 1)accusative objects, 2)dative objects, 3)genitive objects, 4)prepositional objects. G. Curme's classification is based on different principles. While drawing a distinction between the first three types of objects (accusative, dative, and genitive), G. Curme applies a morphological criterion; prepositional objects are singled out by him on the basis of a syntactic criterion. The predominant use of a morphological criterion in classifying such syntactic phenomena as objects is hardly justified, especially if we take into consideration that in Modern English neither nouns nor pronouns have special forms for the accusative and dative cases. H. Poutsma's classification of objects is more consistent in this respect. He makes use of a syntactic criterion only, dividing all objects into two classes:

1)prepositional objects, e.g.: She smiled at me (D. Robins); 2)non-prepositional objects, e.g.: Poirot returned the letter (A. Christie). The formal syntactic criterion, however, does not work either. In the first place, all secondary parts of the sentence, not only objects, can be prepositional and non-prepositional. In the second place, there exist no meaningless forms. While classifying objects, H. Sweet takes into consideration both meaning and form. He distinguishes: 1)direct objects, 2)indirect objects, 3)prepositional objects. Thus, in the sentence He showed me his book (R. Lardner), me is an indirect object, book is a direct object; while the combination to my friend in the sentence / wrote a letter to my friend here (A. Christie) is a prepositional object. The main drawback of H. Sweet's classification lies in the fact that the criteria of meaning and form in it do not interpenetrate. Direct and indirect objects are distinguished primarily on a semantic principle (KoMy? - mo?); prepositional objects are singled out on a purely formal principle. Having defined the object as a secondary part of the sentence that modifies the verbal component of predication, one should, first of all, take into account the number of objects necessary for making the verbal component of predication communicatively and syntactically independent. Some verbal components of predication require one object; some require two objects. The authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English speak of monotransitive and ditransitive patterns respectively. Cf.: / didn 't say a word (M. Wilson). Give it to the doctor (S. Ellin). At the second stage of analysis, semantics comes in. We adopt the semantic classification of objects suggested by I.P. Ivanova, V.V. Burlakova and G.G. Potcheptsov. They draw a distinction between 5 semantic types of objects, each of which has a number of formal characteristics.

274

275

1. Affected object (dononnenue oS^SKma) denoting a person or thing affected by an action or directly involved in an action. Affected objects can be non-prepositional and prepositional. Cf: / looked but could see nothing (M. Swan). A cat may look at a king (L. Carroll), There can be two affected objects in a sentence, e.g.: Ask him his name (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Two affected objects occur after the following verbs: ask, answer, take, envy, hear, forgive, etc. 2. Recipient object (donojinenue adpecama) denoting a person for whose benefit an action is performed or towards whom it is directed. Recipient objects can also be bom non-prepositional and prepositional. Cf: The manager offered David a job (V. Evans). The manager offered a job to David (V. Evans). A recipient object cannot be used without an affected object. A non-prepositional recipient object comes before an affected object; a prepositional recipient object comes after an affected object. Cf: Give me the tickets (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Give the tickets to me (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 3. Agent object (dononnenue dexmejix) denoting the doer of an action expressed by a verb in the passive voice. It is always introduced by the preposition by, e.g.: This house was built by my grandfather (R. Murphy). He was killed by a heavy stone (M. Swan). <= A heavy stone fell and killed him.> The occurrence of an agent object in passive sentences is optional. It is used only if it adds information, e.g.: TV was invented by Baird (V. Evans). When the agent is unknown, unimportant or obvious, the agent object is omitted, e.g.: He was arrested (V. Evans). - The agent is obvious: it is the police. He was murdered (V. Evans). - The agent is unknown.

4. Instrumental object {donojinenue uucmpyMenma} denoting a tool using which the agent performed a certain action. The instrumental object is used both in active and passive sentences. It is always introduced by the preposition with. Cf: I killed the spider with a newspaper (M. Swan). He was killed with a heavy stone (M. Swan). <= Somebody used a heavy stone to kill him. > 5. Cognate object (podcmeennoe donojinenue} repeating the meaning of the predicate-verb. A cognate object is either of the same root as the predicate-verb or is similar to it in meaning. Cf: I dreamed a strange dream (Ch.J. Fillmore). Tom ran a race (W.L. Chafe). Cognate objects are used after intransitive verbs. If there is a cognate object in the sentence, other kinds of objects cannot be used in it. The noun in a cognate object generally has some sort of modification, which carries the main new information, somewhat like an adverbial, e.g.: But she died a dreadful death, poor soul... (W. Collins). * But she died dreadfully, poor soul... So, one might be tempted to refer combinations of the type a dreadful death to adverbials of manner. We question the validity of such interpretation on two grounds: formal and semantic. Adverbials of manner primarily make use of formations in -ly, e.g.: / answered frankly (D. Robins). The combination of a noun with an adjective in a dependent position is more typical of a predicative and an object. In view of the fact that the intransitive verb died does not require an objective complement, it is logical to suppose that the substantival combination a dreadful death forms with the verb a mixed verbalnominal predicate. Such predicates do exist, e.g.: The moon rose m/(M. Ganshina, N. Vasilevskaya). The application of transformational procedure, however, shows that both parts of a mixed verbal-nominal predicate characterize one and the same subject. Cf.: The moon rose red. When the moon rose, it was red. The components died and a dreadful death, on the other hand, refer to different subjects. Cf.:

276

277

But she died a dreadful death, poor soul. > She died. Her death was dreadful. Consequently, the substantival word combination a dreadful death cannot be regarded as part of a mixed verbal-nominal predicate. Formally (morphologically and positionally), it is an object; semantically, it is closer to adverbials of manner. Constructions with the so-called cognate objects are more emphatic than those with adverbials of manner. Structurally, objects fall into four types: simple, complex, discrete, and clausal. A simple object is expressed by a single notional word or a non-clausal combination of words. Cf.: His wife killed hint (J. Parsons). 1openedthe front door (D. Robins). A complex object consists of two components linked by secondary predication, e.g.:

16. THE ADVERBIAL Role of Adverbials in the Sentence

Ididn 'tsee her go (H.E. Bates). A discrete object also consists of two components, but they are not linked by secondary predication. Both components indicate one and the same phenomenon: the first, a seraantically empty (or dummy) object it, points to it, the second, an infinitive, an infinitival phrase or a complement clause, names it. The dummy object it is always followed by an evaluative adjective, Cf:
/ find it difficult to talk to you about anything serious (M. Swan). / think it important that we should keep calm (M. Swan). English grammarians call the dummy object it a preparatory object [M. Swan] or an anticipatory object [D. Biber et al.]. A clausal object is a finite clause possessing primary predication, e.g.: / thought you were thirsty (S. Hill). It is only simple and discrete objects that can be regarded as secondary parts of non-complicated monopredicative syntactic units.

Another secondary part of the sentence is an adverbial. The adverbial modifies the verbal component of predication in different aspects but the one elucidated by the object. The term 'adverbial' is not a happy one. It gives rise to two notions, both of them wrong. In the first place, one may suppose that an adverbial is always expressed by an adverb. The adverb is the most usual way of expressing an adverbial, but by no means the only one. In the second place, the term 'adverbial' may lead one to the conclusion that an adverbial always modifies the verb of a sentence. If the verb is intransitive, the adverbial sometimes does modify it; if the verb is transitive, the adverbial usually modifies the verbal component of predication as a whole, i.e. the verb in combination with its object, e.g.: He went to the airport information desk (L. Jones). But she speaks Enslish perfectly (English Course). Although the term 'adverbial' is rather misleading, B.A. Ilyish finds it possible to keep the term since it is firmly established in linguistics. Most adverbials are optional in the sentence structure, i.e. they can be left out without making the sentence structure ungrammatical, e.g.: A car will pick you up in the morning (S. Sheldon). > A car willpickyou up. Although adverbials are generally grammatically optional, the information contained in them is in many cases crucial for fully understanding the proposition in a sentence, and they cannot be omitted without making a difference to meaning. Cf.: She stared at him in disbelief (S. Sheldon). -* She stared at him. Some verbs take an adverbial in order to complete their meaning. This is known as an obligatory adverbial. Obligatory adverbials can occur with two patterns: 'intransitive verb + adverbial' and 'transitive verb + object + adverbial'. Obligatory adverbials usually express place or direction, sometimes - time and manner. Cf.:
279

278

But the stove stood in the someplace (R. Wright) - place, He moved towards her (J. Parsons) - direction. The pleasant summer lasted well into March (D. Biber et al.) - time. She treats us like children (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - manner. In these sentence patterns, the adverbial has to be present in order to complete the structure and meaning of the verb. This may be tested by removing the adverbial resulting in an ungrammatical construction. Cf.: But the stove stood in the same place. > *But the stove stood lasted well into He moved towards her. The * *He moved... March. pleasant summer pleasant summer lasted... She treats us like children. *She treats us... Different Classifications ofAdverbials While describing adverbials, linguists usually focus their attention on three aspects: the ways of expression, meaning (or function), and position in the sentence. Morphological Classification English resorts to the following language means to express an adverbial. 1. Single adverbs and adverb phrases, e.g.: She 'II never get over it (D. Robins). She played her part very well (A. Christie). 2. Single nouns and noun phrases, e.g.: He is travelling north (S. Sheldon). He drives to work every day (V. Evans). 3. Prepositional phrases, e.g.: She listened in silence (J. Parsons). 4. Nouns, pronouns, adjectives, infinitives, participles, or prepositional phrases with a subordinator at the head, e.g.: Jean runs faster than John (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 280 "Th

I'm not as clever as her (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The discussion can, if necessary, be continued tomorrow (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). She nervously moved her hand towards his lips as if to stop him (Ch. Dickens). While waiting for the water to boil, he held his face over the stove (J. London). Somehow he, when with her, noted an unusual brightness in her eyes (J. London), 5. Finite clauses, e.g.: 1 came to you because you're her closest friend (R. MacDonald). 6. Infinitives, infinitival phrases, and infinitival predicative constructions, e.g.: He stopped for a minute to rest (M Swan). He went to buy some bread (V. Evans). He stepped aside for me to pass (D. du Maurier). 7. Participial phrases, e.g.: Feeling rather tired, I telephoned and said f couldn 't come (M. Swan). 8. Non-prepositional and prepositional absolute participial constructions, e.g.: She sat down, her breath coming painfully (A. Christie). The daughter sat quite silent and still, with her eyes fixed on the ground (Ch. Dickens). 9. Non-prepositional and prepositional absolute constructions without a participle, e.g.: She stared at him, a look of puzzlement on her face (J. Parsons). I found him ready, and waiting for me, with his stick in his hand (W. Collins). 10. Gerundial phrases, e.g.: After leaving her umbrella in the hall, she entered the living room (A. Cronin).

281

Functional Classification The criterion of Sanction allows English grammarians to divide adverbials into three classes: circumstance adverbials, stance adverbials, and linking adverbials. Circumstance adverbials add information about the action or state described in the sentence, answering questions, such as: How? Whenl Where*? How much? To what extent? Why? They include both obligatory and optional adverbials, e.g.: You live in South London (L. and J. Soars) - obligatory. Wait a minute (L. Jones) - optional. Stance adverbials convey speakers' comments on what they are saying or how they are saying it. Stance adverbials fall into three categories: epistemic, attitude, and style adverbials. Epistemic stance adverbials focus on the question how true is the information in the sentence. They comment on factors, such as certainty, viewpoint, and limitations of truth-value. Cf.: She is definitely coming (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). That really was wonder/id! (D. Robins). Apparently they 're intending to put up the price of electricity (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Attitude stance adverbials express speakers' evaluations and attitudes towards the content of a sentence, e.g.: Unfortunately, they were out when we called (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Style stance adverbials convey a speaker's comment on the style or form of the communication. Often style stance adverbials clarify the speaker's manner of speaking or how the utterance should be understood, e.g.: He's up to his eyes in paperwork - figuratively speaking, of course*. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Linking adverbials serve a connecting function. They make explicit the relationship between two units of discourse, e.g.: The company's profits have fallen slightly. However, this is not a serious problem (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). It seems to us that stance and linking adverbials should be regarded not as secondary parts of the sentence, but as parenthetic 282

elements (modal and cohesive respectively) because they are not integrated into the structure of the sentence. The linguistic status of circumstance adverbials as secondary parts of the sentence is also debatable. The thing is that English grammarians include into this class not only circumstance adverbials proper but also qualitative adverbials. According to A.I. Smirnitsky, they are syntactically heterogeneous. Qualitative adverbials always modify the verbal component of predication. Circumstance adverbials modify the verbal component of predication when they are obligatory- When circumstance adverbials are optional, they generally modify the predication as a whole. In other words, qualitative adverbials and obligatory circumstance adverbials can be regarded as secondary pans of the sentence. Optional circumstance adverbials, in our opinion, should be looked upon as situational modifiers. I shall not dwell on the semantic categories of circumstance adverbials, such as time, place, reason, concession, etc., because we discussed it in detail while speaking about adverbial clauses. Syntactic Classification An important characteristic of adverbials is that they can occur in a variety of positions in a sentence. A. Western distinguishes five major positions. 1. Front-order, i.e. position at the very beginning of a sentence before both the subject and the predicate-verb, e.g.: To-night I go to Egypt (O. Wilde). 2. Pre-order, i.e. position before the synthetic form of the predicate-verb, e.g.: I never lived in Germany (J. Irving). 3. Mid-order, i.e. position after the first auxiliary verb when the predicate-verb has an analytical form, e.g.: I shall never forget the day (D. Robins). 4. Post-order, i.e. position between the predicate-verb and the rest of the sentence, e.g.: I walked angrily out of the room (M. Swan). 5. End-order, i.e. position at the end of a sentence, e.g.: /'// call you Monday (S. Sheldon).
283

The position of an adverbial is of paramount importance because it gives the analyst an opportunity to draw a distinction between adverbials (modifying the verbal component of predication) and situational modifiers (modifying the predication as a whole). There is a rising tendency nowadays to place situational modifiers, especially those telling us when an event took place, in the initial position and set them off with a comma, e.g.: The following morning, the Great Man himself telephoned her (S. Sheldon). Structural Classification Structurally, adverbials fall into three types: simple, complex, and clausal. A simple adverbial is expressed by a single word or a non-clausal combination of words. Cf.: I never believed him (J. Parsons). They talked until three o 'clock in the morning (S, Sheldon). A complex adverbial consists of two components linked by secondary predication, e.g.: He left the man with his mouth open... (A, Christie). A clausal adverbial is a finite clause possessing primary predication, e.g.: If he died, she would die with him (S. Sheldon). It is only simple adverbials that can be regarded as secondary parts of non-complicated monopredicative syntactic units. 17. THE ATTRIBUTE Definition of the Attribute The attribute is a secondary part of the sentence modifying the nominal component of predication or some substantival element in the verbal component of predication. Cf.: The front-door bell rang ... (D. Robins). She bought her new clothes (J. Parsons). So, it is rather the part of speech nature of the word that makes its attributive modification possible [A.I. Smirnitsky]. No wonder that English grammarians study attributive expansion at the word 284

combination level, not on the sentence level. Having defined secondary parts as those sentence elements that modify part of the predication forming a word combination with it. we think it possible to study attributes at the sentence level, too. Prepositive Attributes Attributes occur either in preposition or in postposition to the substantival component they modify. According to Ch. Fries and A.I. Smirnitsky, prepositive attributes in Modern English are used more often than postpositive attributes. A close study of four registers has led the authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English to the conclusion that prepositive and postpositive attributes are about equally common in Modern English. English resorts to the following language means to express a prepositive attribute. 1. Adjectives, e.g.: / visited his delightful cottage (R. Quirk et al.). 2. Participles, e.g.: Ellen Scott looked at the burning plane (S. Sheldon). I visited his completed cottage (R. Quirk et al.). 3. Gerunds, e.g.: Hey, Sally, how do you like these running shoes? (J. Richards et al.). 4. Nouns in the genitive case, e.g.: I visited his fisherman's cottage (R. Quirk et al.). 5. Nouns in the common case, e.g.: I visited his country cottage (R, Quirk et al.). This is a peculiarity of the English language alien to Russian. 6. Adverbs, e.g.: I visited his far-away cottage (R. Quirk et al.). 7. Sentences, e.g.: / visited his pop-down-for-the-weekend cottage (R. Quirk et al.). Adjectives are by far the most common type of prepositive attributes in all registers. This undoubtedly relates to the fact that they come from many different semantic classes, including colour, size, extent, time, age, frequency, and affective evaluation.
285

Nouns are the second most common type of prepositive attributes in all registers, occurring with particularly high frequencies in newspaper language. 'Noun + noun sequences' contain only content words, with no function words to show the logical relations between the two parts. As a result, they bring about an extremely dense packaging of referential information. On the other hand, they require addressees to infer the intended logical relationship between the modifying noun and head noun. In fact, 'noun + noun sequences' are used to express a bewildering array of logical relations. Here are a few examples. 1,Composition: glass windows --* windows made from glass. 2,Purpose: pencil case > case used for pencils. 3,Identity: men workers * workers who are men. 4,Content: algebra text * a text about algebra. 5, Source: irrigation water water that comes from irrigation, etc. D. Biber and his co-authors mention 15 types of logical relations between the modifying noun and head noun, adding that there are numerous 'noun + noun sequences' that do not fit neatly with any of the 15 major categories. Apparently, the great need for brevity in news favours this kind of attribute, even at the cost of less explicitness. By the way, since news writers usually use noun-attributes from those semantic domains that are associated with current events, such as government, business, education, the media, and sports, readers seldom find it difficult to decode 'noun + noun relationships'. Although prepositive noun-attributes are generally used in the singular, plural nouns can also occur as prepositive attributes, e.g.: arms race, sales taxes, savings account, women drivers, etc. This pattern is much more common in British English than in American English. News has by far the greatest number of prepositive nounattributes that are productive in combining with many head nouns. Many of the most productive prepositive noun-attributes identify major institutions, especially government, business, and the media. Cf.: Government action/approval/control/decision. Business administration/cards/community/dealings/empire. TV adds/cameras/channel/crew/documentary/licence, etc.

Conversation represents the opposite extreme to news. In it only four prepositive noun-attributes are relatively productive. They are: car, Christmas, school, and water. Typical combinations with these nouns reflect the everyday topics of conversation. Cf.: Car accident/door/insurance/keys/park/seat/wash. Christmas cake/card/day/decorations/list/presents/tree. School book/children/clothes/fees/holidays/trips. Water balloon/bottle/fight/leak/line/pressure/pump/rates. It is arguable that certain 'noun + noun sequences' (e.g. law report) are more appropriately treated as noun compounds. D. Biber and his co-authors think that orthography helps us draw a distinction between noun compounds and 'noun + noun sequences': compounds are written as one word (e.g. seaweed), while 'noun + noun sequences' are written either as hyphenated words or as separate words (e.g. steam-hammer, silk necktie). In our opinion, orthography is a weak indicator as it is highly subjective and varies from author to author. The other types of prepositive attributes are relatively uncommon in comparison with adjectives and nouns. There can be several prepositive attributes. The use of multiple prepositive attributes is certainly very efficient, packing dense informational content into as few words as possible. However, the use of multiple prepositive attributes is rare for the following reasons. 1. The limited span of immediate memory. In writing, we are able to receive, perceive, and remember from 5 to 9 unidimensional elements [G. A. Miller], in colloquial speech - from 3 to 7 unidimensional elements [O. B. Sirotinina]. 2. The logical laws of developing thought. Prepositive attributes are used to modify the meaning of the following substantival component. But one cannot heap up attributes emphasizing various qualitative characteristics of a notion that has not been named yet. It hinders the listener's/reader's perception. 3. The type of syntactic connection between the prepositive attribute and the substantival component. In analytical English, attributes are usually linked to the following substantival component by adjoinment, i.e. by a mere placing of words alongside of each other. The absence of grammatical forms, elucidating the logical relations among constituents, obscures the meaning of combinations

286

287

with multiple prepositive attributes. No wonder that most authors avoid using them in generating both spoken and written texts. According to the authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, substantival components with two prepositive attributes constitute 20%, with three or four prepositive attributes -only 2%. So, in conversation, fiction, newspaper language, and academic prose there prevail substantival components with one prepositive attribute. The number of prepositive attributes is highly sensitive to the syntactic function of the expanded substantival component. The substantival component in the function of the subject takes either no prepositive attribute or one because the subject generally renders known information. Cf.: The girl looked down (P.G. Wodehouse). - The subject girl has no attribute. The little girl did not reply (J. Gary). - The subject girl is modified by one prepositive attribute little. When the subject renders new information, it can have several prepositive attributes, e.g.: A brown felt hat sat on the back of my head (D. Robins). -The rhematic subject hat is modified by two prepositive attributes: brown and felt. The substantival components in the functions of predicatives, objects, and adverbials are more regularly modified by prepositive attributes, for these syntactic functions are communicatively much more important, and attributes serve the purpose of intensifying this or that idea. Cf.: // was a beautiful sunny day (J. Parsons). - The predicative day has two prepositive attributes: beautiful and sunny. I received long happy letters from Nairobi, regularly (D. Robins). - The object letters has two prepositive attributes: long and happy. We 're going to a better place (S. Sheldon). - The adverbial to a place has one prepositive attribute better.
Postpositive Attributes

Postpositive attributes are used with one of two main functions restrictive or non-restrictive modification. Restrictive postpositive 288

attributes serve to identify the intended reference of the head-noun, e.g-: Richard hit the ball on the car that was going past (D. Biber et al.). The relative clause that was going past has a restrictive function. It pinpoints the particular car being referred to. In contrast, the reference of head-nouns with non-restrictive postpositive attributes has either been previously identified or is assumed to be already known. In these cases, the postpositive attribute adds descriptive information, which is not required to identify the head, e.g.: He looked into her mailbox, which she never locked (D. Biber et al.). In this example, the particular mailbox is identified by the possessive determiner her; and the non-restrictive relative clause which she never locked is used to provide additional descriptive information. Most other types of postpositive attributes are restrictive but can occasionally be non-restrictive. Cf: A military jeep travelling down Beach Road at high speed struck a youth crossing the road (D. Biber et al.) - restrictive participial postpositive attributes. Both writing and reading are enormously complex skills, involving the coordination of sensory and cognitive processes (D. Biber et al.) - non-restrictive participial postpositive attribute. Overall, restrictive postpositive attributive modification prevails over non-restrictive modification. It is only in newspaper language that non-restrictive postpositive relative clauses make up about 30% of all relative clauses. It is due to the fact that they add information of particular interest to the reader. English resorts to the following language means to express a postpositive attribute. 1. Relative finite clauses, e.g.: He was playing a tune that Rachel recognized (J. Parsons). 2. Prepositional phrases, e.g.: The man <** my side suddenly turned to me (D. Robins). 3. Infinitives, infinitival phrases, and infinitival predicative constructions, e.g.: / have no place to go (S. Sheldon).

289

They have orders to shoot me (S. Sheldon). Leave a message for him to call me, please (S. Sheldon). 4. Participial phrases, e.g.: Hike the girl sitting on the right (M. Swan). Most of the people invited to the party didn't turn (M. Swan). up 5. Gerundial phrases and gerundial predicative constructions, e.g.: I have no intention of arguing (S. Ellin). They tell me there's no chance of their getting married for years (J. Galsworthy). 6. Adverbs, e.g.: The light outside faded (J. Parsons). 7. Adjectives. Single attributive adjectives are always placed in postposition in combinations of French or Latin origin, when they have the prefix a-, and when the substantival head is expressed by a pronoun. Cf.: From time immemorial (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The third person plural, present tense, of the verb 'have' is 'they have' (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He's the only man alive who could do it (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). I'll cook you something nice and then you can go to sleep (BBC London Course). Verbal adjectives with the suffixes -able and -ible can be used both as postpositive and as prepositive attributes. The same is true of adjectives modifying the noun thing. The postposition of an attributive adjective gives the construction increased emphasis. Cf.: He is the only reliable person. He is the only person reliable. A divine thing. A thing divine. Although relative clauses often receive the most attention in discussions of postpositive attributes, prepositional phrases are actually much more common because they are more compact than relative clauses. The majority of attributive prepositional phrases begin with the prepositions of and in. Prepositional phrases beginning with the prepositions for, on, to, and with are less 290

common. Two factors favour the choice of a relative clause over a prepositional phrase: the need to convey non-restrictive meaning and the need to convey past tense meaning. Other types of postpositive attributes are not numerous. Participial postpositive attributes are most common in academic prose. Conversation is characterized by a relatively high proportion of infinitival postpositive attributes. There can be several postpositive attributes, especially in academic prose. Postpositive attributive complexes are moderately common in news and fiction, but rare in conversation. Writers usually employ relatively simple postpositive complexes with two attributes. The attribute in Position 2, as a rule, is of the same structural type as the attribute in Position 1. The most common type of postpositive attributive complex is composed of two prepositional phrases, e.g.: These figures serve to underline the increasing orientation of western society to information and information processing activities (D. Biber et al.). Relative clauses in Position 2 co-occur with all structural types in Position 1 because the relativizer provides an overt surface marker of their attributive status even when they are distant from the noun head, e.g.: Most countries have a written document known as *the constitution' which lays down the main rules (D. Biber et al.) -participial phrase + relative clause. Sometimes a substantival component has both prepositive and postpositive attributes, e.g.: A curious sensation of terror came over me (O. Wilde). - The substantival component sensation has one prepositive attribute curious and one postpositive attribute of terror. Attributive modification (both prepositive and postpositive) is relatively rare in conversation. Speakers in a conversation share the same physical situation, and they often share personal knowledge about each other as well. As a result, speakers typically use substantival components with no modification, knowing that the listener will have no trouble identifying the intended referent. Consistent with this shared knowledge, conversation has a very high frequency of personal pronouns and a very low frequency of nouns. Nouns are often used to refer to a new referent that is 291

previously unknown to the listener/reader. Thus, prepositive and postpositive attributes are used to help identify the reference of the noun and provide descriptive details. In contrast^ personal pronouns are used to refer to a specific entity, often a person, known to the listener/reader either from the previous text or from the wider situational context. Consequently, there is usually no need for attributive modification to anchor the reference or provide elaborating details.
Structural Classification of Attributes

The expression on his lined face was kindly, sweet and wild (W.S. Maugham). * The expression of his lined face was kindly, sweet and wild. The old couple on the top floor is away for the summer (J. Craig). * The old couple from the top floor is away for the summer. 2. The use of the nominal component of the prepositional combination in the function of a prepositive attribute to the preceding noun, e.g.: He glanced at the clock on the mantelpiece... (W. Deeping). He glanced at the mantelpiece clock. 3. The transformation of the prepositional combination into an attributive participial phrase, e.g.: He looked at the woman on the sofa (A. Christie). He looked at the woman sitting on the sofa. 4. The transformation of the prepositional combination into an attributive dependent clause, e.g.: The man beside him laughed (A. Hailey, G. Castle). --> Tne man who was sitting beside him laughed. 5. The use of the noun with the following prepositional combination in some other position in the sentence, e.g.: In his room he called the clinic on the Zugersee (F.S. Fitzgerald). * It is the clinic on the Zugersee that he called in his room. 6. The use of the prepositional combination at the beginning of the sentence, before the subject and the predicate, e.g.: Kitty felt like a schoolgirl in her presence (W.S. Maugham). * In her presence Kitty felt like a schoolgirl. The attribute admits of the first five transformations, or at least some of them, and does not admit of transformation six. The situational modifier, on the other hand, admits only of transformation six and is insusceptible to the first five. Of course, there exist transitional cases. Thus, in the sentence Perhaps the grass in the other field is better (H. Munro) the prepositional combination in the other field admits not only of attributive transformations but can be also placed before the subject and the predicate, which is typical of situational modifiers: Perhaps in the other field the grass is better.
293

Structurally, attributes fall into three types: simple, complex, and clausal. A simple attribute is expressed by a single word or a non-clausal combination of words. Cf.: It was a lovely house (J. Parsons). What is your address in the country*? (O. Wilde). A complex attribute consists of two components linked by secondary predication, e.g.: ... we must not exclude the possibility of a woman being concerned (A. Christie). A clausal attribute is a finite clause possessing primary predication, e.g.: Kathleen described the scene that followed (D. Robins). It is only simple attributes that can be regarded as secondary parts of non-complicated monopredicative syntactic units.
18. DIFFERENTIATION OF SITUATIONAL MODIFIERS AND SECONDARY PARTS OF THE SENTENCE The Difference between Situational Modifiers and Attributes

When the attribute is expressed by a prepositional combination, it is often difficult to distinguish it from a situational modifier. O.I. Fleshier gives six transformations which help us define whether we deal with a situational modifier or an attribute. 1. The substitution of the preposition in the construction under examination by the preposition o/or some other preposition typical of attributive relations, for example, the preposition from. Cf.:
292

The Difference between Adverbials and Objects The problem of differentiating adverbials from objects is also debatable. Thus, both objects and adverbials can be expressed by nouns and prepositional combinations. Cf.: Tlie committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). I wafted an hour (St. Leacock). He stretched out on the divan... (P. Abrahams). K.A. Andreeva makes a list of transformations typical of objects and adverbials. The following transformations help us single out the object. 1. The object of an active construction becomes the subject of a passive construction, e.g.: The committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). > A day in July has been appointed for our case to be heard. 2. The object is an obligatory part of the sentence; it cannot be omitted without destroying the structural and semantic completeness of the sentence. That's why the transformation of reduction is out of the question, e.g.: The committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). > *The committee has appointed... 3. To the object one can put questions of the pronominal character, e.g.: The committee has appointed a day in July for our case to be heard (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). * What has the committee appointed*? 4. The combinability of objects is limited; they can combine only with objective verbs, i.e. verbs that are followed by some kind of object. The adverbial is quite different. 1. As a rule, it cannot be made the subject of a passive construction: / waited an hour (St. Leacock). * *An hour was waited by me. 2. As opposed to the object, it is an optional member of the sentence. Hence, the transformation of reduction: 294

1 waited an hour (St. Leacock). > I waited. 3.One cannot put questions of the pronominal character to it: I waited an hour (St. Leacock). * What did J wait? 4.Its combinability is practically unlimited. On the other hand, the adverbial has certain peculiarities of its own. 1. One can put question of the adverbial character to it: / waited an hour (St. Leacock). * How long did I waif? 2. It can be substituted by an adverb proper: / waited an hour (St. Leacock). / waited long. 3. Sometimes it can be linked by means of coordination with another adverbial expressed by an adverb proper. However, even the use of all these criteria leaves a great number of boundary cases. In the first place, it is not every object that can be made the subject of a passive construction, e.g.: They had Jive children (J. Joyce). The component five children is traditionally regarded as an object, although the passive transformation *Five children were had by them is out of the question. In the second place, G.E. Yurchenko has convincingly proved that it is not only objects but also adverbials that can be characterized by obligatory combinability, e.g.: / stepped to the window (T. Chevalier), where the omission of the adverbial to the window generates an ungrammatical construction. Cf.: / stepped to the window (T. Chevalier). -+ */ stepped... In the third place, the criterion of questions is not binding either, since to one and the same part of the sentence one can often put both a pronominal and an adverbial question. Cf.: He stretched out on the divan.. .(P. Abrahams). > Where did he stretch oufl What did he stretch out onl So, the opposition between adverbials and objects can be also neutralized. Neutralization, according to O.I. Fleshier, takes place because the above-mentioned syntactic relations (situational - attributive, adverbial - objective) sometimes come very close together, and the process of communication goes on uninterrupted without their differentiation. In other words, besides objects, adverbials and attributes, there exist indiscriminate parts of the sentence. They are not many, but their existence is a hard fact.
295

19. WORD ORDER Kinds of Inversion in English The term 'word order' is used to refer to the order of elements in a sentence. The basic word order of English is subject-predicateobject-adverbial, e.g.: Richard laid his hat and gloves on the table (D. Robins). Inversion, according to English grammarians, has two primary forms: subject-predicate inversion and subject-operator inversion. In subject-predicate (or full) inversion, the subject is preceded by the entire predicate. Subject-predicate inversion is most often found with an initial place or time adverbial, a short intransitive or copular verb, and a long subject that introduces new information, e.g.: Inside was a large brown envelope and a piece of lined paper (J. Parsons). In subject-operator (or partial) inversion, the subject is preceded only by the operator. The notional (or lexical) verb goes after the subject. In other words, the subject in partial inversion is framed by the predicate. Partial inversion is typical of interrogative sentences. Cf.: Does she tike London*? (D. Robins). How did you find me! (J. Parsons). Only questions to the subject and its attribute are built on the subject-predicate principle. Cf.: Who is coming to teal (O. Wilde). What has kept you! (A.J. Cronin). Which rooms are on the second floor! (Lingaphone English Course). In reported and indirect questions, the subject a!so precedes the predicate. We use reported questions to report someone else's questions, whereas we use indirect questions when we ask for information. Reported questions are introduced with the verb ask and end with a full stop. Indirect questions are introduced with Could you tell me ...? Do you know...? I wonder... I want to know... I doubt..., etc. If the matrix clause has partial inversion, the indirect question ends with a question mark. If the matrix clause is built on the subject-predicate principle, the indirect question ends with a full stop. Cf.:
296

He asked me where he could put it (V. Evans) - reported w/iquestion. He asked if I had enjoyed the party (V. Evans) - reported _yes/oquestion. Do you know where he can put if? (V. Evans) - indirect w/iquestion. / want to know if we are going out tonight (V. Evans) -indirect yes/no-question. Partial inversion is also found in conditional syntactic units when the conjunction if is omitted. Cf: Should he turn up, tell him to wait for me (V. Evans). Were I you, I would speak to her (V. Evans). Had he known, he would have told us (V. Evans). However, in contrast to partially inverted interrogative sentences, which are characteristic of conversational English, partially inverted asyndetic conditional syntactic units are more typical of literary English. P.S. Zhuikova has put forward a hypothesis that there is a third type of inversion: when the predicate is framed by the subject. We find it in constructions beginning with existential there, e.g.: There is a sofa in the living room (V. Evans). These constructions express the notion of existence. They have a discrete subject: the grammatical subject there (R. Quirk et al.) precedes the existential predicate is, the notional subject a sofa follows it. If we accepted the hypothesis, we would be bound to admit that constructions with existential there stand somewhat apart from other two-member sentences. In the declarative form, they have partial inversion, in the interrogative form - full inversion, e.g.: Are there any children in the park? (V. Evans). - The entire existential predicate are precedes the discrete subject there ... any children. The word order in interrogative 'sentence representatives' P.S. Zhuikova qualifies as 'clipped' inversion because the subject precedes the operator, but there is no notional part of the predicate. Cf: I hate this man. -Do you? (K. Burke). / haven't danced with anyone in years. - Neither have I (K. Burke).
297

Functions of Word Order Word order fulfils various functions. The two main functions of word order are grammatical and communicative. The essence of the grammatical principle lies in the fact that the sentence position of an element is determined by its syntactic function. The communicative principle manifests itself in that the sentence position of an element varies depending on its communicative value. In inflected languages, such as Russian, where the relations between words are expressed by grammatical morphemes, it is the communicative principle that plays a leading role in determining the order of words [V. Mathesius]. It is common practice to arrange sentence elements in theme-rheme sequence, i.e. to start with given information and move on to new information in accordance with the logical laws of developing thought. D. Biber and his co-authors call it the information-flow principle. However, sometimes it is necessary to intensify this or that part of the sentence. There are two emphatic positions in the sentence: final and initial [O. Jespersen; D. Biber et al.J. So speakers/writers in inflected languages place communicatively the most prominent part either in the final or in the initial position. In analytical languages, such as English, the grammatical principle comes to the fore [V. Mathesius]. Word order is at the heart of English syntax [D. Crystal], and most of English grammar is taken up with the rules governing the order in which sentence elements can appear. The importance of this domain can be seen from the following set of examples, where the meaning of the sentence alters fundamentally once the order varies. Cf.: Dog chases postman. /Postman chases dog (D. Crystal). They are outside. /Are they outsidel (D. Crystal). Only I saw Mary. /I saw only Mary (D. Crystal). The man with a dog saw me. / The man saw me with a dog (D. Crystal).

The Role of the Grammatical Word Order Principle in English The sentence position of the following parts is grammatically fixed in English. 1. The subject in declarative sentences and in subjectquestions is placed in the sentence initial position, before the predicate. Cf.: She turned to Tom (R. Wright). Who broke the window? (R. Murphy). Which switch operates this machine? (R. Murphy). In other interrogative sentences the subject is framed by the predicate. Cf.: Did you see it happen? (S. Sheldon). How did it happen? (S. Sheldon). Exclamative sentences begin with what or how followed by the word the speaker/writer wants to emphasize. But in contrast to the w/?-mterrogative element, the wfc-exclamative element does not cause partial inversion. The subject in exclamative sentences precedes the predicate just as it does in declarative sentences and in subject-questions. Cf.: What wonderful weather we're having (R. Close). How slowly he walksl (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 2. As opposed to the subject, the object in declarative sentences is placed after the predicate. Cf.: The man struck the bear (Ch. Fries). The bear struck the man (Ch. Fries). There is no formal difference between the bear in the first and second sentences: both are characterized by a zero exponent of the common case. But in the sentence The man struck the bear, the component the bear is qualified as an object because it follows the predicate struck, in the sentence The bear struck the man, the component the bear is regarded as the subject because it precedes the predicate struck [O. Jespersen; Ch. Fries]. In exclamative sentences, the object often occurs in the initial position, e.g.: What wonderfully blue eyes you have, Ernest! (O. Wilde). 3. If there are two objects in the sentence, a non-prepositional recipient object goes before an affected object; a prepositional recipient object goes after an affected object. Cf.: 299

298

/'// send you the cheque this evening (A. Christie). We owe everything to him (L. Untermeyer). 4. Situational modifiers (temporal and locative), which modify the predication as a whole, tend to occur at the beginning of the sentence, before both the subject and The predicate, e.g.: After fifteen minutes, he could wait no longer (T. W. Hard). Outside the house, he saw a big dog on the sidewalk (L. Jones). The final position of situational modifiers in English is also fairly frequent, e.g.: He was murdered, years ago (J. Parsons). 5. The position of adverbials depends on the semantic category they belong to. Manner adverbials are generally placed after the predicate-verb if there is no object in the sentence, e.g.: Time passed slowly (J. Parsons). He moved slowly toward it (T.W. Hard). If there is a non-prepositional object in a sentence, a manner adverbial usually goes after the object, e.g.: I got this job very quickly (J. Parsons). If there is a prepositional object in a sentence, a manner adverbial generally stands between the predicate-verb and the prepositional object, though it is also found after the prepositional object. Cf.: He searched clumsily for his watch (T.W, Hard). The Hawaiian looked at him strangely (T.W. Hard). Very often, manner adverbials are placed before the notional verb of the predicate, e.g.: The Californian slowly opened his eyes (T.W. Hard). These ladies were deferentially received by Miss Temple (Ch. Bronte). In exclamative sentences, manner adverbials are often placed in the initial position, before both the subject and the predicate, e. g. How well she plays tennisl (A.S. Hornby). The most frequent position of single word adverbials of indefinite time, frequency, and degree is before the synthetic form of the predicate-verb and after the first auxiliary verb when the predicate-verb has an analytical form. Cf.: I never believed him (J. Parsons). I had never loved anybody like this before (D. Robins). He often swims in the lake ... (I. Murdoch).
300

Do you often go to the theatre*? (Intermediate English Course). I quite agree -with you (R. Murphy). They haven't quite finished their dinner yet (R. Murphy). A degree adverbial expressed by the adverb too precedes the adjective it modifies, e.g.: The red shoes are too expensive (V. Evans). A degree adverbial expressed by the adverb enough usually goes after the adjective, but before the noun it modifies. Cf.: The green shoes are not cheap enough (V. Evans). Have you got enough money to lend me five pounds? (M. Swan). Enough can be used after the noun it modifies, but this is rather formal or literary, e.g.: If only there were money enough for us to travel there\ (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). When there is a place adverbial and an adverbial of definite time in a sentence, the place adverbial generally precedes the time adverbial, e.g.: They went to the cinema on Saturday evening (A.S. Hornby). If there are two place or time adverbials in a sentence, the more specific adverbial usually goes before the more general adverbial. Cf.: He lives in a small village in Kent (A.S. Hornby). Rachel heard the announcement on the nine o'clock news that night (J. Parsons). When there are more than two adverbials in a sentence, they go in the following order: manner - place - time, e.g.: He spoke well at the meeting yesterday (V. Evans). When there is a verb of movement, then the order is: place -manner-time, e.g.: She goes to work on foot every day (V. Evans). 6. The position of single word attributes is grammatically fixed with respect to the substantival component they modify. Single word attributes generally occur in preposition to the substantival component they modify. If there are several prepositive attributes, their sequence is predetermined by their part-of-speech nature, first of all. Noun attributes go immediately before the substantival component they modify, e.g.: a large conference hall (M. Swan). 301

Adjective attributes are heterogeneous. Linguists draw a distinction between 'opinion' and 'fact' adjectives. 'Opinion' adjectives that tell us what one thinks about something (beautiful, bad, etc.) always go before 'fact' adjectives that provide us with objective information about something (red, round, etc.). Cf.: a beautiful red dress (V. Evans), a lovely big flat (V. Evans). When there are two or more adjectives of the same category, the more general adjective goes before the more specific one, e.g.: a nice friendly dog (V. Evans). Tact' adjectives go in the following order: size - age - shape - colour origin material, e.g.: a large old rectangular brown French wooden bed (V. Evans). It goes without saying, that there are exceptions from most of the rules. For instance, the place of the subject in regard to the predicate in declarative sentences is rigidly fixed only when there is an affected object in the sentence. When there is no affected object in the sentence, the subject can be placed after the predicate, e.g.: High above the city, on a tall column, stood the statue of the Happy Prince (O. Wilde). The non-prepositional affected object can be separated from the predicate by a prepositional recipient object or an adverbial when it is longer than the prepositional recipient object or adverbial (the so-called rhythmic function of word order), e.g.: 1 had at heart a strange and anxious thought (Ch. Bronte"). However, exceptions only prove the rules. The Role of the Communicative Word Order Principle in English Since word order in an English sentence is grammatically fixed, it is much less susceptible to communicative needs. Nevertheless, it does allow of certain fluctuations in accordance with the changing communicative task. Thus, native speakers of English sometimes emphasize the communicative prominence of predicatives, objects, and adverbials by placing them in the emphatic initial position. Cf.:

Hard work it was (A. Christie). A fine view you have here (A. Christie). For the safety of England and Edward they fell (G. Byron). Fronting (especially of adverbials) is often accompanied by inversion. Cf.: In came the conductor ... (E.S. Connell) - full inversion. Silently and patiently did the doctor bear all this (Ch. Dickens) - partial inversion. Only in Paris can you buy shoes like that (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - partial inversion. Fronting is relatively rare in all registers, although this device is used more in fiction and academic prose than conversation or news. Different types of fronting are preferred in each register. In academic prose, the most common form is predicative fronting, which aids cohesion by linking sentences. Conversation and fiction more commonly use fronting of objects. These elements are fronted for focus rather than for cohesion- (Focus is an element or part of a sentence given prominence by intonational or other means.). In fiction, where varied sentence structure and stylistic effect are especially valued, fronting occurs more frequently than in conversation. Although fronting is relatively rare, it is an important option for focus and cohesion; its rarity makes these effects even more conspicuous when they do occur. Besides, there exist in English special constructions that bring particular elements of the sentence into additional focus. The construction with the introductory there and the passive construction with an agent object serve to increase the communicative value of the subject by moving it closer to the emphatic final position. Cf: A cat is under the bed. There is a cat under the bed (V. Evans). William the Conqueror built the Tower of London. The Tower of London was built by William the Conqueror (V. Evans). The construction with the introductory it is used to emphasize the communicative value of all sentence parts, except the predicate, by moving them closer either to the emphatic final or the emphatic initial position. The subject is brought into focus by being placed
303

302

closer to the emphatic final position, the object and the adverbial -by being placed closer to the emphatic initial position. Cf.: The TV ~woke me up. // was the TV that woke me up (V. Evans). Did you meet him here7 Was it here that you met him? (V. Evans). In poetry, word order is often regulated by considerations of metre. To sum up. Word order in all languages performs a number of functions. The main function of word order is predetermined by the nature of the language.

20. POLYCOMPONENT SYNTACTIC UNITS Weak Points of the Traditional Conception

In traditional grammar, polypredicative syntactic units are called composite sentences. Composite sentences are said to consist of two or more clauses. Taking into consideration the nature of the clause relationships, English grammarians classify composite sentences into three types: I) compound sentences, 2) complex sentences, 3) compound-complex sentences [W.O. Clough; R.B. Allen; P. Roberts; W.O. Birk; V.F. Hooper, C. Gale; D.W. Clark, M.D. MacKenzie; R.M. Albaugh; B.L. Liles; Ch. Lehman; D. Crystal]. A compound sentence is a sentence consisting of two or more independent clauses linked by coordination. Each coordinate clause can stand as a sentence on its own, e.g.: The wat er was a de e p bl ue, an d t h e st y wa s cl e a r (T. W. Hard). * The water was a deep blue. And the sky was clear. A complex sentence is a sentence consisting of an independent (or main) clause and one or more dependent (or subordinate) clauses introduced by means of subordination. Dependent clauses cannot stand as sentences on their own, e.g.: Poirot was waiting on the doorstep when I returned with the taxi (A. Christie). Poirot was waiting on the doorstep. *When 1 returned with the taxi. A compound-complex sentence is a sentence consisting of two or more independent clauses and one or more dependent clauses,
304

e.g.: There have been no crops, and the animals on which many people depend died long ago (L. and J. Soars), where the second coordinate clause contains a relative subordinate clause, on which many people depend. The traditional classification of composite sentences has a number of weak points. In the first place, the components of composite sentences are always finite clauses, i.e. predicative units. Polypredicative syntactic units make up the bulk of polycomponent syntactic units. But in speech there exist syntactic units which, alongside of predicative units, comprise non-predicative 'communicatives' and which consist only of non-predicative 'communicatives'. Cf: So you 're a sailor, huh? - No, I'm not a sailor (P. Viney). Could you give me the code for France? - Yes, of course. It's 33, but you need to dial 00 first (J. Comfort). In the second place, not only coordination can link independent clauses. Accumulation serves the same purpose. Cf.: I'm not interested in your opinions - I just want to know the facts (Longman Essential Activator). You know it's the right thing to do. - I know, I know (L. Jones). But you helped her, didn 'tyou? (J. Parsons). In the third place, the so-called main clause in complex sentences is not always independent. In a great number of cases, the main clause and the subordinate clause are interdependent and neither can stand as a sentence on its own. Cf.: What's done can't be undone (A.E. Coppard). That's what you think (R. MacDonald). Sometimes the main clause is nothing but a copular verb, e.g.: What I say is what I think (D. Crystal). D. Crystal refers such sentences to simple. He writes, 'The sentence "What I say is what I think" may seem complex at first sight, but in fact it has a simple three-part structure, just like "That is that'". If we started on the assumption that a complex sentence is a sentence that consists of one main clause and at least one subordinate clause and if we regarded the main clause as an independent clause, then we would be bound to admit that D. Crystal is right: the sentence What I say is what I think is not
305

complex. The question arises, however, why D. Crystal refers to complex sentences constructions of the type: That he argued was a shame (D. Crystal). / said that it was time (D. Crystal). The result was what I wanted (D. Crystal). As he himself shows in his book, they also have a simple three-part structure: That he argued was a shame. // was a shame. I said that it was time- * I said something. The result was what I wanted. > The result was good. In the fourth place, it is not always easy to draw a distinction between complex and compound sentences as similar meaning relationships are sometimes expressed through subordination and coordination. For instance, the subordinate w/zen-clause in the following example is temporal in meaning: When Monsieur Savlon came back to clear the table he asked me in perfectly good English, "You do not like snails?" (S. Greenbaum). A similar meaning can be conveyed through coordination with and: Monsieur Savlon came back to clear the table and he asked me in perfectly good English, "You do not like snails?" (S. Greenbaum). The subordinator when makes the time relation explicit. If the clauses are coordinated by and, the assumption is that the two events (his return to the table and his question) are in chronological order. In the fifth place, it is not only sentences that can be compound and complex but also sentencoids and 'sentence representatives'. Cf.: Lovely country and interesting people (H. Adams) -compound sentencoid. Certainly I've had experience. - What experience? - The experience you're talking about (J. O'Hara) - complex sentencoid. / don't care, I like him. She doesn 't but I do (A. Ayckbourn) -compound 'sentence representative'. He doesn'? know I'm alive. - He didn't when we first met (J. Braine) - complex 'sentence representative'.

In the sixth place, the traditional classification of composite sentences disregards polypredicative syntactic units with parenthetic clauses, e.g.: The news has spread fast, I'm afraid (I. Shaw). In the seventh place, the domain of mixed polypredicative syntactic units is not restricted to compound-complex sentences. Thus, the following polypredicative syntactic unit is characterized by interplay of coordination, subordination, and parenthesis: That's exactly what I thought yesterday, but this morning, if you please, she sent for her box (A. Christie). Types of Poly component Syntactic Units In view of the above-mentioned drawbacks of the term 'composite sentences', we suggest that composite sentences should be called polycomponent syntactic units. Polycomponent syntactic units, in our opinion., can consist of predicative clauses, nonpredicative ' communicatives'. and a combination of non-predicative 'communicatives' and predicative clauses. Accordingly, we draw a distinction between three types of polycomponent syntactic units: 1) polypredicative syntactic units (nojiunpeduKamuenue cunmaKcmecKue edunuu,bi), e.g.: When you get off the bus, you'll see a grocery store on the opposite side of the street (Longman Essential Activator); 2) polycommunicative syntactic units (noJiuKOMMynuKamueHbie cunmaKcuvecKue edunuifbi) > e.g.: Could you ask her to get back to me? .- Yes, of course (J. Comfort); 3) communicative-predicative syntactic units {KOMMynuKamueno-npeduKamueHbie cunmaKcunecKue edunuifbi), e.g.: Could I have your name? - Yes, it's Oldman (J. Comfort). As 'communicatives' in polycomponent syntactic units we qualify those non-predicative syntactic units that form a separate sense-group, possess an independent intonation contour, and can be used in an absolute position. Cf.: Do you have a visa for the United States? Yes, I do

306

307

Sony, did I step on your foot? (Longman Essential Activator). * Sorry. Did I step on yourfootl I hope it's not too early there. No, not at all (J. Comfort). > No. Not at all. Since syntactic units of the type you know, you see have only formal predication, they could be referred to 'communicatives' (for instance, S.V. Andreeva regards them as 'communicatives'). However, they cannot function on their own. That's why we exclude them from 'communicatives' and provisionally refer them to parenthetic predicative clauses, bearing in mind what has been said about their predication, e.g.: I'm very fond of you, you know (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Classification of Polypredicative Syntactic Units

Polypredicative syntactic units can be further classified according to the type of dependency relations between the constituent clauses. L. Hjelmslev singles out three types of dependency relations: interdependence, determination, and constellation. Polvpredicative Syntactic Units Built on Interdependence; In interdependence, one unit presupposes the presence of another, and vice versa. To polypredicative syntactic units with interdependence (or polypredicative syntactic complexes) we refer clauses whose occurrence is predetermined by the valency potential of this or that component in the preceding or (less often) in the following clause. According to L. Tesniere, only verbs possess valency characteristics. The Tesniere valency theory is still being elaborated. A detailed analysis of polypredicative syntactic complexes, performed by N.V. Proskurina, has shown that the following language units possess valency characteristics in polypredicative syntactic units. 1. Lexical (or notional) verbs, e.g.: / doubt if I can afford it (English Course). 308

Why are you not with him? Because I don't know where^he is (S.Hill). 2. Copular verbs, e.g.: What is worth (Joins at all is worth doing well (Proverb). This is what frightens me (J. Fowles). 3. Adjectives and adverbs in the comparative degree, e.g.: In five out of the seven leading industrial nations industrial output is now lower than it was a year aso (S. Greenbaum). It could happen more quickly than anyone expects (D. Biber et al.). 4. Deictic words, such as pronouns, articles, etc., e.g.: / could lead you to the shop where I bought it (D. Biber et al.)5. The first components of correlative links, e.g.: Lara was so excited that she barely touched her food (S. Sheldon). The less people think, the more they talk (Proverb). As the call, so the echo (Proverb). I not only shared a cabin with him and ate three meals a day at the same table, but I could not walk round the deck without his joining me (W.S. Maugham). They're coming to visit us this year. - When? Either this month or next month (English Course).

Polvpredicative Syntactic Units Built on Determination In determination, one unit presupposes the presence of another, but not vice versa. In other words, polypredicative syntactic units with determination are built on the basis of subordination. Subordination is signalled by the actual or potential presence of non-correlative subordinates or w/j-words between the clauses. Subordinators (i.e. subordinate conjunctions) are linking words that introduce dependent clauses. They can consist both of one and several words. Most of multi-word subordinates end in as or that (the latter is often optional), e.g.: as far as, as long as, as soon as, on condition (that), provided/providing (that), supposing (that), now (that), except (that), in order that, so (that), etc. To polypredicative syntactic units built on subordination we refer only syntactic constructions with clauses that do not make part of the valency patterns of the verbal or nominal component of the 309

matrix clause. They are adverbial clauses and sentential relative clauses, for the occurrence of both is not obligatory for the structural completeness of the matrix clause, although communicatively they are important. Cf.: When he came out, it was about midnight (S. Sheldon). What do you say we break for lunch! (L. and J. Soars). > What do you say if we break for lunch! I thought you said we were going to have a fire and cook something. - When I get back we will (S. Hill). Look, Hooper, I've thought of something. I'm going to go and find out if we're near the outside, or anything. - You can't, you'll get lost (S. Hill). * You can't because you 'II get lost. What about the insides? You can't eat those parts. - We have to pick off the meat. It doesn't matter about the insides, we won't come to them. - What if it's poisonous? - No fish is poisonous (S. Hill). The police arrived, after which the situation became calmer (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Sentential relative clauses are always syndetic, adverbial clauses are usually syndetic. The number of asyndetic adverbial clauses in polypredicative syntactic units is very small. Tradition regards polypredicative syntactic units both with interdependence and determination as complex sentences disregarding the different nature of the dependency relations between their clauses. True, Russian linguists nowadays draw a distinction between discrete complex sentences (cJiootcHonodvuneHHbie npednootcemw pacvjieneuHOu cmpyvmypu} and non-discrete complex sentences (cjiootCHonodvuneHHbie npednoyceuuH Hepac^neneHnou cmpyKmypbi) [PyccKaa rpaMMaTHKa-80]. However, the opposition discreteness/nondiscreteness is common not only to complex but also to compound sentences (there are, as is well known, both subordinate and coordinate correlative links). That's why we reject the current terms and speak of polypredicative syntactic units with interdependence and determination.

Polypredicative Syntactic Units Built on Constellation In constellation, the units are compatible, but none presupposes the presence of another, hi our opinion, we find constellation in polypredicative syntactic units built on coordination and accumulation. Coordinate polypredicative syntactic units can be both syndetic and asyndetic. The clauses in syndetic coordinate polypredicative syntactic units are linked by non-correlative, i.e. single-word coordinate conjunctions. The main simple coordinators are and, but, and or, with a core meaning of addition, contrast, and alternative respectively. Or has a negative counterpart nor, which is used after negative clauses. Nor is far less common than all the other coordinators because negation is less frequent overall than positive forms. However, nor is somewhat more common in fiction than conversation which gives preference to negation by not, e.g.: The donkeys did not come back, nor did the eleven men, nor did the helicopters (D. Biber et al.). The positive alternative coordinator or is particularly frequent in academic (scientific) prose because academic discourse invites a consideration of alternative modes of explanation, e.g.: They may imply the same sequence of uplift, erosion, and subsidence, or they may reflect a fall and rise of global sea level (D. Biber etal.). But is more frequent in conversation than the written registers because people tend to highlight contrast and contradiction in dialogue, e.g.: / think he will have salad but he doesn't like tomatoes (D. Biber et al.). The low frequency of but in academic prose may be due in part to the fact that contrast is more often expressed by other means in that register, namely by such forms as although, however, nevertheless, on the other hand, etc. And is by far the most common coordinator in all the registers. But its distribution, is, at first sight, surprising. It is often supposed that and is especially common in conversation. A study of four major registers: conversation, fiction, newspaper language and academic prose, carried out by the authors of the Longman 311

310

Grammar of Spoken and Written English, has shown that and is considerably more frequent in academic prose than in conversation. The thing is that they studied not only clause-level coordination, that our attention is focused on now, but also phrase-level coordination. The high degree of phrase-level coordination is responsible for the high overall frequency of and in academic prose. As for clause-level coordination, it is far more frequent in conversation than in academic prose, which is consistent with one of the principles of online production, namely limited planning time in conversation. In conversation, we have to think and speak at the same time. Naturally, we have little chance to plan or elaborate structure as we proceed. That's why we often 'tag on' clauses as an afterthought. The authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English call it 'the add-on strategy'. Hence, the high frequency of occurrence of the coordinator and with its core meaning of addition, e.g.: / don't want a "nice boy-friend", and I don't want to get married (D. Robins). In asyndetic coordinate polypredicative syntactic units, coordinators are not present, but can readily be inserted. Only those asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units are considered to include coordinate clauses that allow the insertion of a non-correlative (i.e. single-word) coordinator. Cf.: We starved before; we can starve again (W.S. Maugham). We starved before and \ve can starve again. A disappearing domestic at one end a cold-blooded murder at the other (A. Christie). A disappearing domestic at one end and a cold-blooded murder at the other, Clauses linked by accumulation are always asyndetic, and they do not allow the insertion of either a non-correlative coordinator or subordinator. Cf.: Arthur looked at his watch; it was nine o'clock (E.L. Voynich). / was rather hoping you were both planning to go off for the weekend together. - Oh. No. - You're not, are you? - No. Not at all (A. Ayckbourn). The components of coordinate polypredicative syntactic units are usually structurally homogeneous: two or more finite clauses, 'finite clause representatives', or sentencoids. Cf.:
312

Time had been good to her, and it had stood still for him (S. Sheldon). Do women smoke? - Some do and some don't (English Lingaphone Course). He had a lovely smile. Genuine and kind (J. Parsons). The components of 'accumulative' polypredicative syntactic units can be structurally homogeneous (see the above-given examples) and structurally heterogeneous. Cf.: Forgive me, a private joke (J. Garner) - a one-member finite clause + a sentencoid. What did Mrs. Blake say? - Nothing; she laughed (English Course) - a sentencoid + a two-member finite clause. / like Brighton. - So do I. - Nice, isn 't it? - Lovely (K. Burke) - a sentencoid + a two-member 'clause representative'. Coordinate polypredicative syntactic units can be both 'open' and 'closed' [V.A. Beloshapkova]. The number of components in 'open' coordinate polypredicative syntactic units is not limited, and we can always add at least one more. Cf.: The win d ble w, the cl ou ds g ath ere d, the ra in fell (Ch. Dickens). -* The wind blew, the clouds gathered, the rain fell, it grew cooler. 'Closed' coordinate polypredicative syntactic units always consist of two components. The second component is usually introduced by the adversative conjunction but, e.g.: He tried to explain it to Vivien but she was not interested (S. Sheldon). Accumulative polypredicative syntactic units tend to be 'closed' due to the pragmatic heterogeneity of their components and the absence of both actual and potential links signalling the meaning relationship between them. The closed accumulative structure is common to the so-called disjunctive questions, e.g.: Nice getting letters, isn't it? (K. Burke). Accumulative structures comprising repetition are open because one and the same thing can be repeated any number of times. But they usually function as two-part polypredicative syntactic units. Cf.: Get down, get down (S. Hill). He couldn 't have been in it. - He was, he was (S. Hill).
313

Taking into consideration that the components of coordinate polyp redicative syntactic units can stand on their own, some English grammarians deny coordinate poly predicative syntactic units the status of a specific syntactic unit [E. Kruisinga; C.T. Onions]. The opposing view is held by Russian linguists. First of all, they stress the punctuation integrity of coordinate po]y predicative syntactic units: although their components can stand on their own, they do not stand on their own. Punctuation provides a substitute for intonation signals. So, one is tempted to draw a conclusion that the coordinated components form an intonation whole, too, i.e. that only the last component is pronounced with a falling tone implying finality, while the non-final components are pronounced with a rising tone implying non-finality. But experiments have shown that in English non-final coordinated components are often pronounced with a terminal falling tone. At the I3th International Congress of linguists, held in Japan in 1982, it has been stressed that it is not tone, but tempo characteristics that should be regarded as the main formal means of syntactic units organization. At present, there are no data concerning the tempo inside coordinate polypredicative syntactic units. But even a priori one can say that tempo characteristics are highly subjective. In the second place, coordinated clauses form a semantic whole. The semantic integrity of coordinated clauses manifests itself in the grammatical form, namely in a fixed position of the clauses, e.g.: His wife suggested going and he agreed eagerly (A. Christie). If we place the second coordinated clause in the first place, the logical sequence of events will be violated, e.g.: His wife suggested going and he agreed eagerly. *He agreed eagerly and his wife suggested going. According to A.M. Peshkovsky, the position in a coordinate poiypredicative syntactic unit is of no importance as its components are interchangeable. In the opinion of D. Crystal, we may reverse the order of coordinated clauses only when the meaning of the actual or potential coordinator and is that of addition, e.g.: Nobody knows us and we know nobody (A. Christie). We know nobody and nobody knows us.
314

Such cases are less numerous than those when the clauses are irreversible because coordinators express a range of meanings, not only simple addition. The use of parallel constructions also testifies to the coordinated components building up a semantic and structural whole, e.g.: He has nothing, but he looks everything (O. Wilde). As for the correlation of phases in the components of coordinate polypredicative syntactic units, B.A. Ilyish is quite right when he says that there is no general rule of their interdependence, although sometimes it is apparent, e.g.: There had been rain the night before - a spring rain, and the earth smelt of sap and wild grasses (J. Galsworthy). Following Russian linguists, we regard coordinate polypredicative syntactic structures as a specific subtype of polypredicative syntactic units with constellation. Asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units that allow the insertion of both a non-correlative subordinator and a noncorrelative coordinator are regarded as syncretic polypredicative syntactic units. Cf.: The doctor came in late; he did not stop to read the telegram (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). * As the doctor came in late, he did not stop to read the telegram. The doctor came in late and he did not stop to read the telegram. The components of syncretic polypredicative syntactic units are usually finite clauses. In the opinion of N. Pospelov, L. Isho, E. Shiryaev and some other linguists, asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units should be studied in themselves, not as variants of polypredicative syntactic units with coordination or subordination because the reconstruction of the 'missing' clause link is highly subjective. Syncretic cases do exist. But as their number is rather small, we find it possible to classify asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units into four groups: 1) coordinate asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units, 2) subordinate asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units, 3) syncretic asyndetic polypredicative syntactic units, 4) accumulative polypredicative syntactic units. In addition to interdependence, determination, and constellation, we single out two more types of dependency relations 315

between clauses in polypredicative syntactic units: zero dependence and mixed dependence. Polycomponent Syntactic Units Built on Parenthesis Parenthetic clauses are considered to be grammatically independent of the clause into which they are embedded [V.L. Kaushanskaya et al.j. However, since parenthetic clauses always function as part of the clause into which they are embedded, they cannot be said to have no connection at all with it [B.A. Ilyishj. Of course, this connection is much weaker than interdependence, determination, or even constellation, but its existence is a hard fact. We call it zero dependence. By zero dependence we mean the lowest degree of dependence, not the absence of dependence. Among polypredicative syntactic units with zero dependence there prevail informative and modal parenthetic clauses. Cf: / called to the cook (who was within hearing) to look after the poor girl (W. Collins). As far as I noticed, she seemed exactly as usual (A. Christie). Cohesive parenthetic clauses are not many, e.g.: Trade plays an important role in capitalism as we have seen (E. Mansfield). The low frequency of cohesive parenthetic clauses is due to the fact that their function is usually performed by parenthetic words and non-clausal combinations of words, such as first(ly), secondly), on the one hand, on the other hand,-etc,, e.g.: Firstly) he's a cheat, secondly) he's a liar, and thirdfty) he owes me money (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Finally, polypredicative syntactic units are sometimes characterized by interplay of several types of syntactic dependence. We call them mixed polypredicative syntactic units. Cf: We emailed the manager yesterday, but I don't know if-we 'II get any money back (L. and J. Soars) - constellation (coordination) + interdependence. And I can't wait to get the baby's room ready. - Tom if it's a boy and Natalie if it's a girl (L. and J. Soars) - constellation (coordination) + determination. But you see, father (though Mr. Franklin isn 't to blame), he's been mortifying and disappointing for weeks and weeks past; and
316

now this comes on the top of it all! (W. Collins) - constellation (coordination) + zero dependence. But somehow or other, when I come face to face with the women, my practice (I own) is not comfortable (W. Collins) -determination + zero dependence. My lady had discovered that I was getting old before I had discovered it myself, and she had come to my cottage to wheedle me (if I may use such an expression) into giving up my hard out-of-door work as bailiff, and taking my ease for the rest of my days as steward in the house (W. Collins) - interdependence + determination + constellation (coordination) + zero dependence. 21. COMPLICATED SYNTACTIC UNITS Monopredicative syntactic units and sometimes the components of polypredicative syntactic units can be complicated by secondary predication, isolation, and parenthesis. Cf.: She could feel her heart beating wildly (S. Sheldon), - A twomember sentence is complicated by bound secondary predication. Constance was sitting up in bed, the small tea-tray on her knees (A. Bennett). - A two-member sentence is complicated by absolute secondary predication. At three-twenty, a car stopped at the front gate (R. Lardner). -A two-member sentence is complicated by isolation. Last but not least, let me introduce Jane, our new accountant (Longman Essential Activator). - A one-member sentence is complicated by parenthesis and isolation. My lips remained cold and unresponsive, but I felt my eyes brim with tears (D. Robins). - The second component of a coordinate polypredicative syntactic unit is complicated by bound secondary predication. 22. COMMUNICATIVE SYNTAX So far, we have examined the construction of sentences in terms of the way in which units (such as subject, predicate, object, adverbial) are brought together to form grammatical sequences, and we have treated the order of such units in terms of positional norms. 317

We shall now look upon the construction of a sentence from the viewpoint of constructing a message. Historical Background The communicative analysis of a sentence goes back to the theory of young-grammarian psychologism of the German linguistics of the second half of the 19th century. Its representatives noticed an important detail: the absence of direct correspondence between sentence members and the components of the psychological proposition. According to H. Paul, for instance, any sentence member can function as psychological subject and psychological predicate. Proceeding from psychological grounds, however, they drew the conclusion that the psychological division of the sentence wholly depends on the will of the speaker. F.F. Fortunatov went so far in overestimating the role of the speaker's will as to state the addressee's inability to decode the speaker's intention. If it were so, the process of communication would be impossible. In fact, the interlocutor does understand the speaker since there are a lot of devices in the language using which the speaker makes his aim more or less clear to the addressee. The Conception of V. Mathesius It is V. Mathesius, a representative of the Prague linguistic school, who has put the problem on a linguistic basis. Having singled out in the communicative structure of the sentence two components: the communicative basis (that which is known or at least obvious in the given situation) and the communicative nucleus (that which conveys a new piece of information), V. Mathesius, at the same time, dwells on such linguistic means of their expression as word order and intonation. The communicative basis (CB), as a rule, occupies the initial position; the communicative nucleus (CN) comes after it, e.g.: The shop was very quiet (J. Joyce). CB CN
318

V. Mathesius calls it objective word order because it fully corresponds to the norms of logical thinking: from the known to the unknown. The inverse word order 'communicative nucleus -communicative basis' is called by him subjective word order. Being immensely interested in the communicative nucleus of the sentence, the speaker violates the logical sequence 'communicative basis -communicative nucleus' and puts the communicative nucleus in the emphatic first place, e.g.: Happy at Moor House I was... (Ch. Bronte"). CN Word order plays an important role in the domain of written language. Spoken language avails itself of a specific means for differentiating the communicative basis and the communicative nucleus, namely the logical stress. As a rule, the logical stress marks off the communicative nucleus. I.C. Ward writes apropos of this, 'Where it is desired to emphasize one idea above others in a sentence, the word expressing that idea receives an extra amount of stress', e.g.: Dear me, you are smart! -lam always smartl (O. Wilde). But the conception of V. Mathesius is not devoid of weak points either. The main drawback lies in the fact that V. Mathesius opposes communicative and structural sentence analyses and willynilly does away with the problem of their interrelation. This drawback is overcome by Russian linguists. They side with V. Mathesius in distinguishing structural and communicative analyses of the sentence because the first studies the structure of the sentence; and the second examines this structure with regard to the actual situation. But they think that despite being essentially different, the communicative and the structural aspects of the sentence are interdependent. Thus, K.G. Krushelnitskaya writes that there are no specific elements in the sentence, distinct from the so-called parts of the sentence, which render its communicative task. Czech linguists nowadays do not disjoin the two structures either. The binary principle of communicative sentence analysis, put forth by V. Mathesius, is followed by many linguists, though they 319

are still at variance as to the terms. We find the terms 'theme -rheme', introduced by the German scholar K. Boost and widely used by Czech linguists now, to be most appropriate because they possess terminological accuracy. Both terms are derived from Greek and are parallel to each other. The term 'theme' comes from the Greek root the- and means that which is set or established. The term 'rheme' is derived from the Greek root rhe- and means that which is said or told about that which was set or established before. These terms are also convenient because adjectives and verbs are easily derived from them; thematic, thematize; rhematic, rhematize.

The Conception ofj. Firbas

J. Firbas, however, is of opinion that the theme and the rheme are not the only components of the communicative structure of the sentence. Having drawn our attention to the fact that linguistic communication is not a static but a dynamic phenomenon, J. Firbas attempts to develop the concept of communicative dynamism. By communicative dynamism he understands the extent to which the sentence element contributes to the development of the communication, to which it 'pushes' the communication forward, so to speak. All linguistic elements, as long as they convey some meaning, carry communicative dynamism. Those sentence elements that carry the lowest degree of communicative dynamism constitute the theme. Those sentence elements that carry the highest degree of communicative dynamism constitute the rheme. In addition to the theme and the rheme, there are transitional elements, which possess a higher degree of communicative dynamism than the theme but a lower degree of communicative dynamism than the rheme. J. Firbas rejects the binary approach to communicative sentence analysis and introduces a three-element principle 'theme (T) - transition (Tr) -rheme (R)', e.g.: The air was light (Th. Dreiser). T Tr R But even J. Firbas cannot help seeing that between the comparatively least important elements, i.e. the theme proper, and the comparatively most important elements, i.e. the rheme proper,
320

there is a long gamut of varying degrees of communicative dynamism which sometimes makes it extremely difficult to draw a distinction between the transition and the theme, on the one hand, and transition and the rheme, on the other. Difficult in transcribed texts, analyzed by J. Firbas, the isolation of the transition in written texts is generally simply impossible, hi view if this, it seems more logical to represent the communicative structure of the sentence as a binary formation including a theme and a rheme. Most sentences are communicatively two-member. Communicatively one-member sentences are few. Since the process of communication presupposes an exchange of new information, communicatively one-member sentences are always rhematic. They usually occur at the beginning of the narration, where nothing can be already familiar as nothing has preceded it, e.g.: A mountain brook ran through a little village (F.R. Stockton). In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit (J. Tolkien). Once upon a time there was a river which was made of words (D. Bisset). As opposed to sentences, most sentencoids, namely sentencoids with implicit predication, are communicatively onemember, e.g.: Where did you ever find that? - In Florence (D. Steel). Sentencoids with dependent explicit predication are communicatively two-member, e.g.: Why can't I go? - Because you're too young (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Sentencoids with a fusion of explicit and implicit predication can be communicatively two-member and one-member. If they comprise both the nominal and the verbal components of predication, we refer them to communicatively two-member sentencoids, e.g.: Your brother Ernest deatf? - Quite dead (O. Wilde). If they comprise only one component, we qualify them as communicatively one-member sentencoids, e.g.: Who likes eggs? - George (R. Murphy).

321

Language Means of Realizing the Communicative Task of the Sentence

Word Order The problem of word order has already been discussed. Articles. Intensifying Words The indefinite article, by its very semantics, is predisposed to function in the rheme, the definite - in the theme, e.g.: It was a little bird. And the bird was whistling overhead (D.H. Lawrence). However, the criterion of articles is no more universal than the criterion of word order. In the first place, the indefinite article is not always rhematic and the definite article is not always thematic. Cf: A barking dog does not bite (Proverb), where the indefinite article occurs in the theme; or: No - the men are odious, but the women the women (W.M. Thackeray), where the definite article occurs both in the theme and in the rheme. In the second place, articles help us define the communicative value of only one part of speech - the noun. In the third place, there are languages (for example, Russian) that have no articles., but that do realize the communicative task. An intensifying word is a sure sign of the rheme, e.g.: Truly, truly, John, you 're quite right (J. McKimmey). I do understand (I). Steel). The occurrence of intensifying words, however, is optional, not obligatory. Special Constructions
To rhematize the subject grammatically fixed in the thematic initial position, English resorts to three constructions. 1. Construction with the introductory 'there', e.g.: There was a blackboard in the classroom (V. Evans). By putting the formal subject there before the predicate, one generates a grammatical sentence. By introducing a notional subject
322

and removing it closer to the rhematic final position, one gets an opportunity to increase the communicative value of the subject without violating grammar rules. 2. Construction with the introductory it. It serves to emphasize the communicative value of most sentence members, including the subject. But it occurs inside polypredicative sentences. Cf.: It was he who brought her into trouble (J. Galsworthy). 3. Passive construction, e.g.: The door was opened by a Chinese girl... (W.S. Maugham). The final position of the fey-object in the passive construction is certainly more emphatic than the initial position of the subject in the active construction. Cf: A Chinese girl opened the door. Thematization of the subject is, strictly speaking, redundant in English because, as has already been mentioned5 English, due to grammatically fixed word order, has a tendency to put the subject in the thematic initial position. But whenever special emphasis on the thematic subject is necessary, one can resort to the following constructions. I- >M n and J, we go to that school since we are seven (I. Murdoch). As for the students, they won't be invited (S.C. Dik). 2. Next morning, Christmas Day, came fine and clear (A. Cronin). In the first case, emphasis on the subject is achieved through its repetition in the form of a pronoun. N.A. Slusareva refers such sentences to constructions with a double theme. They are typical of colloquial English. The introduction of an appositive in the second case does not only repeat the preceding subject but also imparts a rhematic shade of meaning. The possibility of the transformation into an independent sentence with the appositive Christmas Day functioning as a predicative proves it quite unequivocally: Next morning was Christmas Day. That's why N.A. Slusareva suggests that, as opposed to 'double theme' in the first case, it should be called 'complicated theme'. Complicated themes constitute a characteristic feature of written English.
323

Since all the above-mentioned language means of theme-rheme differentiation are optional, L.S. Barkhudarov draws the conclusion that the theme-rheme organization of the sentence should be studied in linguistic stylistics, not in grammar. Nuclear Stress. Context The latter is debatable, for it is proved experimentally that theme-rheme differentiation has at least one constant means of its expression - the so-called logical stress. Since the epithet 'logical' conjures up undesirable associations with the erroneous logical interpretation of the sentence and bearing in mind that the so-called logical stress marks off the rheme (or the communicative nucleus), we prefer the term 'nuclear stress', found in the papers of G. Leech, J. Svartvik and some other linguists, because, in our view, it better reveals the linguistic and, first of all, the communicative essence of the phenomenon under examination. One might object saying that the criterion of nuclear stress is not binding either, for nuclear stress is to be found only in oral speech, and linguists generally deal with written texts. On the face of it, it is really so. But if one goes deeper into it, he will see that nuclear stress is present in written texts as well, only implicitly, not explicitly. The reconstruction of the nuclear stress in written texts is achieved with the help of the context and different graphic means -commas, dashes, italics, etc. Linguists usually mention the thematizing role of the context. Really, the repetition of a notion decreases its communicative value, shifting it into the sphere of thematic elements, e.g.: One night there flew over the city a little Swallow. His friends had gone away to Egypt six weeks before but he had stayed behind, for he was in love with the most beautiful Reed He had met her early in the spring as he was flying down the river after a big yellow moth, and had been so attracted by her slender waist that he had stopped to talk to her (O. Wilde). In this passage, the notion of swallow, introduced in the first sentence, in the course of the narration forms a starting point for 5 utterances. In the opinion of G.A. Zolotova, however, the context also helps determine the rheme. Thus, in texts describing a person or
324

scene, there prevail qualitative characteristics, hence, the rheme is usually constituted by words possessing the generalized meaning of property, i.e. adjectives, adverbs, and adjectival nouns, e.g.: She was a tallish woman, taller than Kitty, neither stout nor thin, with a good deal of pale brown hair; she could never have been pretty with anything but the prettiness of youth: her features were good enough without being remarkable and her blue eyes were cold. She had a skin that you would never look at twice and no colour in her cheeks. And she dressed like - well, like what she was, the wife of the Assistant Colonial Secretary at Hong Kong. Of course, no one could deny that Dorothy Townsend had a pleasant voice. She was a wonderful mother, Charlie always said that of her, and she was what Kitty's mother called a gentlewoman (W.S. Maugham). In texts describing the actions of a person, there prevail action characteristics; hence, the rheme is usually constituted by words possessing the generalized meaning of action, i.e. verbs, e.g.: The nurse opened the door and motioned with her finger for me to come. I followed her into the room. Catherine did not look up when I came in. I went over to the side of the bed. The doctor was standing by the bed on the opposite side. Catherine looked at me and smiled. I bent down over the bed and started to cry (E. Hemingway). Factors Influencing the Communicative Value of Declarative Sentence Components There is no one-to-one correspondence between the structural and the communicative components of the sentence. All parts of the sentence can function both as the theme and as the rheme. At the same time, there is no gainsaying the fact that there exist certain correlations between communicative and syntactic functions. In the first place, the communicative value of a sentence pan depends on the volume of the sentence. Thus, in the two-element structure S - V the communicatively transitional predicate (and even the operator in 'sentence representatives') usually functions as the rheme. Cf.:

325

Mary! Can't you forget? - No, dear. But I forgive (E. O'Neill). Cancel it. -1 won'/ (D. Steel). The lexical peculiarities of the predicate-verb play an important role, too. For example, verbs expressing strong feelings and emotions are apt to Sanction as the rheme, e.g.: I hate my own hometown (J. Braine). I enjoyed my soup (A. Christie). Besides, one should not disregard the part-of-speech nature of the sentence components. Verbs, adjectives and adverbs, which indicate properties, are predisposed to function as the rheme; nouns and pronouns, which either name or point to things and properties, are predisposed to function as the theme. What is more, one should bear in mind the functional peculiarities of different language varieties. In conversation, with its interest in all the circumstances under which the discussed events have taken place, it is the adverbial that constitutes the rheme in the vast majority of cases, e.g.: I'm going beautifully (E. Hemingway). I came from New York, Mama (W. Saroyan). As for academic prose and newspaper texts, aimed at reporting discoveries and news, they quite naturally show a prevalence of objects in the function of the rheme. Cf: In Chapter YI we discussed nouns and their qualifiers (J.H. Grattan). The Italian Prime minister ... appealed for unity and calm among his coalition partners after a slump of the lira on world markets (The Guardian). A relatively high proportion of rhematic adverbials in newspaper texts is easy to explain, too: the genre of news is designed not only to inform the reader of what has happened but also to place the reported event in time and place, e.g.: She had left an office party at a nightclub in Cardiff at around midnight on Friday (The Guardian).

Communicative Analysis of Imperative and Interrogative Sentences

The communicative analysis of imperative sentences, which give commands and express requests, differs from the communicative analysis of declarative sentences, which make statements, only in one respect: the predicate-verb in imperative sentences much more often functions as the rheme. Cf.: Listen*. (A. Maltz). Listen to me, Sophie (L. Hellman). You listen to this (Ch. Dickens). For God's sake, forget thepast\ (E. O'Neill), etc. But other parts of the sentence are registered in the function of the rheme, too. Cf.: Go out. Wait in the car (T. Williams) - adverbial. Tell me the truth (V. Woolf) - object. Will I call your father and Mister Jamie, or will you? - You do it (E. O'Neill) - subject. Interrogative sentences are functionally and structurally heterogeneous. The so-called general (or yes/no) questions are asked in order to find out whether the relation between the predicate and the subject is true or false, e.g.: Are you a doctor1? - Yes (J. Aldridge). Is lunch ready yefl ~ Of course not\ (Meet the Parkers). According to V. Mathesius, the rheme in ^es/Mo-questions is constituted by the initial predicate-verb. V.E. Shevyakova does not share this point of view on the ground that the initial predicate-verb m English _yes/o-questions is semanticaliy weak and simply cannot form the rheme of the sentence. What is more, there are a lot of noninverted yeVno-questions of the type: The door was closed*? - Yes (E.S. Gardner), where nothing but the nuclear stress helps us identify the rheme. In general, the nuclear stress can fall on any part of \heyes/noquestion. Cf.: Do you smoke! -1 don't (M. Spark) - predicate. Did you get everything? - Yes (J. Cheever) - object. Where's the stuff? Did you leave it in the car! (T. Williams) -adverbial.

326

327

As is evident from the obtained data, the communicative structure of yes/no-questions has much in common with the communicative structure of declarative sentences. It is hardly surprising: y&s/no-questions are statements whose authenticity is called in question by the speaker. The so-called special (or w/i-questions) are resorted to by the speaker in order to get some information from the addressee, e.g.: When did you arrive1? - Last nisht (A. Christie). Since it is w/i-elements that signal the speaker's desire for information, V. Mathesius qualifies them as rhematic. But rhematic elements always bear a nuclear stress. As for Wi-elements, they are seldom intonationally marked. Does it mean, then, that w/z-elements should be excluded from rhematic elements? Evidently not. The thing is that, as opposed to declarative sentences, which serve primarily to make statements, wA-questions perform at least two communicative functions. On the one hand, they determine the sphere of the unknown (the rheme); on the other hand, they indicate the starting point for the addressee's answer. The rheme is morphologically marked: it is a w/2-eIement. Nuclear stress would certainly impart additional emphasis to the rheme, but even without it, the addressee generally finds no difficulty in understanding what the speaker is interested in. The choice of a starting point for an answer turns out much more difficult, especially if the interrogative sentence is rather long. To help the addressee, the speaker identifies the desired starting point by giving it a nuclear stress. As a rule, it is an adverbial or an object, e.g.: Why are you having a wash now! (Meet the Parkers). How much money have Igotl (F.S. Fitzgerald).
Principles of Monopredicative Syntactic Units Organization

predicate groups sent for me, will, and is dead are the rhemes of the syntactic units given in bold italics. All the other sentencoids defy the structural analysis into subject and predicate, for the notions of subject and predicate are correlative notions. But two-component sentencoids with a fusion of explicit and implicit predication are communicatively discrete: one component says something about the second component, e.g.: All of us in lovel (I. Murdoch). Everything all right1? (D. Francis). Bands up (Ph. Incledon). The use of the theme-rheme or the rheme-theme sequence depends on the emotive charge of the utterance. Purely informative utterances and questions seeking information are generally built on the theme-rheme principle, e.g.: I will go to the States (E. Hemingway). Father gone (T. W. Robertson). Will they pay its'? (St. Minot). You ever see her before1? - No (1. Shaw). Among evaluative utterances rendering the subjective attitude of the speaker, there is naturally a high proportion of the rhemetheme sequence, e.g.: What a perfect angel you are, Cecily (O. Wilde). A gentleman, that dog (J. Galsworthy). Very dark in here these days (W. Deeping).

There are two principles of monopredicative syntactic units organization: the subject-predicate principle and the theme-rheme principle. In two-member sentences, 'sentence representatives' and sentencoids having explicit but dependent predication, the two principles go hand in hand. Cf.: Her mother sent for me (Sh. Anderson); Please ... come home. -1 will (D. Steel); Why don't I live with you1? Because mamma's dead? (F.S. Fitzgerald), where the subject groups her mother, I, and mamma are the themes and the 328

M.A.K. Halliday regards the theme-rheme integration as a universal phenomenon. The theory of communicative sentence / 'sentence representative' / sentencoid analysis is of great practical importance. It is indispensable in teaching: 1)the optimum way of developing thought, 2)elocution, 3) translation aimed at elucidating and rendering the communicative task of the original text by means of another language.

329

23. SEMANTIC SYNTAX

Language is a system that mediates between the universe of meaning and the universe of sound. Language involves the following process. A configuration of concepts arises within the nervous system of a human being, who converts these concepts into sound. The sound travels to the listeners, and is normally reconverted within their nervous systems into some facsimile of the original concepts. In other words, the conversion of meanings into sounds allows human beings to transfer ideas from one to another. The smallest unit of communication is an utterance that represents speech realization of a sentence. The sentence has two structures: a conceptual structure and a surface structure. The formal components of the surface structure are accessible to observation in relatively straightforward ways and from a variety of perspectives. Concepts, on the other hand, are located deep within the human nervous system. Presumably they have some physical, electrochemical reality there. But we can make no conceptual spectrograms, X-rays, or tape recordings to peruse at our leisure. No wonder that until the 60-s of the 20 th century linguists have concentrated their attention on a study of the surface structure of the sentence, leaving semantics to a very large extent to philosophers. In consequence, we still know rather little about the nature of language, for semantic structure constitutes the crucial component of language. Without knowledge of semantic structure, we are ignorant of the processes which produce well-formed utterances, for these are the processes of semantic formation. The satisfactory observation of meanings is certainly difficult but by no means impossible. The widespread despair that has existed over conceptual data has stemmed in large part from a pervasive scepticism as to the validity of introspection as a method of scientific observation. If concepts have their locus within our minds, that is the place to look for them, but to do so was anathema in the recent past. Observations arrived at through introspection have been characterized as worthless or impossible. The implication is that each person will find something different, that the minds of different speakers do not hold significant things in common. If concepts were idiosyncratic, language would not be able to function. This is not to say that people think in identical ways. It is
330

to say that speakers of a particular language - and probably all people - hold a large store of concepts in common. The sounds that travel from the speaker do not normally engender new conceptual units in the mind of his hearer. They activate concepts already there, concepts that both the speaker and his hearer have in common. They may and often do introduce novel configurations of these familiar concepts. But it is normally only the configurations that are new, not the concepts that make them up. Thus, if I tell you My house has seventeen doors, this may be something you did not know before, but it is only the message as a whole that is new. The constituent concepts, such as are reflected in surface structure items like house, doors, and seventeen are concepts that you and I have shared for as long as we have been able to speak English. Semantics has come to the fore in the 60-s of the 20th century. The most popular is the referential conception of sentence meaning (pe^epenmHOH Kony,erfyun SHa^enufi npedno^ceuuH}. The adherents of this conception hold that the referent of the sentence is the situation. Linguists use different terms for the semantic units identifying the participants of the situation: semantic actants, arguments, roles, etc. The combination of arguments with the predicator constitutes a semantic model of the situation. In the surface structure of a sentence, arguments usually find their expression in noun phrases, predicators - in verbs.
The Conception ofW.L. Chafe

One of the founders of semantic syntax is the American linguist W. L. Chafe. The human conceptual universe, according to W. L. Chafe, can be divided into two areas: the area of the verb and the area of the noun. (By verbs and nouns he understands semantic verbs and nouns, not elements of the surface structure.). The area of the verb embraces states and events. The area of the noun embraces 'things' (both physical objects and abstractions). Of these two the verb is regarded by him to be central. First of all, in every language a verb is present semantically in all but a few marginal utterances, though it may, in some instances, be deleted before a surface structure is reached. While it is accompanied typically by one or more nouns, there exist sentences in which only a verb is present, e.g.:
331

23. SEMANTIC SYNTAX

Language is a system that mediates between the universe of meaning and the universe of sound. Language involves the following process. A configuration of concepts arises within the nervous system of a human being, who converts these concepts into sound. The sound travels to the listeners, and is normally reconverted within their nervous systems into some facsimile of the original concepts, hi other words, the conversion of meanings into sounds allows human beings to transfer ideas from one to another. The smallest unit of communication is an utterance that represents speech realization of a sentence. The sentence has two structures: a conceptual structure and a surface structure. The formal components of the surface structure are accessible to observation in relatively straightforward ways and from a variety of perspectives. Concepts, on the other hand, are located deep within the human nervous system. Presumably they have some physical, electrochemical reality there. But we can make no conceptual spectrograms, X-rays, or tape recordings to peruse at our leisure. No wonder that until the 60-s of the 20 th century linguists have concentrated their attention on a study of the surface structure of the sentence, leaving semantics to a very large extent to philosophers. In consequence, we still know rather little about the nature of language, for semantic structure constitutes the crucial component of language. Without knowledge of semantic structure, we are ignorant of the processes which produce well-formed utterances, for these are the processes of semantic formation. The satisfactory observation of meanings is certainly difficult, but by no means impossible. The widespread despair that has existed over conceptual data has stemmed in large part from a pervasive scepticism as to the validity of introspection as a method of scientific observation. If concepts have their locus within our minds, that is the place to look for them, but to do so was anathema in the recent past. Observations arrived at through introspection have been characterized as worthless or impossible. The implication is that each person will find something different, that the minds of different speakers do not hold significant things in common. If concepts were idiosyncratic, language would not be able to function. This is not to say that people think in identical ways. It is 330

to say that speakers of a particular language - and probably all people - hold a large store of concepts in common. The sounds that travel from the speaker do not normally engender new conceptual units in the mind of his hearer. They activate concepts already there, concepts that both the speaker and his hearer have in common. They may and often do introduce novel configurations of these familiar concepts. But it is normally only the configurations that are new, not the concepts that make them up. Thus, if I tell you My house has seventeen doors, this may be something you did not know before, but it is only the message as a whole that is new. The constituent concepts, such as are reflected in surface structure items like house, doors, and seventeen are concepts that you and I have shared for as long as we have been able to speak English. Semantics has come to the fore in the 60-s of the 20th century. The most popular is the referential conception of sentence meaning (pe(pepeH m H Q x K O H ifenijiiH SH O M em ifi npednoatceH usi). The adherents of this conception hold that the referent of the sentence is the situation. Linguists use different terms for the semantic units identifying the participants of the situation: semantic actants, arguments, roles, etc. The combination of arguments with the predicator constitutes a semantic model of the situation. In the surface structure of a sentence, arguments usually find their expression in noun phrases, predicators - in verbs.
The Conception ofW.L. Chafe

One of the founders of semantic syntax is the American linguist W. L. Chafe. The human conceptual universe, according to W. L. Chafe, can be divided into two areas: the area of the verb and the area of the noun. (By verbs and nouns he understands semantic verbs and nouns, not elements of the surface structure.). The area of the verb embraces states and events. The area of the noun embraces 'things' (both physical objects and abstractions). Of these two the verb is regarded by him to be central. First of all, in every language a verb is present semantically in all but a few marginal utterances, though it may, in some instances, be deleted before a surface structure is reached. While it is accompanied typically by one or more nouns, there exist sentences in which only a verb is present, e.g.: 331

Come on (P. Viney). Utterances which semantically have no verb, like Oh or Ouch, W.L. Chafe regards as relics of the prehuman kind of communication, in which the direct symbolization of unitary (edunuvutiiu) messages was the rule, e.g.: aggressive threat - bark, non-aggression - lip-smacking, etc. hi the second place, the verb is the control centre of a sentence, determining what the rest of the sentence will contain -not completely, of course, but to a significant degree. The generation of a semantic structure, writes W.L. Chafe, proceeds in the following way. At the outset, the verb is characterized as state, process, action, action-process, or ambient.
.States

As a process, it involves a change in the condition of its patient (What happened to the wood? - The wood became dry.}. As an action, it expresses what the agent did (What did Michael do? -Michael dried the wood.). Ambient It '$ late (W.L. Chafe). It's Tuesday (W.L. Chafe). The meaning of sentences like these seems to involve nothing but a predication, in which there is no 'thing' of which the predication is made. It in these sentences is a surface element only; it does not reflect anything at all in the semantic structure. The verbs in these sentences denote all-encompassing states that cover the total environment, not some object within it. W.L. Chafe specifies such verbs as ambient. Ambient verbs can express not only all-encompassing states but also all-encompassing actions, e.g.: It's raining (W.L. Chafe). It's snowing (W.L. Chafe). Nouns are specified by W.L. Chafe as count, potent, animate, human, and unique. WT.L. Chafe draws a distinction between count (or countable) nouns and mass nouns. It is only count nouns that can be counted, although some count nouns, namely proper names, cannot be counted. W.L. Chafe specifies as potent those nouns that have the power to do something. Most potent nouns are animate. But there are some inanimate nouns that have a force of their own, e.g.: The heat melted the butter (W.L. Chafe). The wind opened the door (W.L. Chafe). So, the concept 'potent' is broader than the concept 'animate'. Animate nouns are further specified as human and non-human. The concept 'human', for the most part, has to do with human beings as opposed to other animate creatures. The presence of this semantic unit has various surface structure manifestations. For example, a noun that contains it may be represented in surface structure by pronouns like he, she, or who while a non-human noun is represented by it or -which under the circumstances.

h 's hoi (W.L. Chafe).

The wood is dry (W.L. Chafe). The verb indicates a state (dry). It is accompanied by the noun wood that is its patient. The patient specifies what it is that is in the state of being dry. Non-states are distinguished from states by the fact that they answer the questions What happened? What is happening? A nonstate is a happening, an event. Non-states fall into processes, actions, and action-processes. ~fhe wood dried (W.L. Chafe). The noun wood has changed its state (it has become dry). W.L. Chafe -specifies the verb in such sentences as a process, the noun - as its patient. A process sentence answers the question What happened to N?, where N is some noun. Actions. The men laughed (W.L. Chafe). The verb laughed expresses an action. An action sentence answers the question What did N do? The noun in an action sentence indicates somebody who performs the action. Such a noun can be said to be the agent of the verb. Actign-Prgcess.es The verb in some sentences is, simultaneously, both a process and an action, e.g.: Michael dried the wood (W.L. Chafe).

P r_ o c e _ s _ s _ e _ s_

332

333

A human noun is given gender, that is its sex is specified. In Modern English the sex is seldom specified. Not knowing the sex of a human noun, W.L. Chafe treats it conceptually as male. Unique (or proper) names involve only a single individual, a class of one member. For that reason, although they are count nouns, they are not amenable to counting, since counting depends on the existence of more than one individual in the class. Of course, there may be many individuals named Michael, but each of these individuals is a separate concept. The selectional units of state, process, action, action-process, and ambient within the verb determine the rest of the structure in two ways. First, they limit the choice of a verb root. Thus, process and action permit the choice of awaken (6ydumb, pasdydumb}, but not of dead (Mepmebiti). Second, they determine the number and relation of accompanying nouns: process, for example, requires the accompaniment of a patient noun, and action requires the accompaniment of an agent noun. Selectional units within the verb also determine the selectional units within the accompanying nouns. It means that the verb, through its selectiona! units, limits the choice not only of its own root but also the choice of accompanying noun roots. For example, the agent noun is constrained by the verbs awaken and frighten to be potent, although the choice of human or non-human is free. Cf,: Hie explosion awakened Michael (W.L. Chafe) - potent, nonhuman, I frightened the elephant (W.L. Chafe) - potent, human. The patient noun, because of the verbs awaken and frighten, must be animate and therefore both count and potent, although the choice of human or non-human, and unique or non-unique, is again free. Cf.: The explosion awakened Michael (W.L. Chafe) - animate, count, potent, human, unique. / frightened the elephant (WL. Chafe) - animate, count, potent, non-human, non-unique. In addition to agent and patient, W.L. Chafe singles out five more relations of Noun to Verb.
Tom wanted a drink (W.L. Chafe).
334

Although Tom looks as if it were an agent from the point of view of surface structure (cf.: Tom cut the paper), it is not an agent. Tom is not someone who did something. Rather, he is a person who was mentally disposed in some way. The verb wanted is an experiential verb, and the noun Tom is an experiencer. Experiential verbs can be states, processes, and actions. Cf: Tom knew the answer (W.L. Chafe). Tom learned the answer (W.L. Chafe). Harry taught Tom the answer (W.L. Chafe). Beneficiary; Tom has/owns a convertible (W.L. Chafe). Tom is the one who benefits from having a car. The verbs have and own are benefactive verbs. They are accompanied by the beneficiary Tom. Benefactive verbs can be states, processes, actionprocesses, and actions. Cf: Tom has the tickets (W.L. Chafe). Tom lost the tickets (W.L. Chafe). Mary gave Tom the tickets (W.L. Chafe). Mary sang for Tom (W.L. Chafe). A beneficiary noun will appear in surface structure as a subject so long as no agent is present. When an agent is present, a beneficiary will show up either as a noun directly following the surface structure verb or as a sentence-final noun preceded by the preposition for. Which position it occupies depends largely on whether or not it conveys new information in the sentence. Instrument. Another relation that a noun may bear to a verb appears to be that of instrument, e.g.: Tom cut the rope with a knife (W.L. Chafe). Knife resembles an agent since it has something to do with bringing about the change of condition that the sentence conveys. Nevertheless, Tom is the real agent here; he is the one who did something. Knife is the instrument that he used in order to change the condition of the rope. The relation 'instrument' differs noticeably from the relations 'experiencer' and 'beneficiary' because it is not associated with a particular selectional unit within the verb. There is nothing parallel to 'benefactive' or 'experiential' that requires the verb to have an accompanying instrument. What is necessary is that the verb be specified as an action-process. An

335

action-process verb optionally may be accompanied by a noun that is related to it as instrument. Cf.: Tom opened the door (with a key) (W.L. Chafe). An instrument noun appears in surface structure as a sentence-final noun preceded by the preposition -with (see the above-given example) or as a subject, e.g.: The key opened the door (W.L. Chafe). Complement: Mary sang a song (W.L Chafe) The children played a game (W.L. Chafe). Here the verb describes a certain action that, by its very nature, implies the co-existence of a certain nominal concept. Singing, for example, implies a song; playing implies a game. It is typical of cases of this sort that the verb involves an action that causes something to come into being - that creates something. W.L. Chafe calls such verbs completable. The noun that specifies a computable verb is termed by him 'complement'. The relation of complement, in his opinion, is quite distinct from that of patient, although the surface representations of the two are identical in most languages. A complement noun does not specify something that is in a state or that changes its state. It completes or specifies more narrowly the meaning of the verb. The noun root that may occur within a particular complement noun is severely limited by the verb root. In fact, a completable verb root may dictate the presence of one and only one particular noun root in its complement - as sing dictates song and play dictates game. A completable verb either may or must be accompanied by a complement noun. A complement noun is obligatory for all completable states. We can say The book weighs a pound but not *The book-weighs... Then, it appears to be obligatory for actions of the 'make' variety; we can say He made a table but not *ffe made... For other actions, however, it is optional. Thus, He sang a song and He sang are equally possible. Location: The knife is in the box (W.L. Chafe). The cat is on the roof(W.~L. Chafe). The key is under the rug (W.L. Chafe).

Such sentences contain state verbs that are further specified as locative. A locative verb is accompanied by a noun that bears to it the relation of location. In addition to locative states, there are locative processes, locative actions, and locative action-processes. Cf.: The ship sank into the sea (W.L. Chafe). Tom crawled under the table (W.L. Chafe). Tom threw the knife into the box (W.L. Chafe). Only state verbs require the accompaniment of a location noun. Non-stative verbs may also occur unaccompanied by a location noun, e.g.: Tom fell off the chair (W.L. Chafe). Tom fell (W.L. Chafe). To sum up. It is the nature of the verb that determines the presence and relation of nouns. The most significant noun-verb relations, according to W.L. Chafe, are seven in number. They include patient, agent, experiencer, beneficiary, instrument, complement, and location. The relations of patient and agent have a fundamental character: every sentence contains a patient or agent noun, if not both, unless the verb is in the ambient category. Six of these relations - all but instrument - are determined by the presence within the verb of a certain selectional unit. A state or process verb dictates the presence of a patient noun. An action verb dictates an agent noun. An experiential verb calls for an experiencer, a benefactive verb - for a beneficiary, a completable verb - for a complement, and a locative verb for a location. These various selectional units within the verb can co-occur, so that several different types of nouns may be attached to a verb at the same time. Selectional units have two distinct functions. One is to dictate the presence of a noun related to the verb in a certain way. The other is to limit the choice of a lexical unit within the verb. Thus, a verb that has been specified selectionally as experiential is not only accompanied by an experiencer noun but is also limited to certain verb roots, such as want, know, see, and so on. Brief Outline of Other Approaches to Semantic Syntax V.V. Bogdanov calls the semantic model of a sentence a predicate structure (npeduKamnoe eupaotcemie). A predicate structure, in his opinion, includes one predicate sign (odun
337

336

npeduKamnbiu SHOK) and a zero, one or more non-predicate signs (it nyjib, odun luiu necKOJibKO uenpeduKamubix SHaxoe). Predicate signs express properties, actions, or relations. They generally function as predicators (npeduKambi). The central seme of non-predicate signs is 'thingness' ('eeufHocmb'). Non-predicate signs function as arguments. Just like W.L. Chafe, V.V. Bogdanov assumes the predicator to be central in the predicate-argument structure. Taking into consideration the number of arguments, V.V. Bogdanov draws a distinction between predicate structures with a zero, one, and more than one argument. Zero-argument predicators (nyjibMecmnbie npeduKamu) describe the state of the atmosphere. They are characteristic of inflected languages, e.g.: Ceemaem (PyccKas rpaMMaTHKa). One-argument predicators (odnoMecmnbie npeduKamu) express actions, states, and properties. Cf.: They are reading (V. Evans). He is happy (V. Evans) He is clever (V. Evans). Multi-argument predicators (MnozoMecmnbie npeditKamu) express relations, e.g.: / love my mother (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Arguments, according to V.V. Bogdanov, can be expressed not only by non-predicate signs but also by predicate signs. The predicate sign in the function of an argument is called by him an embedded predieator (efuuovenHbiu npeduKam). In-the--surface structure of a sentence, embedded predicators find their expression in verbal and adjectival nouns, infinitives, and gerunds. It is usually aspective, modal, and causative predicators that take embedded predicators. Aspective predicators indicate the phase of an action: its beginning, continuation, or end. Cf.: She began to read (J. Parsons). He continued to live with his parents after his marriage (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). We stopped talking (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). Modal predicators show the attitude of the speaker to the action, e.g.: You ought to have done that earlier (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson).
338

Causative predicators cause something to happen, e.g.: They made me repeat the story (A.S. Hornby, A.P. Cowie, A.C. Gimson). N.Y. Shvedova studies sentence meaning exclusively on language material, without resort to the structure of the extra linguistic situation. E.V. Paducheva declares that the meaning of a sentence is the sum total of the meanings of its constituent lexemes, the grammatical meanings of the word forms, and the meaning of the syntactic construction. Semantic syntax is in the process of development. That's why it has a lot of debatable points. The brief outline I gave you of semantic syntax is by no means exhaustive. But I hope you have a rough idea now what it deals with. 24. PRAGMATICS Pragmatics focuses its attention on the functional side of language. Much of what is now referred to pragmatics was studied by the Greeks and Romans in Rhetoric. The term 'pragmatics' was introduced by Ch. Morris in the 20-s of the 20 century. A close study of semiotics has led Ch. Morris to the conclusion that it admits of a tripartite division into syntactics (syntax), semantics, and pragmatics. Syntax, in his opinion, studies the ways in which signs are combined. Semantics concerns the relationship between signs and their designata. The designatum of an expression, according to R. Carnap, is what he, who uses it, intends to refer to by it, for example, to an object or a property or a state of affairs. Pragmatics deals with the origin, uses, and effects of signs. So, the evolution of linguistics can be presented in the following way: from syntax through semantics to pragmatics. Until recently, pragmatics has been the neglected member of the traditional three-part division of the study of signs. The problems of pragmatics have been treated informally by philosophers and by some linguists, who generally ignored pragmatic problems or pushed them into semantics and syntax. Abroad, pragmatics came into the foreground in the 70-s, in Russia - in the 80-s of the 20th century. 339

Linguists generally regard a speech act as a basic minimal unit of pragmatic analysis [J.R. Searle]. A speech act is the production of a sentence, 'sentence representative', or sentencoid under certain conditions. Criteria for Speech Act Classifications There exist different criteria for speech act classification. In the first place, speech acts can be classified according to their origin into primary (or natural) and secondary (or institutional) speech acts. Primary (or natural) speech acts are necessary for any kind of human interaction. Secondary (or institutional) speech acts are specific for a certain institution, for example, for school instruction, courtroom investigation, political debate, commercial advertising, etc. Institutions can bring into life new types of speech acts, for example, the giving of a verdict, the opening of a meeting, etc. On the other hand, institutions can modify primary speech acts. Thus, an examination question is different from a question in everyday communication. The latter asks for information, for new information. As for the examiner, he naturally knows the answer to the question. His aim consists in testing the knowledge of the person taking the exam. In the second place, speech acts can be classified according to their function or, to put it differently, according to their position within--speech-act patterns. In this case, a distinction is drawn between initiating and reacting speech acts [L.P. Chakhoyan; W. Edmondson]. Some speech acts, in particular questions or requests, have a tendency to function as initiating moves. On the other hand, confirmations or answers are typical reacting moves. The differentiation of initiating and reacting speech acts is not an easy task because most speech acts perform both functions in the process of communication, e.g.: We 're lucky. Why? - Because there aren 't any clouds (English Course). Here the speech act JFfty? is reacting in regard to the preceding speech act We 're lucky, but it is an initiating speech act in regard to the following speech act Because there aren't any clouds.
340

In the third place, speech acts can be classified according to their linguistic characteristics: lexical, morphological, and syntactic. The authors of the lexical classification of speech acts take as a starting point the lexical character of the verb [J.L. Austin; Th. Ballmer, V. Brennenstuhl; M.K. Kreckel]. The meaning of the verb does help classify speech acts. However, the lexical criterion is applicable only to speech acts comprising a notional verb. Speech acts based on 'sentence representatives' and most sentencoids stand outside the lexical classification. The authors of the morphological classification of speech acts are guided by the mood of the verb. Thus, D. Wunderlich singles out four types of speech acts: 1)speech acts of the question type that have a verb in the interrogative mood, 2)speech acts of the directive type that have a verb in the imperative mood, 3)speech acts of the representative type that have a verb in the declarative mood, 4) speech acts of the declaration type that have specific performative formulas. The morphological classification of speech acts, like the lexical classification, does not take into consideration the existence of verbless speech acts. What is more, there is often no one-to-one correspondence between the mood of the verb used in the speech act and the intention of the speaker. Cf.: Someone's at the door. - Is everything ready? ~ Yes, dear, everything's fine. Answer the_door (English Course). The verb in the speech act Someone's at the door is in the socalled 'declarative mood'. However, the speech act was intended not as a representative, but as a directive. Since the addressee failed to understand the implied directive, the speaker accompanied the implied directive Someone's at the door by a 'bald' (or imperative) directive Answer the door. The authors of the syntactic classification of speech acts take word order as a starting point, namely the order of subject and predicate. The absence of one-to-one correspondence between the type of syntactic structure and the pragmatic function of the corresponding speech act exposes the vulnerability of the syntactic classification. Thus, if we were guided by the syntactic criterion of
341

Linguists generally regard a speech act as a basic minimal unit of pragmatic analysis [J.R. Searle]. A speech act is the production of a sentence, 'sentence representative', or sentencoid under certain conditions. Criteria for Speech Act Classifications There exist different criteria for speech act classification. In the first place, speech acts can be classified according to their origin into primary (or natural) and secondary (or institutional) speech acts. Primary (or natural) speech acts are necessary for any kind of human interaction. Secondary (or institutional) speech acts are specific for a certain institution, for example, for school instruction, courtroom investigation, political debate, commercial advertising, etc. Institutions can bring into life new types of speech acts, for example, the giving of a verdict, the opening of a meeting, etc. On the other hand, institutions can modify primary speech acts. Thus, an examination question is different from a question in everyday communication. The latter asks for information, for new information. As for the examiner, he naturally knows the answer to the question. His aim consists in testing the knowledge of the person taking the exam. In the second place, speech acts can be classified according to their function or, to put it differently, according to their position within speech -act patterns. In this case, a distinction is- drawn between initiating and reacting speech acts [L.P. Chakhoyan; W. Edmondson], Some speech acts, in particular questions or requests, have a tendency to function as initiating moves. On the other hand, confirmations or answers are typical reacting moves. The differentiation of initiating and reacting speech acts is not an easy task because most speech acts perform both functions in the process of communication, e.g.: We're lucky. Why? - Because there aren't any clouds (English Course). Here the speech act Why1? is reacting in regard to the preceding speech act We 're lucky, but it is an initiating speech act in regard to the following speech act Because there aren 't any clouds.
340

In the third place, speech acts can be classified according to their linguistic characteristics: lexical, morphological, and syntactic. The authors of the lexical classification of speech acts take as a starting point the lexical character of the verb [J.L. Austin; Th. Ballmer, V. Brennenstuhl; M.K. Kreckel]. The meaning of the verb does help classify speech acts. However, the lexical criterion is applicable only to speech acts comprising a notional verb. Speech acts based on 'sentence representatives' and most sentencoids stand outside the lexical classification. The authors of the morphological classification of speech acts are guided by the mood of the verb. Thus, D. Wunderlich singles out four types of speech acts: 1)speech acts of the question type that have a verb in the interrogative mood, 2)speech acts of the directive type that have a verb in the imperative mood, 3)speech acts of the representative type that have a verb in the declarative mood, 4) speech acts of the declaration type that have specific performative formulas. The morphological classification of speech acts, like the lexical classification, does not take into consideration the existence of verbless speech acts. What is more, there is often no one-to-one correspondence between the mood of the verb used in the speech act and the intention of the speaker. Cf.: Someone's at the door, - Is everything ready? ~ Yes, dear, everything's fine, Answer the door (English Course). The verb in the speech act Someone's at the door is in the socalled 'declarative mood'. However, the speech act was intended not as a representative, but as a directive. Since the addressee failed to understand the implied directive, the speaker accompanied the implied directive Someone's at the door by a 'bald' (or imperative) directive Answer the door. The authors of the syntactic classification of speech acts take word order as a starting point, namely the order of subject and predicate. The absence of one-to-one correspondence between the type of syntactic structure and the pragmatic function of the corresponding speech act exposes the vulnerability of the syntactic classification. Thus, if we were guided by the syntactic criterion of 341

word order, we would be bound to say that the speech act Won 'tyou stay a little longer? (A.S. Hornby) asks for information. But it was not intended as a question. It was intended as a request. Most syntactic structures are polyfunctional. In S. Greenbaum's book we find examples of various speech acts performed by declarative sentences. Cf: You should take an aspirin (S. Greenbaum) advice. I ' m g oi n g t o gi v e y o u a bi c y c l e f o r y o u r b i r t h d a y (S. Greenbaum) - promise. It's going to rain (S. Greenbaum) - prediction. You mustn 't smoke in here (S. Greenbaum) - prohibition. You may take another one (S. Greenbaum) permission. What is more, the syntactic criterion of word order is applicable only to sentences and 'sentence representatives', and does not work in the domain of sentencoids. But the main drawback of all linguistic classifications lies in the heterogeneity of the phenomenon under examination and the criterion of classification. W. Motsch writes apropos of this, 'It seems to be a wild goose chase trying to define types of illocution on purely linguistic grounds.' Speech acts are functional phenomena. Hence, their classification should be based on the functional criterion. The functional heterogeneity of speech acts knows no bounds. According to J.L. Austin, for instance, there are over a thousand types of speech acts. The essence of each classification, however, consists in generalization. So, the number of the singled out speech acts should be relatively small, or else we would simply be creating the illusion of classification. The founder of the speech act theory is the English logician J.L. Austin. He distinguishes three kinds of speech acts: 1) locutionary acts, 2) illocutionary acts, and 3) perlocutionary acts. A locutionary act is an act of saying something in the full sense of the word say. An illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something. It realizes the intent of the speaker, such as asking or answering a question, giving some information or an assurance or a warning, announcing a verdict or an intention, pronouncing sentence, making an appointment or an appeal or a criticism, and so on. The illocutionary force of a speech act is always interpreted as having been intended. If one says, 'I christen this ship the Kneydel'
342

while breaking a bottle of champagne on the stern of a vessel, it would raise more than a few eyebrows to say subsequently, 'I'm sorry. I didn't mean to christen this ship.' To claim that one was not responsible for one's own illocutionary act is to claim that one was not responsible at the time he performed it. A perlocutionary act is an act performed as a result of saying. Here we deal with the effects of the communication on the addressee. For example, by making a promise a speaker may reassure and create expectations in his audience. Perlocutionary effects may be achieved intentionally, as, for example, when one gets one's hearer to do something by asking him to do it; or unintentionally, as when one annoys one's audience without intending to do so. We may always deny that a particular perlocutionary act was intended by saying things like / didn 't mean to embarrass you or 7 was simply stating a fact. The product of a speech act is an utterance. In issuing an utterance, the speaker performs the three acts simultaneously. They are differentiated only in the process of analysis. J.L. Austin draws a distinction between two kinds of utterances: constatives and performatives. Constatives are primarily locutionary speech acts. Their intent is to communicate a certain piece of true or false information, e.g.: The earth moves round the sun (J.L, Austin) - true information. The sun moves round the earth - false information. As opposed to constatives, performatives are not performed in order to communicate something about this or that fact of objective reality. In a performative, the issuing of the utterance is the performing of an action. Thus, saying / congratulate you, the speaker is not describing what he is doing but performing the action of congratulating. Hence, the term 'performative'. Performatives have certain pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic peculiarities. 1.Performatives must satisfy the sincerity condition, i.e. the speaker is to speak seriously and literally. 2.As opposed to constatives, performatives cannot be either true or false. If the illocutionary force takes effect, it is said to be happy (or felicitous). If it doesn't, the performative is said to be unhappy (or infelicitous).
343

3.It is usually verbs denoting speech activity that are used as performatives. These verbs are to belong to contentdescriptive verbs, e.g.: state, ask, promise, guarantee, apologize, thank, etc. Sound descriptive verbs of the type gasp, murmur, giggle, shout, whine cannot function as performatives. 4.Performatives are generally expressed by verbs in the first person singular present indefinite of the indicative mood, which denote actions simultaneous with the moment of speech, e.g.: I name this ship the 'Queen Elizabeth' (J.L. Austin). But there are exceptions, e.g.: You are advised to take an aspirin (S. Greenbaum). It is forbidden to smoke here (S. Greenbaum). 5.Performatives are never used in the continuous aspect. 6.Performatives cannot be negative. 7.Performatives are never accompanied by modal words. 8.Performatives allow the introduction of the word hereby that means 'by means of this utterance', e.g.; / hereby declare her elected (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). The use of hereby is restricted to highly formal contexts. 9. Performatives can be regarded as a subtype of indirect speech: they name the illocutionary act performed by the speaker himself. As a result, utterances comprising performatives admit only of one interpretation as far as their illocutionary force is concerned. J.L. Austin singles out five illocutionary types of performatives: 1) verdictives, 2) exercitives, 3) commissives, 4) behabitives, and 5) expositives. The communicative intent of the., verdictiye is to evaluate something, express an opinion or give a verdict, e.g.: characterize, convict, value, diagnose, describe, analyze, etc. The illocutionary force of the.exercitiye consists in imposing one's will on the addressee, e.g.: order, choose, advise, appoint, dismiss, recommend, etc. The cpmmissiye is an assuming of an obligation or a declaring of an intention, e.g.: promise, undertake, intend, plan, adopt, bet, consent, etc. Ib.e..behabitiy.e is the adopting of an attitude. Behabitives comprise various formulas of social etiquette: greeting, farewell, apology, congratulation, condolence, etc.

344

The., expositive is the clarifying of reasons, arguments, and communications, e.g.: affirm, deny, state, describe, tell, answer, ask, report, agree, correct, etc. In the opinion of the American logician J. R. Searle, J.L. Austin's classification of illocutionary speech acts is not devoid of serious drawbacks. First, what J.L. Austin deals with is illocutionary verbs, not illocutionary speech acts. Illocutionary verbs constitute only one illocutionary force-indicating device, The other illocutionary force-indicating devices are the mood of the verb, word order, stress, intonation contours, punctuation, and the context. J.L. Austin disregards them completely, which, of course, cannot but influence the validity of his conclusions. Second, not all the verbs, mentioned by J.L. Austin, can be referred to illocutionary (or performative). Thus, to say / intend... does not mean to really intend to do something. That's why nowadays linguists refer to performatives only those verbs that satisfy the sincerity condition. Third, and most important of all, there is no unifying principle (or principles) underlying J.L. Austin's classification of illocutionary speech acts. As a result, the singled out classes are heterogeneous and often interpenetrate. Thus, J.L. Austin lists the verbs dare, defy, and challenge alongside the verbs thank, apologize, deplore, and welcome as behabitives. But the verbs dare, dejy, and challenge have to do with the 'addressee's subsequent actions. So, they are rather exercitives than behabitives. On the other hand, J.L. Austin lists the verb describe as both a verdictive and an expositive. Given his definition, it is easy to see why: describing can be both the delivering of a finding and an act of exposition. But then any 'act of exposition involving the expounding of views' could also be 'the delivering of a finding'. And indeed, a look at J.L. Austin's list of expositives is sufficient to show that most of his verbs fit his definition of verdictives. Consider the verbs affirm, deny, state, class, identify, conclude, and deduce. All of these are listed as expositives, but they could just as easily have been listed as verdictives. It should be mentioned that J.L. Austin understands very well that his findings are far from conclusive. His paper offers no more than a preliminary dip into the problem and, consequently, cannot be foolproof. The classes of behabitives and expositives are those
345

that he finds most troublesome. Behabitives are troublesome because they seem too miscellaneous, and expositives because they are enormously numerous and important, and seem both to be included in the other classes and at the same time to be unique in a way that he has not succeeded in making clear even to himself. J.R. Searle postulates 12 criteria for speech act classification, but in practice uses only three: illocutionary point, direction of fit, and expressed psychological state. Each type of illocution has an illocutionary point (or purpose). The illocutionary point of statements and descriptions is to tell people how things are; the illocutionary point of promises and vows is to commit the speaker to doing something; the illocutionary point of

orders and commands is to try to get people to do things, and so on. The illocutionary point is achieved on the prepositional content. The prepositional content is made up of the nonillocutionary acts of reference and predication. The illocutionary point relates the prepositional content to the world of the utterance, J.R. Searle calls the way in which a prepositional content is related to a world of utterance its direction of fit. For example, in the case of a description, the propositional content of the speaker's utterance is supposed to match some independently existing state of affairs. But in the case of an order, the addressee is supposed to change his behaviour to match the propositional content

of the order. There are four directions of fit in language. 1.The word-toworld direction of fit. In this case, language is fitted to reality, i.e. the utterance gives a correct description of a state of affairs in the world. 2.The world-toword direction of fit. In this case, the speaker expresses a wish, issues an order, etc., producing a change in the world. In other words, reality is fitted to language. 3.The double direction of fit: the world-toword direction of fit and the wordto-world direction of fit. 4.The null (or empty) direction of fit. Whenever one performs an illocutionary act

with a propositional content, one expresses a certain psychological state. It is always possible to express a psychological state that one does not have. An insincere speech act is one in which the speaker performs a speech act and thereby expresses a psychological state even

though he does not have that state. Thus, an insincere statement (a lie) is one where the speaker does not believe what he says; an insincere apology is one where the speaker does not have the sorrow he expresses; an insincere promise is one where the speaker does not in fact intend to do the things he promises to do. An insincere speech act is defective, but not necessarily unsuccessful. A lie, for example, can be a successful assertion. J.R. Searle's taxonomy includes five types of speech acts: 1) representatives, 2) directives, 3) commissives, 4) declarations, and 5) expressives. Representatiye s have the assertive illocutionary point. These are speech acts by which a speaker represents a state of affairs. Representatives carry the value 'true' or 'false'. Utterances

with the assertive illocutionary point have the word-toworld direction of fit. In an assertive speech act the propositional content is expressed as representing an independently existing state of affairs in the world. The psychological state expressed in all assertive speech acts is belief. Directives have the directive illocutionary point. These speech acts embody an effort on the part of the speaker to get the addressee to do something. Directives have the world-to-word direction of fit: the world is adapted to the uttered words. The psychological state expressed in all directives is want or desire. Comrnissiyes have the commissive illocutionary point. In these speech acts, the speaker commits himself to doing things. Like directives,

commissives have the world-to-word direction of fit: the world is adapted to the uttered words. The psychological state expressed in all commissives is intention. Declarations have the declarative illocutionary point. The speaker brings about changes in the world through his utterances, e.g.: I declare you man and wife (J.R. Searle). Declarations have the double 3

direction of fit: world-to-word and word-to-world. The psychological states expressed in all declarations are belief and desire. Expressives. The illocutionary point of an expressive is to express the speaker's attitude about the state of affairs specified by the propositional content. Expressives have a null direction of fit. The point of an expressive is not to say that the propositional
3

content matches the world, nor to get the world to match the prepositional content, but to express the speaker's attitude about the state of affairs represented by the propositional content. Most expressive illocutionary forces have the preparatory condition that the propositional content is true in the world of the utterance. J.R. Searle's classification of speech acts in many respects resembles J.L. Austin's classification. Thus, J.R. Searle, like J.L. Austin, distinguishes five classes of speech acts; and one of J.R. Searle's classes, the so-called 'commissives', is more or less conceptually identical with the class defined by J.L. Austin under the same name. J.R. Searle's directives correspond roughly to J.L. Austin's exercitives, expressives - to behabitives. The representatives of J.R. Searle, according to J.L. Austin, are locutionary rather than illocutionary speech acts. J.R. Searle's point of view seems more convincing because the presentation of something as a fact is also a kind of intent. Having gone outside the domain of illocutionary verbs, J.R. Searle overcame the first drawback of J.L. Austin's classification. As far as the classification criteria are concerned, J.L. Mey is quite right when he says that in J.R. Searle's papers much is made of all the different criteria that one could employ in order to establish a coherent and consistent taxonomy; but when it comes to applying the criteria, only a few of them are used, and not even these are applied exclusively all the time. In one respect, however, J.R. Searle's taxonomy is superior to J.L. Austin's: it is more oriented towards the real world. The main drawback of the speech act theory consists in the fact that it disregards the role of the addressee. A speech act, as I.P. Susov rightly points out, is not interactive, and communication presupposes interaction. The term 'communicative act' emphasizes its interactive nature. That's why we call the basic unit of speech communication !a communicative act'. Linguists usually single out three components in a communicative act: speaker, addressee, and the thing that is spoken about [B. Bailey, D.H. Morgan; M. Speier; R. Hausser]. The term 'thing' is used in the widest possible meaning. Tt embraces physical objects, abstract notions, and even whole situations. In our opinion, the tripartite structure of a communicative act disregards a most important component, namely the physical
348

channel and psychological connection between the speaker and the addressee mentioned by R. Jakobson. In accordance with the four main components of a communicative act, we single out four pragmatic types of utterances: expressives, volitives, informatives, and phatives. Exgressives are focused on the speaker. They are aimed at a direct expression of the speaker's attitude toward what he is speaking about. Cf.: What a perfect angel you are, Cecily (O. Wilde). / can speak four languages. - / can *t (L. and J. Soars). What a busy day! (English Course). Volitiyes are focused on the addressee. Here we deal with questions and inducements. Cf.: Why do you hate reporters? - Because I don't like answering all these questions (V. Evans). We can't go all this way back. - Why can't we? - Because that's a stupid thing to do (S. Hill). I'm looking at the paperbacks. - Why? - Because I want a book for Jane (English Course). Shut the door there (J. Galsworthy). / must offer to bring her the next time she comes. - Don't (D. Robins). A glass of milk for him, please (English Course). Informatives are focused on the thing spoken about. Cf.: I've left you a cold supper (A. Ayckbourn). Did she tell you what the row was about? - She did (J. Parsons). Where's the telephone? - It's there. - Where? - On the table (English Course). Phatives serve to establish, maintain or terminate communication, to check whether the channel works, to attract the attention of the interlocutor or to confirm his continued attention. Cf.: Excuse me, - Yes? - Are you Miss Smith? - No, I'm sorry, I'm not Miss Smith. I'm Miss Wilson (BBC London Course). It means a lot to me. - Does it? I 'm surprised (J. Parsons). Each pragmatic type of utterance can be further classified.

349

Conversational Principles The most important conversational principles are a cooperative principle and a politeness principle. The cooperative principle was formulated by H.P. Grice. The cooperative principle consists of four sub-principles (or categories): 1) the category of quantity, 2) the category of quality, 3) the category of relation, and 4) the category of manner. The. category of .quantity relates to the quantity of information to be provided. In includes two maxims: 1) make your contribution as informative as is required, 2) do not make your contribution more informative than is required. The... categoryof..quality relates to the truth-value of the information to be imparted. Under this category falls a supermaxim 'Try to make your contribution one that is true' and two more specific maxims: 1)do not say what you believe to be false, 2)do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. Under fee. category ...ofreiatior^ H.P. Grice places a single maxim, namely 'Be relevant'. By relevance, G.N. Leech understands the relevance of an utterance to its speech situation. An utterance, in his opinion, is relevant to a speech situation if it contributes to the conversational goals of speaker or addressee. Cf: A: Where's my box of chocolates? B: If sin your room (G.N. Leech). A's goal is to find out where his box of chocolates is. B supplies the information required. So B's utterance is relevant to A's utterance. Under the .category...of...manner, H.P. Grice includes the supermaxim 'Be perspicuous', i.e.: 1)avoid obscurity of expression, 2)avoid ambiguity, 3)be brief. 4)be orderly. The category of manner appears to be the Cinderella of H.P. Grice's categories. He himself sees this maxim as in some sense less important than, for example, the category of quality, and

as differing from the others in relating not to what is said but, rather, to how what is to be said is to be said. In the opinion of G.N. Leech, H.P. Grice was right to recognize the category of manner as one of the elements of the cooperative principle because the charge 'to be clear' is placed on language users as part of the Interpersonal Rhetoric, as well as of the Textual Rhetoric. G.N. Leech draws a distinction between two kinds of clarity. One kind consists in making unambiguous use of the syntax and phonology of the language in order to construct a clear text. Another type of clarity consists in framing a clear message, i.e. a message which is perspicuous or intelligible in the sense of conveying the intended illocutionary goal to the addressee. Perspicuity in this sense is obviously hand in glove with relevance; both the category of manner and the category of relation will favour the most direct communication of one's illocutionary point. Another conversational principle is a politeness principle. Politeness concerns a relationship between two participants whom we may call self and other. In conversation, se//will normally be identified with the speaker, and other will typically be identified with the addressee. But speakers also show politeness to third parties, to people designated by third-person pronouns. According to G.N. Leech, the point of politeness, as a principle, is to minimize the expression of impolite beliefs and to maximize the expression of polite beliefs. J.L. Mey defines politeness as a strategy for cooperation with least cost and maximum benefit to all interlocutors. In other words, the politeness principle can be seen not just as another principle to be added to the cooperative principle, but as a necessary complement, which rescues the cooperative principle from serious trouble. True, there are some situations where politeness takes a back seat, so to speak. This is so, for example, when the interlocutors are engaged in a collaborative activity in which exchange of information is equally important to both of them. On the other hand, there are situations where the politeness principle overrules the cooperative principle to the extent that even the category' of quality is sacrificed. Thus, in certain circumstances, people feel justified in telling 'white lies'. For example, the speaker may feel that the only

350

351

way of declining an invitation politely is to pretend to have an alternative engagement. G.N. Leech mentions six maxims dealing with polite behaviour: 1) tact maxim, 2) generosity maxim, 3) approbation maxim, 4) modesty maxim, 5) agreement maxim, and 6) sympathy maxim. Thetactm.axim_(m impositivesandcommissives) Minimize cost to other: Maximize benefit to other. Thus, an imperative, which does not allow the addressee to say No is a positively polite way of making an offer. Cf.: Help yourself "(G.N. Leech). Have another sandwich (G.N. Leech). The ^enerpsitj ma^m_(in impositives and commissives) Minimize benefit to self: Maximize cost to self. The offer and invitation are presumed to be polite for two reasons: firstly, because they imply benefit to the addressee; secondly, because they imply cost to the speaker. Cf.: lean lend you my car (G.N. Leech) - offer. You must come and have dinner -with us (G.N. Leech) -invitation. The.approbation maxirn_(in expressives and assertives) Minimize dispraise of other: Maximize praise of other. Since dispraise of the addressee or of a third party is impolite, various strategies of indirectness are employed in order to mitigate the effect of criticism, e.g.: A: Her performance was magnificent, wasn 't it? B: Was it? (G.N. Leech). Assuming that both A and B listened to the performance, B's reply is evasive and implicates an unfavourable opinion. The rnodesty maxim_(in expressives and assertives) Minimize praise of self: Maximize dispraise of self. It is felicitous to agree with another's commendation except when it is a commendation of oneself, e.g.: They were so kind to us. - Yes, they were, weren't they (G.N. Leech). Self-dispraise is regarded as quite benign, e.g.: How stupid of me! (G.N. Leech). The understatement of one's generosity is shown to be quite normal, e.g.:
352

Please accept this small gift as a token of our esteem (G.N. Leech). In Japanese society, and more particularly among Japanese women, the modesty maxim is more powerful than it is in English-speaking societies, where it would be more polite to accept a compliment graciously (for example, by thanking the speaker for it) rather than to go on denying it. The.agreement maxim_(in assertives) Minimize disagreement between self and other: Maximize agreement between self and other. There is a tendency to exaggerate agreement with other people, and to mitigate disagreement by expressing regret, partial agreement, etc. Cf.: A referendum will satisfy everybody. Yes, definitely (G.N. Leech) - agreement. English is a difficult language to learn. - True, but the grammar is quite easy (G.N. Leech) - partial agreement. The book is tremendously well written. - Yes, well written as a whole, but there are some rather boring patches, don't you think? (G.N. Leech) - partial agreement. As the last two examples show, partial agreement is often preferable to complete disagreement. The..sym.pathy maxim (in assertives) Minimize antipathy between self and other: Maximize sympathy between self and other. The sympathy maxim presupposes empathy, i.e. the ability of the speaker to imagine himself in the position of the addressee, and so to share and understand his feelings. The sympathy maxim explains why congratulations and condolences are considered to be courteous communicative acts. Indirect Communicative Acts J.R. Searle draws a distinction between direct and indirect communicative acts. In direct communicative acts, the speaker means exactly and literally what he says, e.g.: /'// be there. ~ How will I know you? - I'll have my three sons with me (S. Sheldon).
353

In indirect communicative acts, one communicative act is performed indirectly by way of performing another, e.g.: Would you give me your work number, please? (L. and J. Soars). On the face of it, it is a question (partial inversion, interrogation mark). But it was not intended as an inquiry into the addressee's willingness to give the speaker her work phone number. The speaker simply asked the addressee to give him her work phone number, but he did it indirectly. An indirect communicative act, according to J.R. Searle, always represents a combination of two acts, a primary act (in our example, a request) and a secondary act (in our example, a question). In other words, in indirect communicative acts the speaker communicates to the addressee more than he actually says. The addressee decodes the intended meaning by relying on their mutually shared background knowledge, both linguistic and nonlinguistic, and his power of inference [V.V. Dementyevj. In our daily use of language, we often resort to indirect communicative acts. The question arises why? As a matter of fact, indirect communicative acts run counter to one of the categories of H.P. Grice's cooperative principle, namely the category of manner, which demands that the speaker should avoid ambiguity and obscurity of expression. According to J.R. Searle, the chief motivation for using indirect communicative acts is politeness, G.N. Leech holds that the politeness principle has a higher regulative role than the cooperative principle. 'Unless you are polite to your neighbour, - he writes, -the channel of communication between you will break down,..' Indirect communicative acts tend to be more polite than direct communicative acts. Thus, the question form of a request (Will you take me home?) is felt to be more tactful than the direct imperative (Take me home) because a yes/no-question about the addressee's willingness or ability to perform a certain action sounds less categorical and, consequently, gives the addressee freedom of response. He can, if he chooses, comply with or refuse the request but he can also indicate either that the request is inappropriate or that it cannot be responded to so simply. That's why interlocutors often give preference to indirect communicative acts.

It goes without saying, that the politeness potential of direct and indirect communicative acts is not absolute. It varies from one national culture to another. For example, Russian people consider direct imperative requests quite polite, even when they are not accompanied by the word nootcajiyucma. English people regard direct imperative requests, even with the word please, as not polite enough. J.M. Sadock writes apropos of this, 'There are culturalspecific rules of the use of language that tell us that it is uncivil directly to request something of a social equal or superior.' In the opinion of A. Davison, politeness is not the chief motivation for using indirect communicative acts. To prove her point, she draws the attention of linguists to the fact that in a discourse in which the participants are continuously polite, the utterances used are not all indirect communicative acts. In fact, a number of consecutive indirect communicative acts in a discourse gives an impression of excess. The latter leads A. Davison to the conclusion that it is closer to linguistic reality to view indirect communicative acts as having a signalling function of some sort rather than an expressive function. If indirect communicative acts were used as signals of the speaker's psychological state, then it would not be at all strange that they are used intermittently rather than continuously, and tend to occur in the beginning of a discourse. A. Davison gives examples of indirect communicative acts used to express anger and extreme rudeness, Cf.: / must say that I never want to come back here again (A. Davison). Can I say that this is the worst party I have ever been tol (A. Davison). What is more, politeness is not sufficient to explain why some illocutionary acts may be performed indirectly (e.g. requests) and other illocutionary acts may not (e.g. declarations). Thus, a person who is considerate and tactful (and empowered to marry people) nevertheless may not say: * Allow me to pronounce you man and wife (A. Davison). *May I pronounce you man and wife? (A. Davison). According to D. Tannen, speakers prefer indirectness for two reasons: to save face if their opinions or wants are not favourably

354

355

received, and to achieve the sense of rapport that comes from being understood without saying what one means. Many indirect communicative acts are on the way towards turning into conventional forms. Thus, utterances beginning with modal verbs Will you...7 Would you...? Could you...? are more often regarded as requests than as questions. But if in direct communicative acts we deal with conventions of language, in indirect communicative acts we deal with conventions of use, although sometimes there is a language sign testifying to the conventional nature of the indirect communicative act. Thus, if an utterance built on the mode! of a declarative sentence or on the model of a wh-interrogative sentence has the word please, it always functions as a request. Cf.: I'd like an aisle seat, please. - There are none left (P. Viney). And we'll have two coffees, please. - Black or -white? -White, please (Lingaphone English Course). How muck is that., please? ~ That's eighteen pence (English Course). Summing it all up, we can say that pragmalinguisties is a kind of grammar of man's speech behaviour in society. It is an extremely difficult task to master this kind of grammar. But it is indispensable for acquiring communicative competence, whose essence lies in sounding appropriate to every occasion. Compare in this respect the following extract from Voltaire's poem in which the pragmatic functions of the utterances Yes, Perhaps and No vary in accordance with the sex and the social position of the persons who use them: When a diplomat says 'yes' He means 'perhaps'; When he says 'perhaps' He means 'no'; And when he says 'no' He is no diplomat. When a lady says 'no' She means 'perhaps'; When she says 'perhaps' She means 'yes'; And when she says 'yes' She is no lady.

25. TEXT

In our daily lives, we are surrounded by texts of all sorts: legal, religious, medical, literary, economic, educational, etc. Yet it seems hard to define the notion of text linguistically. The English Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics mentions the following approaches to text.
Primitive Notions of Text

Without gaining communicative competence, one will always be regarded as a foreigner. That's why all the branches of linguistics, syntax including, must be pragmatically orientated.

One sense in which the word 'text' is used is that of 'record' (or 'document'). The notion of 'witness' is central here: texts are (written) witnesses of events, actions, or thoughts. The printed manifesto of a political party, a charter, a certificate, bus tickets and memoirs are texts in this sense. This is the meaning the term has for the historian, the judge, and the anthropologist. Texts, for them, are records (or documents) to be investigated because they can reveal something about a state of affairs in reality. All kinds of reports in newspapers and magazines are texts in this sense too, as are love letters and contracts. This notion of text is, perhaps, the most widespread. However, to say that a text is anything written, is highly misleading. What about torn-up papers in a waste-paper basket? They are instances of writing, to be sure. But are they also 'text'? One is inclined to say Wo'. Thus, not all written things are texts. But the opposite is true, too: not all texts are written. This would follow from anthropological work involving the writing down of myths or folktales of a culture that is not in the possession of a script. For example, were the fairytales written down by the brothers Grimm not texts prior to their being written down? If not, what were they? It seems simpler to speak of 'oral texts' in this case. Thus, Beowulf existed once as an oral text being passed on from one generation to another, until at some moment in history it became a written text. So, the equation of text with writing is misconceived. Another view takes texts to be mainly literary. Within this tradition, only poems, stories, and tales are considered as texts. The second notion of text is as narrow as the first. There is no reason why nonliterary constructions should not be called 'text'.

356

357

A third definition tries to overcome the above-mentioned drawbacks by seeing texts as products made by human beings according to certain rules and principles. A text, in this view, is a composition. This notion is a very old one, and can be traced back to the origins of Rhetoric in the Western world. Within the political and legal institutions of Ancient Greece and Rome, the orator, before presenting a speech in public, would compose his text according to techniques that were felt to be persuasive. He would then memorize it and ultimately deliver his speech orally. Today there are remnants of that practice in school essay writing or preparing a talk. Although these products undoubtedly belong to what one intuitively calls 'text', the view that only such rhetorically composed utterances are texts does not stand criticism. The term 'text' is derived from the Latin verb texere, meaning 'to weave'. In a text, some elements are 'woven together'. However, what kinds of linguistic elements are 'woven together' is something which is still open to debate.

Theoretical Notions of Text

In this section, three more approaches to the problem of textuality are outlined. They roughly correspond to efforts at understanding the concept of text in syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic terms. Working within the framework of generative grammar, a text was defined as a string of sentences. There are various problems with this view. First, not any suprasentential unit in itself constitutes a text. In a sense, this failure of the theory of text grammar was to be expected: it does not specify any structural principles determining the linkage of sentences in the text. Intuitively, one knows that such principles must exist, for not all sentences linked together form a text. This can be demonstrated quite easily: take a newspaper article and cut out the different sentences. Then type the sentences in random order and show the result to someone. The sentences on the page will not be recognized as a text; indeed, they might not even be understood by someone who has not seen the original text.

Another problem is that texts of only one sentence do exist. Imagine receiving a note bearing only the words: Roger's finished the thesisl (R. Quirk et al.)Sometimes a text may be as short as a one-word notice, such as 'Exit*. Thus, it is not necessary for a text to consist of more than one sentence. The second approach concentrates on the semantic relationships between elements in a text. According to this view, it is meanings that are 'woven' together across sentence boundaries. This idea is referred to by the terms 'coherence' and 'cohesion'. Coherence refers to continuity of meaning that enables others to make sense of a text. Cohesion refers to different devices for linking parts of a text. The question arises whether semantic relations must be necessarily realized linguistically. Scholars are still at variance as to the answer to this question, M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan appear to insist that such explicit realization is necessary. The opposing view is held by G. Brown and G. Yule who think that it is easy to find texts, which display few, if any, explicit markers of cohesive relations, e.g.: There's the doorbell. -I'm in the bath (S. Greenbaum), There is no explicit marking of relationships between the first and second sentences. Nonetheless, a normal reader will naturally assume that the two sentences constitute a text and interpret the second sentence in the light of the first. So, a purely semantic theory about textuality, although able to explain more than a purely syntactic theory, in the opinion of W. von Peer, still falls short: the criterion of cohesion is neither necessary nor sufficient in order to speak of a text, for cohesion occurs not only in texts but also in single sentences. For example, in the sentence Mary held on to her toy (W. von Peer), there is an unequivocal connection between Mary and her. The third approach has been conceived in a pragmatic framework, taking into account the way a text functions within a specific situation, and considering it as 'meaning in action', hi Europe, this view is mostly associated with German text theorists. In the English-speaking world, M.A.K. Halliday has been the most

358

359

outspoken advocate of this view, epitomized in his definition: 'A text is a unit of language in use.' To sum up. Both the primitive and theoretical notions of text are not devoid of drawbacks. It was pointed out that the primitive notions of text are too narrow: they exclude many phenomena that could be regarded as texts, but which were nevertheless excluded. What is witnessed in the theoretical notions of text, is the opposite problem. In order to avoid giving too narrow a definition, these theorists seem to have fallen into the opposite extreme, namely that their definitions do no exclude anything at all. Such widening of the notion of text is frequently encountered in so-called poststructuralist thought, where everything, including nonlinguistic phenomena, is declared 'text', from fashion shows to urban planning. Some have gone so far as to declare life itself to be a text. When the notion of text has been blown up to such extent, however, it seems to lose its meaning altogether. Tims, in most of these theoretical notions, the term 'text' may be replaced by 'language'. Is there a way out of this dilemma of over-narrow and overwide definitions? In the present state of knowledge, it is hard to tell whether a positive answer can be given. But at least one interesting proposal has been made. The starting point for this theory is the pragmatic situation in which texts are used. According to K. Ehlich, texts are linguistic constructions developed to overcome the transient nature of faceto-face communication. Their most characteristic trait is their ability to be transmitted through time and space. That is, a text may be detached from its original speech situation and subsequently be used again in a different and/or later situation, involving the same or different participants. Texts are seen as carriers of knowledge and values deemed important by a society, passing on this information from one individual or generation to another. In order to make possible their detachment from a concrete utterance situation, texts develop specific forma! characteristics to allow speakers to reintroduce them in new situations. One of these is a clear marking of beginning and end. One, for example, knows that what comes between 'Once upon a time...' and 'They lived happily ever after' constitutes a text. These formal characteristics are partly bound to different text types, though: a sonnet is not a schedule, and a timetable is not a tale. 360

A developed theory of text types and their characteristics remains a desideratum. In linguistics, few efforts have been undertaken to come to terms with this problem.

Criteria of Text Classifications

Texts are heterogeneous. That's why it is impossible to classify texts according to one criterion. First of all, linguists draw a distinction between dialogical, monological, and mixed texts. A typical example of dialogical texts is everyday conversation, of monological texts - academic prose, of mixed texts - prose fiction, in which the author's speech is monological, while the speech of the characters is dialogical. In the second place, texts are classified according to the type of the underlying situation. This criterion gives one an opportunity to draw a distinction between narrative, descriptive, and argumentative texts. Narrative texts we find in adventure fiction, in culinary recipes, etc. Descriptive texts are found in such branches of academic prose as biology, chemistry, etc. References provide another example of descriptive texts. Mathematical texts are primarily argumentative texts because reasoning prevails in them. In the third place, texts can be classified according to the pragmatic criterion. Linguists single out the following types of texts: directive, assertive, commissive, texts-declarations and expressive texts. Orders, instructions, letters of recommendation, culinary recipes, etc. constitute directive texts. The main aim of directive texts is to make the addressee fulfil a certain action. Texts of the assertive type are texts of academic articles and monographs, textbooks, theses, etc. The aim of assertive texts is to communicate to the addressee a certain amount of knowledge. To texts of the commissive type, one can refer international treaties, letters of guarantee, etc. The aim of commissive texts consists in assuming certain obligations. Texts of legal documents belong to texts-declarations. Their aim consists in regulating and changing the world. Expressive texts are represented by congratulatory letters, welcome texts and texts conveying condolences. They put the speaker's attitude in focus.

361

In the fourth place, texts can be classified into formatted and non-formatted. A formatted text has a standard form. Here belong certificates authenticated by a public notary., patents, synopses, etc. Many formatted texts include constant text components and blanks that are to be filled in by the applicant. Sometimes the volume of the text is modelled, too. For example, a sonnet always comprises 14 lines. Non-formatted texts are always created anew. A classic example of non-formatted text is fiction. In the fifth place, texts can be classified into original and retold. To retold texts, one can refer abstracts, synopses, reviews, and adapted fiction. In the sixth place, texts can be classified according to the homogeneity/heterogeneity of the constituent signs. Chemical and mathematical texts comprise heterogeneous signs: language signs, on the one hand, formulas, graphs and tables, on the other. No text can be totally homogeneous. Thus, verbal texts include both language signs and punctuation signs. In the seventh place, texts can be classified into unidimensional and multi-dimensional. Multi-dimensional texts include tables, dictionaries, thesauri, etc. Many linguists deny the existence of multidimensional texts because they defy the coherence criterion. hi the eighth place, texts can be classified into those written in t he thi r d pe r s on a nd thos e wr it t e n in t h e fi rs t p er s o n [V.V. Bogdanov]. It is difficult to work out an exhaustive list of the criteria for text classification. Some criteria, (for example, pragmatic) are oriented more on the content; others (for example, the homogeneity/heterogeneity of the constituent signs) are oriented more on the form, although any criterion correlates both with content and form. Supra-phrasal Unity as a Minimal Unit of Text Analysis The minimal unit of text analysis was first singled out by the Russian linguists N.S. Pospelov and L.A. Bulakhovsky. N.S. Pospelov called the unit in question 'a complex syntactic unit' (cjiooKHoe cunmaKcuHecKoe i$enoe\ L.A. Bulakhovsky - 'a supraphrasal unity' (ceepx(ppa3oeoe eduncmeo).

A supra-phrasal unity has three distinguishing features: topical unity, coherence, and cohesion. Topical unity manifests itself in the fact that each supra-phrasal unity has its own micro-topic. Coherence refers to the continuity of meaning that enables others to make sense of the supra-phrasal unity. Cohesion refers to different devices for linking the components of a supra-phrasal unity. The boundaries of supra-phrasal unities are signalled by a weakening of cohesion at their junction. The first sentence of a supra-phrasal unity, according to L.M. Loseva, is characterized by the following features. 1.It generally introduces a new micro-topic. 2.It is generally a complete sentence. 3.It has no deictic words that have correlates in the preceding part of the supra-phrasal unity. 4.It has very loose connection with the last sentence of the preceding supra-phrasal unity. 5.In oral texts, the first sentence of a supra-phrasal unity is marked by a rise in tone, the last sentence - by a fall in tone and by a long pause. Since it is very difficult to gauge the degree of cohesion, the boundaries of supra-phrasal unities remain obscure. Very often, they are identified with the boundaries of paragraphs in spite of the fact that one paragraph can comprise several supra-phrasal unities, while one supra-phrasal unity can be expressed by several paragraphs. The components of written supra-phrasal unities are usually sentences. The components of spoken supra-phrasal unities can be sentences, 'sentence representatives', sentencoids, and 'communicatives'. Although supra-phrasal unities, as a rule, consist of predicative syntactic units, predication cannot be considered their distinguishing feature. The supra-phrasal unity is primarily a topical unity. That's why supra-phrasal unities are often excluded from the sphere of syntax [R. Huddleston; G. Kolshansky]. Textual Cohesive Devices A text is a coherent stretch of speech of writing. Textual coherence finds its expression in different kinds of cohesive devices.

362

363

By semantic cohesion, we mean topical integrity. For example, the following text is united by the topic The Germanic influence on Old English1: The Anglo-Saxons, who invaded England in AD 350, came from Germany, Denmark and Holland. They spoke a Germanic language which became the basis of Old English. Even today, words used in Modern English for ordinary objects are mostly AngloSaxon, or Germanic, in origin. Words of Germanic origin are usually short (often just one syllable) and tend to be informal in modern English (M. Vaughan-Rees et al.). The communicative cohesion finds its expression in certain theme-rheme sequences. M.I. Otkupshchipkova mentions a number of theme-rheme sequences found in texts. 1. The rheme of the first sentence becomes the theme of the second sentence (R T), e.g.: A Mercedes was parked in the street. The car looked new (D. Crystal). 2. One theme has a number of rhemes (T - Rj - R2...), e.g.: Ralph shook his head and increased his speed. Then he tripped over a branch and came down with a crash (W. Golding). 3. One rheme has several themes (R- T; - T2 ...), e.g.: This noise is giving me a headache. - Me, tool (R. Quirk et al.), etc. Lexical cohesion is also very important. A simple example of lexical cohesion is repetition proper. Repetition proper is recurrence of the same elements). Thus, the following brief news item represents a cohesive unit solely through the repetition of the word Utopia: John Maynard Keynes, the century's most influential economist, once said that in his Utopia members of his profession would be like dentists - useful but humble people. Utopia may be arriving with the administration of President-elect Bill Clinton (International Herald Tribune). Lexical linkage by repetition proper is generally avoided since recurring lexical items can easily seem obtrusive. As a rule, synonymic or modified repetition is preferred to repetition proper, e.g.: Europeans began slaughtering wolves from the moment they arrived in America. Indeed, the kitting of wolves, like the killing of
364

Indians, was perceived as a moral duty, a symbol act in the subjugation of godless wilderness (The Independent Magazine). The use of antonyms serves the purpose of lexical cohesion, too: The popular family game of snakes and ladders originated as a system for the moral instruction of young people in India. Virtues, in the shape of ladders, allowed players to reach their goal ~ heaven, or nirvana - quickly. The vices, represented by snakes, forced players backdown towards earth {or, in some versions, hell} (Independent Herald Tribune). Sometimes, lexical cohesion is supplemented by syntactic cohesion. Here one can refer the use of space/time adverbials and of degrees of comparison of adjectives/adverbs. Cf.: We left Paris on Monday morning. By the same evening we were in Rome (D. Crystal). Six children took part in the sack race. Jill was easily the fastest (D. Crystal). To purely syntactic cohesion, we refer the use of connective conjunctions4, parallel constructions, question-answer sequences, and sentencoids with syntagmatic zeros which mostly occur in reacting moves of question-answer sequences. The linking function is common to all conjunctions. The use of coordinators generally creates textual cohesion, e.g.: We owe everything to him. And we will never forget him (L. Untermeyer). Syntactic parallelism is a variety of repetition; only it is a repetition of syntactic constructions, not of lexemes, e.g.: The cock is crowing, The stream is flowing.., (W. Wordsworth). The syntactic parallelism between sentences is more transparent and, hence, the connection between the sentences is more strongly indicated, if the word order is not the normal one. The unusual order of the first sentence makes us expect a similar and related one to follow [S. Greenbaum]. Cf:

M. Pfutze regards conjunctions as a morphological cohesive device. As a class of words, the conjunction is certainly a morphological phenomenon. But in IBM it performs a syntactic linking function.

365

In New York it is hot and humid during the summer. In Los Angeles it is hot and dry (R. Quirk et al.). My paintings the visitors admired. My sculptures they disliked (R. Quirk et al.)Question-answer sequences are closely connected because questions are primarily used to seek information [M. Pfutze]. Cf.: Wliat's Dr. Patterson's daughter like? - In medical terms, she's a fruitcake. I'm not a doctor. What does that mean? - It means that she really believes she's innocent. - Isn 't that possible? - The sheriff in Cuperinto showed me the file on her. Her DNA and fingerprints are all over the murder scene. - What are you going to do now? I've called Royce Salem. He's a psychiatrist that Jesse Quiller's office uses. I'm going to have him examine Ashley and turn the report over to her father (S. Sheldon). Answers often represent sentencoids whose syntagmatic zeros turn the question-answer sequences into even more closely integrated wholes [W. Dressier], e.g.: How long have you worked there? - Four years (S. Sheldon). Deixis involves the use of expressions to refer directly to the situation within which an utterance is taking place, and their interpretation is therefore dependent on features of that situation. For example, the reference of the pronoun / shifts according to who is speaking. Deictic expressions typically refer to persons and objects in the situation and to temporal and locational features. The concept of deixis is sometimes extended from situational deixis (the use of expressions to point at some feature of the situation) to textual deixis (the use of expressions to point at other expressions in the text). Textual deixis contributes to cohesion because of its linkage to previous or subsequent words in the text. References to what comes earlier in the text are anaphoric, whereas references to what conies afterwards are cataphoric. The most common referring expressions are drawn from pronouns, determiners, and pronominal adverbs [M. Pfutze; H. Weinrich]. Pronouns, determiners, and pronominal adverbs are more often used anaphorically than cataphorically, e.g.: My cat, a ginger male, is lost. If you have seen him, please phone me (S. Greenbaum) anaphoric reference. Cataphoric reference usually occurs at the beginning of a narrative, e.g.:

He's sitting on the sofa locked into a strange match with the television set as he digests his deli sandwich and daily dose ofantiinflammatories. There's a channel changer to fill the void in his racquet hand, and whenever he gets tired of watching golf, he can retire to the four-poster bed in a room he keeps as cold as Dracula 's vault, the better to get his beauty sleep. Or, in his case, his power sleep. "This is it, this is my life; it's like being a retired person,' said Pete Sampras, the world's top-ranked tennis player and the defending champion of the U.S. Open (International Herald Tribune). Do, do so, do it, do the same, and the like are often used as substitutes for a verb, its complements and adjuncts. Since for their interpretation they depend on an antecedent, these substitutes contribute to cohesion. Cf.: / always eat peas with honey. - My wife never does (M, Swan). Eventually she divorced Stephen. It was a pity she had not done so earlier (M. Swan). / haven't got time to get the tickets. Who's going to do ifl (M. Swan). So alone can be a substitute for a clause, e.g.: Does insurance cover hotels? -1 think so (S. Greenbaum). The negative, corresponding to the pro-clause so, is not, e.g.: It's a question of faith. - Maybe not (S. Greenbaum). Some linguists [e.g. A.A. Akishina] refer pro-forms to lexical cohesive devices, others - to morphological cohesive devices [M. Pfutze]. In our opinion, they could hardly be regarded as lexical cohesive devices because all the pro-forms are not lexical, but function words. Function words, as has already been pointed out, are primarily a morphological phenomenon. But in text they perform a syntactic linking function. Two avenues of approach seem possible: 1) to refer pro-forms as a subclass of function words to the periphery of syntactic cohesive devices, 2) to follow S. Greenbaum and single them out into a specific group of cohesive devices. Textual cohesion at the morphological level finds its expression in the correlation of tenses. In direct speech, alternation of past and present is a regular mode of switching from the 'then' of
367

366

the narrative reference to the 'now' of both the narrator and the hearer (or reader): As a child, f lived in Singapore. It's very hot there, you know, and I never owned an overcoat. I remember being puzzled at picture books showing European children wrapped up in heavy coats and scarves. I believe I thought it all as exotic as children here think about spacemen's clothing, you see (R. Quirk et al.). In reported speech, alternation of past and present follows strict rules: the use of the past in the initial sentence generally precludes the use of the present and future in the following sentences. What is more, reported speech makes wide use of the past perfect, e.g.: After Jim and Terry had finished their breakfast, they took their bags and went to the river to fish. They had gone there before and had caught some big fish. By 5 o 'clock they hadn 't got any fish, so they decided to go home. They had promised their mother to bring fish for dinner, so they looked for a shop where they could buy some but the shops had already closed. When they arrived home, they told their mother that they had caught the biggest fish they had ever seen but it had escaped (V. Evans). What is more, there exist metatextual constructions. They serve three purposes: on the one hand, they concentrate the hearer's (reader's) attention on the key points and so make it easier for him to get the message comprised in the text; on the other hand, they help keep up the speaker-hearer contact; and, finally, they act as textual glue [A. Wierzbtcka, T,V. Kharlamova, O.N. Shapovalova] e.g.: / would like to begin by thanking you for inviting me to speak to you today- As you will appreciate - more than most people -health care is at the forefront of the many challenges that governments face today; it is a topic of great importance to my Office and me. In our report tabled in Parliament last fall, we included three chapters on the federal government's implementation of programs aimed at protecting and improving the health of Canadians. Furthermore, we are working on other audits that should be published later this year or next year. And as many of you will know, 'Accountability' is another major issue in much of the work of our Office. A great deal of what we do deals with the issues of accountability. So, in asking me to
368

speak on the 'Federal Government's Accountability to Canadians for Health Services', you hit on two of my favorite topics! First, I will try to summarize our Office's views on accountability; how we understand the concept, and the principles we have adopted in the course of our work. Second. I will discuss how we have applied these principles in the area of health care. I will draw from our recent reports on federal support of health care delivery, and disease surveillance and the control of outbreaks. Finally, I will speak about some of the areas from which solutions may emerge: solutions to some of the significant ~ and unique challenges to accountability in the health sector (L.D. Desautels). Metatextual constructions stand somewhat apart from all the cohesive language devices discussed above because they do not take part in realizing the content plane of the text. They rather organize the content plane of the text into a coherent whole and give the latter a modal colouring. Sometimes we make a link between sentences because of our general knowledge or expectations about the way the world functions [D. Crystal]. Let us take the following pair of sentences: The summer was one of the best they had ever had. The vintage was expected to be superb (D. Crystal). Here there are no obvious language cohesive devices to link these sentences. But anyone who knows about wine can readily supply the missing link. Such techniques as inference, deduction, and presupposition are used in these circumstances. The Problem ofDialogical Texts Traditionally, linguists apply the term 'text' to monological written texts [I.R. Galperin]. Nowadays, the term is extended to cover dialogical texts. On the one hand, they are certainly different. Monological texts are produced by one person. The primary form of their existence is written form. Dialogical texts are co-constructed by two or more people. The primary form of their existence is oral form. On the other hand, they have much in common. According to O.I. Moskalskaya, both monological and dialogical texts are characterized by the following features:
369

1)semantic integrity, 2)communicative structuring (theme-rheme organization), 3)the presence of cohesive devices. True, in the process of realization each of the common features of monological and dialogical texts acquires slight nuances. Thus, semantic integrity in both kinds of texts is common only to supra-phrasal unities. A dialogical text as a whole is often polytopical. As for communicative structuring, every sentence in monological texts has a theme and a rheme of its own, and constitutes a new step in the development of the communicative dynamism of the text. In dialogical texts, the theme and the rheme are often comprised in different sentences uttered by different interlocutors. For example, the question often forms the theme, the answer - the rheme. The peculiarity of cohesive devices finds its expression in a much higher frequency of occurrence of metatextual constructions in dialogicai texts. Text Composition Each kind of text has its own composition. Here are a few illustrative examples. The Composition of Fables: 1)exposition, 2)the characters' actions and speech, 3)moral. For example: The Peacelike Mongoose In Cobra country a mongoose was born one day who didn't want to fight cobras or anything else. The word spread from mongoose to mongoose that there was a mongoose who didn't want to fight cobras. If he didn't want to fight anything else, it was his

own business, but it was the duty of every mongoose to kill cobras or be killed by cobras. 'Why?' asked the Peacelike mongoose, and the word went around that the strange new mongoose was not only pro-cobra and anti-mongoose but intellectually curious and against the ideals and traditions of mongoosism. 'He is crazy,' cried the young mongoose's father. 'He is sick,' said his mother. 'He is a coward,* shouted his brothers. 'He is a mongoosexual,7 whispered his sisters. Strangers who had never laid eyes on the peacelike mongoose remembered that they had seen him crawling on his stomach, or trying on cobra hoods, or plotting the violent overthrow of Mongoosia. 'I am trying to use reason and intelligence,' said the strange new mongoose. 'Reason is six-sevenths of treason,' said one of his neighbors. 'Intelligence is what the enemy uses,' said another. Finally, the rumor spread that the mongoose had venom in his sting, like a cobra, and he was tried, convicted by a show of paws, and condemned to banishment. Moral: Ashes to ashes, and clay to clay, if your enemy doesn't get you, your own folk may (J. Thurber). The

d discussing subject of call, (thanking, farewells, looking forward,

Composition of Business Telephone Conversations:

For example:
A: John Matthews speaking. How can I help you? B: This is Brian Summers from Reynolds here. I'm calling about the delivery of some spare parts. A: Right. That would be the rotary spare parts? B: That's right. They were due last Friday.

370

371

A: Yes, I'm very sorry about the delay. Did you receive a call to let you know there were problems with delivery? B: Yes, I did, but I would like to know the new delivery date. A: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought we'd already informed you. B: Not as far as I know. A: Just a moment. I'll check for you... Right, we'll be delivering them on Tuesday. B: Do you mind if I ask whether you're sure about this new date? A: No, of course not. I can promise you, you'll have the parts on Tuesday. B: Good. I'm pleased to hear that. Thanks very much. Goodbye. A: Goodbye, Mr. Summers (J. Comfort).

5)introducing subject of letter, 6)body of letter, 7)complementary close, 8)signature. For example: BAY STATE MAGAZINE 300 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02188 617-79805065 FAX 617-798-5556 April 5, 1994 Public Information Department Click Camera Company 1000 Riverview Boulevard New York, New York 10010 Dear Sir or Madam: In the April 4, 1994 Boston Daily News I read about your new camera, the X-Lite. Since I am a photographer with Bay State Magazine, it is important that T know about new cameras. Would you please send me information on the camera? I would like to know when the camera will be available and how much it will cost. Thank you for your attention. I look forward to your reply. Yours faithfully, Jane Wilson Photo Department

Agent: All Canada Airlines. Can I help you? Jack: Yes. I need a flight from Vancouver to Phoenix on Friday. Do you have any seats? Agent: Let me see. Yes. I have one on the 5:30 flight. Jack: Five thirty! What's the check-in time? Agent: One hour economy. Thirty minutes Business Class. Will you take that? Jack: No. I won't get to the airport in time. When will the next flight leave? Agent: There won't be another direct flight on Friday. There'll be one on Saturday at the same time. Jack: Fine. I'll take it. Agent: Just let me check. Oh, I'm sorry that flight's full (P. Viney). The Composition of Business Letters: 1) letterhead (name of the company, address, telephone/fax number). 2)date, 3)inner address, 4)salutation,
372

373

CAMERA COMPANY 1000 Riverview Boulevard New York 10010 212-588-9542 FAX 212-588-9547 April 10, 1993 Jane Wilson Bay State Magazine 300 Commonwealth Avenue Boston, Massachusetts 02188 Dear Ms. Wilson: Thank you for your letter of April 5, 1993 expressing interest in Click Camera's new camera, the X-Lite. The camera will be available this December, and the cost will be approximately three hundred and fifty dollars ($350.00). T have enclosed a brochure on the camera. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us or our local Click Camera dealer. Again, thank you for your inquiry. Sincerely yours, Helen Dodge Customer Service5 26. THE GRAMMAR OF CONVERSATION The Greek origin of the word 'grammar' (from 'gramma' - 'a letter', 'a piece of writing') reminds us that the Western grammatical tradition is founded almost exclusively on the study of written language, a bias which still exists today.

However, speech precedes writing. Many different sorts of linguistic events come under the heading of spoken language, e.g.: making a speech, giving a lecture, gossiping with friends, saying a prayer, reading a news bulletin on the radio, reciting poetry, cross-examining a witness, giving a commentary on a news-reel, drilling a squad of soldiers, acting in a play, having an argument, taking part in a panel discussion, etc. The most commonly used kind of spoken language is informal conversation, i.e. conversation on informal occasions, between people who know each other. Everyone makes use of this kind of English every day. In view of this, it may seem odd that so little linguistic research has been carried out into this variety of English. There is, however, one very good reason for this lack of information, namely the procedural difficulty of obtaining reliable data to investigate. It is well known that most people will behave differently if they are aware of being tape-recorded or videotaped. The only safe way of obtaining genuine conversation is through the technique of surreptitious recording or videotaping. But a moral difficulty arises. If you tape-record or videotape the conversation participants clandestinely, you are practising a deception on them. Now linguists use the resources of different computer corpora of conversational English to study what is characteristic of the grammar of English conversation. The fact that the Corpora material generally consists of transcriptions means that even here, the reliance on the written form of the language cannot be escaped. The grammatical characteristics of conversation are predetermined by a spectrum of 'external' factors. So, we shall identify a range of social and situational characteristics of conversation, and discuss their association with particular grammatical traits that are common in conversation.

TEKCT IDICCM aaHMCTBOBae H3 noco6a E.r. BbiomKHHoH CapatOB, 2002.

E.B. KawHHCKoS 'flcnosoe rmCbMo; OCHOBBI, npHMepbi, ynpajKHCHHs'.

374

375

The Influence of Discourse Circumstances on the Grammatical Characteristics of Conversation Conversation Takes Place in the Spoken Medium Conversation takes place in speech - by use of an oralauditory channel. Since the span of immediate memory in spoken language is usually somewhere in the neighbourhood of five [O.B. Sirotinina], conversation usually makes use of rather simple and short syntactic structures, e.g.: Visitor: So if you don't have, ho, very much homework, now, what do you do when you get home from school? Sarah: Hm. Music practice. Visitor: On the piano? Susan: Yes. Sarah: Yes. Visitor: How long do you practise? Susan: About half an hour, er, about twenty minutes, half an hour. Visitor: And how often do you go to music lessons? Susan: Once ... twice a week. Sarah: Twice a week. Visitor: Twice a week? Susan: Yes. Sarah: Yes, Well, it's once a week and one extra if you're going to do exams, you see. Visitor: Oh, I see (M. Underwood). We are not completely at the mercy of this limited span, however, because we have a variety of techniques for getting around it [G.A. Miller]. The two most important of them are prefacing and adjunction. Both divide the clause frame into two more easily managed chunks. The preface concentrates the hearer's attention on the theme, the adjunct - on the rheme. Cf.: And teenagers. Kissing each other on the sidewalk (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English) - preface. I probably sounded a bit bad-tempered. But I felt a bit badtempered. Because he does just push on with these things. Without taking any advice (A Corpus of English Conversation) - adjunct.
376

The verbal part of conversation is very important. But the verbal part of conversation is always accompanied by non-verbal behaviour. One kind of non-verbal behaviour involves the use of parts of the body, such as the face, hands, and arms. Hand movements, body postures, facial expressions, and so on either illustrate, supplement, and reinforce what we say or send their own messages of doubt or even denial of the accompanying words. Another kind of non-verbal behaviour is melody (or intonation). It may be lively, vigorous, playful, cruel, sneering, strong, weak, angry, calm, arrogant, etc. It is the most perfect mirror of our self and our mood. So, it is only a video recording that can give the analyst a full picture of informal conversation. Informal Conversation is Typically Carried Out in Faceto-Face Interaction with People who Know One Another Intimately Hence, it is little influenced by the traditions of prestige and correctness often associated with the printed word, where the English language is 'on its best behaviour'. Instead, the style of conversation is overwhelmingly informal. The informal style of conversation finds its expression at various language levels. At the morphological level, it shows in the extensive use of verb and negative contractions and in the combination of ain 't and aren 't with the personal pronoun /. Cf.: That's what I've heard (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). / don't know anything about Brazilian music (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). I ain't going to tell him (M. Swan). I'm late, aren't 7? (M. Swan). At the syntactic level, coordinators at the beginning of an orthographic sentence are in general much more frequent than in other registers, e.g.: The chap lived in, erm, a semi-detached house. And next door there was a man who'd just bought a new car. And he was telling me that one morning he was looking through the window. And this man allowed his wife to drive the car very unwisely. And she was
377

having a first go in it. And he backed it out of the garage, so that it was standing on the driveway. And he 'd closed the garage doors. And she came out of the house to take this car out and go shopping for the first time (D. Crystal, D. Davy). Subject-verb discord between singular and plural, especially in the construction 'there is' with the contracted form of the verb is, is another syntactic feature which tends to attract censure in written English but is quite common in conversation, e.g.: There's all those huge machines and stuff... (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). In some conversational material we find double negation, e.g.: You haven't heard nothing yet (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). Conversation Takes Place in Shared Context Since the interlocutors know each other, they share not just an immediate physical context of time and space, but a large amount of specific social, cultural, and institutional knowledge. Consistent with the shared knowledge of the interlocutors, conversation has a high frequency of occurrence of 1)deictic words, 2)'sentence representatives' and "clause representatives', 3)sentencoids (especially with the syntagmatic zero), 4)'communicatives'. The most common deictic words are the personal pronouns / and you (because they refer directly to participants in the conversation), demonstrative determiners this/these, that/those, and pronominal numerals. Cf.: Well, I don't know if 1 told you, ... told you that story about that woman, ... who, uh, went after that guy there? I told you that story, right*? (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). The shared context of conversation is also associated with the use of 'sentence representatives' and 'clause representatives'. Cf.: And if you change, do people get upsefl - They do (M. Underwood) - 'sentence representative'. Does she even have a b- a man"? - I guess she must (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English) 'clause representative'. 378

Another type of reliance on context shows in the use of sentencoids with the syntagmatic zero and 'communicatives'. Cf,: Then how do the charges run7 - Twenty-five cents a half hour (W.F. Soskin) - sentencoid with a syntagmatic zero. And is it noisy1? - No (M. Underwood) - 'communicative'. Wow! What a fantastic dress (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - 'communicative'. 'Communicatives' cannot be fitted into canonical syntactic structures. These 'stand-alone' words rely heavily for their interpretation on situational factors, which may be expressed through language but also through other means. For example, Thanks or Sorry may be a follow-up to a non-verbal action, as well as to a verbal one. Conversation Takes Place in Real Time Conversation is typically spontaneous. Hence, speakers are faced with the need both to plan and to execute their utterances "on the fly'. Consequently, conversation is characterized by two features: the 'add-on' strategy [O.B. Sirotinina, D. Biber et al.] and normal dysfluency [D. Crystal, D. Davy]. Having no time to plan their utterances ahead, the participants in conversation create them step-by-step in accordance with the appearing associations, e.g.: Stick a label on them if necessary. When you leave (A Corpus of English Conversation). There are different kinds of dysfluency: 1)utterance launchers, 2)silent pauses, 3)filled pauses, 4)repeats, 5)repair sequences, 6)syntactic blends, 7)utterances left grammatically incomplete. Since the conversation is built on the principle of online production, its participants suffer from limited planning time. The use of utterance .launchers provides the speakers with a planning respite, during which the rest of the utterance can be prepared for execution, e.g.: 379

Oh, I should have lei you read the paper, I never thought of it (D. Biber et al.). The most obvious form of dysfluency is a hold-up in delivery, i.e. a hesitation.pause: a period of silence where the speaker appears to plan what to say next. A filled...pause is occupied not by silence, but by a vowel sound, with or without accompanying nasalization, e.g.: But, er, you 're teaching, erm, at a grammar school, aren 't you! - Yes. Yes (0. Crystal, D, Davy). The choice between unfilled and filled pauses is conditioned by syntactic position. Unfilled pauses tend to occur at major points of transition, points where an utterance launcher (such as oh, well, or okay) is likely to occur. Filled pauses are devices for signalling that the speaker has not yet finished his or her turn, and for discouraging another speaker from taking the floor. Hence, a filled pause is most useful at a point of grammatical incompletion. Repeats, in our opinion, can be regarded as a kind of filled pause. As a rule, one word or even less than one word is repeated, producing a momentary 'stutter' effect. Cf: / / was just really amazed to hear that (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). They're made of rubber. - Th- that's it (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). The strongest tendency to recur in repeats show function words, especially personal pronouns in the nominative case, possessive determiners, and conjunctions. Prepositions form repeats much more seldom. D. Biber and his co-authors think that it is due to the fact that prepositions are often lexically predictable after a preceding noun, adjective, or verb. Apart from is, verbs show an extremely weak tendency to be repeated. One reason why they do not trigger repeats may be that subjects in conversation tend to be very simple, and may therefore constitute the main planning point for the whole of the subsequent clause including the verb phrase. The repeat of is appears to be particularly prevalent when the subject preceding is is a full noun phrase and the predicate following it is a fairly heavy constituent, e.g.: Now the problem is is that he couldn 't pass our level four (D. Biber et al.).

Repeats of forms with verb contractions attached to personal pronouns are also frequent, e.g.: Yes, i- it's, er, it's an enormous problem (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). D. Biber and his co-authors think that such contractions are processed by the speaker as single words. Repair.seguerjces occur when the speaker 'erases' what has just been said, and starts again, this time with a different word or sequence of words, e.g.: Guess kids ' bones, just like ... grow back really fast. ~ Yeah. I think they 're really soft to start with. - They 're made of rubber. Th-that's it. - That's why b-, little kids usually don 't break their legs anyway (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). The term syntactic ...blend is applied to a sentence or clause which finishes up in a way that is syntactically inconsistent with the way it began. The speaker 'switches horses in mid-stream', so to speak. The clauses concerned tend to be fairly long, which suggests that the speaker suffered from a kind of syntactic memory loss in the course of production, e.g.: About a hundred, two hundred years ago we had ninety-five per cent of people - i - in this country were employed in farming (D. Biber et al). Cf: About a hundred, two hundred years ago ninety-five per cent of people in this country were employed in farming. Cf.: We had ninety-five per cent of people in this country employed in farming. .Utt^aj^s_.J^__grmmatic^]y.._incsmpl[^. There are four situations where the speaker starts to utter a grammatical unit and fails to finish it. 1. Self-repair, e.g.: That's such a neat, it's so nice to know the history behind it (D. Biber et at.). 2. Interruption, e.g.: There 's a whole bunch of Saturdays. If you just put your ... This is a Sunday (D. Biber et al.). 3. Completion by the hearer, e.g.: They always have that (flexibility - I.P.), until they reach adulthood, in which case.. . - They get old and cranky like the rest of us (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English).
381

380

4. Abandonment of the utterance, e.g.: She has some kind of a... (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). Perfect fluency in informal conversation tends to produce the wrong effect - one gets labelled a 'smooth' talker, which rather suggests that dysfluency phenomena are of primary significance in determining the acceptability of conversation. Considered in its own situation (i.e. with gestures, facial expressions, and so on), conversation does not seem disjointed at all. Conversation is Interactive It means that the interlocutors constantly take part in the 'give and take' of the online dialogue. That's why questions and imperatives, that typically elicit a response, should be frequent in conversation. In English conversation, imperatives are few [D. Crystal, D. Davy] because English people do not think it polite to directly impose their will on the addressee [R. Wardhaugh]. As for questions, they are often used in English conversation, e.g.: What kind of ice cream was thafl - Bad's (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). But it is hardly good manners to begin a conversation with asking a direct question. A common way of opening a conversation is to use an attention..signal, e.g.: Say, Mom, have you got any paint rollers'? (D. Biberet. a!.), English linguists refer to attention signals only imperative interjections. In our opinion, vocatives in the initial position also perform the function of attracting the attention of the addressee and, consequently, can be included into the class of attention signals, e.g.: Sheila! Diner's at six o 'clock (English Course). To attract the addressee's attention is the first step in any conversation. The main thing, however, is to keep his attention. For this purpose, the speaker resorts to response elicitors and expressions, such as you know, you see, and you understand. Response...elicitors are question tags proper and their inter]ectional equivalents, such as Huh? Eh? Alright? Right? Okay? Cf.:

Well, that would be nice to have a little jazz band next door, wouldn't if! - No (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). Hocano 's in the Philippines. Right! - Right (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). Phrases of the kind you know, you see, and you understand are clear indicators of the speaker's desire that the listener acknowledge that he still has his or her attention, e.g.: And he's, you know, a year and a half year - years old. - Or two years (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). The role of the addressee in keeping the conversation going is even more important. If the speaker does not receive the so-called back channels from the addressee, the conversation gradually languishes [A. Wilkinson]. Given the interactive nature of conversation, back channels are important in indicating that speaker and addressee are keeping in touch with one another, and that communication is still in progress. Back channels are heterogeneous. The most important are: 1)attention signals, 2)agreement and approbation signals, 3)signals of emotional evaluation, 4)response elicitors. Attention signals show to the speaker that the message is being understood and accepted, e.g.: But we \e got quite a bright lot in our first year. The first year are much brighter, to my mind, than the second year. - Mm. But they tell me the second year always go off (A Corpus of English Conversation). Agreement .and..approbatiori,s.ignals show the speaker that the addressee supports his viewpoint, which is always pleasant to hear, e.g.: What I - what I think he doesn't realize is that it's very largely because he's been building, erm, this land of peripheral thing in Appleby that it has gone down. - Yes. Yes. Yes (A Corpus of English Conversation). Now, this isn 't according to grandpa now. - Okay (D. Biber et al.).

382

383

Signalsjof emotional evaluation are more rare because English people are not inclined to wear their heart on their sleeve [W.J. Ball], e.g.: I've got a big one (stamp - I.P.) which is about three inches by one inch. - Goodness me\ (M. Underwood). Response.ehcitprs signal lack of understanding and a wish to have the message repeated, e.g.: Look at that dead fish. - Huh! - That fish, Honey. Give me that little fish (W.F. Soskin). If the addressee wants to change roles with the speaker, he usually begins his utterance with a hesitator or one of the abovementioned back channels and then passes on to what he wants to say. Cf.: I was in fact secretary to the Registrar of the Royal College of Music. And he organizes the whole set-up. Erm, so that the first week I had everyone coming in on me. - Erm, Frightful. Why did you leave? ~ Erm. Mainly cos I'd been there two - two years (A Corpus of English Conversation). Well, I think this is a place where I-1 can get a cheap kettle. - Yes. Yes. I think I've got a plug. I'm not sure I haven't got a plug somewhere (A Corpus of English Conversation). Conversation is Expressive of Politeness and Stance, i.e. Personal Attitudes or Feelings Informal conversation is certainly more emotional than the other registers. In the first place, the common predicative adjectives in conversation are mostly evaluative, e.g.: Did you hear I saw Sarah's sister's baby? ~ How is it? -She's cute, pretty really (D. Biber et al.). In the second place, various types of intensifies are added to evaluative words. Cf.: It's pretty funny (Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English). Now if you've got three different age groups... It's terribly difficult (D. Crystal, D. Davy). In the third place, endearments are rather common in conversation, e.g.: Hello! Darling! Are you there? (BBC London Course). 384

At the more restrained end of the emotional spectrum are the interjections oh (often in combination with no), ah, wow and the mild expletives bloody and damn that have already turned into a kind of intensifier. Cf.: I've forgotten my key. - Oh, no (BBC London Course). Will you lend me ten pounds'? - Not bloody likely (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Let's serve this damn chilli (D. Biber et al.). As for formulas of politeness, such as thanks, thank you, please, sorry, etc., and the polite openers in exchanges, such as requests, offers, etc., they do occur in informal conversation, but, in general, they are more characteristic of formal conversation. Cf: Have a good flight now. ~ Thanks (N. Church, A. Moss). Enjoy your stay here. - Thank you. (P. Viney). Two coffees and one lemonade, please. - Sorry, sir. No coffee (BBC London Course). The bathroom light in my room doesn 't work. Could you have somebody come up and take a look at it, please1? - Oh, of course, Mr. Bourn (N. Church, A. Moss).
Telephone Conversation

Telephone conversation is, on the one hand, similar, on the other hand, different from ordinary conversation. Just like ordinary conversation, telephone conversation takes place in the spoken medium, is built on the principle of online production, and is interactive. But in contrast to ordinary conversation, which is typically carried out in face-to-face interaction with others, the participants in telephone conversation are not visible to each other. The absence of visual contact prompts speakers to assure themselves that the other person is still on the line. Similarly, it is usual for addressees to signal that they are attending to what is being said and can understand it. Visual feedback being absent, auditory cues become all-important. Anything approaching a silence on the part of one of the speakers is interpreted either as a breakdown of communication (Hello? Are you there?) or as an opportunity for interruption which may not have been desired. If delay is required, then voiced hesitation is usually introduced to 'fill the gap'.

385

In view of the diminished quality of the voice over the telephone, there is a strong pressure for greater explicitness. The conclusion that suggests itself is that telephone conversation and ordinary conversation are different only in degree, and that the former can be seen as a sub-province of the more general notion. 27. PUNCTUATION To understand punctuation, a historical perspective is essential The modern system is the result of a process of thought over many centuries. Early classical texts were unpunctuated, with no spaces between words. The first marks were introduced in an age of oratory. They tended to reflect a division into sense-units that were expected to correlate at their boundaries with pauses in speech. Standardization gradually emerged after the introduction of printing in the 15th century. The present punctuation system for English was essentially in place during the second half of the 17th century. Still, the authors might punctuate the same text in very different ways. Some (e.g. Ch. Dickens) were very concerned about punctuation, and took great pains to check it when revising proofs; others (e.g. W. Wordsworth) left the task to their publishers. Even today, punctuation remains to some extent a matter of personal preference. The punctuation system serves two broad purposes: separation and specification. Punctuation marks that serve the purpose of separation, in the opinion of R. Quirk and his co-authors, can be divided into two subclasses: those separating units of equal rank and those separating units of unequal rank. Punctuation marks that separate units of equal rank occur singly. Thus, in the following passage the point signals the end of the first sentence and therefore separates the two sentences: The police asked me about him, I had never even heard of him (S. Sheldon). Punctuation marks that set off included units (usually parenthetic) occur in pairs when the included unit is placed in the middle position and singly - when the included unit is placed either in the initial or final position within some larger unit. Cf.: He comes, I think, tomorrow (P.H. Matthews).

To be frank, George isn 't very good at the job (Longman Essential Activator). She's a year or two older than you, I should think (Longman Essential Activator). Several punctuation marks have a specifying function. For example, the apostrophe is most frequently used to signal the genitive case of nouns. Cf.: my father's car (M. Swan), my parents' car (M. Swan). In accordance with the two main functions of punctuation, D. Crystal suggests that two classes of punctuation marks should be distinguished: marks that separate constructions and marks that convey meaning. To the first class, he refers points, semi-colons, colons, commas, parentheses (or round brackets), square brackets, dashes, quotation marks, and hyphens. To the second class, he refers question marks, exclamation marks, and the apostrophe. We side with S. Greenbaum, however, who thinks that most marks of specification have a dual function. On the one hand, they do specify the meaning of the construction. On the other hand, they separate one construction (or its part) from another. Thus, the point (commonly called 'full stop' in British English), the question mark, and the exclamation mark not only signal the end of a monopredicative or polycomponent syntactic unit but also tell the reader what kind of syntactic unit he has just finished reading: a statement, a question, or an emphatic expression. Statements do normally end in points, questions - in question marks, emphatic expressions - in exclamation marks. But the opposite is not true. A point may end not only statements but also inducements, polite requests, and even emphatic expressions because English people are taught to use exclamation marks sparingly. Cf.: We do not suffer by accident (J. Austen) - statement. Get up (D. Steel) - inducement. Would you close the door as you leave. Fred (V. McClelland et al.) - polite request. / do understand what you mean (V. McClelland et al) -emphatic expression. How nice of you to come (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - emphatic expression.

386

387

A question mark may end not only questions but also polite requests, statements, and - occasionally - emphatic expressions. Cf.: What's wrong'? (D. Steel) - question. Will you phone me later, please? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - polite request How can I climb that? <= I can't climb it> (P.H. Matthews) -statement. Why the hell should I got (E.A.M. Wilson) - emphatic expression. Only the exclamation mark seems to be monofunctional Cf.: What a tragedy that would be\ (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - emphatic expression. How pleased they were to see us\ (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) - emphatic expression. A sequence of three points is used for omissions in quotations and for hesitation or suspense. They are termed, accordingly, ellipses and hesitation points. Cf.: I'd be happy to show... (D. Brown) - ellipses points. What exactly were you telling me, Deanna? That it's over? -1 ... no ... 1... oh God\ (D. Steel) ~ hesitation points. The omission may be at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the syntactic unit. If the omission comes at the end of a syntactic unit, a fourth period is commonly added (particularly in American English and for scholarly writing in British English) for the usual point, e.g.: Fame is the spur.... (J. Milton).

Marks of Non-End Punctuation

The Semi-Colon The semi-colon is below the point in the hierarchy. It cannot end a syntactic unit, but it can separate independent coordinate clauses closely connected in meaning when no conjunction is used, e.g.: The sales staff meets every other Tuesday; the production staff meets only once a month (The New Webster's Grammar Guide).

The semi-colon may also be followed by a coordinator when either one or all the constituent independent clauses have internal punctuation. Cf.: Billy, who is just three, ate his brother's candy; and this caused a terrible row when Henry got home (V. McClelland et al.) -the first clause has internal punctuation. The president, a well-known man, predicted a cost of living increase for the first of the year; but his prediction, which spread throughout the plant, proved to be wrong (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - both clauses have internal punctuation. When two independent clauses are linked by conjunctive adverbs like however, therefore, in fact, on the other hand, you must use a semi-colon before the connectives. A comma usually follows these connectives, e.g.: A new store would bring in more business; however, we just don't have enough capital to expand now (V. McClelland et al.). Another use of the semi-colon is to separate items in a list introduced by such words as in other words, for example, for instance, that is, and namely. A comma is placed after these words. Cf.: In one respect, government policy has been firmly decided; that is, there will be no conscription (R. Quirk et al.). There are several good reasons; for example, you 've never seen the city, and you don't know the company (V. McClelland et al.). If the items in a list do not make complete clauses, it is better to separate them by a comma, e.g.: Clare has many good points, for example, poise, talent, ambition, and intelligence (V. McClelland et al.). According to the New Webster's Grammar Guide, the use of a semi-colon in this case is also possible, e.g.: These special artist's pencils are available in three colors; namely, red, green, and blue (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). The Colon The colon, a rather infrequent punctuation mark, indicates a closer interdependence between the units separated than does the semi-colon.

388

389

In the opinion of S. Greenbaum, the colon has three major functions: 1)to introduce identifications, 2)to introduce examples, 3)to introduce, especially in formal style, quotations or direct speech. Cf: Today they face a further threat to their survival: starvation (S. Greenbaum). The cake called for unusual ingredients: mace, citron, and coffee (V. McClelland et al.). In her review of the new film, Rona Barrett says '"One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" is about mental institutions. By the end of the movie you will be thinking of the cuckoos in your own nest' (V. McClelland et al.). Atkinson said yesterday: Tm happy here. * (S. Greenbaum). A comma would be more usual than a colon in the last example, where the direct speech consists of just one short monopredicative syntactic unit and the style is not formal. Parentheses. Dashes, Brackets Occasionally, you may want to insert into a syntactic unit words that sharply interrupt its normal word order. In such cases, you will need stronger separators than commas. There are three special marks of punctuation you can use to set off or enclose these abrupt interruptions: parentheses (or round brackets), dashes, and square brackets. Parentheses indicate the greatest degree of separation between the enclosed word, word group, or clause and the rest of the syntactic unit, e.g.: Jim's wool jacket (we bought it last week) keeps him warm in sub-zero weather (V. McClelland et al.). The dash indicates greater separation than the comma, but less than parentheses. The dash may mark an abrupt change of thought or structure in a syntactic unit, e.g.: / was certain that the manager - indeed all of the office force - wanted John to receive the promotion (The New Webster's Grammar Guide).
390

The dash may be used to indicate a summarizing thought or an afterthought added to the end of the syntactic unit e.g.: We 'II be arriving on Monday morning - at least I think so (M. Swan). The dash may be used to set off a word or word group repeated for emphasis, e.g.: We invited them for one meeting - one meeting only - not for the entire convention\ (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Square brackets have two common uses. First, they are used to enclose material added by someone other than the writer; for example, editorial additions or comments: The poet [Robert Browning] did not approve of the excessive adulation during the meeting (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Second, square brackets are used to set off interrupting elements that occur in material already enclosed by parenthesis, e.g.: Your order (including items No. 391, No. 394, and No. 286 [No. 288 was out of stock/) was filled last week (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Commas may also be used to set off parenthetic words, word groups, and clauses. No strict rules can be stated when this or that punctuation mark should be used. The authors of The New Webster's Grammar Guide advise to use dashes for visual effect; commas if the material is short; parentheses - when the material is long. V. McClelland, J.D. Reynolds, MX. Steel and I. Guillory are of opinion that parentheses and square brackets tend to give our writing a scholarly formal tone. As for dashes, they suggest surprise or emotion and give our writing a more casual tone. Quotation Marks
Direct quotations and direct speech are always enclosed in quotation marks. Quotation marks come in pairs. They may be single or double. In British English, there is an increasing tendency to employ single marks as the norm and double marks for quotations within quotations. In American English, in contrast, double marks are the norm and single marks are used for quotations 391

within quotations. In British English, the closing punctuation mark is put outside the quotation marks. In American English, the final quotation marks always follow a point or a comma. If direct speech extends over more than one paragraph, the convention is to place opening quotation marks at the beginning of each paragraph and closing quotation marks only at the end of the final paragraph. Short quotations are usually introduced by a comma, long quotations - by a colon. The Comma Commas are by far the most frequently occurring non-end punctuation marks within monopredicative and polycompnent syntactic units. Commas within Monopredicative Syntactic Units Within monopredicative syntactic units, commas fulfil two functions. 1. They separate a series of three or more words or word groups. The comma before the last item is optional provided that it is preceded by the conjunction and. e.g.: She bought eggs, butter, cheese, bread, rice (,) and coffee (R. Quirk etal.). But since using a comma before the conjunction is never wrong and not using it may cause problems, V. McClelland, J.D. Reynolds, ML. Steet and I. Guillory advise to put it in every time. As for the authors of The New Webster's Grammar Guide, they think that a comma should always be placed before the conjunction in joining the last two members of a series. Some words are customarily used in pairs: ham and eggs, bread and butter, etc. When these pairs occur with other items in a series, they are set off with commas just as one item, e.g.: Joey served soup, bread and butter, pudding, and milk (V. McClelland etal.)But if the items are considered separately, they are set off by commas, e.g.: Reva bought soda, pickles, bread, and butter (V. McClelland et al).
392

When all the items in a series are joined by coordinators, no commas are used, e.g.: Re x wa gg ed hi s tail an d ya pp ed a nd sh oo k for jo y (V. McClelland et al.). 2. The comma is used to separate adjectives which modify the same noun and which allow the introduction of the coordinator and, e.g.: The mayor's sister is a tall, frail woman (V. McClelland et al.). * The mayor's sister is a tall and frail woman. But look at the word dark in the sentence Ettie crocheted her mother a dark green sweater (V. McClelland et al.). Here the adjective dark modifies the adjective green. That's why they should not be separated by a comma. 3. The comma is used to set off words or word groups expressing contrast, e.g.: It's a cat, not a dog (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). You may be excused from the conference this time, but never again (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). 4. The comma is used to separate a word (or word group) from the rest of the syntactic unit when it is inverted or out of its natural order, e.g.: For me, it will mean extra work and less pay (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Commas within Complicated Syntactic Units In complicated syntactic units, commas set off non-clausal syntactic units in the function of loose parts of the sentence and parenthetic elements. Loose attributes and appositives are used after the noun they modify; loose adverbials and situational modifiers occur in the initial position. Loose adverbials and situational modifiers can be expressed by prepositional phrases, participial phrases, and participial predicative constructions. Parenthetic nonclausal units, in addition to modal and connective elements, comprise also phatic elements that do not form a separate sense-unit and lack an independent intonation contour. They include interjections., words in direct address, and formulas of etiquette. Cf:
393

The scraggly pine, grotesque and barren in the cold moonlight, leered down at the panic-stricken hikers (E. C. Aiward, J.A. Alward) - loose attribute. Sally, my neighbour, is a teacher (B.C. Alward, J.A. Alward) - loose appositive. Running easily, the fox outdistanced the dogs (V. McClelland et al.) - loose adverbial expressed by a participial phrase. After a long illness, Mary returned to work (V. McClelland et al.) - loose situational modifier expressed by a prepositional phrase. Having fatten asleep on the train, I missed my station (E.G. Alward, J.A. Alward) - loose situational modifier expressed by a participial phrase. The rain having stopped, we went to lunch (The New Webster's Grammar Guide) - loose situational modifier expressed by a participial predicative construction. Fortunately, Charles caught the bus (D. Crystal) - modal parenthetic element. Nuclear power is relatively cheap. On the other hand, you could argue that it's not safe (Longman Language Activator) -connective parenthetic element. Oh, I can't explain now (I. Shaw) - phatic parenthetic element: interjection. My dear, you flatter me (J. Austen) - phatic parenthetic element: direct address, Tea or coffee? - Coffee, please (P. Viney) - phatic parenthetic element: formula of etiquette. Commas within Poly component Syntactic Units Based on Coordination and Accumulation 1. The comma is used to separate independent clauses joined by one of the coordinators (and, but, or, nor, for, so, yet, while, and whereas), e.g.: Emma's courage returned, and she walked on (J. Austen). If the clauses of a polycomponent syntactic unit joined by coordination are very short and closely connected, the comma may be omitted, e.g.: I play or I listen to music (I. Shaw). 394

The use of a comma without a coordinator between the independent clauses is called the comma fault. Instead of the comma in this case it is necessary to use the semi-colon. When the independent clauses of a polycomponent syntactic unit based on coordination are very long or have internal punctuation, a semi-colon is generally used before the coordinator, e.g.: Copyboy, take this folder to Alan Toms, the fellow in brown over there; and be sure to come back (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). 2. The comma is used to separate independent clauses joined by accumulation, for example: a) a declarative clause and an interrogative clause in a disjunctive question: You don't like fish, doyou7 (M. Swan); b) the words of affirmation and negation and 'sentence representatives' in short answers to ''yes/no questions': Do you know York? - Yes, Ida (P. Viney); c) the words introducing direct speech: He said, "They are not here' (The New Webster's Grammar Guide). Commas within Polyprecomponent Syntactic Units Based on Subordination Within polycomponent syntactic units based on subordination commas fulfil two functions. 1. They set off dependent clauses when they precede the matrix clause, e.g.: When she got home, she walked into the bedroom without saying a word, undressed, turned out the light and got into bed (S. Sheldon). A dependent clause that follows the matrix clause is usually not set off by a comma, e.g.: She got the job because she was the best candidate (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 2. They set off non-restrictive relative clauses that never occur in the initial position, e.g.: My father, who is very sorry, can't come (P.H. Matthews). 395

According to R. Quirk and his co-authors, punctuation is governed primarily by grammatical considerations. Hence, there is less room in punctuation than in prosody for personal decision in the use of the various devices. Punctuation marks tend to be used according to fairly strict conventions. There are two important qualifications to the foregoing generalizations. In the first place, there is a great deal of flexibility in the use of the comma: in its presence or absence, or in its replacement by other marks. The comma provides considerable opportunity for personal taste and for implying fine degrees of cohesion and separation. Secondly, the conventions as a whole are not followed as rigorously in manuscript use, especially personal material, such as private letters.
Punctuation of Words

The Apostrophe The apostrophe has three main uses: 1) to signal the genitive case of nouns, 2) to indicate a contraction, and 3) to pluralize letters, figures, signs, symbols, and words taken out of context or referred to as words. 1. The main use of the apostrophe is to signal the genitive case of nouns. The general rule is that to form the genitive singular we add an apostrophe and an s; to form the genitive plural we add an apostrophe only. Cf.: her daughter's career (S. Greenbaum), my parents' car (S. Greenbaum). If the plural does not end in an s, we form the genitive plural by adding an apostrophe and an A1, e.g.: the people's opinions (S. Greenbaum). There are a few exceptions to the general rules. Singular common nouns ending in an 5 sound that combine with the word sake take the apostrophe alone, e.g.: for goodness' sake (S. Greenbaum). In British English, the apostrophe may be omitted. 396

There is a divided usage over singular proper nouns ending in -s. Some follow the general rule for the singular: Dickens 's novels (S. Greenbaum), but make an exception for Moses and Jesus., because the two words have already two s letters: Jesus' teachings (S. Greenbaum) and traditionally also for Greek names of more than one syllable that end in -5: Socrates' death (S. Greenbaum). Others use only an apostrophe in all these cases, e.g.: Dickens' novels (S. Greenbaum). Plural proper names follow the general rule for plurals ending in -s by taking only the apostrophe, e.g.: the Thompsons' new house (S. Greenbaum). The group genitive is attached at the end of a modifying o/phrase, e.g.: the Queen of England's wealth (S. Greenbaum). The genitive is also attached at the end of coordinate nouns that constitute a unit, e.g.: Norman and Alice's wedding (G. Greenbaum). The genitive noun may be used without a following noun, especially when it refers to a place, e.g.: I'm going to the dentist's (S. Greenbaum). From this use they have developed plural forms for large companies - without the apostrophe, e.g.: They 're shopping at Harrods (S. Greenbaum). 2. The apostrophe often takes the place of missing letters in contractions. Cf.: I'll call the police*. (D. Brown). I'm trying to check my email (H. Fielding). Don't be sulky now (H, Fielding). 3. Plurals of letters are usually formed by adding an apostrophe and s, e.g.: To have all B ** and A's on a college transcript is exceptional (E.G. Alward, J.A. Alward). Plurals of figures, signs, symbols, and words taken out of context or referred to as words can be formed either by adding the 's or simply s. Cf.: The space age started in the early 1960's (E.G. Alward, J.A, Alward). The space age started in the early 1960s (E.G. Alward, J.A. Alward).
397

You have five and's in this sentence (E.G. Alward, J.A. Alward). You have five ands in this sentence (E.G. Alward, J.A. Alward). Nowadays, more and more writers add just s.

Hyphens The main function of the hyphen is to link words that form compound words. Compounds may be 'open', i.e. written as separate words (e.g.: washing machine), 'hyphenated', i.e. linked by a hyphen (e.g. tax-free), or 'solid', i.e. written as one word (e.g. handkerchief). Also to be considered are hyphens that attach some prefixes to an existing word to form a new word (e.g. ex-husband). American English tends to use fewer hyphens than British English. 1. In compounds used attributively (i.e. to modify a following noun), a hyphen is inserted if it is needed to clarify which words belong together, e. g.: A first-class performance (S. Greenbaum). The hyphen is not needed if the two words do not corne before the noun, e.g.: Your performance was first class (S. Greenbaum). It is also not needed if the first word is an adverb ending in -ly and can therefore be recognized as modifying the second word, e.g.: A tastefully furnished room (S. Greenbaum). An adverb or adjective preceding an attributive compound is not hyphenated, e.g.: A very well-known artist (S. Greenbaum). 2. Adjective compounds built on the pattern 'adjective or noun + noun + ed suffix' are generally hyphenated if they come after a noun, but they are also sometimes written solid. Cf: There 'd be fewer accidents if all road-users were more safety-minded (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). He's only 24, but he behaves as if he's already middle-aged (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Compounds, such as middle-aged, are not written solid, to avoid juxtaposing the vowels.
398

3. Most adjective compounds whose second word is an -ing or -ed participle are either hyphenated or more usually (especially in American English) written solid even when they come after a noun. Cf: Our teacher is very easy-going; she doesn 't mind if we turn up late (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Try one of these homemade cookies (Longman Language Activator). 4. Noun compounds built on the pattern 'verb with an -er or -ing suffix + adverb' are hyphenated. Cf: passer-by (A.S. Hornby et al.), summing-up (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). If the first word is without these suffixes, the compound may be either hyphenated or not. Cf: break-in (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English), breakdown (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 5. Compounds expressing an land' relation are hyphenated. Cf: tragic-comic (S. Greenbaum), deaf-mute (S. Greenbaum). 5. Number compounds are hyphenated, e.g.: twenty-one (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). But: two hundred miles (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). Note the use of hyphens for attributive use, e.g.: a one-day-old baby (S. Greenbaum), 20-odd years (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 7. Compounds in which the first element is a simple capital are hyphenated, e.g.: She was wearing jeans and a T-shirt (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). 8. A hyphen is usual after a few prefixes, e.g.: my ex-wife (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English). A hyphen is usual if the prefix precedes a capital or a digit. Cf: pre-1960s (S. Greenbaum), antiEnglish (S. Greenbaum), unAmerican (S. Greenbaum). 399

A hyphen is required to distinguish different words. Cf.: re-form <- form again> (S. Greenbaum). reform <= improve> (G. Greenbaum). In British English, a hyphen is sometimes used to prevent mispronunciation, e.g.: co-operation, pre-eminent, but there is an increasing tendency to follow the American practice of writing such words solid. 9. Two or more hyphenated words may be linked. Since the final word of the compound word, in this case, is common to two or more of the preceding parts of the series, the hyphens are referred to as suspending hyphens. Cf.: He ordered five-, eight-, and ten-penny nails (E.G. Alward, J.A. Alward). Pro- and anti-Vietnam demonstrations (S. Greenbaum).

C N E T O T N S MORPHOLOGY 1.Introduction.........................................................................3 2.Morphological Units............................................................7 3.Grammatical Category, Meaning, andForm.....................10 4.Parts of Speech..................................................................24 5.The Noun..........................................................................35 6.The Adjective....................................................................60 7.The Adverb.......................................................................78 8.The Verb...........................................................................84 9.Non-Finite Forms of the Verb.........................................124 10.The Pronoun................................................................148 11.The Numeral.........................................................,.......156 12.Function Words.............................................................163 13.The Article....................................................................179 SYNTAX 1.Types of Syntactic Connection........................................191 2.Word and Word Form......................................................202 3.Word Combination...........................................................203 4.Essence of Predication.....................................................212 5.Finite Dependent Clauses...............................................213 6.Non-Finite Dependent Clauses........................................222 7.Independent Clauses........................................................224 8.Non-Predicative Syntactic Units.......................................225 9.Types of Predicative Syntactic Units................................225 10. Structural Classifications of Predicative Syntactic Units.............................................................................230 11.Sentence Models............................................................237 12.The Subject...................................................................257 13.The Predicate................................................................262 14.The Determiner.............................................................271 15.The Object....................................................................272 16.The Adverbial...............................................................278 17.The Attribute................................................................283