97177

MODERN ENGLISH GRAMMAR

Книга

Иностранные языки, филология и лингвистика

The aim of the book is therefore to lead the students to a scientific understanding of new assumptions and views of language as system, keeping abreast of the latest findings set forth in the progressive development of grammatical theory by Soviet and foreign scholars in recent times.

Английский

2015-10-14

2.28 MB

2 чел.

N. M. RAYEVSKA

MODERN

ENGLISH

GRAMMAR

For Senior Courses of the Foreign Language Faculties in Universities and Teachers' Training Colleges

Сканирование, распознавание, проверка:

Аркадий Куракин {ark # mksat, net}, сентябрь 2004 г.

Для некоммерческих целей.

Исправлено ок. 10 опечаток.

Орфография из американской переведена в британскую.

(Пропущены с.c. 129-136, 154-155 и 168-169)

VYŠČA SKOLA PUBLISHERS KIEV — 1976


Н. М. РАЄВСЬКА

ТЕОРЕТИЧНА

ГРАМАТИКА

СУЧАСНОЇ

АНГЛІЙСЬКОЇ

МОВИ

Допущено Міністерством вищої і середньої спеціальної освіти УРСР як підручник для студентів факультетів романо-германської філології університетів і педагогічних інститутів іноземних мов

ВИДАВНИЧЕ ОБ'ЄДНАННЯ «ВИЩА ШКОЛА»

ГОЛОВНЕ ВИДАВНИЦТВО

КИЇВ — 1976


4И (Англ) Р16

Учебник теоретической грамматики современного английского языка состоит из трёх разделов: I. Вступление, II. Морфология и III. Синтаксис. Основная задача курса развитие лингвистического мышления студентов, научного понимания грамматических и лексико-грамматических категорий современного английского языка. В центре внимания проблемные вопросы теории грамматики на современном этапе развития языкознания. Эти вопросы освещаются в плане систематических сопоставлений с украинским и другими языками.

В конце каждого раздела представлены контрольные вопросы, Revision Material, которые должны содействовать усвоению материала учебника и помочь студентам в их самостоятельной научной работе.

Учебник рассчитан на студентов старших курсов факультетов романо-германской филологии университетов и педагогических институтов иностранных языков.

Підручник теоретичної граматики сучасної англійської мови складається з трьох розділів: І. Вступ, II. Морфологія і III. Синтаксис. Основне завдання курсу розвиток лінгвістичного мислення студентів, наукового розуміння граматичних і лексико-граматичних категорій сучасної англійської мови. В центрі уваги проблемні питання теорії граматики на сучасному етапі розвитку мовознавства. Ці питання висвітлюються в плані систематичних зіставлень з українською та іншими мовами.

В кінці кожного розділу подано контрольні питання, Revision Material, які мають сприяти засвоєнню матеріалу підручника і допомогти студентам в їхній самостійній науковій роботі.

Підручник розраховано на студентів старших курсів факультетів романо-германської філології університетів і педагогічних інститутів іноземних мов.

Редакція літератури з іноземних мов
Зав. редакцією
М. М. Азаренко

НАТАЛИЯ НИКОЛАЕВНА РАЕВСКАЯ

Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка

Допущено Министерством высшего и среднего специального образования УССР в качестве учебника для студентов факультетов романо-германской филологии университетов и педагогических институтов иностранных языков (на английском языке)

Издательское объединение «Вища школа». Головное издательство.

Редактор Л. О. Нагорна Обкладинка художника Я. М. Яковенка. Художній редактор М. М. Панасюк Технічний редактор Т. І. Мазюк Коректор О. I. Кравчук.

Здано до набору 27.05 1975 р. Підписано до друку 13 01 1976 р. Формат паперу 60Х90 1/16 Папір друк. № 2 Друк арк. 19 Обл.-видавн. арк. 21,78 Видавн. № 2380. Тираж 5000 Ціна 85 коп. Зам. № 5—1419.

Головне видавництво видавничого об'єднання
«Вища школа»
252054, Київ-54, Гоголівська, 7.

Надруковано з матриць Головного підприємства республіканського виробничого об'єднання «Поліграфкнига» Держкомвидаву УРСР, м. Київ, вул. Довженка, 3 в Київській книжковій друкарні наукової книги, Рєпіна, 4. Зам 6-281.

(C) Видавниче об'єднання «Вища школа», 1976. 


ПРЕДИСЛОВИЕ

(перевод с русского языка сделан при сканировании)

Учебник теоретической грамматики современного английского языка предназначается для студентов старших курсов факультетов романо-германской филологии университетов и педагогических институтов иностранных языков.

Курс состоит из трёх разделов: I. Вступление. II. Морфология и III. Синтаксис. Материал книги изложен в плане программных требований к теоретическим курсам, направляя внимание студентов на научное понимание новейших достижений в развитии современной грамматической теории. В центре внимания лежит вопрос системного характера языка, диалектического единства формы и содержания всех грамматических явлений, функционально-семантических связей между единицами разного уровня.

Книга знакомит читателя с развитием грамматической теории английского языка и научными поисками новых методов грамматического анализа в исследованиях советских и зарубежных лингвистов.

В учебнике освещаются также такие вопросы, как синтагматические и ассоциативные отношения лингвистических единиц, проблема «грамматическая категория и контекст», понятие оппозиции для раскрытия сути грамматических категорий в морфологии и синтаксисе, принцип поля в изучении структуры языка, семантические аспекты синтаксиса, имплицитная предикация и проблема синтаксической парадигмы. Валентность грамматических форм изучается в разных условиях их синтагматической дистрибуции. Надлежащее внимание уделено функциональным транспозициям разных форм их полисемии, синонимической корреляции и стилистическим функциям.

Учитывая то, что специализация студентов факультетов иностранных языков университетов ведётся в настоящее время с двух иностранных языков, отдельные вопросы курса теоретической грамматики современного английского языка освещаются в плане сопоставлений с другими языками.

В конце каждого раздела представлены контрольные вопросы, Revision Маterial, которые не только содействуют усвоению материала учебника, а и направляют студента на самостоятельную научную работу по теории грамматики.


ПЕРЕДМОВА

Підручник теоретичної граматики сучасної англійської мови призначається для студентів старших курсів факультетів романо-германської філології університетів і педагогічних інститутів іноземних мов.

Курс складається з трьох розділів: І. Вступ. II. Морфологія і III. Синтаксис. Матеріал книги викладено в плані програмних вимог до теоретичних курсів, скеровуючи увагу студентів на наукове розуміння найновіших досягнень у розвитку сучасної граматичної теорії. У центрі уваги питання системного характеру мови, діалектичної єдності форми і змісту всіх граматичних явищ, функціонально-семантичних зв'язків між одиницями різного рівня.

Книга знайомить читача з розвитком граматичної теорії англійської мови та науковими пошуками нових методів граматичного аналізу в дослідженнях радянських і зарубіжних лінгвістів.

У підручнику висвітлюються також такі питання, як синтагматичні і асоціативні відношення лінгвістичних одиниць, проблема «граматична категорія і контекст», поняття опозиції для розкриття суті граматичних категорій в морфології і синтаксисі, принцип поля у вивченні структури мови, семантичні аспекти синтаксису, імпліцитна предикація і проблема синтаксичної парадигми. Валентність граматичних форм вивчається в різних умовах їх синтагматичної дистрибуції. Належну увагу приділено функціональним транспозиціям різних форм їх полісемії, синонімічній кореляції і стилістичним функціям.

Зважаючи на те, що спеціалізація студентів факультетів іноземних мов університетів провадиться в цей час з двох іноземних мов, окремі питання курсу теоретичної граматики сучасної англійської мови висвітлюються в плані зіставлень з іншими мовами.

В кінці кожного розділу подано контрольні питання, Revision Маterial, які не тільки сприяють засвоєнню матеріалу підручника, а й скеровують студента на самостійну наукову роботу з теорії граматики.

5


FOREWORD

The book is designed for the students of the senior courses of the University faculties of foreign languages and Teachers' Training Colleges. The aim of the book is therefore to lead the students to a scientific understanding of new assumptions and views of language as system, keeping abreast of the latest findings set forth in the progressive development of grammatical theory by Soviet and foreign scholars in recent times.

The central interest in functional semantic correlation of grammatical units has given shape to the whole book. In a description of language structure we have to account for the form, the substance and the relationship between the form and the situation. Linguistic activity participates in situations alongside with man's other activities.

Grammatical categories are viewed as a complicated unity of form and grammatical content. Due attention has been drawn to contextual level of analysis, to denotative and connotative meanings of grammatical forms, their transpositions and functional re-evaluation in different contexts, linguistic or situational.

Linguistic studies of recent years contain a vast amount of important observations based on acute observations valid for further progressive development of different aspects of the science of language. The conception of the general form of grammars has steadily developed. What becomes increasingly useful for insight into the structure and functioning of language is orientation towards involving lexis in studying grammar.

In a language description we generally deal with three essential parts known as phonology, vocabulary, and grammar. These various ranges, or levels, are the subject matter of the various branches of linguistics. We may think of vocabulary as the word-stock, and grammar as the set of devices for handling this word-stock. It is due precisely to these devices that language is able to give material linguistic form to human thought.

Practically speaking, the facts of any language are too complex to be handled without arranging them into such divisions. We do not mean to say, however, that these three levels of study should be thought of as isolated from each other. The affinities between all levels of linguistic organisation make themselves quite evident. Conceived in isolation, each of them will always become artificial and will hardly justify itself in practice. It is not always easy to draw precise boundaries between

6


grammar and vocabulary. Sometimes the subject matter becomes ambiguous just at the borderline. The study of this organic relationship in language reality seems to be primary in importance.

For a complete description of language we have to account for the form, the substance and the relationship between the form and the situation. The study of this relationship may be referred to as contextual level of analysis.

Grammar, whose subject matter is the observable organisation of words into various combinations, takes that which is common and basic in linguistic forms and gives in an orderly way accurate descriptions of the practice to which users of the language conform. And with this comes the realisation that this underlying structure of the language (as system) is highly organised. Whatever are the other interests of modern linguistic science, its centre is surely an interest in the grammatical system of language.

To-day we have well-established techniques for the study of language from a number of different points of view. Each of these techniques supplements all the others in contributing to theoretical knowledge and the practical problems of the day.

Language is a functional whole and all its parts are fully describable only in terms of their relationship to the whole. This level of linguistic analysis is most obviously relevant to the problems of "overt" and "covert" grammar and the problem of "field structure" in grammar that has long attracted the attention of linguists.

There is a discussion of the problems that arise in the presentation of the material in this light but the scope of the material presented is dictated by its factual usefulness.

Analysing the language from the viewpoint of the information it carries we cannot restrict the notion of information to the cognitive aspect of language. Connotative aspects and emotional overtones are also important semantic components of linguistic units.

The components of grammatical meaning that do not belong to the denotation of the grammatical form are covered by the general term of connotation most obviously relevant to grammatical aspects of style.

Grammatical forms play a vital role in our ability to lend variety to speech, to give "colour" to the subject or evaluate it and to convey the information more emotionally.

The given quotations from different sources serve to show how the structural elements of English grammar have been variously treated by different writers and which of the linguistic approaches seems most convincing.

Extracts for study and discussion have been selected from the works of the best writers which aid in the formation of the student's literary taste and help him to see how the best writers make the deepest resources of grammar serve their pen.

Only some of the quotations used are the gatherings of the author's note-books through many years of teaching, and it has not seemed possible in every instance to trace the quotation to its original source. Most

7


of them, however, have been freshly selected as the direct result of the extensive reading required by the preparation of the book.

The discussion of the linguistic facts has been made concrete by the use of illustrative examples and comparison with Russian and Ukrainian, French and German.

Suggested assignments for study and discussion have been selected with a view to extend the practical knowledge of the language. "Revision Material" after each chapter has been arranged so that the student should acquire as much experience in independent work as possible.

Methods of scientific research used in linguistic studies have always been connected with the general trends in the science of language. We therefore find it necessary to begin our grammatical description with a brief survey of linguistic schools in the theory of English grammar so that the students could understand various theoretical approaches to the study of language structure. This will facilitate the study of grammar where we find now divergent views of scholars on some of the most important or controversial problems of the English grammatical theory, and on some special questions of morphology and syntax.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword   6

Introduction

Survey of the Development of English Grammatical Theory  11

Grammar in Its Relation to Other Levels of Linguistic Structure  37

Problems of Field Structure   42

Functional Re-evaluation of Grammatical Forms in Context   45

Grammatical Doublets   55

Revision Material   59

Part I. Morphology

Chapter 1. The Subject-Matter of Morphology   60

Chapter II. Parts of Speech   67

Problem of Classification   67

Chapter III The Noun   72

Number   72

Case    78

The Article   84

Revision Material   88

Chapter IV. The Adjective   89

The Category of Intensity and Comparison  90

Substantivation of Adjectives  96

Revision Material  98

Chapter V. The Verb   99

The Structural Functions of the English Verb  105

Mood   107

Modal Verbs    111

Voice   118

Active :: Passive in the English Voice System  118

Aspect   130

Lexico-Grammatical Categories in the Field of Aspect  130

Revision Material   136

Chapter VI. English Verb-Forms and Their Pattern-Value   137

The Present Tense  137

The Present Continuous (Progressive) Tense  141

The Past Tense  146

The Past Continuous (Progressive) Tense   147

The Perfect Tenses   149

The Future Tense  154

Revision Material   159

Chapter VII. The Pronouns  160

Personal Pronouns   160

Chapter VIII. The Adverb   164

Category of State   166

Revision Material   168

9


Part II. Syntax

Chapter IX. Sentence Structure   169

Chapter X. The Simple Sentence  183

The Principal Parts of the Sentence  183

The Secondary Parts of the Sentence  189

Word-Order  195

One-Member Sentences   208

Infinitival Sentences   211

Ellipsis   212

Verbless Two-Member Sentences   215

Idiomatic Sentences   225

Constructional Homonymity   228

Revision Material   233

Chapter XL Phrase-Structure   234

Subordinate Phrases    236

Noun-Phrases  236

Verb-Phrases    242

Infinitival, Gerundial and Participial Phrases   249

Coordinate Phrases    249

Revision Material   251

Chapter XII. The Composite Sentence   252

Coordination    257

Subordination   261

Subject and Predicate Clauses   262

Object Clauses   264

Attributive Clauses  265

Clauses of Cause   267

Clauses of Place   268

Temporal Clauses   269

Clauses of Condition   270

Clauses of Result   273

Clauses of Purpose   274

Clauses of Concession   274

Clauses of Manner and Comparison  277

Overlapping Relationships and Synsemantics in Hypotaxis  . 278

Transpositions and Functional Re-evaluation of Syntactic Structures . . 280

Final Remarks on Subordination  282

Asyndeton   283

Represented Speech  285

Nominality in English Sentence-Structure  286

Grammar and Style .  291

Revision Material   298

Index of Grammatical Points Treated  299

Recommended Literature 303


INTRODUCTION

SURVEY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ENGLISH GRAMMATICAL THEORY

EARLY PRESCRIPTIVE GRAMMAR

English grammatical theory has a long tradition going back to the earliest Latin grammars of the 17th century when "grammar" meant only the study of Latin. Until the end of the 16th century there were no grammars of English. One of the earliest Latin grammars written in English was W. Lily's work published in the first half of the 16th century.

Looking at English through the lattice of categories set up in Latin grammar, W. Lily presented standards for similar arrangement of the English grammatical material proceeding from Latin paradigms and using the same terminology as in Latin grammar.

Lily's work went through many editions until 1858. In other early "prenormative" grammars the arrangement of the material was similar to that of "Lily's grammar. It is to be noted that using Latin categories the writers of that time did not altogether ignore distinctions that the English language made. Thus, for instance, in Lily's grammar translation of Latin inflectional forms is given with the important points of reservation that some of their English equivalents are analytical forms, which include auxiliary words as "signs".

Attempts to break with Latin grammatical tradition characterise the treatment of the structure of English in Bullokar's and Ch. Butler's grammars but in many cases they still follow the Latin pattern.

The early prenormative grammars of English reproduced the Latin classification of the word-classes which included eight parts of speech. Substantives and adjectives were grouped together as two kinds of nouns, the participle was considered as a separate part of speech.

In the earliest English grammars the parts of speech were divided dichotomically into declinable and indeclinable parts of speech or words with number and words without number (Ben Jonson), or words with number and case and words without number and case (Ch. Butler). Declinable words, with number and case, included nouns, pronouns, verbs and participles, the indeclinables — adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections. Ben Jonson increased the number of parts of speech. His classification includes the article as the ninth part of speech.

In J. Brightland's grammar (the beginning of the 18th century) the number of parts of speech was reduced to four. These were: names (nouns), qualities (adjectives), affirmations (verbs) and particles.

li


Brightland's system was accepted only by a few English grammarians of the period. But since that time the adjective came to be viewed as a separate part of speech.

Brightland's grammar was the first to include the concept of the sentence in syntax proper.

The logical definition of the sentence existed in old times, but grammarians understood the subject matter of syntax only as a study of word arrangement.

In Lily's grammar, for instance, we find three Latin concords: the nominative and the verb, the substantive and the adjective, the relative pronoun and its antecedent.

The second half of the 18th century is generally referred to as the age of the so-called prenormative grammar. The most influential grammar of the period was R. Lowth's Short Introduction to English Grammar, first published in 1762.

Lowth's approach to the study of grammar was upheld by his followers.

The first to be mentioned here is Lindley Murray's English. Grammar Adapted to the Different Classes of Learners. First published in 1795, it was then widely used in its original form and in an abridged version for many years to come. Murray's grammar was considered so superior to any then in use that soon after its appearance it became the text-book in almost every school.

The principal design of a grammar of any language, according to Lowth, is to teach us to express ourselves with propriety, to enable us to judge of every phrase and form of construction, whether it be right or not. The plain way of doing this is to lay down rules and to illustrate them by examples. But besides showing what is right, the matter may be further explained what is wrong.

In the words of Lowth, grammar in general, or Universal grammar explains the principles which are common to all languages. The Grammar of any particular language, as the English grammar, applies those common principles to that particular language.

O. Jespersen showed good judgement in observing at this point that in many cases what gives itself out as logic, is not logic at all, but Latin grammar disguised.

The early prescriptive grammars exerted an enormous influence and moulded the approach of many generations to English grammar.

Applying the principles of Universal grammar, Lowth subjected to criticism many expressions established by long use in English, such as, for instance, the use of adverbs without the suffix -ly, the expressions it is me, these kind of, or, say, such patterns as had rather, had better.

Lowth and other grammarians of that time condemned as wrong many constructions and forms which occurred in the works of the best authors. They used passages from the works of classical writers as exercises for pupils to correct bad English or "false" English.

12


Classical Scientific Grammar

The end of the 19th century brought a grammar of a higher type, a descriptive grammar intended to give scientific explanation to the grammatical phenomena.

This was H. Sweet's New English Grammar, Logical and Historical (1891).

Instead of serving as a guide to what should be said or written, Sweet's explanatory grammar aims at finding out what is actually said and written by the speakers of the language investigated. This leads to a scientific understanding of the rules followed instinctively by speakers and writers, giving in many cases the reasons why this usage is such and such.

The difference between scientific and prescriptive grammar is explained by H. Sweet as follows: "As my exposition claims to be scientific, I confine myself to the statement and explanation of facts, without attempting to settle the relative correctness of divergent usages. If an 'ungrammatical' expression such as it is me is in general use among educated people, I accept it as such, simply adding that it is avoided in the literary language.

... Whatever is in general use in language is for that reason grammatically correct" 1.

In the words of Sweet, his work is intended to supply the want of a scientific English grammar, founded on an independent critical survey of the latest results of linguistic investigation as far as they bear, directly or indirectly, on the English language.

Scientific grammar was thus understood to be a combination of both descriptive and explanatory grammar. Sweet defines the methods of grammatical analysis as follows: "The first business of grammar, as of every other science, is to observe the facts and phenomena with which it has to deal, and to classify and state them methodically. A grammar, which confines itself to this is called a descriptive grammar. ...When we have a clear statement of such grammatical phenomena, we naturally wish to know the reason of them and how they arose. In this way descriptive grammar lays the foundations of explanatory grammar."

Sweet describes the three main features characterising the parts of speech: meaning, form and function, and this has logical foundations but the results of his classification are, however, not always consistent.

It is to be noted, in passing, that H. Sweet's ideas seem to anticipate some views characteristic of modern linguistics.

Here are a few lines from H. Sweet's work which bear relevantly upon F. de Saussure's ideas about synchronic and diachronic linguistics: "...before history must come a knowledge of what now exists. We must learn to observe things as they are without regard to their origin, just as a zoologist must learn to describe accurately a horse ..."2.

1 H. Sweet. New English Grammar. Logical and Historical. Oxford, 1955, p. 5.

3 H. Sweet. Words, Logic and Meaning. Transactions of the Philological Society. London, 1875—1876, p. 471.

13


The idea that language is primarily what is said and only secondarily what is written, i. e. the priority of oral is in accord with Sweet's statement that "the first requisite is a knowledge of phonetics or the form of language. We must learn to regard language solely as consisting of groups of sounds, independently of the written symbols ..."1.

The same viewpoints were advocated by other linguists of the first half of the present century, such as C. Onions, E. Kruisinga, H. Poutsma, G. Curme, O. Jespersen, H. Stokoe, M. Bryant, R. Zandvoort and others 2.

According to O. Jespersen, for instance, of greater value than prescriptive grammar is a purely descriptive grammar, which, instead of serving as a guide to what should be said or written, aims at finding out what is actually said and written by the speakers of the language investigated, and thus may lead to a scientific understanding of the rules followed instinctively by speakers and writers. Such a grammar should also be explanatory, giving, as far as this is possible, the reasons why the usage is such and such. These reasons may, according to circumstances, be phonetic or psychological, or in some cases both combined. Not infrequently the explanation will be found in an earlier stage of the same language: what one period was a regular phenomenon may later become isolated and appear as an irregularity, an exception to what has now become the prevailing rule. Grammar must therefore be historical to a certain extent. Finally, grammar may be appreciative, examining whether the rules obtained from the language in question are in every way clear (unambiguous, logical), expressive and easy, or whether in any one of these respects other forms or rules would have been preferable3.

Some 19th-century grammars continued to be reprinted in the modern period, e. g. L e n n i e 's Principles of English Grammar underwent quite a number of editions and Mason's grammars were reprinted by A. J. Ashton (1907—1909).

Numerous other grammar books continue the same tradition. Some of them, in the words of H. A. Gleason 4, are most heavily indebted to J. C. Nesfield, either directly or indirectly.

Published in 1898, Nesfield's grammar influenced prescriptive and to a certain extent scientific grammars of the 20th century, comparable to the influence of Murray's grammar on the 19th-century grammarians. It underwent a number of variant editions, such as: English Grammar Past and Present, Manual of English Grammar and Composition, and Aids

1 H. Sweet. Words, Logic and Meaning. Transactions of the Philological Society. London, 1875—1876, p. 471.

- See: C. T. Onions. An Advanced English Syntax. London, 1932; E. Kruisinga. A Handbook of Present-day English. Groningen, 1932; H. Poutsma. A Grammar of Late Modern English. Groningen, 1914—1521; O. Jespersen. The Philosophy of Grammar. London-New York, 1935; Essentials of English Grammar. London, 1933; G. Curme, A Grammar of the English Language. London-New York, 1931; M. Bryant. A Functional English Grammar. Boston, 1945; H. R. Stokoe. The Understanding of Syntax. London 1937; R. Zandvoort. A Handbook of English Grammar. Groningen, 1948.

3 See: O. Jespersen. Essentials of English Grammar. London, 1933.

4 See: H. A. Gleason. Linguistics and English Grammar. New York, I9G5, p. 72.

14


to the Study and Composition of English. The latter consists of five parts: Part I contains a series of chapters on Accidence; Parsing, and Analysis of Sentences, all of which are a reprint, without any change, of the corresponding chapters in his Manual of English Grammar and Composition. Part II Studies and Exercises Subsidiary to Composition nearly coincides with what was already given in different parts of the Manual, but has only a new and important chapter on Direct and Indirect Speech. Part III Composition in Five Stages is almost entirely new; Part IV contains two chapters on Idiom and Construction, which are for the most part a reprint of what we find in his English Grammar Past and Present. Part V Aids to the Study of English Literature is intended to help the student in the study of English Literature, both Prose and Verse. The last chapter Style in Prose and Verse is entirely new.

Nesfield's grammar was revised in 1924 in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Compreceded. The revision continued the tradition of 19th-century grammar: morphology was treated as it had been in the first half of the 19th century, syntax, as in the second half of that century. Of the various classifications of the parts of the sentence current in the grammars of the second half of the 19th century the author chose a system, according to which the sentence has four distinct parts: (1) the Subject; (2) Adjuncts to the Subject (Attributive Adjuncts, sometimes called the Enlargement of the Subject); (3) the Predicate; and (4) Adjuncts of the Predicate (Adverbial Adjuncts); the object and the complement (i. e. the predicative) with their qualifying words, however, are not treated as distinct parts of the sentence. They are classed together with the finite verb as part of the predicate. Although grammars as a rule do not consider the object to be the third principal part of the sentence, indirectly this point of view persists since the middle of the 19th century and underlies many methods of analysis.

In Nesfield's scheme, though the object is not given the status of a part of the sentence, it is considered to be of equal importance with the finite verb. In diagramming sentences, grammarians place the subject, predicate, objects and complements on the same syntactic level, on a horizontal line in the diagram, while modifiers of all sorts are placed below the line 1.

In Essentials of English Grammar O. Jespersen aims at giving a descriptive, to some extent, explanatory and appreciative account of the grammatical system of Modern English, historical explanations being only given where this can be done without presupposing any detailed knowledge of Old English or any cognate language.

One of the most important contributions to linguistic study in the first half of the 20th century was O. Jespersen's The Philosophy of Grammar first published in 1924 where he presented his theory of three ranks intended to provide a basis for understanding the hierarchy of syntactic relations hidden behind linear representation of elements in language structures. In its originality, its erudition and its breadth this was the best book on grammar.

1 See: Q. D. Craig, A. Hutson, G. Montgomery. The Essentials of English Grammar. New York, 1941, pp. 213—214.

15


The book is an attempt at a connected presentation of his views of the general principles of grammar. The starting point of the theory of three ranks is the following:

"In any composite denomination of a thing or person we always find that there is one word of supreme importance to which the others are joined as subordinates. This chief word is defined (qualified, modified) by another word, which in its turn may be defined (qualified, modified) by a third word, etc."1. Distinction is thus made between different "ranks" of words according to their mutual relations as defined or defining. In the combination extremely hot weather the last word weather, which is evidently the chief idea, may be called primary; hot, which defines weather, secondary, and extremely, which defines hot, tertiary. Though a tertiary word may be further defined by a (quarternary) word, and this again by a (quinary) word, and so forth, it is needless to distinguish more than three ranks, as there are no formal or other traits that distinguish words of these lower orders from tertiary words. Thus, in the phrase a certainly not very cleverly worded remark, no one of the words certainly, not, and very, though defining the following word, is in any way grammatically different from what it would be as a tertiary word, as it is in a certainly clever remark, not a clever remark, a very clever remark.

If now we compare the combination a furiously barking dog (a dog barking furiously), in which dog is primary, barking secondary, and furiously tertiary, with the dog barks furiously, it is evident that the same subordination obtains in the latter as in the former combination. Yet there is a fundamental difference between them, which calls for separate terms for the two kinds of combination: we shall call the former kind junction, and the latter nexus. It should be noted that the dog is a primary not only when it is the subject, as in the dog barks, but also when it is the object of a verb, as in I see the dog, or of a preposition, as in he runs after the dog.

As regards terminology, the words primary, secondary, and tertiary are applicable to nexus as well as to junction, but it will be useful to have special names adjunct for a secondary word in a junction, and adnex for a secondary word in a nexus. For tertiary we may use the term subjunct, and quarternary words, in the rare cases in which a special ' name is needed, may be termed sub-subjuncts.

As will have been seen already by these examples, the group, whether primary, secondary, or tertiary, may itself contain elements standing to one another in the relation of subordination indicated by the three ranks. The rank of the group is one thing, the rank within the group another. In this way more or less complicated relations may come into existence, which, however, are always easy to analyse from the point of view given above.

He lives on this side the river: here the whole group consisting of the last five words is tertiary to lives; on this side, which consists of the particle (preposition) on with its object this (adjunct) side (primary), forms itself a group preposition, which here takes as an object the group the

1O. Jespersen. The Philosophy of Grammar. London, 1968, p. 96. 16


(adjunct) river (primary). But in the sentence the buildings on this side the river are ancient, the same five-word group is an adjunct to buildings. In this way we may arrive at a natural and consistent analysis even of the most complicated combinations found in actual language.

There is certainly some degree of correspondence between the three parts of speech and the three ranks here established. But this correspondence is far from complete as will be evident from the following survey: the two things, word-classes and ranks, really move in two different spheres. This will be seen from the following survey given by O. Jespersen.

I. Nouns as primaries are fairly common. Examples are hardly needed.

Nouns as adjuncts, e. g.: Shelley's poem, the butcher's shop, etc.

The use of nouns as adjuncts may be well illustrated by premodification of nouns by nouns. Examples are numerous: stone wall, iron bridge, silver spoon, space flight, morning star, etc.

The use of nouns as subjuncts (subnexes) is rare, e. g.: the sea went mountains high.

II. Adjectives as primaries, e. g.: the rich, the poor, the natives, etc.

Adjectives as adjuncts: no examples are here necessary. Adjectives as subjuncts, e. g.: a fast moving engine, a clean shaven face, etc.

III. Pronouns as primaries: I am well. This is mine. What happened. Nobody knows.

Pronouns as adjuncts: this book, my sister, our joy, etc. Pronouns as subjuncts: I am that sleepy, I won't stay any longer, somewhat better than usual.

IV. Finite forms of verbs can only stand as secondary words (adnexes), never either as primaries or as tertiaries. But participles, like adjectives, can stand as primaries and as adjuncts.

Infinitives in different contexts of their use may belong to each of the three ranks.

Infinitives as primaries: to see is to believe (cf. seeing is believing); to understand is to forgive; she wants to rest.

Infinitives as adjuncts: generations to come; times to come; the correct thing to do; the never to be forgotten look.

Infinitives as subjuncts: to see her you would think she is an actress; I shudder to think of it; he came here to see you.

V. Adverbs as primaries. This use is rare. O. Jespersen gives such examples as: he did not stay for long; he's only just back from abroad. With pronominal adverbs it is more frequent: from here, till now, etc.

Adverbs as adjuncts are not a frequent occurrence either: the off side; in after years; the then methods; the few nearby trees.

Adverbs as subjuncts — the ordinary use of this word-class.

Examples are hardly needed.

When a substantive, O. Jespersen goes on to say, is formed from an adjective or verb, a defining word is, as it were, lifted up to a higher

17


plane, becoming secondary instead of tertiary, and wherever possible, this is shown by the use of an adjective instead of an adverb form:

absolutely novel absolute novelty

utterly dark utter darkness

perfectly strange perfect stranger

describes accurately accurate description

I firmly believe my firm belief, a firm

believer

judges severely severe judges

reads carefully careful reader

VI. Word groups consisting of two or more words, the mutual relation of which may be of the most different character, in many instances occupy the same rank as a single word. A word group may be either a primary or an adjunct or a subjunct.

Word groups of various kinds as primaries: Sunday afternoon was fine. I spent Sunday afternoon at home.

Word groups as adjuncts: a Sunday afternoon concert; the party in power; a Saturday to Monday excursion; the time between two and four; his after dinner pipe.

Word groups as subjuncts: he slept all Sunday afternoon; he smokes after dinner; he went to all the principal cities of Europe; he lives next door to Captain Strong; the canal ran north and south; he used to laugh a good deal, five feet high; he wants things his own way; he ran upstairs three steps at a time.

In his final remarks on nexus O. Jespersen gives a tabulated survey of the principal instances of nexus, using characteristic examples instead of descriptive class-names. In the first column he includes instances in which a verb (finite or infinitive) or a verbal noun is found, in the second instances without such a form:

  1.  The dog barks Happy the man, whose ...
  2.  when the dog barks however great the loss
  3.  Arthur, whom they say is kill'd
  4.  I hear the dog bark he makes her happy
  5.  count on him to come with the window open
  6.  for you to call
  7.  he is believed to be guil- she was made happy

ty

8. the winner to spend everything considered

9. the doctor's arrival the doctor's cleverness 10. I dance! He a gentleman!

In 1 and 10 the nexus forms a complete sentence, in all the other instances it forms only part of a sentence, either the subject, the object or a subjunct 1.

1 See: O. Jespersen. The Philosophy of Grammar. London, 1958, pp. 97, 102, 131.

18


O. Jespersen's theory of three ranks provides logical foundations for identifying the hierarchy of syntactic relations between elements joined together in a grammatical unit.

The "part of speech" classification and the "rank classification" represent, in fact, different angles from which the same word or form may be viewed, first as it is in itself and then as it is in combination with other words.

No one would dispute the value of O. Jespersen's analysis and deep inquiry into the structure of language. In the theory of three ranks he offered much that was new in content and had most notable merits.

The concepts on which this theory is based is the concept of determination. The primary is an absolutely independent word, the secondary is the word which determines or is subordinated to the primary, the tertiary modifies the secondary and so on. This seems perfectly reasonable as fully justified by the relations between the words arranged in a string, according to the principle of successive subordination.

With all this, O. Jespersen's analysis contains some disputable points and inconsistency.

The very definition of the notion of rank is not accurate which in some cases leads to inadequacy of analysis.

Applying his principle of linguistic analysis to sentence structures, such as the dog barks furiously he ignores the difference between junction and nexus and does not distinguish attributive and predicative relations and thus seems to return to the principle of three principal parts of the sentence.

In his Analytic Syntax, published in 1937, O. Jespersen gives a symbolic representation of the structure of English. Grammatical constructions are transcribed in formulas, in which the parts of the sentence and the parts of speech are represented by capital and small letters — S for subject, V — for verb, v — for auxiliary verb, O —for object, I — for infinitive, etc. and the ranks by numerals 1, 2, 3. As far as the technique of linguistic description is concerned this book may be regarded as a forerunner of structural grammar which makes use of such notations.

O. Jespersen's morphological system differs essentially from the traditional concepts. He recognises only the following word-classes grammatically distinct enough to recognise them as separate "parts of speech", viz.:

  1.  Substantive (including proper names).
  2.  Adjectives.

In some respects (1) and (2) may be classed together as "Nouns".

  1.  Pronouns (including numerals and pronominal adverbs).
  2.  Verbs (with doubts as to the inclusion of "Verbids").
  3.  Particles (comprising what are generally called adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions — coordinating and subordinating and interjections). This fifth class may be negatively characterised as made up of all those words that cannot find any place in any of the first four classes.

Methods of scientific research used in linguistic studies have always been connected with the general trends in the science of language.

The first decade of the 20th century is known to have brought new theoretical approaches to language and the study of its nature. Thus,

2* 19


for instance, the principles of comparative linguistics have been of paramount importance in the development of scientific approach to historical word study. In the beginning of the present century linguistic studies were still concentrated on historical problems. The historical and comparative study of the Indo-European languages became the principal line of European linguistics for many years to come.

The most widely acclaimed views of language during the past thirty years have been directed toward the development of methodologies for dealing with the structure of a language in a non-historical sense.

The historical comparative method was applied only to the comparative study of kindred languages. But to gain the deeper insight into the nature of language, all languages must be studied in comparison, not only kindred. Modern linguistics is developing the typological study of languages, both kindred and non-kindred.

Towards the end of the 19th century attention was concentrated on the history of separate lingual elements, with no reference to their interrelations in the system of language. This "atomistic" approach was criticised and abandoned. Modern linguistics is oriented towards perfecting the analytical and descriptive technique in historical studies. And this brings new scientific data widening the scope of comparative linguistics and contributing greatly to its progressive development.

The first treatments of language as a system whose parts are mutually interconnected and interdependent were made by Beaudouin de Courtenay (1845—1929) and F. F. Fortunatov (1848—1914) in Russia and Ferdinand de Saussure, the Swiss linguist (1857—1913).

F. de Saussure detached himself from the tradition of the historical comparative method and recognised two primary dichotomies: between "language" (langue) and "speech" (parole), and between synchronic and diachronic linguistics. "Language is a system whose parts can and must all be considered in their synchronic solidarity" 1.

De Saussure's main ideas taken in our science of language with some points of reservation and explanatory remarks are:

  1.  Language as a system of signals may be compared to other systems of signals, such as writing, alphabets for the deaf-and-dumb, military signals, symbolic rites, forms of courtesy, etc. Thus, language may be considered as being the object of a more general science — semasiology —a science of the future which would study different systems of signals used in human society.
  2.  The system of language is a body of linguistic units sounds, affixes, words, grammar rules and rules of lexical series. The system of language enables us to speak and to be understood since it is known to all the members of a speech community. Speech is the total of our utterances and texts. It is based on the system of language, and it gives the linguist the possibility of studying the system. Speech is the linear (syntagmatic) aspect of languages, the system of language is its paradigmatic ("associative") aspect.

1 F. de  Saussure. Cours de linguistique generale. Paris, 1949, p. 9.

20


c) A language-state is a system of "signs": a sign being a two-sided entity whose components are "signifier" (sound-image) and the "signified" (concept), the relationship between these two components being essentially correlative 1.

We understand the meaning of the linguistic sign as reflecting the elements (objects, events, situations) of the outside world.

F. de Saussure attributed to each linguistic sign a "value": "Language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others" 2. The linguistic sign is "absolutely arbitrary" and "relatively motivated".

This is to say that if we take a word "absolutely" disregarding its connections to other words in the system, we shall find nothing obligatory in the relation of its phonological form to the object it denotes (according to the nature of the object). This fact becomes evident when we compare the names of the same objects in different languages, e. g.:

English horse hand spring

Russian лошадь рука весна

Ukrainian кінь рука весна

French cheval main printemps

The relative motivation means that the linguistic sign taken in the system of language reveals connections with other linguistic signs of the system both in form and meaning. These connections are different in different languages and show the difference of "the segmentation of the picture of the world" the difference in the division of one and the same objective reality into parts reflected in the minds of different peoples, e. g.:

English arrow shoot apple apple-tree Russian стрела — стрелять — яблоко — яблоня Ukrainian стріластріляти яблуко яблуня

  1.  Language is to be studied as a system in the "synchronic plane", i. e. at a given moment of its existence, in the plane of simultaneous coexistence of elements.
  2.  The system of language is to be studied on the basis of the oppositions of its concrete units. The linguistic elements (units) can be found by means of segments, e. g. in the strength of the wind and in to collect one's strength we recognise one and the same unit strength in accord with its meaning and form; but in on the strength of this decision the meaning is not the same, and we recognise a different linguistic unit.

G. Curme's Grammar of the English Language (1931) presents a systematic and rather full outline of English syntax based upon actual usage. The attention is directed to the grammatical categories the case forms (the nominative, genitive, dative, accusative), the prepositional

1 See: F. de Saussure. Op. cit., pp. 66—67.

2 Ibid., p. 114.

21


phrase, the indicative, the subjunctive, the active, the passive, the word-order, the clause formations, clauses with finite verb, and the newer, terser participial, gerundial, and infinitival clauses, etc.

Serious efforts have been made everywhere throughout this book to penetrate into the original concrete meaning of these categories.

The peculiar views on accidence, e. g. the four-case system in G. Curme's grammar, are reflected in syntax. Curme discusses accusative objects, dative objects, etc.

Most grammarians retain the threefold classification of sentences into simple, compound and complex, as given in the prescriptive grammars of the mid-19th century. H. Poutsma introduces the term "composite sentence" as common for compound and complex sentences. Some changes have taken place in the concept of the clause (as part of a larger sentence). It is probably under the influence of Nesfield's grammar, where this definition first appeared, that grammarians do not insist any longer, as C. T. Onions did, that in a complex sentence each clause has a subject and a predicate of its own. They take into consideration the structural peculiarity of complex sentences with subject and predicate clauses, where the "main" clause lacks one or both of its principal parts.

As a matter of fact, scientific grammar gave up the strictly structural concept of a clause as of a syntactic unit containing a subject and a predicate, recognised by prescriptive grammar. Beginning with Sweet's grammar, grammarians have retained the concepts of half-clauses, abridged clauses, verbid clauses, etc. Thus, H. Poutsma treats substantive clauses, adverbial clauses, infinitive clauses, gerund clauses and participle clauses as units of the same kind.

E. Kruisinga's grammar is one of the most interesting of those scientific grammars which have retained the traditional grammatical system. Kruisinga criticises the definition of the sentence for its indeterminacy but does not redefine the term. The concept of the phrase was not popular among the writers of scientific grammars. Kruisinga originated the theory of close and loose syntactic groups, distinguishing between subordination and coordination. Closely related to this theory is the author's concept of the complex sentence.

E. Kruisinga's Handbook of Present-day English (1932) presents a new viewpoint on some parts of English structure suggesting interesting approaches to various disputable points in the treatment of phrase-structure.

Setting up two major types of syntactic structures: close and loose syntactic groups he defines them as follows: in close groups one of the members is syntactically the leading element of the group; in loose groups each element is comparatively independent of the other member.

By way of illustration: a country doctor or mild weather are close groups; word-combinations like men and women are loose groups. The individual words are thus left "unaffected by their membership of the group".

Describing the close groups according to their leading member, E. Kruisinga classifies them into: verb-groups, noun-groups, adjective-groups, adverb-groups and preposition-groups; pronoun-groups are

22


included in the noun and adjective-groups. Modal and auxiliary verbs in verb-groups are referred to as "leading verbs".

The new assumptions made by E. Kruisinga are of undoubted interest. There are however, disputable points in the discussion of the close groups where the author does not confine himself to one basis for the establishment of verb-phrases which in this part of analysis leads to certain inadequacy of the classification. But on the whole the book-has notable merits.

Among the authors of classical scientific English grammars of the modern period mention must be made about C. T. Onion's Advanced English Syntax (London, 1904). The main facts of current English syntax are presented here in a systematic form in accordance with the principles of parallel grammar series. English syntax is arranged in two parts. Part I contains a treatment of syntactical phenomena based on the analysis of sentences. Part II classifies the uses of forms.

While dealing mainly with the language of the modern period, C. T. Onion endeavoured to make the book of use to the student of early modern English by giving an account of some notable archaic and obsolete constructions. Historical matter in some parts of his book adds interest to the treatment of particular constructions and important points in syntax development.

To this period belong also L. G. Kimball's Structure of the English Sentence (New York, 1900) and H. R. Stokoe's Understanding of Syntax which appeared in 1937.

All these scholars differ from prescriptive grammarians in their non-legislative approach to the description of English structure trying to gain a deeper insight into its nature.

A wealth of linguistic material describing the structure of English is presented in such scientific grammars of the modern period as H. Poutsma's Grammar of Late Modern English (1926), E. Kruisinga's Handbook of Present-day (1931) and R. W. Zandvoort's Handbook of English Grammar (1948).

Structural and Transformational Grammars

Structural grammarians have abandoned many of the commonly held views of grammar. With regard to the methodology employed their linguistic approach differs from former treatments in language learning. Structural grammatical studies deal primarily with the "grammar of structure", and offer an approach to the problems of "sentence analysis" that differs in point of view and in emphasis from the usual treatment of syntax.

Treating the problems of the structure of English with criticism of traditional conventional grammars, Ch. Fries considers, for instance, that prescriptive and scholarly grammars belong to a "prescientific era" 1.

According to Ch. Fries, the new approach — the application of two of the methods of structural linguistics, distributional analysis and substitution makes it possible to dispense with the usual eight parts

1 See: Ch. Fries. The Structure of English. London, 1959, p. 1.

23


of speech. He classifies words into four "form-classes", designated by numbers, and fifteen groups of "function words", designated by letters. The four major parts of speech (Noun, Verb, Adjective, Adverb) set up by the process of substitution in Ch. Fries recorded material are thus given no names except numbers: class 1, class 2, class 3, class 4. The four classes correspond roughly to what most grammarians call nouns and pronouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs, though Ch. Fries especially warns the reader against the attempt to translate the statements which the latter finds in the book into the old grammatical terms. The group of function words contains not only prepositions and conjunctions, but also certain specific words that more traditional grammarians would class as a particular kind of pronouns, adverbs and verbs.

Assumptions have been made by Ch. Fries that all words which can occupy the same set of positions in the patterns of English single free utterances must belong to the same part of speech. These four classes make up the "bulk" of functioning units in structural patterns of English. Then come fifteen groups of so-called function-words which have certain characteristics in common. In the mere matter of number of items the fifteen groups differ sharply from the four classes. In the four large classes the lexical meanings of the words depend on the arrangement in which these words appear. In function-words it is usually difficult if not impossible to indicate a lexical meaning apart from the structural meaning which these words signal.

Ch. Fries very rightly points out that one cannot produce a book dealing with language without being indebted to many who have earlier studied the problems and made great advances. He acknowledged the immeasurable stimulation and insight received from L. Bloomfield. The influence of classical scientific and prescriptive grammars on some of his views of language is also quite evident.

According to Ch. Fries, this material covers the basic matters of English structure.

Ch. Fries gives examples of the various kinds of "function-words" that operate in "positions" other than those of four classes given above, giving identifying letters to each of the different groups included here.

The first test frame (Group A) includes all the words for the position in which the word the occurs.

Group A (The)

Group A (The)

Class

1

Class

1

concert

Class

2

was

Class 2

is/was are/were

Class 3

Class 3 good Class 4

the

a/an

every

no

my

our

your

her

his

their

each

all

both

some

any

few

more

most

much

many

its

John's

this/these

that/those

One

two

three, etc.

24


Some of these "words" (one, all, both, two, three, four, that, those, some, John's, etc.) may also appear in the positions of Class 1 words; all and both may occur before the. Group A consists of all words that can occupy the position of the in this particular test frame. The words in this position all occur with Class 1 words. Structurally, when they appear in this "position", they serve as markers of Class 1 words. Sometimes they are called "determiners".

The second test frame includes, according to traditional terminology, modal verbs:

Group  Class  Group Class  Class  Class

A 1 В 2 3 4

The  concert (may) (be) (good) might can could will would should must

has (been) has to (be)

Words of group В all go with Class 2 words and only with Class 2 words. Structurally, when they appear in this position, they serve as markers of Class 2 words and also, in special formulas, they signal some meanings which, according to Ch. Fries, should be included as structural.

For group С Fries has but one word not. (This not differs from the not included in group E).

Group Class Group Group Class Class A 1 В С 2 3

The concert may not  be good

Group D includes words that can occur in the position of very immediately before a class 3 word in the following test frame:

Croup Class Group Group Class Group  Class Class

A 1 В С  2 D 3  4

The concert may not be very  good then

quite, awfully really, awful real, any pretty, too fairly, more rather, most

Although each of the fifteen groups set up here differs quite markedly from every other group, they all have certain characteristics in common characteristics which make them different from the four classes of words identified previously.

1. In the mere matter of number of items the fifteen groups differ sharply from the four classes. The four classes together contain thousands of separate items. Ch. Fries found no difficulty whatever in selecting from his long lists a hundred of different items of each of the

25


four classes as examples. On the other hand, the total number of the separate items from his materials making up the fifteen groups amounted to only 154.

2. In the four large classes, the lexical meanings of the separate words are rather clearly separable from the structural meanings of the arrangements in which these words appear. According to Fries, in the words of these fifteen groups it is usually difficult if not impossible to indicate a lexical meaning apart from the structural meaning which these words signal.

The frames used to test the "words" were taken from the minimum free utterances extracted from the "situation" utterance units (not the "response" utterance units) of the recorded materials. It is important to observe, Ch. Fries points out, that the four parts of speech indicated above account for practically all the positions in these minimum free utterances. In the sentence frames used for testing, only the one position occupied by the word the has not been explored; and, as shown in the modified frame structure, this position is optional rather than essential in the "minimum" free utterances. All the other kinds of words belong then in "expanded" free utterances.

The material which furnished the linguistic evidence for the analysis and discussions of the book were primarily some fifty hours of mechanically recorded conversations on a great range of topics conversations bу some three hundred different speakers in which the participants were entirely unaware that their speech was being recorded. These mechanical records were transcribed for convenient study, and roughly indexed so as to facilitate reference to the original discs recording the actual speech. The treatment here is thus also limited by the fact that it is based upon this circumscribed body of material. Altogether these mechanically recorded conversions amounted to something over 250,000 running words.

The book presents a major linguistic interest as an experiment rather than for its achievements.

It is to be noted that the material recorded in the book is fairly homogeneous in kind. Ch. Fries confines himself to one basis for the establishment of form-classes and this brings out the practical limitations of his interesting method. Other debatable points of the material presented are: arbitrary counting of different positions as identical and ignoring morphology where it bears upon syntax.

Structural linguistics is known to have its varieties and schools. The Prague School headed by N. Trubetzkoy and R. Jakobson has contributed to the development of modern structural linguistics on a word-wide scale. Neutralisation as a linguistic concept by which we mean suspension of otherwise functioning oppositions was first introduced into modern linguistics by N. Trubetzkoy who presented an important survey of the problem of phonology in his "Grundzüge der Phonologie" edited in Prague in 1939. This has been widely influential in many European linguistic circles, and many of the basic ideas of the school have diffused very widely, far beyond the group that originally came together around N. Trubetzkoy.

26


Trubetzkoy's idea of neutralisation in phonology may be briefly summarised as follows:

  1.  If in a language two sounds occur in the same position and can be substituted for each other without changing the meaning of the word, such sounds are optional variants of one and the same phoneme.
  2.  If two sounds occur in the same position and cannot be substituted for each other without changing the meaning of the word or distorting it beyond recognition, these two sounds are phonetic realisations of two different phonemes.
  3.  If two similar sounds never occur in the same position, they are positional variants of the same phoneme.

An opposition existing between two phonemes may under certain conditions become irrelevant. This seems to be a universal feature in language development.

Examples of neutralisation of oppositions on the phonemic level may be found in numbers. By way of illustration: the sounds [т] and [д] are different phonemes distinguishing such Russian words, for instance, as ток and док, том and дом. But the difference between the two phonemes will be neutralised if they are at the end of the word, e. g.: рот (mouth) and род (genus); [т] and [д] in these words sound alike because a voiced [д] does not occur at the end of a word in Russian.

In terms of N. Trubetzkoy's theory, opposition is defined as a functionally relevant relationship of partial difference between two partially similar elements of language. The common features of the members of the opposition make up its basis, the features that serve to differentiate them are distinctive features.

Phonological neutralisation in English may be well illustrated by the absence of contrast between final s and z after t.

Similarly, though we distinguish the English phonemes p and b in pin, bin, there is no such opposition after s, e. g.: split, splint, spray.

Where oppositions do not occur, phonemes may coalesce in their realisations and be neutralised.

Extending the concept of neutralisation to the other levels of structure seems fully justified as having a practical value in the study of language both in general linguistics and with regard to English particularly.

The most widely known is the binary "privative" opposition in which one member of the contrastive pair is characterised by the presence of a certain feature which does not exist in the other member (hence "privative"). The element possessing this feature is referred to as the "marked" (strong) member of the opposition. The "unmarked" member may either signal "absence of the marked meaning" or else be noncommittal as to its absence or presence.

The most-favoured principle of the Prague School, in the words of A. Martinet, is the principle of binarity, according to which the whole of language should be reducible to sets of binary oppositions. Perhaps the best known advocate of the theory of binary oppositions is R. Jakob-son, who has applied this kind of analysis to the Russian system of cases, to the Russian verb system, and even as part of a discussion

27


of Franz Boas view of grammatical meaning to the English verb system. In these studies, R. Jakobson analyses grammatical concepts in terms of sets of two mutually opposite grammatical categories, one of which is marked while the other is unmarked or neutral.

Intensive development of American linguistics is generally called Bloomfieldian linguistics, though not all of its principles can be traced directly to L. Bloomfield's concepts.

L. Bloomfield's book Language is a complete methodology of language study. The ideas laid down in this book were later developed by Z. S. Harris, Ch. Fries, E. A. Nida and other scholars.

The main concepts of L. Bloomfield's book may be briefly summarised as follows:

  1.  Language is a workable system of signals, that is linguistic forms by means of which people communicate... "every language consists of a number of signals, linguistic forms" 1.
  2.  "Every utterance contains some significant features that are not accounted for by the lexicon" 2.
  3.  "No matter how simple a form we utter and how we utter it... the utterance conveys a grammatical meaning in addition to the lexical content" 3.
  4.  A sentence has a grammatical meaning which does not (entirely) depend on the choice (selection) of the items of lexicon.

L. Bloomfield's statement that the meaning of a sentence is part of the morpheme arrangement, and does not entirely depend on the words used in the sentence has later been developed by Ch. Fries and N. Chomsky.

5. Grammar is a meaningful arrangement of linguistic forms from morphemes to sentences. The meaningful arrangement of forms in a language constitutes its grammar, and in general, there seem to be four ways of arranging linguistic forms: (1) order, (2) modulation: "John!" (call), "John?" (question), "John" (statement); (3) phonetic modification (do don't); (4) selection of forms which contributes the factor of meaning 4.

In the words of L. Bloomfield, the most favourite type of sentence is the "actor action" construction having two positions. These positions are not interchangeable. All the forms that can fill in a given position thereby constitute a form-class. In this manner the two main form-classes are detected: the class of nominal expressions and the class of finite verb expressions.

L. Bloomfield has shown a new approach to the breaking up of the word-stock into classes of words. "The syntactic constructions of a language mark off large classes of free forms, such as, in English, the nominative expression or the finite verb expression. The great form-classes of a language are most easily described in terms of word-classes (such as

1 L. Bloomfield. Language. London, 1969, p. 158.

2 I b i d., p. 162.

3 Ibid., p. 169.

4 Ibid., pp. 163—164.

28


the traditional parts of speech), because the form-class of a phrase is usually determined by one or more of the words which appear in it"1.

These long form-classes are subdivided into smaller ones.

In modern linguistic works the nominal phrase of a sentence is marked as the symbol NP, and the finite verb-phrase as VP. The symbols N and V stand for the traditional parts of speech, nouns and verbs, although the NP may include not only nouns but their equivalents and the noun determiners (e. g.: the man, my hand, this house, I, they, something, some, others, etc.); and the VP with a transitive verb may have a NP in (took a book, sent a letter, etc.). The long form-class of N is now subdivided into: animate and inanimate, material and abstract, class nouns and proper nouns. The long form-class of V is subdivided into intransitive verbs (Vi), transitive verbs (Vt) and the latter are again divided into the V of the take-type, the give-type, the put-type and the have-type, etc.

The selection of the subclasses of N and V leads to different sentence-structures.

The grammatical schools of traditional scholarly grammar have then passed to the grammatical theories of "descriptive", "post-Bloomfieldian linguistics", to the school of grammar known as the "transformational generative grammar", initiated by Z. S. Harris who outlined a grammatical procedure which was essentially a twice-made application of two major steps: the setting up of elements, and the statement of the distribution of these elements relative to each other. The elements are thus considered relatively to each other, and on the basis of the distributional relations among them.

American linguists K. L. Pike, R. Wells, E. A. Nida, L. S. Harris and others paid special attention to formal operations, the so-called grammar discovery procedures. They endeavour to discover and describe the features and arrangement of two fundamental linguistic units (the phoneme and the morpheme as the minimal unit of grammatical structure) without recourse to meaning.

Sentence structure was represented in terms of immediate constituent analysis, explicitly introduced, though not sufficiently formalised by L. Bloomfield. The binary cutting of sentences and their phrasal constituents into IC's, the first and the most important cut being between the group of the subject and the group of the predicate, was implicit in the "parsing" and analysis of traditional grammar, as noted by many linguists commenting on the analysis. Distributional analysis was recognised as primary in importance. Linguistic procedures were directed at a twice-made application of two major steps; the setting up of elements and the statement of the distribution of these elements relative to each other, distribution being defined as the sum of all the different environments or positions of an element relative to the occurrence of other elements. The principal operation recommended, e. g. for establishing equations: a morpheme = a morpheme sequence in

1 L. Вloomfield. Op. cit., p. 190. See also: О. С. Ахманова и Г. Б. Микаэлян. Современные синтаксические теории. М., 963, pp. 22—23.

29


a given environment (such as man = good boy) was substitution repeated time and again 1. Distributional analysis and substitution were not something quite novel in English grammatical theory. Occurrence of an element relative to other elements, now generally referred to as "distribution", has been involved in almost every grammatical statement since Antiquity 2. But the difference between the traditional and structural approaches consists in that the former did not rely upon this method as part of an explicitly formulated theory, whereas modern linguistics has given recognition, within the theory of grammar, to the distributional principle, by which traditional grammarians were always guided in practice. The same is true of substitution. This is an entirely-formal method for discourse analysis arranged in the form of the successive procedures.

Starting with the utterances which occur in a single language community at a single time, these procedures determine what may be regarded as identical in various parts of various utterances. And this is supposed to provide a method for identifying all the utterances as relatively few stated arrangements of relatively few stated elements.

Z. S. Harris, E. A. Nida and other American linguists of Bloomfieldian school concentrate their attention on formal operations to discover and describe the features and arrangement of two fundamental linguistic units: the phoneme and the morpheme as the minimal unit of grammatical structure. Like Bloomfield, they attach major importance to spoken language laying emphasis on the fact that writing is a secondary visual representation of speech.

Language came to be viewed not as an aggregate of discrete elements but as an organised totality, a Gestalt which has a pattern of its own and whose components are interdependent and derive their significance from the system as a whole. In F. Saussure's words, language is like a game of chess", you cannot add, remove or displace any element without effecting the entire field of force.

Z. Harris presents methods of research used in descriptive, or, more exactly, structural, linguistics. It is, in fact, a discussion of the operations which the linguist may carry out in the course of his investigations, rather than a theory of the structural analysis which results from these investigations.

P. Roberts and W. N. Francis, following Ch. Fries and H. A. Gleason, are to a large degree concerned with studying patterns of organisation, or structures. They hold the view that linguistics, like physics and chemistry or, say, geology or astronomy, must be preoccupied with structure.

Returning to the traditional names of parts of speech P. Roberts and W. N. Francis establish four major classes of words and several groups of function-words, proceeding from the criteria of distribution

1 See: Z. S. Harris. Methods in Structural Linguistics. Chicago, 1961, pp. 15—16.

2 See: P. Diderichsen. The Importance of Distribution Versus Other Criteria in Linguistic Analysis. Copenhagen, 1966, pp. 270—271; see also: L. L. Iоfik, L. P. С h а k h о у a n. Readings in the Theory of English Grammar. L. 1972, p. 37.

30


of words, the morphological characteristics of words and their correlation.

The analysis of English structure made by P. Roberts and W. Francis presents a major linguistic interest as a significant contribution to modern linguistic thought.

It is to be noted, however, that some of their statements are devoid of logical consistency.

The classification of words into parts of speech given in these books is open to doubt and questioning because in identifying the linguistic status of words P. Roberts and W. N. Francis, like Ch. Fries, proceed from essentially different criteria: the major classes of words are classified in terms of their formal features and function words in terms of meaning.

What seems also erroneous and devoid of logical foundations is excluding meaning from this sphere of linguistic analysis.

According to W. N. Francis, there are five devices which English speakers make use of to build words into larger organised combinations or structures. From the listener's point of view, these five are the kinds of signals which reveal the patterns of structural meaning in which words are arranged. As a summary of his assumptions, W. N. Francis lists them describing briefly as follows:

  1.  Word Order as the linear or time sequence in which words appear in an utterance.
  2.  Prosody, i. e. the over-all musical pattern of stress, pitch and juncture in which the words of an utterance are spoken.
  3.  Function words or words largely devoid of lexical meaning which are used to indicate various functional relationships among the lexical words of an utterance.
  4.  Inflections, i. e. morphemic changes the addition of suffixes and concomitant morphophonemic adjustments which adapt words to perform certain structural functions without changing their lexical meaning.
  5.  Derivational contrast between words which have the same base but differ in the number and nature of their derivational affixes 1.

The classes of words established by P. Roberts and W. N. Francis do not coincide.

In W. N. Francis' classification there are four parts of speech: Noun, Verb, Adjective and Adverb. Pronouns are treated as two subclasses of nouns, called pronouns and function nouns. The group of pronouns comprises eight words whose importance far outweighs their number. These are: I, we, you, he, she, it, they and who.

The main groups of function-nouns are eight in number (including some stereotyped phrases) plus some unclassified ones (not all the following lists are complete):

a) Noun-determiners: the, a/an, my, your, her, their, our, this/ these, that/those, its, one, two ... ninety-nine, many (a), more, several, both, all, some, no, every, (a) few, other.

1 See: W. N. Francis. The Structure American English. New York, 1958, p. 234.

31


  1.  Auxiliaries: can/could, may/might, will/would, shall/should, must, dare, need, do, had better, be, get, have, keep (on), used, be going.
  2.  Qualifiers: very, quite, rather, pretty, mighty, somewhat, too, a bit, a little, so more, most, less, least, indeed, enough (real, awful, that, some, right, plenty), no, still, much, lots, a (whole) lot, a (good, great) deal, even.
  3.  Prepositions:

  1.  Simple: after, among, around, before, concerning, etc.

Compound: along with, away from, back of, due to, together with, etc.

  1.  Phrasal: by means of, in front of, on account of, etc.

  1.  Coordinators: and, not, but, nor, rather, than, either ... or, etc.
  2.  Interrogators:

  1.  Simple: when, where, how, why (whence, whither), whenever, etc.
  2.  Interrogative pronouns: who, which, what, whoever, whichever, whatever.

(g) lncluders:

  1.  Simple: after, although, how, lest, since, etc.
  2.  Relative pronouns: who, which, that, when, where, whoever, etc. (h) Sentence-linkers:

  1.  Simple: consequently, furthermore, hence, however, moreover, nevertheless, therefore.
  2.  Phrasal: at least, in addition, in fact, etc.

There are also function verbs in Francis' classification which stand in place of a full verb-phrase, when the full verb has been expressly stated or strongly implied in the immediate linguistic context or the non-linguistic context.

We cannot fail to see that applying formal structural methods of analysis which seem to be more objective than semantic criteria, grammarians come to somewhat different results.

In terms of N. Chomsky's theory of syntax, sentences have a surface structure and a deep structure, the latter is more complicated, being based on one or more underlying abstract simple structures.

In certain very simple sentences the difference between the surface structure and the deep structure is minimal. Sentences of this kind (simple, active, declarative, indicative) are designated as kernel sentences. They can be adequately described by phrase or constituent structure methods, as consisting of noun and verb phrases (the so-called P-markers, the NP's and VP's). According to syntactic structures, kernel sentences are produced by applying only obligatory transformations to the phrase-structure strings (e. g. the transformation of affix + verb into verb + + affix in the present tense, hit -s, etc.). Non-kernel or derived sentences involve optional transformations in addition, such as active to passive (the boy was hit by the man). But later interpretations of the transformational theory have made less use of this distinction, stressing rather the distinction between the underlying "deep structure" of a sentence and its "surface structure" that it exhibits after the transformations have been applied. Transformational operations consist in rearrangement, addition, deletion and combination of linguistic elements.

32


Phrase structure rules form a counterpart in the theory of generative grammar to two techniques of linguistic analysis (one old and one rather new).

In the words of E. Bach, the old practice is the schoolroom drill of parsing, that is, of assigning grammatical labels to parts of a sentence. In a schoolroom drill the following analysis might occur:

The man

article noun

gave

verb

me

pronoun

a

article

book

noun

whole subject

indirect

object

direct

object

whole

predicate

The other technique in reality only a more sophisticated version of parsing is so-called immediate constituent (IC) analysis. It attempts to break down constructions into subparts that are in some sense grammatically relevant.

The theory of transformational grammar begins by making fundamental distinction between two kinds of sentences: kernel sentences and their transforms. Kernel sentences are the basic elementary sentences of the language from which all else is made. All constructions that are not basic are transforms, i. e. they are derived from the basic ones by certain grammatical rules. Transformations can change and expand the kernel in many ways to form the great variety of sentences possible in a given language.

The system of any language contains a rather small number of basic sentences and other structural elements (such as morphemes and phonemes). All the other linguistic forms, sentences of different structure, are derived (generated) from these basic (kernel) elements by certain regular derivation rules involving different kind of operations. This understanding of the system of any language is, in fact, the main assumption of the transformational grammar.

The two basic problems of the T-grammar are: a) the establishment of the set of kernel or basic structures, and b) the establishment of the set of transformation rules for deriving all the other sentences as their transforms1.

A transformational rule is a rule which requires or allows us to perform certain changes in the kernel structure: rearrangement of linguistic elements, so-called "permutation", substitution, deletion, the use of function words, etc.

The transformational rules show how to derive something from something else by switching things about, putting things or leaving them out and so on 2.

It is to be pointed out that transformational analysis applied in teaching on different instruction levels can hardly be considered as altogether quite novel. Transformational relations involved in tense-formation and passive forms, for instance, were, in fact, always presented as devices of obligatory transformations on the morphological level. The

1 See: Z. S. Harris. Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure. "Language", v. 33, No. 3, 1957.

2 See: P. Roberts. English Syntax. New York, 1964, p. 97. - 3

33


recognition of brought as the past tense of bring, and similarly be brought as the passive of bring, depends primarily on relating large numbers of sentences and on the analysis of collocations between nouns and verbs in the sentences.

Such are also number and person transformations or, say, different kind of transformations which were applied implicitly in traditional grammar on the syntactic level depending on the purpose of communication: constructing negative transforms, changing an affirmative sentence into a question, transformations which produce exclamatory sentences, etc.

Deficiencies of various kind have been discovered in the first attempts to formulate a theory of transformational generative grammar and in the descriptive analysis of particular languages that motivated these formulations. At the same time, it has become apparent that these formulations can be extended and deepened in certain ways.

N. Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax 1 is a notable attempt to review these developments and to propose a reformulation of the theory of transformational generative grammar that takes them into account. The emphasis in this study is syntax; semantic and phonological aspects of language structure are discussed only insofar as they bear on syntactic theory.

The author reviews the general orientation of all work in generative grammar since the middle fifties. His specific intent is to determine exactly how this work is related in its divergencies as well as its connections to earlier developments in linguistics and to see how this work relates to traditional issues in psychology and philosophy.

N. Chomsky implicitly relates his grammar to language teaching and learning by associating his results with traditional grammars. He mentions that these do not give explicit rules for putting words together into sentences, although they give enough rules of word concord, examples and so on, to allow the student to do this intuitively. N. Chomsky gives no rules for putting sentences together to make discourses, but leaves this to the intuitions of the learner. His aim is to put forward the rules to generate all possible sentences of a language in terms of a given set of morphemes. In his words, any language has a finite set of available morphemes, but an infinite set of sentences; this shows definite hypostatisation of the unit "sentence".

Transformational grammar involving a reorientation of linguistic theory has naturally given rise to vigorous controversy in linguistic studies, and much still remains to be done in language learning to evaluate its potentialities adequately. It is to be expected, however, that the theory of T-grammar will continue to develop and contribute to general linguistic study by solving some important previously overlooked issues.

The structural procedures of modern descriptive theory are used by Soviet linguists to identify the nature of some linguistic facts. It must, however, be emphatically stressed that in some questions our standpoint is essentially different. Some American linguists are known to

1 See: N. Chomsky. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965.

34


advocate rigorous separation of levels and a study of language as an autonomous system. Such abstraction seems altogether erroneous and brings little scientific order to language learning; dogmatic assumptions of this kind are always responsible for the distortion of linguistic facts. This approach seems to have already been abandoned by most structuralists (Z. Harris, N. Chomsky).

What is also open to criticism is setting absolutely apart synchronic and diachronic aspects of linguistic units. In language reality the two aspects are organically related and as such cannot be always absolutely isolated. Regrettable mistakes occur if this is overlooked.

There are a number of European schools of linguistics, and the differences between them are in some instances rather significant. The linguistic theories which they hold have, in fact, been developed in a variety of ways.

With the diversity of view-points within descriptive linguistics, it is not surprising that English descriptive grammar is not as a type uniform. Sometimes grammarians differ in the view of language that underlies them. Some of grammars differ only in terminology, in stylistic conventions of statement, or in other basically inconsequential matters. For the most part there is a variation in many directions, with intergradations in linguistic analysis. But despite a considerable divergency of their aims and linguistic approaches there is a certain continuousness in different English grammars observed in their keeping up the grammatical tradition. The foundations of the English grammatical theory were laid already in the first part of the prescriptive grammar, though its morphological system was based on Latin and syntactic concepts depended largely upon rhetoric and logic.

The prescriptive normative grammar has the longest tradition and is still prevalent in class-room instruction. Its most important contribution to grammatical theory was the syntactic system developed in 19th century.

Though much has been done, the three types of scientific English grammars have not yet succeeded in creating any quite independent and new grammatical systems.

R. W. Zandvoort's Handbook of English Grammar (1957—1965) is a descriptive grammar of contemporary English. It deals with accidence and syntax, leaving aside what belongs rather to idiom and is not amenable to general statement. It likewise eschews historical digressions; synchronic and diachronic grammar are, in the author's opinion, best treated separately. In this, as in other respects, R. Zandvoort confesses himself a pupil of Kruisinga, whose Handbook of Present-day English, despite certain extravagances in its fifth and final edition, he considers to be the most original and stimulating treatment of English syntax.

* * *

A major contribution to the development of modern linguistics has been made by Soviet scholars.

The accomplishments of Soviet linguists in the theory of English structure are presented by the great wealth and variety of individual

35


studies of numerous problems treated in various monographs, grammar books and work-papers which appeared during this period and have been noted in our bibliography.

Linguistic studies of Modern English structure made by Soviet scholars contain most valuable information about the language as system and have notable merits in the grammatical theory making its study more illuminating and contributing to a scientific understanding of language development. Such are, for instance, the monographs and books edited in this country in 50-60-ies by V. N. Yartseva, A. I. Smirnitsky, O. S. Akhmanova, Y. N. Vorontsova, B. A. Ilyish, N. N. Amosova, I. P. Ivanova, I. V. Arnold and others.

Most perceptive and useful treatments coordinating and deepening the grasp of the language will be found in V. N. Yartseva's monographs and scholarly accounts made at a special academic level, with much new insight on the subject in the light of modern linguistics.

A valuable source of significant information revealing important aspects of language in discussion of syntax and morphology will be found in well known A. I. Smirnitsky's grammar books.

A major stimulus to intensive studies of the theory of English structure in Soviet linguistics was the research of our scholars in recent times. This has brought new accomplishments in modern grammatical theory which are original, significant and practical. Investigations of recent years gain an important insight into the structural methods of linguistic analysis, syntactic description, in particular. Such are the grammar books edited by O. S. Akhmanova, V. N. Yartseva, L. Barkhudarov, L. L. Iofik, Y. O. Zhluktenko, G. G. Pocheptsov and others.

Current work in grammar attempts to provide the insight into semantic aspects of syntax, the processes of sentence formation and their interpretation, the processes that underlie the actual use of language.

Investigations of Soviet scholars throw much additional light on numerous aspects of language encouraging fresh attempts not only in the theory of English structure but also comparative studies of grammar (V. N. Yartseva, Y. O. Zhluktenko).

The structural procedures of modern descriptive theory are widely used by Soviet linguists to identify the nature of some linguistic facts of different levels of the language.

Important observations are presented in A. Korsakov's book where we find the description of the system of the English verb, revealing to the student the way in which the language actually works. The book is not only intended to show the student how the English tenses are actually used. It is also helpful as an introduction of some methods and ways of linguistic analysis.

Various aspects of grammar have been described in a considerable number of dissertations defended in this country on specialised topics, such as semantic aspects of syntax, the grammar of English nominalisations, synonymic correlation of linguistic units, comparative study of languages, etc. to which we turn the attention of the student with suggestions for further reading.

36


Grammar in Its Relation to Other Levels of Linguistic Structure

Interactions between grammar and other levels of linguistic structure are of the essence of language and probably the most significant point to notice in studying the structure of a language in general.

Language as system consists of several subsystems all based on oppositions, differences, samenesses and positional values.

The grammatical system breaks up into its subsystems owing to its relations with vocabulary and the unity of lexical meaning of the words of each group. Grammar and vocabulary are organically related and interdependent but they do not lie on one plane. As a bilateral unity of form and content the grammar of any language always retains the categories underlying its system.

Numberless examples in different languages show that grammar is not indifferent to the concrete lexical meaning of words and their capacity to combine with one another in certain patterns. The use of some grammatical rules is well known to be lexically restricted.

The statement about abstraction and generalisation in grammar should not thus be understood as formal mechanical separation of the "general" facts from the "special" ones.

It is not always easy to draw precise boundaries between the two branches of learning.

Sometimes the subject matter becomes ambiguous just at the borderline.

Internal relations of elements are of the essence of language as systems at all levels. The functions of every linguistic element and abstraction depend on its relative place therein. This is, in fact, one of the fundamental features of language. And this is the starting point of the treatment of grammar in the present book. Grammatical phenomena can and should be considered from various (often supplementary) points of view. With this approach to linguistic facts problems of grammar in our day have taken on new vitality and interest.

The linguistic features of grammar and vocabulary make it abundantly clear that the two branches of learning are organically related to each other. No part of grammar can be adequately described without reference to vocabulary. With all this, linguistic students should understand what separates grammar from vocabulary, wherein lie the peculiarities of each of the two levels and their relationship in general. To ignore this is to ignore the dialectical nature of language.

That grammar and vocabulary are organically related to each other may be well illustrated by the development of analytical forms which are known to have originated from free syntactic groups. These consist of at least two words but actually constitute one sense-unit. Only one of the elements has lexical meaning, the second has none, and being an auxiliary word possesses only grammatical meaning.

Not less characteristic are periphrastic grammatical forms of the verb, such as, for instance, the going to-future or, say, patterns with the verb to get + participle II established by long use in the language

37


to indicate voice distinctions. Verb-phrases of analytical structure denoting the aspective character of the action, such as: used to + Vinf, would + Vinf, come to + Vinf, take to + Ving, fall + prp + Ving, have + nomen acti, etc.

The constant reciprocal action between vocabulary and grammar makes itself quite evident in contextual restrictions of word-meanings. Examples are not far to seek.

The verb to mean + Vinf means "to intend", to mean + Ving means "to signify", "to have as a consequence", "to result in something". Compare the following:

  1.  He had never really meant to write that letter → He had never intended to write that letter.
  2.  This meant changing all my plans This resulted in changing all my plans.

To remember + Ving refers to the past and means "not to need to be reminded", to remember + Vinf refers to the future and means "not to omit to do something". Cf.: I remember doing so. Remember to go to the post-office.

To try takes a gerund when it means "to make an experiment"; when followed by an infinitive it means "to make an attempt to do something", e. g.: She tried for a time helping us in music but found it was not a success. Try to keep perfectly still for a moment.

The construction verb + Ving can also be compared with one consisting of a verb + adverbial infinitive, e. g.: The horse stopped to drink. The horse stopped drinking.

Further examples of the so-called "grammatical context" which operates to convey the necessary meaning will be found in cases when, for instance, the passive form of the verb gives a clue concerning its particular lexical meaning. To give examples. The verb to succeed, as registered in dictionaries, can mean: 1) слідувати за чимсь або кимсь, бути наступником, змінювати щось; 2) мати успіх, досягати мети, встигати.

As is known, the passive form of this verb excludes the second range of its meanings.

Not less characteristic is the use of the verb to make; its passive forms, for instance, are incompatible with such lexical meanings as given below:

The moment I greeted her she made to turn back.

She rose abruptly and made to quit the room, but Andrew stopped her before she reached the door. (Cronin)

The use of the passive form would signal the causative meaning «заставити», «примусити», e. g.: She was made to quit the room.

Compare also the meaning of the verb to treat in the following sentences:

He treated my words as a joke. The book treats of poetry. They treated us to sweet wine. He is treating my son cruelly.

38


In homonymic patterns the meaning of the verb is generally defined by the immediate lexical context, which is always explicit enough to make the meaning clear. Compare the following:

  1.  She made a good report. She made a good wife.
  2.  He called his sister a heroine. He called his sister a taxi.

Variation in lexical environment may change the meaning of a grammatical form, and the use of a grammatical form may, in its turn, change the lexical meaning of the word involved. Examples are not far to seek. The organic interrelation between grammar and vocabulary merits at this point special consideration.

In the "activo-passive" use of verbs, for instance, the medial meaning is generally signalled by the lexical meaning of the subject. Examples are numerous:

(a) But it occurred to her, as her dance-list was filling up, that there was not much left for Mr. Cowperwood, if he should care to dance with her. (Dreiser)

(was filling up = was being filled up)

(b) When the storm stopped the fields were white over, the sky a milk blue, low and still threatening. But the snowcovered fields, in spite his shivering, felt good to be in. (Sillitoe)

(felt good=were felt)

(c) This play reads better than it acts (= This play should be read rather than acted).

Grammatical forms must be studied in all the variety of their distribution in actual speech. Contexts have a way of making a grammatical form convey different structural meanings including sometimes the exact opposite of what is ordinarily intended.

The organic interrelation between grammar and vocabulary becomes most evident when we carry our attention to transpositions of grammatical forms, their functional re-evaluation in different contexts and to semantic aspects of syntax.

The constant reciprocal action of vocabulary and grammar will be well exemplified by various processes of word-formation, such as compounding, conversion, derivation and others.

Evidence to prove the interrelation between grammar and vocabulary will readily be seen in the history of so-called function words, e. g.: prepositions and conjunctions which have come from the notional parts of speech:

provided a) past participle from the verb to provide b) conjunction

regarding a) present participle from the verb to regard b) preposition

owing a) present participle from to owe b) preposition

failing a) present participle from to fail b) preposition

33


The same is true of such formations in other languages. Cf. Russian and Ukrainian:

относительно а) предлог відносно а) прийменник
б) наречие б) прислівник

не смотря 1 а) деепричастие не зважаючи \ а) дієприслівник

(несмотря)} б) предлог (незважаючи)) б) прийменник

French: vu a) participe passe

 b) preposition pendant )

durant \  a) participe present

touchant / b) preposition

German:

a) Partizip II  ausgenommen

 b) position Zeit (zeit)

 1 a) Substantiv Kraft (kraft) /

 b) Prдposition

That grammar should be viewed in relation to other parts of linguistic learning, such as phonetics and style, is also obvious.

The phonetic interpretation of the linguistic material is of undoubted interest in modern grammar learning. Modulation features, intonation and stress are well known to effect both morphology and syntax. Patterns of grammatical arrangement may be structurally ambiguous or at least potentially so. In speech however, there are prosodic patterns which clearly distinguish the various types of construction. This is an area of English grammar where much remains to be done before a complete description is available.

Changes in the intonation pattern, for instance, can change the functional sentence perspective, the interpretation of the whole utterance, say, from a statement to a question, from a positive to a negative sense, from interrogative to exclamatory, etc., e. g.:

Fleur darted after him.

"He gives me up? You mean that? Father!" (Galsworthy)

Instinctively they both took cigarettes, and lighted each others. Then Michael said: "Fleur, knows?" (Galsworthy)

"Did you hear it! That boy of hers is away to London again".

The sentence-final contours are used in speech to signal the sentence divisions within an utterance composed of more than one sentence. In "nexus of deprecation", for instance, the connection between two members of an ordinary affirmative sentence may be brushed aside as impossible by intonation which is the same as in questions, often in an exaggerated form or not infrequently given to the two members separately, e. g.:

We surrender? Never!

I catch cold! No fear.

The interrogative form of exclamatory sentences in such patterns make them most colourful and expressive.

"You,I said,— a favourite with Mr. Rocherster? You gifted with

40


the power of pleasing him? You of importance to him in any way? Go; Your folly sickens me" (Brontë).

Further examples to show the relation of phonetics to grammar are not far to seek. We may take, for instance, word-making through the so-called "morphological" or "semantic" stress. A fair number of nouns (Romanic in origin) are distinguished from the corresponding verbs only by the position of the accent, the noun being accented on the first syllable and the verb on the second, e. g. 'presentto pre'sent, 'export-to ex'port, 'conduct to con'duct, etc.

Structural ambiguity in homonymic patterns on the syntactic level is very often resolved by the intonation patterns.

In written English, for instance, because of the lack of stress the use of some words results in ambiguity. By way of illustration:

He talked with a pretty French accent with the stress on French the word pretty is used adverbially and means in or to some degree; when pretty is stressed it is used attributively and means good, fine.

Examine also the difference in grammar between:

What did you bring the parcel in? Why did you bring the parcel in? Are you going to be doing it? How long are you going to be doing it?

Features of stress and juncture are well known to effect various kind of modification structures, e. g. the phrase old men and women, for instance, could be divided into immediate constituents in either of two ways, depending on whether old is referred to both the men and the women or just the men. In speech the difference would normally be conveyed by the corresponding stress and juncture.

It will probably be helpful if at this point we take the example given by A. Hill in his Introduction to Linguistic Structures to show the importance of modulation features in downgraded sentences with piled up verb-forms:

What the house John had had had had, had had its importance.

Since the writing system does not indicate the superfixes accurately and they are therefore puzzles for the reader who has to sort them out, sentences of this sort are usually avoided in written composition. It is possible, for instance, to construct a sentence which is a real problem when read, but is plain enough when pronounced. The sentence is a freak in writing, which no writer in his senses would use. Spoken, it is only mildly queer, and is at least intelligible. Even though these sentences are understandably rare in writing, the reader should not suppose that they are either uncommon or unnatural in speech 1.

Patterns of stress sometimes show the structural meaning unambiguously in the spoken language where without the help of context it would be ambiguous in the written. Examples follow.

When I have instructions to leave is equivalent in meaning to I have instructions that I am to leave this place, dominant stress is ordinarily  on leave. When the same sequence is equivalent in meaning to I have instructions which I am to leave, dominant stress is ordinarily on instructions.

1 See: A. H і I 1. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. New York, 1958.

41


PROBLEMS OF FIELD STRUCTURE

The problem of the interrelation between grammar and vocabulary is most complex.

If the question arises about the relationship between grammar and vocabulary we generally think of grammar as a closed system, i. e. consisting of a limited number of elements making up this system. The grammatical system of a language falls into subsystems, such as for instance, parts of speech, conjugated verb-forms, prepositions, affixes, etc., in other words, the classes of linguistic units whose exhaustive inventory can be made up as a whole.

Vocabulary on the contrary is not so closed in its character.

When we say that grammar is a closed system, we do not certainly mean that grammar is separated from vocabulary. On the contrary, the grammatical system breaks up into subsystems just owing to its relations with vocabulary, and the unity of lexico-semantic groups is supported by the unity of grammatical forms and meaning of the words of each group. Grammar and vocabulary are organically related and interdependent but they do not lie on one plane. As a bilateral unity of form and content grammar always retains the categories underlying its system.

In actual speech linguistic units of different levels come to correlate as similar in function.

The study of the ways in which languages manage to provide different devices to express a given communicative meaning is one of the most fruitful directions of research receiving increasing attention in modern linguistics. It is on this level of linguistic analysis that we coordinate and deepen our grasp of the language as system. What is expressed by morphological forms may find its expression in lexical devices, or, say, in syntactic structures.

Such is the grammatical treatment of the category of modality in the Russian language made by V. V. Vinogradov who identifies modality as a linguistic category expressed by syntactic, morphological and lexical means 1.

Correlation in occurrence of different linguistic units in one semantic field makes it possible to suggest that there are certain regularities of their functioning in language activity.

It will be emphasised, in passing, that different linguistic units expressing a common meaning are not quite identical in their semantic value and do not go absolutely parallel in language activity. They rather complete each other.

1 See: В. В. Виноградов. О категории модальности и модальных словах в русском языке. Труды института русского языка АН СССР, т. 2. М.—Л., 1950, pp. 42—60.

42


The concept of field structure in grammar is not something quite novel in linguistic studies.

The eminent historian of the French language F. Brunot proposed in his time to teach French grammar by starting from within, from the thoughts to be expressed, instead of from the forms 1.

Related to this is Сh. Ваllу's concept with emphasis laid on the logical categories and extra-linguistic relations involved in his observations 2.

L.V. Ščerba showed a better judgement making distinction between the two aspects of studying syntax: passive and active. The starting point of the former is the form of the word and its meaning. Language is thus studied from within as system. The concept of the active aspect is essentially different.

Identifying notional categories I.I. Meshchaninov lays special emphasis on their linguistic nature which should never be lost sight of3.

In his philosophical discussion of notional categories O. Jespersen first recognises that beside the syntactic categories which depend on the structure of each language as it is actually found, there are some extralingual categories which are independent of the more or less accidental facts of existing languages; they are universal in so far as they are applicable to all languages, though rarely expressed in them in a clear and unmistakable way. But then he goes on to say, that some of them relate to such facts of the world without as sex, others to mental states or to logic, but for want of a better common name for these extralingual categories he uses the adjective notional and the substantive notion.

In other departments it is impossible to formulate two sets of terms, one for the world of reality or universal logic, and one for the world of grammar, and O. Jespersen is thus led to recognise that the two worlds should always be kept apart 4.

In finding out what categories to recognise as notional, O. Jespersen points out that these are to have a linguistic significance.

O. Jespersen develops this idea further. The specimens of his treatment given in the Philosophy of Grammar present a preliminary sketch of a notional comparative grammar, starting from С (notion or inner meaning) and examining how each of the fundamental ideas common to all mankind is expressed in various languages, thus proceeding through В (function) to A (form).

Linguistic observations in terms of field structure are of undoubted theoretical interest and have a practical value as relevant to comparative studies of various languages.

Important treatments of the field-theory have been made by A. V. Воndarkо in his studies of the Russian language 5.

1 See: F. Вrunot. La pensée et la langue. 3e éd. Paris, 1953.

2 See: Ch. Bally. La langue et la vie. Paris, 1926.

3 See: И. И. Мещанинов. Понятийные категории в языке. Труды военного института иностр. яз. М., 1945, № 1.

4 See: О. Jespersen. The Philosophy of Grammar. London, 1968, pp. 55—56. 5 See: А. В. Бондарко. Грамматическая категория и контекст. Л., 1971,

р. 115.

43


The starting point of his analysis is the principle from meaning to form. Due attention is drawn to functional transpositions of verb-forms and suspension of oppositions in different syntactic environments.

Problems of field-structure in German are discussed in E. V. Guliga, E. I. Shendels'1 work where we also find acute observations valid for further development of the theory of language.

All the linguistic units functioning in a language to express a given categorial meaning make up the functional semantic field of this category. The morphological devices are naturally primary in importance and make up its highly organised nucleus. All the other constituents are peripheral elements which may be used for different notional purposes, such as: intensity or emphasis of a given meaning, expressive connotation, weakening of meaning, making a given meaning more concrete and more precise, or expressing a new meaning.

 The functional-semantic field falls at least into two categories which stand in contrast. Thus, for instance, the time-field in English falls into three "microfields": Present, Past and Future.

The voice-field in Modern English falls into Active and Passive (a binary opposition).

The field of number falls into two microfields: Singular Plural (oneness plurality).

In Modern English plurality may be expressed, for instance, by:

  1.   plural forms of nouns;
  2.   singular forms of nouns in transposition (implied plurality);
  3.   inflectional forms of verbs (very few in number);
  4.   personal and demonstrative pronouns;
  5.   pronouns of unspecified quantity;
  6.   numerals;

collective nouns and nouns of multitude, e. g.: mankind, peasantry, yeomanry, gentry, crowd, host, etc. or, say, such words as developed a collective signification by metonymy, e. g.: all the world all the men, the sex women, the bench the officials;

standardised paired noun-phrases, e. g.: day after day, year after year, question on question, country on country, etc.

It is to be noted at this point that in patterns with "implied" (covert) plurality distinction must be made between:

  1.   the use of some common nouns in the singular with the implication of plurality, as in to have a keen eye, to keep in hand; trees in leaf, etc.
  2.   the use of the pronoun one with reference to:
  3.   several unknown individuals or people in general, e. g.: One should always do one's duty.
  4.   several known individuals including the speaker, e. g.:

He asked me to review his new novel. Of course one did not like to refuse, but...

Syntactic devices are generally most expressive, they intensify the

1 See: E. В. Гулыга, Е. И. Шендельс. Грамматико-лексические поля в современном немецком языке. М., 1969.

44


meaning of plurality and as such are often used for stylistic purposes. A few typical examples are:

Mile on mile, without an end, the low grey streets stretched towards the ultimate deserted grass. (Galsworthy)

Sea on sea, country on country, millions on millions of people, all with their own lives, energies, joys, griefs, and suffering all with things they had to give up, and separate struggles for existence. (Galsworthy)

The invariant meaning of any given category finds its most "specialised" expression in the morphological category.

A study of linguistic signs in their interrelationship and interdependence leads to significantly increased knowledge of language. A special interest attaches to the correlation between meanings expressed by grammatical forms and those expressed by lexico-grammatical devices to which in our description we shall repeatedly draw the attention of the student.

All these means denoting plurality are essentially different in their linguistic status. Without any frequency counts we may say that some of them are fairly common in every day use, others are used occasionally, according to circumstances. Morphological means to express plurality stand at the centre of this field and are primary in importance, all the rest are its peripheral elements used for different notional purposes.

Pronouns and numerals, for instance, as noun determiners or its substitutes, make the quantitative meaning more concrete.

Collective nouns denote at the same time singular and plural, i. e. a collection of individuals which are viewed as a unit.

Many words which do not themselves denote a plurality of individuals acquire the meaning of a collective in certain contexts, as when, for instance, the bench is used of a body of judges, a town or village in the meaning of its inhabitants.

FUNCTIONAL RE-EVALUATION OF GRAMMATICAL FORMS IN CONTEXT

POTENTIAL POLYSEMY IN GRAMMAR

The problem of potential polysemy in grammar is one of the most important, the one which is very complex and seems to be relevant to a number of aspects.

All languages seem to have polysemy on several levels. Like words which are often signs not of one but of several things, a single grammatical form can also be made to express a whole variety of structural meanings. This appears to be natural and is a fairly common development in the structure of any language. The linguistic mechanism works naturally in many ways to prevent ambiguity in patterns of grammatical structure. Orientation towards the context will generally show which of all the possible meanings is to be attached to a polysemantic grammatical form.

It is sometimes maintained that in case of grammatical polysemy we observe various structural meanings inherent in the given form, one of them being always invariable, i. e. found in any possible context of

45


the use of the form. And then, if this invariable structural meaning cannot be traced in different uses of the given form, we have homonymy. In point of fact, this angle of view does not seem erroneous.

Functional re-evaluation of grammatical forms is a source of constant linguistic interest. We may say with little fear of exaggeration that whatever may be the other problems of grammar learning the polysemantic character of grammatical forms is always primary in importance.

Most grammatical forms are polysemantic. On this level of linguistic analysis distinction should be made between synchronic and potential polysemy. Thus, for instance, the primary denotative meaning of the Present Continuous is characterised by three semantic elements (semes): a) present time, b) something progressive, c) contact with the moment of speech. The three semes make up its synchronic polysemy.

By potential polysemy we mean the ability of a grammatical form to have different connotative meanings in various contexts of its uses. Examine for illustration the connotative (syntagmatic) meanings of the Present Continuous signalled by the context in the following sentences:

Brian said to his cousin: "I'm signing on as well in a way, only for life. I'm getting married." Both stopped walking. Bert took his arm and stared: "You're not."

"I am. To Pauline (Sillitoe) future time reference. "It was a wedding in the country. The best man makes a speech. He is beaming all over his face, and he calls for attention... (Gordon) past time reference; ... "I'm sorry", he said, his teeth together, "You're not going in there". (Gordon) the Present Continuous with the implication of imperative modality;

"I am always thinking of him", said she. (Maugham) recurrent actions; She is always grumbling about trifles — the qualitative Present, the permanent characteristic of the subject.

The asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign 1 appears to be natural and is a fairly common development in the structure of any language. One sign can have several semantic elements, and one semantic element may find its expression in different linguistic signs.

Suspension of oppositions on the morphological level presupposes establishing points of similarity between the contrasted members of a given opposition.

Transposition of grammatical forms will thus lead to their synonymic encounter.

The paradigmatic meaning of one grammatical form can coincide with the syntagmatic meaning of another, e. g.:

the Past Tense and the historic Present;

the Future Tense and the Present Tense used with future time relevance;

verb-forms of the Imperative and the Present Tense used with the implication of command, order or request.

1 See: S. Каrсevsку. Du dualisme asymétrique du signe linguistique. TCLP. Prague, 1929.

46


Syntagmatic meanings of different grammatical forms can also coincide.

Consider, for illustration, the functional similarity of the simple Present and Present Continuous in:

The House sits on Monday. (Galsworthy) I'm not coming back to England. (Galsworthy)

future time relevance

Similarly:

You're coming with me now! You will come with me now! You will be coming with me now!

imperative modality implied in the syntagmatic meanings of different grammatical forms.

Oppositions are known to take different specific character on different linguistic levels: in phonology, morphology and vocabulary.

The linguistic structure is a highly organised system where we generally distinguish syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships between words.

Syntagmatic relationships are conditioned by the context and as such are generally said to be based on the linear character of speech.

Paradigmatic relations reveal themselves in the sets of forms constituting paradigms. Forms making up the paradigm are analysed in morphemic terms.

Morphological neutralisation is a development of syntagmatic order. Observations in this area of grammar have proved the efficiency of contextual, distributional and transformational methods of linguistic analysis. We distinguish here the interdependence of word-forms within the syntactic structure, the interdependence of elements within the word-forms and the influence of other levels of the same language.

The problem of neutralisation on the grammatical level is relevant to a number of other important questions. These are: functional transpositions in grammar, contextual restrictions of grammatical meanings, the linguistic nature of the context which resolves ambiguity providing the formal clue to distinguish the necessary meaning in a position of neutralisation and contextual synonymy in grammar.

S. Karcevsky rightly points out that transpositions on the grammatical level are more regular and less free than lexical ones.

Transpositions of grammatical forms resulting in the neutralisation of meaning cannot be studied without a considerable relevance to a system of oppositions of which the given form is a part. It has been customary to say that grammatical forms make up an opposition if they have one grammatical feature in common and are contrasted by one or several points of their denotative content. The common element is the grammatical category itself revealed in the linguistic forms of its expression. Transposition is generally based on some points of the grammatical meaning which is retained though somewhat transformed thus producing the necessary effect in communication. This transformation may be of different kind. If, for instance, transposition results in yielding synonyms the latter are not interchangeable. As we shall further see, transpositions are always attended by the neutralisation of the contrasted grammatical meaning in special syntactic, lexical or situational environment where the given word-form occurs.

47


We find it necessary to distinguish two types of transposition on the morphological level:

  1.   regular transpositions established by long use in ordinary denotative grammar and
  2.   stylistic transpositions of special connotative value in expressive language.

Regular ordinary transpositions may be well illustrated by indirect speech with the concord of tenses which usually occurs between the finite verb in the main clause and that in the object clause of a complex sentence reporting a statement or question.

He says he knows all about it. He said he knew all about it.

Regular transpositions also occur in subordinate clauses of condition and time for the logical reasons of economising speech efforts 1 e. g.: I shall recognise the place directly I see it.

(I see it = I shall see it) If I receive her letter, I shall ring you up.

(I receive = I shall receive)

The necessary meaning is generally signalled by the verb-form of the principal clause.

It is important to observe that the content of a grammatical form may be signalled by:

1. The lexical meaning of the words combined with a given grammatical form. These are often, for instance, adverbs of future time: tomorrow, next week, next month, next year, soon, etc. which will signal futurity in the use of the Present Indefinite and Present Continuous, e. g.: She comes up tomorrow night. She is coming up tomorrow night. Cf.: Експедиція прибуває наступного тижня.

Adverbs of past time will generally give the formal clue to distinguish the use of the Present tense with past time reference, e. g.: Fancy, I come home yesterday and find her letter on my table. Cf.: Уявляєш собі, приходжу я вчора додому...

The Present Continuous in patterns with adverbs of frequency and

1 Conveying the necessary information by the use of the present tense in such patterns of grammatical structure is most reasonably economic. This is one of the numerous examples illustrating the primary point of the theory of information which can be wholly applied to the functional aspect of language. Examples to illustrate "economy of speech" in human communication may be found in numbers. So-called sentence fragments, or, say, verbless predicatives and shortened forms in colloquial speech (apocope, syncope and aphaeresis), the use of auxiliaries as verb-substitutes, clipped words and extreme abbreviations of different kind will give sufficient evidence to recognise this regular universal feature in language development. In English it may be well illustrated by various other examples, such as:

(I'm) afraid not. (I shall) see you again to-morrow. That do? (Will that do?) Well, I never.

48


repetition will imply the frequentative character of the action, e. g.: He is for ever finding faults with whatever you do. I'm always thinking of him.

2. The whole syntactical structure, e. g.: I shall recognise the place directly I see it.

Oh, to have this happen when Rhett was just on the point of declaration. (Mitchell)

3. Consituation or "implied" context. Instances are not few when the meaning of a grammatical form is signalled by the context much larger than a given sentence or by a whole situation of the utterance. Examples are not far to seek.

Her thin arms slid away from his neck: "You'll soon get back to the English way". He was used to the rhythm of her voice, so that while complete sentences registered more quickly he lost the facility for reading hidden meanings in them, accents and stresses being removed as the need for repetition wanted. His dexterity at reading morse rhythms had proved a loss in that it enabled him to master Mimi's too soon, and because her own language was Chinese, she was able to hide so much in her flat deliverance of English. "I'm not going back to England", he said. (Sillitoe)

Michael walks and talks. (Galsworthy) the implication of the past is made clear by the contents of the whole chapter.

How mysterious women were! One lived alongside and knew nothing of them. What could she have seen in that fellow Bosinney to send her mad? For there was madness after all in what she had done crazy moonstruck madness, in which all sense of values had been lost, and her life and his life ruined! (Galsworthy)

It's a kind of queer peace, and I often wonder how I could have been so torn and tortured. (Galsworthy)

It is important to remember that could + Infinitive II may imply two diametrically opposite meanings: a) a real action in the past and b) a non-fact with reference to the past. And here the implied context is all that can be considered relevant.

It is indeed true that languages seem to offer fairly "naturally" a large measure of polarisation, but it is usual to find the antonymous polarity restricted to certain contexts. Observations in this domain will serve to remind us that the history of grammar displays a peculiar unity of opposites manifestation of the dialectic nature of language.

The meaning of each necessary grammatical abstraction makes itself clear only in the course of its usage.

Compare also the following patterns with the verb should:

Had I known about it, I should have come yesterday. (should + Infinitive II used with reference to a non-fact).

That science in the USSR should have attained so high a level of development is but natural (should + Infinitive II expressing a real action in the past with special emphasis laid upon its realisation).

We may say with little fear of exaggeration that whatever may be the other problems of grammar learning the potential polysemy of grammatical forms is always primary in importance. The variety of meaning as potentially implicit in a grammatical form, which we naturally associate with the development of synonymy in grammar, may be illustrated by numerous examples.

49


Take, for instance, the multifarious use of the inflected genitive which in Modern English may be of possession, origin, source, consisting of, extent of, association with or direction towards. There is no formal differentiation between different patterns and this may lead to ambiguity but generally the context or lexical probability makes clear which is meant.

Compare the following:

his brother's room (possession)

his brother's information (source)

his brother's invention (authorship)

his brother's arrival (subjective

duty's call genitive)

joy's recollection (objective

the criminal's arrest genitive)

wife's duty (qualitative

lawyer's life meaning)

It is interesting to note that the qualitative genitive may be synonymous with adjectives of kindred meaning, but they are not always interchangeable: wife's = wifely, wifelike; mother's = motherly, father's = = fatherly, etc.

Compare the following: Soames was silent for some minutes; at last he said: "I don't know what your idea of a wife's duty is. I never have known!" (Galsworthy)

(wife's duty = the duty of a wife)

Irene, whose opinion he secretly respected and perhaps for that reason never solicitated, had only been into the room on rare occasions, in discharge of some wifely duty. (Galsworthy)

(wifely = befitting, like, or pertaining to a wife)

SYNONYMY IN GRAMMAR

We next turn our attention to synonymy in grammar as immediately relevant to the study of potential polysemy of grammatical forms discussed above.

There is a system behind the development of grammatical synonyms in any language. This is a universal linguistic feature and may be traced in language after language. English shares these feature with a number of tongues, but its structural development has led to such distinctive traits as merit attention. Observations in this area are most useful for insight into the nature and functioning of the language.

The very concept of synonymy implies variation. It does not mean however that we must include under grammatical synonyms absolute parallelisms which are presented by different kind of grammatical doublets such as, for instance, variant forms of degrees of comparison of adjectives: clever cleverer the cleverest and clever more clever the most clever; capable capabler the capablest and capable more capable the most capable, etc., or, say, variation in forms observed in the plural of nouns e. g.: hoofs hooves; wharfs wharves, etc.

50


There are no absolute synonyms in grammar. And this is to illustrate the fact that a language does not for any length of time retain side by side two means of expressing exactly the same thing. This would burden the language.

Synonymic forms in grammar are not exactly alike, they commonly have fine shares of difference in style and purpose, and students need to be alive to these differences. There is always selection in the distribution of grammatical forms in actual speech. They must harmonise with the context as appropriate to a given situation.

The change in synonymous grammatical forms is often a change in style, and the effect on the reader is quite different. Even a slight alteration in the grammatical device can subtly shift the meaning of the utterance. Examine the following sentence:

"... Have you been wounding him?"

"It is my misfortune to be obliged to wound him", said Clara.

"Quite needlessly, my child, for marry him you must". (Dreiser)

Ellen had wrung her hands and counseled delay, in order that Scarlett might think the matter over at greater length. But to her pleadings, Scarlett turned a sullen face and a deaf ear. Marry she would! And quickly, too. Within two weeks. (Mitchell)

Cf.: Marry she would! and She would marry.

We cannot fail to see that there is a marked difference in style between the two verb forms: the former is neutral, the latter is highly expressive.

Similarly:

"But, no matter when her foot healed she would walk to Jonesboro. It would be the longest walk she had ever taken in her life, but walk it she would". (Mitchell)

Cf.: walk it she would she would walk it

As synonyms in grammar express different shades of the grammatical meaning, one should be careful in the choice of the right forms, the best to convey the subtler nuances of that meaning.

Knowledge of synonymic differentiation between the grammatical forms permits a systematic, objective investigation and description of style. Many of the most characteristic stylistic traits of diverse writers are, indeed, in the field of grammar. A study of grammatical synonyms can also supply a descriptive foundation for the aesthetic interpretation and comparison of diverse styles. Synonyms lend variety to language. There are different manners of writing, and these differ among themselves not only by virtue of the content or the subject matter treated but also by virtue of a host of "stylistic" elements which are present in varying degree in samples of communication.

It is most important to observe that grammatical forms may differ in connotative power; they grow in connotation in accordance with the nature of the meanings connected with them. In the power of their connotation lies the reserve force of expressive language. To acquire a sense of their right use students of English should study them in context in the light of their relations with other grammatical devices. With this approach to the study of the distributional value of word-forms grammar takes on new life.

51


The problem of synonymy in grammar has received due attention in linguistic investigations of recent years.

There is much truth in what V. N. Yartseva says about the necessity of a consistent linguistic approach to the problem of synonymy in grammar, in general. The first to be mentioned here is a conscious understanding of the organic relation between different aspects of language. The merging of morphology, syntax and vocabulary into one brings little scientific order to language learning and is always responsible for the distortion of linguistic facts.

With regard to the methodology employed in our description of synonymy in grammar there are certain observations which are pertinent tо a summary statement. It will be helpful to distinguish between a) paradigmatic synonyms and b) contextual synonyms or synonyms by function in speech.

In English morphology synonyms of the first group are very few in number. Such are, for instance, synthetical and analytical forms in the Subjunctive and Suppositional Mood, e. g.:

...'I now move, that the report and accounts for the year 1886 be received and adopted". (Galsworthy)

(be received and adopted = should be received and adopted)

Paradigmatic synonyms with similarity in function and structural features may also be exemplified by the following:

Non-emphatic  Emphatic

Present Indefinite

I know

I do know

He knows

He does know

Past indefinite

I knew

I did know

Imperative Mood

Come

Do come

Analytical verbal forms with the intensive do can express a whole variety of subjective modal meanings: pleasure, admiration, affection, surprise, anger, mild reproach, encouragement, admonition, etc.,

e. g.

Oh! darling, don't ache! I do so hate it for you. (Galsworthy) There was so much coming and going round the doors that they did not like to enter. Where does he live? I did see him coming out of the hotel. (Galsworthy)

Eagerly her eyes searched the darkness. The roof seemed to be intact. Could it be could it be ? No, it wasn't possible. War stopped for no-thing, not even Tara, built to last five hundred years. It could not have passed over Tara. Then the shadowy outline did take form. The white walls did show there through the darkness. Tara had escaped. Home! (Mitchell)

52


But Swithin, hearing the name Irene, looked severely at Euphemia, who, it is true, never did look well in a dress, whatever she may have done on other occasions. (Galsworthy)

For the sake of stronger emphasis the principal verb may be given first and the emphatic do placed at the end. This is often the case in clauses of contrast or concession, e. g.:

When he looked up, her face wore again that strange expression.

I can't tell, he thought as he went out, but I mustn't think I mustn't worry. But worry he did, walking toward Pall Mall. (Galsworthy)

And follow her he did, though bothered by unfamiliar words that fell glibly from her lips. (London)

Strong emphasis is also produced by using pleonastic patterns with segmentations, e. g.: He never did care for the river, did Montmorency. (Jerome)

As we have already said, there are no absolute synonyms in grammar. Synonymic forms will generally differ either in various shades of the common grammatical meaning, expressive connotation or in stylistic value. The former may be referred to as relative synonyms, the latter as stylistic ones.

Further examples of paradigmatic synonyms will be found among the so-called periphrastic forms of the English verb.

Relatively synonymous are, for instance, the Future Indefinite tense-forms and the periphrastic "to be going to" future. A simple affirmative statement of intention with no external circumstances mentioned (time, condition, reason, etc.) is generally expressed by the periphrastic form. When a future action depends on the external circumstances the "to be going to" is rare. Cf.:

1. a) He will sell his house, (rare)

b) He's going to sell his house. (normal)

2. a) He'll sell it if you ask him. (normal)

b) He is going to sell it if you ask him. (rare) 1

To be going to with a personal subject implies a much stronger intention than the Future Tense with shall/will does. Here is an excellent example of its emotional use in expressive language:

... "I'm going to have money some day, lots of it, so I can have anything I want to eat. And then there'll never be any hominy or dried peas on my table. And I'm going to have pretty clothes and all of them are going to be silk..." I'm going to have money enough so the Yankees can never take Таrа away from me. And I'm going to have a new roof for Таrа and a new barn and fine mules for plowing and more cotton that you ever saw. And Wade isn't ever going to know what it means to do without the thing he needs. Never! He's going to have everything in the world. And all my family, they aren't ever going to be hungry again. I mean it. (Mitchell)

Further examples are:

"I never thought about what it meant to Wade", said Rhett slowly. "I never thought how he's suffered. And it's not going to be that way for Bonnie." (Mitchell)

1 See: R. W. Zandvoort. A Handbook of English Grammar. London, 1965, pp. 77—78.

53


He ought to understand! "He piles up his money for me", she thought; but what's the use, if I'm not going to be happy? Money, and all it 'ought, did not bring happiness". (Galsworthy)

Darling, said Dinny, I do hope things are going to be all right. (Gals-worthy)

Dinny put her hand on his sleeve. "You are not going to lose your job. I've seen Jack Muskham". (Galsworthy)

Quivering at the thought of this long dark night with her, he yet knew

it was going to be torture. (Galsworthy)

Patterns with the passive auxiliaries be and get will also illustrate grammatical synonyms of the first type.

The passive forms in Modern English are represented by analytic combinations of the auxiliary verb to be with the past participle of the conjugated verb. The verb to get can also function as an auxiliary of the passive, e. g.: (1) My dress got caught on a nail. (2) He got struck by a stone. these are not new usages, but ones which are spreading.

To get seems closer to the true passive auxiliary be in patterns like the following: She got blamed for everything. She gets teased by the other children.

The stabilisation of lexico-grammatical devices to indicate the aspective character of the action has also contributed to the development of synonymy in Modern English.

A special interest attaches to contextual synonyms on the grammatica1 level created through transposition of related grammatical forms, Neutralisation of the distinctive features of the opposed grammatical forms leads to situational synonymy.

Here are a few examples to illustrate the statement:

(1) Are you coming to the PPRS Board on Tuesday? (Galsworthy) (The Supposition Present Future is neutralised; Are you coming? is synonymus with Will you come?)

Similarly:

(2) Whom do you think I travelled with? Fleur Mont. We ran up against each other at Victoria. She's taking her boy to boring next week to convalesce him. (Galsworthy) (She's taking = she will take)

Present Continuous and Present Indefinite may function as situational synonyms in cases like the following:

  1.  Dicky! said James. You are always wasting money on something. (Galsworthy) (You are always wasting is synonymous with You always waste).
  2.  She is continually imagining dangers when they do not exist. (She is imagining = she imagines).
  3.  June read: Lake Okanagen. British Columbia, I'm not coming back to England. Bless you always.John. (Galsworthy) (I'm not coming = = I shall not come).
  4.  Fleur huddled her chin in her fur. It was easterly and cold. A voice behind her said: Well, Fleur, am I going East? (Galsworthy) Cf. Am I going East? = Shall I go East?

And here is a good example to illustrate how the situational context can neutralise the opposition "Indicative Imperative":


"Let me get in there". He tried to brush Anthony aside. But Anthony firmly stood his ground.

"I'm sorry", he said, his teeth together, "You're not going in there". (Gordon) (Cf. syn. You are not going there = Don't go = You shall not go there).

GRAMMATICAL DOUBLETS

Observations on the structural peculiarities of English furnish numerous examples of variations in some language forms expressing one and the same linguistic notion. Such parallel forms or doublets may be traced at different levels of the language.

There are different doublets functioning in the vocabulary of present-day English such as, for instance, infantile infantine; lorry lurry; felloe felly; idiogram ideograph, mediatory mediatorial, or graphic variants: draught draft, gray grey; nosey nosy, fogey fogy, endue indue, koumiss kumiss.

Variation in form may be traced in such phonetic variants as:

Doublets will also be observed in grammar. The paradigm of the Modern English verb will furnish such familiar examples as: crow crew (crowed) crowed; clothe clothed clothed = clothe clad clad; get got (gotten Amer.); knit knit knit = knit knitted knitted; lean leaned leaned = lean leant leant; quit quit quit = quit quitted quitted; spit spit (or spat) spit; slide slid slidden (or slid); wed wed wed = wed wedded wedded; work worked worked = work wrought wrought.

Some variant forms have fallen out of the conjugation and are now chiefly used as verbal adjectives, not as parts of tense-forms, e. g., bounden, cloven, drunken, graven, knitten, molten, proven, rotten, shrunken, shorn, stricken, sunken, washen, e. g. a cloven hoof, a proven fact, sunken cheeks, a swollen lip, the stricken field.

Instances are not few when archaic variant forms are used for stylistic purposes to create the atmosphere of elevated speech in pictorial language, in poetry, or in proverbial sayings, e. g.: the forms in -th for the third person singular, present tense indicative, like doth, hath, endeth, saith, knoweth, etc., or, say, such forms as spake for spoke (past (tense of the verb speak); throve for thrived (past tense of the verb thrive); bare for bore (past tense of the verb bear), knowed for knew (past tense of the verb to know), as in: Measure the cloth ten times; thou canst cut it but twice (prov.) (canst can).

Further examples are: The silence in my room, when I got up here at last, was stunning and the moonlight almost yellow. The moon's hiding, now behind one of the elms, and the evening star shining above a dead branch. A few other stars are out, but very dim. It's a night far our time, far even from our world. Not an owl hooting but the honeysuckle still sweet. And so my most dear, here endeth the tale. Good night. Your ever loving Adrian." (Galsworthy) (endeth = ends).

55


.. .the Captain felt, as sensibly as the most eloquent of men could have done, that there was something in the tranquil time and in its softened beauty that would make the wounded heart of Florence overflow; and that it was better that such tears should have their way. So not a word spake Captain Cuttle. He knowed Toodle, he said, well. Belonged to the Railroad, didn't he? (Dickens) (spake = spoke; knowed = knew)

The use of archaic variants for stylistic purposes may be traced in other languages. Take the paradigm of the verb бути in Ukrainian for illustration.

я є (= єсмь) ми є (= єсьмо) ти є (== єси) ви є (= есте) він є (= єсть) вони є (= суть)

Єсть там дивний-предивний край. (Леся Українка) Єсть плоди червонощокі, що к зимі достоять. (Тичина)

0 Дніпре, Дніпре, мій Славуто, широк і славен ти єси.

(Малишко)

Not less characteristic is the stylistic use of other archaic forms in Ukrainian:

«Слава тобі, Шафарику. Bo віки і віки, що звів єси в одно море слов'янськії ріки». (Шевченко). Compare also such variant forms as: питає пита; знає зна; слухає — слуха; виглядає вигляда, etc.

«У художній прозі та поезії, особливо в творах класиків художньої літератури, часто використовуються: а) дієслова 3-ої особи однини неповного оформлення (зна, гуля, ходе, просе) і б) інфінітиви на -ть. З погляду норм сучасної літературної мови це являє собою поступку перед діалектичними формами з метою створення колориту розмовності або для регулювання ритмічності в будові віршованої мови»1.

Галя собі заспокоюється, ще часом і пісеньку заспіва про журавля. (Вовчок)

Уявляли вони собі хазяйку вони знали, що хазяйка молоденька й усе сидить біля віконця та вишива собі очіпки шовками та золотом. (Вовчок)

Його відерце перше пробива лід у криниці, що уночі замерзала, і таскав він сповнені відра під гору. (Вовчок)

Людина обертає в сад пустині

І в стоколосся колос оберта... Людина йде, ясна її мета

Хвала ж землі, підкореній людині! (Рильський)

Familiar examples of grammatical archaisms still in use for stylistic purposes will be found among pronominal forms, such as, for instance,

1 І. Г. Чередниченко. Нариси з загальної стилістики сучасної української мови. К... 1962, р. 328.

56


thee or the poetical possessives thy and thine which do not occur in everyday speech, e. g.:

Tell me then, star, whose wings of light

Speed thee in thy fiery flight,

In what cavern of the night

Will thy pinious close now? (Shelley)

Grammatical doublets will be found in the formation of the plural, e. g.:

cows kine (arch.)

fies fone (arch.) shoes shoen (arch.) scarfs scarves

wharfs wharves

There is also morphological variation in the plural of nouns foreign in origin. Through natural process of assimilation some borrowed nouns have developed parallel forms, e. g.: formulae formulas; antennae antennas; foci focuses; termini terminuses; strata stratums. Foreign plural forms are decidedly more formal than their native doublets.

We also find such grammatical forms as ain't or ain of the verb to be corresponding to the forms am not, is not and are not. The combination of a verb-form with the negative particle not differs from the same form without the particle. There is no distinction here between am not, is not, and are not. These variant forms are low colloquial, if not vulgar, and are incompatible with serious literary style. A few examples of their use are given below:

"You're right again", returned the Captain, giving his hand another squeeze. "Nothing it is. So! Steady! There's a son gone: pretty little creetur. Ain't there?

...Thank'ее. My berth a'nt very roomy», said the Captain. (Dickens)

An't you a thief?" said Mr. Carker, with his hands behind him in pockets.

"No, Sir", pleaded Rob.

"You are!" said Mr. Carker.

"I an't indeed, Sir", whimpered Rob. (Dickens)

Observations on current linguistic change in present-day English furnish examples of grammatical variants developed in recent times.

The first to be mentioned here are linguistic changes in the paradigmatic sets of adjectives, resulting from the continued loss of inflections and their active replacement by syntactic devices in the comparative and superlative where forms with -er and -est are being replaced by forms with more and most. In point of fact, this is the continuation of a trend of long standing. Adjectives with three or more syllables are normally compared with more and most; monosyllabic adjectives, on the other hand, are normally compared with -er and -est (large, larger, largest). Adjectives with two syllables are divided, some usually being compared one way, the others the other; and it is in this dissyllabic group of adjectives

57


that the change is most noticeable. Adjectives formerly taking -er and -est tend to go over to more and most, e. g. common commoner the commonest and common more common most common. To-day weather forecasts frequently say that it will be more cloudy instead of cloudier. The same is true of such adjectives as cruel, clever, fussy, profound, pleasant, simple, subtle. Recently there have been many cases of more and most spreading even to monosyllabic adjectives, e. g. more crude, more keen, more plain, etc. Forms like more well-informed and more well-dressed functioning parallel with the former better-informed and best-dressed are also frequent.

That the process of loss of inflections is still going on in present-day English is especially clear in the parallel use of such pronouns who and whom, I and me. The inflected form whom seems to be disappearing only from the spoken language and being replaced by who, though it still persists strongly in the written language. It is quite natural, for instance, to say I don't know who to suggest, and I don't know whom to suggest. There is one position where whom is always used still, and that is immediately after a preposition which governs it: we cannot replace whom by who in the sentences: To whom shall I give it? and I don't know for whom it is intended? But these sentences really belong to the written language, and sound extremely stilted in speech; in point of fact, most people would say Who shall I give it to? and I don't know who it's intended for1.

It is also to be noted that me is now formally accepted as the form to use after the verb to be (Cf. French moi). Nowadays it sounds rather pedantic to say It is I instead of the normal pattern It's me. And in present-day use there is a good deal of confusion about the case to be used after but, as and like, e. g., nobody but me, or nobody but I; there may be the first signs of an ultimate erosion of the nominative-accusative contrast in the personal pronouns, like that now taking place with who.

A word should also be said about the negative and interrogative forms of the verb to have. When have is a full verb (meaning "possess", "hold", "experience", etc.), not an auxiliary, it has two ways of forming its negative and interrogative: (1) with parts of the auxiliary do (do you have?, he didn't have, etc.); and (2) without using do (have you?, he hadn't, or in British usage very often have you got?, he hadn't got). The distribution of these doublets in English is rather complicated, and depends partly on the meaning of have, e. g., He hadn't got any money, but He didn't have any difficulty. In some cases, however, it also depends on whether or not the verb denotes habitual action: thus we say Do you have dances in your village hall? (habitual), but Have you got a dance on tonight? (not habitual). This habitual/non-habitual criterion is not typical of American usage, which often employs do-forms for non-habitual have, where in England they employ got-forms; thus Americans often say Do you have the time?, where Englishmen say Have you got the time? Patterns of the type Do you have the time? are coming (though slowly) into general use.

1 See: Ch. Barber. Linguistic Change in Present-day English. Edinburgh-London, 1964, p. 141.

58


Revision Material

1. 1. Be ready to discuss the linguistic schools in the theory of English grammar.

  1.   Give comments on the early prescriptive grammars of English.
  2.   Characterise the principal design of classical scientific grammars upheld by 20th century scholars.
  3.   Give brief comments on various types of grammar in terms of their linguistic approach and methods of analysis (traditional grammar, philosophical grammar, comparative grammar, historical grammar, structural grammar, transformational grammar, generative grammar).

2. Give the general characteristics of the grammatical structure of English as an analytic language.

  1.   Give comments on the distinctions between synchronic and diachronic aspects in grammatical studies. Be ready to illustrate the statement that the two aspects are organically related and as such cannot be always absolutely isolated.
  2.   Comment on the structural methods that have now widely developed in language learning.

5. Be ready to discuss the contribution to the development of the grammatical theory made by Soviet scholars.

II. 1. Make comments on the constant reciprocal action between vocabulary and grammar.

2. Comment on the methods of modern structural analysis that have in recent times widely developed in grammatical studies.

3. Give comments on the following linguistic terminology: paradigmatics, syntagmatics; denotation; connotation; grammeme; morpheme; tagmemes; allomorph; accidence; lexical valency; syntactic valency; opposeme; binary opposition; trinomic opposition; polynomic opposition; potential polysemy; suspension of oppositions.

  1.   Be ready to discuss the theory of oppositions as being applied in linguistic studies at different levels.
  2.   Comment on transposition of grammatical forms and their functional re-evaluation.
  3.   Give comments on homonymie forms in English grammar. Distinguish between inflectional and constructional homonymy. Give examples of grammatical ambiguity.
  4.   What do we mean by lexical incongruity (= improbability)?
  5.   Give comments on variant paradigmatic forms (doublets) in grammar.
  6.   Get ready to discuss the sources of synonyms in grammar and the problem of their classification.
  7.   Discuss the statement that the asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign is a fairly common development in the structure of language.
  8.   The paradigmatic meaning of one grammatical form can coincide with the syntagmatic meaning of another. Can you give examples to illustrate it?
  9.   What does neutralisation of opposition presuppose?
  10.   Comment on neutralisation (suspension) of oppositions signalled by: a) lexical incongruity of sentence elements, b) special syntactic structures and c) extra linguistic situation.

39


PART I. MORPHOLOGY

Chapter I

THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MORPHOLOGY

In books devoted to teaching grammar it is usual to establish two main divisions, these being variously termed:

  1.  Morphology (Greek: tnorphé form, logos learning).
  2.  Syntax The Grammar of Sentences (Greek: syn with, tasso arrange).

The subject matter of morphology is the grammatical classes and groups of words, their grammatical categories and systems of forms (paradigms) in which these categories actually exist.

The word as a grammatical unit has its meaning and form.

Syntax examines the ways in which words may be combined and the relationships that exist between the words in combination.

Keeping this traditional classification of linguistic studies, we must naturally recognise the affinities between the two parts of grammar. Syntax bears an intimate relation to morphology because morphological devices are greatly conditioned by syntactical arrangements. It is of great importance to our subject to understand the constant reciprocal action of form and function. These two should be studied in their relationships but none should be brought to the front at the expense of the other.

Morphology is inadequate alone, because relatively few kinds of English words are subject to morphological variation. Syntax alone will not do either partly because there are borderline word-forms and phrases not indisputably assigned to any class.

It seems practical to distinguish between paradigmatic and syntagmatic study of morphology. Thus, for instance, if we consider the word-form itself as part of a given paradigm we remain in the sphere of morphology. Analysing the word in its surrounding in the sentence, we discuss the syntagmatic connections of a given word. The statement that an adjective is used to modify a noun, or that an adverb is used to modify a verb, is a statement of syntagmatic or functional morphology.

In importance morphology is far inferior to syntax in Modern English. Of words in Modern English not over one fourth possess any distinctive morphological form, the others being of a common neutral morphological character, and their syntax or context alone can determine their number, case or tense: sheep, deer, set, cost, put. The structure of a language is to a large extent conditioned by its system of formal oppositions proceeding from which we generally identify the morphological classes of words.

60


In English the formal oppositions may be well illustrated by such pairs as girl: : girls, girl : : girl's; I: : we, and I: : me, and the set of three he : : she : : it. It is around such oppositions (also called "opposemes") that the grammatical system of the language is to a large extent built up.

Similar formal oppositions among the verbs are: play : : plays and play : : played; Cf. also the set of three am : : is : : are.

The pair play : : plays will represent the opposition between the third person singular present tense, on the one hand, and the other persons of the singular plus those of the plural, on the other. In literary English, however, it also represents an opposition on a different plane: the third person singular of a verb may occur either with or without -s; the form without -s is known as the Subjunctive, the one with -s as the Indicative, and the difference is said to be one of Mood. The meaning of each necessary grammatical abstraction makes itself clear in the course of actual usage.

The grammar of any natural language is a bilateral unity of form and content. The content of grammar appears to be generalised in its categorial expression. Organically related to vocabulary, grammar always retains its underlying categories.

A morphological category is an organised set of grammatical forms grammemes.

The general notions of grammar which determine the structure of language and find their expression in inflection and other devices are generally called grammatical categories. As is known, a grammatical category is generally represented by at least two grammatical forms, otherwise it cannot exist. A simple case of oppositions in pairs of grammatical forms will be found, for instance, between the Singular and the Plural in nouns, or, say, between Active and Passive in verbs.

In dealing with grammar it is often useful to observe such contrasts in terms of "marked" and "unmarked" members.

In binary oppositions between pairs of categories one member (the "marked" member) signals the presence of a general or overall meaning, while the unmarked member may either signal "absence of the marked meaning" or else be noncommittal as to its absence or presence. Thus love and loved are in contrast as "present" and "past" but only the latter is actually "marked" as such; love is "unmarked" and as such may be much more widely used than merely as a present in contrast with loved. It is fairly common that of two members of an opposition one has a definite meaning, whereas the meaning of the other is less definite, or vague. In Penguins live in the Antarctic, live. is, so to say, "tenseless". Since the statement is true not only for the present but for the past and (presumably) the future.

A polynomic opposition falls into binary ones and each of its members enters several binary oppositions. Thus, for instance, in the trinomic oppositions of Moods each member is contrasted to the two others taken together and to each of the two others taken apart, e. g., the Indicative Mood stands in contrast with the Subjunctive and the Imperative; similarly the Imperative Mood is contrasted with the Subjunctive and the Indicative, the Subjunctive Mood is contrasted with the Imperative and the Indicative.

61


The problem of oppositions on the morphological level has not been completely solved as yet and remains a source of constant interest in modem language learning 1.

Words may express a semantic conception and one or more conceptions of a grammatical order. One and the same form of the word may express different grammatical meanings (e. g. person, number, etc.) The following analysis will be very helpful to illustrate the statement. In the sentence The horses ran faster the word horses not only evokes in our mind the idea of a certain animal but the idea of the doer of the action; it also evokes the conception of plurality. The word ran corresponds to the idea of motion, but it also evokes the idea of the character of that motion and the idea of "pastness" (past time). The word faster suggests not only the manner of action, its speed, but a relative speed (relative quality). In the sentence He takes French lessons, for instance, take conveys the idea of an action; the ending -s expresses the relation of this action to the subject as well as the idea of time, person, number, mood, voice, aspect.

It must be emphasised that the difference between notional words and "grammatical" or "function-words" is often not so much a matter of form as of content2. In terms of meaning, function words are known to be semantically depleted and very general. As such they may be referred to as semi-notional. Considered in form, they sometimes coincide with notional parts of speech. Compare, for instance, the verbs get, go and grow in the following patterns: to get dry and to get a letter, to go home and to go bad, to grow potatoes and to grow dark.

Take the sentence The boy says that the guests did arrive. Grammar has done important things here: it has arranged the words in a particular order, making clear subject-predicate relations; it has contributed tense by the change of say into says, and number by the addition of -s; grammar has added the intensifier did to emphasise the verbal idea and has given such additional words as the and that.

Grammatical words which play so large a part in English grammar are for the most part sharply and оbviоиslу different from the lexical words, as one can see by comparing the given units in our example: the, that, did and boy, says, guests, arrive. A ready difference which may seem most obvious is that grammatical words have "less meaning" and may bе opposed to fully lexical words.

1 See: О. С. Ахманова. К вопросу об основных понятиях метаязыка лингвистики. «Вопросы языкознания», 1961, № 5; Р. О. Якобсон. Морфологические наблюдения над славянским склонением. М., 1958; И. Б. Хлебникова. О нейтрализации оппозиций в морфологии. В сб.: «Иностранные языки в высшей школе», вып. 3, 1964; Е. И. Шендельс. Транспозиция морфологических форм (на материале современного немецкого языка). В сб.: «Иностранные языки в высшей школе», вып. 3, 1964.

2 The traditional distinction between "full" and "empty" or "form-words" is familiar in grammar, but students of language should be prepared to meet it under various names: "full words" are now often referred to as "form-classes", "empty words", as "grammatical words", "function-words" or "structure words".

62


But this should be taken with some point of reservation. Although a word like the is not the name of something as boy is, it is far from being altogether meaningless, for there is, of course, a difference in meaning between a bog and the boy. Moreover, grammatical words differ considerably among themselves as to the amount of meaning they have, even in the lexical sense. Thus, for instance, the definite article m our example differs considerably from the article used with demonstrative force in patterns like the following:

This is the book I showed him yesterday (the = that). He is the man who brought the letter (the = that).

 In Modern English grammatical forms can be made synthetically

and analytically.

 Synthetical system will include: 1) inflection, e. g.:He works, he worked; 2) suppletivity (go went gone). Suppletive forms are made by combining different roots; such is the paradigm of the verb to be: a) am; b) is; c) are; d) was, were; e) be, been, being. Formations of this type will be found in adjectives: good better the best; bad worse the worst; in pronouns; Ime, my, mine; we us, our, ours.

Inflection is one of distinguishing characteristics of the family of Indo-European languages. The extent to which these various languages make use of inflection differs greatly, and there is often considerable variation, as in English, even in the periods of one and the same language.

Broadly defined, inflection as a structural device of language is the change or variation in the forms of a word for the purpose of indicating corresponding variations in its meaning and use.

In point of fact, inflections are morphemic changes the addition of suffixes and concomitant morphophonemic adjustments which adapt words to perform certain structural functions without changing their lexical meaning.

The definition implies that there is a certain root element which remains constant, but which is given specific application and meaning by additions to this element. As commonly applied, the term refers to such distinctions as those of gender, number, case, mood, tense, voice and so forth.

So few are the inflections of Modern English as compared with synthetic languages that it is sometimes characterised as "a grammarless tongue". This point of view is altogether erroneous and may seem correct only to those who think of grammar as meaning the same thing as inflection.

In synthetical languages where the grammatical function of a word is implicit in the form of the word, inflection or accidence, as it is sometimes called, does play a large part. But still we can hardly say that through the loss of inflection English has become "a grammarless tongue" in the true sense of the word "gramma".

63


English inflection has been gradually simplified in the course of time but the language has developed other devices to perform the same function and its structure and its rules of right and wrong, and it is as necessary to observe them, as other languages observe their inflectional system and rules of concord.

Modern English is not unique in developing analytical tendencies. Other European languages have done the same, but the idiosyncratic aspect of analytical forms in any language should not escape our notice. The distinctive features characterising English as a mainly analytical language are known to be the following:

  1.  comparatively few grammatical inflections;
  2.  scarcity of grammatical forms with sound alternations;
  3.  a wide use of prepositions to denote relations between objects and connect words in the sentence;
  4.  a more or less "fixed" or "grammatical" word order to denote grammatical relations.

An analytical form consists of at least two words but actually constitutes one sense-unit. Only one of the two elements has lexical meaning, the second has none, and being an auxiliary word possesses only grammatical meaning, e. g.: I have come, I had come; I am writing, I have been writing, I should write, I should have written, it is written, it was written, etc. Degrees of comparison formed by more and most are also analytic in structure: interesting more interesting the most interesting; difficult more difficult the most difficult.

All the analytical verbal forms go back to free syntactical groups.

As is known, modern Perfect Tenses are formed by means of the auxiliary verb to have followed by the past participle of the notional verb. In Old English the past participle was not an intrinsic part of the tense but was regarded as an adjective in apposition to the object governed by the verb have; the participle agreed in case (accusative) with the object: I have written my letter meant I have my letter written. It was quite natural that these forms were at first used with transitive verbs; the corresponding forms of intransitive verbs were generally formed with the verb be. In such constructions the participle always agreed with the subject. He is come meant He is in the state of being come.

But when the origin of the have-forms had been forgotten, they were gradually extended to intransitive verbs as well: He has gone; He has come; He had gone; He had come.

In Modern English to be is still used in some cases to imply a state rather than an action, e. g.: Good-bye, Mr. M. M.! she called and was gone among the rose-trees! (Galsworthy)

The passive forms, analytic in their structure, have likewise originated from free syntactical groups. In Modern English they are presented by the association of the auxiliary verb to be with a past participle; to be written, to be done, etc. There is also a more expressive form of the passive made up with the auxiliary verb to get, most frequent in colloquial English, e.g.: The animal got struck by a stone. The two passive formations will often differentiate in their aspective character. Cf. He was tired :: He got tired.

64


When new devices had become well established, they came to express grammatical categories which had not been expressed in this way, or at all, in Old English period.

Modern English grammatical relations expressed by the devices that did not exist at earlier stages of language development are:

  1.  future, perfect and continuous tenses expressed with auxiliaries;
  2.  case-relationships expressed by means of prepositions;
  3.  passive voice (in embryo in Old English);
  4.  case-relationships, modification, agreement indicated by word- order.

Analytical verbal forms are most specific analytical formations. To understand their nature we should examine both their structure and their function. Considered in their outer aspect, they are free combinations of at least two words, which stand to each other in the same syntactical relation as words in a phrase. Considered in function, they go parallel with synthetical forms as belonging to a certain grammatical category and doing the duty of the form of the word.

The general criteria of defining the linguistic nature of analytical forms seem to be equally applicable to all languages but in certain concrete phenomena of every language we may easily trace their specific peculiarities associated in each case with concrete conditions of language development. Their very nature in any modern language gives every reason to exclude them from the realm of syntax as belonging to morphology. They now represent a special type of form-making, different from that of ordinary word-changing, and, as already remarked, historically connected with syntax. In fact, there seems no small justification for adopting V. V. Vinogradov's term «синтаксическое формообразование» which he aptly uses to characterise all the double-sidedness of these specific indivisible unities: their participation in morphology and their structural resemblance to word-combination.

On the whole, analytical forms are characterised by:

  1.  semantic indivisibility,
  2.  idiomatic character,
  3.  generalisation and abstraction from the concrete,
  4.  belonging in the paradigm of the word as one of its structural elements.

It comes quite natural that there are no grammatical categories in language represented only by analytical forms, for the very distinction of the latter from other word-combinations is based upon their parallelism and relationship with synthetical forms.

As we have already said, analytical forms in different languages may have their specific peculiarities associated with concrete conditions of language development. A few examples for illustration: English analytical forms in the Perfect Tenses are, no doubt, more free and "mobile" than, say, in Modern German: Have you ever been to Paris? Yes, I have. No, 1 haven't. Short answers of the given type are quite impossible in German.

A noticeable feature of English analytical forms is the use of the auxiliary verb to do: Do you speak French? Yes, I do. No, I don't. Did you see him yesterday? Yes, I did. No, I didn't.

65


Deep-rooted in English idiom is the use of the emphatic auxiliaries do and did functioning as expedients to produce intensity and emphasis in such emphatic forms of the Present Indefinite, Past Indefinite and the Imperative Mood, as: (1) I do so wonder what Jolyon's boy is like. (Galsworthy) (2) Irene's visit to the house but there was nothing in that except that she might have told him; but then, again, she never did tell him anything. (Galsworthy) (3) Oh! Do be serious, Michael! you never give me any help in arranging. (Galsworthy)

The idiosyncratic aspect of analytical form in any language should not escape our notice. We find here those additional structural potentialities of grammatical forms which contribute significantly to the specific development of the grammatical system of a given language.


Chapter II

PARTS OF SPEECH

PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION

Parts of speech are the great taxonomic classes into which all the words of a language fall.

An adequate definition of parts of speech must naturally proceed from a set of criteria that can be consistently applied to all lexical units of a given language. We cannot, for instance, use only "lexical meaning" as the basis for the definition of some word-classes, "function in the sentence" for others, and "formal characteristics" for still others.

As the basis for the definition of word-classes we naturally must use not only their morphological and word-making characteristics but semantic and syntactical features as well. The latter are particularly important for such parts of speech as have no morphological distinctions ai all 1

It will be more in accord with the nature of language to say that parts of speech must be identified proceeding from:

  1.  a common categorial meaning of a given class of words abstracted from the lexical meaning of all the words belonging to this class;
  2.  a common paradigm and
  3.  identity of syntactic functions.

To find out what particular class a given English word belongs to we cannot look at one isolated word. Nor is there any inflexional ending that is the exclusive property of any single part of speech. The ending -ed (-d), for instance, is generally found in verbs (opened, smoked, etc.), but it may be also added to nouns to form adjectives (kind-hearted, talented, blue-eyed, etc.); the inflexion -s changes the noun into a plural and -s is also used to indicate the third person singular in verbs, etc.

The attitude of grammarians with regard to parts of speech and the basis of their classification has varied a good deal at different times. Some modern grammarians maintain that the only criterion of their classification should be the form of words.

Taking "form" in rather a wide sense, they characterise nouns, for instance, as possessing certain formal characteristics which attach to no other class of words. These are the prefixing of an article or demonstrative, the use of an inflexional sign to denote possession and plurality,

L See: Л. В. Щepба. О частях речи в русском языке. В сб.: «Русская речь», 1928, р. 6; Грамматика русского языка, т. 1. Изд. АН СССР, 1953, р. 20; В. Н. Жигадло, И. П. Иванова, Л. Л. Иофик. Современный английский язык. М., 1956, pp 11—19.

67


and union with prepositions to mark relations originally indicated by inflexional endings. This does not seem justified however because the absence of all the features enumerated should not exclude a word from being a noun, and this should be described as a word which has, or in any given usage may have those formal signs.

Grammatical categories identifying the parts of speech are known to be expressed in paradigms. We generally distinguish inflectional and analytical types of the paradigm. In the former the invariable part is the stem, in the latter the lexical element of the paradigm. The so-called interparadigmatic homonymy resulting from the fact that the root, the stem and the grammatical form of the word may be identical in sound, is most frequent.

Some type of structural ambiguity always results in English whenever the form-classes of the words are not clearly marked.

Vivid examples of such kind of ambiguity are given by Ch. Fries 1 with reference to the use of the article in Modern English:

"The utterance ship sails today (which might appear in a telegram) is ambiguous as it stands because of the absence of clear part-of-speech markers. If a clear part-of-speech marker the is put before the first word as in 'The ship sails today', there is no ambiguity; we have a statement. If, however, the same marker is put before the second word as in 'Ship the sails today', there is also no ambiguity, but the utterance is different; we have a request. Other clear part-of-speech markers would also resolve the ambiguity, as with the addition of such a marker as the ending -ed: 'Shipped sail today'; 'Ship sailed today'."

Newspaper headlines very frequently are structurally ambiguous because of the lack of definite part-of-speech or form-class markers. Some typical examples out of many are the following:

(1) "Vandenberg Reports Open Forum". The ambiguity of this heading could be cleared by the use of such markers as the or an, as: 'Vandenberg Reports Open the Forum', 'Vandenberg Reports an Open Forum'.

(2) "Unfavourable Surveyor Reports delayed Michigan Settlement". The ambiguity of this heading would be cleared by the use of such markers as have or a 'Unfavourable Surveyor Reports Have delayed Michigan Settlement'; 'Unfavourable Surveyor Reports a Delayed Michigan Settlement' .

We cannot fail to see that in such cases the article as a clear part-of-speech marker serves to contrast the paradigmatic forms. This is closely related to the development of conversion which is one of the most peculiar features of English and presents a special point of interest in its structure. By conversion we mean a non-affix word-making device where the paradigm of the word and its syntactical function signal the lexico-grammatical nature of the word. The newly formed word differs both lexically and grammatically from the source word and the latter becomes its homonym 2.

1 See: Ch. Fries. The Structure of English. An Introduction to the Construction of English Sentences. London, 1963, pp. 62-63.

3 See: А. И. Смирницкий. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956; В. Н. Ярцева. Проблема парадигмы в языке аналитического строя. В сб.: «Во-

68


It is to be noted that some modern linguists have abandoned many of the commonly held views of grammar. With regard to the methodology employed their linguistic approach differs from former treatments in language learning. Structural grammatical studies deal primarily with the "grammar of structure", and offer an approach to the problems of "sentence analysis" that differs in point of view and in emphasis from the usual treatment of syntax l.

Some linguists prefer to avoid the traditional terminology and establish a classification of words based only on the distributive analysis, i. e., their аbility to combine with other words of different types. Thus, for instance, the words and and but will fall under one group, while because and whether are referred to as belonging to another group.

The four major parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) set up by the process of substitution in С h. Fries' recorded material are given no names except numbers: class 1, class 2, class 3, class 4. Assumptions have been made by Ch. Fries that all words which can occupy the same "set of positions" in the patterns of English single free utterances must belong to the same part of speech 2. These four classes make up the "bulk"of functioning units in structural patterns of English. Then come fifteen groups of so-called function words, which have certain characteristic in common. In the mere matter of number of items the fifteen groups differ sharply from the four classes. In the four large classes, Ch. Fries points out, the lexical meanings of the words depend on the arrangement in which these words appear. In function-words it is usually difficult if not impossible to indicate a lexical meaning apart from the structural meaning which these words signal.

Ch. Fries made an attempt to establish the form-classes of English purely syntactically. His work presents a methodical analysis of a corpus of recorded fifty hours of diverse conversation by some three hundred different speakers. This material, in his words, covers the basic matters of English structure. The book presents a major linguistic interest as an experiment rather than for its achievements.

The new approach the application of two of the methods of structural linguistics, distributional analysis and substitution makes it possible for Ch. Fries to dispense with the usual eight parts of speech. He classifies words, as may be seen from the extracts into four "form-classes", designated by numbers, and fifteen groups of "function words", designated by letters. The form-classes correspond roughly to what most grammarians call nouns and pronouns, verbs, adjective and adverbs, though Ch. Fries especially warns the reader against the attempt to translate the statements which the latter finds in the book into the old grammatical terms. The group of function words contains not only prepositions and conjunctions, but also certain specific words that most

просы германского языкознания». M.— Л., 1961, p. 229; Ю. А. Жлуктенко. Конверсия в современном английском языке как морфолого-синтаксический способ словообразования.— «Вопросы языкознания», 1958, № 5.

1 See: Ch. Fries. The Structure of English. London, 1963.

- Ibid., pp. 94—100, group E and J.

69


traditional grammarians would class as a particular kind of pronouns, adverbs and verbs.

Other modern grammarians retain the traditional names of parts of speech, though the methods they use to identify the various parts of speech, the number of them and the distribution of words among them are all different from what is found in traditional grammar. They also exclude function words from the classification of parts of speech and give them entirely separate treatment 1.

Setting aside function words and observing the remaining words as they are combined into utterances with clear and unambiguous structural meaning, W. Francis finds it necessary to identify four different parts of speech: noun, verb, adjective and adverb. In his analysis nouns are identified, for instance, by five formal criteria, some more important than others. The most common noun-marking signal is a group of function words called noun-determiners. These precede the nouns they mark, either immediately or with certain types of words between; nouns have inflections; many nouns may be identified as such by various noun-marking derivational suffixes; nouns fill certain characteristic positions in relation to other identified parts of speech in phrases and utterances, etc. Verb-marking criteria as given by W.Francis are the following: inflections, function words, derivational affixes, positions and "superfixes", і. e. "morphological" stress in cases like import to import; contract to contract; perfect to perfect, etc.

It must be recognised that recent studies and practical suggestions made by structural linguists in this field, though not yet quite successful at all points, still new and experimental, are becoming increasingly interesting and important for language learning and practical training in linguistic skills. The subject matter of structural grammar has already supplied much material in the field of descriptive techniques. Some new methods of linguistic analysis promise to be rather efficient and are now being tried out.

English school grammars deal extensively with the parts of speech, usually given as eight in number and explained in definitions that have become traditional. It had long been considered that these eight parts of speech noun, pronoun, adjective, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection are basic classifications that can be applied to the words of any language and that the traditional definition furnishes an adequate set of criteria by which the classification can be made.

We cannot however admit without question that the eight parts of speech inherited from the past will be the most satisfactory for present-day English.

The linguistic evidence drawn from our grammatical study gives every reason to subdivide the whole of the English vocabulary into eleven parts of speech; in point of fact, eight of them are notional words which make up the largest part of the vocabulary and five are "function words", comparatively few in actual number of items, but used very frequently.

1 See: W. N. Francis. The Structure of American English. New York, 1958, p. 234; see also: R. Quіrk. The Use of English. London, 1964, p. 74.

70


Notional or fully-lexical parts of speech are: nouns, adjectives, verbs., adverbs, pronouns, numerals, modal words and interjections. Prepositions, conjunctions and particles are parts of speech largely devoid of lexical meaning and used to indicate various functional relationship among the notional words of an utterance.

Generally speaking we can say that all nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs are capable of making direct reference and are the main units which carry the burden of referential information, and that all other words provide functional information.

Oppositional relations between different parts of speech may be thus shown as follows:

Autosemantic

Synsemantic

noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, numeral

preposition, conjunction, particle, auxiliary verb, copula

Function Words

Syntactic Functions

Morphological Functions

preposition, conjunction, particle, copula

article, auxiliary verb


Chapter HI THE NOUN

The lexico-grammatical meaning of the noun is denoting "substance"

In Modern English the marked formal characteristics of nouns are as follows: nouns have inflections for number and case, they may be associated with the definite or indefinite article.

There is no grammatical gender in Modern English 1. The noun does not possess any special gender forms, neither does the accompanying adjective, pronoun or article indicate any gender agreement with the head noun. Unlike many languages that have gender, English has very few clear formal markers that indicate the gender of nouns; the situation in English is much less rigid and clear-cut since many words (dog, for instance) may have he, she or it as substitutes. It thus seems justified to restrict the term "gender" to those languages that have precise and mutually exclusive noun-classes marked by clear formal markers.

Not every noun possesses such grammatical categories as number and case.

NUMBER

Modern English like most other languages distinguishes two numbers: singular and plural. The meaning of singular and plural seems to be self-explanatory, that is the opposition: one more than one. With all this, expression of number in different classes of English nouns presents certain ! difficulties for a foreigner to master.

As already mentioned, plural and singular nouns stand in contrast as diametrically opposite. Instances are not few, however, when their opposition comes to be neutralised. And this is to say that there are cases when the numeric differentiation appears to be of no importance at all. Here belong many collective abstract and material nouns. If, for instance, we look at the meaning of collective nouns, we cannot fail to see that they denote at the same time a plurality and a unit. They may be said to be doubly countables and thus from a logical point of view form the exact contrast to mass nouns: they are, in fact, at the same time singular and plural, while mass words are logically neither. The double-sidedness of collective nouns weakens the opposition and leads to the development of either Pluralia tantum, as in: weeds (in a garden), ashes, embers, etc., or Singularia tantum, as in: wildfowl, clergy, foliage, etc.

1 In such pairs as actor actress, lion lioness, tiger tigress, etc. the difference between the nouns is purely lexical.

72


Compare the Ukrainian: кучері, гроші, дріжджі, сходи, зелень, листя, дичина. Similarly in Russian: дрожжи, деньги, кудри, всходы, листва, дичь, зелень. German: Eltern, Geschwister, Zwillinge — Pluralia tantum; das Geflügel, das Wild, das Obst Singularia tantum. Similar developments may be traced in French: les pois, les épinards, les asperges.

In some cases usage fluctuates, and the two forms are interchangeable, e. g. brain or brains: he has no brains or little brains; victuals is more common than victual; oats than oat; similarly: His wages were high. How much wages does he get? That is a fair wage. They could not take too much pains.

The dual nature of collective nouns is shown linguistically in various ways: by the number of the verb or by the pronoun referring to it, as for instance, My family are early risers, they are already here. Cf. My family is not large.

It is important to observe that the choice between singular and plural depends on the meaning attached to the noun. Compare also: We have much fruit this year and The rich fruits of the heroic labour of Soviet people are visible from all the corners of the earth.

Similarly: The football team is playing very well. Cf. The football team are having bath and are coming back here for tea.

A word should be said about stylistic transpositions of singular nouns in cases like the following: trees in leaf, to have a keen eye, blue of eye, strong of muscle. Patterns of this kind will exemplify synecdoche the simplest case of metonymy in grammar ("pars pro toto").

The Germans won the victories. By God they were soldiers. The Old Hun was a soldier. But they were cooked too. They were all cooked... The Hun would come down through the Trentino, and cut the railway at the Vicenza and then where would the Italians be? (Hemingway)

The chap was so big now that he was there nearly all his time, like some immovable, sardonic, humorous eye nothing to decline of men and things. (Galsworthy)

Cf. Держи вухо востро. Держи ухо остро. У него наметанный глаз. И слышно было до рассвета, как ликовал француз. (Лермонтов)

Other "universals" in expressing plurality will be found in what may be called "augmentative" plurals, i. e. when the plural forms of material nouns are used to denote large amounts of substance, or a high degree of something. This is often the case when we see the matter as it exists in nature. Such plural forms are often used for stylistic purposes in literary prose and poetry, e. g.: the blue waters of the Mediterranean, the sands of the Sahara Desert, the snows of Kilimanjaro.

Similarly in Russian: синие воды Средиземного моря, пески Сахары, снега Арктики.

Еще в полях белеет снег,

А воды уж весной шумят. (Тютчев)

Люблю ее степей алмазные снега. (Фет)

Ukrainian: Сині води Середземного моря, піски Сахари, сніги Арктики.

Cf. French: les eaux, les sables;

German: die Sände, die Wässer.

73


Attention must also be drawn to the emotive use of plural forms of abstract verbal nouns in pictorial language:

...it was a thousand pities he had run off with that foreign girl a governess too! (Galsworthy)

The look on her face, such as he had never seen there before, such as she had always hidden from him was full of secret resentments, and longings, and fears. (Mitchell)

The peculiar look came into Bosinney's face which marked all his enthusiasms. (Galsworthy)

Her face was white and strained but her eyes were steady and sweet and full of pity and unbelief. There was a luminous serenity in them and the innocence in the soft brown depths struck him like a blow in the face, clearing some of the alcohol out of his brain, halting his mad, careering words in mod-flight. (Mitchell)

He stood for a moment looking down at the plain, heart-shaped face with its long window's peak and serious dark eyes. Such an unwordly face, a face with no defenses against life. (Mitchell)

Oh! Wilfrid has emotions, hates, pities, wants; at least, sometimes; when he does, his stuff is jolly good. Otherwise, he just makes a song about nothing like the rest. (Galsworthy)

Plural forms of abstract nouns used for stylistic purposes may be traced in language after language:

Ukrainian: Іду я тихою ходою,

Дивлюсь аж он передо мною,

Неначе дива виринають,

Із хмари тихо виступають

Обрив високий, гай, байрак. (Шевченко)

Russian: Повсюду страсти роковые

И от судеб защиты нет. (Пушкин)

Отрады. Знаю я сладких четыре отрады. (Брюсов)

French: J'avais rencontre plusieurs fois l'ambassadeur, dont la figure fine porte l'empreinte de fatigues qui ne sont point toutes dues aux travaux de la diplomatie. (France)

It should be noted, in passing, that the plural form is sometimes used not only for emphasis in pictorial language but to intensify the aspective meaning of the verb, the iterative character of the action, in particular, e. g.:

Oh, this was just the kind of trouble she had feared would come upon them. All the work of this last year would go for nothing. All her struggles and fears and labours in rain and cold had been wasted. (Mitchell)

Relentless and stealthy, the butler pursued his labours taking things from the various compartments of the sideboard. (Galsworthy)

The small moon had soon dropped down, and May night had failed soft and warm, enwrapping with its grape-bloom colour and its scents the billion caprices, intrigues, passions, longings, and regrets of men and women. (Galsworthy)

The emotive use of proper nouns in plural is also an effective means of expressive connotation, e. g.:

74


Fleur, leaning out of her window, heard the hall clock's muffled chime of twelve, the tiny splash of a fish, the sudden shaking of an aspen's leaves in the puffs of breeze that rose along the river, the distant rumble of a night train, and time and again the sounds which none can put a name to in the darkness, soft obscure expressions of uncatalogued emotions from man and beast, bird and machine, or, may be, from departed Forsytes, Darties, Cardigans, taking night strolls back into a world which had once suited their embodied spirits. (Galsworthy)

і Expressive connotation is particularly strong in the metaphoric use of the plural of nouns denoting things to be considered unique, e. g.: Ahead of them was a tunnel of fire where buildings were blazing on either side of the short, narrow street that led down to the railroad tracks. They plunged into it. A glare brighter than a dozen suns dazzled their eyes, scroching heat seared their skins and the roaring, crackling and crashing beat upon ears in painful waves. (Mitchell)

Compare the following example in French:

Leon: ...Quelquefois... j'y reste... a regarder le soleil couchant.

Emma: Je ne trouve rien d'admirable commeles soleils couchants... mais аи bord de la mer, surtout. 1

Very often the plural form, besides its specific meaning may also retain the exact meaning of the singular, which results in homonymy.

1) custom = habit, customs = 1) plural of habit

2) duties

2) colour = tint, colours = 1) plural of tint

2) flag

3) effect = result, effects = 1) results

2) goods and chattels

4) manner = mode or way, manners = 1) modes, ways

2) behaviour

5) number = a total amount of units, numbers = 1) in counting

2) poetry

6) pain = suffering, pains = 1) plural of suffering

2) effort

7) premise = a statement or proposition, premises =

  1.  propositions
  2.  surrounding to a house

8) quarter = a fourth part, quarters = 1) fourth parts

2) lodgings There are also double plurals used with some difference of meanings:

1) brother 1) brothers (sons of one mother)

2) brethren (members of one community)

2) genius 1) geniuses (men of genius)

2) genii (spirits)

3) cloth 1) cloths (kinds of cloth)

2) clothes (articles of dress)

4) index 1) indexes (tables of contents)

2) indices (in mathematics)

1 See: P. Г. Пиотровский. Очерки по грамматической стилистике французского языка. М., 1956, р. 52.

Double plurals with the differentiation of meaning will be found in other languages.

Ukrainian:

зуб —

1) зуби

2) зуб'я

лист —

1) листя

2) листи

Cf. Russian:

зуб —  1) зубы (во рту)

 2) зубья (пилы) лист —

 1) листья (дерева)

2) листы (бумаги, железа) муж — 1) мужья

2) мужи («ученые мужи») тон —  1) тона (оттенки)

2) тоны (звуки) There are some plurals which have been borrowed from foreign nouns:

Singular

Plural

Latin

agendum

agenda

datum

data

dictum

dicta

erratum

errata

memorandum

memoranda

medium

media

stratum

strata

focus

foci

formula

formulae

fungus

fungi

genus

genera

axis

axes

appendix

appendices

series

series

species

species

Singular

Plural

Greek

analysis

analyses

basis

bases

crisis

crises

hypothesis

hypotheses

parenthesis

parentheses

thesis

theses

phenomenon

phenomena

criterion

criteria

Singular

Plural

French

beau

beaux (or beaus)

bureau

bureaux

monsieur

messieurs

madame

mesdames

76


Mention should be made in this connection of nouns which have two parallel variants in the plural exactly alike in function but different in their stylistic sphere of application, e. g.:

cow cows and kine (arch., now chiefly poetic)

foe foes and fone (arch.)

shoe shoes and shoen (arch.)

Unproductive archaic elements are sometimes used to create the atmosphere of elevated speech. This may also be traced in other languages. Compare the Russian:

сын — 1) сыновья, сыновей;

2) сыны, сынов (e. g.: сыны отечества).

Morphological variation will be found in nouns foreign in origin. Through the natural process of assimilation some borrowed nouns have developed parallel native forms, as in:

formula formulae, formulas terminus termini, terminuses focus foci, focuses stratum strata, stratums

Foreign plurals are decidedly more bookish than the native ones.

For all the details concerning the grammatical organisation of nouns and their patterning in different kind of structures students are referred to the text-books on English grammar. Two things should be noted here.

It is important to observe that in certain contexts nouns can weaken their meaning of "substance" and approach adjectives thus making the idea of qualities of the given substance predominant in the speaker's mind. Nouns functioning in this position are generally modified by adverbials of degree, e. g.:

"You were always more of a realist than Jon; and never so innocent". (Galsworthy)

"We're all fond of you", he said, "If you'd only" he was going to say, "behave yourself", but changed it to — "if you'd only be more of a wife to him". (Galsworthy)

"Why had he ever been fool enough to see her again". (Galsworthy)

"Not much of an animal, is it?" groaned Rhett. "Looks like he'll die. But he is the best I could find in the shafts". (Mitchell)

The use of a noun rather than an adjective is very often preferred as a more forcible expressive means to intensify the given quality. Compare the following synonymic forms of expression:

He was quite a success.He was quite successful.

It was good fun.It was funny.

And here are illustrative examples of nouns weakening their meaning of "substance" and approaching adverbs.

Such adverbial use shows great diversity. Deep-rooted in English grammar, this use is most idiosyncratic in its nature. We find here patterns of different structural meaning:

a) adverbial relations of time, as in: life long, week long, age long, etc.;

77


  1.  adverbial relations of comparison: straw yellow, silver grey, ash blond, ice cold, snow white, iron hard, sky blue, dog tired, paper white, pencil thin, ruler straight, primrose yellow, brick red, blade sharp;
  2.  different degree of quality: mountains high, a bit longer, a trifle easier, a shade darker, ankle deep.

Patterns of this kind are generally used metaphorically and function as expedients to express intensity and emphasis, e. g.: "I'll send Pork to Macon to-morrow to buy more seed. Now the Yankies won't burn it and our troops won't need it. Good Lord, cotton ought to go sky high this fall". (Mitchell)

Further examples are:

He is world too modest. That was lots better. This was heaps better. He was stone deaf to our request. Waves went mountains high. The mud was ankle deep.

Adverbial use of nouns will also be found in such premodification structures as: bone tired, dog tired, mustard coloured, horror struck, etc.

In the grammar of nouns there have also developed interjectional uses which seem to convert nouns into special kind of "intensifiers", e. g.: What the dickens do you want? What the mischief do you want?

Further examples are:

The hell you say = you don't say so.

Like hell I wish \

I will like hell          / I will not

Where in the hell you are going?

How the devil should I know?

Adverbs of affirmation and negation yes and no are intensified in emphasis by the proximity of a bald bawling hell, e. g.: Hell, yes! Hell, no!

CASE

Grammarians seem to be divided in their opinion as to the case-system of English nouns. Open to thought and questioning, this problem has always been much debated. The most common view on the subject is that nouns have only two cases: a common case and a genitive or possessive case 1. The common case is characterised by a zero suffix (child, boy, girl, student), the possessive case by the inflection [-z] and its phonetic variants [-s], [-iz], in spelling -'s. The uses of the genitive are known to be specific, those of the common case general. In terms of modern linguistics, we can therefore say that both formally and functionally, (he common case is unmarked and the genitive marked.

1 See: B. H. Ярцева. Историческая морфология английского языка. M.— Л., 1960; В. H. Ярцева. Исторический синтаксис английского языка. М.— Л., 1961; В. Ilyish. The Structure of Modern English. M.-L., 1965; В. Н. Жигадло, И. П. Иванова, Л. Л. Иофик. Современный английский язык. М.— Л., 1956; О. Jespersen. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. London-Copenhagen, 1965; O. Jespersen. Essentials of English Grammar. London, 1933. Other advanced books and detailed studies on this specialised topic are: В. М. Жирмунский. Об аналитических конструкциях. В сб.: «Аналитические конструкции в языках различных типов». М.— Л.. 1965; М. М. Гухман. Глагольные аналитические конструкции как особый вид сочетаний частичного и пол-

78


There are grammarians, O. Curme and M. Deutschbein1, for instance, who recognise four cases making reference to nominative, genitive, dative and accusative: the genitive can be expressed by the -'s-inflection and by the of-phrase, the dative by the preposition to and by word-order, and the accusative by word order alone. E. Sonnensсhein insists that English has a vocative case since we may prepose an interjection oh before a name.

It is to be noted that the choice between the two opposite viewpoints as to the category of case in English remains a matter of linguistic approach. From the viewpoint of inflectional morphology the inadequacy of "prepositional declension" is obvious. Using Latin categories which have no relevance for English involves inventing distinctions for English and ignoring the distinctions that English makes.

The meaning of "accusative" in a two-term system nominative accusative, for instance, is different from the meaning of "accusative" in a four- or five-term system. The term "common case" seems therefore more justified than "the accusative". If we call him an "accusative" in expressions like I obey him, I am like him, It was on him, the term "accusative" may actually hinder when we translate into another language which has an accusative along with several other cases and in which the word for obey takes the dative, the word for like the genitive and the word on ablative, as they do in Latin.

"Of course, the morphological opposition nominative accusative must be expressed by something in English. But this "something" is not a morphological opposition, for there is no morphological differentiation between the nominative and the accusative of nouns".2

We must not, of course, look at English through the lattice of categories set up in Latin grammar. The extent to which one can remain unconvinced that English has a grammar like Latin is probably the basis of the faulty viewpoint that English has no grammar at all.

Latin distinguishes subject, direct object, indirect object by case-differences (differences in the inflexion of the word) and arrangement is not very important. English also distinguishes subject, direct object, and indirect object, but it does so largely by arrangement, e. g.:

The pupil handed the teacher his exercise.

He bought his little girl many nice toys.

With all this, it can hardly be denied that there exist in Modern English prepositional structures denoting exactly the same grammatical relation as, say, the possessive case inflection or word order distinguishing the accusative from the dative. These are the so-called "of-phrase" and "to-phrase", in which the prepositions of and to function as grammatical indicators of purely abstract syntactic relations identical with those

ного слова. В сб.: «Вопросы грамматического строя». М., 1955; В. Н. Ярцева. Проблема парадигмы в языке аналитического строя. В сб.: «Вопросы германского языкознания». М.— Л., 1961.

1 See: M. Deutschbein. System der neuenglischen Syntax, 1928; G. Сurme. A Grammar of the English Language. London-New York, 1931.

2 See: Trnka B. On the Syntax of the English Verb from Coxton to Dryden Prague, 1930

79


expressed by cases. The grammatical analysis of such phrases for their frequency, variety and adaptation must, surely, go parallel with the study of the morphological category of case which in present-day English is known to have developed quite a specific character.

The analytical character of some prepositional phrases in Russian is described by V. V. Vіnоgradоv:

«В русском литературном языке с XVIIXVIII вв. протекает медленный, но глубокий процесс синтаксических изменений в системе падежных отношений. Функции многих падежей осложняются и дифференцируются сочетаниями с предлогами. Все ярче обнаруживается внутреннее расслоение в семантической системе предлогов. В то время как одни простые предлоги: для, до, перед, при, под, кроме, сквозь, через, между, а тем более предлоги наречного типа: близ, среди, мимо и т. п. — почти целиком сохраняют свои реальные лексические значения, другие предлоги: а, за, из, в, на, отчасти, над, от, по, про, с, у — в отдельных сферах своего употребления, иные в меньшей степени, иные вплоть до полного превращения в падежные префиксы, ослабляют свои лексические значения, а иногда почти совсем теряют их» 1.

It is important to remember that the grammatical content of the possessive case is rather complex. Besides implying possession in the strict sense of the term, it is widely current in other functions. Compare such patterns, as:

a) my sister's room (genitive of  → the room of my sister

possession)

b) my sister's arrival (subjective  the arrival of my sister

genitive)

c) the criminal's arrest (objective  → the arrest of the criminal

genitive)

  1.  a child's language | (qualitative the childish language a woman's college | genitive)   a college for women
  2.  a month's rent       \  (genitive of → a monthly rent
  3.  three hours' delay / measure)   a delay for three hours

There is no formal difference between subjective and objective genitive, between genitives denoting possession and qualitative genitives, but this kind of ambiguity is usually well clarified by linguistic or situational context. Thus, mother's care may mean «любов матері» with reference to some individual, and «материнська любов» in its general qualitative sense. The meaning of the phrase may vary with the context.

The same is true of such uses as wife's duty, child's psychology, lawyer's life, man's duty, etc.

The genitive of measure or extent is easily recognised as fairly common in expressions of a certain pattern, e. g.: a moment's silence, a day's work, a minute's reflection, to a hair's breadth, etc.

1 В. В. Виноградов. Русский язык. М., 1947, pp. 695—700. 80


The genitive inflection is also used with certain words which otherwise do not conform to noun patterning, as in yesterday's rain, to-day's match, to-morrow's engagement. These are not idioms, with their total lexical meaning fixed, but only fixed patterns or usage.

Limits of space do not permit to take notice of all idiomatic patterns established in this part of English grammar. A few further examples will suffice for illustration. These are, for instance: I'm friends with you, where friends is probably part of the indivisible idiom "be friends with" + + noun/pronoun, used predicatively.

Patterns with "of + genitive" usually have a partitive sense denoting "one of", e. g.: It is a novel of J. London's(=one of his novels). Cf. It is a novel by J. London. (=a novel written by J. London).

Similarly: Fleur's a cousin of ours, Jon. (Galsworthy)

In expressive language this form may become purely descriptive. Endowed with emotive functions in special linguistic or situational context it may weaken its grammatical meaning and acquire subjective modal force denoting admiration, anger, praise, displeasure, etc., e. g.: Margaret ... was taken by surprise by certain moods of her husband's. (Gaskell)

The -'s inflection offers some peculiar difficulties of grammatical analysis in idiomatic patterns with the so-called group-genitives, e. g.: Mr. what's-his-name's remark, or He said it in plenty of people's hearing.

There are also patterns like "the man I saw yesterday's son" quoted by H. Sweet1. One more example.

The blonde I had been dancing with's name was Bernice something Crabs or Krebs. (Salinger)

We cannot fail to see that the 's belongs here to the whole structure noun + attributive clause.

Different kind of such group-genitives are not infrequent and seem to be on the increase in present-day colloquial English.

Mention should also be made of the parallel use of the 's form and the preposition of found in patterns like the following:

In the light of this it was Lyman's belief and it is mine that it is a man's duty and the duty of his friend to see to it that his exit from this world, at least, shall be made with all possible dignity. (Taylor) 2

And here are a few examples of special use of the possessive case in fossilised expressions of the formula character, such as: to one's heart's content, for pity's sake, out of harm's way, at one's fingers' ends, for old acquaintance's sake, for appearance's sake. These expressions were grammatically regular and explicable in their day, but they follow grammatical or semantic principles which have now fallen into disuse.

There are also pleonastic patterns with the post-positional genitive intensifier own used with the 's-form, e. g.: Mary's own dressing-table.

A word should be said about the purely idiomatic absolute use of the genitive case with locative force in patterns like the following:

I bought this at the grocer's.

1 See: H. Sweet. A New English Grammar. Oxford, 1955.

2 Quoted by B. Ilуіsh. The Structure of Modern English. M., 1965, p. 49.

81


The baker's is round the corner.

The famous St. Paul's is one of the principal sights of London.

Formations of this kind are on the borderline between grammar and vocabulary; the -'s-inflection seems to have developed into a derivative suffix used to form a noun from another noun.

The relative distribution of the of-phrase and the 's-inflection, as a recurrent feature of the language, must be given due attention in learning style and usage in English.

It is interesting to note, in conclusion, that there is a change going on in present-day English which runs counter to the general trend towards loss of inflections, that is the spreading of 's-genitive at the expense of the of-genitive. Until a few years ago, the genitive with 's was used in modern times mainly with nouns which could be replaced (in the singular) by the pronouns he and she, but not with nouns which could be replaced by the pronoun it: so that people normally said the man's face and the woman's face, but the face of the clock and the surface of the water. The 's-genitive was used in certain expressions of time and distance (an hour's time), and could be used with many nouns replaceable in the singular by it or they (the Government's decision); as is well known, there was also a number of commonly used phrases where the 's-genitive was used even though the noun was one which could be replaced in the singular only by it (New Year's Day, the water's edge). In recent years, however, the 's-genitive has come into common use with nouns which are replaceable in the singular only by it. Here are a few examples taken from reputable sources: resorts' weather the weather of seaside towns; human nature's diversity the diversity of human nature; the game's laws → the laws of the game. Many more examples will be found in books and in newspapers. We cannot fail to see that this tendency for 's to replace of is a development from the analytic to the synthetic: the of-phrase is replaced by the 's-inflection.

The relative distribution of the of-phrase and the 's-genitive as a recurrent feature of the language, must be given due attention as relevant to synonymy in grammar.

 It will be important to remember that the distinction between living and lifeless things is not closely observed, and the 's-genitive is often used in designations of things to impart descriptive force and at the same time stress the governing noun.

A few typical examples given by G. Curme are:

When I think of all the sorrow and the barrenness that has been wrought in my life by want of a few more pounds per annum, I stand aghast at money's significance.

...for the sake of the mind's peace, one ought not to inquire into such things too closely.

A book's chances depend more on its selling qualities than its worth 1.

Here is a very good example from Galsworthy to illustrate the statement:

1 See: G. Curme. A Grammar of the English Language. London-New York, 1931.

82


He had chosen the furniture himself, and so completely that no subsequent purchase had ever been able to change the room's atmosphere. (Galsworthy)

Associations with life are certainly strong in personification, e. g.: the ocean's roar or Truth's greatest victories, etc. Further illustrations taken from reputable sources are:

resorts' weather the weather of seaside towns

human nature's diversity the diversity of human nature

the game's laws the laws of the game

The spreading of the 's-genitive in present-day English at the expense of the of-phrase is, in fact, a development from the analytic to the synthetic which seems to run counter to the general trends towards the loss of inflections.

The synonymic encounter of the 's-genitive and the of-phrase may be illustrated by examples with "genitive of possession", "subjective and objective genitive", but the use of the 's-genitive in Modern English is comparatively restricted here and the of-phrase is very extensively used in virtually the same sense:

Soames' daughter →- the daughter of Soames

his sister's arrival →- the arrival of his sister

duty's call the call of the duty

the children's education the education of the children

It is to be noted that in many cases the special meaning of the genitive depends on the intrinsic meaning of each of the two words connected, and is therefore in each case readily understood by the hearer. The of-phrase denoting possession is generally preferred when the noun is modified by a lengthy attributive adjunct attached to it.

The 's-form is rarely used as the objective genitive. The of-phrase in this function is fairly common, e. g.: the sense of beauty, the sense of smell, love of life, the reading of books, the feeling of safety, a lover of poetry, etc.

The, of-phrase in Modern English is widely current in various types of structures, denoting:

  1.  the idea of quantity or part ("partitive genitive"), e. g.: a piece of bread, a lump of sugar, a cake of soap, etc.;
  2.  material of which a thing is done, e. g.: a dress of silk;
  3.  position in space or direction, e. g.: south of Moscow, within 10 miles of London;
  4.  relations of time, e. g.: of an evening, of late, all of a sudden;
  5.  attributive relations, e. g.: the language of a child =a child's language, the voice of a woman =a woman's voice, etc.;
  6.  composition or measure, e. g.: a group of children, a herd of cattle, a flock of birds, a swarm of bees, etc.

There are also patterns with the of-phrase functioning as the appositive genitive, e. g.: the city of Rome, the Republic of France, etc.

Alongside with this appositive construction there is another. The appositive may be placed after the governing noun, e. g.: Lake Michigan, the River Thames, etc.

83


THE ARTICLE

Grammarians are not always agreed as to the grammatical status of the article in Modern English.

In structural grammars the article is often dispensed with as a separate part of speech and absorbed into the adjective class.

The name "determiners" is then given to closed system items, which, functioning as adjuncts, show their head-words to be nouns. The most central type of "determiner" is that to which we traditionally give the name article.

Some grammarians consider the article to be a kind of morpheme. The absence of the article is accordingly referred to as "zero-morpheme" applied in inflected languages to certain forms having no grammatical endings and thus differing from such forms of the same word as have their own endings. This statement is open to question and not in every sense valid. It seems more in accordance with the nature of the language to identify the English article as a typical morphological category, a special function-word used as an overt marker of the noun and contributing to its meaning.

The practice prevalent in English grammars is to describe the multifarious use of the article with different classes of nouns. Reference is generally made to its particularising, generalising, defining, descriptive and other functions as well as traditional idiomatic use. Important treatments of the subject, with absence of article also included as a term in the article system, will be found in the grammar books and work-papers given in our reference list. Students of English will always find it helpful to consult such sources for the study of the articles in English as Oxford English Dictionary and Christophersen's monograph The Articles: a Study of Their Theory and Use.

The definite and the indefinite article as mutually exclusive stand in obvious contrast. Their use is built around contrasting definiteness and indefiniteness, generalisation and concretisation.

With absence of article functioning as a term in the article system (sometimes referred to as the zero-form) distinction must also be made between such contrastive uses based on the category of number as: Singular (the indefinite article) :: Plural (absence of article) Countable (the indefinite article) :: Uncountable (absence of article)

With regard to the criteria employed in our analysis we have certain observations which are pertinent to a summary statement. In the first place, it is important to be clear about the grammatical meaning of each article, finding out whether it has one or several meanings, each of them signalled by the context. We cannot describe, for instance, the meanings of one article only in terms of how it contrasts with the other, but must take account of contextual indications; we have to look at contrasting patterns rather than contrasting forms. And here the question naturally arises about the invariable meaning of the article, by which we mean, taking the view put forward by A. Isachenko 1, a stable element in its

1 See: А. В. Исаченко. О грамматическом значении. «Вопросы языкознания», 1964.

84


grammatical meaning that is always preserved irrespective of the context in which it occurs.

It seems perfectly reasonable to say, for instance, that the invariable grammatical meaning of the indefinite article is that of generalisation. As a matter of fact, this element of meaning, i. e. referring an object to a whole class of similar ones without its individual peculiarities, is preserved in all the variety of its uses. Examples are:

a) A stitch in time saves nine. b) A little bird perched on the tree. c) A bird may be known by its song. d) Birds of a feather flock together. e) They were talking to a boy I know well. f) I consider this picture a masterpiece of art.

As can be seen from the above examples, the invariable element of indefiniteness is preserved in all the patterns. The difference in meaning will be sought in the particular type of predication in which the article appears.

(Observe the difference in meaning if we replace a by the in the above sentences; consider that it is not always the same difference).

The indefinite article in its full range stands in contrast to the definite article. The invariable meaning of the latter is that of restriction and concretisation.

The definite article the is an unstressed variant of the demonstrative that. From the point of view of meaning it functions as a less forceful equivalent of this as well as that.

Cf. How do you like the weather? How do you like this weather?

The distinctive feature of the definite article in such parallel uses is that the element of pointing is normally weaker with the than with the demonstrative pronoun. There is similar direction of the attention; but there is more dependence on obviousness and less on selection by means of pointing of one kind or another. Viewed from this angle, the definite article is a great deal like he and it. Characteristically the indicates that identification seems complete on the basis of conspicuousness in the particular situation or context.

"How did you do it, this rotten thing?" he asked. "Let me see the plates. Yes. Yes. That's it. You look healthy as a goat. Who's the pretty girl?" (Hemingway)

Difficulties often arise when the presence or absence of the article signals contrasted structural relationships. Such kind of contrast is seen, for instance in:

a bowl or vessel :: a bowl or a vessel. The first will mean that bowl and vessel are synonyms and no contrast between the two is intended. In the second, the intention is to contrast the two and imply that if the object is bowl, it is not a vessel. This contrast is not inherent in the a as such, but in the different structural relationship which the presence or absence of the indefinite article signals.

Such relations may be marked by radically different means in various other languages.

Variations in the use of the articles and their significant absence must be examined in the grammatical environment in which nouns

85


occur. The structural and lexical meanings of nouns appear inextricably involved and are inseparable. The meaning of the article reveals itself in actual speech, i. e. in relation to a noun used in a given context.

A few typical examples to illustrate the statement are given below. Others will readily occur to the student.

And in Soames, looking on his father so worn and white and wasted, listening to his strangled breathing, there rose a passionate vehemence of anger against Nature, cruel, inexorable Nature, kneeling on the chest of that wisp of a body, slowly pressing out the breath, pressing out the life of the being who was dearest to him in the world. His father, of all men, had lived a careful life, moderate, abstemious, and this was his rewardto have life slowly, painfully squeezed out of him. (Galsworthy)

...It had been the old England, when they lived down yet here  the England of packhorses and very little smoke, of peat and wood fires, and wives who never left you, because they couldn't, probably. A static England, that dug and wove; where your parish was your world, and you were a churchwarden if you didn't take care. (Galsworthy)

It is to be noted that the use of the article with abstract noun has its own idiosyncratic traits in English and presents special difficulties for a foreign student to master.

Contrasting use of the article, depending on the context, the meaning of noun adjuncts in particular, is often an effective means to produce emphasis in pictorial language, e. g.:

The river was whitening; the dusk seemed held in the trees, waiting to spread and fly into a sky just drained of sunset. Very peaceful, and a little rie the hour between! Those starlings made a racket  disagreeable beggars; there could be no real self-respect with such short tails! The swallows went by, taking 'night-caps' on guats and early moths; and the poplars stood so still just as if listening that Soames put his hand to feel for breeze. Not a breath? And then, all at once no swallows flying, no starlings; a chalky hue over river, over sky! The lights sprang up in the house. A night-flying beetle passed him, booming. The dew was failing he felt it, must go in. And as he turned, quickly, dusk softened the trees, the sky, the river. (Galsworthy)

Here is a good example to show how effective is the repetitive use of nouns with the definite article for stylistic purposes in narration:

It was hot that night. Both she and her mother had put on thin, pale low frocks. The dinner flowers were pale. Fleur was struck with the pale look of everything; her father's face, her mother's shoulders; the pale panelled walls, the pale grey velvety carpet, the lamp-shade, even the soup was pale. There was not one spot of colour in the room, not even wine in the pale glasses, for no one drank it. What was not pale was black her father's clothes, the butler's clothes, her retriever stretched out exhausted in the window, the curtains black with a cream pattern. A moth came in, and that was pale. And silent was that half-mourning dinner in the heat...

Her father called her back as she was following her mother out. She sat down beside him at me table, ana, unpinning the pale honeysuckle, put it to her nose. (Galsworthy)

The repetitive use of the definite article with abstract nouns is an

86


effective means to intensify their emotive flavour in a given context. Examples are numerous:

Think of the needy man who has spent his all, beggared himself and pinched his friends, to enter the profession, which will never yield him a morsel of bread. The waiting the hope the disappointment the fear the misery the poverty the blight on his hopes, and end to his career the suicide perhaps, or the shabby, slip-shod drunkard. (Dickens)

Observe also the use of the definite article with proper nouns for stylistic purposes in the following sentences:

Why should not the able and wonderful Cowperwood be allowed to make the two of them rich? (Dreiser)

Aunt Hester, the silent, the patient, that backwater of the family energy, sat in the drawing-room, where the blinds were drawn; and she too, had wept at first, but quietly, without visible effect... She sat, slim, motionless, studying the grate, her hands idle in the lap of her black silk dress. (Galsworthy)

If Liz was my girl and I was to sneak out to a dance coupled up with an Annie, I'd want a suit of chain armour on under my gladsome rags. (Henry)

The use of the article with common and proper nouns is often an effective means of expressive connotation, e. g.:

"...Know my partner? Old Robinson". "Yes, the Robinson. Don't you know? The notorious Robinson". (Conrad)

"...How goes it?"

"All well" said Mr. Gills pushing the bottle towards him.

He took it up and having surveyed and smelt it said with extraordinary expression:

"The?"

"The", returned the instrument maker. Upon that he whistled as he filled his glass and seemed to think they were making holiday, indeed. (Dickens)

Instances are not few when the omission of the article is also a matter of stylistic considerations in narration, in free and easy colloquial style or, say, represented speech in literary prose.

See how the use of the nouns without the article is in harmony with the structure of the following sentences:

It had a simple scheme white pony in stable, pigeon picking up some grains, smallboy on upturned basket eating apple. (Galsworthy) There was a drowsy hum of very distant traffic; the creepered trellis round the garden shut out everything but sky, and house, and pear-tree, with its top branches still gilded by the sun. (Galsworthy)

Engine, wheels and carriages came within a few yards, ripping the view into tatters of blue sky and field, each in a decimated second dancing between the carriage-gaps.

A word must be said about a distinct trend in modern English syntax is the omission of the definite and indefinite articles in various ways familiar to students of English and other European languages.

The loss of the definite article has affected certain specific phrases, e. g.:

go to university  for  go to the university

all morning  for  all the morning

87


all winter for all the winter

all week for all the week, etc.

a majority of ... seems to replace the majority of ...

It is difficult to see anything to be gained by the change so far as distinction of meaning is concerned, since the old and new uses appear to be synonymous 1.

Revision Material

  1.   Be ready to discuss the basic assumptions for the definition of parts of speech as the taxonomic classes of words.
  2.   Comment on oppositional relations between different parts of speech.
  3.   Give comments on the interparadigmatic homonymy as being relevant to structural ambiguity in Modern English.
  4.   Get ready to discuss the opposition "oneness plurality" as being expressed in Modern English.
  5.   Comment on functional transpositions of singular forms in the category of number.
  6.   Be ready to discuss the problem of case in Modern English.
  7.   Comment on the polysemy of the possessive case.
  8.   Give comments on the synonymic "encounter" of the 's-genitive and the of-phrase.
  9.   Describe the distributional value of the of-phrase in Modern English.
  10.   Give illustrative examples of stylistic transpositions in the grammar of nouns. Compare similar developments in other languages.
  11.   Comment on the use of the group-genitive in Modern English.
  12.   Be ready to give comments on the linguistic change going on in present-day English in the use of the 's-genitive at the expense of the of-phrase.
  13.   Be ready to discuss the problem of the article in Modern English.
  14.   Give comments on the absence of the article functioning as a term in the article system.
  15.  Variations in the use of the articles and their significant absence must be examined in the grammatical environment in which nouns occur. The meaning of the article reveals itself in actual speech. Can you give a few examples to illustrate the statement?
  16.  Difficulties often arise when the presence and absence of the article signals contrasted structural relationships. Give examples to illustrate the statement.
  17.  Review your knowledge of the stylistic functions of the articles in Modern English.

1 See: B. Fоster. The Changing English Language. Great Britain, 1971.


Chapter IV THE ADJECTIVE

An adjective is a word which expresses the attributes of substances (good, young, easy, soft, loud, hard, wooden, flaxen). As a class of lexical words adjectives are identified by their ability to fill the position between noun-determiner and noun and the position after a copula-verb and a qualifier.

Considered in meaning, adjectives fall into two large groups:

  1.   qualitative adjectives,
  2.   relative adjectives.

Qualitative adjectives denote qualities of size, shape, colour, etc. which an object may possess in various degrees. Qualitative adjectives have degrees of comparison.

Relative adjectives express qualities which characterise an object through its relation to another object; wooden tables tables made of wood, woollen gloves gloves made of wool, Siberian wheat wheat from Siberia. Further examples of relative adjectives are: rural, industrial, urban, etc.

Linguistically it is utterly impossible to draw a rigid line of demarcation between the two classes, for in the course of language development the so-called relative adjectives gradually develop qualitative meanings. Thus, for instance, through metaphoric extension adjectives denoting material have come to be used in the figurative sense, e. g.: golden age золотий вік, golden hours щасливий час, golden mean золота середина, golden opportunity чудова нагода, golden hair золотаве волосся, etc. Compare also: wooden chair and wooden face, wooden manners; flaxen threads and flaxen hair.

The adjective leaden made of lead is often used with special allusion to its qualities. Cf. a leaden plate and a leaden sleep, leaden atmosphere, leaden sky. Through metaphoric extension leaden has also come to mean "low in quality", "cheap", "heavy" or "dull" inaction, in feeling, understanding, etc. synonymous with sluggish млявий. Analogous developments may easily be found in other languages.

It seems practical to distinguish between base adjectives and derived adjectives 1.

Base adjectives exhibit the following formal qualities: they may take inflections -er and -est or have some morphophonemic changes in

1 See: W. N. Francis. The Structure of American English. New York, 1958, p. 270.

89


cases of the suppletion, such as, for instance, in good better the best; bad worse the worst. Base adjectives are also distinguished formally by the fact that they serve as stems from which nouns and adverbs are formed by the derivational suffixes -ness and -ly.

Base adjectives are mostly of one syllable, and none have more than two syllables except a few that begin with a derivational prefix un-or in-, e. g.: uncommon, inhuman, etc. They have no derivational suffixes and usually form their comparative and superlative degrees by means of the inflectional suffixes -er and -est. Quite a number of based adjectives form verbs by adding the derivational suffix -en, the prefix en- or both: blacken, brighten, cheapen, sweeten, widen, enrich, enlarge, embitter, enlighten, enliven, etc.

Derived adjectives are formed by the addition of derivational suffixes to free or bound stems. They usually form analytical comparatives and superlatives by means of the qualifiers more and most. Some of the more important suffixes which form derived adjectives are:

-able added to verbs and bound stems, denoting quality with implication of capacity, fitness or worthness to be acted upon; -able is often used in the sense of "tending to", "given to", "favouring", "causing", "able to" or "liable to". This very common suffix is a live one which can be added to virtually any verb thus giving rise to many new coinages. As it is the descendant of an active derivational suffix in Latin, it also appears as a part of many words borrowed from Latin and French. Examples formed from verbs: remarkable, adaptable, conceivable, drinkable, eatable, regrettable, understandable, etc.; examples formed from bound stems: capable, portable, viable. The unproductive variant of the suffix -able is the suffix -ible (Latin -ibilis, -bilis), which we find in adjectives Latin in origin: visible, forcible, comprehensible, etc.; -ible is no longer used in the formation of new words.

-al, -ial (Lat. -alls, French -al, -el) denoting quality "belonging to", "pertaining to", "having the character of", "appropriate to", e. g.: elemental, bacterial, automnal, fundamental, etc.

The suffix -al added to nouns and bound stems (fatal, local, natural, national, traditional, etc.) is often found in combination with -ic, e. g.: biological, botanical, juridical, typical, etc.

-ish —Germanic in origin, denoting nationality, quality with the meaning "of the nature of", "belonging to", "resembling" also with the sense "somewhat like", often implying contempt, derogatory in force, e. g.: Turkish, bogish, outlandish, whitish, wolfish.

-y Germanic in origin, denoting quality "pertaining to", "abounding in", "tending or inclined to", e.g.: rocky, watery, bushy, milky, sunny, etc.

THE CATEGORY OF INTENSITY AND COMPARISON

Grammarians seem to be divided in their opinion as to the linguistic status of degrees of comparison of adjectives formed by means of more and (the) most. In books devoted to teaching grammar the latter are traditionally referred to as analytical forms. But there is also another view

90


based only on form and distribution according to which more and (the) most are referred to as ordinary qualifiers and formations like more interesting and the most interesting which go parallel with such free word-groups as less interesting and the least interesting are called phrasal comparatives and superlatives. Attention is then drawn to the fact that more and most may also easily combine with nouns, e. g.: more attention, more people, most people, etc. 1

This is, in fact, an old discussion, dating back at least as far as H. Sweet as to whether the morphemes of comparison -er, -est are inflections or suffixes. H. Sweet spoke of them as inflectional but considered such formations almost as much a process derivation as of inflection 2.

More important that this difficulty in terminology are some other points about adjectives.

Distinction will be made between qualitative adjectives which have "gradable" meanings and those which have "absolute" meanings.

A thing can, for instance, be more of less narrow, and narrow is a gradable adjective for which corresponding gradations will be expressed either by analytical or, when style demands, by inflected forms: narrow narrower the narrowest narrow more narrow the most narrow

Contrasted to adjectives with such "gradable" meanings are qualitative adjectives with "absolute" meaning, e. g.: real, equal, perfect, right, etc. These are, in their referents, incapable of such gradations. Unmodified, they mean the absolute of what they say. With more and most or when inflected they mean "more nearly real", "nearest of all to being real", "more nearly equal" or "nearest of all to being equal", etc.

Analytical and inflected forms of comparison cannot be referred to as always absolutely identical in function. The structure of the analytical form permits contrastive stress-shifts and is therefore preferable when occasion demands. Stress on more and most will focus attention on the notion of degree, and stress on the adjective will make the lexical content of the adjective more prominent. Compare the following: (1) He is healthier than his brother. (2) He is more healthy than his brother. (3) He is more healthy, but less capable.

A universal feature in the grammar of adjectives is the absolute use of comparatives and superlatives. These forms are sometimes used where there is no direct comparison at all, as in: The better part of valour is discretion (Shakespeare); a better-class café, sooner or later (The Short Oxford Dictionary), etc. Cf.: вища освіта, продукти кращої якості, etc.

Similarly in German:

ein alterer Mann літня людина ein alter Mann стара людина.

eine grossere Stadi невелике місто eine grosse Stadt велике місто.

The grammatical content of the superlative degree is that of degree of a property surpassing all other objects mentioned or implied by the context or situation. There are cases, however, when the meaning of

1 See: W. Francis. The Structure of American English. New York, 1958, p. 27; A. Hill. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. New York-Birmingham, 1958, p. 168.

2 See: H. Sweet. A New English Grammar. Oxford, 1955.

91


the superlative comes to be essentially different, and only a very high degree of quality or property is meant, with no comparison at all. This is the so-called "elative" (Lat. gradus elativus), e. g.: I should do it with the greatest pleasure.

Further examples are:

He's got the most beautiful mother, with lovely silvery hair and a young face with dark eyes. (Galsworthy)

"It's most distasteful to me", he said suddenly. " Nothing could be more so". (Galsworthy)

"My health is better for it", he added hastily. "And I am very happy, most happy". (London)

Absolute superlatives will be found in such patterns in Ukrainian as: в найкоротший термін, в найкращому настрої, наймиліша людина. Cf. Russian: величайший ученый, милейший человек, в наилучшем настроении, в кратчайший срок, etc. Similarly in German: in bester Stimmung, in kürzester Zeit, liebster Freund. French: Cette chère enfant! soupira la maîtresse de pension de sa voix la plus tendre. (France).

It is of interest to note that in certain contexts the comparative degree of adjectives may function as a stylistic alternative of "absolute superlative". The highest degree of quality comes to be expressed here by comparative contrast. The use of such "comparative elatives'' is highly effective and colourful, e. g.:

Could a man own anything prettier than this dining table with its deep tints, the starry, soft-petalled roses, the ruby coloured glass, and quaint silver furnishing; could a man own anything prettier than the woman who sat at it? (Galsworthy)

Look at her sitting there. Doesn't she make a picture? Chardin, eh? I've seen all the most beautiful women in the world; I've never seen anyone more beautiful than Madame Dirk Stroeve. (Maugham)

...Into a denser gloom than ever Bosinney held on at a furious pace; but his pursuer perceived more method in his madness he was clearly making his way westwards. (Galsworthy)

...In his leisure hours he played the piccolo. No one in England was more reliable.

..."He's imaginative, Yolyon."

"Yes, in a sanguinary way. Does he love anyone just now?"

"No; only everyone. There never was anyone born more loving or more lovable than Jon."

"Being your boy, Irene." (Galsworthy)

Intensification of a qualitative meaning expressed by adjectives may be produced by:

1) adverbial intensifiers: much, a great deal, far, by far, far and away, yet, still and all, e. g.: much better, still further, all hot and bothered, all blocdy;

He is far the most distinguished student in the group.

This week was by far the busiest we have ever had.

He was far and away the best example to follow.

Similar in function are such intensifiers in Russian as: намного, куда, все, еще, etc.

92


Similarly in Ukrainian: набагато, ще, далеко, куди.

Ще щедріше було сонце. Куди краще були успіхи нашої експедиції.

2) grammatical pleonasms: a) deafer than deaf, whiter than white; b) the whitest of the white, the greenest of the green.

Every little colony of houses has its church and school-house peeping from among the white roofs and shady trees; every house is the whitest of the white; every Venetian blind the greenest of the green; every fine day's sky the bluest of the blue. (Dickens)

Compare the Ukrainian: чистіше чистого, легше легкого, ясніше ясного, etc.; similarly in Russian: чище чистого, слаще сладкого, яснее ясного, etc.

3) the combination of a Superlative with an of-phrase which renders the meaning of a partitive genitive, e. g.: Chekhov is the greatest of all writers of short stories. Patterns of this kind are fairly common in expressive language.

"Of all things in the world don't you think caution's the most awful? Smell the moonlight!" She thrust the blossom against his face; Jon agreed giddily that of all things in the world caution was the worst, and bending over kissed the hand which held his. (Galsworthy)

4) the idiomatic variety of the partitive genitive, e. g.: Beauty is the wonder of all wonders. (Wilde)

Scarlet jerked her hands away from his grasp and sprang to her feet", "I you are the most ill-bred man in the world, coming here at this time of all times with your filthy  I should have known you'd never change. (Mitchell)

Further examples are: a patriot of patriots, a word of words, a hero of heroes. Analogous examples in Ukrainian: диво з див, герой з героїв, хоробрий з хоробрих, etc. Cf. Russian: чудо из чудес, герой из героев, храбрец из храбрецов, красавица из красавиц, etc. French: le miracle des miracles; German: der Held der Helden.

  1.  the variant form of the partitive genitive, e. g.: lawyers' lawyers ( = the best of all lawyers), an actor's actor (= the best of all actors), similarly, a ballplayer's ballplayer.
  2.   the of-phrase in the function of the so-called "genitivus qualitatis", a universal development in most languages.

Synonymous with adjectives proper, modification structures of this type abound in literary use. The linguistic essence of the structure is to render the idea of quality through the relationship of one object to the other.

«Многие различные вещи состоят в существенном взаимодействии через свои свойства; свойство есть самое взаимодействие» 1.

Examples are: a look of joy = a joyful look, a man of energy = an energetic man, a thing of great importance = a very important thing, writers of great repute very reputable writers, a glance of contempt a contemptuous glance, a thing of great value = a valuable thing, a man of genius (Cf. arch. genial), etc.

1 «Ленинский сборник» IX, pp. 144—145.

93


Compare analogous structures in other languages. Russian: вопрос большой важности — очень важный вопрос; человек большой эрудиции — очень эрудированный человек. Ukrainian: справа великого значення дуже важлива справа; людина великого розуму дуже розумна людина (the so-called) «родовий означальний». French: affaire d'importance = affaire importante, bijoux de pris = bijou précieux; une affaire d'urgence = une affaire urgente; un jardin de beauté = un beau jardin. German: die Sache von grosser Wichtigkeit = eine sehr wichtige Sache.

Genitivus qualitatis is used to express more complex and more subtle shades of meaning than ordinary adjectives do. The diversity of their use for stylistic purposes in various languages should not escape our notice.

She conceived of delights which were not, saw lights of joy that never were on land or sea. (Dreiser).

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us...