|
|
|
Английский язык. Теоретическая грамматика. Тест с ответами и пособие
Contrastive grammar (test)
0 24 2
25 34 3
35 44 4
45 50 5
Theoretical grammar module test
1 For every grammatical category true is the statement that:
+ a) 2 (gram. forms) -1 (gram. form) = 0
b) 2 (g.f.) -1(g. f.) = 1
2According to F.de Saussure: Language is
+ a) Abstract
b)Concrete
c) individual
3.According to F.de Saussure: Language consists of
+ a) emic units (morpheme, lexeme, phoneme, intoneme, etc)
b) allo-emic units (allomorph, allo-lex = LSV, allophone, allotone, etc)
c) combination of emic and allo-emic units
4.According to F.de Saussure: Speech consists of
a) emic units (morpheme, lexeme, phoneme, intoneme, etc)
+ b) allo-emic units (allomorph, allo-lex = LSV, allophone, allotone, etc)
c) combination of emic and allo-emic units
5) According to F.de Saussure: Speech is
+a) variable
b) constant
c)invariant
6) An analytical form is exemplified by:
a) played
b) says
+c) has done
7) A synthetical form is exemplified by
a) is being built
+b) speaks
c) shall have been done
8) According to American linguist Ch. Fillmore, in English there are:
a) less than 2 cases
b) 2 cases
+c) 6 or 8 semantic cases
9)The theory that in English nouns there are no cases was put forward by:
a) M. Deutschbein;
+b) G. Vorontsova;
c)Ch. Fillmore.
10.Singularia Tantum are the following nouns:
a)scissors, trousers;
+b)foliage, police;
c) a table
11)Pluralia Tantum nouns are:
a)pieces of advice;
b)windows;
+c) scissors, trousers;
12.In the English Noun gender is:
a)grammatical;
b)lexical;
+c)semantical (=no grammatical gender)
13.We see the tendency to avoid gender suffixes in English in:
a) she-dog;
b)flight attendant (=stewardess); chair (=chairman);
c)waitress.
14. The majority of linguists ay that in English Verb aspect is:
+a)the opposition of common vs continuous aspect;
b)there is no Aspect
c) the opposition of Perfect vs Non-Perfect.
15.The ‘s possessive in: “The girl I was dancing with’s name was Jane” is syntactically connected with
a)the preposition “with”;
+b)noun – “the girl”;
c)the attributive clause.
16.Future –in- the- Past belongs to the category of:
a) tense;
+b) posteriority;
c)aspect.
17.Two-tense system in English is based on the statement that:
a)Future is not a reality;
b) Future cannot be felt by anyone;
+c) Verbs shall & will preserve their modal meanings
18. Which characteristics of the grammatical form helped A.I.Smirnitsky to reveal the essence of the category of Perfect
a) one and the same grammatical form can render the meanings of different grammatical categories;
+b) one and the same grammatical form cannot combine in itself two meanings of one and the same grammatical category;
c)there are no isolated grammatical forms
19.Systematized context is the syntactical connection between:
a)the predicate and the subject;
b)the attribute and the subject;
+c) the predicate and the adverbial modifier of time
20.The generic meaning of the definite article is in the sentence:
+a) we are going to study the horse today;
b)The Queen Victoria arrived;
c)He was called “the Horse”.
21.Find the complex part of the sentence in:
a) I saw him;
+b) he was seen to arrive;
c)he was seen by me.
~22. Find the false statement:
а) language is the phonological, lexical and grammatical system;
в) grammar is found both in the system of language and speech
+г) grammar belongs to the sphere of language only
~23. Which of the following does not characterize the analytical language organization:
-a) morphologically indeclinable words and analytical (compound) forms and constructions;
-б) comparatively few grammatical inflections;
+в) well-developed declension system
24. A Marked member of the grammatical opposition is characterized by:
-a) the presence of a certain common feature
+б) the presence of a certain differential feature (=mark)
-в) the absence of a certain differential feature (=mark)
~25 The main branches of grammar are:
-a) phonology and syntax
+б) morphology and syntax
-в) morphology and synthesis
~26 Morphology does not study:
-a) word-changing forms
-б) means of expressing grammatical meanings
+в) parts of the sentence
~27. Grammatical category is a system of opposed grammatical forms with homogeneous…:
-а) parts of the sentence
-б) inflections
+в) meanings
~28. Morphological categories of the noun are:
-a) gender, number, case, mood
-б) number, gender, case, definiteness/indefiniteness, voice
+в) number, gender, case, definiteness / indefiniteness
~29. Find the correct statement:
-a) in English the category of grammatical gender is manifested morphologically
+в) in English the noun has no category of grammatical gender
-г) in English only the noun has a category of gender
~30. The category of case is disputable in English because:
-а) the declension system is well-developed in English
+в) there is no well-developed inflection system in English
-г) the category of case does not exist
~31. Which of the following are not categories of the verb:
-а) aspect and voice
-б) number and person
+в) number and case
~32. Absolute tense forms are:
-а) those which do not express any time reference;
+б) those which do not depend on the other tense forms and are determined by the moment of speaking;
-в) those which are regarded not in connection with the moment of speaking but depend on other tense forms or time indicators
~33. According to A. Smirnitsky, Unreal action is denoted in English by means of:
+а) Subjunctive I, Subjunctive II, Conditional and Suppositional Moods
-б) Subjunctive I, Subjunctive II, Conditional and Superstitious Moods
-в) Suppositional Mood
~34. The category of mood is a morphological word-changing category, characterizing the verb forms and denoting:
-а) the relation of the action to the time of speaking
-б) the relation of the subject and the object of the action
+г) the relation of the action to reality from the speaker’s point of view
~35. Imperative mood is not used to express:
-б) request
-в) command
+г) unreal condition
~36. Which verb category denotes the relation of the action to the moment of speaking?
-а) the category of case
-б) the category of aspect
+в) the category of tense
~37. The following types of the parts of the sentence are specific and found only in English:
-а) simple
-в) clausal
+г) complex
~38. In English predicative cannot be expressed by:
-а) a noun
+б)a modal verb
-в) an adjective
~39. Primary predication relations are found in:
-а) the subject-object group
+б) the subject-predicate group
-в) the subject-attribute group
~40. Secondary predication relations are found in:
+а) the predicative construction
-б) the subject-predicate group
-в) the predicate-object group
~41. The simple predicate can be of two types:
-а) complex and formal
+б) verbal and nominal
-в) compound and complex
~42. Subject clause performs the function of:
-а) the object of the main clause
+б) the subject of the main clause
-в) the attribute of the main clause
~43. The subject of the sentence cannot be expressed by:
-а) pronoun
-в) for-to-infinitive construction
+г) predicative clause
~44. The head-word of the noun phrase is:
-а) pronoun
+б) noun
-в) verb
~45. The secondary predication word-groups contain:
-а) subject and predicate
+б) predicative complexes
-в) noun and adjective
~46. Syntax studies:
-а) the structure of the word
+б) the structure of the sentence
-в) the morphemes
~47. Adverbial modifier of manner characterizes:
-б) the object
-в) the attribute
+г) the action of the predicate verb
~48. The word-groups can be:
-a) simple and compound
-б) extended and non-extended
+в) simple and complex
~49. Adverbial clauses can be of the following types:
-а) conditional, of time, attributive
+б) conditional, of time, of manner
-в) conditional, of concession, attributive
~50. The predicative is:
+а) the nominal part of the compound nominal predicate
-б) the verbal part of the compound verbal predicate
-в) the verbal part of the compound nominal predicate
~51. In English the following types of the adverbial modifier are not found:
-a) the adverbial modifier of time
+б) the adverbial modifier of replacement
-в) the adverbial modifier of manner
~52. Complex object cannot be expressed by:
-а) For-to-Infinitive construction
-б) Objective Infinitive construction
+г) Infinitive phrase
~53. Syndetic connection means:
-а) the use of no conjunctions and conjunctive words to join the sentences
+б) the use of conjunctions and conjunctive words to join the sentences
-в) the use of prepositions to join the sentences
~54. Sentences of which communicative type express questions?
-a) affirmative
+б) interrogative
-в) imperative
~55. The compound verbal predicates cannot be:
-a) modal
-в) of double orientation
+г) predicative
~56. The subject in English can be expressed by:
+a) noun, pronoun, gerund
-б) finite form of the verb, participle I;
-в) predicative
~57. The Passive voice is represented in:
+a) the house has not been lived in by anybody;
-б) I see Jack;
-г) He can’t go there.
~58. The following verbs require the use of the direct object:
-a) intransitive
+б) transitive
-в) terminative
~59. Free morphemes are:
-a) suffixes and prefixes
+б) root morphemes
-в) inflectional morphemes
~60. Passive voice is possible to form only if the verb is:
-a) durative
-б) terminative
+в) transitive
The end.
~61. All parts of the sentence are divided into:
-a) strong and weak
+б) main and secondary
-в) functional and notional
~62. The subject and predicate:
+а) are interdependent parts of the sentence
-б) are secondary parts of the sentence
-в) are not connected
List of references
Словари и энциклопедии
1.Ахманова О.С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. –М., 1969.
2.Ярцева. Лингвистическая энциклопедия. (=Языкознание). – M.,
Основная
1.Александрова О.В., Комова Т.А. Современный английский язык: морфология и синтаксис.- М.: Академия, 2007. – 224 с.
2.Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого предложения современного англ языка. – М., 1966.
3. Блох М. Я. Теоретические основы грамматики.- М., 2005.
4.Воронцова Г.Н. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. – М., 1960.
8. И.П. Иванова, В.В. Бурлакова, Г.Г. Почепцов. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка.– М., 1981.
9. Н.А. Кобрина, Н.Н. Болдырев, А.А. Худяков. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка.– М., 2007.
10.Корнеева Е.А. и др. Пособие по морфологии английского языка. – М., 1974.
11.Смирницкий А.И. Морфология английского языка. –М., 1959.
12. Смирницкий А.И. Синтаксис английского языка. –М., 1957.
13.Харитонов И.К. Теоретична граматика англ мови. – Винница, 2008.
14. Худяков А.А. – Теоретическ.грамматика английского языка. - М., приблизительно 2007. – 256 с.
15. Alexeyeva I. Theoretical English grammar Course.- Vinnitsa, 2007.
16.Blokh M.Y. A Course in the theoretical English Grammar. – M., 1983.
17.Ilyish B.A. The structure of Modern English. – L., 1971.
Дополнительная
18. Аракин В.Д. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. – М., 1989.
19. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка.- М., 1975.
20. Стеблин-Каменский. К вопросу о частях речи. – Л., 1954
21.Хаймович Б.С., Роговская Б.И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. –М., 1967.
Questions
|
Второй вопрос билета Neutralization of opposition.+ Grammatical category (2 -1=0) Grammatical opposition (Blokh, p.28) Binary privative, gradual & equipolent oppositions (Blokh, p.28, 29) the un/marked member (Blokh, p.28) categorial grammatical form The Notion of a paradigm The language and speech in grammar. paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in gr. Analytical and synthetical languages Analytical form |
1.the plane of content (=ПС) + the plane of form (=ПВ) make an overt / explicit category in grammar 2.the plane of content (=ПС) + no plane of form (=ПВ) make a covert / implicit lexico-grammatical (=semantical) category in grammar 3.The implicit lexico-grammatical (= semantic) category 4.Morpheme & allomorph (Ad-: ammunition, assume, advise; IN-: illegal, irregular, impossible, inconsistent) 5.explicit and implicit grammatical categories 6.Grammeme (=word-form) (Хлебникова, с. 6 ) 7.Language and speech (=allo-emic approach) |
Lecture 1
1.The purpose and tasks of theoretical grammar.
1.According to B.A.Ilyish:
The purpose of a theoretical grammar course is to present a systematic study of the grammatical structure (строй) of modern English. It goes without saying that a student should have a sufficient knowledge of the practical rules of English syntax and morphology. It is our task to give an analysis of English grammatical structure in the light of general principles of linguistics.
This will involve consideration of moot points (спорный) on which differing views have been expressed by different scholars. It will be our task to consider the main arguments put forward to sustain (поддержать) the various views and to find out the most convincing way of solving the particular problem involved.
The main purpose of a theoretical grammar course is meant to encourage the students to think on the essential problems of English language structure and to form their own views and judgments on the relevant questions and on the respective merits of the various solutions proposed. The student is meant to acquire as a result of his studies an insight into the structure of the language and an ability to form his own ideas on this or that question. This will be a necessary accomplishment (=skill) for a teacher of English, who is apt to find differing or contradictory treatment of the grammatical phenomena he has to mention in his teaching.
The purpose of practical grammar is to describe the grammatical system of English and to prescribe certain grammatical rules (e.g. formation and rules of the Past Ind. tense).
3.According to Kharitonov:
The purpose of theoretical grammar is to give a scientific description of the system of a language without giving any prescriptions i.e. only to scientifically analyse and define its grammatical categories and study the mechanisms of grammatical formation of utterances out of words in the process of speechmaking.
Its purpose is also to develop in the student an ability to form his own ideas and opinions on this or that question, an ability to analyse language facts (p.5-6).
1.According to Gak Vladimir Grigoryevich:
In the limelight of theoretical grammar course, not the descriptive outline of facts is to be given but their theoretical interpretation. In this connection a theoretical grammar course shows complicated, vexed (горячо дебатируемый, спорный) and moot (спорный) points of grammar and gives existing viewpoints of their interpretation by different scholars (ученые; person with much knowledge (usually of a particular subject). But the facts of language should be limelighted from the viewpoint of a clearly-cut idea. That is why the main problem when giving an outline of theoretical grammar is the relation of critical and positive material.
Lecture ½
General peculiarities of MnE structure. (Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови. – Д.: ДонНУ) –P. 39-42.
Lecture 2
The basic notions of grammar.
1. The grammatical category
The notion of the grammatical category is central in grammar. At the base of the science of grammar lie certain grammatical categories i.e. Грамматическая категория – одно из наиболее общих свойств лингвистических единиц вообще или некоторого их класса, получившее в языке грамматическое выражение (напр.: Грамматическая категория падежа в рус языке, Грамматическая категория рода у прилагательных в рус языке). Grammatical category – is one of the most general properties of linguistic units or of their certain class, which received grammatical expression in the language (According to O. Akhmanova).
Grammatical categories are the most generalized concepts and notions, e.g.: the categories of tense, case etc.
3.According to Khaimovich:
Morphological category is the system of such oppositions whose members differ in form (=ПВ) to express only (and all) the particular manifestations of the general meaning of the category (p.24)
(P.11-12 Kharitonov): Every grammatical category must necessarily be based on an opposition of at least two grammatical forms, otherwise the category cannot exist i.e. 2 categorial grammatical forms: 2– 1 = 0. (cf. with the notion “family”). The menbers of an opposition are referred to as opposemes. The minimal opposition is a binary (=two-member) opposition, there also exist three-member (=ternary) oppositions and (four member) quaternary & polynomic (=multimember) oppositions.
The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterized by the presence of a certain differential feature (=mark), while the other member is characterized by the absence of this feature.
Usually one member of a binary privative opposition in which the feature is present is called the marked or strong or positive member, while the other in which the feature is absent is called the unmarked or weak or negative member (Blokh, p. 28). The marked member is usually more complicated in its form and more concrete in its meaning than the unmarked one.
E.g. in the binary opposition between the Common and the Continuous aspect forms, the Continuous aspect form is the marked member of the opposition, while the Common aspect form is the unmarked member, because its form is simpler and its meaning is less concrete. It is more abstract, more vague.
The whole set of the members (opposemes) constituting a grammatical category make up the paradigm of the category (e.g.: the past, present, the future tense opposimes make up the tense paradigm in E.).
Besides the explicit grammatical categories considered above there exist also the implicit lexico-grammatical (= semantic) categories. Here belong the general implicit lexico-grammatical meanings of parts of speech (e.g.: the meaning of thingness (substace) in nouns, process, transitivity/non-transitivity in verbs).
The implicit lexico-grammatical (= semantic) categories have no formal outer expression, but they influence the realization of some explicit (formal) grammatical categories. E.g. The implicit lexico-grammatical (= semantic) category of countability/non-countability of nouns restricts the sphere of use of the explicit (formal) grammatical category of number: uncountable nouns usually cannot be used in the plural.
2.According to O. Akhmanova:
Категориальная форма – флективная разновидность слова, являющаяся выражением грамматической категории данного разряда слов (т.е. слов, принадлежащих к данной части речи), например:1) Категориальные формы Pr, Past и Fut Ind., которыми конституируется категория времени.
Categorial form is an inflectional variety of a word expressing the grammatical category of a given set of words (i.e. words belonging to a given part of speech). E.g. Categorial forms of the Pr, Past & Fut Ind., which constitute the category of tense.
1.According to Khaimovich:
A Morphological opposition is a minimum set of words revealing (by the difference in their forms) only (and all) the particular manifestations of some general grammatical meaning (p.23-24).
2..According to O. Akhmanova:
Оппозиция – различие двух или более однородных единиц языка, способные выполнять семиологическую (=смыслоразличительную) функцию т.е. быть семиологически релевантными ().
3. According to I.I.Pribytok:
3. A morphological opposition is a contrast of two morphological units possessing a ground for comparison and a basis for distinction.
Neutralization of opposition. –P.136 Ilyish
The notion of Neutralization of opposition was first introduced by N. Trubetskoy in his book “Essentials of phonology” (Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague, 1939)
The essential idea at the bottom of neutralization in phonology is this. An opposition existing between 2 phonemes may under certain circumstances (which are to be strictly defined in each case) disappear. I.e. it may lose its validity and become irrelevant. E.g.: the sounds [t] & [d] are different phonemes in Russian, as they distinguish pairs of words, e.g.: дом:: том; дам :: там. However the difference between the 2 phonemes disappears at the end of the word, e.g.: рот (mouth) :: род (genus) sound alike, a voiced [d] being impossible at the end of the word in Russian.
Trubetskoy says that the opposition between [t] & [d] is neutralized in those conditions. To put it more exactly, whereas in the word том the relevant features of the initial phoneme [т] are three, viz.: it is (a) a forelingual consonant; (b) a stop; (c) voiceless, &
the initial consonant [д] of дом also has 3 relevant features, viz.: (a) a forelingual consonant; (b) a stop; (c) voiced.
The final consonant in рот or род has only two relevant features: (a) a forelingual consonant; (b) a stop. No third relevant feature is found here. The consonant is phonetically voiceless, but voicelessness is phonologically irrelevant, as the corresponding voiced consonant cannot appear in this position.
The notion of Neutralization of opposition has since been applied to grammar as well. Here are some examples:
a) Between sing :: pl. of Nouns, e.g.: Sing. Nouns may be used to express pl. : Trees in leaf;
to have a keen eye; - this is stylistic transposition exemplifying synechdochy – the simplest case of metonymy in grammar.
Or / opposition “class-subclass” (fish-fishes, fruit-fruits) (Alexeyeva, p.40)
a) + Neutralization of opposition in Verbals
b) (Do you mind my/ me smoking?) [Gerund & Participle I]
He was afraid of her knowing the truth
(-ing is a Gerund if her is a possessive pronoun;
-ing is a Participle I if her is a pronoun in the objective case).
Neutralization of opposition
c) The director said the film would be improved by cutting. (Neutralization of opposition is between Future Ind. in the Past & the Conditional Mood).
d) + When–clauses, though-clauses, which-clauses = (Neutralization of opposition is between composite and compound sentences. See Lecture 13).
Homonymy:
1.Flying planes can be dangerous. (The homonymy is between “flying” used as
a) Participle I; b) Gerund.
a) Love / blossoms // in spring.
b) He looked / over // the old fence.
See (Polysemantic and homonymous forms)
(Ilyish P.137-143)
2.He said he would do it.
a. Conditional Mood (Lex. meaning = 0); = An analytical form.
b. Fut-Ind.-in-the-Past; (Lex. meaning = 0); =An analytical form.
c.Modal verb in the past = бывало. (Lex. meaning > than 0).= A free syntactical combination.
So, morphological forms and syntactical units are polysemantic, polyfunctional and homonymous.
2.The language and speech (p.6-7).
The distinction between the language and speech was first introduced by F. de Saussure in “The Course of General Linguistics”. Language is the phonological, lexical and grammatical system, which lies at the base of all speaking. Speech is the manifestation of language or its use by various speakers and writers of the given language. Thus, what we have in oral or in written form, as material for analysis, is always a product of speech.
The scholar can get at language only through its manifestations in speech.
|
Language |
Speech |
From: |
Language |
Speech |
|
General |
Individual |
Звегинцев В.А. Предложение и его отношение к языку и речи. – М., 1976. – C. 10
|
I. Subsegmental (субзнаковый) level |
|
|
Abstract |
Concrete |
Phoneme |
Allophone |
|
|
Gyst |
Phenomenon |
syllable |
|
|
|
Form |
Substance |
DF (=ДП) |
|
|
|
Construct |
Observed object |
II. Segmental (знаковый) level |
||
|
System |
Text |
Morpheme |
Allomorph, morph |
|
|
Invariant |
Variant |
Lexeme |
Allolex, =LSV |
|
|
Constant |
Varyable |
Phrase(=syntagma) |
|
|
|
Social |
Individual |
Word |
|
|
|
Code |
communication |
III. Suprasegmental (суперзнаков) level |
||
|
Psychic |
physical |
|
Intoneme |
Allotone |
|
potential |
Act of its manifestation |
|
Sentence |
Utterance |
3.Analytical and synthetical languages
2.It is a very common statement that English is an analytical language. Modern Russian is synthetical. The chief features characterizing an analytical language are as follows:
a) comparatively few grammatical inflections (viz., case inflections in N, Adj., Pr. & personal inflections in Verbs);
b) a sparing use of sound alternations to denote grammatical forms;
c) a wide use of prepositions to connect words in the sentence;
d) prominent use of word order to denote grammatical relations.
Grammar includes morphology and syntax. The relation between them is not so simple. We ought to distinguish between 2 angles of research:
1) the elements dealt with. From this viewpoint we divide grammatical investigation into 2 fields: Morphology and syntax.
2) The way these elements are studied. From this viewpoint we distinguish between paradigmatic and syntagmatic study. Thus we get 4 divisions:
1. a) paradigmatic morphology (=morphology)
b) syntagmatic morphology (is the study of phrases: N+N, Adj + N, V + Adv)
2. a) paradigmatic syntax.= (studies variation of one and the same sentence).
b) syntagmatic syntax (=syntax)
6.According to O. Akhmanova: Mорфема (морфологическая единица) (=связанная форма) – Наименьшая, (предельная, неделимая далее без потери данного качества) и регулярно воспроизводимая согласно моделям данного языка единица системы выражения, непосредственно соотносимая с соответствующим ей элементом системы содержания (семемой).
Morpheme is the smallest, ultimate, further indivisible (without the loss of the given quality) unit of the plane of expression (ПВ), regularly reproduced in accordance with the patterns of the given language and directly correlated with the unit of the plane of content (ПС) corresponding to it.
(Инвариант :: вариант)..Введем понятие систематизированного контекста.
«Инвариантное значение формы вытекает из обозначаемого действия к точке отсчета и обнаруживается в минимальном контексте, включающем только главные члены предложения и, возможно, дополнение первое.
Варианты значения возникают только при наличии определенного типа контекста, обычно обстоятельственных членов предложения, который мы называем систематизированным контекстом… Систематизированный контекст чрезвычайно важен именно для глагола-сказуемого, представляющего собой динамический центр предложения» [Иванова И.П.-С.53-54].
Lecture 3
The word and its morphemic structure. Types and kinds of morphemes.
Morphology as a part of grammar deals with the morphemic structure of words and their classes or parts of speech. The word is the largest unit of morphology. According to A. Smirnitsky, the morpheme is the smallest linear language unit possessing the most essential properties of a language unit, viz.: an outer form and some inner content or = meaning.
The notion of the morpheme includes the root of the word and its affixes: prefixes, suffixes and inflexions.
Morphemes may be classified according to the two main principles:
1) In accordance with the mode of their functioning morphemes may be free and bound. The free morphemes are also called “word-morphemes”, they may function as separate words. The auxiliary verbs, modal and link-verbs and postpositives (up, out, of) are free morphemes or word-morphemes.
The bound morphemes include inflexions and all the word-building morphemes, + inner inflexions and zero morphemes.
The inner inflexion is a vowel or a consonant change within a word to signal a grammatical meaning, e.g. a vowel change in the opposition ”foot” [fu:t] vs “feet [fi:t]” is an inner inflexion to signal the plural number.
The zero morpheme or the meaningful absence of the inflexion in the word form “boy”, is a zero signal of singular number, common case.
2) In accordance with their meaning, morphemes may be classified into:
a) Lexical morphemes (= root morphemes). [These are roots of notional words. They coincide in form with underived words, e.g.: boy, nice, go] ; b) Lexico-grammatical morphemes; c) Purely grammatical morphemes.
b) Lexico-grammatical morphemes may be free and bound. Derivational suffixes and prefixes are bound morphemes as they cannot be used separately from the root of the word. Modal verbs, link-verbs, postpositives (up, off, out) are free morphemes. Lexico-grammatical morphemes may change a part of speech (to teach – teacher). They possess lexical meaning though it is a much less concrete than the lexical meaning of purely lexical morphemes, e.g. the lexical meaning of the prefix “re-“ is “to do something anew” (to write – to rewrite).
c) Purely grammatical morphemes may also be free and bound. Auxiliary verbs are usually free grammatical morphemes, while inflexions are the bound ones.
Bound grammatical morphemes are deprived of any lexical meaning of their own, they express only grammatical meanings (of tense, case, voice) and thus express some morphological categories. E.g.: the grammatical morpheme –s in verbs represents the grammatical categories of number, person.
Inner morphemes are also referred to bound grammatical morphemes. If the existence of the zero-morpheme is admitted, it will be one more bound grammatical morpheme. Zero-morphemes are “suprasegmental morphemes” just like word-stress is a suprasegmental word-building morpheme (E.g.: to ex’port (v) – ‘export (n). According to Prof. M.Y. Blokh, discontinuous grammatical morphemes of the kind: (has …en) may be called semi-bound morphemes.
There are also morphs and allomorphs. In speech morphs exist in the form of allomorphs. According to Prof. L.S. Barkhudarov, a statistically predominant variant of a morpheme should be called a morph, (e.g. –ed and –d are two allomorphs of the same grammatical morpheme but the allomorph –ed is the statistically predominant variant of the morpheme (i.e. a morph).
There are synthetic and analytical grammatical forms. Synthetic forms are such word-forms in which the lexical and the grammatical morphemes are synthesized in one word, e.g. boy-s. Analytical forms of the word are those which consist of a root morpheme and one or more grammatical word-morphemes, e.g.: we shall go.
There are also suppletive grammatical forms, i.e. forms built of different roots, e.g.: go-went.
Some morphemes are homonymic: the grammatical morpheme –s may express the grammatical meaning of plural number (for nouns), or the meaning of the third person, singular (for verbs).
Some morphemes are polysemantic: they express several grammatical meanings at a time, e.g.: the inflexion –s in the word-form “he read-s” signals the meanings of
a) singularity; b) third person; c) common aspect; d) indicative mood; e) non-perfect.
Lecture 4
Principles of classification of words into parts of speech
The words of a language, depending upon various 1) semantic 2) formal and 3) functional (on the level of the Sentence and word-combination) criteria are divided into grammatical classes (sets) traditionally called parts of speech.
Grammatical combinability of words in word-combinations is also considered.
1) The criterion of meaning (=semantic criterion) presupposes the evaluation of the general implicit lexico-grammatical meaning (i.e. the meaning of “thingness”, substance for nouns, that of “action, process” for verbs) which is characteristic of all the words constituting a given part of speech.
2)The criterion of form presupposes some specific inflexional and word-building (=derivational) features of the words constituting a given part of speech. E.g. we can identify the noun by its derivational suffixes (-hood, - dom).
3) The functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of words in the sentence typical of this or that part of speech. E.g. the function of the noun is the function of a subject or object.
4) Grammatical combinability: E.g. the noun is characterised by its left-hand and right- hand combinability with verbs.
In accord with the above criteria the English words are classified into notional and functional ones (on the upper level of classification). On the lower level of classification words are classified into N, V, Prep., Conj., etc.
It is known that the distribution of words between parts of speech may differ with different authors, depending upon what criterion they take as the main guide. Thus, Henry Sweet, the author of the first scientific grammar of English, suggested the classification based only on the formal criterion. He classified English words into the Declinables (words capable of receiving word-changing inflexion: the N., the V., the Adj., some Pron.) and the Indeclinables (the Prep., the Conj., the Adv., the Interject).
H. Sweet’s classification is imperfect: he united essentially different words into one class. Thus, the adverbs (included into the Indeclinables) may be used in the function of a part of a sentence, while the Conj. cannot.
The modern linguistics has worked out another principle of word-class identification based on the syntactic principle only. This characterization is more important and universal because it shows the distribution of words between parts of speech (sets) in accord with their functional destination.
The principles of syntactic (syntactico-distributional) classification of English words were worked out by L. Bloomfield and his followers Z. Harris and especially Ch. Friez who classified words on the study of their combinability by means of substitution testing. As a result, he singled out 4 main “positions” of notional words in English sentences: those of the N, the position of the V, Adj, Adv. Words standing outside the position in the Sentence are function words which are subdivided by him into 15 groups totalling 154 words.
But Ch. Friez’s classification is very cumbersome and has some serious drawbacks.
There are also the classifications of G. Trager and H. Smith, O. Jespersen, H. Gleason, J. Sledd, W. Francis, Ch. Hockett (see Rayevska. MnE Grammar., 1976: 69-70).
Thus, only if we apply several principles of classification at a time we may achieve more or less reliable results.
Steblin –Kamensky M.I. once aptly put it: «Распределяя слова по частям речи, мы примерно делаем то же самое, как если бы суммируя то, что мы знаем о окружающих нас людях, сказали, что среди них есть блондины, есть математики, есть профессора, а есть и умные люди» (Спорное в языкознании. – Л., 1974. – С.21.)
(“Distributing words in accordance with parts of speech, we do nearly the same, when summing up what we know about the people surrounding us, we would say “that among them there are blond (fair-haired) people, mathematicians, professors but there are also clever people”).
Not all words of a language may be squeezed into the Procrustean bed of classifications. E.g. response words yes, no, the word please are out of the present-day classification into parts of speech.
Seminar
1.Корнеева, Кобрина и др. Пособие по морфологии английского языка. – М., 1974. – С.5-25. + Список лит.
2.Харитонов И. Теоретична граматика. + Список лит.
Lecture 5.
The Category of case of the E Noun.
(Look up: Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови) –P. 48-50
According to Ilyish B.A.(P. 41-42):
Case – is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things or properties, or actions and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself.
This category is expressed in E. by the opposition of the form -‘s, called the possessive case to the unfeatured form of the noun, called the common case.
The Category of case shows the relation of the thing(s) denoted by the noun to other things or objects and it should be manifested by some formal sign in (the form of) the noun itself.
Thus case is part of the morphological system of a language. We will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means.
Diagram:
Case:
Thing (denoted by the Noun) ---------à (relation) --------------à other things / objects.
This sign is almost always 1) an inflexion; or it may be 2) a “zero” sign. Absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another.
It is obvious that the minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence of two correlated elements at least is needed to establish a category.
Views on the problem of case differ widely.
1.The most usual view is that
1) there are two cases in the E. Noun: a common case (e.g.: father) :: a genitive / possessive case (: Father’s).
2) The number of cases is more than two ; (Max Deutschbein’s positional theory; Charles Fillmore’s theory of deep cases)
3) The number of cases is less than two; (Since 2 -1 = O). I.e. there are no cases at all in the E. Noun. (G. Vorontsova’s postpositional theory).
Theory № 2.
( > than 2)
The number of cases is more than two ;
We will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means: by prepositions (by the phrase “Prep. + Noun”), by word order. According to Max Deutschbein’s positional theory: In MnE. there are 4 cases: Nominative, genitive (‘s; of + N), dative (to+ N; & by word order), accusative (by word order).
Critique:
if we admit the above, the number of cases is bound to grow indefinitely, (this is the conclusion, academician Meshchaninov arrived at, Чл предложения и части речи p. 297). e.g.:
With the pen – instrumental; In the pen – a locative case.
This view would mean abandoning all idea of morphology and confusing form of a word with syntax.
Theory of deep cases.
Since 1960s theories have been put forward claiming that the semantic relationships borne by nominal parts of speech to verbs (N à V) make up a small, universal set. Charles J. Fillmore
(1968 Case Grammar; Case about case – НЛ № 10); Joyce Anderson. Localist Case Grammar (1971); Simon Dik. Functional Grammar (1978).
Charles J. Fillmore uses agentive, instrumental, dative, factitive, locative, objective. He called these “syntactic-semantic relations” cases. Fillmorean-type cases are called deep cases and traditional ones are surface cases.
Ch. J. Fillmore in his seminal (конструктивный) paper Case about case – НЛ № 10) proposed 6 cases, later – 7 cases. He called these “syntactic-semantic relations” cases, e.g.:
|
Patient – The bird ate the worm. Agent – The audience rose to their feet. Experiencer – They love music Destination – He turned to the house. Location – The vase is on the table.
|
Instrument – He got beaten up by a gang. Source – They got news from home Recipient - She gave her change to the collectors. Purpose – He went to the Peach pit for some take-away. ()
|
W.Chafe, V.Gak,I. Susov single out 7 cases, D. Lockwood -9 cases, V.V. Bogdanov – 14, N.N. Leontyeva – 50 cases.
Critique:
There are no agreed criteria & no consensus on the universal inventory of deep cases.
Charles J. Fillmore’s case grammar has fallen into disrepute because no-one has been able to produce a de’finitive (окончательный) list of semantic roles. But the notion of semantic roles
is embraced by a number of major theories e.g.: Government and Binding and Lexical Functional Grammar.
Theory № 3.
(2 – 1 =0)
There are certain phenomena which give doubts about the existence of such a 2 case system, about the form in ‘s being a case form at all. Here are some examples to illustrate the point:
|
1.The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s speech -речь канцлера казначейства. 2.Oxford professor of poetry’s lecture. 3.The Duke of Edinburg’s residence. 4. The son of Pharaoh’s daughter is the daughter of Pharaoh’s son. 5. Jim laughs but the stalker ahead’s (гордо шествующий) comment is “What bad taste!” |
7.The girl I was dancing with’s name was Jane (a phrase=N + attributive clause) 8.Smith and Brown’s office 9. In the Sunday times I have been reading that fellow’s what’s his name’s attacks. 10.And there’d have been no success, no nothing but another stage-struck girl’s stage finish. |
|
6 He called all curses of all Gods – upon the man (который) had hurled him out (энергично отправил) to dinner’s head. (=the man’s head). |
|
1.Here we can see that the inflexion –s can be attached not only to nouns, but to other parts of speech, and even to clauses.
2.Besides, –‘s form can denote not only THE RELATION OF POSSESSSION, but also the relation of locality (Kiev’s inhabitants);
the relation of distance (to have a mile’s walk),
subjective genitive (my father’s arrival à my father arrived),
objective genitive (Doughty’s famous trial and execution àDoughty was tried and executed). Due to the fact that the ‘s belongs to a phrase (= N + attributive clause),
G.Vorontsova holds (считает, полагает) the –‘s to be a syntactical formant, a postposition (= particle). «Формант –‘s подобен предлогу, способному отстоять от ведущего существительного на некотором расстоянии. Если предлог возглавляет конструкцию, то формант –‘s ее замыкает. Но оба они оформляют зависимость члена предожения , в состав которого входят. Следовательно, –‘s не часть формы слова, чисто синтаксический формант, функционально сходный с предлогом, но в постпозиции, почему его и следует обозначить термином «послелог». Г. Воронцова. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. – М., 1960. – С.181)
3.Since the –‘s can belong to a phrase it is no longer a case inflection even when it belongs to a single noun. An essential argument in favour of this view is that both the form with and without –‘s, can perform the same syntactic functions, e.g.: My father was a happy man; :: My father’s was a happy life.
In the constructions like “at the stationer’s”, “at the baker’s” the ending –‘s is considered to be a word-building suffix, a lexicalized inflexion.
|
According to B. Ilyish, Cases 2 & 3 lead to the conclusion that there are no cases in the MnE noun. The only case ending to survive in MnE, has developed into an element of a different character - possibly a particle denoting possession (p. 45). According to G.Vorontsova, Due to the fact that the ‘s belongs to a phrase (= N + attributive clause), G.Vorontsova holds (считает, полагает) the –‘s is a syntactical formant, a postposition (= particle). According to Blokh M.Ya., the inflexional case of the noun in MnE has ceased to exist.In its place a new peculiar 2-case system has developed based on the particle expression of the Genitive falling into 2 segmental types: the word Genitive (John’s book) & the phrase Genitive (King of France’s arrival ) |
Critique:
Such examples (as are G.Vorontsova’s type) statistically are very rare and far between. So, in E. there are 2 morphological cases.
Lecture 6
The Noun. The Category of number.
The Category of number is expressed by such forms of the noun which formally signal whether the speaker means one object or more than one, the inflexion –s being such a signal. It is based on a two-member (binary) opposition of the singular number vs the plural number. As a rule only countable nouns can be used in the plural form.
There are some non-productive ways of expressing the singular - plural opposition.
a) Nouns with vowel interchange (man-men);
b) Nouns with the archaic suffix –en in the plural (ox-oxen);
c) Nouns of Latin, Greek or French origin (stratum-0strata);
d) The plural form of the N is homogeneous with the singular form (sheep, swine, deer, fish).
In MnE there is a big group of nouns, not subject to number variations. They are Singularia Tantum nouns (advice, police, foliage) and Pluralia Tantum nouns (scissors, trousers, goods). They are out of the grammatical category of number because there is no opposition of at least two grammatical forms. Such nouns lack the other member of the opposition “singularia against the plural”. We know if there is no opposition a grammatical category cannot exist.
(Alexeyeva, p.40):The opposition of singular and plural numbers can be neutralized due to the fact that:
1) singular nouns may be used to express plural: to have a keen eye; blue of eye; strong of muscle. This is stylistic transposition that exemplifies synechdoche - the simplest case of metonymy in grammar.
2) the plural form may express size differentiation (heavens, sands, woods), defined as stylistic usage for the sake of picturesqueness, as well as various types of the referent (wines, teas, cheeses), intensity of the presentation “class - subclass” (fish-fishes, fruit-fruits).
The extreme point of this semantic scale is marked by lexicalization of the plural form, e.g.: colour (=tint) – colours (=flag); сustom (habit) – сustoms (duties).
Some scholars distinguish the third member of the number opposition. They claim that the meaning of collective nouns may presuppose either a plurality or a unit and they may be followed by verbs either in plural or in singular, viz.: the govt has approved it; & the govt are unlikely to work out a solution.
Some scholars call these nouns doubly countables. The double-sidedness of collective nouns weakens the number opposition in English (Раевська, 1967).
+ p.41.
(Ganshina, p.21): Pl. identical in form with the singular:
Nouns partly survivals of OE plurals, viz.:
some sorts of fish: trout, cod, pike, salmon.
Names indicating number: dozen pair, couple, score (=20).
After many and few both forms are found e.g.:
so many pair of wings, a great many pairs of gloves;
a few scores of heads; 5 score of eggs; three dozen of shirts;
Lecture 7.
The Category of gender of the Noun.
[Alexeyeva, (p.37-38)].
In any language the category of gender must be strictly oppositional. It should consist of at least 2 members of the opposition. The opposition presupposes that a noun may be classified as belonging either to masculine or feminine or neuter.
In R., U. Latin, Old Greek & German there are 3 genders: m, f. & n. In Arabic, French & Italian there are 2 genders: m. & f. In the above languages the purely grammatical gender is a formal feature of nouns.
The morphological category of gender had disappeared from English by the end of the ME period. What has survived the time is the possibility of lexical indication of the biologicasl sex. These are purely lexical or derivational means, e.g.: boy – girl; cock – hen; bull – cow; (These are cases of supplitivity); + lion – lioness; waiter – waitress; he-goat – she- goat.
Replacement of nouns by the pronouns, marking the biological sex (he, she), or the inanimate nature (it) may be interpreted by the proponents of the gender category in English as an argument in favour of their position.
In this case the pronominal property of gender differentiation (he-goat – she- goat.) is obviously transferred onto nouns that lack this property. Moreover, the choice between he she, it is also lexically determined and is not related to grammar. Such a noun as dog may be substituted either for “he or she, or it” and here the key factor will be the speaker’s subjective attitude to the dog.
Similar subjective attitude may turn inanimate nouns into he or she. This kind of personification is either a stylistic device or an everyday language phenomenon regulated by cultural-historical traditions. Cf. in English:
The reference of she with the names of countries, vehicles, weaker animals; & The reference of he with the names of weaker animals; phenomena suggesting crude strength and fierceness.
What test can be used to prove the existence of gender in a language? The grammatical gender of a noun requires corresponding agreement of verbs, adjectives, pronouns and articles, accompanying the noun. E.g.: мальчик сказал; девочка сказала; большое окно; большой дом; большая дорога =a big window/house; a boy/ a girl said; он сделал; она сделала; оно сделало.
No such processes are observed in English. Thus, In English there is no grammatical gender.
It seems justified to restrict the term “gender” to the languages that have precise and mutually exclusive noun classes marked by clear formal markers.
N.B. The current tendency to avoid gender suffixes (-ess, -ette, -woman, - man, -lady, -lord) decreases the number of words with “lexical gender”. Words denoting professions are replaced by neologisms with no sex indication e.g.:
|
1.Cameraman – videographer; Camera-operator; 2.Policeman – police officer; 3.Chairman – chair. |
4.Stewardess – flight attendant;
|
Thus, In English there is no grammatical gender.
Lecture ¾
Semantic and grammatical peculiarities of the English verb. (Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови) –P.51-54
Lecture 8
The category of aspect.
Aspect is a verbal grammatical category showing the way in which the action develops (Прибыток И.И., с. 86).
В.Д.Аракин: Категория вида – такая лексико-грамматическая категория, которая передает характеристику протекания действия или процесса, обозначенного глаголом, - повторяемость, длительность, многократность, мгновенность действия или результативность, не/завершенность или предельность, то есть отношение действия к его внутреннему пределу (С.121).
There are 2 sets of forms in the MnE verb which are contrasted with each other on the principle of use or non-use of the pattern “be + Participle I”:
Writes :: is writing
Has written :: has been writing
Will write:: will be writing
Wrote:: will be writing
These two sets of forms clearly belong to the same verb write. What is the basic difference between writes and is writing? The definition of the meaning of is writing given in different grammar books, is that it denotes an action proceeding continuously at a definite period of time, within certain time limits.
On the other hand, Writes denotes an action not thus limited, but either occurring repeatedly or everlasting, without any notion of lasting duration at a given moment.
The basic difference between the 2 sets of forms appears to be this: an action going on continuously during a given period of time, and an action not thus limited and not described by the very form of the verb as proceeding in such a manner.
How should this essential difference in meaning between the two sets of forms be described?=It is a difference in the way the action is shown to proceed.
This is the grammatical notion described as the category of aspect with reference to the Slavonic languages and to Old Greek in which the category is clearly expressed.
According to O. Akhmanova: Вид – грамматическая категория глагола, обозначающая особые свойства глагола, характер протекания данного процесса, т.е. в его отношении к внутреннему пределу, результату, длительности, повторяемости и т.д.
AS IS WELL KNOWN not all verbs are commonly used in the form of “be + Participle I”. Verbs denoting a) abstract relations (e.g. belong), b) sense perception or C) emotion ((e.g. see, hear, hope, love, like, fear) seldom appear in this form.
But examples are there:e.g.: It was as if she were seeing herself for the first time.
What is meant here is a sense perception (were seeing) going on (involuntarily) for some time. It is not a momentaneous action. The form “be + Participle I” is very appropriate here.
Some more examples.
Both were visibly hearing every word of the conversation and ignoring it at the same time.
(Let’s replace indefinite forms in the following variant: Both visibly heard every word of the conversation and ignored it at the same time). The descriptive character of the original text has disappeared after the substitution.
Mr. March was looking absent and somber again. (A temporary state of things is meant).
The two aspects dwelt above may be described by the terms common aspect and continuous aspect.
DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS
O. Jespersen treated the type is writing as a means of expressing limited duration. O. Jespersen, H. Sweet deny the existence of the category of aspect. They look upon continuous forms as tense forms. If it were so, continuous forms would represent a unity of two tenses:
present & Continuous in Present Continuous;
Past & Continuous in Past Continuous;
Future & Continuous in Future Continuous;
But we know that no grammatical form exists that could combine in itself two meanings of the same grammatical category.
2.A similar view by prof. Irtenyeva, who thinks that the basic meaning of the type
is writing is that of a simultaneity of an action with another action. These views are plausible for some cases for a complex clause when is writing in the subordinate clause and writes in the main clause. This can only be found when the narration refers to the past time e.g. Once she was in the car and Andrew was bending over her, her sense of freedom left her.
But the view propounded by these authors does not fit in with the use of the present
is writing which is never used in a complex sentence of that structure. In sentences with the present tenses like e.g.: What is he doing? He is reading. - there is no other action with which is writing could be simultaneous or to which it might be a time frame. Prof. Irtenyeva says that in such a case the action expressed by the is writing type is simultaneous with the act of speech (Irtenyeva N.F. Грамматика англ языка, 1956, с. 83).
But the act of speech is not mentioned in the speech. Besides, simultaneity with the act of speech is the definition of the present tense and not of the type is writing as such. Thus this view which does not take into account the category of aspect does not appear to be convincing.
3)Prof. I. Ivanova recognizes the existence of the category of aspect in English, but treats it in a peculiar way. According to Prof. I. Ivanova, the form is writing is an aspect form of the continuous aspect but writes is not an aspect form at all. She calls it a purely tense form.
Concerning this view it must be said that it agrees with the view put forward above: The distinction between writes and is writing is a distinction of aspect. But Prof. I. Ivanova denies the existence of common aspect. This seems rather a difference of wording than of essence. No aspect seems something like another version of common aspect.
The difficulty of formulating the meaning of the common aspect is one more case of distinction between a marked and non-marked member of an opposition.
The continuous aspect is marked both in meaning and in form (be+ P I), whereas the common aspect is non-marked both in meaning and in form. Thus the theory of common and continuous aspect may be upheld.
Аракин В.Д. (С.125), +Жигадло, Иофик, Иванова И.П. consider that the category of aspect forms an inseparable whole with the category of tense.
считают, что вида как особой грамматической категории в англ языке – нет. Как длительный, так и перфектный разряд не является видовым, а лишь имеет грамматическое значение вида, тесно переплетающееся с категорией времени, которая рассматривается как ведущая в этой системе.
But the majority of linguists consider that despite this, the grammatical categories of tense and aspect can and should be separated.
3)V.D. Arakin (Сравнительная типология англ и русского языков. – М., 1989. – С.121-122) completely denies the existence of the category of aspect in English.
Система видов в русском языке имеет свой отличительный признак – наличие соотносительных пар глаголов в совершенном и несовершенном виде, которые образуют соотносительные ряды форм, пронизывающих всю систему глагольных форм при тождестве их лексического значения, например: носить – нести; давать-дать;
Почти каждый глагол в английском языке может принимать как форму общего вида, так и форму длительного вида. Иными словами, глаголы в английском языке соотносительных пар не образуют. (с.125).
The majority of linguists speak of two aspects in English: continuous and non- continuous (=common aspect).
The continuous aspect is marked both in form (‘be + Participle I’) & in meaning (it represents an action in its development).
The non-continuous aspect is unmarked both in form (no characteristic pattern ‘be + Participle I’) & in meaning (it represents an action as simply occurring with no reference to its duration).
I.B. Khlebnikova draws the conclusion that the opposition of continuous vs non-continuous aspects can be qualified as a privative opposition one member of which is characterized by the presence of a certain feature, the other – by the absence of the same FEATURE feature.
Since the relations between the members of the privative opposition of aspect are not polar but isomorphous, i.e. have points of conti’guity (соприкосновения), the opposition of aspect can be neutralized on the syntagmatic axis.
According to the rules of neutralization, the unmarked non-continuous aspect finds itself in the position of neutralization, because it has a more general meaning and no specific formal exponent.
Thus neutralization of duration are those case when the Pres. Ind. is used instead of the Pres. Cont. in describing the things that happen (in stage remarks): e.g.:
Smith passes to Webster and Webster shoots and it’s a goal!
But neutralization of duration is more common on the axis of the past. Cf.:
In the case of non-terminative verbs:
They were dancing while he was playing the guitar – no neutralization.
They danced while he was playing the guitar – partial neutralization.
They were dancing while he played the guitar – partial neutralization.
They danced while he played the guitar – complete neutralization.
=Aspect neutralization is typical of non-terminative verbs.
With terminative verbs aspect neutralization is impossible for it brings about a change of meaning. Cf.:
We were meeting them at the concert hall, but we didn’t know which entrance tghey were waiting at. (were meeting = describes an arranged action that was about to take place at some late time).
I met her at the bus stop this morning. (met = an action that took place in the past). Lecture 9.
The category of tense.
The category of tense may be defined as a verbal category which reflects the objective category of time and expresses on this background the relations between time of the action and the time of the utterance.
The main divisions of the objective time are three: past, present and future. However tense systems of different languages are far from identical.
The diapason of grammatical meanings differentiating meanings of time within the cxategory of tense i.e the number of tenses is great: from 16 to two.
1) 16 tenses.
1) Attribution of different meanings to all 16 tense forms is a stage left in history a long time ago from which only names of these verb forms have survived.
At present they represent tenses as an 8-, 7-, 6-, 4-, 3- and 2- tense system.
2) 8 tense system
3)8 tense system by Prof. I. P. Ivanova (Вид и время в современном английском языке. – Л., 1961 & В.Н. Жигадло, И.П. Иванова, Л.Л. Иофик. Современный английский язык. Теоретический курс грамматики.- М., 1956.).
8 tense system was propounded by Prof. Ivanova. The idea of a temporal center lies in the basis of her tenses system model. By the temporal center she understands the moments of the Past and Future with which directly are correlated the actions expressed by the Past and Future tense forms. The introduction of the concept of a temporal center brought about the idea of the system which includes independent and dependent elements.
Independent elements are represented by all the Present tenses, because all of them are correlated with the moment of speech, + The Future and the Past Indefinite forms which are also directly connected with the moment of speech.
But the Past Indefinite is at the same time a dependent member. It becomes dependent when it is used as a dependent Past in the rules of the Sequence of tenses. All the rest of the tense forms are dependent forms because they are correlated with only their temporal centers. Their connection with the moment of speech is indirect.
Thus, the dependent Past forms include:
The Past Continuous, Past perfect, Past perfect Continuous, all the Future-in-the –Past forms because their temporal center lies in the past.
Dependent Future forms include:
The Future Continuous, Future Perfect, Future Perfect Continuous forms directly related with the temporal center of the Future.
The introduction of the idea of the “temporal center” made it possible to represent the category of tense as an 8-tense system.
Criticism
According to B.A. Ilyish, in the 8 tense system propounded by Prof. Ivanova, The Fut-Ind-in –the –Past, The Fut-Cont-in –the –Past, The Fut-Perfect-in –the –Past, The Fut-Perfect -Continuous-in –the –Past do not easily fit into the system of tenses represented by a straight line running out of the past into the future. With reference to these tenses it may be said that the past is a new center of the system. The idea of temporal centers propounded by Prof. Ivanova as an essential element of the English tense system seems fully justified in analyzing the Future-in-the –past tenses.
Criticism by Korneeva E.E (Пособие по морфологии современного английского языка. - М., 1964):
However, Ivanova’s category of tense model is also vulnerable in the way that the principle of introducing temporal centers has not been brought to the logical end. This principle being properly applied, it would be required to introduce one more temporal center – the temporal center of the Future-in-the-Past (or that of depedent Future). The point is that the actions expressed by the Future-Continuous-in-the Past, Future Perfect-in-the-Past, Future Perfect Continuous-in-the-Past forms are as a matter of fact, directly connected with a special temporal center, and only through the medium of it they are connected with the temporal center of the Past, which is directly connected with the moment of speech.
In this way, this model includes not one but two degrees of dependence.
4) prof. Irtenyeva N.F.
4) According to prof. Irtenyeva N.F. the system of English tenses is divided into 2 halves: that of tenses centering in the present, and that of tenses centering in the past.
|
Tenses centering in the present |
Tenses centering in the past |
|
The present Indefinite, the present perfect, Present Continuous Present Perfect Continuous Future
|
The Past Indefinite, The Past Perfect, The Future -in- the- Past The Past Continuous The Past Perfect Continuous.
|
The right-hand half is characterized by specific features: a) the root vowel (e.g. sang vs sing);
b) the suffix –d (or -t) : (e.g. looked, had sung, would sing.
This view has much to recommend it. It has the advantage of reducing the usual threefold division of tenses (past, present and future) to a twofold division (past and present). However the cancellation of the Future as a tense in its own right (по праву) would seem to require a more detailed justification.
5) 6 tense systems
5) A. Korsakov (The use of tenses in English. – Lvov, 1969) propounded
a 6 tense system. He establishes a system of absolute and anterior tenses (=are what we call tenses of perfect correlation), and of static and dynamic tenses (=are what we call tenses of the continuous aspect).
Tenses here represent a linear system , the components of which reflect not only 3
natural phases of time (Past, present and future), but they are also represented in a more detailed fashion. Besides the above meanings they convey also the so-called before-present, before-past and before- future. This model does not give room to the Future-in-the –Past.
The evaluation of this system in its relation to other views provided by Korneeva and Kobrina et alia is as follows:
From the theoretical point of view this model is of no interest because it ignores the facts of language directly connected with the problem under consideration but which do not go in the Procrustean bed of the model’s framework, they are forcefully fitted or adapted to produce conformity
6) 3-tenses systems
6) A 3-tenses system (Present, Past, Future) was worked out by A.I. Smirnitski (Морфология английского языка. – М., 1959. – С. 332-341). He considered that Future-in-the –Past forms are conditional mood forms and not tense forms. 1) According to A.I. Smirnitski: In their meaning we can see a certain similarity which provides grounds for identifying their categorical appurtenance.2) From the purely formal point of view Future-in-the –Past forms are absolutely identical with the Cnditional mood forms.
In this case the arguments put forward by Smirnitski are unconvincing, and weak.
6a) B.A. Ilyish (The Structure of MnE. – L., 1971. –P 93), most likely, regarded the system of English tenses as a 3-tenses system. His attitude to the Future –in –the –Past is not clear. Is it included into this system or is it left out beyond the system but is connected with it as a part of a more general system was left unanswered.
7) 2 –tense systems.
6) A 2 tense system by O. Jespersen (The philosophy of grammar, p. 50).
In 1924 Some doubts were expressed about the existence of the Future tense by O. Jespersen (The philosophy of grammar, p. 50) who
denied the existence of a future tense in English because it is expressed by the phrase “shall/will + Infinitive”. According to O. Jespersen shall and will preserve some of their original modal meanings (shall – an element of obligation and will - an element of volition). Thus, According to O. Jespersen, English has no way of expressing pure futurity.
Other 2 –tense systems.
Attempts to represent the English system of tenses as a strictly dichotomous one are characteristic for L.S. Barkhudarov (who denied the existence of a future tense and future-in-the-past tense in English either), V. F. Mauler.
L.S. Barkhudarov
L.S. Barkhudarov (Очерки по морфологии совр англ языка. – М., 1975. –С.126-128) gives the following arguments of “shall/will + Inf“ being modal and not an analytical form.
1) combination “shall/will + Inf“ formally does not differ from “can +Inf”, “may+ Inf”. It is impossible to single out a grammatical form, relying only on the meaning, if this meaning does not have a special form of expression. But according to their meaning
“shall/will + Inf“ cannot be separated from other modal constructions. Verbs shall/will
always retain modal meanings.
2)The meaning of the Future tense is not always expressed by “shall/will + Inf“. There are many different ways of expressing futurity: - (The train is leaving in 5 minutes.
I am going to help you. I can do it to-morrow).
In this way “shall/will + Inf“ are different from Perfect or Cntinuous forms which are the only way of expressing the corresponding meanings.
3) Combinations “shall/will + Inf“ do not fit the above definition of analytical forms. They are based on discontinuous morphemes.
4) A strong argument against “shall/will + Inf“ being analytical forms is the existence of Future in the Past (= should/would + Inf). One and the same form cannot BELONG to two tenses simultaneously (future and past).
Conclusion: So in English there is no categorical form of the Future.
V.F. Mauler
V.F. Mauler (L.S. Barkhudarov’s post-graduate student) In his doctoral, basing on 40 000 strong sampling for shall/will + Inf showed that only in 5 % of shall usages, shall realized its temporal meaning of Futurity, while in 95% of cases it was modal.
So in English there is no categorical form of the Future.
The idea that in English there are 2 tenses was expressed by:
M. Joos. The English verb.- UWP, 1964;
F.R. Palmer. A linguistic study of the English verb. –L., 1965;
A. Hill. Introduction to linguistic structures. 1958.
O. Jespersen. The Phylosophy of grammar.
NB!
A morphological opposition is a contrast of two morphological units possessing a ground for comparison and a basis for distinction.
In the category of tense we have two oppositions: 1) present vs past and 2) present vs future. The ground for comparison in these oppositions is the relation to the present moment. The present tense includes the present moment. The past tense excludes the present moment. The future tense excludes the present moment.
Each member of tense oppositions has a specific form. The present tense is homonymous with the base of the verb [in the 3rd pers. sing. the inflexion –(e)s is added]; The past tense has the dental suffix –(e)d; The future tense is formed by means of the word will+ Inf.
Since all the members of tense oppositions are characterized by their own specific meaning and form, tense oppositions are referred by I.B. Khlebnikova to equipollent oppositions.(p.85).
Lecture10.
The category of Perfect.
Among the various views on the essence of the Perfect forms in MnE the following 4 main trends should be mentioned:
1.The category of Perfect is a peculiar (специфический, особенный) tense category like present or past (H.Sweet, O. Jespersen, M. Ganshina & N. Vasilevskaya).
2. It is a peculiar aspect category (G. Vorontsova). She described it as retrospective, resultative, successive (G. Vorontsova, +R.Quirk, D. Biber).
3. Perfect is a part of tense-aspect system (V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Iofic).
4. It is neither tense, nor aspect, but a specific category different from both.(Smirnitsky)
It is the category of time correlation (Smirnitsky). It is the category of phase (M. Joos).
I.Can the Perfect be a tense category? We must consider its relaions to the Past, Present and Future.
NB. In MnE there are forms of Present Perfect, Past Perfect, Future Perfect. That Present, past and Future are tense categories is firmly established.
a) Now if the Perfect were a tense category, the Present Perfect would be a union of 2 different tenses – the Present and the Perfect.
B) The Past Perfect would be likewise a union of 2 different tenses – the Past and the Perfect.
c) The Future Perfect would be likewise a union of 2 different tenses – The Future and the Perfect.
If a form belongs to a tense category (say, the Present), it cannot simultaneously belong to another tense category since 2 categories in 1 form collide and destroy each other. So, the view that the Perfect is a special tense category has been disproved (опровергнут).
II. To find out whether the Perfect can be an aspect category we must consider its relations to the aspects already established: the Common and the Continuous Aspects.
We need only to recollect that in MnE there are such pairs as:
|
Is writing – has been writing
|
PresentContinuous::Present Perfect Continuous |
|
Was writing – had been writing
|
Past Continuous :: Past Perfect Continuous
|
|
Will be writing – will have been writing |
FutureContinuous:: Future Perfect Continuous.
|
All these forms belong to the continuous Aspect, If Perfect forms were aspect forms we would have two aspects in Perfect Continuous forms. So the difference between them cannot be based on any aspect category. They cannot be said to differ on an aspect line. Otherwise they would at the same time belong to one aspect and to different aspects. It has been postulated that one grammatical form cannot express several grammatical meanings of the same grammatical category.
Hence, the conclusion is unavoidable that the perfect is not an Aspect.
III. So the Perfect then is bound to be some special grammatical category different from both tense and from aspect. This view was formulated by A.I. Smirnitsky in a posthumous article «Перфект и категория временной отнесенности» (ИЯ в школе, 1955, № 2).
Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky called this new category as “the category of time correlation”.
The opposition in such pairs as:
|
a)Writes – has written wrote - had written will write – will have written
|
b) is writing – has been writing was writing - had been writing will be writing - will have been writing
|
Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky proposed to denote by the terms Non-Perfect:: Perfect. But the definition of the meaning of the category presents some difficulty.
Its essence appears to be precedence: an action expressed by a Perfect form precedes some moment in time.
The opposition between Perfect :: Non-Perfect forms is shown to be that between marked and unmarked item. The Perfect forms are marked both in meaning (denoting precedence) and in morphological characteristics (have + P II).
The non-perfect forms are unmarked both in meaning (precedence is not implied) and in morphological characteristics (the collocation have + P II- is not used).
If this view is taken, the system of the verbal categories illustrated by the forms:
Present: writes, is writing, has written, has been writing
Past: wrote, was writing, had written, had been writing
Future: will write, will be writing, will have written, will have been writing
is based on 3 groups of notions, viz.:
tense (present::past:: future) - e.g. writes, wrote, will write
aspect (common :: continuous) - e.g. writes, is writing,
correlation (non-perfect:: Perfect.) - e.g: wrote, had written
The aspect and correlation are double or di’chotomic oppositions, while the tense opposition is triple or tri’chotomic [trai’kotomik].
Secondly, 2 oppositions may occur together.
a)Thus in writes :: was written there are tense and aspect simultaneously.
b) between wrote :: will have written there are simultaneously the oppositions of tense and correlation;
c) between wrote :: had been writing there are simultaneously the oppositions of aspect and correlation;
d) all 3 oppositions may occur together between writes :: had been writing. There are simultaneously the oppositions of tense, aspect and correlation.
It stands to reason, one opposition can be shown on a line, 2 oppositions can be represented on a plane, 3 oppositions can be represented in the shape of a 3-dimensional solid – a paralle’lepiped [,perele’lepiped][‘pere,lele’paiped].
The American linguist M. Joos calls Perfect a grammatical category of phase.
a) The non-Perfect phase shows that the action and its effect are in one phase, e.g.:
When she was young she lived in a small flat.
b) The Perfect phase shows that the action and its effect are in different phases, e.g.:
She had already left when I got home.
Formally (PF=ПВ), the opposition of perfect :: non-perfect phases is a privative opposition. The Perfect phase is based on the pattern ‘have + Participle II’, The non-Perfect phase lacks this pattern. But if we consider meaning [=PC (=ПС)], we shall see that both members are logically equall which is characteristic of equipollent oppositions:
The non-Perfect phase expresses simultaneity, The Perfect phase expresses priority. That is why I.B. Khlebnikova qualifies the opposition built up by The Perfect & The non-Perfect phases as equipollento-privative.
Lecture 11
The category of Voice
There are 2 main definitions of the Voice.
1) The category of voice expresses the relation between the subject and the action.2)The category of voice expresses the relation between the subject and the object.
The category of voice in MnE is based on a binary opposition between active and passive. This has never been disputed by anybody. But views may differ concerning other voices. This opposition may be illustrated by a number of parallel forms involving different categories of aspect, tense, correlation & mood, e.g.:
Invites – is invited
Is inviting - is being invited
Invited - was invited
Has Invited - Has been Invited
Should invite – Should be invited
From the point of view of form, the passive voice is the marked member of the opposition. Its characteristic is the pattern “be+P II”. The active voice is unmarked. Its characteristic is the absence of that pattern.
The active voice signals that the action denoted by the predicate verb is performed by the referent of the grammatical subject of the sentence and passes onto the referent of the grammatical object. In symbolic notation it is: S à O.
The passive voice expresses reception of the action by the referent of the grammatical subject. In symbolic notation it is: S ß O.
The problem of Voice is connected with that of in/transitive verbs.
In MnE the passive voice is used much more often than in Russian since not only transitive but many intransitive (+ prepositional) objective verbs can be used in the passive voice:
E.g. They admired her à She was admired (by them).
They laughed at him à He was laughed at.
With the verbs capable of taking 2 grammatical objects at a time the speaker can put any of the objects in the position of the subject of the corresponding passive sentence, e.g.:
I gave the book to the boy à1) A book was given to the boy. 2) The boy was given a book.
However, Some forms of the active voice find no parallel in the passive: viz. the forms of the Future Continuous, Pr /Past / Future Perfect Continuous (e.g. will be inviting, has been inviting, had been inviting, will have been inviting).
There some non-passivisable verbs which find no parallel in the passive, e.g: cost, belong, resemble.
In MnE even AN ADVERBIAL MODIFIER OF PLACE of an active construction sometimes may become the grammatical subject of a passive construction, e.g.: Nobody lived in the house àthe house was not lived in.
Not all grammatical forms of the “ be + P. II” pattern may be treated as passive forms. Sometimes they represent the compound nominal predicate in the active voice, e.g.:
1.The window was broken at the moment. (Here the P. II has become an adjective. This is the compound nominal predicate).
2. The window was broken by a boy. (this is a simple verbal predicate, passive )
In the above examples we observe the phenomenon of the neutralization of the opposition (difference) between the morphological form of the passive voice and the syntactical form of the compound nominal predicate with the pure link-verb “to be”. Only a living context can de-neutralize the categorical status of the predicate in such cases, i.e. show whether the predicate is a simple verbal predicate or a compound nominal predicate
Thus the context may have both the “voice-suppressing”, “statalizing” effect and “voice-stimulating” or “processualizing” effect (see Blokh, 1983). As a rule, action-modifying adverbials, prepositional objects serve as “contextual stimulators”, also some forms of the predicate-verb itself, viz.: the Fut., Cont., and Perfect forms because they denote actions, not states.
The big problem is the problem of the existence of the so-called medial voices, voices other than the active or passive voice. In addition, the following 3 voices have been suggested:
1.the reflexive Voice: (he dressed himself; he found himself in darkness – here the subject is at the same time its own object of the action. In symbolic representation: SPO)
2. the reciprocal (they greeted each other)
If we recognize the forms of the reflexive and reciprocal voice, then we must treat the reflexive and reciprocal pronouns as voice auxiliaries (i.e. as word-morphemes), but they can hardly be treated as voice auxiliaries because they still remain positional parts of the sentence (namely: direct objects, preserving their lexical meanings (Blokh, 1983, 181). So, such forms can hardly constitute new “voices”, though they are grammatically relevant.
The same problem concerns the existence / non- existence of the middle Voice in MnE, e.g.: 3. the middle Voice (e.g.: the door opened as distinct from: I opened the door; The book sells well).
The meaning of the verbs in the above examples is not active, since the actions expressed by them do not pass from the subject to an object. On the contrary, these actions are confined to the referents of the grammatical subjects which are at the same time their own objects of the actions (S=O). I.e. the actions are represented here as if going on of their own accord, within themselves.
In this connection, B.A. Ilyish proposed to give a broader definition to the active voice so as to cover by the definition cases like:
He sells books; The book sells well.
He proposed to give a new name to the newly defined voice – the Common Voice. According to
B.A. Ilyish, such a definition would cover under one name all the above cases of active-passive use of the verbal forms.
Blokh M.Y. holds the point of view that the middle Voice uses of the above verbs are cases of neutralizing reduction of the voice opposition.
Lecture 12
The category of mood.
The category of mood is an explicit verbal category expressing the relation of the action denoted by the predicate to reality, as stated by the speaker.
There are 3 moods in E.: 1) Indicative mood (which expresses an action as a real one or planned as real),2) the Imperative mood (which does not express an action but it expresses a request, an order or inducement (побуждение) to do it and 3) the Subjunctive Mood, which expresses the hypothetical action (non-real, desirable, presupposed, contradicting the reality).
I.The Indicative mood expresses an action as a real one or planned as real, it has no special form of expression & it includes the Indefinite, Continuous, Perfect & Perfect Continuous verb forms in all temporal spheres and in two voices. H. Sweet calls it a fact mood. Its modal meaning of reality can be considered as a zero category of modality (according to V.V. Vinogradov) compared to more specific modal meanings of the Imperative or the Subjunctive mood forms. According to form & meaning, it is a non-marked, weak member of the opposition.
II.The Imperative mood.
The Imperative mood does not express an action but it expresses a request, order to do it. Therefore, the Imperative mood does not include tense and phase forms A set phrase «have done with it!» (=Хватит. Перестань. Достаточню) can hardly be considered as an opposition to the form «do it!».
Not typical for the Imperative mood are the Continuous forms either. It has no expressed category of person and number though it is usually addressed to the 2nd person.
The Imperative mood is close to the Infinitive in form and meaning. Both do not express an action. The Infinitive names the action, while the Imperative mood calls, induces (побуждает) to the action.
In this connection a number of authors do not single out the Imperative mood. They consider that it does not exist and that the Infinitive is used in its stead.
This is an erroneous point of view due to
the existence of the negative forms of the Imperative mood and the
Infinitive, viz.: don’t go :: not (to) go. The presence of the
analytical form don’t go/be make us include the Imperative mood
into the set of other mood forms.
NB! Specific intonation makes the Imperative mood
close (сближает) to the Interjection. Compare: come here! (the
lexical meaning of come is retained here = подойди!)
&
come, now! (=успокойся, ну хватит, ну перестань).
A vexed problem is made by forms “let us go”(пойдемте, давайте пойдем). In the above form the verb let is more devoid of lexical meaning than in “let him go’(= пусть идет), where the verb let retains its lexical meaning “to allow”.
Besides, direct address (непосредственное обращение) to those present is more felt in the form “let us go/ do it” unlike (чего нет) in “let him go’.
In addition, there is a close connection between let and go in “let us go”. On the other hand, the oblique case of pronouns us, him in “let us/him go” testifies to the fact that these are indirect objects to the verb let. And this denotes that let is not an auxiliary verb and consequently “let us go”,“let him go’ are not analytical constructions.
The analysis of the forms “let us/him go” shows that here there is a new shade of meaning as compared to the Imperative mood. In “let us go” there is a new shade of meaning – that of «invitation to the action», while in “let him go” there is a shade of “permission, non-interference” into the action.
(In “let us go” = invitation to the action,
in “let him go” = “permission, non-interference” into the action).
Besides, the form “Let me go” does not always have the meaning of the Imperative mood, e.g. let me do it can be characterized as “offering your services”(=предложение своих услуг).
All the above, helps it to understand that combinations of the kind “let us go” can hardly be considered as full-fledged (=полноправные) analytical forms of the Imperative mood, though they are involved (втягиваются) into the sphere of the Imperative mood.
III. The Subjunctive (and the Oblique) Moods
According to Krylova, Gordon:
In MnE there are 11 models of Oblique moods They can be classified into 4 classes:
1. Should/ would according to persons; ‘d – for all persons.
2. Would for all persons. (e.g. I wish you would do it).The isolation of this system of forms does not take place because in the entire system of the English verb there is a tendency the unification of the auxiliary verb. Here we have specialization in meaning – The form expresses a desirable action in future in relation to another action.
3. Should for all persons. (E.g. It’s cruel I should make him suffer so! + may/might, can/could)
4. Synthetic forms Be, did, were for all persons.
The problem of the number of moods in E. is the most controversial problem. There is one point clear: there are at least 2 moods in E, one of them being the Indicative mood. A lot of opinions are as to the number of the oblique Moods.
1)The polar points of view are those by M. Deutschbein (who found 16 moods in E.). Foreign linguists didn’t clearly distinguish between Subjunctive mood as a system of the forms of the verb and other lexical means of expressing modality.
2) H. Sweet singled out the Conditional mood (should/would see), Permissive mood (may/might see), the Compulsive mood (was/were to see), the Tense mood (=cases of homonymy with the Indicative mood). The last one (unlike the previous ones) was singled out not in accordance with meaning.
3) G. Curme singles out 2 (two) subtypes in the Subjunctive mood – a) Optative Subjunctive (synthetic forms: I knew, I were +& combinations with modal verbs). ) and b) Potential Subjunctive (may come, & other combinations with modal verbs).
4) L.S Barkhudarov (who held that there are no oblique Moods at all in E. on the assumption that the mood auxiliaries should, would still preserve their modal meanings of obligation and volition and may be used in free word combinations like any full-fledged verbs. As for If I knew and If I had known Barkhudarov considers: they are the Past Ind. and the Past Perf. in special contextual environment. – C. 130).
5) Smirnitsky distinguished (4) four Oblique moods in English: the Subjunctive I, the Subjunctive II, the Suppositional Mood, the Conditional Mood.
Presumably (предположительно, по-видимому), according to A. Smirnitsky, In MnE there are the Indicative mood, the Imperative mood, and 4 Oblique moods: the Subjunctive I, the Subjunctive II, the Suppositional Mood, the Conditional Mood.
6) Khlebnikova I.B. finds five Oblique moods: Conditional Mood (=I should/ He would go), the Subjunctive Mood (were, wrote, which includes all the synthetic mood forms), the Oblique moods which do not constitute one system (e.g. however it might be, for fear that it would cause trouble).
7) G.Vorontsova finds 3 Oblique moods: 1) Optative (Imperative, Desiderative, Subjunctive) 2) Speculative (Dubitative, Irrealis) 3) Presumptative.
Such controversy of views is due to absence of direct correspondence between the form and meaning of the oblique mood forms.
a) One and the same form renders different grammatical meanings of hypothetical action(Cf.
He should come may express
Necessity (необходимость):
It is necessary that he should come;
it is time he knew/had known
doubt: we feared lest he should come;
compulsion (заставительность): I order that he should come.
(желательность) Desirability: I wish he knew/ he had known it (long before);
(Гипотетичность для выражения сравнения) Hypotheticity to express сomparison:
He spoke as if he knew/ had known
Unreal condition: if he knew/had known.
I insist that you should go (Suppositional); If I knew about it I should go (Conditional); I should go there (modal phrase);
b)One and the same meaning may be rendered by different grammatical forms, e.g.:
Conditional action (Условное) can be expressed by forms:
If he come/came;
should he come;
Desirable (Желательное) action can be expressed by forms:
If he knew/had known;
that he should come;
he may/might come;
if he were.
It is necessary that you should go there (the Suppositional); It is necessary that you go there (the Subjunctive I);
Depending upon the criterion the grammarian takes as a basis for his classification of moods, he will arrive at different results. Deutschbein took the criterion of form for his classification of moods, while A. Smirnitsky considered form and meaning of the predicate.
The problem of polysemy, homonymy and synonymy of mood forms.
Is the form knew the same or a different grammatical form in:
I knew everything (the Indicative); If I knew about it (Subjunctive II).
If we assume that they are different forms, we shall have to admit that we deal with homonymy here.
But If we assume that they are the same Indicative mood form in a special function or syntactical environment, we shall have to admit that we deal with the polysemy of the form knew. So, it is a matter OF SUBJECTIVE OPINION of the student,since so far there are no objective criteria to solve the problem of homonymy or polysemy in such cases.
Prof. Plotkin completely denies the existence of the category of mood in English.
Here is a case of neutralization of an opposition between Future in-the –Past and the Conditional mood, e.g.: She hinted that that the play would be improved by cutting.
Conclusion.
As a matter of fact, in English there is no system of the Subjunctive mood forms, but there is a set of synonymic but not always interchangeable forms. Their mutual non-interchangeability is determined by the fact that the usage of certain individual forms is distributed in accordance with the syntactical structure and some of them are used only in definite lexical surroundings (i.e. they have their own distribution). Beyond the definite structure, the form itself and by itself is not an indicator of this or that subjunctive mood variety. The subjunctive mood forms are always homonymous with Indicative mood forms, excepting:
e.g. He be, he go, I/ he were.
Evidently, this homonymy of forms was the reason for the fact that in English the forms came to be fastened and attached to (закреплены) certain syntactic structures.
Lecture 13.
Categories of person and number of the verb
s-ending of the 3-rd person Present Indefinite singular
|
singular
|
-
|
+
|
|
plural |
+ |
- |
|
number
Part of the Sentence
|
subject
|
predicate |
|
Pro/noun |
A verb |
E.g. A child studies /plays/ speaks/goes.
Children study/play/speak/go.
Lecture 4.
The English noun.
Its semantic and grammatical properties.(Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови) –P.43-47
Lecture 13.
Non-finite forms of the verb, their nominal and verbal features.
(Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови –P. 55-56, Ilyish. - P. 130-132)
|
the Gerund = Participle I |
||
|
|
Active |
Passive |
|
Indefinite Perfect |
Writing Having written |
Being written Having been written |
|
NB.: Neither in the Gerund, nor in the Participle do we find Continuous forms. Thus, category of aspect is not realized here.
|
||
|
Participle II |
|
Passive (only past) |
|
Asked, made, decided, seen |
|
the Infinitive |
||
|
|
Active
|
Passive |
|
Indefinite Continuous Perfect Perfect Continuous |
To write To be writing To have written To have been writing |
To be written ------------ To have been written ------------------ |
|
the Infinitive |
||
|
|
Active
|
Passive |
|
Indefinite::Contin. Perfect::P. Contin. |
To write::To be writing To have written::To have been writing |
To be written To have been written |
|
The Infinitive has the category of aspect, viz.: the common & the Continuous aspect |
|
|
|
the Gerund & the Participle |
|
|
|
speaking :: having spoken being spoken :: having been spoken
|
It is the category of correlation which finds its expression here.
|
|
|
The 1-st column forms have no pattern “have + P. II” |
The 2-nd column forms have the pattern “have + P II” |
It is the category of correlation which finds its expression here.
|
In the Infinitive we find the following oppositions:
|
the Infinitive |
|
|
|
To speak :: to have spoken To be speaking :: to have been speaking
|
It is the category of correlation which finds its expression here.
|
|
|
The 1-st column forms have no pattern “have + P II” |
The 2-nd column forms have the pattern “have + P II” |
category of correlation appears in all forms of the verb, both finite & non-finite, except the Imperative.
|
|
The unmarked item |
The marked item |
|
|
Both in meaning and in form |
|
|
NB.: Since the verbals are hardly ever the predicate of the Sentence, they do not express the category of tense in the way the finite forms do (in the indicative mood only)
VOICE in Verbals
Like the finites, the verbals have a distinction between active and passive, as will be seen from the following oppositions, viz.:
To read :: to be read
To have read :: to have been read
Reading :: being read
Having read :: having been read
Conclusion: all of the verbals have the categories of correlation and voice.
The Infinitive, in addition has the category of aspect.
None of the verbals has the categories of tense, mood, person, or number.
|
the Infinitive, the Gerund, the Participle have the categories of: |
||
|
the Infinitive the Gerund the Participle |
Correlation, voice |
|
|
the Infinitive |
+Aspect |
|
None of the verbals has the categories of tense, mood, person, or number.
Lecture 14. Syntax.
Transition from simple to composite sentence. (Ilyish, p. 254 -264).
Predicative complexes in MnE
(Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови) –P.57-59.
There are some types of sentences which may be treated as transitional between simple and composite sentences. These are:
a) sentences with homogeneous parts (= contracted sentences);
b) sentences with a dependent appendix;
c) sentences with secondary predication.
c) Sentences with secondary predication.
Secondary predication is the predication not between the Subject and the Predicate (which is a primary one).
E.g. the complex object: e.g.: I saw him run.
Let’s consider “him run”. Some linguists think that him run is a syntactic unit (= then it is the complex object: It stands in an object relation to saw);
And some linguists think that him run is not considered to be a syntactic unit: they regard him as one part of the sentence and run another. Its first element is the object and the second one is the objective predicative. So, him (=the object) run (=the objective predicative).
The choice between the two interpretations remains arbitrary and neither of them can be proved to be the only right one.
I. In favour of the view that a) the phrase is a syntactic unit, a semantic reason can be put forward.
1) Sometimes the two elements of the phrase cannot be separated without changing the meaning of the sentence, e.g.:
a) I hate you to go (which means much the same as: I hate the idea of your going; the idea of your going is most unpleasant to me). Now if we separate the two elements of the phrase, e.g.:
I hate you… - the sense is completely changed. This shortened version expresses hatred for “you”, which the original full version did not imply.
b) The same with phrases where the verb expresses some idea like order or request, e.g.: He ordered the man to be summoned à He ordered the man- the sense is completely changed.
2) with other verbs, the separation of the two elements may not bring about a change in the meaning of the sentence, e.g: I saw him run à I saw him (this does not contradict the meaning of the original sentence).
II. If we make up our mind in favour of the second alternative, and state in each case two separate parts of the sentence, we shall add to our list of secondary parts one more item: the objective predicative.
The objective predicative may be expressed by:
an Inf. (I saw him run);
a participle (I saw him running);
an adj.: (I found him ill);
a prepositional phrase.
a stative (I found him asleep);
an adv.: (I found him there)
It admits of two different interpretations:
a) (I found him there) =There I found him. (“There” is an adverbial modifier, belonging to the verb find);
b) (I found him there) =I found that he was there. (The adverb there does not show, where the action of finding took place. And it is not an adverbial modifier belonging to the predicate verb found ). This type of secondary predication brings the sentence closer to a composite one.
The difference between an adverbial modifier and an objective predicative is here neutralized.
O. Jespersen has proposed the term nexus for every predicative grouping of words (e.g.: the man reads; I saw him reading) and junction which is not a predicative group (e.g.: reading man).
Lecture 15.
Syntax.
Emancipation of subordinate clauses (Ilyish, p. 289-291; 297-298) Transition from simple to composite sentence. (Ilyish, p. 254 -264).
Emancipation of subordinate clauses
I. Sometimes a temporal clause loses its character and tends to become independent of the clause it is connected with.
1.Of such a type might be a sentence which consists of a clause, narrating some situation and followed by a when-clause telling of an event which burst in to the situation and which is the central point of the whole sentence. Such a when-clause always follows the main clause. This is its grammatical peculiarity, e.g.:
a) She had just gone into her room and closed the door when she heard a man’s voice in the parlour, and in a few minutes she heard the closing of the bedroom door.
It is clear that the when-clause does not indicate the time when the action of the 1st clause took place, but contains the statement which is the center of the whole composite sentence.
b) It was the middle of the August afternoon when Harry got back to his office… after lunch and he felt sluggish and downright lazy in the summer heat.
Again, the when-clause does not indicate the time when the action of the 1st clause took place. It is the other way round: the 1st clause indicates the time when the action of the when-clause took place. This way of constructing the sentence is designed to lay the main stress on the time indication and mark it out as the rheme of the sentence.
c) The next Friday afternoon he was walking slowly along the street… when Judge Price crossed the lawn.
Here the reasons for calling the when-clause a subordinate one, are very much weakened. It does not indicate the time when the action of the 1st clause took place, nor does it in any way correspond to an adverbial modifier of time in a simple sentence. Thus, the when-clause is not a subordinate one and this not a complex sentence. This might be termed emancipation of a subordinate clause.
II. Another phenomenon of “emancipation” affects clauses introduced by the conjunction while and following the main clause.
The meaning of simultaneity of an action with another action expressed usually by the conjunction while, can change into a different meaning altogether e.g.:
M. briefly outlined the case for the independent sovereignty of Scotland, while Frieda listened without any remarkable interest.
Here the when-clause does not indicate the time when the action of the 1st clause took place. It rather expresses an action opposed in its character to the first action and serves to characterize the doer of the action.
We might here put the conjunction and instead of while and the actual meaning would be the same thоugh the sentence would now be a compound one (cложносочиненное). Here the when-clause is not subordinate and the sentence is not complex (cложноподчиненное).
Yet, sometimes conjunction while expresses contrast rather than time relations even it precedes the main clause, e.g.:
While I have a certain amount of intelligence, I have no esthetic sense; while I possess the mathematical faculty, I am wholly without religious emotions; while I am addictied to venery, I have little ambition.
Here the connection between each of the while-clauses and the main clause following it, is based not on time but on contrast. The sentence gives a characteristic of a man and not a description of what he is doing at one time or another. Thus, a while-clause may express contrast even though it preceeds its head-word.
Emancipation of clauses of concession (Ilyish, p.297-298)
These clauses express some circumstance despite which the action of the main clause is performed. Clauses of concession are introduced by the conjunctions though, although, albeit (in high-flown style), by clauses of the pattern “Predicative (N. or Adj.) + as + subject + link verb” in which the concessive meaning arises out of the combined lexical meanings of different words in the sentence, but not out of as.
Though-clauses can go beyond their concessive meaning, i.e. they do not denote an action or situation in spite of which the action of the other clause takes place. Such clauses may be emancipated, they may acquire an independent standing (положение) and even become a separate sentence, e.g.:
I suppose that I am ticketed (прикрепили ярлык) as a Red there AND WILL BE ON A BLACKLIST. Though you never know and never can tell.
The concessive clause does not express an obstacle to the statement contained in the preceeding sentence, but a new idea, an afterthought limiting what had been said before.
Attributive clauses
Attributive clauses can be defining (or restricting, or limiting) and non-defining (or non- rescriptive, or descriptive). The non-defining ones (=descriptive) do not single out a thing but contain some additional information about a thing or things denoted by the headword.
The non-defining (=descriptive) attributive clauses pose the question of boundary line between subordination and co-ordination. This is typical for continuative clauses, which are used to carry the narrative a step further, e.g.:
But in the morning he went to see M. whose enthusiasm on hearing the news was very comforting.
We shall have the governess in a day or two, which will be a great satisfaction.
Sentences of this kind may be taken as specimens of weakened subordination and a subordinate clause passing on to smth like a co-ordinate position in the sentence.
Lecture 16.
(Syntactic dependence between the adverbial modifier of time and the choice of an English tense-form).
Алгоритм выбора видо-временных форм английского языка при переводе с русского на английский с опорой на толковый словарь английского языка.
Дроздов В. А.
Аннотация. На основе использования дефиниций обстоятельственных слов, приведенных в толковом словаре английского языка А.С. Хорнби, в статье дается алгоритм выбора видо-временных форм английского языка. Этот адвербоцентрический подход противопоставлен вербоцентрическому подходу, приводимому в отечественных грамматиках английского языка.
Ключевые слова: обстоятельство, адвербоцентрический, вербоцентрический, видо-временная форма, алгоритм.
Abstract. Basing on A.S. Hornby lexical definitions of adverbial modifiers, the article produces the algorithm to solve the problem of using the English tense-aspect forms by interpreters. This is the adverb-centrist approach and it is opposed to the verb-centrist approach popularized by English grammars, published in this country.
Key words: adverbial modifier, adverb-centric, verb-centric, tense-aspect form, algorithm.
Введем понятие систематизированного контекста.
«Инвариантное значение формы вытекает из обозначаемого действия к точке отсчета и обнаруживается в минимальном контексте, включающем только главные члены предложения и, возможно, дополнение первое.
Варианты значения возникают только при наличии определенного типа контекста, обычно обстоятельственных членов предложения, который мы называем систематизированным контекстом… Систематизированный контекст чрезвычайно важен именно для глагола-сказуемого, представляющего собой динамический центр предложения» [1:53-54].
Обучение английскому языку на языковом факультете предполагает развитие у студентов навыков и умений сознательного восприятия и осмысления языкового материала, выявление логических связей между языковыми явлениями.
Определенную трудность для русскоязычных студентов представляет употребление видо-временных форм прошедшего индефинитного (далее PI) и настоящего времени перфектного разрядов (далее РР), поскольку видо-временные системы английского и русского языков являются почти непересекающимися. Объясняется это также тем, что существующие грамматики английского языка зачастую рекомендуют запомнить, не предлагая объяснения, что при наличии некоторых обстоятельств, например, обстоятельства just now, употребляется только the Past Indefinite (далее PI) [2:98]. При наличии в предложении обстоятельств just, ever следует употреблять the Present Perfect (далее PP) [3:141; 3:143; 4:25].
Мы считаем, что для данных и подобных случаев употребления PI и PP вполне можно представить эксплицитное объяснение. Это один из пунктов языковой системы, который поддается логическому осмыслению. При этом можно будет отказаться от бездумного запоминания лексических контекстов, сигнализирующих об употреблении PI и PP. Логику употребления данных видо-временных форм легко понять, если опираться на трактовку лексических значений обстоятельственных слов never, ever, just, just now, since, yet, lately, recently, for days и др., приведенных в толковом англо-английском словаре A. С. Хорнби [6].
Из лексических определений обстоятельственных слов, приведенных в словаре A. Хорнби, надо научиться выявлять грамматическую семантику. При переводе вопроса «Вы когда-нибудь были в Лондоне?», мы обращаем внимание на то, что в данном словаре для обстоятельства неопределенного времени и частотности ever «когда-нибудь» в словаре А. Хорнби предлагается дефиниция ‘at any time up to the present’ ‘в любое время вплоть до настоящего’ [5:211]. Из данного определения лексического значения адверба ever извлекаем грамматически-релевантную информацию. Она сводится к тому, что действие, обозначаемое адвербом ever, имеет две точки, одна из которых находится в прошлом, а другая в моменте речи. Две точки находятся в отношении связи, т.е. они образуют двуточечный период. Именно поэтому в вопросительном предложении мы употребляем перфект настоящего времени, который по определению «выражает действие, хотя и совершенное в прошлом, но связанное с настоящим благодаря наличию результата в настоящем времени» [3:141]. Заметим, что в предложении на английском языке одна и та же грамматически-релевантная информация повторяется дважды. В первый раз мы извлекаем грамматически релевантную информацию из лексической дефиниции обстоятельственного слова ever, приводимой в словаре А. Хорнби в виде: «at any time up to the present» [6:211]. Она сводится к утверждению «наличие связи между первой точкой действия в прошлом и второй точкой в моменте речи», и во второй раз – в описании действия таксисной формы РР, приведенном в учебнике практической грамматики, а именно: «перфект выражает действие, хотя и совершенное в прошлом, но связанное с настоящим» [3:139].
Повторение одной и той же информации в одном предложении называется грамматической избыточностью или грамматическим плеоназмом. Грамматический плеоназм в английском языке, выявленный нами, заключается в том, в нем присутствует глубинное согласование на семантическом уровне, а именно: идея двуточечности / одноточечности действия в английском предложении повторяется дважды: в грамматической семантике лексического значения обстоятельственного слова и в семантике употребления самой видо-временной формы РР.
C другой стороны, в русском языке обстоятельство «когда-нибудь» в словаре С.И. Ожегова имеет следующую дефиницию: «в какое-нибудь неопределенное время – настоящее, прошедшее или будущее» [5:281]. Обращает на себя внимание то, что в приведенной русской дефиниции обстоятельственного слова «когда-нибудь» нет второй точки действия, которая присутствует в английской дефиниции слова ever. Это может подталкивать русскоязычных обучаемых употреблять прошедшее индефинитное время вместо настоящего перфектного в английском предложении.
Заметим, что в английском языке грамматический плеоназм сводится к повторению одной и той же грамматически релевантной информации максимум и минимум два раза. В то время как в русском языке одна и та же грамматически релевантная информация может повторяться шесть, семь и больше раз. Например, в русском предложении ‘этот необыкновенный дом был построен в 2000 году’ грамматические значения (единственное число, мужской род) повторяются пять раз в различных частях речи. Для английского языка согласование между частями речи не характерно. Способностью согласовываться (по числу) в английском языке обладают всего два слова: указательные местоимения this и that. Это поверхностное согласование в английском языке.
С точки зрения теории информации грамматический плеоназм русского языка обеспечивает русскому устному высказыванию высокую долю надежности при прохождении канала связи, т.е. надежность быть услышанным слушающим. Грамматический плеоназм русского языка имеет большую пользу для переводчиков. Благодаря согласованию между частями речи в русском языке переводчик при неблагоприятных условиях работы (например: включение микрофона с небольшим опозданием, когда вступительные слова конгресса уже звучат в зале и т.д.) может восстановить утраченную информацию русскоязычного текста.
Обстоятельство just now в словаре А. Хорнби трактуется: «a short time ago» ‘короткий промежуток времени тому назад’ [6:281]. При этом, как видим, в словарной статье А. Хорнби присутствует эксплицитный указатель употребления временной формы PI – обстоятельство ago. Именно из-за наличия семы ‘разрыв связи с моментом речи’, присутствующей в адвербе ago, в предложении на английском языке следует употреблять форму времени PI.
Перевод на русский язык обстоятельства just now как ‘только что’ совершенно не связывается в сознании обучаемого с употреблением временной формы PI. Ведь обстоятельство just тоже переводится с английского языка как ‘только что’. И вот для этого случая практические грамматики английского языка рекомендуют обучаемым запомнить, что при наличии обстоятельства just now следует употреблять только временную форму PI тогда, как при наличии в предложении обстоятельства just грамматики английского языка рекомендуют употреблять только временную форму РР. Например: «With the adverb ‘just’ the Present Perfect is used. With the expression ‘just now’ the Past Indefinite is used» [2:98; 3:143; 4:30].
Обратим внимание на то, что обстоятельство just трактуется в словаре Хорнби следующим образом: ‘of an immediate past’ ‘в ближайшем прошлом’ (GB: в британском английском) I’ve just had dinner. (US: в американском английском) I just had dinner [6:336].
Объясним вышеприведенные словарные дефиниции и связанные с ними примеры. Поскольку (just) ‘of an immediate past’ ‘ближайшее прошлое’ предполагает наличие разрыва связи с моментом речи, употребление временной формы PI в американском варианте английского языка следует, так сказать, букве и духу дефиниции обстоятельственного слова just, приведенной в словаре Хорнби.
В британском варианте английского языка употребление временной формы PР при обстоятельстве just трактуется следующим образом. При употреблении обстоятельства just имеет место разрыв связи с моментом речи (и это легко изобразить на рисунке), но благодаря значению ‘наличие результата к моменту речи’ происходит связь между точкой ближайшего прошлого и моментом речи.
Изложим алгоритм шагов обучающегося при употреблении видо-временных форм английского языка при изложении мыслей на английском языке (т.е. при переводе на английский язык):
1) найти обстоятельственное слово в предложении. При помощи словаря Хорнби установить его дефиницию. Выявить грамматическую семантику из лексической дефиниции обстоятельства, приведенной в словаре Хорнби.
2) если в словарной дефиниции обстоятельственного слова действие трактуется как двуточечный период, употребляем видо-временные формы РР или РРС (the present perfect Continuous).
3) если в словарной дефиниции обстоятельственного слова действие трактуется как одноточечное, следует употреблять видо-временные формы РI (the Past Indefinite) или РС (the Past Continuous).
Cформулируем некоторые выводы.
1.Изложенная методика выявления грамматически релевантной информации, скрытой в обстоятельственных словах английского языка, а также опора на лексические дефиниции обстоятельственных слов (=путь от значения к форме, от ПС к ПВ), приводимые в толковом словаре английского языка А. Хорнби оказывается весьма полезной в работе преподавателя при обучении правильному употреблению видо-временных форм перфектного, перфектно-длительного разрядов с одной стороны, и прошедшего индефинитного или прошедшего длительного, с другой стороны.
2. Грамматический плеоназм в английском языке, выявленный нами, заключается в том, что в cинтаксисе английского языка присутствует глубинное семантическое согласование в отличие от поверхностного синтаксического согласования в русском языке. Идея двуточечности / одноточечности действия в английском предложении повторяется дважды: в грамматической семантике лексического значения обстоятельственного слова и в семантике употребления самой видо-временной формы РР.
3. Методику обучения употреблению видо-временных форм английского языка, предложенную в нашей концепции, мы называем адвербоцентрической, поскольку от грамматической семантики лексического значения адверба зависит выбор видо-временных форм английского языка. Методику употребления видо-временных форм английского языка, изложенную в цитированных грамматиках [2; 3; 4], мы называем вербоцентрической (=путь от формы к содержанию, от ПВ к ПС).
4. Методику выявления грамматической семантики обстоятельственных слов при помощи словаря Хорнби можно рассматривать в качестве подступов к подаче материала в словаре грамматической семантики обстоятельственных слов английского языка, создание которого представляет собой актуальную проблему для английского языка.
Список литературы
1. [И.П. Иванова и др. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка.- М.: Высшая школа,1981. – 284 с.
1.2.Каушанская В.Л., Ковнер Р.Л. и др. Грамматика английского языка. – Л.: Высшая школа, 1967. – 319 с.
2.3.Качалова К.Н., Израилевич Е.Е. Практическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: ЮНВЕС, 1999. – 717 с.
3.4.Крылова И.П., Гордон Е.М. Грамматика современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1999. – 443 с.
4.5.Ожегов С.И. Словарь русского языка. –М.: Русский язык, 1990. – 922 с.
5.6.Хорнби А.С. Учебный словарь современного английского языка: спец. изд. для СССР А.С. Хорнби при участии Кристины Руз. – М.: Просвещение, 1983. – XII, 769 c.
First Question in the examination paper
1.The purpose and tasks of theoretical grammar. +
2.The basic notions of grammar.+
|
3.The main peculiarities (tendencies) of modern English structure. (есть лекция, + Ежкова) 3a).Conversion (=zero-derivation): ([AdjàN]: Blokh, p.212-213; 224)+ [GeràN]; & ParticipleàAdj] p.120); [NàV] p.87)- one of the most productive ways of forming verb lexemes in MnE. (e.g.[VàConj]: But me no buts). 4.Signals of the grammatical structure. (Ежкова) 5.Types of affixes. Way(s) of inflection. (Ежкова) [Ilyish, p.138 General idea] +
|
7.Different approaches to parts-of-speech problem.+
8.Parts of speech in modern English.+
9.The Verb.The category of tense +
10.The category of aspect+
11.The category of correlation+
12.The category of Perfect+
13.The category of Mood+
14.The category of Voice+
15.The category of Person & number of the Verb+
|
16.Function and structural words. 17.Minor parts of speech. |
|
Second Question in the examination paper: Give a definition and examples of: |
|
|
Neutralization of opposition.+ Grammatical category (2 -1=0) Grammatical opposition (Blokh, p.28) Binary privative, gradual & equipolent oppositions (Blokh, p.28, 29) the un/marked member (Blokh, p.28) categorial grammatical form The Notion of a paradigm The language and speech in grammar. paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in gr. Analytical and synthetical languages Analytical form |
1.the plane of content (=ПС) + the plane of form (=ПВ) make an overt / explicit category in grammar 2.the plane of content (=ПС) + no plane of form (=ПВ) make a covert / implicit lexico-grammatical (=semantical) category in grammar 3.The implicit lexico-grammatical (= semantic) category 4.Morpheme & allomorph (Ad-: ammunition, assume, advise; IN-: illegal, irregular, impossible, inconsistent) 5.explicit and implicit grammatical categories 6.Grammeme (=word-form) (Хлебникова, с. 6 ) 7.Language and speech (=allo-emic approach) |
////////////////////////////