5. The Oppositional Theory. Its Important Types The grammatical category

Grammatical category - is a system of expressing a generalized gr. m-g by means of paradigmatic correlation or gr. forms. (Blokh)

The set of gr. forms expressing a categorical function constitutes a paradigm.

The paradigmatic correlations of gr. forms in a category are exposed by the so-called “gr. oppositions”.

The opposition – generalized correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements must posses two types of features:

common (the basis of contrast)

differential (immediately express a funct. in question)

The notion of GC is central in Theoretical Grammar, it's very important to single out the GC of different types of speech. For that purpose the oppositional theory was worked out. It was originally formulated as a phonological theory.

According to the number of opposed members oppositions can be:

-Binary

-More than binary (ternary, quaternary, etc.)

Three main qualitative types of opposition:

Privative (отрицательная) (Based on a morph. differential feature which is present in its strong (marked) member (+) and absent in its weak (unmarked) member (–), work (-) – worked (+).The differential feat. is the suff. –(e)d)

gradual (A contrastive pair or group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or absence of a feature but by the degree of it. big – bigger – biggest)

equipollent (равноценный) (A contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features. In morph. it is mostly confined to formal relations. am – is – are (correlation of the person forms of the verb to be))

In various contextual conditions one member of the opposition can be used instead of the other, counter-member. This phenomenon is called “oppositional reduction” or oppositional substitution”.

e.g. Man conquers nature. (“man” is used in the sg. but it stands for people in general. The weak member of the categorical opposition of number has replaced the stronger member.)

Tonight we start for London. (The opposition “present –future” has been reduced, the weaker member (present) replacing the strong one (future).)

6. Sentence in the Text.

We have repeatedly shown throughout the present work that sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation;they are interconnected both semantically topically andsyntactically.Intersentential connections have come under linguisticinvestigation but recently.The highest lingual unit which wasapproached by traditional grammar as liable to syntactic studywas the sentence; scholars even specially stressed that to surpass the boundaries of the sentence was equal tosurpassing the boundaries of grammar.In particular, such an outstanding linguist as L. Bloomfield,while recognising the general semantic connections betweensentences in the composition of texts as linguistically relevant,at the same time pointed out that the sentence is the largestgrammatically arranged linguistic form, i.e. it is not includedinto any other linguistic form by a grammatical arrangement.*However, further studies in this field have demonstrated theinadequacy of the cited thesis. It has been shown that sentencesin speech do come under broad grammatical arrangements, docombine with one another on strictly syntactic lines in theformation of larger stretches of both oral talk and written text.It should be quite clear that, supporting the principle of syntactic approach to arrangement of sentences into a continualtext, we do not assert that any sequence of independentsentences forms a syntactic unity. Generally speaking,sentences in a stretch of uninterrupted talk may or may not build up a coherent sequence, wholly depending on the purposeof the speaker.

 E.g.:Barbara. Dolly: don't be insincere. Cholly: fetch your concertina and play something for us (B. Shaw).The cited sequence of two sentences does not form a unityin either syntactic or semantic sense, the sentences beingaddressed to different persons on different reasons.Adisconnected sequence may also have one and the samecommunication addressee, as in the following case:Duchess of Berwic. I like him so much. I am quitedelighted he's gone! How sweet you're looking! Where do youget your gowns? And now I must tell you how sorry I am for you, dear Margaret (O. Wilde).But disconnected sequences like these are rather anexception than the rule. Moreover, they do not contradict in theleast the idea of a continual topical text as being formed of grammatically interconnected sentences. Indeed, successivesentences in a disconnected sequence mark the correspondingtransitions of thought, so each of them can potentially beexpanded into a connected sequence bearing on one

unifying topic. Characteristically, an utterance of a personagein a work of fiction marking a transition of thought (and breaking the syntactic connection of sentences in the sequence)is usually introduced by a special author's comment.

 E.g.:"You know, L.S., you're rather a good sport."

Then his tone grew threatening again."It's a big risk I'm taking. It's the biggest risk I've ever had to take" (C. P. Snow).As we see, the general idea of a sequence of sentencesforming a text includes two different notions. On the one hand,it presupposes a succession of spoken or written utterancesirrespective of their forming or not forming a coherentsemantic complex. On the other hand, it implies a strictlytopical stretch of talk, i.e. a continual succession of sentencescentering on a common informative purpose. It is this latter understanding of the text that is syntactically relevant. It is inthis latter sense that the text can be interpreted as a lingualelement with its two distinguishing features: first, semantic(topical) unity,second, semantico-syntactic cohesion