- •Теоретическая грамматика английского языка
- •§ 2. The phoneme, the morpheme, the word and the sentence are units of different levels of language structure. The phoneme is a unit of the lowest level, the sentence — of the highest.
- •§ 5. The structure, classification and combinability of phonemes is studied by a branch of linguistics called phonology.
- •Morphology
- •Introduction
- •§ 10. The morphemes book- and -s differ essentially:
- •§ 13. Besides lexical and grammatical morphemes there exist some intermediate types.
- •§ 18. In accordance with their structure the following four types of stems are usually distinguished:
- •§ 25. All the words of a lexeme, both synthetic and analytical, are, as defined (§ 19), united by the same lexical meanings.
- •§ 26. Analytical words are closely connected with synthetic ones.
- •§ 28. As shown by a. I. Smirnitsky, words derived from different roots may be recognized as suppletive only under the following conditions:
- •§ 29. The above-mentioned criteria serve to prove the identity of lexical morphemes in spite of their difference in form. The same criteria can be used to prove the identity of any morphemes.
- •§ 30. We have already spoken (§§ 14, 15, 18) about lexico-grammatical morphemes and their functions as stem-building elements. Now we are to see their role in building up classes of words.
- •§ 31. Let us compare the following columns of words:
- •Parts of speech
- •§ 39. Lexemes united by the genera! lexico-grammatical meaning of "substance" are called nouns. Those having the general lexico-grammatical meaning of "action" are called verbs, etc., etc.
- •§ 43. It must be borne in mind, however, that not all the lexemes of a part of speech have the same paradigms.
- •§ 44. The influence of the category of number is obliquely felt even in a case like milk. The word milk is closer to the "singular" member of a number opposeme than to the "plural" one.
- •§ 48. In accordance with the principles described above it is possible to distinguish the following parts of speech in English:
- •§49. Many linguists point out the difference between such parts of speech as, say, nouns or verbs, on the one hand and prepositions or conjunctions, on the other.
- •§ 51. A similar distinction can be drawn between notional and semi-notional lexemes within a part of speech (see § 194) and between notional and semi-notional parts of speech.
- •§ 57. A. I. Smirnitsky defines conversion as a type of word-building in which the paradigm is the only means of word-building.
- •§ 63. The relations between these variants remind us of conversion:
- •§ 64. As follows from our previous discussion of the parts of speech in English, the noun may be defined as a part of speech characterized by the following features:
- •§ 66. Many nouns are related by conversion1 with lexemes belonging to other parts of speech:
- •§ 70. A noun may be used in the function of almost any part of the sentence, though its most typical functions are those of the subject and the object. (See Syntax.)
- •§ 79. Nouns like police, militia, cattle, poultry are pluralia tantum, judging by their combinability, though not by form 3.
- •§ 80. Sometimes variants of a lexeme may belong to the same, lexico-grammatical subclass and yet have different forms of number opposemes.
- •§ 82. Case is one of those categories which show the close connection (a) between language and speech, (b) between mor-phology and syntax.
- •§91. Nouns representing 'plural' grammemes may denote:
- •§ 92. Nouns representing 'common case' grammemes express a wide range, of meanings, the exhaustive examination of which is hardly feasible. Here are some of them.
- •§ 93. As we have seen, 'possessive case' nouns occur a great deal less frequently than their opposites1.
- •§ 97. In the Russian language a noun in the genitive case may be adnominal and adverbial, I. E. It can be attached to a noun and to a verb.
- •§ 100. Let us compare the-English noun with its Russian counterpart. The five properties we use as criteria for distinguishing parts of speech will serve as the basis of comparison.
- •§ 101. Adjectives are a part of speech characterized by the following typical features:
- •§ 104. Suppletive opposemes are few in number but of very frequent occurrence.
- •§ 113. In certain speech environments adjectives can bе used to communicate meanings in some respect different from those of the grammemes they belong to.
- •§ 115. Following is a brief comparison of the basic features of English and Russian adjectives.
- •§ 116. The adverb is a part of speech characterized by the following features:
- •§ 123. Quantitative adverbs like very, rather, too, nearly, greatly, fully, hardly, quite, utterly, twofold, etc. Show the degree, measure, quantity of an action, quality, state, etc.
- •§ 124. Circumstantial adverbs serve to denote various circumstances (mostly local and temporal) attending an action. Accordingly they fall under two heads:
- •§127; Circumstantial adverbs are mostly used in the function of adverbial modifiers of time and placer
- •§ 130. The numeral as a part of speech is characterized by
- •§ 131. The lexico-grammatical meaning of 'number' is not to be confused with the grammatical meaning of 'number'.
- •§ 133. In our opinion, the pair ten — tenth forms an oppo-seme of the grammatical category of numerical qualification.
- •§ 135. As to their stem structure English numerals fall into
- •§ 136. Numerals are easily substantivized, acquiring noun features. •
- •§ 144. The personal pronouns are the nucleus of the class. They are: I (me), thou (thee)1, he (him), she (her), it, we (us), you, they (them).
- •§ 157. Self-pronouns are often used in apposition for emphasis. Dickson's view on the Middle Ages themselves would have to wait until another time. (Amis).
- •§ 159. Demonstrative pronouns can be:
- •§ 162. The pronoun who is the only interrogative pronoun which has a case opposite, whom, as in Whom did you meet?
- •§ 180. Most quantitative pronouns form opposemes of comparison:
- •§ 181. Here belong other (others, other's, others'), another (another's) and otherwise.
- •§ 182. The pronoun one stands somewhat apart, outside the classification discussed above.
- •§ 183. As an indefinite pronoun it is usually a pro-adjective with the meaning "a certain" and refers to both living beings and inanimate things.
- •§ 184. As an indefinite or generalizing personal pronoun one indicates only a person. It is a pro-noun. It has a case opposite one's and is correlated with the reflexive pronoun oneself.
- •§ 186. Summing up, we may say that the pronouns are hot united by any morphological categories, or syntactical functions. So they cannot be regarded as a part of speech.
- •§ 188. As a part of speech the verb is characterized by the following properties:
- •§ 194. Semantically verbs divide into notional and semi-notional (see § 50).
- •§ 196. Modal verbs are characterized:
- •§ 198. Verbs are divided into subjective and objective, depending upon their combinability with words denoting the subjects and the objects of the actions they name (see § 191).
- •§ 200. As usual, variants of a verb lexeme may belong to different subclasses (see § 62).
- •§ 201. Verbs can be classified in accordance with the aspective nature of their lexical meanings into terminative and non-terminative.
- •§ 202. As usual, variants of the same lexeme may belong to different subclasses. When meaning '(to) engage in physical or mental activity', the verb (to)work is non-terminative.
- •§ 208. Participle II may have left-hand connections with link-verbs.
- •The Category of Order (Time Correlation)
- •§ 213. Linguists disagree as to the category the 'perfect' belongs to.
- •§ 216. Let us take an extract from j. Galsworthy's novel To Let:
- •§ 219. The problem of aspect is controversial in English grammar. There is but little consensus of opinion about this category in Modern English.
- •§ 222. Besides those properties that characterize the verb as a whole, the finites possess certain features not shared by the verbids.
- •§ 224. Mood is the grammatical category of the verb reflecting the relation of the action denoted by the verb to reality from the speaker's point of view.
- •§ 229. The indicative mood is the basic mood of the verb. Morphologically it is the most developed system including all the categories of the verb.
- •§ 233. The correlation of time and tense is connected with the problem of the absolute and relative use of tense grammemes.
- •§ 236. In Modern English the category of person has certain peculiarities.
- •§ 240. The development of the modal verbs and that of the subjunctive mood — the lexical and morphological ways of expressing modality1 — have much in common.
- •§ 243. The 'passive voice' and 'continuous aspect' meanings are expressed much in the same way as in the indicative mood system.
- •§ 245. The difference between the two sets of opposemes
- •Verb Grammemes in Speech
- •§ 252. The systems of different moods, as we know, contain different grammemes. We shall therefore discuss the grammemes of the indicative, subjunctive and imperative moods separately.
- •Indicative Mood Grammemes
- •§ 254. The action it denotes may either coincide with the moment of speech or cover a more or less lengthy period of time including the moment of speech.
- •§ 255. In a context showing that reference is made to the past, the present non-continuous non-perfect may be used to denote past events, mostly presented as the speaker's reminiscences.
- •§ 274. The present non-continuous perfect is regularly found in adverbial clauses of time and condition when the connotation of priority is implied.
- •§ 275. What makes the present non-continuous perfect fundamentally different from the past non-continuous non-perfect can be briefly summarized as follows:
- •§ 276. As a unit of the language system it presents an act in the past (past tense) unspecified as to its character (non-continuous aspect) and preceding some situation (perfect order).
- •§ 277. When used with terminative verbs it may acquire a distinct connotation of resultativity, as in
- •§ 278. The past non-continuous perfect may be inclusive in meaning if supported by the context.
- •§ 280. As a part of the verb system it presents a future action (future tense), unspecified as to its character (non-continuous aspect) and prior to some situation in the future (perfect order).
- •§ 285. The past continuous perfect has much in common with the present continuous perfect, the main difference between them being that of tense.
- •§ 286. Like the present continuous perfect it may be inclusive if supported by the context or else exclusive as in
- •§ 287. The future perfect continuous is actually nonexistent.
- •Voice Grammemes
- •§ 292. It has often, been claimed that passive structures can be regarded as transforms of certain active structures 1.
- •§295. Representatives of subjunctive I grammemes can be distinguished from their indicative and imperative mood homonyms as follows.
- •§ 296. Following are some types of clauses in which should grammemes and their synonyms are regularly used.
- •Imperative Mood Grammemes in Speech
- •§ 303. Besides the features common to the English verb as a whole (see § 188) the verbids have certain features of their own distinguishing them from the finite verb.
- •§ 306. The verbids do not possess many of the categories of the finite verb, such as number, person, tense and mood.
- •§ 307. Here is a table presenting the paradigms of the verbids.
- •§ 308. The combinability of the verbids is of mixed nature. Partly, as we have seen, it resembles that of a finite verb. But some models of combinability are akin to those of other parts of speech.
- •§ 311. The infinitive is a verbid characterized by the following features:
- •§ 317. The participle is a verbid characterized by the following properties:
- •§ 319. As we have already mentioned, the adjectival and the adverbial features of the participle are connected with its combinability.
- •§ 321. The gerund is a verbid characterized by the following features:
- •§ 324. The gerund, which is a peculiarity of the English language, is very extensively used as the centre of complexes (nexuses) synonymous with subordinate clauses. Compare:
- •§ 326. In compliance with the system adopted we shall now work out the comparison of the basic features of the English verb with those of the Russian verb.
- •The adlink (the category of state)
- •§ 327. In Modern English there exists a certain class of words such as asleep, alive, afloat, which is characterized by:
- •The modal words (modals)
- •§ 329. As a part of speech the modals are characterized by the following features:
- •§ 331. The relatively negative combinability of modal words manifests itself in various ways.
- •§ 332. Functioning as a parenthetical element of a sentence, a modal word is usually connected with the sentence as a whole.
- •§ 333. The usage of modals depends upon the type of sentence. They are found almost exclusively in declarative sentences, very rarely in interrogative and almost never in imperative sentences.
- •§ 334. The response-words yes and no are characterized as a separate class by
- •§ 335. Practically every notional word can alone make a sentence in a certain situation of speech.
- •§ 336. Their lexical meanings are those of 'affirmation' and 'negation'. Their lexico-grammatical meaning is that of 'response statement'. They confirm or deny a previous statement.
- •§351. The combinability of at in the last example resembles, to some extent, that of an adverb. Cf. To be laughed away (off).
- •§ 359. The combinability of subordinating conjunctions is somewhat different from that of coordinating ones.
- •§ 360. The division of conjunctions into coordinating and subordinating ones is chiefly based on their lexical meanings and the types of units they connect.
- •§ 361. According to their meanings coordinating conjunctions are divided into
- •§ 362. Though for and so are considered coordinating conjunctions, they are in fact intermediate between coordinating and subordinating conjunctions.
- •§ 363. The conjunctions are not numerous, but of very frequent occurrence in speech.
- •§ 364. The two words a(n), the form a separate group or class characterized by
- •§ 367. Some grammarians speak of the 'zero article' 1 or the 'zero form of the indefinite article' 2. We are definitely against these terms.
- •§ 369. In accordance with its meaning 'one of many' the indefinite article is used to denote one thing of a class and is therefore a classifying article.
§ 324. The gerund, which is a peculiarity of the English language, is very extensively used as the centre of complexes (nexuses) synonymous with subordinate clauses. Compare:
I know of his h a v i n g g o n e to Kiev.
I know that he has gone to Kiev.
There are probably few types of subordinate clauses which have no synonymous complexes. Compare:
That he is ill is known. |
His being ill is known. |
I know that he has come. |
I know of his having come. |
After they had come, he hurried to his sister. |
On their coming he hurried to his sister. |
Your plan that we should stay here is not good. |
Your plan of our staying here is not good. |
Though he is young, he is a skilled worker. |
Despite his being young, he is a skilled worker, etc. |
It does not follow that the gerund constructions are equivalent to the subordinate clauses, but the given examples are intended to prove the 'versatility' of the gerund constructions.
§ 325. In conclusion we think it necessary to add a few words concerning the so-called 'half-gerund', as in the examples Excuse my boys (them) having bored you so. The gerund used in this complex differs from a 'classical' gerund but in having a noun in the common case as its subject-word. The common case established itself early with nouns that have no possessive case. The usage has spread very rapidly in recent years. At present such complexes are common: a) with nouns that have no case opposemes: The back-benchers insisted on the treaty being ratified. (The Worker); b) with nouns accompanied by attributes in post-position: Fancy a w о т a n of taste buying a hat like that. (Christie); c) to avoid ambiguity which might arise in oral speech if the gerund were connected with a noun in the possessive case: I imagine his son (son's) marrying so young; d) when the gerund is preceded by more than one noun: She objected to children and women s т о k i n g; e) when it is desirable to stress the person component of this complex:
I hate the idea of у о и wasting your time. (Maugham).
Though there is no unity of opinion about the nature of such forms, we do not think it expedient to have a special name for them. Examples like those given above merely show that the subject words of the gerund may also be nouns (pronouns) in the common case (or nouns and pronouns having no case opposites) and pronouns in the objective case.
The use of the common or the objective case form to express the agent of the action denoted by the gerund makes it possible to use gerundial complexes with a much greater number of nouns and pronouns.
This usage is suggestive of the further verbalization of the gerund, of some important change in its combinability.
The English and the Russian Verb Compared
§ 326. In compliance with the system adopted we shall now work out the comparison of the basic features of the English verb with those of the Russian verb.
I. Their lexico-grammatical meanings are fundamentally the same — both in English and in Russian the verb serves to denote an action, a process.
II. As to their lexico-grammatical (stem-building) morphemes, here as elsewhere we note a greater variety and abundance of stem-building affixes in Russian, both suffixes and prefixes. (Cf. -нича-, -ича-, -е-, -ова-, -ева-, -ствова-, etc; в-, вз-, воз-, вы-, пере-, за-, -из, -на, над-, о-, низ-, etc.). As shown above, the number of verb-building suffixes in English is limited (-ize, -ify, -en, -ate) though the prefixes are fairly numerous. The most productive ways of forming verbs in Modern English are conversion and the use of lexico-grammatical word-morphemes, neither being characteristic of Russian.
III. The dissimilarity between English and Russian verbs is more pronounced when we come to compare their paradigms, their grammatical categories. Although both in English and in Russian the verb exists as a system of systems, the respective structures of these systems are different:
1) The verbid systems of the two languages are quite different. There is no counterpart of the gerund in Russian. The English participle system includes only 7 grammemes represented by the words writing, having written, being written, having been written, written, living, having lived, whereas the Russian participle system contains hundreds of grammemes.
2) Analytical forms are predominant in the paradigm of the English verb. As stated (§§ 12, 19), out of 64 forms of the verb lexeme write 59 are of analytical structure (92.2 per cent). This is not the case in Russian where among 358 forms of the paradigm of the verb делать (verbids included) only 38 are analytical (11.2 per cent)1. The Russian verbids have no analytical forms if we do not count cases like Покурить бы! (Чайку бы! is also possible in Russian).
3) The sets of morphological categories are also different in the two languages. The English verb has the categories of order and posteriority not found in Russian 2, while the Russian verb possesses the categories of gender and case, alien to English (Cf. читала, читавший, читавшего, etc.).
4) Categories of the same name have essential distinctions in the two languages.
a) Voice in Russian (represented in opposemes like строит — строится) includes the active voice and the reflexive-neuter voice 3. Forms in -ся are polysemantic. They carry a number of connotations: reflexive (умывается), passive (дом строится), reciprocal (целуются), etc. Passive grammemes are more standard and common in English. Not only transitive but intransitive objective verbs have passive opposites.
b) Nor are English and Russian aspects identical, though the general principle underlying the differentiation писал — написал, wrote — was writing is the same: they show the character of the action. In English the continuous aspect is much more specific than the non-continuous aspect. The continuous aspect, lays stress on the continuity of the action. When no specification is intended the non-continuous aspect is employed. In Russian the perfective aspect is more specific. It accentuates the entirety of the action (or some stage of the action —он спел, он запел). When no specification is wanted, the imperfective aspect is used. Consequently the imperfective aspect has a much broader meaning than the continuous aspect (Ci. Дети летом спят в саду, The children sleep in the garden in summer, the continuous aspect would be out of place) and the perfective aspect is narrower than the non-continuous which makes a bare statement of the action and when used in speech, may acquire different aspect ive colouring. Cf. Он встретил друга. Не met his friend. He often met his friend at the club. The correlation of the aspects in the two languages can roughly be presented thus:
Aspects of the Russian Verb |
||
perfective |
non |
— p e r f e c t i ve |
|
|
|
Aspects |
of the |
English Verb |
поп— co |
ntinuous |
continuous |
Unlike the English participle, the participle in Russian has aspect distinctions делавший — сделавший.
c) Though English and Russian tenses have much in common, they differ in the distribution of absolute and relative meanings. (Cf. Он сказал, что живет в Москве. Не said that he l i v e d in Moscow.) (In the subordinate clause the Russian verb has a relative tense meaning, the English verb an absolute one.) Когда 6 у д у в Москве, зайду. When I am in Moscow, I shall drop in. (In the subordinate clause the tense meaning of the Russian verb is absolute, that of the English verb relative.)
d) English and Russian moods, though fundamentally alike, have a number of distinctions: thus Russian imperative grammemes include number meanings not found in English (Cf. читай — читайте), Russian subjunctive grammemes are uniform (Cf. читал бы, читали бы). In English their forms are markedly varied (invite, should invite, would invite, invited, had invited, etc.); in Russian speech one and the same mood grammeme serves to express different shades of non-fact. (Cf. Я настаиваю на том, чтобы он сделал это сам — problematic, если б ы он тогда сделал это сам ... —contrary to reality.) English grammemes are differentiated: some are used to present an act as problematic (I insist that he s h о и l d do it himself), others — as contradicting reality (If he ha d d о п е it himself, it would be different now), etc.
e) The category of person in English differs from its three-member Russian counterpart in having two-member opposemes (am — is, write — writes, opposing the third person to the first, shall — will, opposing the first person to the non-first), in not having person meaning in the plural grammemes of the present tense (Cf. читаем — читаете, читают, we (you, they) read), in the limited extent of the category of person.
f) Number is an all pervading category in Russian, embracing the finite verb and the verbids (the participle). With the exception of impersonal verbs no verb is thinkable outside this category, whereas in English it is but scantily represented in the finite verb, the verbids being altogether bereft of number.
g) Dissimilarity in the nature of the categories is coupled with considerable dissimilarity in the subclasses of verbs in English and Russian. Thus, in Russian the division of verbs into transitive and intransitive is most essential with regard to the category of voice. In English more relevant is the division into subjective and objective verbs. Likewise the subclasses of terminative and durative verbs distinguishable in English prove less relevant for the Russian verb.
IV. As to their combinability English and Russian verbs have a number of common properties (both in English and in Russian they are associated with nouns and pronouns denoting the subjects or objects of the actions denoted by the verb, they attach adverbs, etc.), but in English, owing to the existence of the gerund the verb may be modified by a noun in the possessive case, a possessive pronoun attached to the verb as its attribute, or it may be introduced by a preposition, all that is absolutely impossible in Russian. Peculiar is the combinability of English verbids in the so-called complexes.
E. g. Miss Subil had no desire for me to stay. (Snaith).
Tell me about this horrible business of my father wanting to set me aside for another son. (Shaw).
Connected with the difference in combinability is the difference in function.
a) In English the verb participates in different complexes with secondary predication (nexuses) which is not typical of Russian. "(I saw him come, I saw him coming, I am not against Tom coming, Tom was seen to come, etc.).
b) Owing to the existence of the gerund the verb may be used as a prepositional object, an adverbial modifier of concession, condition, etc., that is in those functions which are not discharged by the verbs in Russian.
________________________________________
1We have not counted combinations like был сделан as analytical forms {see note 3 below).
2 Though opposemes like делая — сделав, or делающий — делавший, traditionally regarded as belonging to the category of tense, resemble rather English order opposemes.
3 Some linguists speak of the passive voice in Russian built up analytically with the help of быть and the short forms of the participle, e. g. Дом был построен. Seeing that there is grammatical combi-nability between был and построен, дом and построен (cf. Изба была построена, Дома были построены) we must regard them as combinations of words like Дом был красив, Изба была красива, Дома были красивы.