- •The systemic nature of grammar. The two planes of language: the plane of content and the plane of expression. Two fundamental types of relations of lingual units. Their hierarchical relations.
- •The means employed for building-up member-forms of categorial oppositions. Synthetical and analytical types. The grammatical categories.
- •The category of case. Different approaches to the category of case in English nouns. The range of relational meanings of the English genitive.
- •The category of aspect. The opposition by which the aspective category of development is contrasted. The views on the essence of the perfect forms in modern English.
- •The category of mood. The opposition underlying the category. The problem of the imperative mood. The views on the classification of the subjunctive mood in English.
- •The category of voice, its difference from other verbal categories from the point of its referential qualities. The problem of the reflexive, reciprocal and middle voices.
- •The sentence as a unit of speech. The difference between the sentence and the word. Essential features of the sentence. The nominative function of the sentence.
- •The phrase. Two approaches to the definition of the phrase. Types of phrases. Means of expressing syntactical relations within a phrase.
- •Communicative types of sentences. Speech acts as realization of communicative intentions of the speaker. The three cardinal communicative sentences types. The problem of exclamatory sentences.
- •Actual division of the sentence, its purpose and main components. The formal means of expressing the distinction between the theme and the rheme.
The category of case. Different approaches to the category of case in English nouns. The range of relational meanings of the English genitive.
The category of case of the English nouns is expressed by the opposition of the form “a noun with an ‘s” and the form “a noun without ‘s”. The noun with ‘s means possessive or genitive case. The noun without ‘s is common case. The possessive case is the strong member of the categorical opposition and the non-genitive form is the weak member.
The problem of case is a debatable one. Different linguists distinguish different number of cases in ME. Some do not recognize the existence of case in ME nouns at all.
There are several theories concerning the category of case:
a limited case theory
a positional case theory
a prepositional case theory
no case theory
The limited case theory is represented by the majority of linguists in ME. They are common and genitive cases.
The positional case theory is expressed mostly by foreign grammarians. They distinguish cases according to the place of a noun in a sentence. If it is in preposition – it is a nominative case, if in interposition – genitive case or other cases. This theory is not convincing, because the place of a noun in a sentence refers to the sphere of syntax, but the category of case is a morphological category and should be expressed morphologically.
The theory of prepositional cases is expressed mostly by foreign linguists. There are many prepositions in ME and there are many cases (with the boy – Dative case). This point can’t be a convincing one as well, because the combination of a noun with preposition refers to the sphere of syntax as well. But case (as a morphological category) should be expressed morphologically. Prepositions are not morphemes, they are spelled separately from nouns. They have their own lexical meaning. So it is a free combination of a noun with preposition, but not the grammatical expression of the category of case.
The theory which doesn’t recognize the category of case in ME is not convincing, because ‘s is a grammatical morpheme, it has no lexical meaning of its own. It is spelled together with the noun. We have never seen ‘s separated from the noun, but Prof. Vorantsova considers that ‘s is a separate words abbreviated from the possessive pronoun, and it has a possessive meaning. All this is not convincing.
In ME only 2 cases are expressed grammatically: common case (the zero morpheme) and possessive case (‘s morpheme).
The meaning of the possessive case is the meaning of possession, but possessive case has some more additional meanings:
it expresses the relation of the whole to one (car’s roof)
it expresses a period of time (a day’s time)
it expresses distance (a 100 yard’s distance)
it expresses the meaning of qualification (Dobson’s vanity)
it expresses the genitive of agent (the great man’s arrival)
it expresses the genitive of patient (the Titanic’s tragedy)
it expresses the genitive of dispensed qualification (girl’s voice)
it expresses the genitive of adverbial (evening’s newspaper)
Sometimes we have double possession: the boy’s half-hour’s run, my mother’s father’s birthday.
Sometimes we have group genitive: the day-but-obe before yesterday’s paper.
We say that the category of number is the main morphological category in English, because all the countable nouns have it, while the category of case is found only in a part of nouns and not all of them have it.
The article, its essence. Peculiarities of the article. Semantic observations of the article in English. The meaningful non-uses of the article. The situational assessment of the article uses. The consideration of the English articles in the light of the oppositional theory.
Article is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in communicative collocation. The semantic purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent.
The traditional grammar doesn’t recognize the category of article determination of English nouns. According to Prof. Blokh, every combination of a noun with an article is considered to be the category of article determination. If we share this point of view, we will consider the article to be a morpheme to express this category. Then articles shouldn’t have lexical meaning and should be spelled together with the noun. But it isn’t so. Articles possess their own lexical meaning and are spelled separately from the noun which they modify. So, the combination of a noun with an article is not a grammar from to express the category of article determination. It is a free combination and we can insert other words between a noun and an article. Article is a separate POS, which expresses definiteness or indefiniteness. It is used in a sentence with a noun or its equivalent and has no independent syntactical function in the sentence. Morphologically it is not changeable.
In English according to the opinion of the majority of linguists there are two articles: DA (which expresses the identification or individualisation of the referent of the noun: the use of this article shows that the object denoted is taken in its concrete, individual quality) and IA (which refers the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects). Some linguists (Prof. Smernitsky) distinguish one more article – the zero article. It is used before nouns in the plural, before abstract nouns and before nouns expressing different kinds of smth. At the same time we should distinguish the ZA from the cases of omission of the article out of stylistic condiderations in the texts of telegrams, in explanations given in a dictionary, in titles and headlines. When we have the omission of the article, it is possible to insert the omitted article. If we do it, nothing will change but the style. But if we insert any article instead of the ZA, the meaning of the sentence will change. Alongside of free elliptical constructions, there are cases of the semantically unspecified non-use of the article in various combinations of fixed type, such as prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt, etc.), fixed verbal collocations (take place, make use, cast anchor, etc.), descriptive coordinative groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog and gun, day by day, etc.), and the like.
Passing to the situational estimation of the article uses, we must point out that the basic principle of their differentiation here is not a direct consideration of their meanings, but disclosing the informational characteristics that the article conveys to its noun in concrete contextual conditions. Examined from this angle, the definite article serves as an indicator of the type of nounal information which is presented as the "facts already known", i.e. as the starting point of the communication. In contrast to this, the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the article introduces the central communicative nounal part of the sentence, i.e. the part rendering the immediate informative data to be conveyed from the speaker to the listener. The starting point of the communication is called its "theme", while the central informative part is called its "rheme". In accord with the said situational functions, the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by the definite article is the "thematic" subject, while the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by the indefinite article or by the meaningful absence of the article is the "rhematic" predicative. Ex.: The day (subject) was drawing to a close. How to handle the situation was a big question (predicative).
It should be noted that in many other cases of syntactic use, i.e. non-subjective or non-predicative, the articles reflect the same situational functions. This can be probed by reducing the constructions in question on re-arrangement lines to the logically "canonised" link-type constructions. Ex.: If you would care to verify the incident (object), pray do so. → If you would care the incident (subject) to be verified, pray have it verified.
Another essential contextual-situational characteristic of the articles is their immediate connection with the two types of attributes to the noun. The first type is a "limiting" attribute, which requires the definite article before the noun; the second type is a "descriptive" attribute, which requires the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the article before the noun. Ex.: The events chronicled in this narrative took place some four years ago. (A limiting attribute) She was a person of strong will and iron self-control. (A descriptive attribute)
Oppositionally, the article determination of the noun should be divided into two binary correlations connected with each other hierarchically. The opposition of the higher level contrasts the definite article with the indefinite article and the meaningful absence of the article. In this opposition the definite article should be interpreted as the strong or marked member, while the other forms – as weak or unmarked members. The opposition of the lower level contrasts the two types of generalisation, i.e. the relative generalisation distinguishing its strong member (the indefinite article plus the meaningful absence of the article as its analogue with uncountable nouns and nouns in the plural) and the absolute, or "abstract" generalisation distinguishing the weak member of the opposition (the meaningful absence of the article).
The best way of demonstrating the actual oppositional value of the articles on the immediate textual material is to contrast them in syntactically equivalent conditions in pairs:
Identical nounal positions for the pair "the definite article — the indefinite article": The train hooted (that train). — A train hooted (some train).
Correlative nounal positions for the pair "the definite article — the absence of the article": I'm afraid the oxygen is out (our supply of oxygen). — Oxygen is necessary for life (oxygen in general, life in general).
Correlative nounal positions for the pair "the indefinite article — the absence of the article": Be careful, there is a puddle under your feet (a kind of puddle).— Be careful, there is mud on the ground (as different from clean space).
Finally, correlative nounal positions for the easily neutralised pair "the zero article of relative generalisation — the zero article of absolute generalisation": New information should be gathered on this subject (some information). — Scientific information should be gathered systematically in all fields of human knowledge (information in general).
Tense. The general notion of time, the lexical denotation of time, and the grammatical time proper. The two temporal categories in the system of the English verb. The problem of the future tense in English.
The Category of Tense is the basic verb category. It expresses the correlation between the action and event and objective time. We know that the actions or events can exist and develop only in time. We take some moment of time as a starting point in reference to which all the actions are expressed. If this starting point of time is taken in the plane including the moment of speaking then we deal with the Present tense. Any action which proceeds this starting moment of time is expressed by the Past Tense. And finally, any action which follows this starting point of time is expressed by the Future Tense. So we differentiate 3 principal tense forms in English: Present, Past, Future. In English there exists one more specific tense form which is called the "Future-in-the-Past". This tense form is used when we want to say that the action is treated as Future in reference to some Past moment of time.
When speaking of the expression of time by the verb, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the general notion of time, the lexical denotation of time, and the grammatical time proper, or grammatical temporality.
The general notion of time exposes it as the universal form of the continual consecutive change of phenomena. Time, as well as space, are the basic forms of the existence of matter, they both are absolutely independent of human perception. On the other hand, time is reflected by man through his perceptions and intellect, and finds its expression in his language.
Lexical denotations of time can be of 2 types: absolutive and non-absolute. Absolutive lexical denotation of time refer an action to the present, past, or future from the point of view of the present moment (now, yesterday, in a couple of days). Non-absolute lexical denotation of time gives no orientation towards the present and can be of 2 types: 1) relative (shows that an event precedes or follows another one, e.g. “after that, before that, some time later, at different times”), 2) factual (directly states the time of an event, e.g. “in 1066, during the time of the First World War”).
Grammatical time proper expresses the most abstract temporal meanings that are conveyed through the category of tense. Traditional grammar speaks of 16 tense forms in English but actually there exist only 4 of them. The matter is that when speaking about an action we express its primary characteristics of tense but then it may be necessary to show the character of the development of the action or to compare the action with some other one and then in such cases the primary tense category is modified by some other verb categories such as aspect (continuous or non-continuous), perfect (perfect or non-perfect). So we get complex analytical forms, which express not one category of tense but a number of them. Ex. If we analyze such forms, as "is reading" we should say that this verb expresses Present Tense and continuous aspect or perfect. Hence the modification of the category of Tense by the category of aspect brings about the appearance of 16 verb forms.
In the system of the English verb there exist two temporal categories: the category of “primary time” and the category of the “prospective time”.
The category of primary time provides for the absolutive expression of the time of the process denoted by the verb. The formal signs of the opposition constituting this category are: with regular verbs – (e)d, and with irregular verbs, phonemic interchanges of more or less individual specification. This category divides all the tense forms of the verb into two temporal planes: the plane of the present and the plane of the past, which also affects also the future forms. E.g.: She returns home at five o’clock. – At five she returned home. – I know that she will return home at five. – I knew that she would return home at five.
The category of prospect is also temporal because it is closely connected with the expression of processual time. In difference from the category of primary time it is purely relative; it means that the future form of the verb only shows the denoted process as an after-action relative to some other action or state or event.
Many linguists don’t include the future in the system of tenses. E.g. Otto Esperson doesn’t include it as he claims that there is no grammatical form of the future, which stands on the same grammatical footing with the forms of the present and the past. The combination shall/will+infinitive cannot be treated as a grammatical (analytical) form of the future since the first elementt in this combination – shall/will – is not devoid of lexical meaning. Shall has traces of the meaning of obligation, will – volition => the combination is a “modal phrase” (Esperson) or a “free word combination”, which cannot be placed on the same footing with grammatical forms of the Present and the Past.