Теоретическая грамматика английского языка

Grammar&Semantics.Gr. is semantically expr. means, expresses diff. sem. meanings. Gr. is a complex set of semantically charged regularities of forming utterances of speech from the nominative means of l-ge. Since gr. forms and regularities are meaningful, the rules of grammar must be stated semantically, or they must be worded functionally. (ex: inverted w/o, its meaningful functions – difference between meaningful&marginal idea, emotive&unemotivemodes of speech, dif. types of style) Gr. elements of l-ge present a unity of content & expression (or form & meaning).

Syntagmatic & Paradigmatic Relations. Beaudoin de Courtenay (Rus.) & Ferdinand de Saussure (Swiss): showed difference betw. Lingual synchrony (coexistence of lingual elements) & diachrony (diff. time-periods in the development of lingual elements as well as l-ge as a whole) & defined l-ge as a synchronic system of meaningful elements at any stage of its hist. evolution. Lingual units stand to one another in 2 fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic & paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence. Ex: The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster rocket. Words, word-groups and morphemes of words are connected syntagmatically. The combination of 2 words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit, which is referred to as a syntactic “syntagma”. Notional syntagmas: predicative (a subject+predicate), objective (a verb+its object), attributive (a noun+its attr.), adverbial (verb/adj/adverb+adv.modifier). The other type of relations, opposed to synt. And called paradigmatic, are such as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur. These intra-systemic relations & dependencies are expressed in the fact that each lingual unit is included in a set of connections based on diff. formal and functional properties.

Levels of l-ge. 1) The lowest level – phonemic.Phoneme is not a sign, but a unit of a l-ge (lacks content). It’s abstract, represents by a sound & letter. Specific function – differential: phonemes distinguish words & morphemes as material bodies, changes their meanings.2) Morphemic. Morpheme is a sign–2 sides; the smallest meaningful part of a word. The smallest -s. F-tion – significative: m. express the signif. or generalized meaning. M. is a group of allophones. Ex: roots (can function by themselves-free morph.) & affixes (suffixes, prefixes & inflections). 3) Lexemic. Lexeme (a word) in a l-ge performs a nominative (назывная) f-tion, it names objects & phenomena. 1 morpheme can be 1 word (the smallest). 4) Denotemic. A w-comb./phrase (denoteme) is a comb. of at least 2 notional w-s connected semantically. A comb. of a n.word & an aux. element is not a phrase, but just a gram.form. (ex.has been done). F-tion – polynominative. Phrases name complicated things & phenom, give add. info. about qualities of objects, circumstances. Phrases: free (we can choose elements freely) & stable (phraseological units). 5) Proposemic (a level of a sentence). F-tions: a) Nominative (names a whole situation or a sit. event) & b) Predicative. Predication is the connection betw. the subj.& the predicate of a s-ce, which form a predicative line. Predication is expr. through tense&mood of a verb. 6) Dictemic – level of topicalization. (Blokh) Unit – dicteme. Utterance – supra-sentential construction. A dicteme is a comb.of 2/more s-ces which are united by common topic. Though there may be only 1 s-ce in a d. f-tions: a) Nominative: names sit./sit.events. b)Predicative (see), c) F.of topicalozation (тематизир.) - main: each dicteme presents a separate topic in a continual text, d) Stylistic (to expr.the attitude of the speaker).

The word & the morpheme. In studying the moroheme we study the word in the necess.details of its composition&f-tions. The word is a basic nominative unit. Without words – no com-tion even in thought. Bloomfield: phoneme&morpheme are basic categories of ling.discription. M. – minimal meaningful segment. M.is a meaningful segmental component of the word; the m.is formed by phonemes. The word is a nominative unit of of l-ge built up by morphemes & indivisible into smaller segments as regards its nominative f-tion. The morphol.system of l-ge reveals its properties through the morphemic str-re of words.

Traditional (functional) class-tion of morphemes. Henry Sweet, Smirnitsky. Study of morph.str-re in traditional gr. - 2 criteria.1) Positional: the analysis of the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones. 2) Semantic(functional): involves the study of the correlative contribution of the morpheme to the general meaning of the word. M-s at the upper level are divided into root & affixal (lex.&gram.).A lot of varieties of morphemic composition of modern E.words,but preferable model is: prefix+root+lexical suffix+gram.suffix. Roots: concrete, “material” part of the meaning of the word, affixes – specificational part of the meaning. Specifications: of lexico-semantic & grammatico-semantic character. Or 3 criteria: a) semantic properties of words (meaning), b) formal properties (form), c) functional (syntactic f-tion).

Distributional class-tion of morphemes. In the distrib.analysis 3 main types of distribution are discrimin.: contrastive distr., non-contrastive distr., and complementary distr. Contr.& non-contr.distr.concern identical environments of different morphs. (Morph is combination of phones that has a meaning, it happens only once) The morphs are said to be in contrastive distr. if their meanings (f-tions) are different; such morphs constitute dofferent morphemes. Ex: returned/returning/returns. The morphs are in non-contrastive d. if their mean.(f-tions) are identical; such morphs constitute “free variants” of the same morpheme. Ex: suffixes –ed & -t (learned/learnt), -s & -i (genies/genii). As for complementary distr., it concerns diff.environments of formally diff.morphs which fulfill one & the same f-tion; such morphs are termed “allo-morphs”. Ex: a few allomorphs of the plural suffix: -en (children), -s (toys), -a (data), -es (crises), -I (genii), zero (trout-trout). The application of distr.analysis to the morphemic level-> cl-tion of m. on distr.lines. a) free & bound m., b) overt & covert m., c) additive & replacive m., d) continuous & discontin.m, e) segmental & supra-segmental m.

Synthetical & Analytical forms in Grammar. Gr.opposition – correlation of gr.forms expressing a categorical gram. meaning based on common & differential features of these forms. The means used for building up member-forms of categorical oppositions are divided into synthetical & analytical, and so do the gram.forms. Synthetical – realized by the inner morphemic composition of the word, while analytical gr.forms are built up by a combination of 2/more words, one of which is a gram.auxiliary (word-morpheme), & the other, a word of “substantial” meaning. Synthetical gr.f. are based on inner inflexion (phonemic (vowel) interchange; non-productive now, on ancient elements, used in irregular verbs, some nouns-plural), outer inflection (productive, gram.suffixation: number, case, person-number, tenseparticipial-gerundial forms, the comparisons), and suppletivity (non-prod., based on gram.interchange of word roots (be-am-is-are, go-went, good-better, we-us; +can-be able – broader morphological interpretation). Analytical (typical of modern E.) – a combination of aux.word+basic word. “Gramatically idiomatic” combinations (whose relevant gram.meaning is not dependent on meanings of their component elements taken apart). But: more, most – unidiomatic

Identification of parts of speech. The words of l-ge, depending on various formal & semantic features, are divided into grammatically relevant sets or classes. Traditionally they are called parts of speech (“lexico-gram.” series of words or categories). Today they are discriminated ac. to 3 criteria: semantic, formal & functional. Semantic (meaning): presupposes the evaluation of the generalized meaning, characteristic of all words of a given part of speech. The meaning is understood as “categorical meaning of the p.of sp.”. Formal (form): provides for the exposition of the specific inflexional & derivational (word-building) features of all the lexemic subsets of a part of speech. Functional (function): concerns the syntactic role of words in the s-ce typical of a part of speech.

Notional parts of speech in English. Acc.to these criteria words on the upper level are div.into notional(the noun, adj., numeral, pronoun, verb, adverb), words of complete nominative mean.characterized by self-dependent f-tions, & functional(the article, prepos., conj., particle, modal verb, interjection). Noun: 1) meaning-substance (thinfness), 2) the changeable forms of number & case; specific suff.forms of derivation, 3) the substantive f-tions in the s-ce (subj., obj., substantival predicate); prepositional connections; modiication by an adj. Adjective: 1) the categorical mean. of property (qualitative & relative), 2) forms of degrees of comparison (for qualitative adj.), spec.suff.forms of deriv., 3) adj.f-tions (attribute to a noun, adjectival predicate). Numeral: 1) number (cardinal-порядк. & ordinal-колич.), 2) narrow set of simple numerals, sp.forms of composition for compound num., sp.forms of deriv.for ordinal num., 3)f-tions of numerical attr. & numer. substantive. Pronoun: 1)indication (deixis), 2)narrow sets of various status with the corresponding formal properties of categ.changeability & w-building, 3)the subst. & adjectival f-tions for dif.sets. Verb: 1)process (finite process & non-finite pr.), 2)of verbal categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; opposition of finite & non-finite forms, 3)f-tion of the finite predicate for the finite verb; mixed verbal-other than verbal f-tions for the non-f.verb. Adverb: 1) secondary property (i.e. of process or another property), 2)of degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; sp.suffixal forms of derivation; 3) f-tions of various adv. modifiers.

Functional parts of speech.-Words of incomplete nominative meaning & non-self-dependent, mediary f-tions in the s-ce. Their number is limited. Article: expresses the specific limitation of the substantive f-tions. Preposition: expr.the dependencies and interdependencies of substantive referents. Conjunction: expr. connections of phenomena. Particle: unites the funct.words of specifying&limiting meaning. Modal verbs: expr.the attitude of the sp.to the situation. Here belong words of probability (probably, perhaps), of qualitative evaluation (un/fortunately, luckily), of affirm. & negation. Interjection: is a signal of emotions.

Syntactic classes of words (Ch.Fries). The syntactic (monofiggerential) cl-tion of words is based on syntactic featuring of words only. The syntactic cl-tion of words, in principle, supplements the 3-criteria cl-tion specifying the syntactic features of parts of speech. For the Rus. l-ge the basic principles of the syntactic cl-tion of words were outlined in the works of Peshkovski. In English the syntactico-distributional cl-tion of words was worked out by Bloomfield & his followers Harris and esp-ly Ch.Fries. The synt.-distrib. Cl-tion of words is based on the study of their combinability by means of substitution tests. As a rezult of this testing, a standart model of 4 main syntactic positions of notional words was built up. These positions are those of the noun,verb,adj,&adverb. Pronouns are included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes. Words incapable to occupy the said main syntactic positions are treated as functional words.

The three-Layer structure of vocabulary (M.Blokh). –cl-tion of the lexicon presenting some essential generalizations about its str-re. Lexicon is divided into 2 parts: notional words & f-tional words. The open character of the notional part & the closed character of the f-tional part have the status of a formal grammatical feature. Between them there is also an intermediary field of semi-functional words. 1)The whole of the lexicon is divided into 3 layers. 2)The 1^st(upper) layer, of open character, is formed by 4 classes of notional words; since these words have full nominative value,they may be referred to as “names”: respectively, substance-names (nouns), process-n.(verbs), primary property n.(adj.), secondary property n. (adverbs); 3) the names are consolidated into an integral system by the lexical paradigm of nomination-the paradigmatic series whose f-tion is to form & distribute any given word root among the 4 lexical class-types (p-s of speech); 4) the 2^nd (intermediate) layer of closed char., is formed by pronominal words or “substitutes of names”; here belong pronouns & replacer lexemes of all kinds (noun-,verb-,adj-,adv-replacers), w. of broad meaning (thing, matter etc) & numbers; 5) the 3^rd (lower) layer of closed char., is formed by functional w. proper, or “specifiers of names”: determiners, prep., conj., particles etc. The f-tion of 2^nd & 3^rd layers is to organize together with the categorial means of grammar, the production of speech utterances out of the direct naming means of l-ge (the 1^st layer).

13. The structure of gram. Cat.

It’s a gr. concept proper. Gr. Cat. Is a whole system of gr. Forms expressing a generalized gr. Func..

Gr.cat.: 1. gr. Feture – гр. признак (ex. suffix). 2. gr. Form. 3. Gr. Paradigm. 4. Gr. Opp.

Synthetiacal, analytical – the feat.s expressing the form are gr. Morphemes. Synth. Form is one-single word including the gr. Feat.. Ex. Tables. Analyt. Form consists of 2 parts (word expressing the material meaning & word exp. The feat.). Ex. Will go. 3 types of synth.forms:

1. built up by the change of root morpheme, vowel-interchange (man-men) inner inflexion.

2. outer inflexion – table – tables.

3. suppletivity – I am, you are, bad-worse

14. Cat. of Number

The cat. of number is expressed by the opp. of the plural form of the noun to its singular form. The semantic difference of the opp.al members of the cat. of number in many linguistic works is treated trad.ly: the meaning of the singular is interpreted as "1" & the meaning of the plural - as "many" ("more than 1"). As the trad. interpretation of the singular & the plural mem­bers does not work in many cases, recently the categorial meaning of the plural has been reconsidered & now it is interpreted as the denotation of "the potentially dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent" (correspondingly, the categorial meaning of the singular is treated as "the non-dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent").

The categorial opp. of number is subjected to the process of opp.al reduction. Neutralization takes place when countable Ns begin to func. as Singularia Tantum Ns, denoting in such cases either abstract ideas or some mass material, e.g. On my birthday we alw have goose; or when countable Ns are used in the func. of the Absol. Plural: The board are not unanimous on the ?. A styl.ally marked transposition is achieved by the use of the descriptive uncountable plural (The fruits of the toil are not alw vis­ible) & the "repetition plural" (Car after car rushed past me).

15. Cat. of Case

The case meanings in Eng relate to 1 another in a peculiar, unknown in other lang.s, way: the common case is quite indiff. from the semantic point of view, while the genitive case func.s as a subsidiary element in the morphological system of Eng be cause its semantics is also rendered by the Common Case noun in prepositional collocations & in contact.

In the discussion of the case probl. 4 main views advanced by diff. scholars should be considered: the "theory of positional cases", the "theory of prepositional cases", the "limited case theory", & the "postpositional theory". Acc. to the "theory of positional cases", the Eng noun distinguishes the inflectional genitive case & 4 non-inflectional, purely positional, cases - Nominative, Vocative, Dative, Accusative. The cardinal weak point of this theory lies in the fact that it mixes up the func.al (syntactic) characteristics of the sent. parts & the morphological feat.s of the noun.

The "theory of prepositional cases" regards nounal combinations with the prepositions in certain object & attributive collocations as morphological case forms: the Dative Case (to + N, for + N), the Genitive Case (of + N).

The "limited case theory" recognizes the existence in Eng of a limited case system whose members are the Genitive Case (a strong form) & the Common Case (a weak form).

The "postpositional theory" claims that the Eng noun in the course of its historical development has completely lost the morpho­logical cat. of case; that is why the trad. Genitive Case is treated by its advocates as a combination of a noun with a particle.

Taking into account the advantages of the 2 theories - the "limit­ed case theory" & the "postpositional theory" opens new perspectives in the treatment of the cat. of case. It st&s to reason to regard the element -s I -es as a special case particle. Thus, acc. to the "particle case theory" the 2-case system of the noun is to be recognized in Eng: the Common Case is a direct case, the Genitive Case is an oblique case. As the case opp. does not work with all Ns, from the func.al point of view the Genitive Case is to be regarded as subsidi­ary to the syntactic system of prepositional phrases.

16. Cat. of Gender

The probl. of gender in Eng is being vigorously disputed. Linguistic scholars as a rule deny the existence of gender in Eng r as a gr. cat. & stress its purely semantic character.' The actual gender distinctions of Ns are not denied by any1; what is disputable is the character of the gender class-tion: whether it is purely semantic or semantico-gr..

In fact, the cat. of gender in Eng is expressed with the help of the obligatory correlation of Ns with the personal pro­Ns of the third person. The third person proNs being specific & obligatory classifiers of Ns, Eng gender distinctions dis­play their gr. nature.

The cat. of gender is based on 2 hierarchically arranged opp.s: the upper opp. is general, it func.s in the whole set of Ns; the lower opp. is partial, it func.s in the subset of person Ns only. As a result of the double opp.al correla­tion, in Modern Eng a specific system of 3 genders arises: the neuter, the masculine, & the feminine genders.

In Eng there are many person Ns capable of expressing both feminine & masculine genders by way of the pronominal cor­relation. These Ns comprise a group of the so-called "common' gender" Ns, e.g.: "person", "friend", etc.

In the plural all the gender distinctions are neutralized but they are rendered obliquely through the correlation with the singular.

Alongside of the gr. (or lexico-gr.) gender distinctions, Eng Ns can show the sex of their referents also lexi­cally with the help of special lexical markers, e.g.: bull-calf/cow-calf, cock-sparrow/hen-sparrow, he-bear/she-bear, etc. or through suffixal derivation: sultan/sultana, lion/li1ss, etc.

The cat. of gender can undergo the process of opp.al reduction. It can be easily neutralized (with the group of "common gender" Ns) & transponized (the process of "personification").

The Eng gender differs much from the Russian gender: the Eng gender has a semantic character (opp.ally, i.e. gr.ly expressed), while the gender in Russian is partially semantic (Russian animate Ns have semantic gender distinctions), & partially formal.

17. Cat. of Article Determination

The probl. of Eng articles has been the subject of hot dis­cussions for many years. Today the most disputable ?s con­cerning the system of articles in Eng are the following: the identifiction of the article status in the hierarchy of lang. units, the nurriber of articles, their categorial & pragmatic func.s.

There exist 2 basic approaches to the probl. of the article status some scholars consider the article a self-sufficient word which forms with the modified noun a syntactic syntagma; others identify the article with the morpheme-like element which builds up with the nounal, stem a specific morph.

In recent works on the probl. of article determination of Eng Ns, more often than not an opinion is expressed that in the hierarchy of lang. units the article occupies a peculiar place - the place intermediary btw the word & the morpheme.

In the light of the opp.al theory the cat. of article de­termination of the noun is regarded as 1 which is based on 2 binary opp.s: 1 of them is upper, the other is lower. The opp. of the higher level operates in the whole system of articles & contrasts the definite article with the noun against the 2 other forms of article determination of the noun - the indefinite article & the meaningful absence of the article. The opp. of the lower level operates within the sphere of realizing the categorial meaning of non-identification (the sphere of the weak member of the upper opp.) & contrasts the 2 types of generalization - the relat. generalization & the absol. generalization. As a result, the sys­tem of articles in Eng is described as 1 consisting of 3 arti­cles - the definite article, the indefinite article, & the 0 article, which, correspondingly, express the categorial func.s (meanings) of identification, relat. generalization, & absol. generalization.

The article paradigm is generalized for the whole system of the common Ns in Eng & is transpositionally outstretched into the subsystems of proper Ns & Unica (unique Ns) as well as into the system of proNs.

18. Non-finite forms of the V

Non-finite forms of the V (Vids) are the forms of the V which have feat.s intermediary btw the V & the non-processual parts of spee4. They perform mixed, Val & non-Val, syntactic func.s. They are: inf-ve, gerund, pres. participle, past participle.

The inf-ve combines the properties of the V with those of the noun, as a result it serves as the Val name of a process. By virtue of its general process-naming func., the inf-ve should be considered as the head-form of the whole paradigm of the V. The inf-ve has a dual, V-type & noun-type, valency. The inf-ve has 3 gr. cat.: the aspective cat. of development (the opp. of Continuous & Non-Continuous forms), the aspective cat. of retrospective coordination (the opp. of Perf. & Non-Perf. forms), the cat. of voice (the opp. of Pass. & Non-Pass. forms). Conseq-ly, the categorial paradigm of the inf-ve of the objective V incl.s eight forms: the Indefinite Act., the Continuous Act., the Perf. Act., the Perf. Continuous Act.; the Indefinite Pass., the Continuous Pass., the Perf. Pass., the Perf. Continuous Pass.. The inf-ve paradigm of the non-objective V, correspond­ingly, incl.s 4 forms.

The gerund, like the infinitive, combines the properties of the-V with those of the noun & gives the process the Val name. In comp. with the infinitive the gerund reveals stronger substan­tive properties. Namely, as diff. from the infinitive, & similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the possessive case or its pronominal equivalents (expressing the subject of the Val process), & it can be used with prepositions.

The combinability of the gerund is dual: it has a mixed, V-type & noun-type, valency. Like the infinitive, the gerund performs the syntactic func.s of the subject, the object, the predicative, the attrib., & the adVial modifier. The gerund has 2 gr. cat.: the aspective cat. of retrospective coordination & the cat. of voice. Conseq-ly, the categorial paradigm of the gerund of the objective V includes four forms: the Simple Active, the Perf. Active, the Simple Passive, the Perf. Passive. The ge-rundial paradigm of the non-objective V, correspondingly, includes 2 forms.

The pres. participle serves as a qualifying-processual name. It combines the properties of the V with those of the adjective & adV.

The pres. participle has 2 cat.: the cat. of retro­spective coordination & the cat. of voice. The triple nature of the pres. participle finds its expression in its mixed (V-type, ad­jective-type, adV-type) valency & its syntactic func.s (those of the predicative, the attrib., & the adVial modifier).

The pres. participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-predicative complexes of objective & subjective types.

The past participle combines the properties of the V with those of the adjective. The categorial meaning of the past participle is qual­ifying: it gives some sort of qualification to the denoted process. The past participle has no paradigmatic forms; by way of paradigmatic correlation with the pres. participle, it conveys implicitly the cate­gorial meanings of the perf. & the passive. Its valency is not spe­cific; its typical syntactic func.s are those of the attrib. & the predicative.

Like the pres. participle, the past participle is capable of mak­ing up semi-predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as absolute complexes.

The consideration of the English Vids in their mutual comp., supported & supplemented by comparing them with their non­Val counterparts, reveals a peculiar character of their correlation.

The correlation of the infinitive, the gerund, & the Val noun, being of an indisputably systemic nature & covering a vast propor­tion of the lexicon, makes up a special lexico-gr. cat. of processual repres.ation. The 3 stages of this cat. repres. the referential processual entity of the lexemic series, respective­ly, as dynamic (the infinitive & its phrase), semi-dynamic (the ger­und & its phrase), & static (the Val noun & its phrase). The cat. of processual repres.ation underlies the predicative diff. between various situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalization.

19. Cat. of Tense.

The cat. of tense is considered to be an immanent gr. Cat. which means that the finite V form alw expresses time distinctions.

The cat. of tense finds diff. interpretations with diff. scholars. Thus, in trad. linguistics gr. time is often repres.ed as a 3-form cat. consisting of the "lin­ear" past, pres., & future forms. The future-in-the-past does not find its place in the scheme based on the linear principle, hence, this system is considered to be deficient, not covering all lingual data.

At the same time linguists build up new systems of tenses in order to find a suitable place in them for future-in-the past. Nevertheless, many of such schemes are open to criticism for their inconsistency which finds its expression in the fact that some of them deny the inde­pendent status of future tenses while others exclude from the analysis future-in-the-past forms.

The said inconsistency can be overcome if we accept the idea that in Eng there exist 2 tense cat..

The 1st cat. - the cat. of primary time - expresses a direct retrospective evaluation of the time of the process denoted, due to which the process receives an absolutive time characteristic. This cat. is based upon the opp. of "the past tense" & "the pres. tense", the past tense being its strong member.

The 2nd tense cat. is the cat. of "prospective time", it is based upon the opp. of "after-action" & "non-after-ac­tion", the marked member being the future tense. The cat. of prospect is relat. by nature which means that it characterizes the action from the point of view of its correlation with some other ac­tion. As the future Val form may be relat. either to the pres. time, or to the past time incl.d in non-future, the Eng V acquires 2 diff. future forms: the future of the pres. & the future of the past. It means that the future of the past is doubly strong expressing the strong members of the cat. of primary time & the cat. of prospect.

The cat. of primary time is subjected to neutralization & transposition, transposition being more typical. The vivid cases of transposition are the "historical pres." & the "Preterite of Mod­esty". As for the cat. of prospect, it is often neutralized; neutral­ization can be of 2 types: syntactically optional & syntactically obligatory.

20. Cat. of Aspect

Gr. aspective meanings form a variable gr. cat. which is trad.ly associated with the opp. of con­tinuous & non-continuous forms of the V. Yet, 1 can find a great divergence of opinions on the probl. of the Eng aspect. The main difference lies in the interpretation of the categorial seman­tics of the opp.al members - continuous & indefinite forms: the categorial meaning of the continuous form is usually defined as the meaning of duration, while the interpretation of the categorial semantics of the Indefinite form causes controversy (the indefinite form may be interpreted as having no aspective meaning (I.P. Ivanova), as a form having a vague content (G.N. Vorontsova), as a form stressing the fact of the performance of the action (A.I. Smirnitsky). In Modern Linguistics A.I. Smirnitsky's interpretation of the cate­gorial semantics of the indefinite form is widely accepted.

In theoretical gr-ar the interpretation of perf. / non-perf. V-forms also refers to disputable ?s. Some linguists inter­pret the opp. of perf. / non-perf. forms as aspective (O. Jespersen, I.P. Ivanova, G.N. Vorontsova), others - as the opp. of tense forms (H. Sweet, G.O. Curme, A. Korsakov). A.I. Smirnitsky was the 1st to prove that perf. & non-perf. make up a special, self-sufficient, cat. which he called the "cat. of time correlation"; this viewpoint is shared now by a vast majority of linguists.

Developing A.I. Smirnitsky's views on the categorial semantics of perf. / non-perf. forms, we can come to the conclusion that in Eng there exist 2 aspective cat.: the cat. of develop­ment (based on the opp. of continuous & non-continuous forms) & the cat. of retrospective coordination (based on the opp. of perf. & non-perf. forms).

The perf. form has a mixed categorial meaning: it expresses both retrospective time coordination of the process & the connexion of the prior action with a time-limit reflected in a subsequent event. The recognition of the 2 aspect cat. also enables 1 to give a sound interpretation to the perf. continuous forms: they must be treated as forms having marks in both the aspect cat..

The opp. of continuous & non-continuous forms can be neutralized & transponized. Besides, in the cat. of development Vs which are usually not used in continuous forms can be subjected to the process of reverse transposition, e.g.: Were you wanting my help?

As for the opp. of perf. & non-perf. forms, it can under­go only the process of neutralization, transposition being alien to it.

21. Cat. of Mood

A great divergence of opinions on the ? of the cat. of mood is caused by the fact that identical mood forms can express diff. meanings & diff. forms can express similar meanings.

The cat. of mood shows the relation of the nominative con­tent of the sent. towards reality. By this cat. the action can be pres.ed as real, non-real, desirable, recommended, etc.

It is obvious that the opp. of the 1 integral form of the indic­ative & the 1 integral form of the subj-ve underlies the unity of the whole system of Eng moods. The formal mark of this opp. is the tense-retrospect shift in the subj-ve, the latter being the strong member of the opp.. The shift consists in the perf. aspect being opposed to the imperf. aspect, both turned into the relat. substitutes for the absolutive past & pres. tenses of the indicative.

The study of the Eng mood reveals a certain correlation of its formal & semantic feat.s. The subj-ve, the integral mood of unreality, pres.s the 2 sets of forms acc. to the structural division of Val tenses into the pres. & the past. These form-sets constitute the 2 corresponding func.al subsystems of the subj-ve, namely, the spective, the mood of attitudes, & the condi­tional, the mood of appraising causal-conditional relations of process­es. Each of these, in its turn, falls into 2 systemic subsets, so that at the immed-ly working level of pres.ation we have the 4 subj-ve form-types identified on the basis of the strict correlation btw their structure & their func.: the pure spective, the modal spective, the stipulative conditional, the consective conditional:

Pure Spective (Subj-ve 1) consideration, desideration, inducement

Stipulative Conditional (Subj-ve 2) unreal condition

Consective Conditional (Subj-ve 3) unreal consequence

Modal Spective (Subj-ve 4) consideration, desideration, inducement

The elaborated scheme clearly shows that the so-called "impera­tive mood" has historically coincided with Subj-ve 1.

The described system is not finished in terms of the historical de­velopment of lang.; on the contrary, it is in the state of making & change. Its actual manifestations are complicated by neutraliza­tions of formal & semantic contrasts, by fluctuating uses of the auxiliaries, of the finite "be" in the singular.

22. The sent. as a syntactic unit.

The sent. is the immediate integral unit of spee4 built up of words acc. to a definite syntactic pattern & distinguished by contextually relevant comm-tive purpose. Any coherent connexion of words having an informative destination is effected within the frame work of sent.. Therefore the sent. idis the main object of syntax. The sent., being composed of word, may in certain cases include one word of various lexico-gram. st&ings. Ex. Congratulations! The actual existence of one-word sent.s does not contradict the general idea of a sent. as a special syntactic combination of words. The sent. is a predicative utterance unit. It means that the sent. not only names some referents with the help of its word-constituents, but also, 1^st presents these referents as making up a certain situation (a situational event) & 2^nd reflects the connexion btw the nominal denotation of the event & objective reality showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable or undes., etc. There is a diff. btw the sent. & the word. Unlike the word, the sent. does not exist in the system of the lang. as a ready-made unit. It is created by the speaker in the course of commun-tion. Trad. gr. has never regarded the sent. as part of the system of means of expression; It has alw interpreted the sent. not as an implement for constructing spee4, but as spee4 itself. Being a unit of spee4, the sent is intonationally delimited. Intonation separates one sent. from another in the continual flow of uttered segments. The sent. is characterized by its specific category of predication which establishes the relation of the named phenomena to actual life. As for predication proper, it embodies syntactic modality as the fundamental feature of the sent. It is the feature of predication that identifies the sent. as opposed to any other combination of words having a situational referent. The centre of predication in a sent. of Val type is a finite V. The finite V expresses essential predicative meanings by its categorical forms. The sent as a lingual unit performs 2 essential signemic (meaningful) func.s: 1^st substance-naming (nomin-ve func.), 2^nd – reality-evaluating (predicative func.).

23. The phrase, its relation to the word & the sent.

The phrase is the object of minor syntax. The phrase is usually understood as a combination of 2 or more words which is a gr. unit but is not an analytical form of a word. Nominal phrase – a compound signemic unit made up of words & denoting a complex phenomenon of reality analyzable into its component elements together with various relations btw them. The trad. class-tion of phrases is based on the part of spee4 status of the phrase constituents. In accordance with this crite­rion, the following types of phrases can be identified: "noun + noun", "adjective + noun", "V + noun", "V + adV", "adV + adjec­tive", "adV + adV", etc. Phrases are made up not only by notion­al words but also by func.al words, e.g.: "in accordance with", "due to", "apart from", "as soon as" - such phrases perform in a sent. preposition-like & conjunction-like func.s. Syntactic relations of the phrase constituents are divided into 2 main types: agreement & government. Agreement takes place when the subord. word assumes a form similar to that of the word to which it is subord.. In English agree­ment is typical only of the category of number in demonstrative pro­nouns. Government takes place when the subord. word is used in a certain form required by its head word, the form of the subord. word not coinciding with the form of the head word. The expression of government is the use of the objective case of personal pronouns & of the pronoun "who" when they are used in a Val phrase or follow a preposition. Phrases can also be classified according to the nominative value of their constituents. As a result three major types of phrases are identi­fied: notional (consisting of grammatically connected notional words), formative (made up by notional & func.al words), & func.al (consisting of func.al words alone). Notional phrases are subdivid­ed into 2 groups on the principle of the constituent rank: equipotent phrases (the phrase constituents are of an equal rank) & dominational phrases (the syntactic ranks of the constituents are not equal as they refer to one another as the modifier & the modified). Further subdivision of equipotent notional word groupings into coordinative & cumulative is carried out on the principle of the character of nom­ination realized by the phrase constituents: coordinative phrases are based on the logically consecutive connexions, cumulative phrases are characterized by the constituent inequality in the character of nomina­tion realized & the presence of a coordinative conjunction. In their turn, dominational notional phrases are subdivided into consecutive & cumulative: the class-tion principle of the character of nomi­nation realized by the phrase constituents remains valid. Domination­al consecutive phrases fall into minor groupings according to the spe­cific features of dominational connexion.

24. Actual division of the sent.

The actual division of the sent. exposes its informative perspective showing what immediate semantic contribution the sent. parts make to total inf-tion conveyed by the sent. From the point of view of the actual division the sent. can be divided into 2 sections: thematic (theme) & rhematic (rheme). The theme expresses the starting point of communication; it means that it denotes an object or a phenomenon about which smth is reported. The rheme expresses the basic informative part of the com­munication, emphasizing its contextually relevant centre. Between the theme & the rheme intermediary, transitional parts of the actu­al division can be placed, also known under the term "transition". Transitional parts of the sent. are characterized by diff. de­grees of their informative value. The theory of actual division has proved fruitful in the study of the comm-tive properties of sent.s. In particular, it has been demonstrated that each comm-tive type is distinguished by fea­tures which are revealed first & foremost in the nature of the rheme. As a declarative sent. immediately expresses a proposition, its actual division pattern has a complete form, its rheme making up the centre of some statement. As an imperative sent. does not directly express a proposi­tion, its rheme represents the informative nucleus not of an explicit proposition, but of an inducement in which the thematic subject is usually zeroed. If the inducement is emphatically addressed to the listener, or to the speaker himself, or to the third person, thematic subjects have an explicit form.

The diff.ial feature of the actual division pattern of an inter­rogative sent. is determined by the fact that its rheme is inf-tionally open because this type of sent. expresses an inquiry about inf-tion which the speaker does not possess. The function of the rheme in an interrogative sent. consists in marking the rhematic position in a response sent., thus programming its content. Diff. types of ?s are characterized by diff. types of rhemes.

The analysis of the actual division of comm-tive sent. types gives an add-al proof of the "non-comm-tive" nature of the so-called purely exclamatory sent.s (e.g. "Oh, I say!"): it shows that interjectional utterances of the type don't make up grammatically predicated sent.s with their own informative per­spective; in other words, they remain mere signals of emotions.