Structural-semantic and functional features of the category of voice in languages of different system

Introduction

Conditions of reforming of all education system the question of the world assistance to improvement of quality of scientific theoretical aspect of educational process is especially actually put. As President I.A. Karimov has declared in the program speech "Harmoniously development of generation a basis of progress of Uzbekistan": … all of us realize that achievement of great purposes put today before us noble aspirations it is necessary for updating a society". The effect and destines of our reforms carried out in the name of progress and the future results of our intentions are connected with highly skilled, conscious staff the experts who are meeting the requirements of time.

This qualification paper is dedicated to the study of passive voice forms in, their qualification and functional development in the English language. The problem of passive forms has always been one of the most important and disputable subjects of English Grammar.

The theme of the given qualification paper is "structural – semantic and functional features of the category of voice in languages of different system".

A number of great linguists and scientists points of view about the structural development, functional position and the fiction of passive voice forms is taken as the base of our qualification paper.

The subject matter of this qualification paper is the study of functions passive forms and their use, i.e. their importance is grammatical structure.

The actuality of the given qualification paper is direct to the necessity of learning foreign languages through the problem of passive forms in English Grammar, specifically functional words.

The aim of our qualification paper is the linguistic analysis of passive forms and its properties in Modern English. According to this main aim following particular tasks are put forward.

1. to give general notes on passive forms as a part of English Grammar;

2. to study the structural peculiarities of passive forms;

3. to analyze the functional development of passive forms in English Grammar

4. to give the classification of the ways of passive forms in English in Russian.

The main material of our qualification paper is illustrated with the examples taken from English literary texts. There also given the analysis of the usage of functional identity of perfect continues – forms in English speech.

The novelty of this qualification paper is determined by the concrete results of investigation which is to distribute the ways of passive forms into various groups according to their structure and semantics.

To investigate the research work more clearly a lot of methods have been used Analytical methods of componential and distributable analyzes.

The theoretical value of this qualification paper is that the theoretical position of the paper can be used delivering lectures on English grammar on the problems of passive forms.

The practical value of the given qualification paper is that practical results of the research can be used as the examples or tasks in seminars on Practical Grammar of the English language.

Structurally, this qualification paper consists of Introduction, two chapters with paragraphs, Conclusion and Bibliography.

Chapter I. General view on the problem of grammatical categories in English

1.1 Grammar in the systemic conception of language

Language is a means of forming and storing ideas reflection of reality and exchanging them in the process of human intercourse. Language is social by nature: it is inseparable connected with the people who are its creators and users; it grows and develops together with the development of society.

Language incorporates the three constituent parts each being inherent in it by virtue of its social nature; these parts are the phonological system, the lexical system, the grammatical system. Only the unity of these three constituent parts form a language, without any one of them there is no human language in the above sense.

The phonological system is the sub foundation of language; it determines the material appearance of the significative units. The lexical system is the whole set of naming means of language, that is, words and stable word-groups. The grammatical system is the whole set of regularities determining the combination of naming means in the formation of utterances at thinking process.

Each of the three constituent of language is studied by a particular linguistic discipline. These disciplines a serial of approaches to their particular objects of analysis give the corresponding "descriptions" of language consisting in ordered expositions of the constituent of language in question. Thus, the phonological description of language is effected by the science of phonology; the lexical description of language is effected by the science of lexicology; the grammatical description of language is effected by the science of grammar.

Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A practical description is aimed at providing the student with a manual of practical mastery of the corresponding part of language. Since the practice of lingual intercourse, however, can only be realized by emplaying language as a unity of all its constituent parts, practical, linguistic manuals more often than not comprise the three types of description presented in a complex. As for theoretical descriptions pursue analytical aims and therefore present the studied parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain ensights into their inner structure and expose the intrinsic mechanisms of their functioning. Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a language is to present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to scientifically analyze and define its grammatical categories and study the mechanisms of grammatical formation of utterances out of words in the process of speech making.

In the earlier periods of the development of linguistic knowledge, grammatical scholars believed that the only purpose of grammar was to give strict rules of writing and speaking correctly. The rigid regulations for the correct ways of expression, for want of the profound understanding of the social nature of language, ere often based on purely subjective and arbitrary judgments of individual grammar compliers. The result of this "prescriptive" approach was, that alongside of quite essential and useful information, non-existent "rules" were formulated that stood in sheer contradiction with the existing language usage, i.e. lingual reality Traces of this arbitrary prescriptive approach to the grammatical teaching may be easily be found even in to-date’s school practice.

To refer to some of the numerous examples of this kind, let us consider the well-known rule of the English article stating that the noun which denotes an object "already known" by the listener should be used with definite article. Observe, however, English sentences taken from me, works of distinguished authors directly contradicting "I’ve just read a book of yours about Spain but I wanted to ask you about it" – "It’s not a very good book, I’m afraid" (S.Maugham). I feel a good deal of hesitation about telling you this story like other stories I have been telling you; it is a true story (J.K.Jerome).

Or let us take the rule forbidding the use of the continuous tense – forms with the verb be as a link, as well as with verbs of perceptions. Here are examples to the contrary.

My holiday at Crome isn’t being a disappointment (A.Huxley). For the first time, Bobby felt, he was really seeing the man (A.Christie).

The given examples of English articles and tenses, though not agreeing with above "prescriptions", contain no grammar mistakes in them.

The said traditional view of the purpose of grammar has lately been re-stated by some modern tends in linguistics. In particular scholars belonging to these trends pay much attention to artificially contructing and analyzing incorrect utterances with the aim of a better formulation of the rules for "the construction" of correct ones. But their examples and deductions, too, are often at variance with real facts of lingual usage.

Worthy of note are the following two artificial utterances suggested as far back as 1956. Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.

According to the idea of their creation, the American scholar N.Chomsky, the first of the utterances, although nonsensical logically, was to be classed as grammatically correct; while the second one, consisting of the same words placed in the reverse order, had to be analyzed as a disconnected, enumeration a "non-sentence". Thus, the examples, by way of contrast, were intensely demonstrative of the fact that grammar as a whole amounted to a set of non-semantic rules of sentence formation.

However, a couple of years later this assessment of the lingual value of the given utterances was disputed in an experimental investigation with informants natural speakers of English, who could not come to a unanimous conclusion about the correctness or incorrectness of both of them. In particular, some of the informants classed the second utterance as "sounding like poetry".

To understand the contradictions between the bluntly formulated "rules" are reality, as well as to evaluate properly the results of informant tents like the mentioned above, we must bear in mind that the true grammatical rules or regularities cannot be separated from the expression of meanings; on the contrary they are themselves meaningful. Namely they are connected with the most general and abstract parts of content inherent in the elementsof language. These parts of content, together with the formal meanings thorough which they are expressed are treated by grammarians interms of "grammatical categories" such are, for instance, the categories of number or mood in morphology, the categories of meaningful, it becomes clear that the rules of grammar must be stated semantically, or more specifically, they must be worded functionally. For example, it would be fallacious to state without any further comment that the inverted word order in the English declarative sentence is grammatically incorrect. Word order as an element of grammatical form is laden with its own meaningful functions. It can express, in particular, the difference between the control idea of the utterance and the marginal idea between emotive and un emotive modes of speech, between different types of style. Thus, if the inverted word order in a given sentence does express these functions, then its use should be considered as quite correct. E.g. In the centre of room, under the chandelier, as become a host, stood the head of the family, old Jolyon himself (J.Galsworthy)

The word agreement in the utterance expresses a narrative description, with the central informative element placed in the strongest semantic position in narration, i.e. at the end. Compare the same sort of arrangement accompanying a plainer presentation of subject matter: Inside on a wooden bunk laid a young Indian woman (E.Hemingway).

Compare, further the following:

And even did his soul; tempt him with evil, and whisper of terrible things. Yet did it not prevail against him, so great was the power of his love (O.Wilde). Here the inventor word order is employed to render intense emphasis in a legend – stylized narration. One thing and one thing only could she do for him (R.Kipling). Inversion in this course case is used to express emotional intensification on the central idea.

Examples of this and similar kinds will be found in plenty in Modern English literary texts of good style repute.

The nature of grammar as a constituent part of language is better understood in the light of explicity discriminating the two places of language, namely, the plane of context and the plane of expression.

The pane of context comprises the purely semantic elements contained in language while the plane of expression comprises the material units of language taken by themselves, apart from the meanings rendered by them. The two planes are inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be realized without some material means of expression. Grammatical elements of language present a unity of content and expression (or in some what more familiar terms, a unity of form and meaning). In this the grammatical elements, though the quality of grammatical meanings as we have stated above, is different in principle from the quality of lexical meanings.

On the other hand, the correspondence between the planes of context and expression is very complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This complexity is clearly illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy and synonymy.

In cases of polysemy and homonymy two or more units of the plane of content correspond to one unit of the plane of expression. For instance, the vertically renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, notion at the present moment action taken as a general truth homonymically renders the grammatical meanings of the third person singular of the verbal present tense, the plural form of the noun, the possessive form of the noun i.e. several units of plane of content.

In cases of synonymy; conversely, two or more units of the plane of expression correspond units of the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the plane of content. For instance, the forms of the verbal future indefinite, future continuous and present continuous can in certain contexts synonymically render the meaning of a future action.

Taking into consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may say that the purpose of grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the long run, to disclose and formulate the regularities of the correspondence between the plane of content and the plane expression in the formation of utterances out of the stocks of words as part of the process of speech production.

Modern linguistics lay on a special stress on the systematic character of language and all its constituent parts. In accentuates the idea that language is a system of signs which are closely interconnected and independent. Units of immediate interdepencies within the framework of all the lingual signs are to give expression of human thoughts. The systematic nature of grammar is probably more evident than that of any other sphere of language, since grammar is responsible for the very organization of the informative content of utterances. Due to the fact, even the earliest grammatical treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times disclosed some systematic features of the described material. But the scientifically sustained and consistent principles of systematic approach to language and its grammar were essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely, after the publicationb of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudion de Courtenay and the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated the difference between lingual synchrony and diachrony and defined language as a synchronic system of meaningful elements at any stage of its historical evolution.

On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between language proper and speech proper can be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the identification of the object of linguistic science.

Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech in the same narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse.

The system of language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units sounds, morphemes, words, word-groups; on the other hand, the regularities or "rules" of the use of these units. Speech comprises both the act of producing utterances, and the utterances and the utterances themselves, i.e. the text. Language and speech are inseparable; they form together an organization unity. As for grammar, being an integpart of the lingual marcosystem it dymamically connects language with speech, because it categorically determines the lingual process of utterance production.

Thus, we have the broad philophical concept of language which is analyzed by linguistics into two different aspects into two different aspects – the system of signs and the use of signs. The generalizing term "language" is also preserved in linguistics, showing the unity of these two aspects.

The signs in the system of language have only a potential meaning. In speech, the potential meaning of the lingual sign is "actualized", i.e. made situationally significant as part of the grammatically organized text.

Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic.

Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence. E.g.: the spaceship was launched without the help of a booster rocket.

In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the spaceship", "was launched", "the spaceship was launched", "was launched without the help", "the help of a rocket", "a booster rocket".

Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically. E.g.: spaceship, launched, without, booster

Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, s well as at various juncture points.

The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit which is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma". There are four main types of national syntagmas: predicate (the combination of a subject and a predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its object), attributive (the combination of a noun and its attribute), adverbial (the combination of a modified notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier).

Since syntagmatic relations are actually observed in utterances, they are described by the Latin formula as relations "in praesentia".

The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called "paradigmatic", are such as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur. These intra-systematic relations and dependencies find their expression in the fact that each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections based on different formal and functional properties.

In the sphere of phonology such series are built up by the correlations of phonemes on the basis of vocality or consonantism voicedness or devoicedness, the factor of nazalisation, the factor of length, etc. In the sphere of the vocabulary these series are founded on the correlations of synonymy and antonymy, on various topical connections, on different word-building dependencies. In the domain of grammar series of related forms realize grammatical numbers and cases, persons and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence – patterns of various functional destination, etc.

Unlike syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly observed in utterances, that is why they are referred to as relations "in obsentia" (in the absence).

Paradigmatic relations conxist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of syntagmatic connections is necessary for the realization of any paradigmatic series. This is especially evident in a classical grammatical paradigm which presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a syntagmatic connection of two elements one common for the whole of the series, the other specific for every individual form in the series (grammatical feature – onflexion, suffix, and auxiliary word). Grammatical paradigms express various grammatical categories.

The minimal paradigm consists of two forms – stages. This kind of paradigm we see, for instance, in the expression of the category of number boy – boys. A more complex paradigm series, i.e. into the correspondence sub paradigma (of numerous paradigmatic series constituting the system of the finite verb). In other words, with paradigms, the same as with, systematically organized material, macro and micro – series are to be discriminated.

Units of language are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental units consist of various status (syllable, morpheme, words, etc) such rasegmantel units do not exist by themselves, but are realized together with segmental units are express different modificational meanings which are reflected on the strings of segmental units. To the supra-segmental units belong intonations, accents, pauses, and patterns of word-order.

The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of a kind that units of any higher lever are analyzable into units of the immediate lower level. Thus, morphemes are decomposed into phonemes, words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc.

But this hierarchical reation is by no means reduced to the mechanical composition of longer units from smaller ones; units of each level are characterized by their own, specific functional features which provide for the very recognition of the corresponding levels of language.

The lowest level of lingual segments is phonemic, it is formed by phonemes as the material elements of the higher level segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential; it differentiates morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no meaning, it is not a sign.

Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the level-forming signs of language.

Units of all the higher levels of language are meaningful; they are called "signemes" as opposed to phonemes.

The level located above the phonemic one is the morphemic level. The morphemic is the elementary meaningful part of the word. It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one phoneme. E.g.: ros-y (i); a-fire (ә); come-s(z).

The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative" meanings which are used as constituents for the formation of more concrete, "nominative" meanings of words.

The third level is the level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic level.

To level-forming phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These combinations like separate words; have a nominative function, but they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomena, be it a concrete thing, an action, a quality or a whole situations. Cf., respectively: a picturesque village, the unexpected arrival by separate words.

Notional phrases may be of a stable type and ofa free type. The stable phrases form the phraseological part of the lexicon, and are studied by the the phraseselogical division of lexicology. Free phrases are built up in the process of speech on the existing productive models, and are studied in the lower division of syntax. The grammatical description of phrases is sometimes called smaller syntax, in distinction to "large syntax" studying the sentence and its textual connections.

Above the phrasemic level the level of sentences, or "proposemic" level.

The peculiar character of the sentence as a signemec unit of language consists in the fact that, naming a certain situation, or situational event, it expresses prediction, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event to reality. Namely, it sows hether this event is real or unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a truth or asked about, etc. In this sense, as different from the word and the phrase, the sentence is predicative unit. Cf.: to receive – to receive a letter. – Early in June I received a letter from Peter Melcrose.

The sentence is produced by the speaker in the procedd of speech as a conrete, situationally bound utterance. At the same time it enters the system of language by its syntactic pattern which all as the syntagmatic and paradigmatic characteristics.

But the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy og levels. Above the proposemic level there is still another one, namely, the level of sentence-groups "supra-segmental constructions". For the sake of unified terminology, this level can be called "supra-proposemic".

The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences forming a texual unity. Such combinations are subject to regular lingual patterning making them into syntactic elements. The syntactic process by which sentences are connected into textual unities is analyzed under the heading of cumulation. Cumulation, the same as formation of composite sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic. Cf.: He went on with his interrupted breakfast .Lisette did not speak and there was silence between them. But his appetite satisfied, his mood changed; he began to feel sorry for himself rather than angry with her, and with a strange ignorance of woman’s heart he thought to arouse Lissete’s remorse by exhibiting himself as an object of pity (S.Maugham).

In the typed text, the supra-sentential construction commonly coincides with the paragraph. However, unlike the paragraph, this type of lingual signeme is realized not only in a written text, but also in all the varities of oral speech, since separate sentences, as a rule, are included in a distance not singly, but in combinations, revealing the corresponding connections of thoughts in communicative progress.

We have surveyed six levels of language, each identified by its own functional units. If we now carefully observe the functional status of the forming segments, we can distinguish between them more self-sufficient and the latter being defined only in relation to the functions of other level units. Indeed, the phonemic, lexemic and proposemic levels from the functional points of view: the function of the phoneme is deferential, the function of the word is nominative, the function of the sentence is predicative. As deferent from these, morphemes are identified only as significative compounds of words, phrases present polynominative combinations of words, and supra-sentential constructions mark the transition from the sentence to the text.

Furthermore, bearing in mind that the phonemic level forms the sub foundation of language, i.e. the non-meaningful matter of meaningful expressive means, the two notions of grammatical description shall be pointed out as central even within the framework of the structural hierarchy of language. These are, first the notion of the word and, second, the notion of the sentence. The first is analyzed by morphology wich is the grammatical teaching of the word; the second is analyzed by syntax, which is the grammatical teaching of the sentence.

1.2 General notion of the problem of grammatical categories in English Grammar

The immediate expression of grammatical time, or "tense", is one of the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical because the meaning of process, inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme, finds the complete realization only if presented in certain time conditions. That is why the expression or non-expression of grammatical time, together with the expression or non-expression of grammatical mood in person-form presentation constitutes the basis of the verbal category of finitude, i.e. the basis of the division of all the forms of the verb into finite and non-finite.

When speaking of the expression of time exposes it as the universal form of the continual consecutive change of phenomena, time, as well as, space is the basic forms of the existence of matter, they both are ineluctable properties of reality and as such are absolutely independent of human perception. On the other hand, like other objective factors of the universe, time is reflected by man through his perceptions and intellect, and finds its expression in his language.

It is but natural that time as the universal form of consecutive change of things should be appraised by the individual in reference to the moment of his immediate perception of the outward reality. This moment of immediate perception, or "present moment", which is continually shifting in time, and the linguistic content of which is the "moment of speech", serves as the democration line between the past and the future. All the lexical expressions of time, according to as they refer or do not refer the denoted points or periods of time, directly or obliquely to this moment are divided into "present oriented" or "absolutives" expressions of time.

The absolute time denotation in compliance with the experience gained by man in the course of his cognitive activity distributes the intellective perception of time among three spheres the sphere of the present with the present moment included within its framework the sphere of the present by way of retrospect; the sphere of the present day by way of prospect.

Thus, words and phrases like now, last week, in our century, in the past, in the years to come, very soon, yesterday, in a couple days, giving a temporial characteristic to an event from the point of view of its orientation in reference to the present moment, are absolute names of time.

The non-absolute time denotation does not characterize an event in terms of orientation towards the present. This kind of denotation may be either "relative" or "factual".

The relative expression of time correlates two or more events showing some of them either as preceding the others, or following the others, or happening at one and the same time with them. Here belong such words and phrases as after that, before that, at one and the same time with, so time later, at an interval of a day, or different times, etc.

The factual expression of time either directly states the astronomical time of an event, or else conveys this meaning in terms of historical landmarks. Under this heading should be listed such words and phrases as in the year 1966, during the time of the First World War, at the epoch of Napaleon, at the early period of civilization.

In the context of real speech the above types of time of naming are used in combination with one another, so that the denoted event receives many sided and very exact characterization regarding its temporal status.

Of all the temporal meanings conveyed by such detailing lexical denotation of temporal meaning conveyed by such detailing lexical denotation of time, the finite verb generalizes in its categorical forms only the most abstract significations, taking them as dynamic characteristics of the reflected process. The fundamental divisions both absolute time and of non-absolute relative time find in the verb a specific presentation, idiomatically different from one language to another. The form of this presentation is dependent, the same as with the expression of other grammatical meanings, on the concrete semantic features chosen by a language as a basis for the functional differention within the verb lexeme. And it is the verbal expressions of abstract, grammatical time that forms the necessary background serving as a universal temporal "polarizer" and "leader", the marking of time would be utterly inadequate. Indeed, what informative content should be following passage convey with all its lexical indications of time, if it were with all its lexical indications of time achieved through the forms of the verb – the unit of the lexicon which the German grammarians very significantly call "zuwort" – the "time word".

My own birthday passed without ceremony, I would as usual, in the morning and in the afternoon went for a walk in the solitary woods behind my house. I have never been able to discover what it is that gives these woods their mysterious attractiveness. They are like no woods I have ever known (S.Maugham).

In Modern English, the grammatical expression of verbal time, i.e. tense, is effected in two correlated stages. At the first stage, the process receives an absolute time characteristic by means of apposing the past tense to the present tense.

The marked member of the opposition is the past form. At the second stage, the process receives a non- absolute relative time characteristic by means of opposing the forms of the future tense to the forms of no future making. Since the two stages of the denotation are expressed separately, by their own oppositional forms and besides, have essentially different orientation characteristics, it stands to reason to recognize in the system of the English verb not one but two temporal categories. Both of them answer the question: in the "what is the terming of the process?" But the first category, having the past tense as its strong member, expresses a direct retrospective evalution of the time of the event reflected on the utterance finds its adequated location in the temporal context, showing all the distinctive propeties of the lingual presentation of time mentioned above.

In accord with oppositional marking of the two temporal categories under analysis, we shall call the first of them the category of "prospective time", or contractedly prospect.

The category of primary time, as has just been stated, provides for the absolutive expression of the time of the process denoted by the verb, i.e. such an expression of it as given its evolution, in the long run, in reference to the moment of suffix –(e)d, nemic interchange of more or less individual specifications. The suffix marks the verbal form of the past time leaving the opposite is to be rendered by the formula "the past tense – the present tense", the latter member representing the non-fast tense according to the accepted oppositional interpretation.

The specific features of the category of primary time, that it divides all the tense forms of the English verb into two temporal planes: the plane of the present and the plane of the past, which affect also the future forms very important in this respect is the structural nature of the expression of the category: the category of primary time is the only verbal category of primary time is only the category of immanent order which is expressed by inflexional forms. These inflexion forms of the past and present coexist in the same verb+entry to speech with the other, analytical models of various categorical expression, including the futures; on the other hand, the future of the present, is prospected from the present; on the other hand, the future of by the speaker the meaning of the present with this connotation will be conveyed by such phrases at this very moment, or this instant, or exactly now, or some other phrase like that. But an utterance like "now while i’m speaking" breaks the notion of the zero time proper, since the speaking process is not a momentary but a durative element. Furthermore, the present will still be the present if we relate to such vast periods of time as this month, this year, in our epoch, in the present millennium, etc. The denoted stretch of time may be prolonged by a collocation like that beyond any definite limit. Still furthermore, in utterances of general truths as for instance, "Two plus two makes four" or "The sun is a star", the idea of time as such is almost suppressed the implication of constancy, unchangeability of the truth at all times being made prominent. The present tense as the verbal form of generalized meaning covers all these denotations, showing the present time in relation to the process as inclusive of the moment of speech incorporating this moment within its definite or indefinite stretch and opposed to the past time.

Thus, if we say, "Two plus two makes four", the linguistic implication of it is "always, and so at the moment of speech". If we say "I never take his advice", we mean linguistically "at no time in terms of the current state of my attitude towards him, and so at the present moment". If we say, "In our millennium social formations change quicker than in the previous periods of man’s history", the linguistic temporal content of it is "in our millennium, that is, in the millennium including the moment of speech". This meaning is the invariant of the present, developed from its categorical opposition to the past, and it penetrates the uses of the finite verb in all its forms, including the perfect, the future, and the continuous.

Indeed, if the radio carries the news, "The two suspected terrorists have been taken into custody by the police", the implication of the moment of speech refers to the direct influence or after-effects of the event announced. Similarly the statement "You will be informed about the decision later in the day" describes the event, which although it ahs not yet happened, is prospected into the future from the present, i.e. prospection itself incorporates the moment of speech. As for the present continuous its relevance for to present moment it self-evident.

This, the analyzed meaning of the verbal present arises as a result of its immediate contrast with the past form which shows the exclusion of the action from the plane of the present and so the action itself as capable of being perceived all the verbal forms of the past, including the perfect, the future and the continuous. Due to the marked character of the past verbal form, the said quality of its meaning does not require special demonstration.

Worthy of note, however, are utterances where the meaning of the past tense stands in contrast with the meaning of some adverbial phrase reffering the event to the present moment. Cf.: Today again I spoke to Mr. Jones on the matter, and again he failed to see the urgency of it.

The seeming linguistic paradox of such cases consists exactly in the fact that their two-typed indications of time, one verbal grammatical and one adverbial-lexical approach the same event from two of opposite analysis. But there is nothing irrational here. As a matter of fact, the utterances present instances of two-plane temporal evaluation of the event described: the verb-form shows the process as part and gone, i.e. physically disconnected from the resent as for the adverbial modifier, it presents the past eent as a particular happening, belonging to a more general time situation which is stretch out up to the present moment inclusive, and possibly past the present moment into the future.

A case directly opposite to the one shown above is seen in the transpositional use of the present tense of the verb with the past adverbials, either included in the utterance as such, or else expressed in its contextual environment. E.g.: Then he turned the corner and what do you think happens next? He faces nobody else than Mr. Greggs accompanied by his private secretary!

The stylistic purpose of this transposition, known under the name of the "historic present" is to create a vivid picture of the event reflected in the utterance. This is achieved in strict accord with the functional meaning of the verbal present, sharply contrasted against the general background of the plane of the utterance content.

The combination of the verbs shall and will with the infinitive have of late become subject of renewed discussion. The controversial point about them is wether these combinations really constitute, together with the forms of the past and present, the categorical expression of verbal tense, are jus modal phrases whose expression of the future time does not differ in essence from the general future orientation of other combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. The view that shall and will retain their modal meanings in all their uses was defended by such a recognized authority on English grammar of the older generation of the twentieth century linguists as O.Jesperson. In our times, quite a few scholars, among them the successors of Descriptive linguistics, consider these verbs as part of the general set of modal verbs, "modal auxiliaries" expressing the meanings of capability, probability, permission, obligation, and the like.

A well grounded objection is against the inclusion of the construction will+Infinitive. In the tense system of the verb on the same basis as the forms of the present and the past has been advanced by L.S.Barhudarov. His objection consists in the demonstration of the double making of this would be tense form by one and the same category; the combinations in question can express at once both the future form time and past form time which hardly makes any sense in terms of a grammatical category. Indeed, the principle of the identification of any grammatical category demands that the forms of thecategory in normal use shoul be mutually exclusive. The category is constituted by the opposition of its forms, not by their co-opposition.

However, reconsidering the status of construction shall/will+Infinitive in the eight of oppositional approach, we see that, far from comparing with the past – present verbal forms as the third member – form of the category of primary time, it marks its own grammatical category, namely, that of prospective time. The meaningful contrast underlying the category of prospect time is between an after action and non- after-action. The after-action or the future having its shall/will – feature, constitutes the marked member of the opposition.

The category of prospect is also temporal, in so far as it is immediately connected with the expression of processual time, like the category of primary time. But the semantic basis of the category of prospect is different in principle from that of the category of primary time: while the primary time is absolutive, i.e. present – oriented the prospective time is purely relative; it means that the future form of the verb only shows that the denoted process id prospected as an after-action relative to some other action or state or event, the timing of which marks the zero-level for it. The two are presented, as it were, in prospective coordination: one is shown as prospected for the future, the future being relative to the primary time either present or past. As a result, the expression of the future receives the two mutually complementary manifestations: one manifestation for the present time – plane of the verb, the other manifestation for the past time – plane of the verb. In other words, the process of the verb is characterized by the category of prospect irrespective of its primary time characteristics, or rather as addition to this characteristic, and this is quite similar to all the other categories capable of entering the sphere of verbal time, e.g. the category of development (continuous in opposition), the category of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), the category of voice (passive in opposition): the respective forms of all these categories also have the past and present versions, to which in due course, are added the future and non0future versions. Consider the following examples: 1) I was making a road and all the coolest stunk. 2) None of us doubted in the least that Aunt Emma would soon be marveling again at Eustace’s challenging success. 3) The next thing she wrote she sent to a magazine, and for many weeks worried about what would happen to it. 4) She did not protest for she had given up the struggle. 5) Felix knew that they would have settled the dispute by the time he could be ready to have his say. 6) He was being watched chased by that despicable going of hirelings.

As we have already stated before, the future tenses reject the do-forms of the indefinite aspect, which are confined to the expression of the present and past verbal times only. This fact serves as a supplementary ground for the identification of the expression of protest as a separate grammatical category.

Of course, it would be an ill turn to grammar if one tried to introduce the above circumstational terminology with all its pedantic strings of "non’s" into the elementary teaching of language. The stringed categorical "non-terms" are apparently too redundant to be recommended for ordinary use even at an advaced level of linguistic training. What is achieved by this kind of terminology, however, is a comprehensive indication of the categorical status of verb-forms under analysis in a compact tense presentation. Thus whenever a presentation like that is called for, the terms will be quite in their place.

In analyzing the English future tenses the modal factor naturally should be through taken into consideration. A certain modal colouring of the meaning of the English future cannot be denied especially in the verbal form of the first person. But then, as is widely known, the expression of the future in other languages is not disconnect from modal semantics either and this is conditioned by the mere fact that the future action, as different from the present or past action, as different from the present or past action, cannot be looked upon as a genuine feature of reality. Indeed, it is only foreseen, or anticipated, or planned, or desired, or otherwise prospected for the time to come. In this quality, the Russian future tense does not differ in principle from the verbal future of other languages, including English, suffice it to give a couple of examples chosen at random:

Я буду рассказывать тебе интересные истории. Расскажу о страшных кометах, о битве воздушных кораблей, о гибели прекрасной страны по ту строну гор. Тебе не будет скучно любить меня (А.Толстой). Немедленно на берег.

The future of forms of the verbs in the future of the above Russian examples clearly expresses promise; those in the second examples render a command.

Moreover, in the system of the Russian tenses there is a specialized modal form of analytical future expressing intention (the combination of the verb стать with the imperfective infinitive). E.g. Что же вы теперь хотите делать? – Тебе это не касается что я стану делать. Я план обдумываю. (А.Толстой)

Within the framework of the universal meaningful feature of the verbal future, the future of the English verb is highly specific in so far as its auxiliaries in their very immediate etymology are words of obligation and tne survival of the respective connotations in them in backed by the inherent quality of the future as such. Still on the whole, the English categorical future of differs distinctly from the modal constructions with the same predicator verbs.

In the clear-out modal uses of the verbs shall and will the idea of the future either is not expressed at all or else is only rendered by way of textual connotation, the central semantic accent being laid on the expression of obligation, necessary, inevitability, promise, intention, desire. These meanings may be easily seen both on the examples of ready phraseological citation, and genuine everyday conversation exchanges.

The modal nature of the shall/will+Infinitive combinations in the cited examples can be shown by means of equivalent substitution:

® He who does not work must not eat either… ® All right Mr. Crackenthorpe, I promise to have it cooked… ® None are so deaf those who do not want to hear…® I intend not to allow a woman to come near the place.

A counting for the modal meanings of the combinations under analysis, traditional grammar gives the following rules: shall + Infinitive with the first person, will + Infinitve with the second and the third persons express modal meanings, the most typical of which are intention or desire part for I will and promise or command on the part of the speaker for you shall, he will. Both rules apply to refined British English. In American English with all the persons, shall as expressing modality.

However, the cited description, though distinguished by elegant simplicity, cannot be taken as fully agreeing with the existing lingual practice. The main feature of this description contradicted by practice is the British use of will the first person without distinctly pronounced modal connotations. Cf.:

I will call for you and your young man at seven o’clock. When we wake I will take him up and carry him back. I will let you know on Wednesday what expenses have been necessary. If you wait there on Thursday evening between seven and eight I will come if I can.

That the combinations of will with the infinitive in the above examples do express the future time, admits of no disputes. Furthermore, these combinations, seemingly, are charged with modal connotations in no higher degree than the corresponding combination of shall with the infinitive. Cf.:

Haven’t time, I shall miss my train. I shall be happy to carry it to the House of Lords, if necessary. You never kow what may happen I shan’t have a minute’s peace.

Granted our semantic institutions about the exemplified, uses are true, the question then arises what is the real difference if any, between the two British first person expressions of the future, on with shall the other one with will? Or are they actually just semantic doublets, i.e. units of complete synonymy, bound if by the paradigmatic relation of the alternation?

Observing combinations with will instylisticall neutral collocations the first step of our study we note the adverbial of time used with this construction. The environmental expressions, as well as implications, of future time do testify that from this point of view there is no difference between will and shall both of them eqully conveying the idea of the future action expressed by the adjoining infinitive.

As our next step of inferences, nothing the types of the infinitive environmental semantics of will in contrast to the contextual background of shall, we state that the first person will – future express an option does not at all imply that the speaker actually wishes to perform the action or else that he is determined to perform it, possibly in defiance of some contrary force. The exposition of the action shows it as being not bound or by any special influence except the speaker’s option; this is exhaustive characteristic. In keeping with this, the form of the will- future in question may be tentatively called in "voluntary future".

On other hand, comparing the environmental characteristics of shall with the corresponding environmental background of will it is easy to see that, as different from will the first person shall expresses of future process that will be realized without the will of the speaker, irrespective of his choice. Inform of the first person future should be referred to as the non-voluntary i.e. as the weak member of the corresponding opposition.

Further observation of the relevant textual data show that some verbs constituting a typical environment of the non-voluntary shall-future occur also with the voluntary will, but in a different meaning, namely in the meaning of an active action the performance of which is freely chosen by the speaker of. Your arrival cannot have been announced to his majesty. I will see about it.

At the final stage of our study the disclosed characteristics of the two first-person futures are checked on the lines of transformal analysis. The method will consist not in free structural manipulations with the analyzed constructions, but in the textual search for the respective changes of the auxiliaries depending on the changes in the infinitival environment.

Applying these procedures to the texts, we note that when the construction of the voluntary will – future is expanded a syntactic part re-modeling the whole collocation into one expressing an indunatary action, the auxiliary will is automatically replaced by shall. In particular, it happens when the expanding elements convey the meaning of supposition or uncertainty. Cf.:

Give me a goddess’s work to do, and I shall do it. ® I don’t know what shall do with Barbara. Oh, the only very well, very well. I will write another prescription. ® I shall perhaps write to your mother.

Thus, we conclude that within the system of the English future tense a peculiar minor category is expressed which affects only the forms of the first person. The category is constituted by the opposition of the forms will+Infintive and shall+Infinitive expressing respectively the voluntary future and the non-voluntary future.

The future in the second and third persons, formed by the indiscriminate auxiliary will does not express this category, which is dependent on the semantics of the persons: normally it would be irrelevant to indicate in an obligatory way the aspect of futurity option otherwise than with first person, i.e. the person of self.

This category is neutralized in the contracted form –‘ll, which is of necessity indifferent to the expression of the futurity opposition. As is known, the traditional analysis of the contracted future states that –‘ll stands for will, not for shall. However, this view is not supported by textual data. Indeed, bearing in mind the results of our study, it is easy to demonstrate that the contracted forms of the future may be traced both to will and to shall.

Form the evidence afforted by the historical studies of the language we know that the English contracted form of the future –ll has actually originated from the auxiliary will. So, in Modern English an interesting process of redistribution of the forms ha staken place, based apparently on the contamination will –‘ll –shall. As a result, the form –‘ll in the first person expresses not the same "pure" future as it the expresses by the indiscriminate will in the second and third persons.

The described system of the British future is by for more complicated than the expression of the future tense in the other notional variants of English in particular, in American English where the future form of the first person is functionally equal with the other persons. In British English a possible tendency to a similar leveled expression of the future is actively counteractions of the future auxiliarities in the negative form, i.e. shan’t and survival of shall in the first person against the leveled positive contraction –ll’. The second is the use of the future tense in interrogative sentences where the first person only shall is normally used. Indeed it is quite natural that a genuine question directed by the speaker to himself, i.e. a question directed by the speaker to himself, i.e. a question showing doubt or speculation, is to be asked about an action of non-wilful, involuntary order, and not otherwise. Cf.: what shall we be shown next? Shall I be able to master shorthand professionally? The question was, should I see Beatrice again before her departure.

The semantics of the first person futurity question is such that even the infinitives of essentially volution governed actions are transferred here to the plane of non-volution, subordinating themselves to the general implication of doubt, hesitation, and uncertainty.

Apart from shall/will+Infinitive construction, there is another construction in English which the framework of the general problem of the future tense. This is the combination of the predicator be going with the infinitive. Indeed, the high frequency occurrence of this construction in contexts conveying the idea of an immediate future action can’t but draw a vey close attention on the part of a linguistic observer.

The combination may denote a sheer intention to perform the action expressed by the infinitive thus entering into the vast set of "classical" modal constructions.

I’m going to ask you a few more questions about the mysterious disappearance of the document. Mr.Greff. he looked across at my desk and I thought for a moment he was going to give me the treatment too.

But these simple modal uses of be going are countered by cases the direct meaning of intention rendered by the predicator stands in contradiction with its environmental implications and is subdued by them. Cf.: You are trying to frighten me. But are not going to frighten me any more (L.Helman). I did not know now I was going to get out of the room (D.du.Mawren).

Moreover, the construction dispute its primary meaning of intention presupposing a human subject is not infrequently used with non-human subjects is not infrequently asked used with non0human subjects and even in impersonal sentences. Cf.: She knew what she was doing and she was sure going to be the worth doing (W.Sarayan). There is going to be a contest over Ezra Grolley’s estate (E.Gardener).

Because of these properties it would appear tempting to class the construction in question as a specific tense form, namely, the tense form of "immediate future", analogous to the French future immadiat (Le spectacle va carn mencer).

Still, on closer consideration, we notice that non-intention cases of the predicator be going are not indifferent stylistically. Far from being neutral, they more often than not display emotional coloring mixed with semantic connotations of oblique modality.

For instance, when the girl from the first of the above examples appreciates something as "going to be worth doing; she is expressing her assurance of its being so. When one labels the rain as "never going to stop" one clearly expresses one’s annoyance at the bad state of the weather. When a future event is introduced by the formula "there to be going to be", as is the case in the second of the cited examples, the speaker clearly implies his foresight of a like nature. Thus, on the whole, the non-intention uses of the construction be going+Infinitive cannot be rationally divided into modal and non-modal, on the analogy of the construction shall/will+Infinitive. It broader combinability is based on semantic transposition and can be likened to broader uses of the modal collocation be about, also of basically intention semantics.

The oppositional basis of the category of perspective time is neutralized in certain uses, in keeping with the general regularities of oppositional reductions. The process of neutralization is connected with the shifting of the forms of primary time (present and past) from the sphere of absolute tenses into the sphere of relative tenses.

One of the typical cases of the neutralization in question consists in using a non-future temporal form to express a future action which is to take place according to some plan or arrangement. Cf.: The government meets in emergency session today over the question of continued violations of the cease-fire. I hear your sister is soon arriving from Paris? Naturally I would like to know when he’s coming, etc.

This case of oppositional reduction is oppositional; the equivalent reconstruction of the correlated member of the opposition is nearly always possible. Cf.: The government will meet in emergency session…® Your sister will soon arrive from Paris? ® When will he be coming?

Another type of neutralization of the prospective time opposition is observed in modal verbs and modal word combinations. The basic peculiarity of these units bearing on the expression of time is, that the prospective implication is inherently in-built in their semantics, which reflects not the action expressed by the infinitive. For that reason, the present verb-form of these units actually renders the idea of the future. Cf.: There is no saying what may happen next. At any rate, the woman was sure to come later in the day. But do you have to present the report before Sunday, there’s no alternative.

Sometimes the explicit expression of the future is necessary even with modal collocations. To make up for the lacking categorical forms, special modal substitutes have been developed in language, some of which have received the status of suppletive units. Cf.: But do not make plans with David. You will not be able to carry them out. Things will have to go one way or the other.

Alongside of the above and very different from them, there is still another typical case of neutralization of the analyzed categorical opposition, which is strictly obligatory. It occurs in clauses of time and condition. Whose verb-predicate expresses a future action? Cf.: If things turn out as has been arranged, the triumph will be all ours. I repeated my request to notify me at once whenever the messenger arrived.

The latter type of neutralization is syntactically conditioned. In point of fact, the neutralization consists here in the primary tenses shifting from the sphere of absolutive time into the sphere of relative time, since they become dependent not on their immediate orientation towards the moment of speech, but on the relation to another time level, namely, the time level presented in the governing clause of corresponding complex sentence.

This kind of neutralizing relative use of absolutive tense forms occupies a restricted position in the integral tense system of English. In Russian, the syntactic relative use of tenses is, on the contrary, widely spread. In particular, this refers to the presentation of reported speech in the plane of past, where the Russian present tense is changed into the tense of similarity, the past tense is changed into the tense of priority, and the future tense is changed in the tense of prospected posteriority. Cf.: 1) Он сказал, что изучает немецкий язык. 2) Он сказал, что изучал немецкий язык. 3) Он сказал, что будет изучать немецкий язык.

In English, the primary tenses in similar syntactic condition retain their absolutive nature and are used in keeping with their direct, unchangeable meanings. Compare the respective translations of the examples cited above: 1) He said that he was learning German. 2) He said that he had learned German. 3) he said that he would learn German.

It doesn’t follow from this that rule of sequence of tenses in English complex sentences formulated by traditional grammar should be rejected as false. Sequence of tenses is an important feature of all narration, for, depending in the continual consecutive course of actual events in reality; they are presented in the text in definite successions ordered against a common general background. However, what should be stressed here is that the tense-shift involved in the translation of the present-plane reported information into the present0plane reported information is not a formal, but essentially a meaningful procedure.

1.3 General notion of the problem of voice in English Grammar

The verbal category of voice shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the syntactic construction.

The voice of the English verb is expressed by the opposition of the passive form of the verb to the active form of is the combination of the auxiliary be with the past participle of the conjugated verb. The passive form as the strong member of the opposition expresses reception of the action by the subject of the syntactic construction; the active form as the weak member of opposition leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. it expresses "non-passivity".

In colloquial speech the role of the passive auxiliary can occasionally be performed by the verb get<