Ўзбекистон республикаси олий ва ўрта махсус таълим вазирлиги cамарқанд давлат чет тиллар институти

3) Parts of speech and different principles of their classification.

The general definition of a part of speech: it is a lexical-grammatical word class which is characterized by a general abstract grammatical meaning, expressed in certain grammatical markers. Within a part of speech similar grammatical features are common to all words belonging to this class.

A part of speech is a mixed lexical-grammatical phenomenon, because:

1) Words are characterized by individual lexical meanings. 2) Each generalized class of words (noun/verb/adj., etc) has a unifying abstract gram. meaning, for ex.: noun – substance, verb – process, adjective – quality of substance, adverb – quality of process. 3) Some parts of speech are capable of representing gram. meaning in a set of formal exponents; for ex.: the plural of nouns is expressed with suffix –s (this feature is not universal in all languages).

PS are distinguished from one another by the number of words in each class. The greatest number of wds is found in the noun & verb. The N&V correspond to the subj.&pred. of the sent., they’re usually the center of predication.

Modern classification of parts of speech is traced back to ancient Greek. Later this classification was applied to Latin and thus it found its way in modern languages. The present day classification of parts of speech is severely criticized, when it’s applied to languages the structure of which is different to the structure of the Latin language. So the criticism is easily justified. On the other hand the traditional division of words into parts of speech seems quiet natural and easy to understand & remember from the logical point of view. So it’s not the classification itself that is wrong but it must be the principles of classification that should be criticized and reviewed.

Classifying a lang. from the view point of PS, there are the following principles:

1. 
   Semantic: the general mean-g of a PS doesn’t coincide with a lex. or gram.mean-g of every individual word, but it’s closely connected with it. Thus the gen. mean-g of a PS is neither lex. nor gram., but it’s to be called lexical-grammatical. Ex. nouns are characterized by substantivity, verbs- actions & states, which together mean processes, adj-s- attributes of substances, etc.
   
2. 
   Morphological: it has 2 aspects: a) deals with morphol. categories (each PS possesses certain morphol. cat-s which are not found in other PS): ex. nouns- case & number , adj.- comparison, verbs- 7 categories. This aspect is more important.b) the use of form-build. affixes (deriv. affixes sometimes can be found within this or that PS only): ex. nouns- -ment, -ion, -ness. But deriv. affixes may be highly confusing: ex. –ly: friendly(adj), daily(noun), kindly(adv.), possibly (modal wd)
   
3. 
   Syntactic: a) the role of a wd in a sent. (dif. synt. Functions are typical of dif. PS); b) the combinability of wds/ the syntactical distribution (распределение): ex. noun can combine with prepositions, articles, adj-s, other nouns, verbs.
   
4. 
   Functional: PS- a field that has a core & a periphery.
   

There are 3 fundamental notions: grammatical form, grammatical meaning, and grammatical category. Notional words possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical meanings. They determine the grammatical form of the word.

Grammatical form is not confined to an individual meaning of the word because grammatical meaning is very abstract & general ex: oats-wheat: The grammatical form of oats is clearly plural and grammatical form of wheat is singular, but we can’t say that oats are more than one& wheat is one. So here we say that oats is grammatical. Plural & wheat is grammatical singular. There is no clear one-to-one correspondence between grammatical category of singular & plural and counting them in reality in terms of “one” and “more than one”.

A very vivid example confirming the rightness of this statement is connected with the category of gender with biological sex ex: bull-cow, so the grammatical form presents a division of a word of the principle of expressing a certain grammatical. meaning.

Grammatical meaning is very abstractive generalized meaning, which is linguistically expressed. ex: Peter’s head -the grammatical meaning of the category of case showing the relations between part and a whole.

Grammatical meaning is always expressed either explicitly or implicitly. For instance: The book reads well here the grammatical. meaning of passivity is expressed implicitly.

Grammatical meaning is a system of expressing the grammatical meaning through the paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms-expressed by grammatical opposition, which can be of different types: Private; Gradual-large-larger-largest; Equipollent-am is are.

Any grammatical category must be represented by at least two grammatical forms (e.g. the grammatical category of number – singular and plural forms). The relation between two grammatical forms differing in meaning and external signs is called opposition – book::books (unmarked member/marked member). All grammatical categories find their realization through oppositions, e.g. the grammatical category of number is realized through the opposition singular::plural.

Taking all the above mentioned into consideration, we may define the grammatical category as the opposition between two mutually exclusive form-classes (a form-class is a set of words with the same explicit grammatical meaning).

The word as a grammatical unit has its form (grammatical form) and meaning (lexical and grammatical). Grammatical forms of words (word forms) are typically constructed by morphemes added synthetically, or structurals added analytically:

Number: book – books, family – families, leaf – leaves.

Case: my sister’s children, the title of the book, the students’ papers.

Aspect: was drawing – drew, repaired – have repaired – have been repairing.

Degrees of comparison: cold – colder – the coldest, difficult – more difficult – the most difficult, less interesting – the least interesting.

By grammatical forms we understand variants of a word having the same lexical meaning but differing grammatically. In other words, the grammatical form (grameme) is the total of formal means to render a particular grammatical meaning.

There are the following ways of changing grammatical forms of words:

The use of affixes as word changing morphemic elements added to the root of the word: e(s) (the plural of nouns, the possessive of nouns, the 3^rd person singular of Present Simple); ing(Present Participle, Gerund); er/est (Comparative and Superlative Degrees); ed(the Past Simple of the Indicative Mood, the Subjunctive Mood, Past Participle).

 Sound interchange as the use of different root sounds in grammatical forms of a word, which may be either consonants or vowels (e.g. speak – spoke, crisis – crises, write – wrote, wife – wives, analysis – analyses).

Suppletivity as creating grammatical forms of a word coming from different roots (e.g. far – further, he – him, bad – worst, was – been).

Analytical forms being made up of two components: a notional word used as an unchanged element carrying a lexical meaning and a structural changed grammatically but expressing no lexical meaning (e.g. will be reading, can sing, will be able to translate, would bring, less expensive, the most beautiful).

Grammatical forms being on the plane of expression (form) and possessing morphemic features, expressed either syntactically or analytically, convey certain grammatical meanings being on the plane of content (meaning) shaped in morphology as meanings of number, case, degree, voice, tense, etc.The system of grammatical forms of a word is called a paradigm with paradigmatic lines, the elements of which build up typically the so called privative morphological opposition based on a morphological differential feature (synthetical or analytical) present in its strong (marked) member and absent in its weak (unmarked) member. Compare: zero::Ved; zero::shall/willV; zero::Ving. Of minor types is an equipollent opposition (person forms of the verb ‘be’: am – is – are) and a gradual opposition (zero::adjer::adjest). Thus a grammatical paradigm is represented by the opposition of marked and non-marked members specifically connected with paradigmatic relations in order to express number, tense, mood, case, etc. The general grammatical meaning of two or more grammatical forms in a paradigm opposed to each other generates a grammatical category. The evidence is seen in the following examples: the word forms ‘student, book’denote singularity, while ‘books, students’ denote plurality; as opposed to each other in the paradigmatic series, they have one grammatical meaning, that of number; thus the opposition of grammatical forms makes up the category of number; the word forms ‘swims, is working’indicate reference to present including the moment of speaking, whereas ‘swam, was working’ indicate reference to past excluding the moment of speaking; and the opposition of grammatical forms in the paradigmatic series having the grammatical meaning of reference to the moment of speaking makes up the category of tense.

Taking into account the given assumptions, the grammatical category is defined as a system, expressing a generalized grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms, analytical or synthetical, which makes the specific peculiarity of the language. 

Some morphemes are independent and directly associated with some object of reality while others are depended and are connected with the world of reality only indirectly. Examples:

desk-s; bag-s; work-ed; lie-d …

The first elements of these words are not dependent as the second elements. Morphemes of the 1^st type we’ll call lexical and meanings they express are lexical.

The elements like -s, -ed, -d are called grammatical morphemes and meanings they express are grammatical.

Thus, lexical meaning is characteristic to lexical morphemes, while grammatical meanings are characteristic to grammatical morphemes.

Grammatical meanings are expressed not only by forms of word – changing, i.e. by affixation but by free morphemes that are used to form analytical word-form, e.g.

He will study, I shall go.

The meaning of shall, will considered to be grammatical since comparing the relations of invite - invited - shall invite we can see that the function of shall is similar to that of grammatical morphemes -s, -ed.

1. The notion of 'grammatical meaning'.

The word combines in its semantic structure two meanings - lexical and grammatical. Lexical meaning is the individual meaning of the word (e.g. table). Grammatical meaning is the meaning of the whole class or a subclass. For example, the class of nouns has the grammatical meaning of thingness. If we take a noun (table) we may say that it possesses its individual lexical meaning (it corresponds to a definite piece of furniture) and the grammatical meaning of thingness (this is the meaning of the whole class). Besides, the noun 'table' has the grammatical meaning of a subclass - countableness. Any verb combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical meaning of verbiality - the ability to denote actions or states. An adjective combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical meaning of the whole class of adjectives - qualitativeness - the ability to denote qualities. Adverbs possess the grammatical meaning of adverbiality - the ability to denote quality of qualities.

There are some classes of words that are devoid of any lexical meaning and possess the grammatical meaning only. This can be explained by the fact that they have no referents in the objective reality. All function words belong to this group ­articles, particles, prepositions, etc.

Literature

1. 
   Iriskulov M., Kuldashev A. A course in theoretical English Grammar. T., 2008
   
2. 
   М. Блох. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М., 1994
   
3. 
   М. Блох. Теоретические основы грамматики. М.,2002
   
4. 
   M. Blokh. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983
   

Lecture 6:

PARTS OF SPEECH AND THEIR TYPES. CRITERIA TO IDENTIFY THE PARTS OF SPEECH.
Problems to be discussed

1. 
   Contemporary criteria for classifying words to parts of speech
   
2. 
   The Theory of Grammatical Classes of Words
   
3. 
   Subcategorization of Parts of Speech
   

A thorough study of linguistic literature on the problem of English parts of speech enables us to conclude that there were three tendencies in grouping English words into parts of speech or into form classes:

1. Pre - structural tendency;

2. Structural tendency;

3. Post - structural tendency;

1. Pre - structural tendency is characterized by classifying words into word - groups according to their meaning, function and form (H. Sweet, O. Jespersen, O. Curme, B. Ilyish and other grammarians).

2. The second tendency is characterized by classification of words exclu­sively according to their structural meaning, as per their distribution (Ch. Fries, W. Francis, A. Hill and others).

3. The third one combines the ideas of the two above-mentioned tenden­cies. They classify words in accord with the meaning, function, form; stem-building means and distribution (or combinability). To this group of scientists we can refer most Russian grammarians such as: Khaimovitch and Rogovskaya (22), L. Barkhudarov and Shteling (4) and others.

The words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided intogrammatically relevant sets or classes. The traditional grammatical classes of words are called “partsof speech”. Since the word is distinguished not only by grammatical, but also by semantico-lexemicproperties, some scholars refer to parts of speech as “lexico-grammatical” series of words, or as “lexico-grammatical categories”. In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria: semantic,formal and functional. The semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalizedmeaning, which is characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given part of speech. Thismeaning is understood as the “categorical meaning of the part of speech”. The formal criterion provides for the exposition of the specific inflexional and derivational (word-building) features of allthe lexemic subsets of a part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of wordsin the sentence typical of a part of speech. The said three factors of categorical characterization ofwords are conventionally referred to as, respectively, “meaning”, “form”, and “function”.
In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided intonotional and functional. To the notional parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, theadjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb and the adverb. The features of the noun are the following: 1) the categorical meaning of substance (“thingness”);2) the changeable forms of number and case; the specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes inEnglish do not discriminate parts of speech as such); 3) the substantive functions in the sentence(subject, object, substantival predicative); prepositional connections; modifications by an adjective.
The features of the adjective: 1) the categorical meaning of property (qualitative and relative);2) the forms of the degrees of comparison (for qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal forms ofderivation; 3) adjectival functions in the sentence (attribute to a noun, adjectival predicative). The features of the numeral: 1) the categorical meaning of number (cardinal and ordinal); 2) thenarrow set of simple numerals; the specific forms of composition for compound numerals; the specificsuffixal forms of derivation for ordinal numerals; 3) the functions of numerical attribute and numerical substantive. The features of the pronoun: 1) the categorical meaning of indication (deixis); 2) the narrow setsof various status with the corresponding formal properties of categorical changeability and wordbuilding;

3) the substantival and adjectival functions for different sets.

The features of the verb: 1) the categorical meaning of process (presented in the two upper seriesof forms, respectively, as finite process and non-finite process); 2) the forms of the verbal categories ofperson, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite forms;

3) thefunction of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the mixed verbal – other than

verbal functions for the non-finite verb.

The features of the adverb:

1) the categorical meaning of the secondary property, i.e. the propertyof process or another property; 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; thespecific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) the functions of various adverbial modifiers.
Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning andnon-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech. To thebasic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word and the interjection. The article expresses the specific limitation of the substantive functions. The preposition expresses the dependencies and interdependencies of substantive referents.The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena.
The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series, alongside other specifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as functional modifiers of verbs, etc. The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pronounced or less pronounced detachedposition, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts. Here belong thefunctional words of probability (probably, perhaps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation and negation.
The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sentence, is a signal of emotions.

The words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided intogrammatically relevant sets or classes. The traditional grammatical classes of words are called “partsof speech”. Since the word is distinguished not only by grammatical, but also by semantico-lexemic properties, some scholars refer to parts of speech as “lexico-grammatical” series of words, or as“lexico-grammatical categories”. In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria: semantic,formal and functional. The semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalizedmeaning, which is characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given part of speech. Thismeaning is understood as the “categorical meaning of the part of speech”. The formal criterion provides for the exposition of the specific inflexional and derivational (word-building) features of allthe lexemic subsets of a part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of wordsin the sentence typical of a part of speech. The said three factors of categorical characterization of words are conventionally referred to as, respectively, “meaning”, “form”, and “function”.In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided intonotional and functional.

To the notional parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, theadjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb and the adverb.

The features of the noun are the following: 1) the categorical meaning of substance (“thingness”); 2) the changeable forms of number and case; the specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes inEnglish do not discriminate parts of speech as such); 3) the substantive functions in the sentence(subject, object, substantival predicative); prepositional connections; modifications by an adjective.

The features of the adjective: 1) the categorical meaning of property (qualitative and relative); 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison (for qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal forms ofderivation; 3) adjectival functions in the sentence (attribute to a noun, adjectival predicative). The features of the numeral: 1) the categorical meaning of number (cardinal and ordinal); 2) thenarrow set of simple numerals; the specific forms of composition for compound numerals; the specificsuffixal forms of derivation for ordinal numerals; 3) the functions of numerical attribute and numerical substantive.

The features of the pronoun: 1) the categorical meaning of indication (deixis); 2) the narrow setsof various status with the corresponding formal properties of categorical changeability and wordbuilding; 3) the substantival and adjectival functions for different sets.
The features of the verb: 1) the categorical meaning of process (presented in the two upper seriesof forms, respectively, as finite process and non-finite process); 2) the forms of the verbal categories ofperson, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite forms;

3) thefunction of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the mixed verbal – other than verbal functions for the non-finite verb.The features of the adverb: 1) the categorical meaning of the secondary property, i.e. the propertyof process or another property; 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; thespecific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) the functions of various adverbial modifiers. Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning andnon-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech. To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, theparticle, the modal word and the interjection. The article expresses the specific limitation of the substantive functions. The preposition expresses the dependencies and interdependencies of substantive referents. The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena. The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series, alongside other specifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as functional modifiers ofverbs, etc. The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pronounced or less pronounced detachedposition, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts. Here belong thefunctional words of probability (probably, perhaps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately,unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation and negation. The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sentence, is a signal of emotions.

All words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided into grammatically relevant sets or classes, which are traditionally called “parts of speech”. It should be mentioned that this term is neither defining nor explanatory, but purely conventional (it was introduced in the grammatical teaching of Ancient Greek by Aristotle). In modem linguistics scholars refer to these sets of words as ‘Mexico-grammatical” series of words, or as “lexico- grammatical categories” [the term was suggested by Smimitsky].

Lexico-grammatical series of words are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria:

the semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalized meaning, which is characteristic of all words within the given set; this meaning is understood as the “categorial meaning of the part of speech”; the formal criterion presupposes specific inflectional and derivational features common to all words within the given set; the functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of words in the sentence typical of all words within the given set.

The said three factors of categorial characterization of words are conventionally referred to as, respectively, “meaning”, “form”, and “function”.

In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided into notional and functional, which reflects their division in the earlier grammatical tradition into changeable and unchangeable.

To the notional parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb. Within the formula “nieaning-form-function” they have the following characteristics:

	Meaning	Form	Function
The Noun	Substance or thinness	Changeable forms of the number and case, specific derivational characteristics (-cr. -ist, -ness)	Substantive functions in the sentence: the subject, the object, the predicative
The Adjective	Property (qualitative and relative)	Forms of the degrees of comparison, specific derivational characteristics (-ful. -able. -ant. -less)	Attribute, predicative Attribute and all the all substantive functions
The Numeral	Number (cardinal and ordinal)	Specific forms of composition (-teen, -ty), derivation of ordinal numeral (-th)
The Pronoun	Indication (deixis)	Specific forms of the absolute Genitive pronouns (yours, ours)	Attribute and all the substantive functions
The Adverb	Secondary property (i.e., a property of another property or a property of a proces&^/action/state)	Forms of the degrees of comparison, specific derivational characteristics (-ly, -wise)	Adverbial modifier
The Verb	Process/action/ state	forms of the person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood, specific derivational characteristics (un-, dis-, -ize, -ate. -fy)	Predicate (the finite verb); attribute, adverbial modifier, all substantive functions (the non-fmite forms of the verb)

Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech. To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection.

The meaning of all functional words is considered to be purely grammatical (i.e. they help to express meaning which is understood from the syntactic arrangement of words). Thus, the article expresses the identification or non-identification, the preposition expresses the dependencies of substantive referents, the conjunction expresses connections of phenomena, the particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning, the modal words express the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation, the intetjection is a signal of emotions.

Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with various semantico-functional and formal features. This subdivision is sometimes called “sub-categorization” of parts of speech. Thus, nouns are subcategorized into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract; verbs are subcategorized into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional and statal, factive and evaluative, etc.

We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by modern linguists on the lines of traditional morphology. It is known that the distribution of words between different parts of speech may to a certain extent differ with different authors, and the number of parts of speech differs with different grammarians - most textbooks differentiate from 8 to 13 parts of speech.

The main points of controversy between the classifications concern the status of several traditional parts of speech. Thus, the pronoun can, according to some theories, be recognized as a separate part of speech. According to other theories, all the units, traditionally termed “pronouns” should be distributed among two categories: the adjective (such pronouns as which, whose, both, all are proposed to be included here) and the determiner (the category used in the generative grammatical theories: the category encompasses all lexical units, which have indexical function and includes, apart from the articles, such pronouns as this, that, my his, her, etc). Likewise, the particle has been treated as a separate part of speech and also as a special type of the adverb. The article has been recognized as a separate part of speech by some scholars and as a kind of the pronouns by others.

Another, closely related group of problems in discriminating parts of speech is the lack of uniformity in either meaning, form, or function among words making up a given part of speech. Thus, some prepositions have been shown to possess lexical meaning (i.e., they designate entities in the extra linguistic world). For example, the preposition on designates a specific type of spatial relation between the book and the table in the sentence The book is on the table. However, other prepositions, like of and to in the sentences 1 met a friend of mine and I gave a book to him, do not have any lexical meaning - they do not designate any entities in the outside world and are used only to grammatically relate words within the sentence. In a similar manner, in the category of the adverb one distinguishes the so called postpositions, some of which have clearly lexical meaning (e.g.. He turned over the page, We thought it over) and some of which seem to have lost their lexical content (e.g., 1 have to look after my children. Look out!). There is also formal diversity within a given part of speech (which very often results from semantic differences). Some adjectives and adverbs do have the changing forms of the degrees of comparison (e.g., good/better/the best; to run fast/faster/fastest), while others - don't (e.g., wooden; tonight, tomorrow). There is much diversity among different items of a given part of speech in terms of function. F'or example, some verbal forms may be used in a wide range of syntactic functions thus becoming difficult to be discriminated from other parts of speech. Thus, the infinitive and the gerund may be used as subjects, objects, attributes, adverbial modifiers, as well as nominal and verbal parts of compound predicates, which are functions typical of the noun.

Alongside of the three-criteria principle of dividing the words into grammatical (lexico-granimatical) classes the syntactico-distributional classification of words was developed in the works of A.M.Peshkovsky, L.Bloomfield. Z.Harris and especially Ch.Fries. This kind of classification is based on the study of words’ combinability by means of substitution testing. The testing results in developing the standard model of four main “positions” of notional words in the English sentence: those of the noun (N), verb (V), adjective (A), adverb (D). Pronouns are included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes words standing outside the “positions” in the sentence are treated as functional words of various syntactic values.

Here is how Ch. Fries presents his scheme of English word-classes. For his materials he chooses tape-recorded spontaneous conversations comprising about 250.000 word entries which were tested on the three typical sentences:

Frame A: The concert was good (always).

Frame B: The clerk remembered the fax (suddenly).

Frame C: The team went there.

As a result of successive substitution tests on the cited “frames” the following lists of positional classes of words were established:

Class 1. (A) concert, coffee, taste...

2. 
   clerk, husband, supervisor... fax, food, coffee...
   
3. 
   team, husband, woman...
   

Class 2. (A) was, seemed, became...

2. 
   remembered, wanted, suggested...
   
3. 
   went, came, ran
   

Class 3. (A) good, large, necessary, foreign, new, empty...

Class 4. (A) there, here, always...

2. 
   clearly, sufficiently, especially...
   
3. 
   there, back, out; rapidly, eagerly, confidently...
   

These lists were formed on the principle that words from them can fill in the positions of the frames without affecting their general structural meaning, such as:

Frame A: thing and its quality at a given time

Frame B: actor-action-thing acted upon-characteristic of the action

Frame C: actor-action-direction of the action

Functional words are exposed in the cited process of testing as being unable to fill in the positions of the frames without destroying their structural meaning. These words form a limited group of 154 units.

The identified group of functional words can be distributed among the three main sets:

specifiers of notional words: determiners nouns, modal verbs as specifiers of notional verbs, functional modifiers and intensifiers of adjectives and adverbs;

interpositional elements, determining the relations of notional words: prepositions, conjunctions;

words referring to the sentence as a whole: question-words (what, how...), inducement-words (lets, please...), attention-words, words of affirmation and negation, sentence introducers it, there).

Comparing the syntactico-distributional classification of words with the traditional part of speech division of words, one can see the similarity of the general schemes of the two: the opposition of notional and functional words, the four cardinal classes of notional words (pronouns being pro- nounal and pro-adjectival elements), the presentation of notional words as open sets, the interpretation of functional words as syntactic mediators and their formal representation by the list.

The unity of notional lexemes finds its essential demonstration in an inter­class system of derivation. For example: strength - to strengthen - strong - strongly; nation - to nationalize - national - nationally.

This derivational series that unites the notional word-classes can be named the “lexica! paradigm of nomination”. The general order of classes in the series evidently corresponds to the logic of mental perception of reality: first objects and their actions, then the properties of the former and the latter. Still, the actual initial form of a particular nomination paradigm can be represented by a lexeme of any word-class. For example: a nounal paradigm (N—»): power-to empower- powerful-powerfully; a verbal paradigm (V—>): to suppose-supposition-supposed-supposedly; an adjectival paradigm (A—*): clear - clarity - to clarify - clearly; an adverbial paradigm (D—►): out - outing - to out - outer.

On the other hand, the universal character of the nomination paradigm is sustained by suppletive completion, both lexemic and phrasemic. For example: an end - to end - final - finally; wise - wisely - wisdom - to grow wise.

In conclusion, it is necessary to stress the idea that the whole of the lexicon on the upper level of classification can be divided intathree unequal parts.

1. 
   The first part of the lexicon forming an open set includes an unlimited number of notional words which have a complete nominative function. It is represented by nouns as substance names, verbs as process names, adjectives as primary property names and adverbs as secondary property names. The whole notional set is represented by the four-stage derivational paradigm of nomination.
   
2. 
   The second part of the lexicon forming a closed set includes substitutes of names (pro-names). Here belong pronouns and broad-meaning notional words,
   
3. 
   The third part of the lexicon also forming a closed set includes specifiers of names. These are functional words of different status.
   

Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord withvarious particular semantico-functional and formal features of the constituent words. This subdivisionis sometimes called "subcategorization" of parts of speech.Thus, nouns are subcategorized into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable anduncountable, concrete and abstract, etc. Cf.: Mary, Robinson, London, the Mississippi, Lake Erie - girl, person, city, river, lake; man, scholar, leopard, butterfly - earth, field, rose, machine;
coin/coins, floor/floors, kind/kinds - news, growth, water, furniture;
stone, grain, mist, leaf- honesty, love, slavery, darkness.
Verbs are subcategorized into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and intransitive,actional and statal, purely nominative and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
walk, sail, prepare, shine, blow - can, may, shall, be, become;
take, put, speak, listen, see, give - live, float, stay, ache,- ripen, rain;
write, play, strike, boil, receive, ride - exist, sleep, rest, thrive, revel, suffer;
roll, tire, begin, ensnare, build, tremble - consider, approve, mind, desire, hate, incline.Adjectives are subcategorized into qualitative and relative, of constant feature and temporaryfeature (the latter are referred to as "statives" and identified by some scholars as a separate part ofspeech under the heading of "category of state"), factual and evaluative, etc. Cf.: long, red, lovely, noble, comfortable- wooden, rural, daily, subterranean, orthographical;healthy, sickly, joyful, grievous, wry, blazing - well, ill, glad, sorry, awry, ablaze;tall, heavy, smooth, mental, native - kind, brave, wonderful, wise stupid. The adverb, the numeral, the pronoun are also subject to the corresponding subcategorizations.

Syntactic Classification of Word Stock


Alongside the three-criteria principle of dividing the words into grammatical (lexico-grammatical)classes, modern linguistics has developed another, narrower principle of word-class identificationbased on syntactic featuring of words only.
The fact is that the three-criteria principle faces a special difficulty in determining the part ofspeech status of such lexemes as have morphological characteristics of notional words, but play therole of grammatical mediators in phrases and sentences. Here belong, for instance, modal verbstogether with their equivalents – suppletive fillers, auxiliary verbs, aspective verbs, intensifyingadverbs, determiner pronouns.Still, at the present stage of the development of linguistic science, syntactic characterization ofwords that has been made possible after the exposition of their fundamental morphological properties,is far more important and universal from the point of view of the general classificational requirements.
It shows the distribution of words between different sets in accord with their functionalspecialization. The role of morphology by this presentation is not underrated, rather it is furtherclarified from the point of view of exposing connections between the categorial composition of the word and its sentence-forming relevance. The principles of syntactic (syntactico-distributional) classification of English words were workedout by L. Bloomfield and his followers Z. Harris and especially Ch. Fries. The syntactico-distributional classification of words is based on the study of their combinability by meansof substitution testing. The testing results in developing the standard model of four main "positions" ofnotional words in the English sentence: those of the noun (N), verb (V), adjective (A), adverb (D). Pronouns are included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes. Words standing outsidethe "positions" in the sentence are treated as function words of various syntactic values.Comparing the syntactico-distribulional classification of words with the traditional part of speech
division of words, one cannot but see the similarity of the general schemes of the two: the oppositionof notional and functional words, the four absolutely cardinal classes of notional words (since numeralsand pronouns have no positional functions of their own and serve as pro-nounal and pro-adjectivalelements), the interpretation of functional words as syntactic mediators and their formal representation bythe list. However, under these unquestionable traits of similarity are distinctly revealed essential features ofdifference, the proper evaluation of which allows us to make some important generalizations about thestructure of the lexemic system of language.

Literature

1. 
   Iriskulov M., Kuldashev A. A course in theoretical English Grammar. T., 2008
   
2. 
   М. Блох. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М., 1994
   
3. 
   М. Блох. Теоретические основы грамматики. М.,2002
   
4. 
   M. Blokh. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983
   

Lecture 7.

NOUN AS A PART OF SPEECH. ITS GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES.

Problems to be discussed

1. 
   Nouns as a part of speech
   
2. 
   The grammatical categories of nouns
   
3. 
   Number and case
   
4. 
   The meaning of gender in Modern English
   

Key words: nouns as a part of speech, the grammatical categories of nouns, number, case, gender and sex

In most cases in treating parts of speech in English we shall keep to the conception of scientists that we refer to post-structural tendency. It's because they combine the ideas of traditional and structural grammarians.

The nouns are classified into a separate word - group because:

1. 
   they all have the same lexical - grammatical meaning :
   

substance / thing

2. 
   according to their form - they've two grammatical categories:
   

number and case

3. 
   they all have typical stem-building elements:
   

- er, - ist, - ship, - merit, -hood ...

4. 
   typical combinability with other words: most often left-hand combinability
   
5. 
   function - the most characteristic feature of nouns is - they can be observed in all syntactic functions but predicate.
   

Some words about the distribution of nouns. Because of the fact that nouns express or denote substance / thing, their distribution is bound with the words which express the quality of substance, their number, their actions and their relation to the other words /nouns/ in English.

Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with various particular semantico-functional and formal features of the constituent words. This subdivision is sometimes called "subcategorization" of parts of speech. Thus, nouns are subcategorized into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract, etc. Cf.: Mary, Robinson, London, the Mississippi, Lake Erie - girl, person, city, river, lake; man, scholar, leopard, butterfly - earth, field, rose, machine; coin/coins, floor/floors, kind/kinds - news, growth, water, furniture; stone, grain, mist, leaf- honesty, love, slavery, darkness. Verbs are subcategorized into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional and statal, purely nominative and evaluative, etc. Cf.:

walk, sail, prepare, shine, blow - can, may, shall, be, become; take, put, speak, listen, see, give - live, float, stay, ache,- ripen, rain; write, play, strike, boil, receive, ride - exist, sleep, rest, thrive, revel, suffer; roll, tire, begin, ensnare, build, tremble - consider, approve, mind, desire, hate, incline.

The word «noun» comes from the Latin nomen meaning «name». Word classes like nouns were first described by Sanskrit grammarian Panini and ancient Greeks like Dionysius Thorax, and defined in terms of their morphological properties. For example, in Ancient Greece, nouns can be inflected for grammatical case, such as dative or accusative. Verbs, on the other hand, can be inflected for tenses, such as past, present or future, while nouns cannot. Aristotle also had a notion of onomata (nouns) and rhemata (verbs) which, however, does not exactly correspond our notions of verbs and nouns. In her dissertation, Vinokurova has a more detailed discussion of the historical origin of the notion of a noun.

Expressions of natural language will have properties at different levels. They have formal properties, like what kinds of morphological prefixes or suffixes they can take, and what kinds of other expressions they can combine with. but they also have semantic properties, i.e. properties pertaining to their meaning. The definition of nouns on the top of this page is thus a formal definition. That definition is uncontroversial, and has the advantage that it allows us to effectively distinguish nouns from non-nouns. However, it has the disadvandage that it does not apply to nouns in all languages. For example in Russian, there are no definite articles, so one cannot define nouns by means of those. There are also several attempts of defining nouns in terms of their semantic properties. Many of these are controversial, but some are discussed below.

In traditional school grammars, one often encounters the definition of nouns that they are all and only those expressions that refer to a person, place, thing, event, substance, quality, or idea, etc. This is a semantic definition. It has been criticized by contemporary linguists as being quite uninformative. Part of the problem is that the definition makes use of relatively general nouns («thing», «phenomenon», «event») to define what nouns are. The existence of such general nouns shows us that nouns are organized in taxonomic hierarchies. But other kinds of expressions are also organized in hierarchies. For example all of the verbs «stroll», «saunter,» «stride,» and «tread» are more specific words than the more general «walk.» The latter is more specific than the verb «move»/ But it is unlikely that such hierarchies can be used to define nouns and verbs. Furthermore, an influential theory has it that verbs like «kill» or «die» refer to events, and so they fall under the definition. Similarly, adjectives like «yellow» or «difficult» might be thought to refer to qualities, and adverbs like «outside» or «upstairs» seem to refer to places. Worse still, a trip into the woods can be referred to by the verbs «stroll» or «walk»/ But verbs, adjectives and adverbs are not nouns, and nouns aren't verbs. So the definition is not particularly helpful in distinguishing nouns from other parts of speech.

Another semantic definition of nouns is that they are prototypically referential. That definition is also not very helpful in distinguishing actual nouns from verbs. But it may still correctly identify a core property of noun hood. For example, we will tend to use nouns like «fool» and «car» when we wish to refer to fools and cars, respectively. The notion that this is prototypical reflects the fact that such nouns can be used, even though nothing with the corresponding property is referred to:

John is no fool.

If I had a car, I'd go to Marrakech.

The first sentence above doesn't refer to any fools, nor does the second one refer to any particular car.

In most cases in treating English nouns we shall keep to the conception of scientists that we refer to post-structural tendency It's because they combine the ideas of traditional and structural grammarians. The noun is classified into a separate word – group because:

1. they all have the same lexical – grammatical meaning:

substance / thing

2. according to their form – they've two grammatical categories:

number and case

3. they all have typical stem-building elements:

– er, – ist, – ship, – ment, – hood….

4. typical combinability with other words:

most often left-hand combinability.

5. function – the most characteristic feature of nouns is – they can be observed in all syntactic functions but predicate.

From the grammatical point of view most important is the division of nouns into countable and un-countable with regard to the category of number and into declinable and indeclinable with regard to the category of case¹.

Semantical Characteristics of English Nouns

Nouns fall under two classes: (A) proper nouns; (B) common nouns².

a) Proper nouns are individual, names given to separate persons or things. As regards their meaning proper nouns may be personal names (Mary, Peter, Shakespeare), geographical names (Moscow, London, the Caucasus), the names of the months and of the days of the week (February, Monday), names of ships, hotels, clubs, etc.

A large number of nouns now proper were originally common nouns (Brown, Smith, Mason).

Proper nouns may change their meaning and become common nouns:

«George went over to the table and took a sandwich and a glass of champagne. (Aldington)

b) Common nouns are names that can be applied to any individual of ad ass of persons or things (e.g. man, dog, book), collections of similar individuals or things regarded as a single unit (e. g. peasantry, family), materials (e. g. snow, iron, cotton) or abstract notions (e.g. kindness, development).

Thus there are different groups of common nouns: class nouns, collective nouns, nouns of material and abstract nouns.

1. Class nouns denote persons or things belonging to a class. They are countable and have two. numbers: singular and plural. They are generally used with an article.

«Well, sir», said Mrs. Parker, «I wasn't in the shop above a great deal.» (Mansfield)

He goes to the part of the town where the shops are. (Lessing)

2. Collective nouns denote a number or collection of similar individuals or things as a single unit.

Collective nouns fall under the following groups:

(a) nouns used only in the singular and denoting-a number of things collected together and regarded as a single object: foliage, machinery.

It was not restful, that green foliage. (London)

Machinery new to the industry in Australia was introduced for preparing land. (Agricultural Gazette)

(b) nouns which are singular in form though plural in meaning:

police, poultry, cattle, people, gentry They are usually called nouns of multitude. When the subject of the sentence is a noun of multitude the verb used as predicate is in the plural:

I had no idea the police were so devilishly prudent. (Shaw)

Unless cattle are in good condition in calving, milk production will never reach a high level. (Agricultural Gazette)

The weather was warm and the people were sitting at their doors. (Dickens)

(c) nouns that may be both singular and plural: family, crowd, fleet, nation. We can think of a number of crowds, fleets or different nations as well as of a single crowd, fleet, etc.

A small crowd is lined up to see the guests arrive. (Shaw)

Accordingly they were soon afoot, and walking in the direction of the scene of action, towards which crowds of people were already pouring from a variety of quarters. (Dickens)

3. Nouns of material denote material: iron, gold, paper, tea, water. They are uncountable and are generally used without any article.

There was a scent of honey from the lime-trees in flower. (Galsworthy)

There was coffee still in the urn. (Wells)

Nouns of material are used in the plural to denote different sorts of a given material.

… that his senior counted upon him in this enterprise, and had consigned a quantity of select wines to him… (Thackeray)

Nouns of material may turn into class nouns (thus becoming countable) when they come to express an individual object of definite shape.

Compare:

– To the left were clean panes of glass. (Ch. Bronte)

«He came in here,» said the waiter looking at the light through the tumbler, «ordered a glass of this ale.» (Dickens)

But the person in the glass made a face at her, and Miss Moss went out. (Mansfield).

4. Abstract nouns denote some quality, state, action or idea: kindness, sadness, fight. They are usually uncountable, though some of them may be countable.

Therefore when the youngsters saw that mother looked neither frightened nor offended, they gathered new courage. (Dodge)

Accustomed to John Reed's abuse – I never had an idea of plying it. (Ch. Bronte)

It's these people with fixed ideas. (Galsworthy)

Abstract nouns may change their meaning and become class nouns. This change is marked by the use of the article and of the plural number:

beauty a beauty beauties

sight a sight sights

He was responsive to beauty and here was cause to respond. (London)

She was a beauty. (Dickens)

… but she isn't one of those horrid regular beauties. (Aldington)

3. The Category of Number of English Nouns

The category of number of English nouns is the system of opposites (such as girl – girls, foot – feet, etc.) showing whether the noun stands for one object or more than one, in other words, whether its grammatical meaning is 'oneness' or 'more-than-oneness' of objects.

The connection of the category with the world of material reality, though indirect, is quite transparent. Its meanings reflect the existence of individual objects and groups of objects in the material world.

All number opposites are identical in content: they contain two particular meanings of 'singular' and 'plural' united by the general meaning of the category, that of 'number'. But there is a considerable variety of form in number opposites, though it is not so great as in the Russian language.

An English noun lexeme can contain two number opposites at most (toy – boys, boy's – boys'). Many lexemes have but one oppose me (table – tables) and many others have no opposites at all (ink, news).

In the opposite boy – boys 'singularity' is expressed by a zero morpheme and 'plurality' is marked by the positive morpheme /-z/, in spelling – .s. In other words, the 'singular' member of the opposite is not marked, and the 'plural' member is marked.

In the opposite boy's – boys' both members have positive morphemes –‘s, – s’, but these morphemes can be distinguished only in writing. In the spoken language their forms do not differ, so with regard to each other they are unmarked. They can be distinguished only by their combinability (cf. a boy's head, boys' heads).

In a few noun lexemes of foreign origin both members of a number opposite are marked, e.g. symposium – symposia, genus – genera, phenomenon–phenomena, etc. But in the process of assimilation this peculiarity of foreign nouns gets gradually lost, and instead of medium – media a new opposite develops, medium – mediums; instead of formula – formulae, the usual form now is formula – formulas. In this process, as we see, the foreign grammatical morphemes are neglected as such. The ‘plural’ morpheme is dropped altogether. The 'singular' morpheme becomes part of the stem. Finally, the regular – s ending is added to form the 'plural' opposite. As a result the 'singular' becomes unmarked, as typical of English, and the 'plural' gets its usual mark, the suffix – s.

Since the 'singular' member of a number opposite is not marked, the form of the opposite is, as a rule, determined by the form of the 'plural' morpheme, which, in its turn, depends upon the stem of the lexeme.

In the overwhelming majority of cases the form of the 'plural' morpheme is /-s/, /-z/, or /-z/, in spelling – (e) s, e. g, books, boys, matches.

With the stem ox – the form of the 'plural' morpheme is – en /-n/.

In the opposite man–men the form of the 'plural' morpheme is the vowel change /æ > e/. In woman – women ii is /u > i/, in foot – feet it is /u – i:/, etc.

In child – children the form of the 'plural' morpheme is complicated. It consists of the vowel change /ai > i/ and the suffix – ren.

In sheep – sheep the 'plural' is not marked, thus coinciding in form with the 'singular'. They can be distinguished only by their combinability: ‘one sheep’, ‘five sheep’, ‘a sheep was…’, ‘sheep were…’, ‘this sheep’, ‘these sheep’. The 'plural' coincides in form with the 'singular' also in ‘deer, fish, carp, perch, trout, cod, salmon’, etc.³

All the 'plural' forms enumerated here are forms of the same morpheme. This can be proved, as we know, by the identity of the 'plural' meaning, and the complementary distribution of these forms, i.e. the fact that different forms are used with different stems.

As already mentioned ⁴, with regard to the category of number English nouns fall into two subclasses: countable and uncountable. The former have number opposites, the latter have not. Uncountable nouns are again subdivided into those having no plural opposites and those having no singular opposites.

Nouns like milk, geometry, self-possession having no plural opposites are usually called by a Latin name – singularia tantum. Nouns like outskirts, clothes, goods having no singular opposites are known as pluralia tantum.

As a matter of fact, those nouns which have no number opposites are outside the grammatical category of number. But on the analogy of the bulk of English nouns they acquire oblique (or lexicon-grammatical) meanings of number. Therefore singularia tantum are often treated as singulars and pluralia tantum as plurals.

This is justified both by their forms and by their combinability.

Cf. This (table, book, milk, love) is…

These (tables, books, clothes, goods) are…

When combinability and form contradict each other, combinability is decisive, which accounts for the fact that ‘police’ or ‘cattle’ are regarded as plurals, and ‘measles’, ‘mathematics as singulars.

The lexicon-grammatical meaning of a class (or of a subclass) of words is, as we know, an abstraction from the lexical meanings of the words of the class, and depends to a certain extent on those lexical meanings. Therefore singularia tantum usually include nouns of certain lexical meanings. They are mostly material, abstract and collective nouns, such as sugar, gold, butter, brilliance, constancy, selfishness, humanity, soldiery, peasantry.

Yet it is not every material, abstract or collective noun that belongs to the group of singularia tantum (e. g. a plastic, a feeling, a crowd) and, what is more important, not in all of its meanings does a noun belong to this group.

As we have already seen⁵, variants of the same lexeme may belong to different subclasses of a part of speech. In most of their meanings the words joy and sorrow as abstract nouns are singularia tantum.

E.g. He has been a good friend both in joy and in sоrгоw. (Horney).

But when concrete manifestations are meant, these nouns are countable and have plural opposites, e. g. the joys and sorrows of life.

Likewise, the words copper, tin, hair as material nouns are usually singularia tantum, but when they denote concrete objects, they become countable and get plural opposites: a copper – coppers, a tin – tins, a hair – hairs.

Similarly, when the nouns wine, steel, salt denote some sort or variety of the substance, they become countable.

E.g. an expensive wine – expensive wines.

All such cases are not a peculiarity of the English language alone. They are found in other languages as well. Cf. дерево – деревья and дерево.is a material noun, платье – платья and платье as a collective noun.

‘Joy’ and ‘a joy’, ‘beauty’ and ‘a beauty’, ‘copper’ and ‘a copper’, ‘hair’ and ‘a hair’ and many other pairs of this kind are not homonyms, as suggested by some grammarians⁶, but variants of lexemes related by internal conversion.

If all such cases were regarded as homonyms, the number of homonyms in the English language would be practically limitless. If only some of them were treated as homonyms, that would give rise to uncontrolled subjectivity.

The group of pluralia tantum is mostly composed of nouns denoting objects consisting of two or more parts, complex phenomena or ceremonies, e. g. tongs, pincers, trousers, nuptials, obsequies. Here also belong some nouns with a distinct collective or material meaning, e.g. clothes, eaves, sweets.

Since in these words the – s suffix does not function as a grammatical morpheme, it gets lexicalized and develops into an inseparable part of the stem ⁷. This, probably, underlies the fact that such nouns as mathematics, optics, linguistics, mumps, measles are treated as singularia tantum.

Nouns like police, militia, cattle, poultry are pluralia tantum, judging by their combinability, though not by form ⁸.

People in the meaning of «народ» is a countable noun. In the meaning of «люди» it belongs to the pluralia tantum. Family in the sense of «a group of people who are related» is a countable noun. In the meaning of «individual members of this group» it belongs to the pluralia tantum. Thus, the lexeme family has two variants:

Sg. PL

1) family families

2) – family

E. g. Almost every family in the village has sent a man to the army. (Horney).

Those were the oldest families in Jorkshire. (Black).

Her family were of a delicate constitution. (Bronte).

Similar variants are observed in the lexemes committee, government, board, crew, etc.

Colour in the meaning «red, green, blue, etc». is a countable noun. In the meaning «appearance of reality or truth» (e. g. His torn clothes gave colour to his story that lie had been attacked by robbers. A. Horney.) it has no plural opposite and belongs to the singularia tantum. Colours in the sense of «materials used by painters and artists» has no singular opposite and belongs to the pluralia tantum.

Thus, the lexeme has three variants:

Sg. Pl.

1) colour colours

2) colour –

3) – colours.

When grammarians write that the lexical meanings of some plurals differ from those of their singular opposites ⁹, they simply compare different variants of a lexeme.

Sometimes variants of a lexeme may belong to the same lexico-grammatical subclass and yet have different forms of number opposemes.

Cf. brother (son of same parents) – brothers

brother (fellow member) – brethren

fish – fish (e.g. I caught five fish yesterday.)

fish – fishes ('different species', e. g. ocean fishes).

A collective noun is a word that designates a group of objects or beings regarded as a whole, such as «flock», «team», or «corporation». Although many languages treat collective nouns as singular, in others they may be interpreted as plural. In British English, phrases such as the committee are meeting are common (the so-called agreement in sensu «in meaning», that is, with the meaning of a noun, rather than with its form). The use of this type of construction varies with dialect and level of formality.

All languages are able to specify the quantity of referents. They may do so by lexical means with words such as English a few, some, one, two, five hundred. However, not every language has a grammatical category of number. Grammatical number is expressed by morphological and/or syntactic means. That is, it is indicated by certain grammatical elements, such as through affixes or number words. Grammatical number may be thought of as the indication of semantic number through grammar.

Languages that express quantity only by lexical means lack a grammatical category of number. For instance, in Khmer, neither nouns nor verbs carry any grammatical information concerning number: such information can only be conveyed by lexical items such as khlah 'some', pii-bey 'a few', and so on.

Most languages of the world have formal means to express differences of number. The most widespread distinction, as found in English and many other languages, involves a simple two-way number contrast between singular and plural (car / cars; child / children, etc.). Other more elaborate systems of number are described below.

The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulties of interpretation.

On the surface of semantic relations, the meaning of the singular will be understood as simply "one", as opposed to the meaning of the plural as "many" in the sense of "more than one". This is apparently obvious for such correlations as book — books, lake — lakesand the like. However, alongside of these semantically unequivocal correlations, there exist plurals and singulars that cannot be fully accounted for by the above ready-made approach. This becomes clear when we take for comparison such forms as tear (one drop falling from the eye) and tears (treacles on the cheeks as tokens of grief or joy), potato (one item of the vegetables) and potatoes (food), paper (material) and papers (notes or documents), sky(the vault of heaven) and skies (the same sky taken as a direct or figurative background), etc. As a result of the comparison we conclude that the broader sememic mark of the plural, or "plurality" in the grammatical sense, should be described as the potentially dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent, while the sememic mark of the singular will be understood as the non-dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent, i.e. the presentation of the referent in its indivisible entireness.

It is sometimes stated that the plural form indiscriminately presents both multiplicity of separate objects ("discrete" plural, e.g. three houses) and multiplicity of units of measure for an indivisible object ("plural of measure", e.g. three hours) [Ilyish, 36 ff.]. However, the difference here lies not in the content of the plural as such, but in the quality of the objects themselves. Actually, the singulars of the respective nouns differ from one another exactly on the same lines as the plurals do {cf. one house —one hour).

On the other hand, there are semantic varieties of the plural forms that differ from one another in their plural quality as such. Some distinctions of this kind were shown above. Some further distinctions may be seen in a variety of other cases. Here belong, for example, cases where the plural form expresses a definite set of objects {eyes of the face, wheels of the vehicle, etc.), various types of the referent {wines, tees, steels), intensity of the presentation of the idea {years and years, thousands upon thousands), picturesqueness{sands, waters, snows). The extreme point of this semantic scale is marked by the lexicalisation of the plural form, i.e. by its serving as a means of rendering not specificational, but purely notional difference in meaning. Cf. colours as a "flag", attentions as "wooing",pains as "effort", quarters as "abode", etc.

The scope of the semantic differences of the plural forms might pose before the observer a question whether the category of number is a variable grammatical category at all.

The answer to the question, though, doesn't leave space or any uncertainty: the category of number is one of the regular variable categories in the grammatical system of he English language. The variability of the category is simply given in its form, i.e. in the forms of the bulk of English nouns which do distinguish it by means of the described binary paradigm. As for the differences in meaning, these arise from the interaction between the underlying oppositional sememic marks of the category and the more concrete lexical differences in the semantics of individual words.

The most general quantitative characteristics of individual words constitute the lexico-grammatical base for dividing the nounal vocabulary as a whole into countable nouns and uncountable nouns. The constant categorial feature "quantitative structure" (see Ch. V, §3) is directly connected with the variable feature "number", since uncountable nouns are treated grammatically as either singular or plural. Namely, the singular uncountable nouns are modified by the non-discrete quantifiers much or little, and they take the finite verb in the singular, while the plural uncountable nouns take the finite verb in the plural.

The two subclasses of uncountable nouns are usually referred to, respectively, as singularia tantum (only singular) and pluralia tantum (only plural). In terms of oppositions we may say that in the formation of the two subclasses of uncountable nouns the number opposition is "constantly" (lexically) reduced either to the weak member (singularia tantum) or to the strong member (pluralia tantum).

Since the grammatical form of the uncountable nouns of the singularia tantum subclass is not excluded from the category of number, it stands to reason to speak of it as the "absolute" singular, as different from the "correlative" or "common" singular of the countable nouns. The absolute singular excludes the use of the modifying numeral one, as well as the indefinite article.

The absolute singular is characteristic of the names of abstract notions {peace, love, joy, courage, friendship, etc.), the names of the branches of professional activity {chemistry, architecture, mathematics, linguistics, etc.), the names of mass-materials {water, snow, steel, hair, etc.), the names of collective inanimate objects {foliage, fruit, furniture, machinery, etc.). Some of these words can be used in the form of the common singular with the common plural counterpart, but in this case they come to mean either different sorts of materials, or separate concrete manifestations of the qualities denoted by abstract nouns, or concrete objects exhibiting the respective qualities. Cf.:

Joy is absolutely necessary for normal human life.— It was a joy to see her among us. Helmets for motor-cycling are nowadays made of plastics instead of steel.— Using different modifications of the described method, super-strong steels are produced for various purposes.

The lexicalising effect of the correlative number forms (both singular and plural) in such cases is evident, since the categorial component of the referential meaning in each of them is changed from uncountability to countability. Thus, the oppositional reduction is here nullified in a peculiarly lexicalising way, and the full oppositional force of the category of number is rehabilitated.

Common number with uncountable singular nouns can also be expressed by means of combining them with words showing discreteness, such as bit, piece, item, sort. Cf.:

The last two items of news were quite sensational. Now I'd like to add one more bit of information. You might as well dispense with one or two pieces of furniture in the hall.

This kind of rendering the grammatical meaning of common number with uncountable nouns is, in due situational conditions, so regular that it can be regarded as special suppletivity in the categorial system of number (see Ch. III, §4).

On the other hand, the absolute singular, by way of functional oppositional reduction, can be used with countable nouns. In such cases the nouns are taken to express either the corresponding abstract ideas, or else the meaning of some mass-material correlated with its countable referent. Cf.:

Waltz is a lovely dance. There was dead desert all around them. The refugees neededshelter. Have we got chicken for the second course?

Under this heading (namely, the first of the above two subpoints) comes also the generic use of the singular. Cf.:

Man's immortality lies in his deeds. Wild elephant in the Jungle can be very dangerous.

In the sphere of the plural, likewise, we must recognise the common plural form as the regular feature of countability, and the absolute plural form peculiar to the uncountable subclass of pluralia tantum nouns. The absolute plural, as different from the common plural, cannot directly combine with numerals, and only occasionally does it combine with discrete quantifiers (many, few, etc.).

The absolute plural is characteristic of the uncountable nouns which denote objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors, tongs, spectacles, etc.), the nouns expressing some sort of collective meaning, i.e. rendering the idea of indefinite plurality, both concrete and abstract (supplies, outskirts, clothes, parings; tidings, earnings, contents, politics; police, cattle, poultry, etc.), the nouns denoting some diseases as well as some abnormal states of the body and mind (measles, rickets, mumps, creeps, hysterics, etc.). As is seen from the examples, from the point of view of number as such, the absolute plural forms can be divided into set absolute plural (objects of two halves) and non-set absolute plural (the rest).

The set plural can also be distinguished among the common plural forms, namely, with nouns denoting fixed sets of objects, such as eyes of the face, legs of the body, legs of the table, wheels of the vehicle, funnels of the steamboat, windows of the room, etc.

The necessity of expressing definite numbers in cases of uncountable pluralia tantum nouns, as well as in cases of countable nouns denoting objects in fixed sets, has brought about different suppletive combinations specific to the plural form of the noun, which exist alongside of the suppletive combinations specific to the singular form of the noun shown above. Here belong collocations with such words as pair, set, group, bunch and some others.Cf.: a pair of pincers; three pairs of bathing trunks; a few groups of police; two sets of dice; several cases of measles; etc.

The absolute plural, by way of functional oppositional reduction, can be represented in countable nouns having the form of the singular, in uncountable nouns having the form of the plural, and also in countable nouns having the form of the plural.

The first type of reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with countable nouns in the singular form, concerns collective nouns, which are thereby changed into "nouns of multitude". Cf.:

The family were gathered round the table. The government are unanimous in disapproving the move of the opposition.

This form of the absolute plural may be called "multitude plural".

The second type of the described oppositional reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with uncountable nouns in the plural form, concerns cases of stylistic marking of nouns. Thus, the oppositional reduction results in expressive transposition. Cf.: the sands of the desert; the snows of the Arctic; the waters of the ocean; the fruits of the toil; etc,

This variety of the absolute plural may be called "descriptive uncountable plural".

The third type of oppositional reduction concerns common countable nouns used in repetition groups. The acquired implication is indefinitely large quantity intensely presented. The nouns in repetition groups may themselves be used either in the plural ("featured" form) or in the singular ("unfeatured" form). Cf.:

There were trees and trees all around us. I lit cigarette after cigarette.

This variety of the absolute plural may be called "repetition plural". It can be considered as a peculiar analytical form in the marginal sphere of the category of number.

As already mentioned, plural and singular nouns stand in contrast as diametrically opposite. Instances are not few, however, when their opposition comes to be neutralised. And this is to say that there are cases when the numeric differentiation appears to be of no importance at all. Here belong many collective abstract and material nouns. If, for instance, we look at the meaning of collective nouns, we cannot fail to see that they denote at the same time a plurality and a unit. They may be said to be doubly countables and thus from a logical point of view form the exact contrast to mass nouns: they are, in fact, at the same time singular and plural, while mass words are logically neither. The double-sidedness of collective nouns weakens the opposition and leads to the development of either Pluralia tantum, as in: weeds (in a garden), ashes, embers, etc., or Singularia tantum, as in:wildfowl, clergy, foliage, etc.

Modern English like most other languages distinguishes two numbers: singular and plural. Plural and singular nouns stand in contrast as diametrically opposite. Instances are not few, however, when their opposition comes to be neutralised.

And this is to say that there are cases when the numeric differentiation appears to be of no importance at all. Here belong many collective abstract and material nouns. If, for instance, we look at the meaning of collective nouns, we cannot fail to see that they denote at the same time a plurality and a unit.

They may be said to be doubly countables and thus from a logical point of view form the exact contrast to mass nouns: they are, in fact, at the same time singular and plural, while mass words are logically neither. The dual nature of collective nouns is shown linguistically in various ways: by the number of the verb or by the pronoun referring to it, as for instance, My family are early risers, they are already here. Cf. My family is not large.

It is important to observe that the choice between singular and plural depends on the meaning attached to the noun.

A word should be said about stylistic transpositions of singular nouns in cases like the following: trees in leaf, to have a keen eye, blue of eye, strong of muscle. Patterns of this kind will exemplify synecdoche – the simplest case of metonymy in grammar (“pars pro toto”).

The Germans won the victories. By God they were soldiers. The Old Hun was a soldier. But they were cooked too. They were all cooked… The Hun would come down through the Trentino, and cut the railway at the Vicenza and then where would the Italians be? (Hemingway)

Very often the plural form, besides its specific meaning may also retain the exact meaning of the singular, which results in homonymy.

1) custom = habit, customs = 1) plural of habit 2) duties 2) colour = tint, colours = 1) plural of tint 2) flag 3) effect = result, effects = 1) results 2) goods and chattels 4) manner = mode or way, manners = 1) modes, ways 2) behaviour 5) number = a total amount of units, numbers = 1) in counting 2) poetry 6) pain = suffering, pains = 1) plural of suffering 2) effort 7) premise = a statement or proposition, premises = propositions surrounding to a house 8) quarter = a fourth part, quarters = 1) fourth parts 2) lodgings There are also double plurals used with some difference of meanings: 1)brother 1) brothers (sons of one mother) 2) brethren (members of one community)2) genius 1) geniuses (men of genius) 2) genii (spirits) 3) cloth 1) cloths (kinds of cloth)  2) clothes (articles of dress) 4) index 1) indexes (tables of contents) 2) indices (in mathematics)

The noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of “substance” or “thingness”. It follows from this that the noun is the main nominative part of speech. The noun has the power, by way of nomination, to isolate different properties of substances (i.e. direct and oblique qualities, and also actions and states as processual characteristics of substantive phenomena) and present them ascorresponding self-dependent substances. E.g.: Her words were unexpectedly bitter. – We were struck by the unexpected bitterness of her words. At that time he was down in his career, but we knew well that very soon he would be up again. – His career had its ups and downs. The cable arrived when John was preoccupied with the arrangements for the party. – The arrivalof the cable interrupted his preoccupation with the arrangements for the party. This natural and practically unlimited substantivization force establishes the noun as the central nominative lexemic unit of language. The categorial functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties. The most characteristic substantive function of the noun is that of the subject in the sentence, since thereferent of the subject is the person or thing immediately named. The function of the object in the sentence is also typical of the noun as the substance word. Other syntactic functions, i.e. attributive, adverbial, andeven predicative, although performed by the noun with equal ease, are not immediately characteristic of itssubstantive quality as such. The noun is characterized by some special types of combinability. In particular, typical of the noun is the prepositional combinability with another noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb.

E.g.: an entrance to thehouse; to turn round the corner, red in the face; far from its destination. The possessive combinability characterizes the noun alongside its prepositional combinability withanother noun. E.g.: the speech of the President - the President's speech; the cover of the book - the book's cover.English nouns can also easily combine with one another by sheer contact, unmediated by any speciallexemic or morphemic means. In the contact group the noun in pre-position plays the role of a semanticqualifier to the noun in post-position. E.g.: a cannon ball; a log cabin; a sports event; film festivals. As a part of speech, the noun is also characterized by a set of formal features determining its specificstatus in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its word-building distinctions, including typicalsuffixes, compound stem models, conversion patterns. It discriminates the grammatical categories ofgender, number, case, article determination. The cited formal features taken together are relevant for the division of nouns into several subclasses,grouped into four oppositional pairs. The first nounal subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation of this division is “type of nomination”. The second subclassopposition differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of “form of existence”. The thirdsubclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the basis of “personal quality”. The fourth subclass opposition differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis of “quantitative structure”. Somewhat less explicitly and rigorously is the division of English nouns intoconcrete and abstract.
Noun: the Category of Gender. There is a peculiarly regular contradiction between the presentation of gender in English by theoretical treatises and practical manuals. Whereas theoretical treatises define the gender subcategorization of English nouns as purely lexical or “semantic”, practical manuals of English grammar do invariably include the description of the English gender in their subject matter of immediate instruction. The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with thepersonal pronouns of the third person. These serve as specific gender classifiers of nouns, being potentially reflected on each entry of the noun in speech. The category of gender is strictly oppositional. It is formed by two oppositions related to each other on a hierarchical basis. One opposition functions in the whole set of nouns, dividing them intoperson (human) nouns and non-person (non-human) nouns. The other opposition functions in thesubset of person nouns only, dividing them into masculine nouns and feminine nouns. Thus, the first, general opposition can be referred to as the upper opposition in the category of gender, while thesecond, partial opposition can be referred to as the lower opposition in this category.As a result of the double oppositional correlation, a specific system of three genders arises, whichis somewhat misleadingly represented by the traditional terminology: the neuter (i.e. non-person)gender, the masculine (i.e. masculine person) gender, the feminine (i.e. feminine person) gender.

The category of case. The noun is a notional part of speech possessing the meaning of substantivity. Case expresses the relation of a word to another word in the word-group or sentence. The category of case: the Common Case, The Possessive Case. The scope of meanings rendered by the Genitive Case is the following :a)Possessive Genitive : Mary’s father – Mary has a father; b)Subjective G.: The doctor’s arrival – The doctor has arrived;c)Objective G. : The man’s release – The man was released;d)Adverbial G. : Two hour’s work – X worked for two hours;e)Equation G. : a mile’s distance – the distance is a mile;f)Genitive of destination: children’s books – books for children;g)Mixed Group: yesterday’s paper, Nick’s school. There is no universal point of view as to the case system in English. Different scholars stick to a different number of cases.

The category of case.

Case expresses the relation of a word to another word in the word-group or sentence (my sister’s coat). The category of case correlates with the objective category of possession. The case category in English is realized through the opposition: The Common Case :: The Possessive Case (sister :: sister’s). However, in modern linguistics the term “genitive case” is used instead of the “possessive case” because the meanings rendered by the “`s” sign are not only those of possession. The scope of meanings rendered by the Genitive Case is the following :

1. 
   Possessive Genitive : Mary’s father – Mary has a father,
   
2. 
   Subjective Genitive: The doctor’s arrival – The doctor has arrived,
   
3. 
   Objective Genitive : The man’s release – The man was released,
   
4. 
   Adverbial Genitive : Two hour’s work – X worked for two hours,
   
5. 
   Equation Genitive : a mile’s distance – the distance is a mile,
   
6. 
   Genitive of destination: children’s books – books for children,
   
7. 
   Mixed Group: yesterday’s paper
   

Nick’s school cannot be reduced to one nucleus

John’s word

To avoid confusion with the plural, the marker of the genitive case is represented in written form with an apostrophe. This fact makes possible disengagement of –`s form from the noun to which it properly belongs. E.g.: The man I saw yesterday’s son, where -`s is appended to the whole group (the so-called group genitive). It may even follow a word which normally does not possess such a formant, as in somebody else’s book.

There is no universal point of view as to the case system in English. Different scholars stick to a different number of cases.

1. 
   There are two cases. The Common one and The Genitive;
   
2. 
   There are no cases at all, the form `s is optional because the same relations may be expressed by the ‘of-phrase’: the doctor’s arrival – the arrival of the doctor;
   
3. 
   There are three cases: the Nominative, the Genitive, the Objective due to the existence of objective pronouns me, him, whom;
   
4. 
   Case Grammar. Ch.Fillmore introduced syntactic-semantic classification of cases. They show relations in the so-called deep structure of the sentence. According to him, verbs may stand to different relations to nouns. There are 6 cases:
   

1. 
   Agentive Case (A) John opened the door;
   
2. 
   Instrumental case (I) The key opened the door; John used the key to open the door;
   
3. 
   Dative Case (D) John believed that he would win (the case of the animate being affected by the state of action identified by the verb);
   
4. 
   Factitive Case (F) The key was damaged ( the result of the action or state identified by the verb);
   
5. 
   Locative Case (L) Chicago is windy;
   
6. 
   Objective case (O) John stole the book.
   

The Category of Case in Nouns

The problem of the number of cases in English has given rise to different theories which

were based on the different ways of approaching the description of English grammatical structure. Case is an indication of a relation in which the noun stands to some other word.

H. Sweet's (42) conception of the number of cases in English doubtful. He is not sure

whether in English there are five or two cases. He writes: “English has only one inflected case, the genitive /man’s, men’s/, the uninflected base constituting the common case / man, men /, which is equivalent to the nominative, vocative, accusative and dative of such a language as Latin”. As we see he is under a certain influence of the Latin grammar. If we treat the English

language out of the facts of Latin, then we'll really have to acknowledge the existence of five

cases. But the facts of English made Sweet identify only two. O. Curme considers that of many case endings once used English has preserved only one, - 1st of the genitive. Apart from the genitive relation, these grammatical relations are now indicated by the position of the noun with regard to the verb or prepositions which have taken the place of the old inflectional endings / He distinguishes four cases:

1. Nominative-performs 3 functions: subject, predicate and direct object

2. Accusative - performs 3 functions: object, adverbial modifier, predicate.

The dog bit my brother /obj./ He stayed an hour /adverbial acc/ I believed to be him /predicate/

3. Dative: When an action directed toward smb: He makes coat for John.

4. Genitive: girl's ... O. Jespersen distinguishes two cases: common and genitive.

M. Bryant is of the same opinion: H. Whitehall (43) distinguishes two cases in nouns on analogy with the pronouns which can substitute for them: nominative and objective.

He says: "The so-called possessive case is best thought of as a method of transforming a noun into a modifier" ... Among the Russian grammarians we find different views on the problem of case system in Modern English nouns. B.A. Ilyish (15) considers that – ‘s is no longer a case inflexion in the classical sense of a word. Unlike such classical inflections, -‘s may be attached: a) to adverbs: yesterday's events

b) to a word group: Mary and John's apartment

c) to a whole clause: the man I saw yesterday’s son.

Ilyish concludes that the – ‘s morpheme gradually develops into a "form-word", a kind of

particle serving to convey the meanings of belonging, possession”.

G.U. Vorontsova (11) does not recognize -'s as case morpheme. She treats it as a "postposition", "a purely syntactical form - word resembling a preposition", used as a sign of syntactical dependence". Her arguments are as follows:

1. The use of-'s is optional /her brother's, of her brother/.

2. It is used with a limited group of nouns outside which it occurs very seldom.

3. -'s is used both in the singular and in the plural which is not incident to case morphemes. e.g. мальчик – а – мальчиков

4. It occurs in very few plurals, only those with the irregular formation of the plural

member: oxen's, but cows

5. -'s does not make an inseparable part of the structure of word. It may be placed at some

distance from the head-word of an attributive group.

To Khaimovich and Rogovskaya (22) -' s still function as a case morpheme, because:

1. The-'s morpheme is mostly attached to individual nouns, not noun groups /in 96 %/.

2. It's general meaning – “the relation of a noun to another word” - is a typical case

meaning.

3. The fact that -‘s occurs, as a rule, with a more or less limited group of words bears

testimony to its not being a "preposition like form word". The use of the preposition is determined, chiefly by the noun it introduces: on /in/ under the table ...

4. oxen’s - cows' /z/, /θ/ and /of/ alternants: identical meanings and in complementary distribution.

5. –‘s not a “preposition like word” since it has no vowel as it is found in other prepositions in English.

The category of gender. A classification of nouns, primarily according to sex; and secondarily according to some fancied or imputed quality associated with sex. Unlike the Romance languages, English has three genders for nouns and pronouns: masculine, feminine, and neuter. Generally, the English language uses natural gender rather than grammatical gender — that is, the gender of a word is usually based on its biology.

The term “gender” is opposed to the term “sex” (пол). The first term (gender) is a pure grammatical term which deals with the grammatical expression of grammatical gender, i.e. the expression of masculine, feminine and neuter genders. The second word (sex) is used as a common word for both male and female. Thus, it is often used to denote biological notions.

Speaking about the Modern English language we can say that the English nouns do not have a grammatical category of gender. It is because that the nouns do not have constant grammatical means to express the gender distinctions. Such a grammatical category is found in Russian which is one the most important grammatical phenomenon in this language “категория рода существительного – это несловоизменительная синтагматически выявленная морфологическая категория, выражающаяся в способности существительного

в формах единственного числа относиться избирательно к родовым формам согласуемой (в сказуемом - координируемой) с ним словоформы: письменный стол, большое дерево; Вечер наступил; Девочка гуляла бы; Окно открыто; Ночь холодная. Морфологическая категория рода выявляется в формах единственного числа, однако она принадлежит существительному как слову в целом, во всей системе его форм. Категорию рода образуют три незамкнутых ряда морфологических форм, в каждый такой ряд входят формы разных слов, объединённых общим для них морфологическим значением рода – мужского, женского или среднего”.

Морфологическое значение рода существительного – это такое значение, которое обуславливает собою: 1) способность существительных определяться прилагательными со следующими флексиями в форме именительного падежа единственного числа: - ой, -ий, ый - мужской род (большой стол, синий свет, добрый человек), -ая, -яя – женский род (большая книга, синяя тетрадь); -ое, -ее – средний род (большое окно, синее небо)…”

It becomes clear that in Russian we find three grammatical genders -masculine, feminine and neuter as well as in the personal pronouns in the 3rd person singular – он, она, оно. These pronouns, as a rule, replace nouns in accordance with their gender. Nouns denoting persons may be either masculine or feminine - according to the sex of the person usually denoted by them. Nouns denoting inanimate objects may be of masculine, feminine and neuter.

If nouns in the nominative case (им. падеж) singular form have no special ending, and no soft sign (мягкий знак) at the end, they are included into the masculine gender: дом, семья.

If in the same case and form they have the endings -a or -я (ручка, станция), they are included into the feminine gender.

If nouns have the endings -o or -e (радио, замечание) they are in neutral gender.

Nouns ending in "ь" (soft sign – мягкий знак) are either masculine (портфель - он) or feminine (тетрадь - она).

In the English language we do not find such phenomenon. Because of this fact the Russian and the most other foreign grammarians think that English does not have the grammatical category of gender. “English has no gender: the nouns of English cannot be classified in terms of agreement with articles, adjectives (or verbs)”

In old English there were three genders with their own markers. B.A.Ilyish writes the following in this respect: "Three grammatical categories are represented in the OE nouns, just as in many other Germanic and Indo- European languages: gender, number and case. Of these three gender is a lexical-grammatical category, that is, every noun with all its forms belong to gender (masculine, feminine or neuter).

But in Modern English the meaning of gender may be expressed by the help of different other means: 1. gender may be indicated by a change of words that is, by the help of lexic-semantic means: man –woman, cock (rooster) – hen, bull-cow, Arthur, Ann, Edgar, Helen and so on.2. gender may be indicated by the addition of a word that is, by syntactic means examples: Grandfather – grandmother, manservant – maidservant, male cat – female cat or he cat – she cat and so on. 3. gender may be expressed by the use of suffixes, examples, host – hostess (хозяин – хозяйка), hero – heroine (герой - героиня), tiger – tigress (тигр - тигрица). There are opinions according to which these suffixes are morphological means, thus they are grammatical means and because of this fact one may consider that English has the grammatical category of gender. But it can hardly be accepted.

There is a regular correspondence between English nouns and the personal pronouns in the third person singular he, she, it. But this correspondence is not equal with the one which is found in Russian. In the Russian language this correspondence is based on both the lexical-semantic and the grammatical aspects but in English it is based on only the lexical-semantic aspect, that is "he" is usually used to indicate real biological male sex, "she" indicates real biological female sex and “It” is used to indicate inanimate objects. It is important to remember that the pronouns he, she, may also be used with regard to inanimate nouns. Such a use of these pronouns is explained by the cultural and historical backgrounds and it has nothing to do with the grammatical expression of the meaning of gender. Examples: moon - she, ship - she, love - he and so on.

Summing up the problem of gender in Modern English, it is important to say that:

1. gender is the grammatical distinction between; masculine, feminine and neuter;

2. the lexical - grammatical category of gender existed only in the OE period but in ME (middle English)

3. in Modern English we find only lexical-semantic meanings of gender, that is, the gender distinction is based on the semantic principle;

4. English has certain lexical and syntactic means to express a real biological sex.
Literature

1. 
   Iriskulov M., Kuldashev A. A course in theoretical English Grammar. T., 2008
   
2. 
   М. Блох. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М., 1994
   
3. 
   М. Блох. Теоретические основы грамматики. М.,2002
   
4. 
   M. Blokh. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983
   

Lecture 8:

ADJECTIVES AND ADVERBS.THE GRAMMATICAL CATEGORY OF DEGREES OF COMPARISON

Problems to be discussed

1. 
   the characteristic features of the adjectives as a part of speech
   
2. 
   the types of adjectives
   
3. 
   the grammatical category of degrees of comparison
   
4. 
   the means of formation of the degrees of comparison of adjectives
   
5. 
   substsntivation of adjectives
   
6. 
   the characteristic features of the adverbs as a part of speech
   

Key words:adjectives, the grammatical category of degrees of comparison, substsntivation of adjectives, adverbs, types of adverbs, circumstantial, qualitative, quantitative.

The Adjectives

Problems to be discussed:

- the characteristic features of the adjectives as a part of speech

- the types of adjectives

- the grammatical category of degrees of comparison

- the means of formation of the degrees of comparison of adjectives

- substantivization of adjective

- general characteristics of adverbs

The characteristic features of the adjective as a part of speech are as follows:

1. their lexical-grammatical meaning of attributes or we may say that they express property of things /persons/;

2. from the morphological view point they have the category of degrees of comparison;

3. from the point of view of their combinality they combine with nouns, as it has already been stated above, they express the properties of things. The words that express things we call nouns. It seems to be important to differenti­ate the combinability of a word with other words and reference of a word of a part of speech to another part of speech. We put this because adjectives modify nouns but they can combine with adverbs, link verbs and the word “one”:

a white horse. The horse is white. The sun rose red.

The adjective expresses the categorical semantics of property of a substance. It means that each adjective used in the text presupposes relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes,such as its material, colour, dimensions, position, state, and other characteristics, both permanent andtemporary. It follows from this that unlike nouns adjectives do not possess a full nominative value.
Indeed, words like long, hospitable, fragrant cannot effect any self-dependent nominations; as units ofinformative sequences they exist only in collocations showing what is long, who is hospitable andwhat is fragrant. The semantically bound character of the adjective is emphasized in English by the use of the propsubstitute one in the absence of the notional head-noun of the phrase. E.g.:
I don’t want a yellow balloon, let me have the green one over there.
On the other hand, if the adjective is placed in a nominatively self-dependent position, this leads toits substantivization. E.g. Outside it was a beautiful day, and the sun tinged the snow with red (the red colour). Adjectives are distinguished by a specific combinability with nouns which they modify, if notaccompanied by adjuncts (adverbials integrated in a clause), usually in preposition, and occasionally inpost-position; by a combinability with link-verbs, both functional and notional; by a combinabilitywith modifying adverbs.
In the sentence the adjective performs the functions of an attribute and a predicative. To the derivational features of adjectives belong a number of suffixes and prefixes, of which themost important are: -ful (hopeful), -less (flawless), -ish (bluish), -ous (famous), -ive (decorative), -ic(basic), un- (unprecedented), in- (inaccurate), pre- (premature). Among the adjectival affixes shouldalso be named the prefix a-, constitutive for the stative subclass. As for the variable morphological features, the English adjective, having lost in the course of thehistory of English all its forms of grammatical agreement with the noun, is distinguished only by thehybrid category of comparison. All the adjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative and relative. Relative adjectives express such properties of a substance as are determined by the direct relationof the substance to some other substance. E.g.: wood – a wooden hut, colour – coloured postcards.

Qualitative adjectives denote various qualities of substances, i.e. of establishing their correlativequantitative measure. The measure of a quality can be estimated as high or low, adequate orinadequate, sufficient or insufficient, optimal or excessive. Cf.: an awkward situation – a veryawkward situation, an enthusiastic reception – a rather enthusiastic reception.

In this connection, the ability of an adjective to form degrees of comparison is usually taken as aformal sign of its qualitative character, in opposition to a relative adjective which is understood asincapable of forming degrees of comparison by definition. Cf.: a pretty girl – a prettier girl; a quicklook – a quicker look; a hearty welcome – the heartiest of welcomes; a bombastic speech – the mostbombastic speech. However, in actual speech the described principle of distinction is not at all strictly observed, which isnoted in the grammar treatises putting it forward. Two typical cases of contradiction should be pointedout here.
In the first place, substances can possess such qualities as are incompatible with the idea of degreesof comparison. Accordingly, adjectives denoting these qualities, while belonging to the qualitativesubclass, are in the ordinary use incapable of forming degrees of comparison. Here belong adjectiveslike extinct, immobile, deaf, final, fixed, etc. In the second place, many adjectives considered under the heading of relative still can form degreesof comparison, thereby, as it were, transforming the denoted relative property of a substance into suchas can be graded quantitatively. Cf: a mediaeval approach - rather a mediaeval approach - afar moremediaeval approach; of a military design - of a less military design - of a more military design; agrammatical topic -a purely grammatical topic - the most grammatical of the suggested topics. In order to overcome the demonstrated lack of rigour in the definitions in question, we may introduce an additional linguistic distinction which is more adaptable to the chances of usage. The suggested distinction is based on the evaluative function of adjectives. According as they actually givesome qualitative evaluation to the substance referent or only point out its corresponding nativeproperty, all the adjective functions may be grammatically divided into "evaluative" and"specificative". In particular, one and the same adjective, irrespective of its being basically (i.e. in thesense of the fundamental semantic property of its root constituent) "relative" or "qualitative", can beused either in the evaluative function or in the specificative function.
For instance, the adjective good is basically qualitative. On the other hand, when employed as agrading term in teaching, i.e. a term forming part of the marking scale together with the grading terms bad,satisfactory, excellent, it acquires the said specificative value; in other words, it becomes a specificative,not an evaluative unit in the grammatical sense. Conversely, the adjective wooden is basically relative, butwhen used in the broader meaning "expressionless" or "awkward" it acquires an evaluative force and,consequently, can presuppose a greater or lesser degree ("amount") of the denoted property in thecorresponding referent. E.g.: Bundle found herself looking into the expressionless, wooden face of Superintendent Battle (A.Christie). The superintendent was sitting behind a table and looking more wooden than ever (ibid).

The degrees of comparison are essentially evaluative formulas, therefore any adjective used in ahigher comparison degree (comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an evaluative adjective.Thus, the introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses of adjectives, in thelong run, emphasizes the fact that the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is potentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is constitutive for it. Among the words signifying properties of a nounal referent there is a lexemic set which claims to berecognized as a separate part of speech, i.e. a class of words different from the adjectives in its classforming features. These are words built up by the prefix a- and denoting different states, mostly oftemporary duration. Here belong lexemes like afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze. In traditional grammarthese words were generally considered under the heading of "predicative adjectives" (some of themalso under the heading of adverbs), since their most typical position in the sentence is that of apredicative and they are but occasionally used as pre-positional attributes to nouns. English qualifying a-words of the corresponding meanings were subjected to a lexico-grammaticalanalysis and given the part-of-speech heading "category of state". This analysis was first conducted byB.A. Ilyish and later continued by other linguists. The term "words of the category of state" was laterchanged into "stative words", or "statives". The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in thedomain of English, and has found both its proponents and opponents. Probably the most consistent and explicit exposition of the part-of-^ speech interpretation ofstatives has been given by B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 199 ff].

Their theses supporting the view in question can be summarized as follows. First, the statives, called by the quoted authors "adlinks" (by virtue of their connection with linkverbs and on the analogy of the term "adverbs"), are allegedly opposed to adjectives on a purelysemantic basis, since adjectives denote "qualities", and statives-adlinks denote "states". Second, asdifferent from adjectives, statives-adlinks are characterized by the specific prefix a-. Third, theyallegedly do not possess the category of the degrees of comparison. Fourth, the combinability of statives adlinks is different from that of adjectives in so far as they are not used in the pre-positional attributive function, i.e. are characterized by the absence of the right-hand combinability with nouns.The advanced reasons, presupposing many-sided categorial estimation of statives, are undoubtedly serious and worthy of note. Still, a closer consideration of the properties of the analyzed lexemic setcannot but show that on the whole the said reasons are hardly instrumental in proving the main idea, i.e.establishing the English stative as a separate part of speech. The re-consideration of the stative on thebasis of comparison with the classical adjective inevitably discloses the fundamental relationship betweenthe two - such relationship as should be interpreted in no other terms than identity at the part-of-speechlevel, though, naturally, providing for their distinct differentiation at the subclass level.

The first scholar who undertook this kind of re-consideration of the lexemic status of Englishstatives was L.S. Barkhudarov, and in our estimation of them we essentially follow his principles,pointing out some additional criteria of argument. First, considering the basic meaning expressed by the stative, we formulate it as "stative property",i.e. a kind of property of a nounal referent. As we already know, the adjective as a whole signifies not"quality" in the narrow sense, but "property", which is categorially divided into "substantive quality assuch" and "substantive relation". In this respect, statives do not fundamentally differ from classicaladjectives. Moreover, common adjectives and participles in adjective-type functions can express the same, or, more specifically, typologically the same properties (or "qualities" in a broader sense) as areexpressed by statives. Indeed, the main meaning types conveyed by statives are: the psychic state of a person {afraid,ashamed, aware); the physical state of a person {astir, afoot); the physical state of an object {afire,ablaze, aglow); the state of an object in space (askew, awry, aslant).

Meanings of the same order are rendered by pre-positional adjectives. Cf.: the living predecessor - the predecessor alive; eager curiosity - curiosity agog; the burning house – thehouse afire; a floating raft - a raft afloat; a half-open door - a door ajar; slanting ropes - ropes aslant;a vigilant man - a man awake; similar cases - cases alike; an excited crowd - a crowd astir. It goes without saying that many other adjectives and participles convey the meanings of variousstates irrespective of their analogy with statives. Cf. such words of the order of psychic state asdespondent, curious, happy, joyful; such words of the order of human physical state as sound,refreshed, healthy, hungry; such words of the order of activity state as busy, functioning, active,employed, etc. Second, turning to the combinability characteristics of statives, we see that, though differing fromthose of the common adjectives in one point negatively, they basically coincide with them in the other points.

As a matter of fact, statives are not used in attributive pre-position, but, like adjectives, they are distinguished by the left-hand categorial combinability both with nouns and link-verbs. Cf.: The household was all astir. - The household was all excited. - It was strange to see the household astir at this hour of the day. - It was strange to see the household active at this hour of the day. Third, analyzing the functions of the stative corresponding to its combinability patterns, we see thatessentially they do not differ from the functions of the common adjective. Namely, the two basicfunctions of the stative are the predicative and the attribute. The similarity of functions leads to the possibility of the use of a stative and a common adjective in a homogeneous group. E.g.: Launches and barges moored to the dock were ablaze and loud with wild sound. True, the predominant function of the stative, as different from the common adjective, is that of thepredicative. But then, the important structural and functional peculiarities of statives uniting them in adistinctly separate set of lexemes cannot be disputed.

What is disputed is the status of this set in relation to the notional parts of speech, not its existence or identification as such. Fourth, from our point of view, it would not be quite consistent with the actual lingual data to placethe stative strictly out of the category of comparison. As we have shown above, the category ofcomparison is connected with the functional division of adjectives into evaluative and specificative. Like common adjectives, statives are subject to this flexible division, and so in principle they areincluded into the expression of the quantitative estimation of the corresponding properties conveyedby them. True, statives do not take the synthetic forms of the degrees of comparison, but they are capable of expressing comparison analytically, in cases where it is to be expressed. Cf.: Of us all, Jack was the one most aware of the delicate situation in which we found ourselves. I saw that the adjusting lever stood far more askew than was allowed by the directions. Fifth, quantitative considerations, though being a subsidiary factor of reasoning, tend to support theconjoint part-of-speech interpretation of statives and common adjectives. Indeed, the total number ofstatives does not exceed several dozen (a couple of dozen basic, "stable" units and, probably, thrice as many "unstable" words of the nature of coinages for the nonce.

This number is negligible in comparison with the number of words of the otherwise identified notional parts ofspeech, each of them counting thousands of units. As for the set-forming prefix a-, it hardly deserves a serious consideration as a formal basis of thepart-of-speech identification of statives simply because formal features cannot be taken in isolationfrom functional features. Moreover, as is known, there are words of property not distinguished by this prefix, which display essential functional characteristics inherent in the stative set. In particular, herebelong such adjectives as well, glad, sorry, worth (while), subject (to), due (to), underway, and someothers. On the other hand, among the basic statives we find such as can hardly be analyzed into a genuine combination of the type "prefix + root", because their morphemic parts have become fusedinto one indivisible unit in the course of language history, e.g. aware, afraid, aloof. Thus, the undertaken semantic and functional analysis shows that statives, though forming a unifiedset of words, do not constitute a separate lexemic class existing in language on exactly the same footingas the noun, the verb, the adjective, the adverb; rather it should be looked upon as a subclass within the general class of adjectives. It is essentially an adjectival subclass, because, due to their peculiarfeatures, statives are not directly opposed to the notional parts of speech taken together, but are quiteparticularly opposed to the rest of adjectives. It means that the general subcategorization of the class ofadjectives should be effected at the two levels: at the upper level the class will be divided into the subclass of stative adjectives and common adjectives; at the lower level the common adjectives fall intoqualitative and relative. The category of adjectival comparison expresses the qualitative characteristic of the quality of anounal referent, i.e. it gives a relative evaluation of the quantity of a quality.

The category isconstituted by the opposition of the three forms known under the heading of degrees of comparison; the basic form positive degree, having no features of comparison; the comparative degree form,having the feature of restricted superiority (which limits the comparison to two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the feature of unrestricted superiority. The synthetical forms of comparison in -er and -(e)st coexist with the analytical forms of comparison effected by the auxiliariesmore / most and less / least.

The analytical forms of comparison perform a double function. On the one

hand, they are used with the evaluative adjectives that, due to their phonemic structure (two-syllablewords with the stress on the first syllable ending in other grapho-phonemic complexes than -er, -y, -le,-ow or words of more than two-syllable composition), cannot normally take the synthetic forms of comparison.

On the other hand, the analytical forms of comparison, as different from the syntheticforms, are used to express emphasis, thus complementing the synthetic forms in the sphere of thisimportant stylistic connotation. Cf.: The audience became more and more noisy, and soon the speaker's words were drowned in thegeneral hum of voices. Scholars point out the following two factors in support of the view that the combinations ofmore/most with the basic form of the adjective are not the analytical expressions of the morphologicalcategory of comparison, but free syntactic constructions: first, the more/most-combinations are

semantically analogous to combinations of less / least with the adjective which, in the general opinion,are syntactic combinations of notional words; second, the word-combination, unlike the syntheticsuperlative, can take the indefinite article, expressing not the superlative, but the elative meaning (i.e. a high, not the highest degree of the respective quality).

The reasons advanced, though claiming to be based on an analysis of actual lingual data, can hardlybe called convincing. The elative superlative, though it is not the regular superlative in the grammatical sense, is still akind of a specific, grammatically featured construction. This grammatical specification distinguishes it from common elative constructions which may be generally defined as syntactic combinations of anintensely high estimation. E.g.: an extremely important amendment; a matter of exceeding urgency; quite an unparalleled beauty, etc.

Thus, from a grammatical point of view, the elative superlative, though semantically it is"elevated", is nothing else but a degraded superlative, and its distinct featuring mark with the analyticalsuperlative degree is the indefinite article: the two forms of the superlative of different functional purposes receive the two different marks (if not quite rigorously separated m actual uses) by the articledetermination treatment.It follows from the above that the possibility of the more/most-combination to be used with the indefinite article cannot in any way be demonstrative of its non-grammatical character, since thefunctions of the two superlative combinations in question, the elative superlative and the genuinesuperlative, are different.
Moreover, the use of the indefinite article with the synthetic superlative in the degraded, elativefunction is not altogether impossible, though somehow such a possibility is bluntly denied by certain grammatical manuals. Cf.: He made a last lame effort to delay the experiment, but Basil was impervious to suggestion (J.Vance).

But there is one more possibility to formally differentiate the direct and elative functions of thesynthetic superlative, namely, by using the zero article with the superlative. This latter possibility isnoted in some grammar books Suddenly, I was seized with a sensation of deepest regret. However, the general tendency of expressing the superlative elative meaning is by using the analytical form. Let us examine now the combinations of less/least with the basic form of the adjective. Thus, the less/least-combinations, similar to the more/most-combinations, constitute specific formsof comparison, which may be called forms of "reverse comparison".

The two types of forms cannot be syntagmatically combined in one and the same form of the word which shows the unity of the categoryof comparison. The whole category includes not three, but five different forms, making up the twoseries -respectively, direct and reverse. Of these, the reverse series of comparison (the reversesuperiority degrees, or "inferiority degrees", for that matter) is of far lesser importance than the direct one, which evidently can be explained by semantic reasons. As a matter of fact, it is more natural tofollow the direct model of comparison based on the principle of addition of qualitative quantities thanon the reverse model of comparison based on the principle of subtraction of qualitative quantities, since subtraction in general is a far more abstract process of mental activity than addition. And, probably, exactly for the same reason the reverse comparatives and superlatives are rivalled in speech by the corresponding negative syntactic construction - sun rose extremely red.

Literature

1. 
   Iriskulov M., Kuldashev A. A course in theoretical English Grammar. T., 2008
   
2. 
   М. Блох. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М., 1994
   
3. 
   М. Блох. Теоретические основы грамматики. М.,2002
   
4. 
   M. Blokh. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983
   

Lecture 9.

VERB AS A PART OF SPEECH IN MODERN ENGLISH. THE GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES OF THE VERB.
Problems to be discussed:

1. 
   The characteristic features of verbs as a part of speech
   
2. 
   Verbs are morphologically most developed part of speech
   
3. 
   The types of verbs
   
4. 
   The grammatical categories of verbs:voice, mood, tense, number and others.
   

Key words:Regular verbs. Notional verbs. Function verbs. Link verbs. Modal verbs. Auxiliaries.
Verbs are used to express who we are and how we feel. A verb is a word that says something about a person or a thing. It indicates an action. It is used to describe such things as actions, happenings, thoughts, feelings, speech, and relationships. It normally follows a noun. A verb is a complex part of speech. It has various forms and functions; verbs in particular forms take on the characteristics of other parts of speech: we call these forms Verbal, and they can be turned into nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. There are various verbal forms: Infinitives, Gerunds, and Participle.For example I opened the door. (Action) It started to rain. (Happening) I expect you know already. (Thought) ‘No’ answered Ali. (Speech)

A verb shows an action (Except the verb to be). A verb tells us that some act has been carried out by the subject.Always forms a tense (past – present – future) A verb form shows the time of action or state (tense). A verb form shows duration of action (Aspect). A verb form shows speaker’s attitude (Mood). Always has a “subject”. No sentence is considered complete without a verb. Note: Sentence cannot be made without a verb. Verb always comes after the subject in an affirmative sentence. Verb is used according to the subject. If the subject is singular, verb must be singular. If the subject is plural, verb must also be plural.

Verb as a Part of Speech

Words like to read, to live, to go, to jump are called verbs because of their following features.

1. 
   they express the meanings of action and state;
   
2. 
   they have the grammatical categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood, order and posteriority most of which have their own grammatical means;
   
3. 
   the function of verbs entirely depends on their forms: if they in finite form they fulfill only one function – predicate. But if they are in non-finite form then they can fulfill any function in the sentence but predicate; they may be part of the predicate;
   
4. 
   verbs can combine actually with all the parts of speech, though they do not combine with articles, with some pronouns. It is important to note that the combinability of verbs mostly depends on the syntactical function of verbs in speech;
   
5. 
   verbs have their own stem-building elements. They are:
   

postfixes: -fy (simplify, magnify, identify…)

-ize (realize, fertilize, standardize…)

-ate (activate, captivate…)

prefixes: re- (rewrite, restart, replant…)

mis- (misuse, misunderstand, misstate…)

un- (uncover, uncouple, uncrown…)

de- (depose, depress, derange…) and so on.

The Types of Verbs

The classification of verbs can be undertaken from the following points of view:

1)meaning

2)form-formation;

3)function.

I. There are three basic forms of the verb in English: infinitive, past indefi nite and PII.

These forms are kept in mind in classifying verbs.

II. Therearefourtypesofform-formation:

1. affixation:reads, asked, going ...

2. variation ofsounds: run –ran, may –might, bring –brought...

3. suppletiveways: be–is–am–are–was;go –went...

4. analyticalmeans: shall come, have asked, is helped ...

There are productive and non-productive ways of word-formation in present-day English verbs.

Affixation is productive, while variation of sounds and suppletion are non-productive.

Notional and Functional Verbs

From the point of view of their meaning verbs fall under two groups: notional and functional.

Notional verbs have full lexical meaning of their own. The majority of verbs fall under this group.

Function verbs differ from notional ones of lacking lexical meaning of their own. They cannot be used independently in the sentence; they are used to furnish certain parts of sentence (very often they are used with predicates).

Function verbs are divided into three: link verbs, modal verbs, auxiliary verbs.

Link verbs are verbs which having combined with nouns, adjectives, prepositional phrases and so on add to the whole combination the meaning of process.

In such cases they are used as finite forms of the verb they are part of compound nominal predicates and express voice, tense and other categories.

Modal verbs are small group of verbs which usually express the modal meaning, the speaker’s attitude to the action, expressed by the notional verb in the sentence. They lack some grammatical fors like infinitive form, grammatical categories and so on. Thus, they do not have all the categories of verbs. They may express mood and tense since they function as parts of predicates. They lack the non-finite forms.

Besides in present-day English there is another group of verbs which are called auxiliaries. They are used to form analytical forms of verbs. Verbs: to be, to do, to have and so on may be included to this group.

Regular and Irregular Verbs

From the point of view of the formation of the Past Tense verbs are classified into two groups:

1) Regular verbs which form their basic forms by means of productive suffixes-(e)d. The majority of verbs refer to this class.

2)Irregular verbs form their basic forms by such non-productive means as:

a) variation of sounds in the root:

should -would –initial consonant change

begin -began -begun –vowel change of the root

catch -caught-caught-root-vowel and final consonant change

spend -spent-spent- final consonant change;

b)suppletion:

be–was/were

go –went

c) unchanged forms:

cast-cast-cast

put-put–put

By suppletion we understand the forms of words derived from different roots.

A. Smirnitsky gives the following conditions to recognize suppletive fors of words;

1. when the meaning of words are identical in their lexical meaning.

2. when they mutually complement one another, having no parallel opposemes.

3. when other words of the same class build up a given opposemes without suppletivity, i.e. from one root. Thus, we recognize the words be - am, bad - worse as suppletive because they express the same grammatical meanings as the forms of words: light – lighter, big – bigger, work – worked.

Transitive and Intransitive Verbs

Verbs can also be classified from the point of view of their ability of taking objects. In accord with this we distinguish two types of verbs: transitive and intransitive. The former type of verbs are divided into two:

a) verbs which are combined with direct object: to have a book to find the address

b) verbs which take prepositional objects: to wait for, to look at, talk about, depend on…

To the latter type the following verbs are referred:

a) verbs expressing state: be, exist, live, sleep, die…

b) verbs of motion: go, come, run, arrive, travel…

c) verbs expressing the position in space: lie, sit, stand ...

As has been told above in actual research work or in describing linguistic phenomena we do not always find hard-and-fast lines separating one phenomenon from the other. In many cases we come across an intermediate stratum. We find such stratum between transitive and intransitive verbs which is called causative verbs, verbs

intransitivein theirorigin, butsometimesused astransitive: to fly akite, to sailaship, to nod approval ... The same is found in the construction "cognate object": to live along life, to die the death of a hero ...

The Grammatical Categories of Verbs

In this question we do not find a generally accepted view-point. B.A. Ilyish (15) identifies six grammatical categoriesin present-day English verb: tense, aspect, mood, voice, personand number. L. Barkhudarov, D. Steling distinguish only the following grammatical categories: voice, order, aspect, and mood. Further they note, that the finite forms of the verb have special means expressing person, number and tense.

B. Khaimovich and Rogovskaya (4): out of the eight grammatical categories of the verb, some are found not only in the finites, but in the verbids as well. Two of them-voice (ask - be asked), order (ask - have asked) are found in all the verbids, and the third aspect (ask - to be asking) – only in the infinitive. They distinguish the following grammatical categories: voice, order, aspect, mood, posteriority, person, number.

The Category of Voice

By the category of voice we mean different grammatical ways of expressing the relation between a transitive verb and its subject and object. The majority of authors of English theoretical grammars seem to recognize only two voices in English: the active and the passive. H. Sweet, O. Curme recognize two voices. There are such terms, as inverted object, inverted subjectand retained objectin Sweet'sgrammar.

The Inverted object is the subject of the passive construction. The Inverted subject is the object of the passive constructions. The rat was killed by the dog. O. Jespersen call sit"converted subject". But in the active construction like: “The examinerasked me three ques tions” eithe rof the object words may be the subject of the passive sentence.

I was asked 3 questions by the examiner.

Three questions were asked by the examiner.

Words meand three questions are called retained objects. H.Poutsma besides the two voices mentioned above finds one more voice – reflexive. He writes: "It has been observed that the meaning of the Greek medium is normally expressed in English by means of reflexive or, less frequently, by reciprocal pronouns". It is because of this H. Poutsma distinguishes in Modern English the third voice. He transfers the system of the Greek grammar into the system of English. He gives the following examples:

He got to bed, covered himself up warm and fell asleep. H. Whitehall

This grammarian the traditional terms indirect and direct objects replaced by inner and outer complements (words of position 3 and 4) consequently. The passive voice from his point of view is the motion of the words of position 3 and 4 to position one. The verb is transformed into a word-group introduced by parts of be, become, get and the original subject is hooked into the end of the sentence by means of the preposition by.

Different treatment of the problem is found in theoretical courses written by Russian grammarians The most of them recognize the existence of the category of voice in present-day English. To this group of scientists we refer A.I. Smirnitsky, L. Barkhudarov, L. Steling, Khaimovich and Rogovskaya's according to their opinion there are two active and passive voices. But some others maintain that there are three voices in English. Besides the two mentioned they consider the reflexive voice which is expressed by the help of semantically weakened selfpronouns as in the sentence:

He cut himself while shaving.

B.A. Ilyish besides the three voices mentioned distinguishes two more: the reciprocal voice expressed with the help of each-other, one another and the neuter (“middle”) voice in such sentences as: The door opened. The college was filling up.

The conception reminds us Poutsma's view. He writes: "A passive meaning may also not seldom be observed in verbs that have thrown off the reflexive pronoun and have, consequently, become intransitive. Thus, we find it more or less distinctly in the verbs used in: Her eyes filled with tears ..." We cannot but agree with arguments against these theories expressed by Khaimovich and Rogovskaya: "These theories do not carry much conviction, because: 1) in cases like he washed himself it is not the verb that is reflexive but that pronoun himself used as a direct object; 2) washed and himself are words belonging to different lexemes. They have different lexical and grammatical meanings;

3) if we regard washed himself as an analytical word, it is necessary to admit that the verb has the categories of gender, person, non-person (washed himself-washed itself), that the categories of number and person are expressed twice in the word-group washed himself; 4) similar objection can be raised against regarding washed each-other, washed one another as analytical forms of the reciprocal voice. The difference between "each other" and "one another"

would become a grammatical category of the verb; 5) A number of verbs express the reflexive meanings without the corresponding pronouns: He always washes in cold water. Kiss and be friends. The grammatical categories of voice is formed by the opposition of covert and overt morphemes. The active voice is formed by a zero marker: while the passive voice is formed by (be-ed). So the active voice is the unmarked one and the passive-marked. To ask - to be asked

The morpheme of the marked form we may cal la discontinuous morpheme.

From the point of view of some grammarians O. Jespersen, O. Curme G. orontsova verbs get / become + Participle II are passive constructions. Khaimovich and Rogovskaya seem to be right when they say that in such constructions get / become always retain lexical meanings.

Different opinions are observed as to the P II. G. V. Vorontsova, L. Barkhudarov and D. Steling the combination be + PII in all cases treat as a passive voice if PII is not adjectivized (if particles very, too and adverbs of degree more (most) do not precede PII on the ground that PII first and foremost, a verb, the idea of state not being an evident to this structure but resulting from the lexical meaning of the verb and the context it occurs in). Khaimovich and Rogovskaya arguing against this conception write that in such cases as: His duty is fulfilled we deal with a link verb +PII since: 1) it does not convey the idea of action, but that of state, the result of an action: 2) The sentence correspond rather He has fulfilled his duty, as the perfective meaning of Participle II is particularly prominent.

The Grammatical Category of Mood The problem of the category of mood i.e., the distinction, between the real and unreal expressed by the corresponding forms of the verb is one of the most controversial problems of English theoretical grammar. The main theoretical difficulty is due: 1) to the coexistence in Modern English of both synthetical and analytical forms of the verb with the same grammatical meaning of unreality and

2) to the fact that there are verbal forms homonymous with the Past Indefinite and Past Perfect of the Indicative Mood which are employed to express unreality. Another difficulty consists in distinguishing the analytical forms of the subjunctive with the auxiliaries should would, may (might) which are devoid of any lexical meaning.

Opinions differ in the establishment of the number of moods in English.

Below we'll consider views of some grammarians on the problem.

H. Sweet (42): "By the moods of a verb we understand grammatical forms expressing different relations between subject and predicate".1. There are two moods in English which oppose to each other: Thought-form, fact mood

The thought-form is divided into 3 moods: 1. conditional mood-the combination of should and would with the infinitive, when used inthe principle clause of conditional sentences.

2. permissive mood – the combination of may/might with the infinitive. 3. compulsive mood-the combination of the finite form of the verb "to be" with the supine.

If it were to rain I do not know what shall we do.

G.O. Curme: “Moods are the changes in the form of the verb to show the various ways in which the action or state is thought of by the speaker”.

He distinguishes three moods:

1. Indicative Mood. This form represents something as a fact, or as in close relation with reality, or in interrogative form inquires after a fact.

2. Subjunctive Mood. There are two entirely different kinds of subjunctive forms: the old simple subjunctive and newer forms consisting of a modal auxiliary and a dependent infinitive of the verb to be used.

3. The function of the Subjunctive is to represent something not as an actual reality, but as formed in the mind of the speaker as a desire, wish, volition, plan, conception, thought, sometimes with more or less hope of realization. The present subjunctive is associated with the idea of hopeless, likelihood, while the past subjunctive indicates doubt, unlikelihood, unreality;

I desire that he go at once.

I fear he may come too late.

Iwould have bought it if I had had money.

Mood is the grammatical category of the verb reflecting the relation of the action expressed by the verb to reality from the speaker’s point of view. The three moods: indicative, imperative and subjunctive are found in almost all the grammars of Russian grammarians. We say «almost» because Barkhudarov and Steling consider only the first and third.

-in the indicative mood the speaker presents the action as taking place in reality;

-in the imperative mood the speaker urges the listener to perform some action.

-in subjunctive mood the speaker presents the action as imaginary.

As to the number of mood we do not find common opinion: Smirnitsky and some others speak of six moods (indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive II, conditional and suppositional). B. Ilyish and Ivanova find three (Indicative, Imperative, Subjunctive) B.A. Ilyish divides the latter into two forms-the conditional and the subjunctive and so on. The indicative mood is the basic mood of the verb. Morphologically it is the most developed category of the verb.

According to Khaimovich and Rogovskaya (22) the grammarians are unanimous about themeaning of the Subjunctive Mood. While in all other respects opinions differ. It seems interesting to compare the opinions of Whitehall (43) (above) and Khaimovich on the problem: “The system of the subjunctive mood in Modern English has been and still is in a state of development. There are many elements in it which are rapidly falling into disuse and there are new elements coming into use”.

O. Jespersen argues against Sweet's definition of Mood; he writes that it would be more correct to say that mood expresses certain attitudes of the mind of the speaker towards the contents of the sentence.

P. Whitehall:“Although the subjunctive is gradually dying out of the language, English isrich in devices for expressing one’s psychological moods toward happenings that are imaginary”.

Other Categories of Verbs

Besides the already discussed categories of the verb, there are some other categories like aspect, order, posteriority, tense and others. These categories are very often mixed up: most authors consider them within the tense category. To illustrate this we'll view the conception of Henry Sweet. To H. Sweet there are three tenses in English. "Tense is primarily the grammatical expression of distinctions of time". Every occurrence, considered from the point of view of time, must be either past (I was here yesterday), present (he is here today), or future (he will be here tomorrow).

Simple and Compound Tenses: The present, preterite and future are simple tenses. All the perfect tenses are referred by him to compound tense. These tenses combine present, past and future respectively with a time anterior to each of these periods: present perfect = preterite + preterite; plu perfect(pastp.)=pre-preterite+preterite; future perfect = pre-future+future.

Primary and secondary Tenses: He writes: “When we speak of an occurrence as past, we must have some point of time from which to measure it.

When we measure the time of an occurrence from the time when we are speaking, that is, from the present, the tense which expresses the time of the occurrence is called a primary tense. The present, preterite, future and perfect (the present perfect) are primary tenses.

A secondary tense on the other hand, is measured not from the time when we are speaking, but from some past or future time of which we are speaking and consequently a sentence containing secondary tense makes us expect another sentence containing a verb in a primary tense to show the time from which that of the secondary tenseisto bemeasured. The pluperfect and future perfect are both secondary tenses.

He will have informed his friends by the time they (the quests) arrived.

He had informed his friends when the quests arrived.

Complete and Incomplete Tenses. The explanation of this classification of tenses by H. Sweet is vague and confused becausehemixesup thelexicaland grammaticalmeans, compare:

I have lived my life.

I have lived here a good many years.

The first is complete and second is incomplete. As one can see there's no difference in the form of verbs.

He makes his division because of different distribution of the tense forms. But one point is clear in his conception. He considers continuous tense to be also incomplete as for instance:

The clock is striking twelve while.

The clock has struck twelve. (complete)

ContinuousTenses are opposed to Point-Tenses:

I've been writing letters all day.

We set out for Germany.

Though even here we observe some confusion. Such examples are also considered to be continuous or recurrent:

He goes to Germany twice a year.

Definite and Indefinite Tenses: the shorter a tense is, the more definite it generally is in duration. Long times(continuous and recurrent)-are generally more indefinite:

I write my letters in the evenings.

I am writing a letter.

O. Jeperson’s view of the grammatical tenses in English isillustrated in the table below:

B

A_________________O_________________C

A B Future Before past Past After past Present Before future Future After future

After-past time: I know of no language which possesses a simple tense for this notion. A usual meaning “obligation”in English most often is expressed by “was to”:

Next year she gave birth to a son who was to cause her great anxiety.

After future. This has a chiefly theoretical interest, and I doubt very much whether forms like; I shall be going to rewrite (which implies nearness in time to the chief future time is of very frequent occurrence).

The Continuous tenses he calls expanded ones: is writing, will be asking, will have been asking ... or composite tense-forms. The categories of tense, aspect and order characterize an action from different points of view. The tense of a verb shows the time of the action; the aspect of a verb deals with the development of the

action, while order denotes the order of the actions.

When discussing grammatical categories we accepted that a grammatical category is a grammatical meaning which has a certain grammatical means to be expressed.

The analyses of the following example will help us to make certain conclusions: When you come he will have been writing his composition. The predicates of the sentence are in the indicative mood. And, as has been stated, it is in this mood all the grammatical categories of the verb are expressed. The tense is future and it is expressed by the auxiliary word/verb will. The order is prior and it is expressed by the auxiliary verb have + -en or -ed. The aspect is continuous and it is expressed by the auxiliary verb be + ing.

Since all these categories have their own means we may call them grammatical ones. And as any category must have certain opposition (while defining the grammatical categories we defined it as “at least having two individual forms”).

The category of tense is orientated with regard to the present tense. The tense category is the system of three-member opposition. So the present tense may be called as the point of measurement or orientation point. The category of order is a system of two-member opposition:prior and non-prior. Compare:

I work –I have worked.

So the prior order marker have + ed is opposite to the zero of non-prior. As in English there are three tenses. This grammatical category can be expressed in all of them. Present: I work – I have worked. Past: I worked – I had worked. Future:Ishallwork –Ishall have worked. The category of aspect is a system of two-member opposition: Continuous–Non-continuous: I work –I am working. To be- ing is the morpheme of the continuous meaning. This category is found in all the three tenses.

Present:I work –I am working

Past:I worked –Iwas working.

Future:I'll work –I'll be working.

The means of expression of these categories are arranged in a certain sequence. In the active voice they are arranged in the following way:

Tense is expressed in the first component of the predicate: order – in first or second (second if it is in the future tense), aspect – in the second or third components. The order means always precede the aspect means if both are found in the predicate. If the predicate is in the passive voice the tense is again expressed by the first component of it while the means of the passive voice follows the means of the aspect and order categories. Note: In the future tense the passive meaning and the aspect (continuous) is incompatible.

The Category of Posteriority

This category is distinguished by B. Khaimovich and Rogovskaya. As they put it this category is the system of two member opposition: shall come-should come. will come-would come their meaning is: absolute and relative posteriority. When posteriority is expressed in relation to the moment of speech it is called absolute. If posteriority is with regard to some other moment then it is relative. If we accept this category, according to the definition of the grammatical category it is expressed by auxiliary verbs shall and will for absolute posteriority and should and would for relative. Shall and will cannot denote at the same time, two meanings: those of tense and posteriority, if in this case - there are two meanings then we must admit that the auxiliaries will- would, shall-should consist of two morphemes each. Applying the usual procedure we cut the words into w-ill and w-ould; sh-all and sh-ould; w-w and sh-sh are combined into morphemes of tense, and ill-all as allmorphs of the morpheme of absolute posteriority while ould-ould - as morpheme of relative

posteriority.

The CategoriesofNumber andPerson

The category of person is the system of two member opposition. It is avail able only in the Present Tense in singular number. B. Khaimovich and Rogovskaya (22) state that “the third person with a positive morpheme being opposed to the first person with a zero morpheme”. In the future tense sh- of the first person is opposed to w- of the second and third persons.

A similar treatment of the problem is observed in works of L.S. Barkhudarov (2), (4), who opposes third person to the common person (1st, 2nd persons) because “almost all the verbs in the 1st and 2nd persons have a zero marker”. So far as to the category of number is concerned many grammarians consider that it is in its purity represented only in the verb “to be”, for other verbs the opposition of the 3rdperson singular, to 3rd person plural accepted (in thepresent-tense).


Lecture 10.

THE NON- FINITE FORMS OF THE VERB
Problems to be discussed:

1. The infinitive and its properties. The categories of the infinitive.

2. The gerund and its properties. The categories of gerund. The notion of half gerund.

3. The present participle, the past participle, and their properties.

Verb forms make up two distinct classes: finites and non-finites, also called verbals, verbids. Finites serve to express a primary predication, i.e. they ‘tie’ the situation described by a proposition to the context. Non-finites serve to express a secondary predication. The non-finite forms of the verb combine the characteristics of the verb with the characteristics of other parts of speech. Their mixed features are revealed in their semantics, morphemic structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions.The strict division of functions clearly shows that the opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category. The differential feature of the opposition is constituted by the expression of verbal time and mood: the non-finite forms have no immediate means of expressing time mood categorial semantics and therefore present the weak member of the opposition. The category expressed by thisopposition is called the category of finitude. The syntactic content of the category of finitude is the expression of predication (more precisely, the expression of verbal predication).

In other words, the opposition of the finite verbs and the verbids is based on the expression of the functions of full predication and semi-predication. While the finite verbs express predication in its genuine and complete form, the function of

the verbids is to express semi-predication, building up semi-predicative complexes within different sentence constructions.

The English verbids include four forms: the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle and the past participle.

The Infinitive

Historically, the infinitive is a verbal noun. Hence its double nature: it combines the features of the verb with those of the noun. It is the form of the verb which expresses a process in general, i.e. a process thatis not restricted (i.e. concretized) by person,number, tense, and mood. Because of its general process meaning, the infinitive is treated as the head-form of the whole paradigm of the verb.

The infinitive has two presentation forms: marked and unmarked. The marked infinitive is distinguished by the grammatical word-morpheme to, historically a preposition. Similar toother grammatical word morphemes, to can be used to represent the corresponding construction as a whole (e.g. You can read any of the books if you want to). It can also be separated from its notional part by a word or phrase, usually of adverbial nature, forming the so-called split infinitive (e.g. We need your participation, to thoroughly investigate the issue.) The marked infinitive is an analytic grammatical form.

The other form of the infinitive is unmarked; it is traditionally called the bare infinitive. It is used in various analyticforms (non-modal and modal), with verbs of physical perception, with the verbs let, bid, make, help(optionally), with a few modal phrases (had better, would rather, would have, etc.), with the relative why. The infinitive combines the properties ofthe verb with those of the noun, as a result it serves as the verbal name of a process. It has the grammatical categories of voice, aspect and temporal correlation.Consequently, the categorial paradigm of the infinitive includes eight forms: the indefinite active, the continuous active, the perfect active, the perfect continuous active; the indefinite passive, the continuous passive, the perfect passive, the perfect continuous passive.

to take — to be taking

to have taken — tohave been taking

to be taken —to be being taken

to have been taken — tohave been being taken

The continuous and perfect continuous passive can only be used occasionally, with a strong stylistic colouring. It is the indefinite infinitive that constitues the head-form of the verbal paradigm. The verbal features of the infinitive. Like the finite form of verb, the infinitive distinguishes the categories of aspect, voice, and temporal correlation.

The paradigm of the infinitive is determined by the semantico-syntactic properties of the process. If the process is intransitive, we cannot derive voice forms

e.g. to walk – to be walking vs. *to be being walked

to have walked – to have been walking vs. *to have been being walked

The nounal features of the infinitive. Semantically and morphologically, the infinitive is much more similar to the verbthan to the noun: its verbal features outweigh its nounal features. Similar to the noun, the infinitive can be used as the subject or part of the subject, the predicative, and the attribute.
The infinitive is also one of the non-finite forms of the verbs it expresses action and general abstract notion. It expresses actionality or stativity without morphologically connecting with the subject of the action.

There are many notions among modern linguists that the infinitive has more peculiarities either of the verb or the noun.

According to foreign English linguists the infinitive has more peculiarities of the noun, because it’s syntactic functions in the structure of the sentence are equal with the functions of the noun. (O.Jesperson. A modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Copenhagen, 1954). But to join to this notion is not quite possible as the infinitive has more peculiarities of the verb, i.e. the infinitive expresses process, the action or state of the subject as finite form of the verb in the structure of the sentence. Besides those the infinitive has four forms of active voice and two forms of passive voice on the morphological level.

The grammarians have different notions about the syntactical functions of the infinitive in the structure of the sentence. For example L.P.Vinokurova considered that the infinitive in the structure of the sentence can be used in the syntactical functions of the subject, a part of predicate, object, attribute, adverbial modifier of purpose and parenthesis. (Грамматика английского языка, Л, 1954. V.N.Jigadlo, I.P.Ivanova, L.L.Iofic considered that the infinitive can be used in the functions of the subject, the second part of compound predicate, prepositionless object, the second part of complex object, attribute and adverbial modifiers (Cов.англ.язык Теоретическая курс, 1956, 165).

According to J.Buranov and others “The infinitive is used in the syntactical functions of the subject, nominal part of compound nominal predicate, a part of complex object, attribute, adverbial modifiers of purpose, result, comparison and parenthesis” (English Grammar, T, 1974, 268-269).