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

Addition to those syntactic functions of the infinitive in the structure of the sentence E.M.Gordon, I.P.Krylova considered that the infinitive may be in the functions of “subjective predicative”, “Objective predicate”, “adverbial modifiers of purpose, consequence, condition and exception” (A Grammar of present Day English, M,1974, 144-166).

K.A.Guziyva, S.I.Kostigina added that the infinitive can be used in the syntactical functions of a part of compound verbal phrasal predicate, a part of verbal predicate of double orientation, adverbial modifiers of attendant circumstances (The Infinitive, English Grammar, S.P.2000, 84-280).

As you see above pointed notions of linguists about the syntactical functions of the infinitive are differed from each other. Besides those the infinitive construction are named in different ways. For example: K.A.Guziyva, S.I.Kostigina “The objective with the infinitive construction (219-283), A.V.Kuklina “Глагольные инфинитивные конструкции” (Самара, 2006, 149), V.A.Alekciyeva (Объективный падеж с инфинитивoм (Москва, 1987,7).

So the names of the infinitive constructions are different and at the same time syntactic functions of the infinitive constructions are analyzed in different ways.

For example:

1. 
   I want you to do to me (MR, 57)
   
2. 
   The man was expected to win (SGDZ, 126)
   

According to V.N.Yagodnikova, L.A.Shamray, L.P.Draga considered that the syntactical units “you to do” as a stable composition and in the structure of this sentence it is used in the syntactic function of complex object. (Киев, 1989,81)

In the second sentence “was expected to win” K.A.Guziyva and S.I.Kostigina considered that it is “a compound verbal predicate of double orientation” (251), or E.M.Gordon, I.Krylova considered “you to do”- objective predicative, “the man … to do ”- subjective predicative (153-156).

According to J.Buranov and others “was expected to win” considered that the infinitive in this construction is used in the syntactical function of a part of predicate (263-270).

But L.P.Vinokurova considered “the man … to win” is in the function of complex subject in this sentence (175).

Above mentioned facts indicate that traditional syntactic analyses of the infinitive are not able to discover all the semantic peculiarities of the infinitive in the structure of the sentences. Such kind of unsettled phenomena about the infinitive and its constructions confuse students and even English teachers too. That’s why the problems about the infinitive should be analyzed on the base of linguistic methods.

The Gerund

The gerund is originally a verbal noun in –ing. Similar to the infinitive, the gerund is the name of a process, but its substantive meaning is more strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive: unlike the infinitive, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or by the possessive pronoun and used with prepositions. The general combinability of the gerund, like that of the infinitive, is dual, sharing some features with the verb, and some features with the noun.

The verbal features of the gerund.Like the verb, the gerund distinguishes the

categories of voice and temporal correlation: writing (non-passive, non-perfect) – being written (passive, non-perfect) having written (non-passive, perfect) – having been written (passive,

perfect) It is obvious that gerunds derived from intransitive verbs have only two

forms: non-perfect active and perfect active, e.g. walking vs. having walked. The gerund has the following syntactic features of the verb: it can function as part of the verbal predicate (e.g. If he stops working, he will die); it can be followed by an object (e.g. I remember locking the door) and an adverbial modifier (e.g. He avoids driving fast).

The nounal features of the gerund. Similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the genitive case or in the common case, which, when pronominalized, turn into the possessiveand objective forms, respectively:

She did nothing to encourage John’s going abroad.

She did nothing to encourage John going abroad. vs.

She did nothing to encourage his going abroad.

She did nothing to encourage him going abroad.

The standard form is the form with the noun in the genitive case or with the possessive pronoun. The other form ismore common in spoken English. The gerund in the latter construction is traditionally called the half-gerund. Unlike the noun, the gerund cannot be used in the plural; it cannot be preceded by the article (or its substitute); itcannot be determined by the adjective. Like the noun, the gerund can be used as the subject, the object, the predicative, and the attribute.

The Gerund is also one of the non-finite forms of the verbs as participles and the infinitive, it has verbal and noun peculiarities. In some English practical and theoretical grammars “I do not like his coming here” , “his coming” combination “coming” is considered as the gerund, because it is combined with possessive pronoun, but in other grammars it is considered as participle 1 or half-gerund (H.Sweet, 120).

In some other English grammars the gerund is differed from participle 1 as the gerund may be used in the syntactical functions of subject, a part of predicate and direct and indirect objects. And when the gerund is used in the syntactical functions of attribute and adverbial modifiers it is always combinated with prepositions (Buranov and others, 262-263).

We do agree that the gerund can be combinated with prepositions and it’s morphological categories as tense and voice and also it can be used in the syntactical functions of subject, a part of predicate, direct and indirect objects, attribute, adverbial modifiers of time, cause and purpose. But the gerund is not investigated syntactical position in the sentence and it’s differentiative syntactic and semantic signs on the syntactical level.

So, I’ll try to draw your attention to the following examples:

1. 
   Waiting was strain.
   
2. 
   Tom went on whitewashing.
   
3. 
   The day was spent in packing.
   

If those sentences are analyzed component composition in the structure of the first sentence “waiting” is connected with “was strain” determines as nuclear predicated 1 (NP₁), was strain- nuclear predicating 2 (NP₂) and its component model and morphological peculiarities of syntactical units of this sentence can be reflected so:

1. 
   Waiting was strain: NP_{1 *} NP₂
   

Vg cS

Syntaxeme analyses of this sentence is that the syntactical unit “waiting” in spite of having noun peculiarities, it expresses processuality of categorial syntactic- semantic signs, and of non- categorial syntactic- semantic signs it expresses actionality, but “was strain” expresses substantial identifier and that’s why “waiting” is one more syntactic- semantic sign as identified syntaxeme. So “waiting” is defined processual actional identified syntaxeme “was strain” expresses substantial identifier syntaxeme. So component and synatxeme models of this sentence can be reflected the following way:

NP₁ NP₂

1. 
   Waiting Vg was strain cS
   

PrAcId₁ SbId₂

In the second sentence the gerund “whitewashing” is connected with the element “went on” on the base of subordinative connection and it is defined unnuclear depended component (ND). So the component model of this sentence is:

Tom went on whitewashing: NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} ND

S Vf Vg

Syntaxeme analysis of this sentence: Tom- substantial agentive, went on- processual actional, whitewashing- processeal objective actional syntaxeme. So it’s component and syntaxeme cmposition may be reflected in this way:

NP₁ NP₂ ND

(2) Tom S went on Vf whitewashing Vg

SbAg P_rAc P_rObAc

Syntaxeme analysis of the third sentence is: “The day” is in the syntactical position of nuclear predicative 1 (NP₁) is connected with the component “was spent” in the syntactical position of nuclear predicative 2 (NP₂) on the base of nuclear predicative connection, the gerund “in packing” is connected with “was spent” on the base of subordinative syntactical connection. Their component composition and morphological peculiarities are:

(3)The day was spent in packing

NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} ND

S auxVP₂ Vg

Syntaxeme analysis of this sentence is:

The day- substantial object syntaxeme, was spent- processual actional directive syntaxeme, in packing processual actional syntaxeme of manner (Mn). And so component and syntaxeme models are:

NP₁ NP₂ ND

(3)The day S was spent auxVP₂ in packing Vg

SbOb P_rAcD_r P_rAcMn

Above analyzed sentences expressed syntaxeme by the gerund can be proved by using different types of experiment methods. So in those sentences the gerund expressed processual actional identified (P_rAcId₁), processual object actional, processual actional syntaxeme of manner. This theme demands special investigation.

Participle

The participle is a term applied to adjectival forms of verbs. There are two types of participle: the present participle and the past participle. The present participle is the non-finiteform of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective and adverb, serving as the qualifying-processual name. In its outer form the present participle is wholly homonymous with the gerund, ending in the suffix-ingand distinguishing the same grammatical categories of temporal correlation and voice. Both forms denote a process – the present participle (or the past participle) denotes a qualifying process while the gerund denotes a substantival process.

The term present participlemay be misleading since the participle does not express tense distinctions. It is a traditional term, originally applied to adjectival forms of verbs in Ancient Greece which wereinflected for tense, aspect, and case. It was borrowed from Greek grammar through Latin grammar and uncritically applied to English verbal forms which had an adjective-like use. As to its temporal meaning, the present participle expresses a process simultaneous with or prior to the process of the finite verb: it may denote present, past, and future.

Verbal features. Both the present participle and the gerund distinguish the same grammatical categories of voice and temporal correlation: writing (non-perfect, non-passive) – being written (non-perfect, passive) having written (perfect, non-passive) – having been written (perfect, passive) walking (non-perfect, non-passive) – having walked (perfect, non-passive) Like the verb, it combines with the object, the adverbial modifier; like the verb, it participates in the formation of the verbal predicate.

The present participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-predicative complexes of objective and subjective types. The two groups of complexes, i.e. infinitival and present participial, may exist in parallel (e.g. when used with some verbs of physical perceptions), the difference between them lying in the aspective presentation of the process. Cf.: Nobody noticed the scouts approach the enemy trench. — Nobody noticed the scouts approaching the enemy trench with slow, cautious, expertly calculated movements. Suddenly a telephone was heard to buzz, breaking the spell. — The telephone was heard vainly buzzing in the study.

A peculiar use of the present participle is seen in the absolute participial constructions of various types, forming complexes of detached semi-predication. Cf.: The message being written,I clicked “Send”. Jane was watching TV, the kids sleeping in the adjoining room.
These complexes of descriptive and narrative stylistic nature seem to be gaining ground in present-day English. Adjectival properties.Like the adjective, the present participle can be used as an attribute – generally asa postposed attribute, e.g. The man talking to John is my boss.

Participle II. The past participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective, serving as the qualifyingprocessual name. Unlike the present participle, it has no paradigm of its own. Its verbal featuresare participation in the structure of the verbal predicate (e.g. The house was destroyed by a bomb) and the use as secondary predicate (e.g. Her spirit, though crushed, was not broken).

Its adjectival featureis its attributive function, e.g. She looked at the broken cup. Similar to the present participle, the past participle can be used in postposition or in preposition to the noun: the broken cup vs. the cup broken. But as compared to the present participle, the past participleoccurs in preposition to the noun more frequently.

Like the present participle, the past participle is capable of making up semipredicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as of absolute complex. The absolute past participial complex as a rule expresses priority in the correlation of two events. Cf.: The preliminary talks completed, it became possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda.

As we mentioned above in practical and theoritical grammar of English the following non-finite forms of the verb are recognized: participle I, participle II, the gerund and the infinitive. According to V.N.Jigadlo and others (1956,141) considered that the non-finite forms of the verb have two pecularities of the verbs they have the categories of tense, aspect and voice and they can be used in the functions of preposition as object and adverbial modifiers. As to substantive peculiarities of the verbids they can be used in the functions of the noun and adjectives.

The problem of verbids is the different types of constructions.

Participles. Objective participial construction.

This construction in English morphology is characterized that the participles are predicate relation to the noun in common case or pronoun in objective case. (T.Buranov and others 1974, 257)

For example:

1) I saw him dancing.

2) I found a letter written.

When those sentences are analyzed on the syntactic level “the syntactic units “him” and “dancing”, “letter” and “written” are used in the syntactic function of compound or complex object” marked in English morphology. In this case the syntactic units “dancing” and “written” predicative relation to him and “a letter” is not mentioned. To my mind such kind of constructions should be studied on syntactic level but not on morphological level. If such kind of constructions are analyzed on the base of componential and syntaxeme analyses we can deeply understand the main points of them. As we know componential analyses of the structure of sentences is based on determining syntactic relations between syntactical units of the sentence and revealing differentiative syntactic signs of components by means of modeling (junctional and componential). At the same time we have to reveal differentiative syntactic- semantic signs of syntactical units in order to discover their syntaxeme composition.

If we do componential analyses above pointed sentences, their syntactic relations are identical and their junctional models are the same:

1. 
   I saw him dancing.
   
2. 
   I found a letter written.
   

In those sentences the syntactical units (I) are related or connected by means of nuclear predicative connection with the syntactic elements (saw) and (found) and in junctional modal it is marked with the symbol and the elements (him) with (saw), (a letter) with (found) are connected with the help of subordinative relation, as the syntactical elements “him” and “a letter” are depended components with respect to syntactical units “saw”, and “found”… Subordinative syntactical connection marked or in junctional model. So “him” with “dancing”, “a letter” with written are related to each other with the help of unnuclear predicative connection. This syntactical connection in junctional model is marked by means of symbol. And so, ↔:

1 2 3 4

I saw him dancing

I found a letter written

1 2 3 4 j.m (junctional model)

According to the determined syntactic connections we can determine differential syntactic signs of syntactic units in the structure of the sentence.

The first element “I” is nuclear predicated I component and it is marked NP1 and “saw”, “found” syntactic units are nuclear predicating 2 component and it is marked NP₂. “Him” and “a letter” syntactic units in the structure of those sentences are realized on the base of two syntactic connections, that’s why they are considered two valence components. So they are to the attitude of components “saw” and “found” unnuclear depended components and they are marked ͞ND and to the attitude to the ”dancing” and “written” they are marked with the symbol P₁. On the results on this syntactic units “him” and “letter” is considered unnuclear depended predicated (NDP₁) component.

The last syntactic units “dancing”, “written” are determined as unnuclear predicating 2 (NP₂) component. On the base of determined symbols the componential model of those sentences is:

1 2 3 4

NP₁ NP₂ NDP₁ NP₂

Above pointed differential syntactic symbols of two sentences or components are identical. That’s why in order to be understandable for readers we must give morphological peculiarities of those components. According to this point notional parts of speech are marked with capital letters: S-noun, V-verb, V_f- finite form of the verb, V_inf- infinitive, V_en- participle 2, V_p1- participle 1, V_g- gerund, P_np- personal pronoun, P_nob- personal pronoun in objective case, P_nps- possessive pronoun, P_nind- indefinite pronoun, P_nng- negative pronoun, P_ndem- demonstrative pronoun, Pn_int – interrogative pronoun, A- adjective, Adv- adverb, Nu- numeral; Semi-notional parts of speech are marked with small letters: m-modal verb, c- link-verb,. According to those symbols componential model of the first sentence is:

1. 
   I saw him dancing
   

NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} NDP_{1 *} NP₂

P_np V_f P_nob V_p1

The aim of this componential model of this sentence is syntaxeme analyses i.e. to reveal differential syntactic- semantic indications of realized components in the structure of the sentence. Syntaxeme analyses of the sentence structure is based on, first of all, to determine categorical syntactic- semantic signs of components as substantiality which means (person or object, location etc), processuality – (action or state) and qualificativety- (degree, quality, number, state, etc). According to those categorical syntactic- semantic signs of components we can reveal non- categorical syntactic- semantic signs of components in the structure of the sentence.

So in the first sentence “I saw him dancing” “I” is in the syntactic position of the subject or nuclear predicated 1 (NP₁) expresses substantiality of categorical syntactic- semantic signs (Sb) and according to the syntactic unit “saw” expresses agent (Ag), i.e. as a doer of the action. So the syntactic unit “I” in this sentence is determined as the substantial agentive syntaxeme. And the second component “saw” in the syntactic position of predicate or nuclear predicating 2 (NP₂) expresses processuality of categorical syntactic-semantic signs (Pr) and it is non-categorial syntactic sign is actionality (Ac). So the component “saw” expresses precessual actional syntaxeme (PrAc). The third component “him” expresses objectivity (Ob), and the relation to the component “him” in the syntactic position of unnuclear depended predicated 1 (NDP₁) is determined as substantial object agentive (SbObAg) syntaxeme. And the syntactic unit of “dancing” in the syntactic position of unnuclear predicating 2 (NP₂) expresses processual actional (P_rAc) syntaxeme. The results of this analyses can be given in the following componential and syntaxeme models:

(1) I saw him dancing.

NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} NDP_{1 *} NP₂

SbAg PrAc SbObAg PrAc

The second sentence, “I found a letter written” is also analyzed on the base of syntaxeme analyses. The results of syntaxeme analyses of the components of this sentence is: I- substantial agentive (SbAg) syntaxeme, found- processual actional (PrAc) syntaxeme, a letter- expresses substantiality of categorical syntactic- semantic signs and the relation to the components “found” and “written” expresses object (Ob) syntaxeme. So the syntactic unit “a letter” in the syntactic position of this sentence expresses substantial twice object syntaxeme. The last syntactic unit “written” in the syntactic position of unnuclear predicating 2 (NP₂) expresses processual actional directed (PrAcDr) sytaxeme. So the syntaxeme and componential analyses of this sentence can be reflected by the following way:

(2) I found a letter written

NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} NDP_{1 *} NP₂

SbAg P_rAc SbObOb P_rAcD_r

Determined sytaxemes of objective participial constructions can be demonstrated by means of the following experimental method:

I found a letter written  I found a letter …

I found a letter written … a letter written  a letter was written

It is important to take into consideration that objective participial constructions may be realized after the verbs expressing sense perciption in the syntactic position of predicate in the structure of the sentence as:

to see, to hear, to notice, to feel, to watch, to find;

In general, the verbs expressing to make somebody do something realized in the position of predicate demand the use of participle 1 (to keep, to set, to start, to have), and participle 2 and it’s constructions can be used after verbs expressing desire and want as (to want, to wish, to desire) and also after the verbs: to have and to get.

The Subjective participial construction

This construction in English theoretical and practical grammars are given in this way: “The subjective participial construction as a kind of construction in which participle as a predicate relation to the noun in common case or to the pronoun in nominative case in the position of subject of sentence, they can be used in two syntactic functions”.

For example: Tom was seen waiting in the street.

In this sentence “was seen waiting” is considered as compound verbal predicate and at the same time “Tom… waiting”- complex subject. Of course, such kind of definition calls for confusion of pupils, students and even teachers too.

If we analyze this sentence on the base of componential and syntaxeme analyses called for confusion would be disappeared as compound verbal predicate and complex subject.

1 2 3 4

Tom was seen waiting in the street.

In this sentence “Tom” is related with “was seen” on the base of nuclear predicative connection, with participle 1 “waiting” is related with unnuclear predicative connection, and “in the street” is related by means of subordinative connection with participle 1 “waiting”.

So those syntactical connections may be represented in junctional model in the following way:

1 2 3 4

j-m

Now, we determine differentiative syntactic signs of realized syntactic units of this sentence, “Tom” takes part in the base of two syntactic connections, i.e. nuclear predicative and unnuclear predicative connections, that’s why “Tom” is determined as twice nuclear predicated 1 and it is marked with the symbol NP₁P_1. Syntactic unit “was seen” is nuclear predicating 2 (NP₂) component. The element “waiting” is related with “Tom” on the base of unnuclear predicative 2 component and marked with the symbol NP₂. The last syntactic unit “in the street” is related with the participle 1 on the base of subordinative connection that’s why it is unnuclear depended component and marked ND.

So according to those differential syntactic signs we can describe componential model in the following way:

1 2 3 4

NP₁P_{1 *} NP_{2 *} NP_{2 *} ND c.m

This subjective participial constructions on the base of componential model we can carry out syntaxeme analysis. “Tom” is in the position of subject expresses substantiality (Sb) of categorical differentiative syntactic- semantic signs, and on the attitude of “was seen” expresses objectivity (Ob), to the attitude of “waiting” expresses agentivity (Ag). So “Tom” is determined as substantial object agentive (SbObAg) syntaxeme.

“Was seen” in the position of nuclear predicating 2 expresses processuality and of non categorial syntactic- semantic signs expresses actionality and the action is directed to the object as the sentence, that’s why “was seen”- processual actional directive (PrAcDr) sytaxeme. Participle 1 “waiting”- processual actional syntaxeme. And the last syntactic unit “in the street” expresses substantial locative adessive (SbLcAd) syntaxeme. So syntaxeme model in this sentence may be given in this way:

1 2 3 4

SbObAg * P_rAcD_r * P_rAc * SbLcAd

On the results of componential and syntaxeme analyses of this sentence it may be given:

1 2 3 4

NP₁P_{1 *} NP_{2 *} NP_{2 *} ND

SbObAg P_rAcD_r P_rAc SbLcAd
Constructions with participle II

Past tense participle II constructions as it is marked in practical and theoretical English grammars such constructions may be met in the composition of objective and nominative Absolute participial constructions. Participle II in objective participial construction it can be used in the function of one part of complex object. But at the same time it is theoretically defined in this way: “In this construction the participle II stands in predicate relation to a noun in the common case or a personal pronoun in the objective case”. According to this rule if objective participial construction is used in the function of complex object then the predicate relation of participle II to the noun in the common case or pronoun in the objective case is out of mind of students and teachers. That’s why if we analyze the objective participial construction on the base of linguistic methods as componential and sytaxeme analyze we can rid of senseless theory.

For example: The Dean wanted the work done quickly.

So, in this sentence “the Dean” and “wanted” is related by means of nuclear predicative connection, the syntactical unit “the work” is related by the subordinative connection with the unit “wanted ” and the component “done” is related with “the work” with the help of unnuclear predicative connection. The last component “quickly” is related by subordinative connection with “done”. So these syntactical connections can be illustrated in the following junctional model:

1 2 3 4 5

The Dean wanted the work done quickly.

Their differentiative syntactic signs are: the dean – nuclear predicated I (NP₁), wanted - nuclear predicating II (NP₂), the work- unnuclear depended predicated I (NDP₁), done- unnuclear predicating 2 (NP₂), quickly- unnuclear depended component (ND). According to those symbols componential model can be presented in this way:

1 2 3 4 5

NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} NDP_{1 *} NP₂ ND

S Vf S Vp₂ Adv

If we analyze this sentence on the base of syntaxeme analyses i.e. to reveal differentiative syntactic-semantic signs of realized components in this sentence we can find the categorical signs of substantiality, processuality and qualificativity. On the base of those categorial differentiative syntactic-semantic signs of those components in the structure of this sentence, the dean expresses substantiality (Sb), according to the wanted – agentivity (Ag). Wanted- nuclear predicating 2 component expresses processuality (Pr) and of non- categorical signs- actionality (Ac). The work- in the syntactical position of unnuclear depended predicated 1 component expresses substantiality and according to wanted and done components expresses objectivity. On the results of this the work expresses twice objectivity.

In order to prove the objectivity of unnuclear depended predicated 1 this sentence can be yielded to the following transformation:

The dean wanted the work done quickly  The dean wanted the work …

Quickly or the dean wanted the work done quickly  … the work done quickly  the work was done quickly or  I have done the work.

According to those experiments we consider that the work – substantial twice object sytaxeme. And quickly expresses qualificativity and of non- categorical signs- manner. The results of these analyses of this sentence componential and syntaxeme models can be illustrated:

1 2 3 4 5

The dean wanted the work done quickly

NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} NDP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} ND

SbAg PrAc SbObOb PrAcDr Q1fMn

The Nominative Absolute Participial Construction

According to the practical and theoritical Grammars The Nominative Absolute Participial Construction is given: “This construction is existing in modern English, the noun in common case or pronoun in nominative case is expressed” (Buranov and others, 1974, 253). But neither noun nor pronoun can be used in the function of the subject in this construction (Slobodkina and others, 2007, 201), but this construction may be used in the syntactical functions of adverbial modifiers of time or cause. For example: The work done we left the office.

The authors of traditional grammars considered such type of construction as the work done is stable combination, that’s why they came to above pointed conclusion. But if this combination is analyzed on the base of linguistic methods we can be witness of other results. So, in this sentence the work done is the nominative absolute participial construction can be fallen in the following transformation:

The work done  the work was done

This construction i.e. the work done bears a relation to the part of the sentence we left the office expresses temporality, but to our mind the work done is not a stable combination, it is a free word combination. If we analyze this structure on the base of componential analyses the syntactical units the work and was done are related by means of nuclear predicative connection. The differentiative syntactic sign of the work is nuclear predicated 1 (NP₁), was done is nuclear predicating 2 (NP₂). On the results of syntaxeme analyses of this construction the work expresses substantiality itself but to the attitude of was done expresses objectivity (SbOb). And was done expresses processual actional directive (PrAcDr) syntaxeme. So it’s component and syntaxeme model:

1 2 1 2

The work was done NP_{1 *} NP₂

SbOb PrAcDr

Prepositional Absolute Participial Construction.

This construction also given as a part of the sentence and realized by means of preposition “with”. The noun in common case or pronoun in objective case is realized in this construction. The verb may be in the form of participle I or participle II.

For example: He stammered at last, with his face half buried in the cat’s fur. (Voynich)

In this construction in the base of transformation of explication auxiliary verb can be restored. But in traditional grammar “with his face half- buried in the cat’s fur” combination is considered as stable combination and fulfilled the syntactic function of adverbial modifier of manner.

When the prepositional absolute participial construction in the structure of the sentence is analyzed on the base of componential and syntaxeme analyses we can get other results. So this construction can be fallen into the following transformation and becomes independent sentence: He stammered at last, with his face half-buried in the cat’s fur.

So in this sentence we find the following syntactic connections: The syntactic unit “His” is connected with “face” on the base of subordinative connection. “Face” is connected with syntactical units “was half-buried” on the base of nuclear predicative connection. “Cat’s” is connected with “fur” and “fur” is connected with “half- buried” on the base of subordinative connection. Those syntactical connections may be reflected in this way:

3 1 2 5 4

His face was half-buried in the cat’s fur. j.m.

According to this componential model we reveal differentiative syntactic signs of realized components. “His” is a depended component to the attitude of “face” and it is marked unnuclear depended (ND) component. “Face”- nuclear predicated 1 (NP₁), the cat’s- unnuclear depended component (ND), “in…fur”- unnuclear depended (ND).

So component composition and morphological peculiarities can be reflected in this way:
3 1 2 5 4

ND * NP_{1 *} NP_{2 *} ND * ND c.m

PnPs S _aux V_p2 S_g S

According to the componential model we can reveal differentiative syntactic-semantic signs of components of this sentence:

His is substantial possessive syntaxeme (SbPs)

Face- state bearer substantial syntaxeme (SbSt)

Was half- buried- procesual stative syntaxeme (PrSt)

The cat’s – substantial possessive syntaxeme (SbP₃)

In fur –substantial locative syntaxeme (SbLc)

So syntaxeme model of this sentence is:

3 1 2 5 4

SbPs * SbSt *PrSt * SbP_s * SbLc

The results of componential and syntaxeme analyses of prepositional absolute participial construction are very available for the students or philologists to get deeply knowledge on syntactic semantics.

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
   
5. 
   Khaimovich B. S. , Rogovskaya В. I. A Course in English Grammar. Moscow, 1967.
   

Lecture 11.

PRONOUNS AND NUMERALS. THEIR CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES

Problems to be discussed

1) Pronouns. Types of pronouns

2) Classification of Pronouns

3) Characteristic features of pronouns

4) Numerals. Characteristic features of numerals

5) Types of numerals.

Pronouns are grouped into one part of speech because of their meaning which is extreamly general.Pronouns are serving to denote substances, qualities, quantities, circumstances and so on not by naming or describing them, but by indicating them.

We can`t apply the five grouping-requirements for classifying the pronouns as a separate part of speech.Despite of the meaning of pronouns we can`t of the unity of all the wordsas belonging to and the same part of speech.

From the morphological view-point we can say that they have the case category