Учебно-методический комплекс дисциплины сд. 7 Теоретическая грамматика

The universal categorical meaning of quantity may be expresses in different ways:

1. 
   Lexically, through the meaning of words (many, to double, to increase, a dozen, incessantly etc) and word-combinations (now and again, again and again, day in, day out, used to etc)
   
2. 
   Through the lexico-grammatical (categorical) meaning of subcategorisation groups (countable/uncountable, collective nouns, group terms like a flock of parrots, a brood of chickens, a herd of buffaloes, a tribe of monkeys, a school of whales etc)
   
3. 
   By derivational patterns (polyphonic, multicoloured, co-star, reproduce etc)
   
4. 
   By syntactic structures (There were clubs and clubs, He swore, swore and swore! He would sit for hours on his porch)
   
5. 
   Grammatically, with the help of the category of Number The morphological category of Number is a grammatical realization of a larger semantic category of quantity
   

There are only a few hundred nouns with irregular forms of the non-plural and plural (or only plural) forms:

1. 
   Seven nouns form their plural with the help of a replacive morpheme (mutation or umlaut): man-men, foot-feet, tooth-teeth, goose-geese, woman-women, mouse-mice, louse-lice
   
2. 
   Four nouns have an additive material morpheme -en, and in ywo cases it is accompanied by a replacive morpheme as well: ox-oxen, aurochs-aurochsen, child-children, brother (in an ecclesiastic sense) -brethren
   
3. 
   Some nouns form their plural and non-plural with the help of zero morphemes [ǿ]:one deer- three deer, a trout -many trout, a Portuguese - a crowd of Portuguese, an aircraft - a dozen aircraft, an offspring - a dozen offspring. Several animal names have two plurals.There is a regular plural, and there is a “zero” plural form: I have two rabbits (the animals are treated as individuals), They were shooting rabbit ( a category of game ). Such nouns as means, species also belong here: the only means is -what means are at your disposal?( -s is not an ending in such nouns, but part of the root)
   

4. 
   Borrowings. Some have adopted the regular plural ending. Some have kept their original foreign plural. And some permit both. There are no rules:
   

Regular forms are the most prototypical.

As to the meaning of the form-classes of the category of Number, the most prototypical meanings belong to countable discrete nouns and express the opposition between one and more than one. But even within the most prototypical nouns the meaning of one may be neutralized: a table is a piece of furniture - here the noun table does not have the meaning of one, but denotes a class of objects, an extension, and therefore - a certain plurality. The non-plural form seems to be the unmarked member of the opposition.

With other types of nouns the prototypical opposition tends to modifications:

1. 
   Indiscrete nouns like hour, mile, acre, though countable, demonstrate a somewhat different opposition of meaning in their plural and singular forms. Three tables mean three separate objects, while three hours denote a single non-segmented period of time measured by a certain conventional unit of time. So an hour means a certain single duration of time while three hours mean a single duration of time only larger than an hour. Certainly there is no opposition between one and more than one, at least in the same sense as with words like table. Grammatical facts support this reasoning: it is impossible to say three tables is while hour presupposes two variants: three hours are, three hours is. In the first case the agreement between the noun and the verb is determined by the plurality of the measurement units, in the second case - by the indiscrete singularity of the thing denoted by the noun. Examples of indiscrete nouns in the plural modified by pronouns in the singular also prove that such nouns are understood as a unity, a singularity: that six weeks of calm madness, this twenty-seven miles of worst roads of Africa.
   
2. 
   The plural form of the so-called Pluralia Tantum (Plural only) nouns is certainly motivated, for such words as a) scissors, binoculars, jeans, shorts, trousers, glasses, tongs, pincers, pliers, scales, shears, tweezers, spectacles, braces, pajamas, pants, suspenders etc denote objects consisting of two parts ( “more than one” meaning) and such words as b) outskirts, dregs, amends, annals, archives, arms, ashes, clothes, customs, earnings, goods, guts, looks, remains, suds, wages denote more or less indefinite plurality. These nouns are not used with an indefinite article and the verb in the singular.
   

3. 
   Still another group of Pluralia Tantum nouns possesses the meaning of plurality, but the form ( always the singular form) is not motivated by the meaning: vermin, livestock, cattle, police, poultry. The verb is always in the plural:The police were seeking for the clues
   
4. 
   Collective nouns or nouns of Multitude denoting mostly groups consisting of human beings: army, audience, board (of examiners), choir, clan, class, club, committee, company, crowd, family, flock, gang, group, herd, jury, orchestra, parliament, team, tribe etc. These are nouns which mostly can be used in two ways: a) like regular nouns: a family - three families from Dorset, b) the singular form can be used with verbs both in the singular and in the plural: The Board is in the know - the Board are approving the scheme. The difference reflects the difference of attitudes (pragmatic difference). The singular stresses the non-personal collectivity of the group (totality): The Brigade is on the parade. The plural refers to separate individuals within the group (distributivity): The Brigade are above the average height.
   

Formally uncountable nouns can be classified into two types:

1. 
   Those used only in the singular (substances or nouns of material: gold, furniture, sand, wine, butter, water, snow etc., abstract nouns: music, home work, fun, proper nouns)
   
2. 
   Those used only in the plural form, taking singular verbs and singular pronouns. They are: a) news b)diseases: measles, mumps, rickets, shingle c) games: billiards, dominoes, skittles, darts d) subject names: classics, linguistics, mathematics, economics, ethics e)countries and city names: The United States, the Bahamas, the Netherlands, Flanders, Wales, Algiers, Athens, Brussels, Naples
   

1. 
   With nouns denoting substances, materials modifications can be of two types:
   
   1. 
      The plural forms denote vast territories covered with large amounts of the substance in question: The snows of Kilimanjaro, The waters of the Pacific ocean, the sands of the Sahara.
      
   2. 
      The nouns denoting food and drinks develop an additional meaning of a portion, sort, brand or kind: Two beers, please, the wines of France
      

Modifications may go so far as to lose any connection with the category of Number. In this case the plural form is not perceived as the grammatical form any more, and the -s -ending becomes a derivational affix producing new words: air - воздух, airs - напыщенный вид, arm - рука, arms- вооружение, colour- цвет, colours -знамена. This phenomenon is called lexicalization (of a grammatical morpheme).

1. 
   as a part of the word, like a morpheme: Mike’s, children’s
   
2. 
   as a part of a phrase or sentence, like function words (articles, conjunctions, prepositiuons): Pete and Mike’s room, The Professor of Oxford’s poetry, the man I saw yesterday’s son, somebody else’s mistake
   
3. 
   as a derivational morpheme producing new words: the baker-булочник, the baker’ -булочная St. Paul- святой Павел, St. Paul’s - собор святого Павла, my mother - моя мать, my mother’s -дом моей матери
   

It is obvious that it is impossible for one and the same language unit to be all three things at once. a word, a grammatical morpheme and a derivational morpheme. Even a theoretically secure notion of homonymy is of no help. We cannot say that we deal with three different linguistic units, absolutely independent of each other, not related in any way, pure homonyms. We cannot say so, because the meanings of three units are interrelated and semantically identical. There is no difference in relations between Pete and room (Pete’s room) and between Pete and Mike and room (Pete and Mike’s room).

(Pete’s room) and syntactical units (the blonde I was dancing with’s name was…, The king of England’s daughter).

In this case there is no category of Case in modern English, because the combination of two words - one notional (Pete) and one functional (-‘s) do not bring about a grammatical form of one word - the case form of a noun. Pete’s - is a word combination, a phrase, not a word-form.

Besides, the following additional arguments seem to support this point of view:

1. 
   Unlike plural and singular forms, forms with the -‘s -element are not universal. Only a limited group of nouns can be used with the -‘s -element:
   
   1. 
      personal names ( Mike’s car),
      
   2. 
      personal nouns ( the boys’ new toy),
      
   3. 
      collective nouns ( the government’s policy),
      
   4. 
      names of higher animals (the lion’s mane, the horse’s mouth),
      
   5. 
      geographical and institutional names (Europe’s future, the school’s history),
      
   6. 
      temporal nouns (a moment’s thought, a few days’ trip, a two years’ absence),
      
   7. 
      nouns of distance and measure (a shilling’s worth, a mile’s journey),
      
   8. 
      locative nouns (the city’s plan, the island’s industry)
      
2. 
   The forms with the -‘s -element are syntactically limited: they mostly occur in front of the noun they modify. Their absolute use is rare and is limited to cases of ellipses: an opera of Verdi’s ( an opera of Verdi’s operas = one of Verdi’s operas), St.Paul’s = St.Paul’s cathedral etc
   
3. 
   The absolute majority of plural forms and some of the singular forms built oppositions mostly in written speech. In oral speech the opposition between common and genitive forms is neutralised and can be identified only by context
   

Among those grammarians who accept the existence of the category of Case in English there is no unity. There are those, who think that the number of form-classes within the English category of case is more than two -three, four, five and even an indefinite number. The German scholar M. Deutschbein proposed the view of the category of case consisting of nominative form-class ( a boy), genitive ( a boy’s and also of the boy ) dative (to the boy, also by word order: He gave the boy), and the accusative ( word order). I.I. Meshchaninov logically concluded, that once prepositions and word order are recognized as means of expressing case, the number of form-classes may grow on indefinitely ( with the boy - instrumental form-class, in the boy - locative one and so on).

This cannot be accepted, because case is a morphological category and is manifested by a formal sigh in a noun - a grammatical morpheme (additive or zero), not a word-combination (with+the boy), the less so by a purely syntactic means like word-order.

More sensible and traditionally-minded grammarians proceeding from the view of a morphological character of the category of case accept only two form-classes within the category of Case based on the following opposition:

Common form-class Genitive form-class
Child Child’s

Children Children’s

Pete Pete’s

boys boys’

Sophocles Sophocles’

The meaning of Case seems to be the following: it expresses relations between the thing denoted by a noun and other things, properties and actions. The meaning of the Common Case form is very vague, wide and indefinite, as is natural for non-marked form-classes. The genitive form-class as a marked member has more or less clear-cut meanings:

1. 
   Specifying genitive
   
   1. 
      possession ( Ann’s toys =Ann has toys, toys belong to Ann)
      
   2. 
      subjective genitive, where the noun in the genitive case denotes the doer of the action, and the noun in the common case -the action itself ( Pete’s answer =Pete answers my question)
      
   3. 
      objective genitive, where the noun in the genitive case denotes the object of the action, and the noun in the common case - the action itself (The robber’s arrest =the robber is arrested, X arrested the robber)
      
   4. 
      genitive of origine, where the noun in the genitive case denotes the source or the cause of the action( which is not mentioned) and the noun in the common case - the thing which comes into being as a result of the unmentioned action (The general’s letter = the general performed the action of writing, and as a result, a letter appeared)
      
   5. 
      genitive of measure, or equational genitive (a mile’s distance =a distance is a mile,)
      
2. 
   Classifying or descriptive
   

This seems to be more a rather satisfactory interpretation of the category of Case for those who are inclined to support the idea of existence of Case in Modern English and to disregard very disturbing facts which tend to show that the -‘s -formant is a syntactical element, not a morpheme.

3. 
   The problem of the category of Gender
   

The English language does not have a grammatical category of Gender either classifying or word-forming. English nouns are not divided into neuter, feminine and masculine nouns. But sex distinction is a very important notion in English as well as in other languages. Sex distinctions can be expressed in English by means other than grammatical classifying grouping:

1. 
   By textual correspondences with personal pronouns, especially if the word is of the so called common gender ( The secretary entered. He was a young blue-eyed man of about twenty four)
   
2. 
   derivationally (host-hostess, tiger-tigress, duke-duchess, ballerina, zarina)
   
3. 
   by the male or female semes in the denotation of the word ( boy-girl, lord-lady, father-mother, bride-bridegroom, bull-cow)
   
4. 
   by the combination of the words of the common gender or genderically neutral words with words of the 3^rd group words ( boy -friend, girl-cousin, woman-pilot, male cat, bull-deer )
   
5. 
   by combination with pronouns ( she-goat, he-cobra)
   
6. 
   by combination with male or female names ( Tom-cat, Jack-ass, jenny-ass)
   
7. 
   by strong or weak implication ( pussy cat; pussy is associated with smallness, prettiness and delicacy, and therefore a pussy cat is more probably a she-cat than a he-cat. An effeminate hair-dresser, on the other hand, is a male person, for effeminate has a collocational seme which in many dictionaries is given in brackets: ( of males)
   

4. 
   The problem of the category of definiteness/indefiniteness
   

This category is proposed by those who consider combinations language- the language- a language to be the forms of the noun and the opposition between them -the opposition of word-forms within three form-classes of the category which they call the category of Definiteness/Indefiniteness, or Determination. This interpretation is possible, if the and a are morphemes, which is doubtful. Morphemes are parts of the corresponding words and cannot be separated from them( * He play well ed hockey), but articles can (a ripe red apple). The meaning of the articles, which is said to be very general and vague just like the meaning of many morphemes, cannot serve as an argument of articles being morphemes, for the meaning of many notional and function words is also vague and abstract. The argument that the forms like the language- a language may be analytical forms (and in this case the category is based on the opposition of one synthetic form - language (with a ǿ-morpheme) and two analytical forms the language- a language ) is not valid either, because in English as well as in other Indo-European languages only notional words perform the function of the auxiliary elements within analytical forms (do, will, be, have, more, most, which act as auxiliary elements in analytical forms in English are primarily notional words -verbs and adjectives). It is obvious that an article in English is neither a morpheme nor a notional word, for it does not express a notion independently of the noun which it modifies ans does not perform an independent syntactic function in the sentence. In fact, it behaves like a function word, which it unquestionably is, and so the language- a language - a word-combination, a combination of a function and a notional words, just like in the language, but the language. The obvious conclusion is that there is no category of determination in English, and the corresponding meanings of definiteness/indefiniteness are adequately espressed syntactically, with the help of word-combinations.

1. 
   What makes nouns a very specific nominating class of words?
   
2. 
   What are the characteristics of a prototypical noun?
   
3. 
   How can the part-of -the speech meaning of nouns be characterised?
   
4. 
   How is the noun different from other word-classes syntactically?
   
5. 
   What are the non-prototypical groups of countable nouns within the category of Number?
   
6. 
   Why do uncountable nouns belong to the category of number only formally?
   
7. 
   What are the semantic modifications ( meanings departing from prototypical one -more than one) within the category of Number?
   
8. 
   What are the arguments in favour of the category of Case?
   
9. 
   What are the arguments against the category of Case?
   
10. 
    Why is the notion of Case with 2 form-classes preferable to the one of case with 4 form-classes?
    
11. 
    What is the difference between the grammatical category of gender and the semantic category of sex?
    
12. 
    In which way does the status of the English article determine the presence/absence of the category of Determination in modern English?
    

Task 3

1. 
   The category of Number can be characterised semantically as…
   
   1. 
      partially motivated
      
   2. 
      motivated
      
   3. 
      non-motivated
      

2. 
   The forms like man-men, foot-feet, tooth-teeth, goose-geese do not demonstrate…
   
   1. 
      the meaning of one-more than one
      
   2. 
      regular forms of the singular and plural
      
   3. 
      the distinction between forms of the plural and singular
      

3. 
   The forms like cat-cats, tree-trees, brush-brushes differ from each other…
   
   1. 
      by methods of building word-forms
      
   2. 
      by grammatical morphemes of number
      
   3. 
      by allomorphs of one morpheme
      

4. 
   M. Deutschbein expressed the opinion that the category of Case in English is based on …
   
   1. 
      the two form-classes
      
   2. 
      the four form-classes
      
   3. 
      an indefinite number of form-classes
      

5. 
   The instance of the -’s-element being used as a derivational suffix is…
   
   1. 
      William and Mary’s reign
      
   2. 
      He works for Addison’s
      
   3. 
      It took an hour’s walk
      

6. 
   The phrase the child’s piece of mind of the old man demonstrates the form-class meaning of…
   
   1. 
      the genitive of measure
      
   2. 
      the classifying genitive
      
   3. 
      the genitive of origine
      

7. 
   Non-grammatical means of expressing Gender are…
   
   1. 
      grammatical morphemes
      
   2. 
      word-forming morphemes
      
   3. 
      word-building morphemes
      

8. 
   The grammatical category of Gender in Russian is based on the opposition of …
   
   1. 
      neuter, feminine and masculine
      
   2. 
      common, feminine and masculine
      
   3. 
      neuter, feminine and common
      

9. 
   It is not possible to establish the grammatical category of Definiteness/Indefiniteness if the and a(an)are…
   
   1. 
      grammatical morphemes
      
   2. 
      auxiliary words
      
   3. 
      functional words
      

1. 
   General characteristics of adjectives
   
2. 
   The problem of analytical forms in the category of Degrees of Comparison
   
3. 
   The problem of Statives
   

The part-of -the speech meaning of adjectives is that of property devoid of temporal characteristics. If property is understood as a hyperonym, then hyponymical meanings of the adjective are those of quality (dirty, high), assessment (good, useful), relation (far, neighbourly), attitude (necessary, desirable) and state (dry, angry, expectant, hopeful, sad).

Syntactically adjectives can perform the following functions:

1. 
   The attribute
   
   1. 
      A preposed attribute ( in front of the modified word): There came a blind man
      
   2. 
      A postposed attribute ( after the modified word): I’ve known him since times immemorial
      
2. 
   The predicative within the compound nominal predicate:The job was perfect, She died young
   
3. 
   The objective predicative: They painted the door green, They buried her young
   

Traditional semantic subcategorisation is into qualitative and relative adjectives. Qualitative adjectives denote properties as such, properties which describe an object by size, colour, shape, impression, etc. The relation between noun and a qualitative adjective is the relation between a thing and its property. Relative adjectives denote relations between at least two things - the one expressed by a modified noun and the one expressed by a relative adjective: plastic case denotes a relation (the name of the relation: made of) between two things: plastic and case. Agricultural machines = machines used in agriculture (again there are two things - machines and agriculture, and relation between them - used in).

Soviet linguists, Ganshina and Vasilevskaya suggest tripartite division: into qualitative, relative and quantitative adjectives like several, dozen etc.

Semantic subcategorisation has also morphological consequences: relative adjectives do not have forms of the Degrees of Comparison. Nevertheless, this is not absolute. Relative adjectives in their secondary uses, when they acquire qualitative and lose relative meaning, can be used within the category of Degrees of Comparison: his face became woodener than ever, where wooden is not a relative adjective any more, because it figuratively means indifferent, expressionless. Besides, among qualitative adjectives as such there are groups, which do not have forms of degrees of comparison for semantic reasons. These are:

1. 
   adjectives which denote non-gradable properties: blind, dead, deaf
   
2. 
   adjectives denoting properties of the highest degree: absolute, perfect, superb, complete, entire
   
3. 
   adjectives denoting a point on a certain scale: initial, middle, final ,central
   

1. 
   The so-called central adjectives, which can be used in both the main functions: that of an attribute and predicative
   
2. 
   Adjectives which can be used only as attributes: joint, live, lone, daily, weekly, woollen. These are subdivided into 4 subclasses:
   
   1. 
      emphasizers: a certain winner( winner who is sure to win), an outright lie, pure fabrication( =sheer fabrication), a real hero
      
   2. 
      amplifiers, denoting scale upward from the norm: a complete fool, a perfect idiot, a close friend, entire salary, utter folly, the very end, mere ignorance
      
   3. 
      adjectives related to adverbials: my former friend=formely, an occasional visitor =occasionally(( visits), the late president, an excellent pianist
      
   4. 
      adjectives derived from nouns: criminal law, an atomic scientist, a medical school
      
3. 
   Adjectives which can be used only as predicatives : glad, averse(to),bound(for),abroad, ill and all statives ( afraid, alone, ablaze, afar, asleep, awake, abroad)
   
4. 
   Adjectives which can be used as predicates and attributes, but with a changed meaning specific to each function: a late husband (= покойный)/ I was late (=опоздал), she is the right girl (=та самая, нужная, подходящая)/ the girl was right (=права), a certain person (=некий)/ she is certain that… (= уверена)
   

2. 
   The problem of analytical forms in the category of Degrees of Comparison
   

Positive Comparative Superlative

The forms of the Degrees of Comparison are built with the help of additive morphemes -er, -est. This is a regular means of forming Degrees of Comparison; very few adjectives build their forms suppletively. These are the adjectives good, bad, little, many, much, old (in the meaning старший по возрасту в семье), far. There is also a group of adjectives that build their forms either regularly, or with the help of more and most: often, modern etc. Still another way of building the forms of the Degrees of Comparison is with the help of more and most. beautiful, interesting ,exciting, wonderful, extraordinary etc.

These formations -more beautiful, the most interesting - present a complex problem. They could be analytical formations, that is, analytical forms of the Degrees of Comparison, formed with the help of auxiliary words more and most, and the notional word -the adjective. Or they could be free word-combinations, the total meaning of which is composed of the meanings of two adjectives - more+beautiful (most + interesting).

The arguments in favour of the formations more beautiful, the most interesting being analytical forms of the Degrees of Comparison are the following:

1. 
   Such adjectives as beautiful, interesting are qualitative and as such are bound to have forms of the Degrees of Comparison, either regular or otherwise. It so happens, for phonetic reasons, that it is not convenient for them to have regular forms. *Beautifuller,* interestingest sound clumsy. So they choose non-regular forms.
   
2. 
   The categorical meaning of more beautiful is equal to larger, and the most interesting = the largest, so grammatically more=-er, most =-est
   
3. 
   The relation between large-larger-the largest is the same as between beautiful-more beautiful -the most beautiful.
   

The contrary arguments are the following:

1. 
   Not all qualitative adjectives can have Degrees of Comparison. There is a number of qualitative adjectives that have no Degrees of Comparison: contemporary, simultaneous, parallel, fundamental etc
   
2. 
   The categorical meaning of more beautiful may be equal to larger, and the most interesting = the largest, but that does not mean that if larger is a grammatical form of the word, the formation more beautiful is also a grammatical -analytical -form of the word. The categorical meanings are the same, but one and the same meaning can be expressed differently - either grammatically, or lexically, or syntactically or otherwise. Here the comparative meaning is expressed in two different ways: by the grammatical morpheme, thus forming a word-form (larger-the largest) and syntactically, by joining together two words. one of which has lexical meaning = -er : more +beautiful
   
3. 
   The relations may be similar, but nothing prevents them from being expressed by different means
   

1. 
   more and most in more beautiful, the most interesting have the same meaning as in word-combinations like more time, most people, which means that the adjectives more and most ( which are in fact the forms of the Degrees of comparison of the adjective much) in formations like more beautiful, the most interesting have preserved their original lexical meaning and cannot be treated as auxiliary words ( auxiliary words are supposed to lose their lexical meaning and be used as grammatical elements only). So they are free word-combinations
   
2. 
   Besides more beautiful, the most interesting there are also phrases like the less beautiful, the least interesting and if more beautiful, the most interesting are to be analytical forms nothing prevents from considering less beautiful, the least interesting as analytical forms as well, which results in two sets of analytical forms of Degrees of comparison. That is rather unusual, and it is more sensible to consider them both to be free word-combinations.
   

The obvious solution is the following: the adjectives of the beautiful type are capable of expressing different degrees of a corresponding quality, but they are not capable of having grammatical Degrees of Comparison (with -er, -est ). But the English language successfully overcomes the difficulty, employing its other means of expressing comparison of one object(s) with another in respect of a certain property - syntactically, by composing phrases of the kind: more difficult, the most difficult, less difficult, the least difficult, rather difficult, very difficult, extremely difficult etc. Not every one of them expresses the idea of comparison, but some of them do.

Let us regard meaning, form and function - the main criteria for establishing a part of speech - of this group of words an see if they are in any way different from meaning, form and function of the adjective.

These words have a categorical meaning of state. This meaning, according to L, Barkhudarov, is only a special variety of the meaning of property peculiar to adjectives... B.Ilyish, on the other hand, is sure that the notion of “state” can very well be a foundation of a separate part of speech. So the question is open.

Formally the words are characterised by the prefix -a ( not all of them). This cannot serve a reason for singling them out as a part of speech. We do not establish a special part of speech on the ground that the words in question have a special prefix or suffix.

Syntactically these words which are usually called statives, perform the same functions as the adjectives. Mostly they are predicatives. Sometimes they are used as objective predicatives, especially with the verbs find and have: he found the man alone, he had his enemies astir. Very rarely they are used as postposed attributes, usually with dependent words: a child fast asleep, a man alive to the beautiful and the unattainable. Sand even more rarely they are used as preposed attributes -this concerns mostly the stative aloof, and the stative asleep, though asleep is used prepositively only with a dependent word: an aloof manner, a fast asleep child. The fact that the statives are rarely used in the primary function of an adjective - that of an attribute, especially prepositive attribute - cannot be regarded a ground for establishing them as a special part of speech, because:

1. 
   there are adjectives which are also limited in performing all fanctions peculiar to adjectives ( see syntactic subcategorisation of adjectives in 1. General characteristics of adjectives in this lecture).
   
2. 
   statives do not perform any functions that are alien to adjectives.
   

As for the combinability of statives, it is practically the same as that of pure adjectives:

1. 
   they are combined with words more and the most: more ashamed than ever, his most aloof attitude
   
2. 
   like adjectives they can be combines with intensifying adverbs and prepositional phrases: painfully adrift , completely asleep, intensively awake, alive with lightning.
   

Questions to lecture 4

1. 
   What is the part-of the speech meaning of the adjective?
   
2. 
   What is the difference between part-of -the speech meanings of adjectives proper and the so called statives?
   
3. 
   What are the primary syntactic functions of adjectives?
   
4. 
   What are the major semantic subcategorisation groups of adjectives?
   
5. 
   What is the difference between inherent and non-inherent adjectives?
   
6. 
   What is the meaning of the category of Degrees of Comparison?
   
7. 
   What are the generally accepted means of expressing the category of Degrees of Comparison?
   
8. 
   What are the arguments in favour of the existence of the analytical forms of Degrees of comparison?
   
9. 
   What are the arguments in favour of the formations more beautiful, the most beautiful being free word-combinations?
   
10. 
    What are the specific features of statives?
    

Task 4

1. 
   The meaning which is not characteristic of the adjective is that of …
   
   1. 
      property
      
   2. 
      substance
      
   3. 
      relation
      

2. 
   The meaning which is characteristic of the adjective is that of …
   
   1. 
      action
      
   2. 
      process
      
   3. 
      state
      

3. 
   The syntactic functions of the adjective are…
   
   1. 
      that of the predicate
      
   2. 
      that of the predicative
      
   3. 
      that of the object
      

4. 
   The adjective adjacent is…
   
   1. 
      a qualifying adjective
      
   2. 
      a relative adjective
      
   3. 
      a quantitative adjective
      

5. 
   The category of the Degrees of Comparison expresses…
   
   1. 
      a greater degree of property
      
   2. 
      a comparison of objects
      
   3. 
      a comparison of the degree of properties
      

6. 
   Such adjectives as senior and junior...
   
   1. 
      have no forms of comparison
      
   2. 
      have analytical forms of comparison
      
   3. 
      form degrees of comparison in a regular way
      

7. 
   The argument in favour of more beautiful, the most difficult being analytical forms is…
   
   1. 
      that more and most do not lose their lexical meaning in these combinations
      
   2. 
      that more and most are notional words in these combinations
      
   3. 
      that more and most are functionally equal to -er and -est
      

8. 
   The so called statives have the categorical meaning of…
   
   1. 
      attitude
      
   2. 
      state
      
   3. 
      relation
      

9. 
   The ability of a stative to be combined with an intensifying adverb is its….
   
   1. 
      verbal quality
      
   2. 
      adjectival quality
      
   3. 
      neither verbal nor adjectival quality interesting
      

1. 
   General characteristics of the verb as part of speech
   
2. 
   Category of Tense
   
3. 
   Category of Aspect
   
4. 
   Category of Voice
   
5. 
   Category of Correlation(Retrospect)
   
6. 
   Modality and Category of Mood
   

1. General characteristics of the verb as part of speech

It is rather convenient to speak of finite and non-finite verbs at the very beginning as they are somewhat different as to meaning, form and function.

The part-of the speech meaning of the finite verb is that of a dynamic property, that is, property which has temporal characteristics. Dynamic property presupposes processes, actions, states, relations, attitudes and even qualities (to redden, to pale). Non-finite verbs - infinitive, gerund, participle 1 and participle 2 - are not prototypical in this respect. Semantically, from the point of view of categorical meaning they occupy an intermediate position between verbs and nominals (infinitive, gerund) or verbs, adjectivals and adverbs (participle 1 and participle 2). The lexical meanings of the correlated finite and non-finite verbs are identical

Syntactically finite verbs perform only one function in the sentence - the major function of the predicate. Non-finite forms perform all possible functions but the predicate.

Morphologically the finite verbs have the forms of the following categories:

1. 
   The categories of Person and Number ( represented asymmetrically and sporadically)
   
2. 
   The category of Tense
   
3. 
   The category of Mood
   
4. 
   The category of Aspect
   
5. 
   The category of Voice
   
6. 
   The category of Correlation ( Retrospect)
   

Subcategorisation of verbs can be based on structural, morphological, semantic, functional, syntagmatic, collocational principles resulting in a great number of groups and subgroups some of which are grammatically relevant.

Thus, structurally verbs can be simple, derived and compound. Another structural classification is one-word verbs and phrasal verbs. Very often they are correlated lexically: to raise children =to bring up children, to understand=to catch on, to pass=to walk past. The postposed element of a phrasal verb is called an adverb, prepositional adverb, adverbial postpositive, postpositive prefix and even and adverbial particle.

The problem with phrasal verbs is that they can be easily confused with one-word verbs which can have prepositional objects: They turned on the light, they called on their friend. Turn on is a phrasal verb, the light - its direct object. Call is a one-word verb, on their friend -prepositional object. The points of difference are as follows:

1. 
   The postpositive element in phrasal verbs is stressed, the preposition is not
   
2. 
   The postpositive element in phrasal verbs can be used in front of or after the noun-object: they turned on the light, they turned the light on; the preposition in prepositional objects is always used in front of its object: They called on their friend, they called on him, * they called their friend on.
   

1. 
   Auxiliary verbs, which help to build forms of the verbs
   
2. 
   Link-verbs or copulars which help to build compound nominal predicates
   
3. 
   Modal verbs which help to build compound verbal predicates. Modals express an attitude to the action expressed by the infinitive
   

So in accordance with the aspectual characteristics expressed lexically verbs in English can be limited (terminative), unlimited (durative) and of double nature. A relation of the action to a limit is taken as a point of difference.

Limited verbs (arrive, catch, discover, bring, recognize, refuse) imply an achievement of a certain limit beyond which the action cannot naturally continue. That is, the actions expressed by these verbs aim at achieving a certain result, a change in the state of things, and after achieving the change, aim, result the actions die a natural death. After you break something it is impossible to continue the action, as this something is already broken.

Unlimited verbs denote actions and processes which do not have any limit in their realization. The actions can go on indefinitely and their discontinuation is due to some external, extralinguistic factor.These are verbs like to sleep, to belong, to enjoy, to carry etc.

The majority of verbs is of double character, that is, they can be limited and unlimited depending on the context (to laugh – смеяться, засмеяться, to look –глядеть, поглядеть, to know – знать, узнать)

Syntagmatically the verbs can be divided into transitive and intransitive ones. Transitivity/intransitivity in English is a syntactical feature of a verb, the ability/inability of the verb to combine with a direct object. Certainly this syntactic feature reflects a certain semantic feature of actions and processes. Actions can be object-oriented, that is, directed at a thing, involving into the process a thing ( in the general sense): to cover smth, to defeat smth, smb, to build smth etc. Actions can be objectless, like to walk, to live, to disappear.

Transitive verbs are those which are combined with a direct object (in some theories – with indirect and prepositional objects as well) and mostly denote object-oriented actions.

Intransitive verbs are those which do not need any grammatical objects and mostly denote objectless actions

Care should be taken not to confuse transitive verbs and object -oriented verbs, on the one hand, and intransitive verbs and oblectless actions. True, they mostly coincide, but not always. In the sentence he smiled a smile the verb is used as a transitive verb (with a direct object), though it is an objectless verb. The action itself does not presuppose any thing to which it is directed. In the sentence he drinks heavily the verb remains an object-oriented action, but it is detransitivized, that is, used without a grammatical object.

In the English language the majority of verbs are polysemantic and can be transitive in one meaning and intransitive in another meaning:He hurt his back( tr.), it won’t hurt to postpone the matter (intr.); this horse kicks(intr.), kick the ball( tr.)

2. 
   Category of Tense
   

The grammatical category of Tense is supposed to be associated with time, but there are many non-correspondances between tense and time. Perception and interpretation of time is dependent on the culture and epoch, national or racial make up, historical or philosophical dimensions. Very often tense distinctions such as past, present and future are understood as a universal category, which is wrong. Languages can categorize a temporal continuum differently. There could be a distinction between future and non-future, past and non-past, between present and non-present. More sophisticated categorizations may distinguish between far past and near past, or between near present and the nearest present. O.Espersen worked out a 7-member tense system which is fully or partially realized, as he says, in all languages. Primary notions in his system are past, present and future. These are absolute tenses. They are further complicated by notions before and after, which, added to primary notions, give four additional tenses: after the past, before the past, after the future, before the future.

Things become more complicated as pure tense distinctions within the category of tense are very rare. Tense distinctions are very closely interrelated with aspect or condition. In Classical Arabic tense is so closely tied with aspect that tenses are qualified as complete or incomplete.

The prevailing view as to the English category of Tense is that it is based on the opposition of two form-classes –The Past and Non-Past and expresses the relation between time of the action and time of the utterance (as absolute tenses should). Non-Past form-class is an unmarked member, for it is expressed by a zero morpheme and its meaning is wide, vague and indefinite. It can denote:

1. 
   present actions in free contexts
   
2. 
   future actions in specific syntactic and lexical contexts: we dine tomorrow with Mr. Silver, if he comes, I‘ll let you know, see to it that he leaves tomorrow etc.
   
3. 
   past actions( dramatic past): We had tea peacefully and he seemed quiet and happy. And all of sudden he raises his head and says…
   

The existence of The Future form-class is doubtful. The formations I,we shall/you,he, they will cannot be 100% analytical forms, because in the majority of contexts they still preserve their modal lexical meaning of willingness ( I’ll come if you ask me), habit (she’ll sit for hours), probability (that’ll be John), general truth (oil will float on water).

B. Ilyish, proceeding from rather numerous cases where shall and will seem to be free of their modal meanings and express, as he states, pure futurity (I am sorry, I will have to go –the context shows that it is not willingness that is expressed here) suggests the following decision. He supposes that there are two sets of shall and will:

1. 
   Modal verbs shall and will, expressing obligation, threat, promoce, willingness, habit, probability, general truth
   
2. 
   Auxiliary verbs shall and will,used to build analytical forms of the future form-class within the category of English Tense.
   

But the categorical meaning of futurity is a very important category semantically and it would be wrong to suppose that the English have no notion of futurity and therefore do not express it linguistically. This meaning is very effectively expressed by various ( other than grammatical) language means:

1. 
   by secondary, contextually or lexically determined meanings of grammatical forms designed primarily for expressing other meanings, not futurity: the present tense and common aspect form ( Make sure that he comes, the train arrives in two days, I’ll help if he asks etc),the present tense and continuous aspect form (I am coming soon), the present tense and perfect correlation form (I’ll see him when I have had my talk with New York)
   
2. 
   by various lexico-syntactic structures like I’m going to allow this, he is about to leave, she is ( un), likely( certain, sure),to get mad, he is on the point (on the verge) of becoming the boss etc.
   
3. 
   by the majority of modal verbs in appropriate contexts
   

3. Category of Aspect