Учебно-методический комплекс дисциплины сд. 7 Теоретическая грамматика

Wrote -was writing

Will write - will be writing

Has written - has been wrriting

These two form classes represent the category of aspect in Modern English

The basic difference in meaning is between an action going on continuously during a given period of time (Continuous forms) and an action not thus described, unmarked in this respect (Common forms). This difference is the difference in the way the action is shown to proceed. This is the grammatical meaning of the category of aspect.

Prof.Ivanova treats the forms in a peculiar way.She admits the existence of a continuous form, but she thinks writes is not an aspect form at all, because its meaning is vague and cannot be properly defined. The critisism is simple enough. Categories cannot consist of one form-class only. If a form-class singled out it is inevitably contrasted with forms which are not the given form-class.

This expressiveness can account for the use of Continuous forms with ALWAYS and constantly when the action is meant to be unlimimted by time. The emphatic force is due to the meaning of always reinforced by the emphatic coloring of the Continuous form. The action is represented as never ceasing which in the nature of things is not possible, and all this gives a sentence a stronger emotional colouring. This meaning can be described as a modification of the meaning of the Continuous form in systemic contexts: due to specific contexts the invariant is modified and a variant of meaning appears. In this particular case the meaning of always demolishes the meaning of an action proceeding at a given moment –thus limited – but reinforces the descriptive character of the Cont.form, and resulting meaning is that of strong emotional colouring.

The Active form-class The Passive form-class

Is killing is being killed

Have killed have been killed

Will kill will be killed

The Category of Voice is not only a morphological category. Besides the morphological opposition, it also involves the changes in the syntactic structure of the sentence: He bought the picture -The picture is bought( by him). The grammatical object of the active sentence becomes the grammatical subject of the passive sentence, and the subject of the active sentence may disappear.

The meaning of the category may be defined as follows: the verb-form of the predicate shows which element of the semantic structure –the semantic subject or the semantic object – occupies the position of a grammatical subject of the sentence. That is, the category shows relations between two planes: the surface structure –the syntactic structure – and the semantic plane. In some ways Voice is a paradoxical category. Verbal categories should characterise properties of processes, but Voice characterises properties of the participants of the processes. The verb-form shows whether the grammatical subject of the sentence, roughly speaking, codifies the doer of the action or the object of the action. In ergative languages things ate more logical. The verb does not change its form, but the word in the position of the grammatical subject shows by its grammatical form whether it is an object or the doer.

In Indo-European languages Voice distinctions involve only transitive verbs. Intransitive verbs do not show Voice distinctions; он пошел -* он был пошел (пошли), его пошли? Она убежала – *ее убегли, она была убежана? (* -shows that non-existent variant is meant)

In English Voice is rather loosely connected with transitivity/intransitivity. Intransitives can be used as transitives, and in their transitive uses can have passive forms:

Dance me over to the balcony - I was danced over to the balcony

Why don’t you walk me home? – Why am I not walked home?

They shone the flashlight on my face – The flashlight was shone in my face

The tent sleeps four people – ?Ten people are slept in the tent ( ? –shows that a rather dubious variant is meant).

The variants like The house hasn’t been lived in and The bed hasn’t been slept in, where intransitive verbs are used in the Passive, are very well familiar to language-learners.

Transitive verbs, by the way, can be used as intransitive as well: The window gives on the street

In many languages Voice is based on more than two oppositive form-classes. Greek, for one, distinguished, besides active and passive forms, also a middle form-class (doing something for oneself or to oneself). Semitic languages give the following neat pattern:

Active qätäle he killed

passive täqätle he was killed

causative `aqtäle he caused to kill

reciprocal täqatäle he killed and was killed

reciprocal-

causative `aqqatäle he caused them to kill each other

adjutative `aqqatäle he helped to kill

The idea of enlarging the number of form-classes within the English category of Voice is also very appealing. The fact is, that the so-called Active Voice form-class, as the unmarked form, demonstrates various modifications of meaning:

1. 
   Prototypical active meaning, where the grammatical subject expresses the doer of the action: He bought the picture
   
2. 
   Non-prototypical middle meaning, where the grammatical subject expresses the thing connected with the action. The action is represented as taking place within the thing codified by the grammatical subject: the water boiled, the paper burned. The grammatical subject codifies neither the doer nor the object, but something intermediate
   
3. 
   Non-prototypical reflexive meaning, where the grammatical subject codifiers the doer of the action that simultaneously is the object of the same action: He dressed (himself), He hurt himself .The grammatical subject codifies both the doer and the object.
   
4. 
   Non-prototypical reciprocal meaning, where the grammatical subject (denoting, as a rule at least two entities) codifies agent₁ and agent _2. The verb describes a reciprocal action; in which agent₁ performs an action directed at agent ₂ that naturally in this relation is object₁. Simultaneously agent₂ performs the same action, directed at agent₁ that in this relation becomes object₂: They (Pete and Mike) greeted each other. Actually there are two identical actions: greeting₁, the agent of which is Pete and the object is Mike and greeting_2, the agent of which is Mike and the object is Peter. The grammatical subject codifies both the doer and the object, not in the same but in two criss-crossing relations.
   
5. 
   Non-prototypical causative meaning where the grammatical subject expresses the source or the cause of the action, and the semantic subject (the doer) is represented as a grammatical object: He marched his soldiers across the Alps.
   

Certainly there is a temptation to postulate a category of Voice in Modern English, consisting of the following form-classes:

Active He burned the paper

Passive The paper was burned

Middle The paper burned

Reflexive He killed himself

Reciprocal They killed each other

Causative He jumped his dog

Each of these “form-classes” has a certain clear-cut meaning. But, to establish a form-class, in addition to meaning there must be a special form as well. Middle and Causative “form-classes” do not have any original form. Their forms coincide with the Active form. There is specific meaning not supported by specific form. Besides, they are lexically limited. Middle meaning is restricted to the following groups of verbs:

1. 
   those describing the action of the object, not the agent. These are the verbs like clink, ring, bang, boil, burn, dry, crack, break etc. Certainly in Bill rang the bell it is not Bill who produces the action described by rang, but the bell.
   
2. 
   those which are neutral as to the object or to the agent, like begin, continue, stop: They began the concert, the concert began.
   
3. 
   A few verbs describing the actions of the agent, always used in middle constructions with adverbials well, easily: This cloth washes easily, the book sells well, the dress wears well.
   

With reciprocal and reflexive cases things are different. They do seem to have a specific form. The reflexive form is said to be represented by an analytical form consisting of a verb+self-pronoun and the reciprocal – by an analytical form consisting of a verb+ one another ( each other).

An analytical form is supposed to have a definite grammatical meaning, its parts cannot function as separate lexical units and perform separate functions in a sentence, and an auxiliary element cannot be omitted excepting cases of ellipses like he has seen and done everything ( has refers to both seen and done).

Combinations V+self-pronoun do not always demonstrate the reflexive meaning. In cases like

1. 
   He killed himself
   
2. 
   He dressed himself
   
3. 
   She enjoyed herself
   
4. 
   She found herself in an unknown street
   
5. 
   She bought herself a new dress
   

Case 2 should be also excluded, despite the meaning, for formal reasons, because with the verb to dress, and some other verbs ( wash, shave) the self-pronoun is optional, and auxiliary element are not optional. So obviously dressed himself is not an analytical form, because the self-pronoun does not behave like an auxiliary.

Case 2 seems to answer the two requirements - it has the necessary grammatical meaning and the self-pronoun is not optional ( he killed himself ≠ he killed ǿ, they differ in their grammatical meaning, the latter denotes an action directed at an outside object and, without it, is grammatically incomplete). But it does not answer the requirement that the parts of an analytical form are not supposed to be separate lexical units and be different members of the sentence, for there are cases like

1. 
   He killed himself and his wife (he killed his wife and himself), where his wife is a grammatical object. It is combined with the self-pronoun with the help of a conjunction forming a parallel construction and parallel constructions are known to join similar parts of the sentence. So self-pronoun is also a grammatical object.
   
2. 
   I am defending myself – an accused communist, where an accused communist is an apposition to the self-pronoun, which shows that a self-pronoun is a separate member of the sentence, for auxiliaries cannot have appositions attached to them, for they lack lexical meaning.
   

The same line of reasoning can be used in reference to the so-called reciprocal “form-class”.

The obvious conclusion is that the Voice in English is based on the opposition of a marked form – Passive and an unmarked form –Non-Passive, which, under the influence of changes in the syntactic pattern and specific lexical meaning of the verb can modify its prototypical “active” meaning so as to express middle, reflexive, causative and reciprocal meanings


5. Category of Correlation (Retrospect)

The position of the perfect forms in the verbal system has been treated in many different ways and the main views are the following:

1. 
   The perfect forms are forms of the category of Tense. This is the view of O. Jespersen, who thinks that that the category of Tense in English is based on two basic forms, absolute tenses – The Past and Present forms – and a relative tense form – The Perfect tense form.
   
2. 
   The perfect forms are the forms of the category of Aspect. This is the view of G.N. Vorontsova and others. They think that the category of Aspect in modern English is based on the opposition of three form-classes: The Common, the Continuous and the Perfect. The Common is unmarked, the Continuous describes the action in its progress, the Perfect has the meaning of “retrospectiveness” or “result” or “successiveness”.
   

But there have been mistakes in these theories which can be summed up in the following way:

1. 
   In regarding perfect forms as forms of Tense or Aspect the scholars did not pay attention to the relation of perfect forms to the forms of Aspect and Tense established before. That is, we must remember, that one and the same word-form may belong to different form-classes of different grammatical categories, but it cannot belong to different form-classes of one and the same category. The word-form is build belongs to the form-class of the Present ( category of Tense), form-class of the Passive ( category of Voice), form-class of the Common ( category of Aspect), but it cannot belong simultaneously to the form-classes of the Past and Present ( category of Tense), form-classes of Active and Passive ( within one and the same category of Voice).
   

There are also forms like has been doing, which are simultaneously Continuous and Perfect, which again means that Perfect and Continuous must belong to different form-classes of different categories.

2. 
   In establishing the meaning of the perfect forms the invariant has not been properly distinguished from its modifications. The invariant is the most prototypical (and very often the most frequent) meaning of the grammatical form. Modifications or variants are those meanings which deviate from the prototypical meaning due to the influence of a specific categorical semantics of a lexical unit (verb, in this case) and syntactic context. The meaning of completion or result is not the meaning of the perfect forms. This meaning is a modification appearing only if the meaning of perfect is combined with the categorical meaning of terminative verbs: Terminative verb+ perfect form = result. If the verb is not terminative, the meaning of result is absent: he has lived here; he has been waiting in the room for hours etc.
   

Moreover, even precedence is rather doubtful as the invariant, for it can disappear under the influence of a syntactic context: He waited quietly till he had finished, but before he had answered, she made a grimace. In these contexts the actions in the perfect form do not express precedence to the actions expressed by non-perfect forms.

The third view belong to A.I. Smirnitsky and accordingly the perfect forms do not belong either to the category of Tense or to the category of Aspect. This is a category different from both and based on the opposition of the Perfect form-class and the Non-Perfect form-class:

The Non-Perfect The Perfect

Its meaning is not so much of precedence, but of correlation. The information may be described by the perfect as taking place in the preceeding period (though not always), but the most important thing is that it is connected, correlated with the situation that follows (usually given in non-perfect forms) and important for understanding it. The situation in the perfect can be interpreted as reason, cause, source of the following action, and the following action – as a natural outcome, consequence or result of the action in the perfect. What is important is the correlation of two facts, and meaningfulness of the correlation for the interpretation of the second fact (in the non-perfect form). The meaningfulness is disclosed only in larger contexts, the perfect form itself only signifies that the correlation is present.

Smirnitsky calls the category Time Relation, Ilyish proposes a more neutral term Correlation, Bloch suggests Retrospectiveness. No harm will be made if the category is noncommittally called the category of Perfect.

6. 
   Modality and Category of Mood
   

Modality is a linguistic category expressing whether the contents of the sentence coincide with or deviate from reality from the point of view of the speaker. It is one of the indispensable characteristics of the utterance ( sentence).

Traditionally modality is subdivided into subjective and objective modalities.

Objective modality describes the relations between the contents of the utterance and reality as real or unreal: he came₁ – I wish he came_2. In he came₁ the form of the utterance shows that the speaker regards the situation as real, whereas in he came₂ the same situation is represented as unreal.

Subjective modality expresses the attitude of the speaker to the contents of the sentence, whether the speaker considers the the state of things described in the sentence possible, impossible, probable, desirable, necessary, obligatory, probable, obvious etc. In some theories subjective modality is organized into the following scales:

1. 
   wish, intention
   
2. 
   obligation, necessity
   
3. 
   probability, possibility
   

1. 
   modal words like probably, evidently, possibly, maybe, obviously, seemingly, allegedly, luckily, unluckily etc. Intejections like alas, really or parenthetical expressions like unquestionably, as is known, of course, certainly can also be listed here.
   
2. 
   Intonation, a very powerful means of expressing modality. By intonation alone the speaker can express his doubt as to the truth of the proposition: He is a genius?
   
3. 
   Modal verbs with “I” predicate: I can (must, should, have to)
   
4. 
   Sentence Moods, that is, the ability of the sentence structure to express statements, questions and imperatives. Statements can express the falsity or the truth of the statement (as to its relation to reality), questions express neutrality – the speaker does not say if the contents are true or false (is she married? means that the speaker does not know which is true –she is married or she is not married), and the imperative expresses the situation which is not real but which the speaker considers desirable.
   
5. 
   Sentence structures:
   

1. 
   Fused sentence structures with the so-called semilink verbs of the type to look, to seem, to become, to appear (=60 verbs all in all). They are called so because modality and the predicate of the proposition are expressed together, in a kind of fusion. In the sentence He seems to be ill the proposition is ( he ( to be ill), and seems is the grammatical predicate which at the same time expresses modality: seems presupposes that the speaker perceives a certain state of things ( he is ill), but doubts if it is really so. Types of fusion:
   

1. 
   Attitude of the third party:
   

Somebody (a third party) considers that the proposition (he is a genius) is true. The speaker does not say for himself if he believes or not that (he is a genius) is true. He does not take upon himself the responsibility for the truth of the proposition. But at least he says that it is true that somebody considers the proposition ( he is a genius) to be true.

2. 
   Attitude of the person expressed by the grammatical subject, to himself:
   

The person (he in He considers himself a man) thinks that the proposition (I am a man) is true. His modality and simultaneously the predicate of the sentence are expressed in a fused fashion by the verb to consider. The speaker of the utterance He considers himself a man does not take upon himself the responsibility for the truth of the proposition (he is a man), but he takes upon himself the responsibility for the truth of the statement He considers himself a man. ( Правда, и я в это верю, что он считает себя настоящим мужчиной. Так ли это на самом деле – бог весть, но уж я уверен, что он действительно считает себя мужчиной).

3. 
   Attitude of the speaker of the utterance to the proposition:
   

The speakers attitude to the propositions ( he is ill) and (she is interested) are clearly shown by the predicates fused with modalily ( look shows that the speaker relies on visual perception, but is not absolutely sure whether the proposition ( he is ill) is true; pretend shows that the speaker is sure that the proposition ( she is interested) is not true.

• 
  Sentences divided into modal frame and proposition. Modal frames are expressed by main clauses, and propositions – by subordinate clauses. The propositions describe the state of things ( facts, events, situations), and the modal frame – the attitude to the state of things given in the proposition:
  

6. And last, but not least, modality can be expresses by a morphological category of Mood, through the word-form, synthetic (built with the help of a grammatical morpheme) or analytical (built with the help of an auxiliary word and a notional word).

The category of mood is traditionally considered to be built on the basis of three form-classes: the Indicative, the Imperative and the Subjunctive.

The indicative form class shows by the form of the verb (unmarked form) that the actions and situations described by the verb are regarded by the speaker as real. So these actions and situations must be represented as taking place in the spheres of past, present and future.

Both the Imperative and Subjunctive form-classes are not associated so directly with tense characteristics because they both refer to spheres that deviate from reality.

1. 
   The existence of the form-class of the Imperative is a subject of doubt, because it does not seem to have a form of its own. Its form coincides with the forms, already employed by the Present Simple and by the Infinitive. The only thing which makes the form of the Imperative different from the Present Simple is the negative form of the verb to be:
   

Imperative: don’t be

The only thing which makes it different from the Infinitive is the negative form in general:

Infinitive: not to go

Imperative: don’t go

But nevertheless, Imperative is recognized by the majority of linguists, though for different reasons. What is universally recognized is that it is a very vivid and specific form. It does not have question-forms, it is used in sentences without a subject, the subject – you – appears only in emphatic use. It is lexically limited. Predicates denoting uncontrolled actions are not normally used in the Imperative form: *BE a blue-eyed girl! *Loook doubtful!

The meaning is also specific. It expresses volition.It is used in the syntactic structure aimed at expressing only one speech act –volition( requests and orders). Other Mood forms are multifunctional. They may be used in utterances, expressing different speech acts

2. 
   The second non-traditional view belongs to J.Lions. He suggests excluding the Indicative form-class from the Category of Mood, for it, he says, does not express any modality ( But it does! It shows that the contents of the utterance are regarded by the speaker as corresponding to reality). On the other hand, he puts forward an idea of a Question Mood, which is open to critisim. Of course, questions have a peculiar modality, but it is not so much expressed by the verb-form as by the sentence-structure as a whole. The form of the verb in questions may be that of the Indicative or Subjunctive. Questions do not have special verb-forms.
   

• 
  Those which are mainly used for expressing unreality ( they are mostly archaic or regionally limited): be - if it be true! Were for all persons, stem-form – I suggest that he g
  
• 
  Those for which expression of unreality is only an additional, secondary meaning occurring under certain conditions ( in specific syntactic contexts): forms of the Past Simple and Past Perfect, combinations of could, might, should, would+different forms of the infinitive. The primary functions of these forms –temporal and modal meanings
  

1. 
   obligation: People should help each other
   
2. 
   unreal conditional action: I should stay there if he asked me to
   
3. 
   real action which is object of comment:How stragge that he should say so!
   
4. 
   unreal prospective action: I suggest that we should leave at once!
   

1. 
   You ought to have stayed behind
   
2. 
   You should come immediately
   
3. 
   I wish you hurried up
   
4. 
   We recommend that he quit
   

There are two possible theoretic interpretations of the state of things with the so-called Subjunctive Mood:

1. 
   There are specific forms of expressing unreality, only they happen to be homonymous with the forms of the Past Simple, Past Perfect, modal verbs etc. Then, the existence of the Subjunctive form-class would be established – if another theoretical justification is found, the one which will explain the excessive number of forms.
   
2. 
   There are no specific forms, the meaning of unreality is expressed by secondary, contextually, lexically and syntactically bound meanings of forms of Tense, Correlation (Perfect) and modal combinations. The explanation may run like this: the basic primary meaning of the forms lived, had, played, swam and broke is the expression of the past action. But, under the influence of a certain syntactic context the meaning of the past changes and the forms start expressing unreal actions. Corresponding syntactic contexts (patterns) can be described in the following way:
   

B) I wish….. (I wish I knew)

C) It is time…. (It is time you did something)

Obviously, the Subjunctive meaning does not find its morphological expression as a Form-class within the category of Mood. There is no single, original form for expressing unreality. But the meaning of unreality is very important for communication and it has to be expressed. And so it is expressed – by various language means which are more or less suitable: by combinations with modal verbs under syntactic conditions which weaken the modal meaning and bring out and intensify the meaning of unreality (which is part of the modal meaning as well), by secondary structurally and lexically conditioned meanings of forms of tenses and forms of Perfect, by remaining and quickly dying out forms of the ancient Subjunctive, which have long lost their systemic character.

So, the English category of Mood, strictly speaking, consists of two form-classes only –the Indicative and the Imperative.

Questions to lecture 5

1. 
   What are the verbal categories common to both finite and non-finite verbs?
   
2. 
   What are the major principles of subcategorization of verbs?
   
3. 
   What is the general idea of a universal tense-system (which is realizes in languages in this or that way) worked out by O. Espersen?
   
4. 
   What are the non-prototypical meanings of the Non-Past tense form-class of the English category of Tense?
   
5. 
   In which way the meaning of the manner of action can be expressed besides the category of Aspect?
   
6. 
   What is the meaning of the category of Voice?
   
7. 
   What are the arguments in favour of the view that units like the water boiled, he hurt himself are not the forms of the English category of Voice?
   
8. 
   What is the meaning of the category of Correlation?
   
9. 
   What are means of expressing Modality?
   
10. 
    On what grounds is the Imperative form not treated by some authors as a form-class of the category of Mood?
    
11. 
    What are the arguments against a Subjunctive form-class within the category of English Mood?
    

Task 5

1. 
   The subcategorization of verbs into one word verbs and phrasal verbs is based:
   
   1. 
      on a semantic principle
      
   2. 
      on a syntactic principle
      
   3. 
      on a formal principle
      

2. 
   The non-finite forms do not have the category:
   
   1. 
      Of Voice
      
   2. 
      Of Person
      
   3. 
      Of Correlation
      

3. 
   The non-finite verbs cannot perform the syntactic function of:
   
   1. 
      the predicate
      
   2. 
      the predicative
      
   3. 
      the object
      

4. 
   The category of Tense in English is based on:
   
   1. 
      The opposition of two form-classes
      
   2. 
      The opposition of five form-classes
      
   3. 
      The opposition of 16 form-classes
      

5. 
   In the category of Voice the verb in the Passive form shows that:
   
   1. 
      the grammatical subject is not the object of the action
      
   2. 
      the grammatical subject is the doer of the action
      
   3. 
      the grammatical subject is the object of the action
      

6. 
   The Continuous form-class within the category of Aspect may express:
   
   1. 
      An action preceeding the moment of speaking
      
   2. 
      An action completed before some moment in the past
      
   3. 
      An emotionally colored attitude to an action
      

7. 
   The Perfect forms are very much like the forms of Aspect because of:
   
   1. 
      Their form
      
   2. 
      Their syntactic properties
      
   3. 
      Their meaning
      

8. 
   Modality is the property of:
   
   1. 
      Words
      
   2. 
      Phrases
      
   3. 
      Sentences
      

9. 
   The category of Mood is:
   
   1. 
      A morphological means of expressing modality
      
   2. 
      A syntactical means of expressing modality
      
   3. 
      A lexical means of expressing modality
      

1. 
   Basic syntactic notions and units
   
2. 
   Types of syntactic relations
   
3. 
   Methods of analyzing a syntactic unit
   

1. 
   Basic syntactic notions and units
   

The major syntactic notions are: syntactic unit, syntactic form, syntactic meaning, syntactic function, syntactic position, and syntactic relations.

The basic syntactic units are a word-group, a clause, a sentence, and a text. Their main features are:

-- they are hierarchical units – the units of a lower level serve the building material for the units of a higher level;

--as all language units the syntactic units have both form and meaning

-- they are of communicative and non-communicative nature – word-groups

and clauses are of non-communicative nature while sentences and texts

are of communicative nature.

N1 + V + N2.

NP¹ +VP+NP²

S+P+O

1. 
   Hypotaxic (HR) and parataxic (PR) relatons. In one interpration HR are relations between syntactic units which are not equal in status .One is dependent upon the other (subordination is presupposed). PR are relations between elements of the same status (coordination and conjoinment are presupposed). In another interpretation PR are relations of a non-differentiated character. That is, the presence of a syntactic relation is obvious, but its semantic nature escapes definition. These are syntactic relations between
   

2. 
   In American descriptive linguistics syntactic relations are also grouped into differentiated and non-differentiated. Differentiated relations are subdivided, in accordance with a substitution test into endocentric and exocentric relations. Endocentric relations are relations in a syntactic unit, one or all components of which can substitute the syntactic unit in a larger constraction.
   

They were picking berries and mushrooms

They were picking berries

They were picking mushrooms

They were picking

They were picking berries

*They were picking dark-red (* denotes that the structure is non-existent or deficient)

As is seen from the previous examples, endocentric relations are subdivided into coordination (Berries and mushrooms) and subordination (dark-red berries)

Exocentric relations are relations in a syntactic unit, neither of the components of which can be used in a larger construction without violating the grammatical correctness and preserving approximately original meaning:

He left the room, his hands in pockets

*He left the room, his hands

*He left the room, pockets

Exocentric relations are sometimes subdivided into predicative relations and prepositional relations.

NB: All the relations are based on different principles, sometimes not logically connected. The notions of endo-and exocentric relations are based on the different results of a substitution test. The notions of subordination and coordination are based on the equality\inequality of the components, while the notion of predication is meaningful; at least it gives syntactic and semantic characteristics of the nature of the components (components are, obviously, the subject and the predicate, or at least, components resembling in their relation the subject and the predicate); prepositional relations do not speak of the ranks, or semantic and syntactic features of the IC ( Immediate Constituents, components), but imply that at least one of the components is a preposition. These heterogeneous principles resemble the classification of people into those with blond hair, those who are clever and those who have large feet.

3. Barhudarov L.S prefers to speak of three major syntactic relations: subordination, coordination and predication. In lectures by Volkova these relatios are given the following definitions:

4. In . И.П.Иванова, В.В.Бурлакова, Г.Г.Почепцов. Теоретическая грамматика современного англ. яз. syntactic relations like objective, attributive and adverbial are mentioned. Predicative relations should enter the same classification, for these relations are based on the principle of the syntactic function of the componenets. Besides the authors mention cumulative relations found between elements joined by the same syntactic relation to their head (component on which they depend) but having no immediate relations between themselves. These are relations between him a picture in the phrase I gave him a picture or between three black in the phrase three black dogs

The method qualifies the parts of the sentence as main ones – the subject and the predicate – and secondary ones: an object, an adverbial modifier and an attribute (let alone such functions as objective predicative, agentive object, apposition and parenthesis). The qualification usually semantic. Formal characteristics are also employed: part-of-the-speech class is mentioned and the grammatical form. On the whole it is a rather powerful model, because it is many-aspected: it gives semantic, morphological and part-of the-speech characteristics to a member of the sentence. Barhudarov L.S. gives the following faults of the method:

- there are no clear-cut principles of segmenting the sentence into members of the sentence. Therefore the boundaries between members are not clear. In he wants to go and she likes to know it is not clear whether the infinitive is an object or part of the compound verbal predicate:

-there is no clear –cut difference between main and secondary parts. Secondary parts are said to be dependent on the main parts, but there are secondary parts which are not dependent on either of the main parts. They seem to refer to the sentence as a whole. There may be secondary parts depending on other secondary parts. And very often the predicate – the main part – is characterized as depending on the subject. Obviously the term dependence is used as an umbrella term (different things are meant by the term depending on context):

- There are no criteria helping to distinguish between secondary parts, the more so that different secondary parts can be expressed by the same parts of speech. In the phrase the construction of the bridge the bridge can be qualified either as an object or as an attribute. The semantic criterion is of no help, because the bridge can be understood as a property characterising the construction (What kind of construction? the construction of the bridge), and, consequently, an attribute. Or it may be understood as a thing, connected with the action described by the word construction (The construction of what? Of the bridge). The form of the secondary part is of no help either: both the attribute and the object can be expressed by nouns.

The Distributional sentence model of Ch.Fries

One of the attempts to overcome the faults of the traditional sentence model is the distributional sentence model of Ch.Fries. It represents the sentence as a linear distribution of sentence components in terms of positional classes ( classes 1, 2, 3 and 4 approximately corresponding to nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) and function words (15 classes, about 150 words). The sentence The police shot the man in the red cap receives the following description:

D I^a 2-d D I^b f D 3 I^c ,
where D – determiner the, I^a - class 1 word police, 2-d – class 2 word shot, I^b - class 1 word man, f – function word in, 3 –class 3 word red, I^c – class 1 word cap ( different letter indexes with class 1 words show that they have different referents)

So, the model is capable of showing the sentence pattern, the number and part-of-the speech meaning and even forms of the components – important characteristics of the formal structure of the sentence. But it does not show syntactic relations between the components. It is common knowledge that relations do not always connect immediately neighbouring members, and there could be relations between distantly placed components. Thus sentences having the identical distribution of components but differing in syntactic relations may get the same description, which is undesirable. Thus, the sentence the police shot the man in the right arm gets the same interpretation as the previous one (D I^a 2-d D I^b f D 3 I^c), which is wrong. In the red cap in the previous sentence is syntactically dependent (has syntactic relation with) on the word man, while in the right arm is dependent on the verb

To grasp the real structure of the English sentence, one must understand not only words that occur in mutual distribution, but also their syntactic connections in accordance with which they are arranged into smaller and larger groups. . Each language has its own way of structural grouping. English has binary phrase structure, which means that the phrase in English can always be divided into two elements (constituents) until we get down to the single word. All groups of words are arranged in levels. The name given by linguists to these different levels of relationship is immediate constituents.

Thus, one way of analyzing a sentence is to cut it to its immediate constituents, that is, to single out different levels of meaning.The segmenting on each level is done only once and results in getting the biggest immediate constituents (IC), Thus. The sentence The old man saw a black dog there will get the following stages and the following IC:

Stage 1: The old man | saw a black dog there. ( NP+VP)

Stage 2: The old man→ the || old man (D+NP¹ )

saw a black dog there → saw a black dog || there ( VP+ class 4 word)

Stage 3: the || old man → The || old ||| man (D+class3 +class1)

saw a black dog || there →saw ||| a black dog || there. (class 2+NP² +class 4)

In the final stage the result is:

The || old ||| man | saw ||| a |||| black dog || there.

This type of graphic representation is called bracketing. In the end, as is seen, we get the same distribution of components as in Ch.Fries's model, but enriched as to the view of their hierarchy, their dependency. Word do not enter the sentence separately, one by one as beads in a necklace, but as members of syntactic groups. The syntactic dependences in a sentence are more obvious if instead of bracketing the so-called "sentence tree" is used. The sentences The police shot the man in the red cap and. The police shot the man in the right arm get the following "sentence trees":



It is obvious that this model is more powerful than the distributional, for it is capable to show the difference of structures with identical distribution but different syntactic relations. But it is not capable of showing the difference of sentences with identical distribution, identical syntactic relations but different semantic structures. The sentences John is eager to please and John is easy to please get the same interpretation:

It is clear, nevertheless, that semantically the sentences are not identical. The action of pleasing do not have John as its subject in both sentences.

There are also minor demerits. There are problems with binary segmentation of discontinuous structures, such as: Is John coming? John called Bill up, the best team in the world, and with coodinative structures like John and Dick and Harry

Transformational-Generative Grammar. The Transformational grammar was first suggested by American scholar Zelling Harris as a method of analyzing sentences and was later elaborated by another American scholar Noam Chomsky as a synthetic method of ‘generating’ (constructing) sentences. The main point of the Transformational-Generative Grammar is that the endless variety of sentences in a language can be divided into kernel sentences, the simplest and most basic and transforms or derived sentences. The finite number of kernels serve the basis for generating derived sentences by means of syntactic processes called transformational rules. Different language analysts recognize the existence of different number of kernels (from 3 to 39). The following 7 kernels are commonly associated with the English language:

N V (John came)

N V р N (John looked at Mary)

N V N (John saw Mary)

N is N (John is a teacher)

N is p N (John is in bed)

N is D (John is out)

N is A (John is angry)

TR are divided into singulary, operating within kernel sentences, and generalized, operating within two or more kernels with the aim of producing a transform. Singulary rules are the rule of passivisation (John saw Mary → Mary was seen by John) or the rule making a general question out of a statement: John is coming – is John coming? Generelized rules operate in approximately the following way:

Kernel sentences Transforms and TR

I persuaded the doctor I persuaded the doctor → I persuaded ___ ( TR deletion)

The doctor examined John The doctor examined John→ The doctor to examine John (TR of

conversion)

I persuaded____+ the doctor to examine (TR of embedding) =

I persuaded the doctor to examine John

Actually the model is useful if not for generating sentences then for analyzing them. A lot of derived sentences are ambiguous, that is, they have more than one meaning. For example, the sentence Visiting relatives can be a nuisance can be interpreted in the following ways:

1. 
   Relatives who come to visit are a nuisance
   
2. 
   Going to visit relatives is a nuisance
   

1. 
   X (the dog) is too hot to eat
   
2. 
   X¹ ( the weather) is too hot to eat
   

Transformational method proves useful for analysing derived sentences by reducing them to their kernels, thus clarifying their meaning, for kernel sentences are unambiguous, e.g

This sentence is ambiguous, it can be understood in the following ways:

1. летать самолетами опасно

2. летящие самолеты опасны

3. управлять самолетами опасно

Which meaning is implied depends on which kernel sentences the derived one is composed of. In the first meaning the derived sentence is reduced to the following kernels:

1. Planes fly

2. X is in the plane

3. It is dangerous

In the second case it is the result of the following kernels:

1. Planes fly

2. It is dangerous

The third meaning is reduced to:

1. X flies planes (X is a pilot)

2. It is dangerous

Kernel sentences in this way disclose the real meaning of the derived sentence – its deep structure. The syntactic structure is called a surface structure.

The method actually was aimed at generating sentences, not analyzing them. The idea was that with the help of a certain number of kernel sentences and TR an infinite number of correct English sentenced could be generated even by a person not speaking the language.

There was a stumbling block: the rules generated grammatically correct but inappropriate sentences like:

I drank the bread

The dog dispersed

To avoid this fault, the so-called semantic component was worked out, which tried to solve the problem of the restriction on the cooccurrence ( совместная встречаемость) of certain items within a sentence, that is, to put into operation selectional rules prohibiting the cooccurrence of words with conflicting lexical valence ( water + broke into fragments.)

This interest in the semantic aspects of syntax brought about new syntactic theories focused on meaning

1. 
   What are the basic syntactic units?
   
2. 
   What is the difference between a syntactic position and a syntactic function?
   
3. 
   What types of syntactic relations are based on ranks of the related syntactic units?
   
4. 
   What types of syntactic relations are based on syntactic functions of one (or more) related syntactic units?
   
5. 
   What are the merits and faults of the traditional Sentence Model?
   
6. 
   In which way are the Distributional and IC Sentence Models similar?
   
7. 
   In which way are they different?
   
8. 
   What are the aims of the Transformational Grammar?
   

Task 6
1. The basic syntactic units are:

1. 
   The word, the phrase, the sentence
   
2. 
   The phrase, the sentence, the text
   
3. 
   The clause, the utterance, the word-form
   

2. The syntactic functions are

1. 
   The subject, the predicate, the object
   
2. 
   The noun-phrase, the verb-phrase
   
3. 
   The Immediate Constituents (IC)
   

3. Hypotaxic relations are relations

1. 
   Between units of the same rank
   
2. 
   Between units the ranks of which are not equal
   
3. 
   Non-differentiated relations
   

4. Exocentric relations are relations

1. 
   Between units one of which can be used instead of the whole phrase
   
2. 
   Between units all of which can be used instead of the whole phrase
   
3. 
   Between units neither of which can be used instead of the whole phrase
   

5. The traditional Sentence model is based

1. 
   On meaning ,part-of-the speech characteristics and forms of the words
   
2. 
   On meaning and position
   
3. 
   On formal features of the words and their position
   

6. The Distributional Sentence Model was worked out by

1. 
   Ch. Fries
   
2. 
   L.S.Barhudarov
   
3. 
   B.A.Ilyish
   

7. The IC Sentence Model us more powerful than the Distributional one because it

1. 
   Reveals the semantic relations between components
   
2. 
   Reveals syntactic relations between components
   
3. 
   Reveals relations between sentences
   

8. The Transformational Sentence Model operates with

1. 
   Parts of speech
   
2. 
   Syntactic positions
   
3. 
   Kernel and derived sentences
   

Definitions concerning the word-group are a matter of dispute. The demarcation line is between the so called narrow and wide definitions. In accordance with the latter the word-group is a combination of at least two notional words which do not constitute the sentence but are syntactically connected, and the syntactical connection is that of subordination. According to some other scholars (the majority of Western scholars and professors B.Ilyish and V.Burlakova – in Russia), a combination of a notional word with a function word (on the table) may be treated as a word-group as well? And any type of syntactic relation is possible. The problem is disputable as the role of function words is to show some abstract relations and they are devoid of nominative power. On the other hand, such combinations are syntactically bound and they should belong somewhere.

General characteristics of the word-group are:

1) As a naming unit it differs from a compound word because the number of constituents in a word-group corresponds to the number of different denotatations: a black bird – черная птица, a blackbird – дрозд;

2) Each IC (Immediate Constituent) of the word-group can undergo grammatical changes without destroying the identity of the whole unit: to see a house - to see houses.

3) A word-group is a dependent syntactic unit, it is not a communicative unit and has no intonation of its own.

1. 
   In accordance with whether the phrase is built on homogeneous syntactic relations or heterogeneous, the phrases can be divided into elementary and compound.
   

EX:

EX:

2. 
   In accordance with the nature of the components the phrases can be divided into simple and complex.
   

EX:

3. 
   According to the type of syntagmatic relations: coordinate (you and me), subordinate (to see a house, a nice dress), predicative (him coming, for him to come),
   

According to the nature of their heads, subordinate word-groups fall into noun-phrases (NP) –the roof of the house, the room upstairs, times immemorial; verb-phrases (VP) – to run fast, to see a house, to be a teacher; adjective phrases (AP) – rich in mineral oil good, for you; adverbial phrases (DP) – so quickly; pronoun phrases (IP) – something strange, nothing to do.

The formation of the subordinate word-group depends on the valence of its constituents. Valence is a potential ability of words to combine. Actual realization of valency in speech is called combinability.
The noun-phrase (NP).
Noun word-groups are widely spread in English. This may be explained by a potential ability of the noun to go into combinations with practically all parts of speech. The NP consists of a noun-head and an adjunct or adjuncts with relations of modification between them. Three types of NP are distinguished here:

1. 
   with Preposed adjuncts (Premodification) that comprise all the units placed before the head: two smart hard-working students. Adjuncts used in pre-head position are called pre-posed adjuncts.These are
   

Personal, demonstrative and indefinite pronouns: his book, those stories, some money

Gerunds: smelling salts, walking sticks, dancing halls

Numerals, both ordinal and cardinal: the second attempt, three dogs

Nouns in the common and genitive case: speech sound,Bob's wish

Premodification of nouns by nouns (N+N) is one of the most striking features about the grammatical organization of English. It is one of devices to make our speech both laconic and expressive at the same time. Noun-adjunct groups result from different kinds of transformational shifts. NPs with pre-posed adjuncts can signal a striking variety of meanings: