Английский язык - Учебники на русском языке - Скачать бесплатно
Kelsey. It was like seeing a Vesuvius at the height of its eruption. Cf.:
The sight looked to us like another Vesuvius. "I prophesy a wet August,"
said Old Moore Abinger (M. Dickens). Cf.: Next August will be a wet month,
unlike some other Augusts in retrospect.
In the exemplified grammatical uses transpositional features are revealed
similar to those the article acquires when used with a noun characterised
by a contrary semantic base. On the other hand, the analysis of these cases
clearly stamps the traditional proper name combinations with embedded
articles, both of the onomastic set {Alexander the Great, etc.) and the
toponymic set {The Hague, etc.) as lexicalised collocations that only come
into contact with the periphery of grammar.
84
§ 6. The essential grammatical features of the articles exposed in the
above considerations and tests leave no room for misinterpretation at the
final, generalising stage of analysis.
The data obtained show that the English noun, besides the variable
categories of number and case, distinguishes also the category of
determination expressed by the article paradigm of three grammatical forms:
the definite, the indefinite, the zero. The paradigm is generalised for the
whole system of the common nouns, being transpositionally outstretched also
into the system of proper nouns. Various cases of asymmetry in the
realisation of this paradigm (such as the article determination of certain
nouns of the types singularia tantum and pluralia tantum), similar to, and
in connection with the expression of the category of number, are balanced
by suppletive collocations. Cf.: 0 progress — a kind of progress, some
progress — the progress; ш news — an item of news — the news, etc.
The semi-notional determiners used with nouns in the absence of articles,
expose the essential article meanings as in-built in their semantic
structure.
Thus, the status of the combination of the article with the noun should
be defined as basically analytical, the article construction as such being
localised by its segmental properties between the free syntactic
combination of words (the upper bordering level) and the combination of a
grammatical affix with a notional stem in the morphological composition of
an indivisible word (the lower bordering level). The article itself is a
special type of grammatical auxiliary.
CHAPTER X VERB: GENERAL
§ 1. Grammatically the verb is the most complex part of speech. This is
due to the central role it performs in the expression of the predicative
functions of the sentence, i.e. the functions establishing the connection
between the situation (situational event) named in the utterance and
reality. The complexity of the verb is inherent not only in the intricate
structure of its grammatical categories, but also in its various subclass
divisions, as well as in its falling into two
85
sets of forms profoundly different from each other: the finite set and the
non-finite set. ^\'
The complicated character of the grammatical and lexico-grammatical
structure of the verb has given rise to much dispute and controversy.
However, the application of the principles of systemic linguistic analysis
to the study of this interesting sphere of language helps overcome many
essential-difficulties in its theoretical description, and also a number of
terminological disagreements among the scholars. This refers in particular
to the fundamental relations between the categories of tense and aspect,
which have aroused of late very heated disputes.
§ 2. The general categorial meaning of the verb is process presented
dynamically, i.e. developing in time. This general processual meaning is
embedded in the semantics of all the verbs, including those that denote
states, forms of existence, types of attitude, evaluations, etc., rather
than actions. Cf.:
Edgar\'s room led out of the wall without a door. She had herself a liking
for richness and excess. It was all over the morning papers. That\'s what
I\'m afraid of. I do love you, really I do.
And this holds true not only about the finite verb, but also about the
non-finite verb. The processual semantic character of the verbal lexeme
even in the non-finite form is proved by the fact that in all its forms it
is modified by the adverb and, with the transitive verb, it takes a direct
object. Cf.:
Mr. Brown received the visitor instantly, which was unusual. — Mr.
Brown\'s receiving the visitor instantly was unusual. — It was unusual for
Mr. Brown to receive the visitor instantly. But: An instant reception of
the visitor was unusual for Mr. Brown.
The processual categorial meaning of the notional verb determines its
characteristic combination with a noun expressing both the doer of the
action (its subject) and, in cases of the objective verb, the recipient of
the action (its object); it also determines its combination with an adverb
as the modifier of the action.
In the sentence the finite verb invariably performs the function of the
verb-predicate, expressing the processual
86
categorial features of predication, i.e. time, aspect, voice, and mood.
The non-finite verb performs different functions according to its
intermediary nature (those of the syntactic subject, object, adverbial
modifier, attribute), but its non-processual functions are always
actualised in close combination with its processual semantic features. This
is especially evident in demonstrative correlations of the "sentence —
phrase" type. Cf.:
His rejecting the proposal surprised us.— That he had rejected the
proposal surprised us. Taking this into consideration, her attitude can be
understood. — If one takes this into consideration, her attitude can be
understood.
In other words, the non-finite forms of the verb in self-dependent use
(i.e. if they are used not as parts of the analytical verb-forms) perform a
potentially predicative function, constituting secondary predicative
centres in the sentence. In each case of such use they refer to some
subject which is expressed either explicitly or implicitly. Cf.:
Roddy cared enough about his mother to want to make amends for Arabella.>
Roddy wanted to make amends...> Roddy will make amends... Changing gear,
the taxi turned the sharp corner. > The taxi changed gear and turned the
corner. Acting as mate is often more difficult than acting as captain. >
One acts as mate; one acts as captain.
§ 3. From the point of view of their outward structure, verbs are
characterised by specific forms of word-building, as well as by the formal
features expressing the corresponding grammatical categories.
The verb stems may be simple, sound-replacive, stress-replacive,
expanded, composite, and phrasal.
The original simple verb stems are not numerous. Cf. such verbs as go,
take, read, etc. But conversion (zero-suffixation) as means of derivation,
especially conversion of the "noun — verb" type, greatly enlarges the
simple stem set of verbs, since it is one of the most productive ways of
forming verb lexemes in modern English. Cf.: a cloud — to cloud, a house —
to house; a man — to man; a park — to park, etc.
The sound-replacive type of derivation and the stress-replacive type of
derivation are unproductive. Cf.: food —
87
to feed, blood — to bleed; \'import — to im\'port, \'transport — to
trans\'port.
The typical suffixes expanding the stem of the verb are: -ate
(cultivate), -en (broaden), -ifу (clarify), -ise(-ize) (normalise). The
verb-deriving prefixes of the inter-class type are: be- (belittle,
befriend, bemoan) and en-/em- (engulf, embed). Some other characteristic
verbal prefixes are: re- (remake), under- (undergo), over- (overestimate),
sub- (submerge), mis-(misunderstand), un- (undo), etc.
The composite (compound) verb stems correspond to the composite non-verb
stems from which they are etymologically derived. Here belong the compounds
of the conversion type (blackmail n. — blackmail v.) and of the reduction
type (proof-reader n.—proof-read v.).
The phrasal verb stems occupy an intermediary position between analytical
forms of the verb and syntactic word combinations. Among such stems two
specific constructions should be mentioned. The first is a combination of
the head-verb have, give, take, and occasionally some others with a noun;
the combination has as its equivalent an ordinary verb. Cf.: to have a
smoke — to smoke; to give a smile — to smile; to take a stroll — to stroll.
The second is a combination of a head-verb with a verbal postposition
that has a specificational value. Cf.: stand up, go on, give in, be off,
get along, etc.
§ 4. The grammatical categories which find formal expression in the
outward structure of the verb and which will be analysed further are,
first, the category of finitude dividing the verb into finite and non-
finite forms (the corresponding contracted names are "finites" and
"verbids"*; this category has a lexico-grammatical force); second, the
categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood, whose
complete set is revealed in every word-form of the notional finite verb.
Each of the identified categories constitutes a whole system of its own
presenting its manifold problems to the scholar. However, the comparative
analysis of the categorial properties of all the forms of the verb,
including the
* The term "verbids" for the non-finite forms of the verb was introduced
by O. Jespersen. Its merit lies in the fact that, unlike the more
traditional term "verbals", it is devoid of dubious connotations as well as
homonymic correlations.
88
properties of verbids, shows the unquestionable unity of the class, in
spite of some inter-class features of verbids.
Among the various forms of the verb the infinitive occupies a unique
position. Its status is that of the principal representative of the verb-
lexeme as a whole. This head-form status of the infinitive is determined by
the two factors. The first factor consists in the verbal-nominative nature
of the infinitive, i.e. in its function of giving the most general dynamic
name to the process which is denoted by all the other forms of the verb-
lexeme in a more specific way, conditioned by their respective semantico-
grammatical specialisations. The second factor determining the
representative status of the infinitive consists in the infinitive serving
as the actual derivative base for all the other regular forms of the verb.
§ 5. The class of verbs falls into a number of subclasses distinguished
by different semantic and lexico-grammatical features.
On the upper level of division two unequal sets are identified: the set
of verbs of full nominative value (notional verbs), and the set of verbs of
partial nominative value (semi-notional and functional verbs). The first
set is derivationally open, it includes the bulk of the verbal lexicon. The
second set is derivationally closed, it includes limited subsets of verbs
characterised by individual relational properties.
§ 6. Semi-notional and functional verbs serve as markers of predication
in the proper sense, since they show the connection between the nominative
content of the sentence and reality in a strictly specialised way. These
"predicators" include auxiliary verbs, modal verbs, semi-notional verbid
introducer verbs, and link-verbs.
Auxiliary verbs constitute grammatical elements of the categorial forms
of the verb. These are the verbs be, have, do, shall, will, should, would,
may, might.
Modal verbs are used with the infinitive as predicative markers
expressing relational meanings of the subject attitude type, i.e. ability,
obligation, permission, advisability, etc. By way of extension of meaning,
they also express relational probability, serving as probability
predicators. These two types of functional semantics can be tested by means
of correlating pure modal verb collocations with the corresponding two sets
of stative collocations of equivalent functions:
89
on the one hand, the groups be obliged, be permitted, etc.; on the other
hand, the groups be likely, be probable, etc. Cf.:
Tom may stay for the teleview if he will. > Tom is permitted to stay. The
storm may come any minute, you had better leave the deck. > The storm is
likely to come any minute.
The modal verbs can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, used (to), dare
are defective in forms, and are suppletively supplemented by stative groups
similar to those shown above (cf. Ch. III, § 4). The supplementation is
effected both for the lacking finite forms and the lacking non-finite
forms. Cf.:
The boys can prepare the play-ground themselves. — The boys will be able
to prepare the play-ground themselves. — The boys\' being able to prepare
the play-ground themselves.
The verbs be and have in the modal meanings "be planned", "be obliged"
and the like are considered by many modern grammarians as modal verbs and
by right are included in the general modal verb list.
Semi-notional verbid introducer verbs are distributed among the verbal
sets of discriminatory relational semantics (seem, happen, turn out, etc.),
of subject-action relational semantics (try, fail, manage, etc.), of phasal
semantics (begin, continue, stop, etc.). The predicator verbs should be
strictly distinguished from their grammatical homonyms in the subclasses of
notional verbs. As a matter of fact, there is a fundamental grammatical
difference between the verbal constituents in such sentences as, say, "They
began to fight" and "They began the fight". Whereas the verb in the first
sentence is a semi-notional predicator, the verb in the second sentence is
a notional transitive verb normally related to its direct object. The
phasal predicator begin (the first sentence) is grammatically inseparable
from the infinitive of the notional verb fight, the two lexemes making one
verbal-part unit in the sentence. The transitive verb begin (the second
sentence), on the contrary, is self-dependent in the lexico-grammatical
sense, it forms the predicate of the sentence by itself and as such can be
used in the passive voice, the whole construction of the sentence in this
case being presented as the regular passive counterpart of its active
version. Cf.:
90
They began the fight. > The fight was begun (by them). They began to fight.
>(*)* To fight was begun (by them).
Link-verbs introduce the nominal part of the predicate (the predicative)
which is commonly expressed by a noun, an adjective, or a phrase of a
similar semantic-grammatical character. It should be noted that link-verbs,
although they are named so, are not devoid of meaningful content.
Performing their function of connecting ("linking") the subject and the
predicative of the sentence, they express the actual semantics of this
connection, i.e. expose the relational aspect of the characteristics
ascribed by the predicative to the subject.
The linking predicator function in the purest form is effected by the
verb be; therefore be as a link-verb can be referred to as the "pure link-
verb". It is clear from the above that even this pure link-verb has its own
relational semantics, which can be identified as "linking predicative
ascription". All the link-verbs other than the pure link be express some
specification of this general predicative-linking semantics, so that they
should be referred to as "specifying" link-verbs. The common specifying
link-verbs fall into two main groups: those that express perceptions and
those that express nonperceptional, or "factual" link-verb connection. The
main perceptional link-verbs are seem, appear, look, feel, taste; the main
factual link-verbs are become, get, grow, remain, keep.
As is to be seen from the comparison of the specifying link-verbs with
the verbid introducer predicators described above, the respective functions
of these two verbal subsets are cognate, though not altogether identical.
The difference lies in the fact that the specifying link-verbs combine the
pure linking function with the predicator function. Furthermore, separate
functions of the two types of predicators are evident from the fact that
specifying link-verbs, the same as the pure link, can be used in the text
in combination with verbid introducer predicators. E.g.:
The letter seemed to have remained unnoticed. I began to feel better. You
shouldn\'t try to look cleverer than you are.
* The transformation is unacceptable.
91
Cf. the use of verbid introducer predicators with the pure link-verb:
The news has proved to be true. The girl\'s look ceased to be friendly.
The address shown to us seemed to be just the one we needed.
Besides the link-verbs proper hitherto presented, there are some notional
verbs in language that have the power to perform the function of link-verbs
without losing their lexical nominative value. In other words, they perform
two functions simultaneously, combining the role of a full notional verb
with that of a link-verb. Cf.:
Fred lay awake all through the night. Robbie ran in out of breath. The
moon rose red.
Notional link-verb function is mostly performed by intransitive verbs of
motion and position. Due to the double syntactic character of the notional
link-verb, the whole predicate formed by it is referred to as a "double
predicate" (see Ch. XXIX).
§ 7. Notional verbs undergo the three main grammatically relevant
categorisations. The first is based on the relation of the subject of the
verb to the process denoted by the verb. The second is based on the
aspective characteristics of the process denoted by the verb, i.e. on the
inner properties of the process as reflected in the verbal meaning. The
third is based on the combining power of the verb in relation to other
notional words in the utterance.
§ 8. On the basis of the subject-process relation, all the notional verbs
can be divided into actional and statal.
Actional verbs express the action performed by the subject, i.e. they
present the subject as an active doer (in the broadest sense of the word).
To this subclass belong such verbs as do, act, perform, make, go, read,
learn, discover, etc. Statal verbs, unlike their subclass counterparts,
denote the state of their subject. That is, they either give the subject
the characteristic of the inactive recipient of some outward activity, or
else express the mode of its existence. To this subclass belong such verbs
as be, live, survive, worry, suffer, rejoice, stand, see, know, etc.
Alongside of the two verbal sets, a third one could be
92
distinguished which is made up of verbs expressing neither actions, nor
states, but "processes". As representatives of the "purely processual"
subclass one might point out the verbs thaw, ripen, deteriorate, consider,
neglect, support, display, and the like. On closer observation, however, it
becomes clear that the units of this medial subclass are subject to the
same division into actional and statal sets as were established at the
primary stage of classification. For instance, the "purely processual" verb
thaw referring to an inactive substance should be defined, more precisely,
as "processual-statal", whereas the "processual" verb consider relating to
an active doer should be looked upon, more precisely, as "processual-
actional". This can be shown by transformational tests:
The snow is thawing. > The snow is in the state of thawing. The designer
is considering another possibility. > The action of the designer is that he
is considering another possibility.
Thus, the primary binary division of the verbs upon the basis of the
subject-process relation is sustained.
Similar criteria apply to some more specific subsets of verbs permitting
the binary actional-statal distribution. Among these of a special
significance are the verbal sets of mental processes and sensual processes.
Within the first of them we recognise the correlation between the verbs of
mental perception and mental activity. E.g.: know — think; understand —
construe; notice — note; admire — assess; forget — reject; etc.
Within the second set we recognise the correlation between the verbs of
physical perception as such and physical perceptional activity. E.g.: see —
look; hear — listen; feel (inactive) — feel (active), touch; taste
(inactive) — taste (active); smell (inactive) —smell (active); etc.
The initial member of each correlation pair given above presents a case
of a statal verb, while the succeeding member, respectively, of an actional
verb. Cf. the corresponding transformational tests:
The explorers knew only one answer to the dilemma.> The mental state of
the explorers was such that they knew only one answer to the dilemma. I am
thinking about the future of the village. > My mental activity consists in
thinking about the future of the village. Etc.
93
The grammatical relevance of the classification in question, apart from
its reflecting the syntactically generalised relation of the subject of the
verb to the process denoted by it, is disclosed in the difference between
the two subclasses in their aspectual behaviour. While the actional verbs
take the form of the continuous aspect quite freely, i.e. according to the
general rules of its use, the statal verbs, in the same contextual
conditions, are mainly used in the indefinite form. -The continuous with
the statal verbs, which can be characterised as a more or less occasional
occurrence, will normally express some sort of intensity or emphasis (see
further).
§ 9. Aspective verbal semantics exposes the inner character of the
process denoted by the verb. It represents the process as durative
(continual), iterative (repeated), terminate (concluded), interminate (not
concluded), instantaneous (momentary), ingressive (starting),
supercompleted (developed to the extent of superfluity), undercompleted
(not developed to its full extent), and the like.
Some of these aspectual meanings are inherent in the basic semantics of
certain subsets of English verbs. Compare, for instance, verbs of
ingression (begin, start, resume, set out, get down), verbs of
instantaneity (burst, click, knock, bang, jump, drop), verbs of termination
(terminate, finish, end, conclude, close, solve, resolve, sum up, stop),
verbs of duration (continue, prolong, last, linger, live, exist). The
aspectual meanings of supercompletion, undercompletion, repetition, and the
like can be rendered by means of lexical derivation, in particular,
prefixation (oversimplify, outdo, underestimate, reconsider). Such
aspectual meanings as ingression, duration, termination, and iteration are
regularly expressed by aspective verbal collocations, in particular, by
combinations of aspective predicators with verbids (begin, start, continue,
finish, used to, would, etc., plus the corresponding verbid component).
In terms of the most general subclass division related to the grammatical
structure of language, two aspective subclasses of verbs should be
recognised in English. These will comprise numerous minor aspective groups
of the types shown above as their microcomponent sets.
The basis of this division is constituted by the relation of the verbal
semantics to the idea of a processual limit, i. e. some border point beyond
which the process expressed by the verb or implied in its semantics is
discontinued or
94
simply does not exist. For instance, the verb arrive expresses an action
which evidently can only develop up to the point of arriving; on reaching
this limit, the action ceases. The verb start denotes a transition from
some preliminary state to some kind of subsequent activity, thereby
implying a border point between the two. As different from these cases, the
verb move expresses a process that in itself is alien to any idea of a
limit, either terminal or initial.
The verbs of the first order, presenting a process as potentially
limited, can be called "limitive". In the published courses of English
grammar where they are mentioned, these verbs are called "terminative",*
but the latter term seems inadequate. As a matter of fact, the word
suggests the idea of a completed action, i.e. of a limit attained, not only
the implication of a potential limit existing as such. To the subclass of
limitive belong such verbs as arrive, come, leave, find, start, stop,
conclude, aim, drop, catch, etc. Here also belong phrasal verbs with
limitive postpositions, e.g. stand up, sit down, get out, be off, etc.
The verbs of the second order presenting a process as not limited by any
border point, should be called, correspondingly, "unlimitive" (in the
existing grammar books they are called either "non-terminative", or else
"durative", or "cursive"). To this subclass belong such verbs as move,
continue, live, sleep, work, behave, hope, stand, etc.
Alongside of the two aspective subclasses of verbs, some authors
recognise also a third subclass, namely, verbs of double aspective nature
(of "double", or "mixed" lexical character). These, according to the said
authors, are capable of expressing either a "terminative" or "non-
terminative" ("durative") meaning depending on the context.
However, applying the principle of oppositions, these cases can be
interpreted as natural and easy reductions (mostly neutralisations) of the
lexical aspective opposition. Cf.:
Mary and Robert walked through the park pausing at variegated flower-
beds. (Unlimitive use, basic function) In the scorching heat, the party
walked the whole way to the ravine bareheaded. (Limitive use,
neutralisation) He turned
* See the cited books on English grammar by M. A. Ganshina and N. M.
Vasilevskaya, B. A. Ilyish, B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya.
95
the corner and found himself among a busy crowd of people. (Limitive use,
basic function) It took not only endless scientific effort, but also an
enormous courage to prove that the earth turns round the sun. (Unlimitive
use, neutralisation)
Observing the given examples, we must admit that the demarcation line
between the two aspective verbal subclasses is not rigidly fixed, the
actual differentiation between them being in fact rather loose. Still, the
opposition between limitive and unlimitive verbal sets does exist in
English, however indefinitely defined it may be. Moreover, the described
subclass division has an unquestionable grammatical relevance, which is
expressed, among other things, in its peculiar correlation with the
categorial aspective forms of the verbs (indefinite, continuous, perfect);
this correlation is to be treated further (see Ch. XV).
§ 10. From the given description of the aspective subclass division of
English verbs, it is evident that the English lexical aspect differs
radically from the Russian aspect. In terms of semantic properties, the
English lexical aspect expresses a potentially limited or unlimited
process, whereas the Russian aspect expresses the actual conclusion (the
perfective, or terminative aspect) or non-conclusion (the imperfective, or
non-terminative aspect) of the process in question. In terms of systemic
properties, the two English lexical aspect varieties, unlike their Russian
absolutely rigid counterparts, are but loosely distinguished and easily
reducible.
In accord with these characteristics, both the English limitive verbs and
unlimitive verbs may correspond alternately either to the Russian
perfective verbs or imperfective verbs, depending on the contextual uses.
For instance, the limitive verb arrive expressing an instantaneous action
that took place in the past will be translated by its perfective Russian
equivalent:
The exploratory party arrived at the foot of the mountain. Russ.:
Экспедиция прибыла к подножию горы.
But if the same verb expresses a habitual, interminately repeated action,
the imperfective Russian equivalent is to be chosen for its translation:
In those years trains seldom arrived on time. Russ.: В те годы поезда
редко приходили вовремя.
96
Cf. the two possible versions of the Russian translation of the following
sentence:
The liner takes off tomorrow at ten. Russ.: Самолет вылетит завтра в
десять (the flight in question is looked upon as an individual occurrence).
Самолет вылетает завтра в десять (the flight is considered as part of the
traffic schedule, or some other kind of general plan).
Conversely, the English unlimitive verb gaze when expressing a continual
action will be translated into Russian by its imperfective equivalent:
The children gazed at the animals holding their breaths. Russ.: Дети
глядели на животных, затаив дыхание.
But when the same verb renders the idea of an aspectually limited, e. g.
started action, its perfective Russian equivalent should be used in the
translation:
The boy turned his head and gazed at the horseman with wide-open eyes.
Russ.: Мальчик повернул голову и уставился на всадника широко открытыми
глазами.
Naturally, the unlimitive English verbs in strictly unlimtive contextual
use correspond, by definition, only to the imperfective verbs in Russian.
§ 11. The inner qualities of any signemic lingual unit are manifested not
only in its immediate informative significance in an utterance, but also in
its combinability with other units, in particular with units of the same
segmental order. These syntagmatic properties are of especial importance
for verbs, which is due to the unique role performed by the verb in the
sentence. As a matter of fact, the finite verb, being the centre of
predication, organises all the other sentence constituents. Thus, the
organisational function of the verb, immediately exposed in its syntagmatic
combinability, is inseparable from (and dependent on) its semantic value.
The morphological relevance of the combining power of the verb is seen from
the fact that directly dependent on this power are the categorial voice
distinctions.
The combining power of words in relation to other words in syntactically
subordinate positions (the positions of "adjuncts" — see Ch. XX) is called
their syntactic "valency". The valency of a word is said to be "realised"
when the word in question is actually combined in an utterance with its
corresponding valency partner, i. e. its valency adjunct. If,
7—1499 97
on the other hand, the word is used without its valency adjunct, the
valency conditioning the position of this adjunct (or "directed" to it) is
said to be "not realised".
The syntactic valency falls into two cardinal types: obligatory and
optional.
The obligatory valency is such as must necessarily be realised for the
sake of the grammatical completion of the syntactic construction. For
instance, the subject and the direct object are obligatory parts of the
sentence, and, from the point of view of sentence structure, they are
obligatory valency partners of the verb. Consequently, we say that the
subjective and the direct objective valencies of the verb are obligatory.
E.g.: We saw a house in the distance.
This sentence presents a case of a complete English syntactic
construction. If we eliminate either its subject or object, the remaining
part of the construction will be structurally incomplete, i.e. it will be
structurally "gaping". Cf.: * We saw in the distance. * Saw a house in the
distance.
The optional valency, as different from the obligatory valency, is such
as is not necessarily realised in grammatically complete constructions:
this type of valency may or may not be realised depending on the concrete
information to be conveyed by the utterance. Most of the adverbial
modifiers are optional parts of the sentence, so in terms of valency we say
that the adverbial valency of the verb is mostly optional. For instance,
the adverbial part in the above sentence may be freely eliminated without
causing the remainder of the sentence to be structurally incomplete: We saw
a house (in the distance).
Link-verbs, although their classical representatives are only half-
notional, should also be included into the general valency characterisation
of verbs. This is due to their syntactically essential position in the
sentence. The predicative valency of the link-verbs proper is obligatory.
Cf.:
The reporters seemed pleased with the results of the press conference.
That young scapegrace made a good husband, after all.
The obligatory adjuncts of the verb, with the exception of the subject
(whose connection with the verb cannot be likened to the other valency
partners), may be called its "complements"; the optional adjuncts of the
verb, its "supplements". The distinction between the two valency types of
adjuncts is highly essential, since not all the objects or
98
predicatives are obligatory, while, conversely, not all the adverbial
modifiers are optional. Thus, we may have both objective complements and
objective supplements; both predicative complements and predicative
supplements; both adverbial supplements and adverbial complements.
Namely, the object of addressee, i. e. a person or thing for whom or
which the action is performed, may sometimes be optional, as in the
following example: We did it for you.
The predicative to a notional link-verb is mostly optional, as in the
example: The night came dark and stormy.
The adverbials of place, time, and manner (quality) may sometimes be
obligatory, as in the examples below:
Mr. Torrence was staying in the Astoria Hotel. The described events took
place at the beginning of the century. The patient is doing fine.
Thus, according as they have or have not the power to take complements,
the notional verbs should be classed as "complementive" or
"uncomplementive", with further subcategorisations on the semantico-
syntagmatic principles.
In connection with this upper division, the notions of verbal
transitivity and objectivity should be considered.
Verbal transitivity, as one of the specific qualities of the general
"completivity", is the ability of the verb to take a direct object, i.e. an
object which is immediately affected by the denoted process. The direct
object is joined to the verb "directly", without a preposition. Verbal
objectivity is the ability of the verb to take any object, be it direct, or
oblique (prepositional), or that of addressee. Transitive verbs are opposed
to intransitive verbs; objective verbs are opposed to non-objective verbs
(the latter are commonly called "subjective" verbs, but the term
contradicts the underlying syntactic notion, since all the English finite
verbs refer to their textual subjects).
As is known, the general division of verbs into transitive and
intransitive is morphologically more relevant for Russian than English,
because the verbal passive form is confined in Russian to transitive verbs
only. The general division of verbs into objective and non-objective, being
of relatively minor significance for the morphology of Russian, is highly
relevant for English morphology, since in English all the three fundamental
types of objects can be made into the subjects of the corresponding passive
constructions.
On the other hand, the term "transitive" is freely used
99
in English grammatical treatises in relation to all the objective verbs,
not only to those of them that take a direct object. This use is due to the
close association of the notion of transitivity not only with the type of
verbal object as such, but also with the ability of the verb to be used in
the passive voice. We do not propose to call for the terminological
corrective in this domain; rather, we wish to draw the attention of the
reader to the accepted linguistic usage in order to avoid unfortunate
misunderstandings based on the differences in terminology.
Uncomplementive verbs fall into two unequal subclasses of "personal" and
"impersonal" verbs.
The personal uncomplementive verbs, i. e. uncomplementive verbs normally
referring to the real subject of the denoted process (which subject may be
either an actual human being, or a non-human being, or else an inanimate
substance or an abstract notion), form a large set of lexemes of various
semantic properties. Here are some of them: work, start, pause, hesitate,
act, function, materialise, laugh, cough, grow, scatter, etc.
The subclass of impersonal verbs is small and strictly limited. Here
belong verbs mostly expressing natural phenomena of the self-processual
type, i. e. natural processes going on without a reference to a real
subject. Cf.: rain, snow, freeze, drizzle, thaw, etc.
Complementive verbs, as follows from the above, are divided into the
predicative, objective and adverbial sets.
The predicative complementive verbs, i.e. link-verbs, have been discussed
as part of the predicator verbs. The main link-verb subsets are, first, the
pure link be; second, the specifying links become, grow, seem, appear,
look, taste, etc.; third, the notional links.
The objective complementive verbs are divided into several important
subclasses, depending on the kinds of complements they combine with. On the
upper level of division they fall into monocomplementive verbs (taking one
object-complement) and bicomplementive verbs (taking two complements).
The monocomplementive objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The
first subclass is the possession objective verb have forming different
semantic varieties of constructions. This verb is normally not passivised.
The second subclass includes direct objective verbs, e. g. take, grasp,
forget, enjoy, like. The third subclass is formed by the prepositional
100
objective verbs e.g. look at, point to, send for, approve of, think about.
The fourth subclass includes non-passivised direct objective verbs, e.g.
cost, weigh, fail, become, suit. The fifth subclass includes non-passivised
prepositional objective verbs, e. g. belong to, relate to, merge with,
confer with, abound in.
The bicomplementive objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The
first subclass is formed by addressee-direct objective verbs, i.e. verbs
taking a direct object and an addressee object, e.g. a) give, bring, pay,
hand, show (the addressee object with these verbs may be both non-
prepositional and prepositional); b) explain, introduce, mention, say,
devote (the addressee object with these verbs is only prepositional). The
second subclass includes double direct objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking
two direct objects, e.g. teach, ask, excuse, forgive, envy, fine. The third
subclass includes double prepositional objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking
two prepositional objects, e.g. argue, consult, cooperate, agree. The
fourth subclass is formed by addressee prepositional objective verbs, i.e.
verbs taking a prepositional object and an addressee object, e.g. remind
of, tell about, apologise for, write of, pay for. The fifth subclass
includes adverbial objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking an object and an
adverbial modifier (of place or of time), e.g. put, place, lay, bring,
send, keep.
Adverbial complementive verbs include two main subclasses. The first is
formed by verbs taking an adverbial complement of place or of time, e.g.
be, live, stay, go, ride, arrive. The second is formed by verbs taking an
adverbial complement of manner, e.g. act, do, keep, behave, get on.
§ 12. Observing the syntagmatic subclasses of verbs, we see that the same
verb lexeme, or lexic-phonemic unit (phonetical word), can enter more than
one of the outlined classification sets. This phenomenon of the "subclass
migration" of verbs is not confined to cognate lexemic subsets of the
larger subclasses, but, as is widely known, affects the principal
distinctions between the English complementive and uncomplementive verbs,
between the English objective and non-objective verbs. Suffice it to give a
couple of examples taken at random:
Who runs faster, John or Nick?-(run — uncomplementive). The man ran after
the bus. (run — adverbial complementive, non-objective). I ran my eyes over
the uneven lines. (run — adverbial objective, transitive). And is the
fellow
101
still running the show? (run — monocomplementive, transitive).
The railings felt cold. (feel — link-verb, predicative complementive). We
felt fine after the swim. (feel — adverbial complementive, non-objective).
You shouldn\'t feel your own pulse like that. (feel — monocomplementive,
transitive).
The problem arises, how to interpret these different subclass entries —
as cases of grammatical or lexico-grammatical homonymy, or some kind of
functional variation, or merely variation in usage. The problem is vexed,
since each of the interpretations has its strong points.
To reach a convincing decision, one should take into consideration the
actual differences between various cases of the "subclass migration" in
question. Namely, one must carefully analyse the comparative
characteristics of the corresponding subclasses as such, as well as the
regularity factor for an individual lexeme subclass occurrence.
In the domain of notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-class
occurrences of the analysed lexemes, probably the most plausible solution
will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of specific syntactic
variation, i.e. to consider the different subclass entries of migrating
units as syntactic variants of the same lexemes [Почепцов, (2), 87 и сл.].
In the light of this interpretation, the very formula of "lexemic subclass
migration" will be vindicated and substantiated.
On the other hand, for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, for
instance, functional versus notional, the syntactic variation principle is
hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should be analysed as
lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it underlies the expression of
categorially different grammatical functions.
CHAPTER XI
NON-FINITE VERBS (VERBIDS)
§ 1. Verbids are the forms of the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-
grammatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of
speech. The mixed features of these forms are revealed in the principal
spheres of the part-of-speech characterisation, i.e. in their meaning,
structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions. The processual
meaning is exposed by
102
them in a substantive or adjectival-adverbial interpretation: they render
processes as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They are formed
by special morphemic elements which do not express either grammatical time
or mood (the most specific finite verb categories). They can be combined
with verbs like non-processual lexemes (performing non-verbal functions in
the sentence), and they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like
verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence) .
From these characteristics, one might call in question the very
justification of including the verbids in the system of the verb. As a
matter of fact, one can ask oneself whether it wouldn\'t stand to reason to
consider the verbids as a special lexemic class, a separate part of speech,
rather than an inherent component of the class of verbs.
On closer consideration, however, we can\'t but see that such an approach
would be utterly ungrounded. The verbids do betray intermediary features.
Still, their fundamental grammatical meaning is processual (though modified
in accord with the nature of the inter-class reference of each verbid).
Their essential syntactic functions, directed by this relational semantics,
unquestionably reveal the property which may be called, in a manner of
explanation, "verbality", and the statement of which is corroborated by the
peculiar combinability character of verbid collocations, namely, by the
ability of verbids to take adjuncts expressing the immediate recipients,
attendants, and addressees of the process inherently conveyed by each
verbid denotation.
One might likewise ask oneself, granted the verbids are part of the
system of the verb, whether they do not constitute within this system a
special subsystem of purely lexemic nature, i.e. form some sort of a
specific verbal subclass. This counter-approach, though, would evidently be
devoid of any substantiality, since a subclass of a lexemic class, by
definition, should share the essential categorial structure, as well as
primary syntactic functions with other subclasses, and in case of verbids
the situation is altogether different. In fact, it is every verb stem
(except a few defective verbs) that by means of morphemic change takes both
finite and non-finite forms, the functions of the two sets being strictly
differentiated: while the finite forms serve in the sentence only one
syntactic function, namely, that of the finite predicate, the non-finite
forms serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite
predicate.
103
The strict, unintersecting division of functions (the functions
themselves being of a fundamental nature in terms of the grammatical
structure of language as a whole) clearly shows that the opposition between
the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical
category. The differential feature of the opposition is constituted by the
expression of verbal time and mood: while the time-mood grammatical
signification characterises the finite verb in a way that it underlies its
finite predicative function, the verbid has no immediate means of
expressing time-mood categorial semantics and therefore presents the weak
member of the opposition. The category expressed by this opposition can be
called the category of "finitude" [Strang, 143; Бархударов, (2), 106]. The
syntactic content of the category of finitude is the expression of
predication (more precisely, the expression\' of verbal predication).
As is known, the verbids, unable to express the predicative meanings of
time and mood, still do express the so-called "secondary" or "potential"
predication, forming syntactic complexes directly related to certain types
of subordinate clauses. Cf.:
Have you ever had anything caught in your head? Have you ever had
anything that was caught in your head? — He said it half under his breath
for the others not to hear it. — He said it half under his breath, so that
the others couldn\'t hear it.
The verbid complexes anything caught in your head, or for the others not
to hear it, or the like, while expressing secondary predication, are not
self-dependent in a predicative sense. They normally exist only as part of
sentences built up by genuine, primary predicative constructions that have
a finite verb as their core. And it is through the reference to the finite
verb-predicate that these complexes set up the situations denoted by them
in the corresponding time and mood perspective.
In other words, we may say that the opposition of the finite verbs and
the verbids is based on the expression of the functions of full predication
and semi-predication. While the finite verbs express predication in its
genuine and complete form, the function of the verbids is to express semi-
predication, building up semi-predicative complexes within different
sentence constructions,
The English verbids include four forms distinctly differing
104
from one another within the general verbid system: the infinitive, the
gerund, the present participle, and the past participle. In compliance with
this difference, the verbid semi-predicative complexes are distinguished by
the corresponding differential properties both in form and in syntactic-
contextual function.
§ 2. The infinitive is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the
properties of the verb with those of the noun, serving as the verbal name
of a process. By virtue of its general process-naming function, the
infinitive should be considered as the head-form of the whole paradigm of
the verb. In this quality it can be likened to the nominative case of the
noun in languages having a normally developed noun declension, as, for
instance, Russian. It is not by chance that A. A. Shakhmatov called the
infinitive the "verbal nominative". With the English infinitive, its role
of the verbal paradigmatic head-form is supported by the fact that, as has
been stated before, it represents the actual derivation base for all the
forms of regular verbs.
The infinitive is used in three fundamentally different types of
functions: first, as a notional, self-positional syntactic part of the
sentence; second, as the notional constituent of a complex verbal predicate
built up around a predicator verb; third, as the notional constituent of a
finite conjugation form of the verb. The first use is grammatically "free",
the second is grammatically "half-free", the third is grammatically
"bound".
The dual verbal-nominal meaning of the infinitive is expressed in full
measure in its free, independent use. It is in this use that the infinitive
denotes the corresponding process in an abstract, substance-like
presentation. This can easily be tested by question-transformations. Cf.:
Do you really mean to go away and leave me here alone? > What do you
really mean? It made her proud sometimes to toy with the idea. > What made
her proud sometimes?
The combinability of the infinitive also reflects its dual semantic
nature, in accord with which we distinguish between its verb-type and noun-
type connections. The verb-type combinability of the infinitive is
displayed in its combining, first, with nouns expressing the object of the
action; second, with nouns expressing the subject of the action; third,
with modifying adverbs; fourth, with predicator verbs of
105
semi-functional nature forming a verbal predicate; fifth, with auxiliary
finite verbs (word-morphemes) in the analytical forms of the verb. The noun-
type combinability of the infinitive is displayed in its combining, first,
with finite notional verbs as the object of the action; second, with finite
notional verbs as the subject of the action.
The self-positional infinitive, in due syntactic arrangements, performs
the functions of all types of notional sentence-parts, i. e. the subject,
the object, the predicative, the attribute, the adverbial modifier. Cf.:
To meet the head of the administration and not to speak to him about
your predicament was unwise, to say the least of it. (Infinitive subject
position) The chief arranged to receive the foreign delegation in the
afternoon. (Infinitive object position) The parents\' wish had always been
to see their eldest son the continuator of their joint scientific work.
(Infinitive predicative position) Here again we are faced with a plot to
overthrow the legitimately elected government of the republic. (Infinitive
attributive position) Helen was far too worried to listen to the
remonstrances. (Infinitive adverbial position)
If the infinitive in free use has its own subject, different from that
of the governing construction, it is introduced by the preposition-particle
for. The whole infinitive construction of this type is traditionally called
the "for-to infinitive phrase". Cf.: For that shy-looking young man to have
stated his purpose so boldly — incredible!
The prepositional introduction of the inner subject in the English
infinitive phrase is analogous to the prepositional-casal introduction of
the same in the Russian infinitive phrase (i.e. either with the help of the
genitive-governing preposition для, or with the help of the dative case of
the noun). Cf.: Для нас очень важно понять природу подобных соответствий.
With some transitive verbs (of physical perceptions, mental activity,
declaration, compulsion, permission, etc.) the infinitive is used in the
semi-predicative constructions of the complex object and complex subject,
the latter being the passive counterparts of the former. Cf.:
We have never heard Charlie play his violin. > Charlie has never been
heard to plan his violin. The members of the committee expected him to
speak against the suggested resolution. > He was expected by the members of
the committee to speak against the suggested resolution.
106
Due to the intersecting character of joining with the governing
predicative construction, the subject of the infinitive in such complexes,
naturally, has no introductory preposition-particle.
The English infinitive exists in two presentation forms. One of them,
characteristic of the free uses of the infinitive, is distinguished by the
pre-positional marker to. This form is called traditionally the "to-
infinitive", or in more recent linguistic works, the "marked infinitive".
The other form, characteristic of the bound uses of the infinitive, does
not employ the marker to, thereby presenting the infinitive in the shape of
the pure verb stem, which in modern interpretation is understood as the
zero-suffixed form. This form is called traditionally the "bare
infinitive", or in more recent linguistic works, respectively, the
"unmarked infinitive".
The infinitive marker to is a word-morpheme, i.e. a special formal
particle analogous, mutatis mutandis, to other auxiliary elements in the
English grammatical structure. Its only function is to build up and
identify the infinitive form as such. As is the case with the other
analytical markers, the particle to can be used in an isolated position to
represent the whole corresponding construction syntagmatically zeroed in
the text. Cf.: You are welcome to acquaint yourself with any of the
documents if you want to.
Like other analytical markers, it can also be separated from its
notional, i.e. infinitive part by a word or a phrase, usually of adverbial
nature, forming the so-called "split infinitive". Cf.: My task is not to
accuse or acquit; my task it to thoroughly investigate, to clearly define,
and to consistently systematise the facts.
Thus, the marked infinitive presents just another case of an analytical
grammatical form. The use or non-use of the infinitive marker depends on
the verbal environment of the infinitive. Namely, the unmarked infinitive
is used, besides the various analytical forms, with modal verbs (except the
modals ought and used), with verbs of physical perceptions, with the verbs
let, bid, make, help (with the latter — optionally), with the verb know in
the sense of "experience", with a few verbal phrases of modal nature (had
better, would rather, would have, etc.), with the relative-inducive why.
All these uses are detailed in practical grammar books.
107
The infinitive is a categorially changeable form. It distinguishes the
three grammatical categories sharing them with the finite verb, namely, the
aspective category of development (continuous in opposition), the aspective
category of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), the
category of voice (passive in opposition). Consequently, the categorial
paradigm of the infinitive of the objective verb includes eight forms: the
indefinite active, the continuous active, the perfect active, the perfect
continuous active; the indefinite passive, the continuous passive, the
perfect passive, the perfect continuous passive. E.g.: to take — to be
taking
— to have taken — to have been taking; to be taken —to be being taken —
to have been taken — to have been being taken.
The infinitive paradigm of the non-objective verb, correspondingly,
includes four forms. E.g.: to go —to be going
— to have gone — to have been going.
The continuous and perfect continuous passive can only be used
occasionally, with a strong stylistic colouring. But they underlie the
corresponding finite verb forms. It is the indefinite infinitive that
constitues the head-form of the verbal paradigm.
§ 3. The gerund is the non-finite form of the verb which, like the
infinitive, combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun.
Similar to the infinitive, the gerund serves as the verbal name of a
process, but its substantive quality is more strongly pronounced than that
of the infinitive. Namely, as different from the infinitive, and similar to
the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the possessive case or
its pronominal equivalents (expressing the subject of the verbal process),
and it can be used with prepositions.
Since the gerund, like the infinitive, is an abstract name of the process
denoted by the verbal lexeme, a question might arise, why the infinitive,
and not the gerund is taken as the head-form of the verbal lexeme as a
whole, its accepted representative in the lexicon.
As a matter of fact, the gerund cannot perform the function of the
paradigmatic verbal head-form for a number of reasons. In the first place,
it is more detached from the finite verb than the infinitive semantically,
tending to be a far more substantival unit categorially. Then, as different
from the infinitive, it does not join in the conjugation of the finite
verb. Unlike the infinitive, it is a suffixal form, which
108
makes it less generalised than the infinitive in terms of the formal
properties of the verbal lexeme (although it is more abstract in the purely
semantic sense). Finally, it is less definite than the infinitive from the
lexico-grammatical point of view, being subject to easy neutralisations in
its opposition with the verbal noun in -ing, as well as with the present
participle. Hence, the gerund is no rival of the infinitive in the
paradigmatic head-form function.
The general combinability of the gerund, like that of the infinitive, is
dual, sharing some features with the verb, and some features with the noun.
The verb-type combinability of the gerund is displayed in its combining,
first, with nouns expressing the object of the action; second, with
modifying adverbs; third, with certain semi-functional predicator verbs,
but other than modal. Of the noun-type is the combinability of the gerund,
first, with finite notional verbs as the object of the action; second, with
finite notional verbs as the prepositional adjunct of various functions;
third, with finite notional verbs as the subject of the action; fourth,
with nouns as the prepositional adjunct of various functions.
The gerund, in the corresponding positional patterns, performs the
functions of all the types of notional sentence-parts, i.e. the subject,
the object, the predicative, the attribute, the adverbial modifier. Cf.:
Repeating your accusations over and over again doesn\'t make them more
convincing. (Gerund subject position) No wonder he delayed breaking the
news to Uncle Jim. (Gerund direct object position) She could not give her
mind to pressing wild flowers in Pauline\'s botany book. (Gerund addressee
object position) Joe felt annoyed at being shied by his roommates. (Gerund
prepositional object position) You know what luck is? Luck is believing
you\'re lucky. (Gerund predicative position) Fancy the pleasant prospect of
listening to all the gossip they\'ve in store for you! (Gerund attributive
position) He could not push against the furniture without bringing the
whole lot down. (Gerund adverbial of manner position)
One of the specific gerund patterns is its combination with the noun in
the possessive case or its possessive pronominal equivalent expressing the
subject of the action. This gerundial construction is used in cases when
the subject of the gerundial process differs from the subject of the
governing
109
sentence-situation, i.e. when the gerundial sentence-part has its own,
separate subject. E.g.:
Powell\'s being rude like that was disgusting. How can she know about the
Morions\' being connected with this unaccountable affair? Will he ever
excuse our having interfered?
The possessive with the gerund displays one of the distinctive
categorial properties of the gerund as such, establishing it in the English
lexemic system as the form of the verb with nounal characteristics. As a
matter of fact, from the point of view of the inner semantic relations,
this combination is of a verbal type, while from the point of view of the
formal categorial features, this combination is of a nounal type. It can be
clearly demonstrated by the appropriate transformations, i.e. verb-related
and noun-related re-constructions. Cf.: I can\'t stand his criticising
artistic works that are beyond his competence. (T-verbal >He is criticising
artistic works. T-nounal> His criticism of artistic works.)
Besides combining with the possessive noun-subject, the verbal ing-form
con also combine with the noun-subject in the common case or its objective
pronominal equivalent. E.g.: I read in yesterday\'s paper about the hostages
having been released.
This gerundial use as presenting very peculiar features of categorial
mediality will be discussed after the treatment of the participle.
The formal sign of the gerund is wholly homonymous with that of the
present participle: it is the suffix -ing added to its grammatically
(categorially) leading element.
Like the infinitive, the gerund is a categorially changeable (variable,
demutative) form; it distinguishes the two grammatical categories, sharing
them with the finite verb and the present participle, namely, the aspective
category of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), and the
category of voice (passive in opposition). Consequently, the categorial
paradigm of the gerund of the objective verb includes four forms: the
simple active, the perfect active; the simple passive, the perfect passive.
E.g.: taking — having taken — being taken — having been taken.
The gerundial paradigm of the non-objective verb, correspondingly, includes
two forms. E.g.: going — having gone. The perfect forms of the gerund are
used, as a rule, only in semantically strong positions, laying special
emphasis on the meaningful categorial content of the form.
§ 4. The present participle is the non-finite form of the verb which
combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective and
adverb, serving as the qualifying-processual name. In its outer form the
present participle is wholly homonymous with the gerund, ending in the
suffix -ing and distinguishing the same grammatical categories of
retrospective coordination and voice.
Like all the verbids, the present participle has no categorial time
distinctions, and the attribute "present" in its conventional name is not
immediately explanatory; it is used in this book from force of tradition.
Still, both terms "present participle" and "past participle" are not
altogether devoid of elucidative signification, if not in the categorial
sense, then in the derivational-etymological sense, and are none the worse
in their quality than their doublet-substitutes "participle I" and
"participle II".
The present participle has its own place in the general paradigm of the
verb, different from that of the past participle, being distinguished by
the corresponding set of characterisation features.
Since it possesses some traits both of adjective and adverb, the present
participle is not only dual, but triple by its lexico-grammatical
properties, which is displayed in its combinability, as well as in its
syntactic functions.
The verb-type combinability of the present participle is revealed,
first, in its being combined, in various uses, with nouns expressing the
object of the action; second, with nouns expressing the subject of the
action (in semi-predicative complexes); third, with modifying adverbs;
fourth, with auxiliary finite verbs (word-morphemes) in the analytical
forms of the verb. The adjective-type combinability of the present
participle is revealed in its association with the modified nouns, as well
as with some modifying adverbs, such as adverbs of degree. The adverb-type
combinability of the present participle is revealed in its association with
the modified verbs.
The self-positional present participle, in the proper syntactic
arrangements, performs the functions of the predicative (occasional use,
and not with the pure link be), the attribute, the adverbial modifier of
various types. Cf.:
The questions became more and more irritating. (Present participle
predicative position) She had thrust the crucifix on to the surviving baby.
(Present participle attributive
111
front-position) Norman stood on the pavement like a man watching his loved
one go aboard an ocean liner. (Present participle attributive back-
position) He was no longer the cocky, pugnacious boy, always squaring up
for a fight. (Present participle attributive back-position, detached) She
went up the steps, swinging her hips and tossing her fur with bravado.
(Present participle manner adverbial back-position) And having read in the
papers about truth drugs, of course Gladys would believe it absolutely.
(Present participle cause adverbial front-position)
The present participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-
predicative complexes of objective and subjective types. The two groups of
complexes, i.e. infinitival and present participial, may exist in parallel
(e.g. when used with some verbs of physical perceptions), the difference
|
