Английский язык - Учебники на русском языке - Скачать бесплатно
Марк Яковлевич Блох
ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА АНГЛИЙСКОГО ЯЗЫКА
Редактор И. С. Маненок Младшие редакторы: И. Б. Мордасова, Е.
Г. Назарова
Художник Ю. И. Тиков Художественный редактор В. И.
Пономаренко
Технический редактор 3. В. Нуждина Корректоры 3. Ф. Юрескул, Г.
А. Данилова
ИБ № 3821
Изд. № А-793. Сдано в набор 11.08.82. Подп. в печать 06.12.82 Формат
84Х1081/32. Бум. тип. № 1. Гарнитура литературная. Печать высокая Объем.
20,16 усл. печ. л. Усл. кр.-отт. 20,16. Уч-изд. л. 22,92. Тираж 29000 экз.
Зак. № 1499. Цена 1 руб.
Издательство «Высшая школа», Москва, К-51, Неглинная ул., д. 29/14
Ордена Трудового Красного Знамени
Московская типография № 7 «Искра революции»
«Союзполиграфпрома» Государственного
Комитета СССР по делам издательств,
полиграфии и книжной торговли.
Москва, 121019, пер. Аксакова, 13.
Для некоммерческого использования.
Исправлено десять опечаток.
Орфография из амер. переведена в брит.
Рецензенты:
кафедра английского языка Горьковского педагогического института
иностранных языков им. Н. А. Добролюбова и доктор филол. наук, проф.
Л. Л. Нелюбин.
Блох М. Я.
Б70 Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: Учебник. Для студентов
филол. фак. ун-тов и фак. англ. яз. педвузов. — М.: Высш. школа, 1983.—
с. 383 В пер.: 1 р.
В учебнике рассматриваются важнейшие проблемы морфологии и синтаксиса
английского языка в свете ведущих принципов современного системного
языкознания. Введение в теоретические проблемы грамматики осуществляется
на фоне обобщающего описания основ грамматического строя английского
языка. Особое внимание уделяется специальным методам научного анализа
грамматических явлений и демонстрации исследовательских приемов на
конкретном текстовом материале с целью развития у студентов
профессионального лингвистического мышления. Учебник написан на
английском языке.
ББК 81.2 Англ-9 [pic]4И (Англ)
© Издательство «Высшая школа», 1983.
CONTENTS
Page
Preface 4
Chapter I. Grammar in the Systemic Conception of Language. . 6
Chapter II. Morphemic Structure of the Word 17
Chapter III. Categorial Structure of the Word 26
Chapter IV. Grammatical Classes of Words 37
Chapter V. Noun: General 49
Chapter VI. Noun: Gender 53
Chapter VII. Noun: Number 57
Chapter VIII. Noun: Case 62
Chapter IX. Noun: Article Determination 74
Chapter X. Verb: General 85
Chapter XI. Non-Finite Verbs (Verbids) 102
Chapter XII. Finite Verb: Introduction 123
Chapter XIII. Verb: Person and Number 125
Chapter XIV. Verb; Tense 137
Chapter XV. Verb: Aspect 155
Chapter XVI. Verb: Voice 176
Chapter XVII. Verb: Mood 185
Chapter XVIII. Adjective 203
Chapter XIX. Adverb ... 220
Chapter XX. Syntagmatic Connections of Words 229
Chapter XXI. Sentence: General . . . 236
Chapter XXII. Actual Division of the Sentence 243
Chapter XXIII. Communicative Types of Sentences 251
Chapter XXIV. Simple Sentence: Constituent Structure ... 268
Chapter XXV. Simple Sentence: Paradigmatic Structure . . . 278
Chapter XXVI. Composite Sentence as a Polypredicative Construction
288
Chapter XXVII. Complex Sentence 303
Chapter XXVIII. Compound Sentence 332
Chapter XXIX. Semi-Complex Sentence 340
Chapter XXX. Semi-Compound Sentence ....... 351
Chapter XXXI. Sentence in the Text 361
A List of Selected Bibliography 374
Subject Index 376
PREFACE
This book, containing a theoretical outline of English grammar, is
intended as a manual for the departments of English in Universities and
Teachers\' Colleges. Its purpose is to present an introduction to the
problems of up-to-date grammatical study of English on a systemic basis,
sustained by demonstrations of applying modern analytical techniques to
various grammatical phenomena of living English speech.
The suggested description of the grammatical structure of English,
reflecting the author\'s experience as a lecturer on theoretical English
grammar for students specialising as teachers of English, naturally, cannot
be regarded as exhaustive in any point of detail. While making no attempt
whatsoever to depict the grammar of English in terms of the minutiae of its
arrangement and functioning (the practical mastery of the elements of
English grammar is supposed to have been gained by the student at the
earlier stages of tuition), we rather deem it as our immediate aims to
supply the student with such information as will enable him to form
judgments of his own on questions of diverse grammatical intricacies; to
bring forth in the student a steady habit of trying to see into the deeper
implications underlying the outward appearances of lingual correlations
bearing on grammar; to teach him to independently improve his linguistic
qualifications through reading and critically appraising the available
works on grammatical language study, including the current materials in
linguistic journals; to foster his competence in facing academic
controversies concerning problems of grammar, which, unfortunately but
inevitably, are liable to be aggravated by polemical excesses and
terminological discrepancies.
In other words, we wish above all to provide for the condition that, on
finishing his study of the subject matter of the book, under the
corresponding guidance of his College tutor, the student should progress in
developing a grammatically-oriented mode of understanding facts of
language, viz. in mastering that which, in the long run, should distinguish
a professional linguist from a layman.
The emphasis laid on cultivating an active element in the student\'s
approach to language and its grammar explains why the book gives prominence
both to the technicalities of grammatical observations and to the general
methodology of linguistic knowledge: the due application of the latter will
lend the necessary demonstrative force to any serious consideration of the
many special points of grammatical analysis. In this connection, throughout
the whole of the book we have tried to point out the progressive character
of the development of modern grammatical theory, and to show that in the
course of disputes and continued research in manifold particular fields,
the grammatical domain of linguistic science arrives at an ever more
adequate presentation of the structure of language in its integral
description.
We firmly believe that this kind of outlining the foundations of the
discipline in question is especially important at the present stage of the
developing linguistic knowledge — the knowledge which, far from having been
by-passed by the general twentieth century advance of science, has found
itself in the midst of it. Suffice it to cite such new ideas and principles
introduced in the grammatical theory of our times, and reflected in the
suggested presentation, as the grammatical aspects of the correlation
between language and speech; the interpretation of grammatical categories
on the strictly oppositional basis; the demonstration of grammatical
semantics with the help of structural modelling; the functional-perspective
patterning of utterances; the rise of the paradigmatic approach to syntax;
the expansion of syntactic analysis beyond the limits of a separate
sentence into the broad sphere of the continual text; and, finally, the
systemic principle of description applied to the interpretation of language
in general and its grammatical structure in particular.
It is by actively mastering the essentials of these developments that the
student will be enabled to cope with the grammatical aspects of his future
linguistic work as a graduate teacher of English.
Materials illustrating the analysed elements of English grammar have been
mostly collected from the literary works of British and American authors.
Some of the offered examples have been subjected to slight alterations
aimed at giving the necessary prominence to the lingual phenomena under
study. Source references for limited stretches of text are not supplied
except in cases of special relevance (such as implications of individual
style or involvement of contextual background).
The author pays tribute to his friends and colleagues — teachers of the
Lenin State Pedagogical Institute (Moscow) for encouragement and help they
extended to him during the years of his work on the presented matters.
The author\'s sincere thanks are due to the staff of the English
Department of the Dobrolyubov State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign
Languages (Gorky) and to Prof. L. L. Nelyubin for the trouble they took in
reviewing the manuscript. Their valuable advice and criticisms were
carefully taken into consideration for the final preparation of the text.
M. Blokh
CHAPTER I
GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE
§ 1. Language is a means of forming and storing ideas as reflections of
reality and exchanging them in the process of human intercourse. Language
is social by nature; it is inseparably connected with the people who are
its creators and users; it grows and develops together with the development
of society.*
Language incorporates the three constituent parts ("sides"), each being
inherent in it by virtue of its social nature. These parts are the
phonological system, the lexical system, the grammatical system. Only the
unity of these three elements forms a language; without any one of them
there is no human language in the above sense.
The phonological system is the subfoundation of language; it determines
the material (phonetical) appearance of its significative units. The
lexical system is the whole set of naming means of language, that is, words
and stable word-groups. The grammatical system is the whole set of
regularities determining the combination of naming means in the formation
of utterances as the embodiment of thinking process.
Each of the three constituent parts of language is studied by a
particular linguistic discipline. These disciplines, presenting a series of
approaches to their particular objects of analysis, give the corresponding
"descriptions" of language consisting in ordered expositions of the
constituent parts in question. Thus, the phonological description of
language is effected by the science of phonology; the lexical description
of language is effected by the science of lexicology; the
* See: Общее языкознание. Формы существования, функции, история
языка/Отв. ред. Серебренников Б. А. — М., 1970, с. 9 и cл.
grammatical description of language is effected by the science of grammar.
Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A
practical description is aimed at providing the student with a manual of
practical mastery of the corresponding part of language (within the limits
determined by various factors of educational destination and scientific
possibilities). Since the practice of lingual intercourse, however, can
only be realised by employing language as a unity of all its constituent
parts, practical linguistic manuals more often than not comprise the three
types of description presented in a complex. As for theoretical linguistic
descriptions, they pursue analytical aims and therefore present the studied
parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain insights into their
inner structure and expose the intrinsic mechanisms of their functioning.
Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a language is to present a
theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to scientifically
analyse and define its grammatical categories and study the mechanisms of
grammatical formation of utterances out of words in the process of speech
making.
§ 2. In earlier periods of the development of linguistic knowledge,
grammatical scholars believed that the only purpose of grammar was to give
strict rules of writing and speaking correctly. The rigid regulations for
the correct ways of expression, for want of the profound understanding of
the social nature of language, were often based on purely subjective and
arbitrary judgements of individual grammar compilers. The result of this
"prescriptive" approach was, that alongside of quite essential and useful
information, non-existent "rules" were formulated that stood in sheer
contradiction with the existing language usage, i.e. lingual reality.
Traces of this arbitrary prescriptive approach to the grammatical teaching
may easily be found even in to-date\'s school practice.
To refer to some of the numerous examples of this kind, let us consider
the well-known rule of the English article stating that the noun which
denotes an object "already known" by the listener should be used with the
definite article. Observe, however, English sentences taken from me works
of distinguished authors directly contradicting
"I\'ve just read a book of yours about Spain and I wanted to ask you
about it." — "It\'s not a very good book, I\'m afraid" (S. Maugham). I feel a
good deal of hesitation about telling you this story of my own. You see it
is not a story like other stories I have been telling you: it is a true
story (J. K. Jerome).
Or let us take the rule forbidding the use of the continuous tense-forms
with the verb be as a link, as well as with verbs of perceptions. Here are
examples to the contrary:
My holiday at Crome isn\'t being a disappointment (A. Huxley). For the
first time, Bobby felt, he was really seeing the man (A. Christie).
The given examples of English articles and tenses, though not agreeing
with the above "prescriptions", contain no grammar mistakes in them.
The said traditional view of the purpose of grammar has lately been re-
stated by some modern trends in linguistics. In particular, scholars
belonging to these trends pay much attention to artificially constructing
and analysing incorrect utterances with the aim of a better formulation of
the rules for" the construction of correct ones. But their examples and
deductions, too, are often at variance with real facts of lingual usage.
Worthy of note are the following two artificial utterances suggested as
far back as 1956:
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green
colourless.
According to the idea of their creator, the American scholar N. Chomsky,
the first of the utterances, although nonsensical logically, was to be
classed as grammatically correct, while the second one, consisting of the
same words placed in the reverse order, had to be analysed as a
disconnected, "ungrammatical" enumeration, a "non-sentence". Thus, the
examples, by way of contrast, were intensely demonstrative (so believed the
scholar) of the fact that grammar as a whole amounted to a set of non-
semantic rules of sentence formation.
However, a couple of years later this assessment of the lingual value of
the given utterances was disputed in an experimental investigation with
informants — natural speakers of English, who could not come to a unanimous
conclusion
about the correctness or incorrectness of both of them. In particular, some
of the informants classed the second utterance as "sounding like poetry".
To understand the contradictions between the bluntly formulated "rules"
and reality, as well as to evaluate properly the results of informant tests
like the one mentioned above, we must bear in mind that the true
grammatical rules or regularities cannot be separated from the expression
of meanings; on the contrary, they are themselves meaningful. Namely, they
are connected with the most general and abstract parts of content inherent
in the elements of language. These parts of content, together with the
formal means through which they are expressed, are treated by grammarians
in terms of "grammatical categories". Such are, for instance, the
categories of number or mood in morphology, the categories of communicative
purpose or emphasis in syntax, etc. Since the grammatical forms and
regularities are meaningful, it becomes clear that the rules of grammar
must be stated semantically, or, more specifically, they must be worded
functionally. For example, it would be fallacious to state without any
further comment that the inverted word order in the English declarative
sentence is grammatically incorrect. Word order as an element of
grammatical form is laden with its own meaningful functions. It can
express, in particular, the difference between the central idea of the
utterance and the marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive modes of
speech, between different types of style. Thus, if the inverted word order
in a given sentence does express these functions, then its use should be
considered as quite correct. E.g.: In the centre of the room, under the
chandelier, as became a host, stood the head of (he family, old Jolyon
himself (J. Galsworthy).
The word arrangement in the utterance expresses a narrative description,
with the central informative element placed in the strongest semantic
position in narration, i.e. at the end. Compare the same sort of
arrangement accompanying a plainer presentation of subject matter: Inside
on a wooden bunk lay a young Indian woman (E. Hemingway).
Compare, further, the following:
And ever did his Soul tempt him with evil, and whisper of terrible
things. Yet did it not prevail against him, so great was the power of his
love (O. Wilde). (Here the inverted word order is employed to render
intense emphasis in a
legend-stylised narration.) One thing and one thing only could she do for
him (R. Kipling). (Inversion in this case is used to express emotional
intensification of the central idea.)
Examples of this and similar kinds will be found in plenty in Modern
English literary texts of good style repute.
§ 3. The nature of grammar as a constituent part of language is better
understood in the light of explicitly discriminating the two planes of
language, namely, the plane of content and the plane of expression.
The plane of content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in
language, while the plane of expression comprises the material (formal)
units of language taken by themselves, apart from the meanings rendered by
them. The two planes are inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be
realised without some material means of expression. Grammatical elements of
language present a unity of content and expression (or, in somewhat more
familiar terms, a unity of form and meaning). In this the grammatical
elements are similar to the lingual lexical elements, though the quality of
grammatical meanings, as we have stated above, is different in principle
from the quality of lexical meanings.
On the other hand, the correspondence between the planes of content and
expression is very complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This
complexity is clearly illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy,
and synonymy.
In cases of polysemy and homonymy, two or more units of the plane of
content correspond to one unit of the plane of expression. For instance,
the verbal form of the present indefinite (one unit in the plane of
expression) polysemantically renders the grammatical meanings of habitual
action, action at the present moment, action taken as a general truth
(several units in the plane of content). The morphemic material element -s/-
es (in pronunciation [-s, -z, -iz]), i.e. one unit in the plane of
expression (in so far as the functional semantics of the elements is common
to all of them indiscriminately), homonymically renders the grammatical
meanings of the third person singular of the verbal present tense, the
plural of the noun, the possessive form of the noun, i.e. several units of
the plane of content.
In cases of synonymy, conversely, two or more units of the plane of
expression correspond to one unit of the plane
10
of content. For instance, the forms of the verbal future indefinite, future
continuous, and present continuous (several units in the plane of
expression) can in certain contexts synonymically render the meaning of a
future action (one unit in the plane of content).
Taking into consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we
may say that the purpose of grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the
long run, to disclose and formulate the regularities of the correspondence
between the plane of content and the plane of expression in the formation
of utterances out of the stocks of words as part of the process of speech
production.
§ 4. Modern linguistics lays a special stress on the systemic character of
language and all its constituent parts. It accentuates the idea that
language is a system of signs (meaningful units) which are closely
interconnected and interdependent. Units of immediate interdependencies
(such as classes and subclasses of words, various subtypes of syntactic
constructions, etc.) form different microsystems (subsystems) within the
framework of the global macrosystem (supersystem) of the whole of language.
Each system is a structured set of elements related to one another by a
common function. The common function of all the lingual signs is to give
expression to human thoughts.
The systemic nature of grammar is probably more evident than that of any
other sphere of language, since grammar is responsible for the very
organisation of the informative content of utterances [Блох, 4, 11 и сл.].
Due to this fact, even the earliest grammatical treatises, within the
cognitive limits of their times, disclosed some systemic features of the
described material. But the scientifically sustained and consistent
principles of systemic approach to language and its grammar were
essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely,
after the publication of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de
Courtenay and the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men
demonstrated the difference between lingual synchrony (coexistence of
lingual elements) and diachrony (different time-periods in the development
of lingual elements, as well as language as a whole) and defined language
as a synchronic system of meaningful elements at any stage of its
historical evolution.
On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference
between language proper and speech proper
11
can be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the
identification of the object of linguistic science.
Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of
expression, while speech in the same narrow sense should be understood as
the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of language includes, on the one hand, the body of material
units — sounds, morphemes, words, word-groups; on the other hand, the
regularities or "rules" of the use of these units. Speech comprises both
the act of producing utterances, and the utterances themselves, i.e. the
text. Language and speech are inseparable, they form together an organic
unity. As for grammar (the grammatical system), being an integral part of
the lingual macrosystem it dynamically connects language with speech,
because it categorially determines the lingual process of utterance
production.
Thus, we have the broad philosophical concept of language which is
analysed by linguistics into two different aspects — the system of signs
(language proper) and the use of signs (speech proper). The generalising
term "language" is also preserved in linguistics, showing the unity of
these two aspects [Блох, 16].
The sign (meaningful unit) in the system of language has only a potential
meaning. In speech, the potential meaning of the lingual sign is
"actualised", i.e. made situationally significant as part of the
grammatically organised text.
Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations:
syntagmatic and paradigmatic.
Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a
segmental sequence (string). E.g.: The spaceship was launched without the
help of a booster rocket.
In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups
"the spaceship", "was launched", "the spaceship was launched", "was
launched without the help", "the help of a rocket", "a booster rocket".
Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically. E.g.:
space/ship; launch/ed; with/out; boost/er.
Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as
well as at various juncture points (cf. the processes of assimilation and
dissimilation).
The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by
the other forms a unit which is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma".
There are four main types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the
combination of a
12
subject and a predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its
object), attributive (the combination of a noun and its attribute),
adverbial (the combination of a modified notional word, such as a verb,
adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier).
Since syntagmatic relations are actually observed in utterances, they are
described by the Latin formula as relations "in praesentia" ("in the
presence").
The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called
"paradigmatic", are such as exist between elements of the system outside
the strings where they co-occur. These intra-systemic relations and
dependencies find their expression in the fact that each lingual unit is
included in a set or series of connections based on different formal and
functional properties."
In the sphere of phonology such series are built up by the correlations
of phonemes on the basis of vocality or consonantism, voicedness or
devoicedness, the factor of nazalisation, the factor of length, etc. In the
sphere of the vocabulary these series are founded on the correlations of
synonymy and antonymy, on various topical connections, on different word-
building dependencies. In the domain of grammar series of related forms
realise grammatical numbers and cases, persons and tenses, gradations of
modalities, sets of sentence-patterns of various functional destination,
etc.
Unlike syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly
observed in utterances, that is why they are referred to as relations "in
absentia"" ("in the absence").
Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way
that some sort of syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realisation
of any paradigmatic series. This is especially evident -in a classical
grammatical paradigm which presents a productive series of forms each
consisting of a syntagmatic connection of two elements: one common for the
whole of the series (stem), the other specific for every individual form in
the series (grammatical feature — inflexion, suffix, auxiliary word).
Grammatical paradigms express various grammatical categories.
The minimal paradigm consists of two form-stages. This kind of paradigm
we see, for instance, in the expression of the category of number: boy —
boys. A more complex paradigm can be divided into component paradigmatic
series, i.e. into the corresponding sub-paradigms (cf. numerous
paradigmatic series constituting the system of the finite verb). In
13
other words, with paradigms, the same as with any other systemically
organised material, macro- and micro-series are to be discriminated.
§ 5. Units of language are divided into segmental and suprasegmental.
Segmental units consist of phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various
status (syllables, morphemes, words, etc.). Supra-segmental units do not
exist by themselves, but are realised together with segmental units and
express different modificational meanings (functions) which are reflected
on the strings of segmental units. To the supra-segmental units belong
intonations (intonation contours), accents, pauses, patterns of word-order.
The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This
hierarchy is of a kind that units of any higher level are analysable into
(i.e. are formed of) units of the immediately lower level. Thus, morphemes
are decomposed into phonemes, words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases
are decomposed into words, etc.
But this hierarchical relation is by no means reduced to the mechanical
composition of larger units from smaller ones; units of each level are
characterised by their own, specific functional features which provide for
the very recognition of the corresponding levels of language.
The lowest level of lingual segments is phonemic: it is formed by
phonemes as the material elements of the higher -level segments. The
phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential: it
differentiates morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme
has no meaning, it is not a sign.
Phonemes are combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental
group of phonemes, is not a sign, either; it has a purely formal
significance. Due to this fact, it could hardly stand to reason to
recognise in language a separate syllabic level; rather, the syllables
should be considered in the light of the intra-level combinability
properties of phonemes.
Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a
representative status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the
level-forming signs of language.
Units of all the higher levels of language are meaningful; they may be
called "signemes" as opposed to phonemes (and letters as phoneme-
representatives).
The level located above the phonemic one is the morphemic
14
level. The morpheme is the elementary meaningful part of the word. It is
built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one
phoneme. E.g.: ros-y [-1]; a-fire [э-]; come-s [-z].
The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative" meanings which are used
as constituents for the formation of more concrete, "nominative" meanings
of words.
The third level in the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words,
or lexemic level.
The word, as different from the morpheme, is a directly naming
(nominative) unit of language: it names things and their relations. Since
words are built up by morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit
morpheme only. Cf.: man; will; but; I; etc.
The next higher level is the level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic
level.
To level-forming phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional
words. These combinations, like separate words, have a nominative function,
but they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon,
be it a concrete thing, an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf.,
respectively: a picturesque village; to start with a jerk; extremely
difficult; the unexpected arrival of the chief.
This kind of nomination can be called "polynomination", as different from
"mononomination" effected by separate words.
Notional phrases may be of a stable type and of a free type. The stable
phrases (phraseological units) form the phraseological part of the lexicon,
and are studied by the phraseological division of lexicology. Free phrases
are built up in the process of speech on the existing productive models,
and are studied in the lower division of syntax. The grammatical
description of phrases is sometimes called "smaller syntax", in distinction
to "larger syntax" studying the sentence and its textual connections.
Above the phrasemic level lies the level of sentences, or "proposemic"
level.
The peculiar character of the sentence ("proposeme") as a signemic unit
of language consists in the fact that, naming a certain situation, or
situational event, it expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the
denoted event to reality. Namely. it shows whether this event is real or
unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a truth or asked about, etc. In
this sense, as different from the word and the phrase, the
15
sentence is a predicative unit. Cf.: to receive — to receive a letter —
Early in June I received a letter from Peter Mel« rose.
The sentence is produced by the speaker in the process of speech as a
concrete, situationally bound utterance. At the same time it enters the
system of language by its syntactic pattern which, as all the other lingual
unit-types, has both syntagmatic and paradigmatic characteristics.
But the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of
levels. Above the proposemic level there is still another one, namely, the
level of sentence-groups, "supra-sentential constructions". For the sake of
unified terminology, this level can be called "supra-proposemic".
The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences
forming a textual unity. Such combinations are subject to regular lingual
patterning making them into syntactic elements. The syntactic process by
which sentences are connected into textual unities is analysed under the
heading of "cumulation". Cumulation, the same as formation of composite
sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic. Cf.:
He went on with his interrupted breakfast. Lisette did not speak and
there was silence between them. But his appetite satisfied, his mood
changed; he began to feel sorry for himself rather than angry with her, and
with a strange ignorance of woman\'s heart he thought to arouse Lisette\'s
remorse by exhibiting himself as an object of pity (S. Maugham).
In the typed text, the supra-sentential construction commonly coincides
with the paragraph (as in the example above). However, unlike the
paragraph, this type of lingual signeme is realised not only in a written
text, but also in all the varieties of oral speech, since separate
sentences, as a rule, are included in a discourse not singly, but in
combinations, revealing the corresponding connections of thoughts in
communicative progress.
We have surveyed six levels of language, each identified by its own
functional type of segmental units. If now we carefully observe the
functional status of the level-forming segments, we can distinguish between
them more self-sufficient and less self-sufficient types, the latter being
defined only in relation to the functions of other level units. Indeed, the
phonemic, lexemic and proposemic levels are most strictly and exhaustively
identified from the functional point of
16
view: the function of the phoneme is differential, the function of the word
is nominative, the function of the sentence is predicative. As different
from these, morphemes are identified only as significative components of
words, phrases present polynominative combinations of words, and supra-
sentential constructions mark the transition from the sentence to the text.
Furthermore, bearing in mind that the phonemic level forms the
subfoundation of language, i.e. the non-meaningful matter of meaningful
expressive means, the two notions of grammatical description shall be
pointed out as central even within the framework of the structural
hierarchy of language: these are, first, the notion of the word and,
second, the notion of the sentence. The first is analysed by morphology,
which is the grammatical teaching of the word; the second is analysed by
syntax, which is the grammatical teaching of the sentence.
CHAPTER II
MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
§ 1. The morphological system of language reveals its properties through
the morphemic structure of words. It follows from this that morphology as
part of grammatical theory faces the two segmental units: the morpheme and
the word. But, as we have already pointed out, the morpheme is not
identified otherwise than part of the word; the functions of the morpheme
are effected only as the corresponding constituent functions of the word as
a whole.
For instance, the form of the verbal past tense is built up by means of
the dental grammatical suffix: train-ed [-d]; publish-ed [-t]; meditat-ed [-
id].
However, the past tense as a definite type of grammatical meaning is
expressed not by the dental morpheme in isolation, but by the verb (i.e.
word) taken in the corresponding form (realised by its morphemic
composition); the dental suffix is immediately related to the stem of the
verb and together with the stem constitutes the temporal correlation in the
paradigmatic system of verbal categories
Thus, in studying the morpheme we actual study the word in the necessary
details or us composition and functions.
17
§ 2. It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time
universal definition to the word, i.e. such a definition as would
unambiguously apply to all the different word-units of the lexicon. This
difficulty is explained by the fact that the word is an extremely complex
and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of different linguistic
trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence,
the minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component of the sentence,
the articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged combination of
sound with meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately identifiable
lingual unit, the uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc. None of
these definitions, which can be divided into formal, functional, and mixed,
has the power to precisely cover all the lexical segments of language
without a residue remaining outside the field of definition.
The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the
word as the basic element of language. In particular, American scholars —
representatives of Descriptive Linguistics founded by L. Bloomfield —
recognised not the word and the sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme
as the basic categories of linguistic description, because these units are
the easiest to be isolated in the continual text due to their "physically"
minimal, elementary segmental character: the phoneme being the minimal
formal segment of language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful segment.
Accordingly, only two segmental levels were originally identified in
language by Descriptive scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic
level; later on a third one was added to these — the level of
"constructions", i.e. the level of morphemic combinations.
In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and
the like, as well as their simple derivatives, e.g. watery, passer,
yellowness, we shall easily see their definite nominative function and
unambiguous segmental delimitation, making them beyond all doubt into
"separate words of language". But if we compare with the given one-stem
words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman, password,
yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter
as separate words is much complicated by the fact that they themselves are
decomposable into separate words. One could point out that the peculiar
property distinguishing composite words from phrases is their linear
indivisibility, i.e. the impossibility
18
tor them to be divided by a third word. But this would-be rigorous
criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical wordforms, e.g.: has met - has
never met; is coming —is not by any means or under any circumstances
coming.
As for the criterion according to which the word is identified as a
minimal sign capable of functioning alone (the word understood as the
"smallest free form", or interpreted as the "potential minimal sentence"),
it is irrelevant for the bulk of functional words which cannot be used
"independently" even in elliptical responses (to say nothing of the fact
that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially the opposite of self-
dependence).
In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the
unquestionable fact that each speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of
naming units (more precisely, units standing to one another in nominative
correlation) by which he can build up an infinite number of utterances
reflecting the ever changing situations of reality.
This circumstance urges us to seek the identification of the word as a
lingual unit-type on other lines than the "strictly operational
definition". In fact, we do find the clarification of the problem in taking
into consideration the difference between the two sets of lingual
phenomena: on the one hand, "polar" phenomena; on the other hand,
"intermediary" phenomena.
Within a complex system of interrelated elements, polar phenomena are the
most clearly identifiable, they stand to one another in an utterly
unambiguous opposition. Intermediary phenomena are located in the system in
between the polar phenomena, making up a gradation of transitions or the so-
called "continuum". By some of their properties intermediary phenomena are
similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while by other
properties they are similar to the other, opposing pole. The analysis of
the intermediary phenomena from the point of view of their relation to the
polar phenomena reveal their own status in the system. At the same time
this kind of analysis helps evaluate the definitions of the polar phenomena
between which a continuum is established.
In this connection, the notional one-stem word and the morpheme should be
described as the opposing polar phenomena among the meaningful segments of
language; it is these elements that can be defined by their formal and
functional features most precisely and unambiguously. As for
2*
19
functional words, they occupy intermediary positions between these poles,
and their very intermediary status is gradational. In particular, the
variability of their status is expressed in the fact that some of them can
be used in an isolated response position (for instance, words of
affirmation and negation, interrogative words, demonstrative words, etc.),
while others cannot (such as prepositions or conjunctions).
The nature of the element of any system is revealed in the character of
its function. The function of words is realised in their nominative
correlation with one another. On the basis of this correlation a number of
functional words are distinguished by the "negative delimitation" (i.e.
delimitation as a residue after the identification of the co-positional
textual elements),* e.g.-. the/people; to/speak; by/way/of.
The "negative delimitation\'\' immediately connects these functional words
with the directly nominative, notional words in the system. Thus, the
correlation in question (which is to be implied by the conventional term
"nominative function") unites functional words with notional words, or
"half-words" (word-morphemes) with "full words". On the other hand,
nominative correlation reduces the morpheme as a type of segmental signeme
to the role of an element in the composition of the word.
As we see, if the elementary character (indivisibility) of the morpheme
(as a significative unit) is established in the structure of words, the
elementary character of the word (as a nominative unit) is realised in the
system of lexicon.
Summing up what has been said in this paragraph, we may point out some of
the properties of the morpheme and the word which are fundamental from the
point of view of their systemic status and therefore require detailed
investigations and descriptions.
the morpheme is a meaningful segmental component of the word; the
morpheme is formed by phonemes; as a meaningful component of the word it is
elementary (i.e. indivisible into smaller segments as regards its
significative function).
The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it
enters the lexicon of language as its elementary component (i.e. a
component indivisible into smaller segments as regards its nominative
function); together with
* See: Смирницкий А. И. К вопросу о слове (проблема «отдельности слона»).
— В кн.: Вопросы теории и истории языка. М., 1955.
20
other nominative units the word is used for the formation of the sentence —
a unit of information in the communication process.
§ 3. In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the
word was conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional (the
location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones) and
semantic or functional (the correlative contribution of the morphemes to
the general meaning of the word). The combination of these two criteria in
an integral description has led to the rational classification of morphemes
that is widely used both in research linguistic work and in practical
lingual tuition.
In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes on the upper
level are divided into root-morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes
(affixes). The roots express the concrete, "material" part of the meaning
of the word, while the affixes express the specificational part of the
meaning of the word, the specifications being of lexico-semantic and
grammatico-semantic character.
The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes.
The affixal morphemes include prefixes, suffixes, and inflexions (in the
tradition of the English school grammatical inflexions are commonly
referred to as "suffixes"). Of these, prefixes and lexical suffixes have
word-building functions, together with the root they form the stem of the
word; inflexions (grammatical suffixes) express different morphological
categories.
The root, according to the positional content of the term (i.e. the
border-area between prefixes and suffixes), is obligatory for any word,
while affixes are not obligatory. Therefore one and the same morphemic
segment of functional (i.e. non-notional) status, depending on various
morphemic environments, can in principle be used now as an affix (mostly, a
prefix), now as a root. Cf.:
out — a root-word (preposition, adverb, verbal postposition, adjective,
noun, verb);
throughout — a composite word, in which -out serves as one of the roots
(the categorial status of the meaning of both morphemes is the same);
outing — a two-morpheme word, in which out is a root, and -ing is a
suffix;
21
outlook, outline, outrage, out-talk, etc. — words, in which out- serves
as a prefix;
look-out, knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. — words (nouns), in which
-out serves as a suffix.
The morphemic composition of modern English words has a wide range of
varieties; in the lexicon of everyday speech the preferable morphemic types
of stems are root-stems (one-root stems or two-root stems) and one-affix
stems. With grammatically changeable words, these stems take one
grammatical suffix {two "open" grammatical suffixes are used only with some
plural nouns in the possessive case, cf.: the children\'s toys, the oxen\'s
yokes).
Thus, the abstract complete morphemic model of the common English word is
the following: prefix + root + lexical suffix+grammatical suffix.
The syntagmatic connections of the morphemes within the model form two
types of hierarchical structure. The first is characterised by the original
prefixal stem (e.g. prefabricated), the second is characterised by the
original suffixal stem (e.g. inheritors). If we use the symbols St for
stem, R for root, Pr for prefix, L for lexical suffix, Gr for grammatical
suffix, and, besides, employ three graphical symbols of hierarchical
grouping — braces, brackets, and parentheses, then the two morphemic word-
structures can be presented as follows:
W1 = {[Pr + (R + L)] +Gr}; W2 = {[(Pr + R) +L] + Gr}
In the morphemic composition of more complicated words these model-types
form different combinations.
§ 4. Further insights into the correlation between the formal and
functional aspects of morphemes within the composition of the word may be
gained in the light of the so-called "allo-emic" theory put forward by
Descriptive Linguistics and broadly used in the current linguistic
research.
In accord with this theory, lingual units are described by means of two
types of terms: allo-terms and eme-terms. Eme-terms denote the generalised
invariant units of language characterised by a certain functional status:
phonemes, morphemes. Allo-terms denote the concrete manifestations, or
variants of the generalised units dependent on the regular co-location with
22
other elements of language: allophones, allomorphs. A set of iso-functional
allo-units identified in the text on the basis of their co-occurrence with
other lingual units (distribution) is considered as the corresponding eme-
unit with its fixed systemic status.
The allo-emic identification of lingual elements is achieved by means of
the so-called "distributional analysis". The immediate aim of the
distributional analysis is to fix and study the units of language in
relation to their textual environments, i.e. the adjoining elements in the
text.
The environment of a unit may be either "right" or "left", e.g.: un-
pardon-able.
In this word the left environment of the root is the negative prefix un-,
the right environment of the root is the qualitative suffix -able.
Respectively, the root -pardon- is the right environment for the prefix,
and the left environment for the suffix.
The distribution of a unit may be defined as the total of all its
environments; in other words, the distribution of a unit is its environment
in generalised terms of classes or categories.
In the distributional analysis on the morphemic level, phonemic
distribution of morphemes and morphemic distribution of morphemes are
discriminated. The study is conducted in two stages.
At the first stage, the analysed text (i.e. the collected lingual
materials, or "corpus") is divided into recurrent segments consisting of
phonemes. These segments are called "morphs", i.e. morphemic units
distributionally uncharacterised, e.g.: the/boat/s/were/gain/ing/speed.
At the second stage, the environmental features of the morphs are
established and the corresponding identifications are effected.
Three main types of distribution are discriminated in the distributional
analysis, namely, contrastive distribution, non-contrastive distribution,
and complementary distribution.
Contrastive and non-contrastive distributions concern identical
environments of different morphs. The morphs are said to be in contrastive
distribution if their meanings (functions) are different. Such morphs
constitute different morphemes. Cf. the suffixes -(e)d and -ing in the verb-
forms returned, returning. The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive
distribution (or free alternation) if their meaning (function) is the same.
Such
23
morphs constitute "free alternants", or "free variants" of the same
morpheme. Cf. the suffixes -(e)d and -t in the verb-forms learned, learnt.
As different from the above, complementary distribution concerns
different environments of formally different morphs which are united by the
same meaning (function). If two or more morphs have the same meaning and
the difference in (heir form is explained by different environments, these
morphs are said to be in complementary distribution and considered the
allomorphs of the same morpheme. Cf. the allomorphs of the plural morpheme
/-s/, /-z/, /-iz/ which stand in phonemic complementary distribution; the
plural allomorph -en in oxen, children, which stands in morphemic
complementary distribution with the other allomorphs of the plural
morpheme.
As we see, for analytical purposes the notion of complementary
distribution is the most important, because it helps establish the identity
of outwardly altogether different elements of language, in particular, its
grammatical elements.
§ 5. As a result of the application of distributional analysis to the
morphemic level, different types of morphemes have been discriminated which
can be called the "distributional morpheme types". It must be stressed that
the distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish or in any way
depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Rather, it supplements the
traditional classification, showing some essential features of morphemes on
the principles of environmental study.
We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs
of immediate correlation.
On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, "free" morphemes and
"bound" morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot form words by
themselves, they are identified only as component segmental parts of words.
As different from this, free morphemes can build up words by themselves,
i.e. can be used "freely".
For instance, in the word handful the root hand is a free morpheme, while
the suffix -ful is a bound morpheme.
There are very few productive bound morphemes in the morphological system
of English. Being extremely narrow, the list of them is complicated by the
relations of homonymy. These morphemes are the following:
1) the segments -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the possessive
case of nouns, the third person singular present of verbs;
24
2) the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]: the past and past participle of verbs;
2) the segments -ing: the gerund and present participle;
3) the segments -er, -est: the comparative and superlative degrees of
adjectives and adverbs.
The auxiliary word-morphemes of various standings should be interpreted
in this connection as "semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate
elements of speech strings, they form categorial unities with their
notional stem-words.
On the basis of formal presentation, "overt" morphemes and "covert"
morphemes are distinguished. Overt morphemes are genuine, explicit
morphemes building up words; the covert morpheme is identified as a
contrastive absence of morpheme expressing a certain function. The notion
of covert morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme in the
oppositional description of grammatical categories (see further).
For instance, the word-form clocks consists of two overt morphemes: one
lexical (root) and one grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-
morpheme word-form clock, since it expresses the singular, is also
considered as consisting of two morphemes, i.e. of the overt root and the
co\\ert (implicit) grammatical suffix of the singular. The usual symbol for
the covert morpheme employed by linguists is the sign of the empty set: 0.
On the basis of segmental relation, "segmental" morphemes and "supra-
segmental" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as supra-segmental
morphemes in distributional terms are intonation contours, accents, pauses.
The said elements of language, as we have stated elsewhere, should beyond
dispute be considered signemic units of language, since they are
functionally bound. They form the secondary line of speech, accompanying
its primary phonemic line (phonemic complexes). On the other hand, from
what has been stated about the morpheme proper, it is not difficult to see
that the morphemic interpretation of suprasegmental units can hardly stand
to reason. Indeed, these units are functionally connected not with
morphemes, but with larger elements of language: words, word-groups,
sentences, supra-sentential constructions.
On the basis of grammatical alternation, "additive" morphemes and
"replacive" morphemes are distinguished.
25
Interpreted as additive morphemes are outer grammatical suffixes, since, as
a rule, they are opposed to the absence of morphemes in grammatical
alternation. Cf. look+ed; small+er, etc. In distinction to these, the root
phonemes of grammatical interchange are considered as replacive morphemes,
since they replace one another in the paradigmatic forms. Cf. dr-i-ve — dr-
o-ve — dr-i-ven; m-a-n — m-e-n; etc.
It should be remembered that the phonemic interchange is utterly
unproductive in English as in all the Indo-European languages. If it were
productive, it might rationally be interpreted as a sort of replacive
"infixation" (correlated with "exfixation" of the additive type). As it
stands, however, this type of grammatical means can be understood as a kind
of suppletivity (i.e. partial suppletivity).
On the basis of linear characteristic, "continuous" (or "linear")
morphemes and "discontinuous" morphemes are distinguished.
By the discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i.e.
uninterruptedly expressed, continuous morpheme, a two-element grammatical
unit is meant which is identified in the analytical grammatical form
comprising an auxiliary word and a grammatical suffix. These two elements,
as it were, embed the notional stem; hence, they are symbolically
represented as follows:
be ... ing — for the continuous verb forms (e.g. is going); have ... en —
for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone); be ... en — for the passive
verb forms (e.g. is taken)
It is easy to see that the notion of morpheme applied to the analytical
form of the word violates the principle of the identification of morpheme
as an elementary meaningful segment: the analytical "framing" consists of
two meaningful segments, i.e. of two different morphemes. On the other
hand, the general notion "discontinuous constituent", "discontinuous unit"
is quite rational and can be helpfully used in linguistic description in
its proper place.
CHAPTER III
CATEGORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
§ 1. Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic
features expressing grammatical
26
(morphological) meanings. These features determine the grammatical form of
the word.
Grammatical meanings are very abstract, very general. Therefore the
grammatical form is not confined to an individual word, but unites a whole
class of words, so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding
grammatical meaning together with its individual, concrete semantics.
For instance, the meaning of the substantive plural is rendered by the
regular plural suffix -(e)s, and in some cases by other, more specific
means, such as phonemic interchange and a few lexeme-bound suffixes. Due to
the generalised character of the plural, we say that different groups of
nouns "take" this form with strictly defined variations in the mode of
expression, the variations being of more systemic (phonological
conditioning) and less systemic (etymological conditioning) nature. Cf.:
faces, branches, matches, judges; books, rockets, boats, chiefs, proofs;
dogs, beads, films, stones, hens; lives, wives, thieves, leaves; girls,
stars, toys, heroes, pianos, cantos; oxen, children, brethren, kine; swine,
sheep, deer; cod, trout, salmon; men, women, feet, teeth, geese, mice,
lice; formulae, antennae; data, errata, strata, addenda, memoranda; radii,
genii, nuclei, alumni; crises, bases, analyses, axes; phenomena, criteria.
As we see, the grammatical form presents a division of the word on the
principle of expressing a certain grammatical meaning.
§ 2. The most general notions reflecting the most general properties of
phenomena are referred to in logic as "categorial notions", or
"categories". The most general meanings rendered by language and expressed
by systemic correlations of word-forms are interpreted in linguistics as
categorial grammatical meanings. The forms themselves are identified within
definite paradigmatic series.
The categorial meaning (e.g. the grammatical number) unites the
individual meanings of the correlated paradigmatic forms (e.g. singular —
plural) and is exposed through them; hence, the meaning of the grammatical
category and the meaning of the grammatical form are related to each other
on the principle of the logical relation between the categorial and generic
notions.
As for the grammatical category itself, it presents, the
27
same as the grammatical "form", a unity of form (i.e. material factor) and
meaning (i.e. ideal factor) and constitutes a certain signemic system.
More specifically, the grammatical category is a system of expressing a
generalised grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of
grammatical forms.
The ordered set of grammatical forms expressing a categorial function
constitutes a paradigm.
The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category are
exposed by the so-called "grammatical oppositions".
The opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalised
correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is
expressed. The correlated elements (members) of the opposition must possess
two types of features: common features and differential features. Common
features serve as the basis of contrast, while differential features
immediately express the function in question.
The oppositional theory was originally formulated as a ; phonological
theory. Three main qualitative types of oppositions were established in
phonology: "privative", "gradual", and "equipollent". By the number of
members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary (two members) and
more than binary (ternary, quaternary, etc.).
The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition;
the other types of oppositions are reducible to the binary privative
opposition.
The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of
members in which one member is characterised by the presence of a certain
differential feature ("mark"), while the other member is characterised by
the absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is
called the "marked", or "strong", or "positive" member, and is commonly
designated by the symbol + (plus); the member in which the feature is
absent is called the "unmarked", or "weak", or "negative" member, and is
commonly designated by the symbol — (minus).
For instance, the voiced and devoiced consonants form a privative
opposition [b, d, g —p, t, k]. The differential feature of the opposition
is "voice". This feature is present in the voiced consonants, so their set
forms the marked member of the opposition. The devoiced consonants, lacking
the feature, form the unmarked member of the opposition. To stress the
marking quality of "voice" for the opposition in
28
question, the devoiced consonants may be referred to as «nоn-voiced".
The gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which
are distinguished not by the presence or аbsenсе of a feature, but by the
degree of it.
For instance, the front vowels [i:—i—e—ae] form a quaternary gradual
opposition, since they are differentiated by the degree of their openness
(their length, as is known, is\' also relevant, as well as some other
|
