Theme 1.

FUNDAMENTALS OF GRAMMAR

§ 1. Introduction. Practical vs. Theoretical Grammar

Grammar is wieldy recognized as one of the most sophisticated areas of

linguistics. One reason for this is that our understanding of Grammar is based on
scholarship from a number of different disciplines, e.g. logic, philosophy,
psycology, general linguistics, history of the language, phonology, lexicology,
phraseology, stylistics, discourse analysis, etc. All of these disciplines recognize
Grammar as the backbone of the language.
Grammar can be reasonably understood in a number of different ways. It is often
used to refer to the best means of achieving a good command of a language. This is
the so-called Practical Grammar.
Grammar may also be understood in a more scholarly way as the framework
of grammatical concepts and terminology through which during the centuries the
traditions of grammatical description and teaching have evolved. This is the so-
called Theoretical Grammar.
No matter how Grammar is interpreted, it attempts to answer the question: How
do we organize and use the language to convey information?
Up to now you have studied Practical Grammar, which teaches how to speak
and write correctly or "grammatically". In other words, Practical Grammar
prescribes a set of normative rules based on the so-called Standard English.
The main problem with the rules, which the learner has to observe if he is to
speak and write the language correctly, is that Practical Grammars tend to be
excessively strict in laying down what is "inadmissible" in the language. For
example:
• Practical grammar postulates the absence of continuous forms with the verbs of
physical and menial perception (see, hear, feel, love, like, hate etc.), otherwise
called "stative". and (the verbs "to be" and "to have". However, all of these
verbs, under certain circumstances, can be used in the continuous forms,
though they are less frequent of course: You're being very rude! We were just
having a discussion! Are you feeling better today? I'm seeing him tomorrow.
• Practical Grammar prescribes the use of the form "were" for all persons and
numbers after "as if/as though", "wish", and "if" in clauses of unreal condition.
However, this is not so and we come across examples as follows: He looks as
if he were President/ He looks as if he was President/ He looks as if he is
President.
1
 Careful observation of the facts of the language and attention to their possible
linguistic and extralinguistic contexts may help to better understand the Grammar
of the language and lilt the "strict prescriptions" imposed by practical
grammarians.
In contrast to Practical Grammar, Theoretical Grammar describes and
analyzes facts of the language without giving any "prescriptions". It is a
scientific type of Grammar. In some cases Theoretical Grammar does not give a
ready answer about how certain grammatical phenomena should be interpreted. We
encounter cases, which are treated differently and even contradictorily in some
publications (Bepxoвская).
For example consider the problem of the number of moods of the English
verb. Opinions concerning verb mood systems range from 16 to no moods at all.
Another example is the question concerning division of words into notional
and functional. Are pronouns and numerals to be considered notional or
functional words? Differing answers prevail.
There are at least two reasons for such discrepancies in the treatment of a
number of grammatical phenomena:
 The complex nature of certain grammatical phenomena which does not
make it possible to give a straightforward and uniform interpretation;
 Different approaches to the analysis of language phenomena.
The course in the Theory of English Grammar will help analyze the
grammatical phenomena of the English language in the light of general
principles of modern linguistics including in analysis different trends which
exist today.
The goal of course «Theory of English Grammar» is to provide a description
of the grammatical structure of the English language as a system, the parts of
which are connected and in many cases interdependent. My aim is to clarify the
scope of grammar in a systematic and theoretically coherent way. What I also hope
to do is develop students' critical thinking skills, i.e. their ability to analyze
theories presented to them. Every student must acquire an ability to form her or his
own ideas on various questions, because in the course of your career you will
always have to make a choice in favor of one out of several different options,
Grammar included.

2
 GRAMMAR AS A PART OF LINGUISTICS

§ 2. The scope of Grammar

In classical Greek and Latin the word grammar denoted "the methodical
study of Literature", not just the study of Greek and Latin languages. The term
was indeed equal to the term "philology" in the broadest modern sense.
In the Middle ages grammar was the first subject of the trivium (the three
liberal arts), which included also logic and rhetoric. Grammar, in medieval times,
meant the study of the Latin language and Latin literature.
In modern linguistics grammar is no longer identified with philology in the
broadest modern sense as the study of literature. However, traces of the broad
interpretation of grammar can be found in modern American linguistics where a
number of scientists, G.Trager and H.Smith among them, define grammar as the
study of the language structure in general, including phonemics and lexis, thus
identifying grammar with linguistics (Trager, Smith).
Still, the majority of modern linguists offer a narrow interpretation of
grammar and understand it as a part of linguistics which studies the
grammatical structure of the language, excluding phonemics and lexis.
We can clearly observe changes in the interpretation of grammar: from
the broade.st possible approach identifying grammar with philology (the study of
language and literature), through a narrower one identifying grammar with
linguistics (the study of language) and finally to the narrowest approach
considering grammar as a part of linguistics (the study of the structure of
language). These changes reflect the development of linguistic analysis. And it is
the modern interpretation of grammar as a part of linguistics that we shall follow in
the present course.

FUNDAMENTALS OF LINGUISTICS
§ 3. Linguistics, language and language subsystems

Linguistics is defined as the scientific study of language or of particular

languages.
Language is a multifaceted, complex phenomenon which can be studied and
described from various points of view: as a psychological or cognitive
phenomenon, as a social phenomenon, from the point of view of its historic
changes, etc. But first and foremost language is treated as a semiotic system
(system of signs).
A system is a structured set of elements united by a common function.
Language is a system of specific interconnected and interdependent lingual signs
3
united by their common function of forming, storing and exchanging ideas in the
process of human intercourse.
As a system, language is subdivided into three basic subsystems, each of
which is a system in its own turn. They are the phonological, lexical and
grammatical subsystems.
The phonological subsystem includes the material units of which language is
made up: sounds, phonemes, different intonation models, and accent models. The
phonological system of language is studied by a separate branch of linguistics
called phonology.
The lexical subsystem includes all the nominative (naming) means of
language – words and stable word-combinations. The lexical system is studied by
lexicology.
The grammatical subsystem includes the rules and regularities of using
lingual units in the construction of utterances in the process of human
communication. The grammatical system is described by grammar as a branch of
linguistics.
Each sub-system distinguishes not only its own set of elements, but its own
structural organization. For example, within the grammatical system we single out
parts of speech and sentence patterns. The parts of speech are further subdivided
into nouns, verbs, adjective, adverbs, functional parts of speech; this subdivision of
grammar is known as morphology. Sentences are further subdivided into simple
and composite: composite sentences are subdivided into complex and compound,
etc.; this subdivision of grammar is known as syntax.

4. Language proper vs speech. Semiotics: intrinsic vs. extrinsic planes of the

linguistic sign

The broad philosophical concept of language is analyzed by linguists into

two different aspects: language proper (the system of signs) and speech (the use
of signs).
Language proper is the underlying system (phonological, lexical and
grammatical) which speakers use to understand and produce speech (the actual
utterances speakers produce). However, no speaker has complete command of
language, which only exists fully as a shared, social phenomenon.
Speech, on the other hand, is always an individual realization of the
system.
Language and speech are inseparable forming an organic unity. Thus, the
term language is used in two senses: in the broad sense of the unity of language

4
proper and speech, and in the narrow sense of the system which lies at the base
of all speaking.
Modern linguistics places a special attention on the systemic character of
language and all its constituent parts. The term system means a whole consisting
of elements and their relations. Language is seen as a system of signs
(meaningful units) which are closely interconnected and interdependent. Language
is a semiotic system.
Semiotics is the study of signs in general, so linguistics can be seen as that
subdiscipline of semiotics that is concerned with the nature of the linguistic sign.
The linguistic sign has two intrinsic (natural) planes: the plane of content
(meaning) and the plane of expression (form) which are inseparably connected.
Modern linguists distinguish a third plane of the linguistic sign, which is its
interpretation (function) and is extrinsic (coming from outside) (Morris; Peirce).
The three (meaning, form and function) form a unity.

§ 5 Language system and language structure

Language system is a structured set of elements related to each other by a

common function of giving expression to human thoughts.
Language structure is a hierarchy of levels. Hierarchy here refers to a
part-whole relationship in which smaller units occur as parts of larger ones, i.e.
units of lower levels form units of higher levels. A linguistic level is defined as a
class of homogeneous units with the same functional and structural features, which
have hierarchical (constituent) relations with units of the higher level.
There are different points of view on the number of linguistic levels and
units of linguistic description. Traditionally language is seen as a supersystem of
signs incorporates the three constituent parts:
The units of the phonological system are phonemes, those of the lexical system
are words, or lexemes, traditional grammatical system operates with two units:
the word and the sentence. The grammatical system of three units adds the
morpheme to the grammatical analysis. Intermediate between the word and the
sentence, two other units are commonly recognized by grammarians: the phrase
(word-combination) and the clause. The development of text grammar and
discourse analysis has lead to the addition of three more units of linguistic
description: the superphrasal unity (sentence group, or supra-sentential
construction), and the text and discourse (Бархударов, Beaugrande, Dressier).

5
 § 6. Lingual elements (units) as signs, their levels, structural and functional
features.

Segmental and supra-segmental language units.

The units of language are of two types: segmental and supra-segmental.

Segmental lingual units consist of phonemes, which are the smallest material
segments of the language; segmental units form different strings of phonemes
(morphemes, words, sentences, etc.).
Supra-segmental lingual units do not exist by themselves, their forms are
realized together with the forms of segmental units; nevertheless, they render
meanings of various kinds, including grammatical meanings; they are: intonation
contours, accents, pauses, patterns of word-order, etc. Cf., the change of word-
order and intonation pattern in the following examples: He is at home (statement).
– Is he at home? (question).
Supra-segmental language units form the secondary line of speech,
accompanying its primary phonemic line. Segmental lingual units form a hierarchy
of levels. The term ‘hierarchy‘ denotes a structure in which the units of any higher
level are formed by the units of the lower level; the units of each level are
characterized by their own specific functional features and cannot be seen as a
mechanical composition of the lower level units.

7. § Hierarchy of linguistic levels and their characteristics.

These units affect each other in various ways, but in general terms we get the
following hierarchy of linguistic levels starting with the lowest1:
• Phonemic (consists of phonemes which do not have meaning and therefore
are no signs); The 1st level is formed by phonemes (it is called phonemic), the
smallest material lingual elements, or segments. They have form, but they
have no meaning. Phonemes differentiate the meanings of morphemes and
words. E.g.: man – men.
• Morphemic (consists of morphemes which are meaningful units); The 2nd
level is located above the phonemic one is morphemic. It is composed of
morphemes, the smallest meaningful elements built up by phonemes. The
shortest morpheme can consist of one phoneme, e.g.: step-s; -s renders the
meaning of the 3rd person singular form of the verb, or, the plural form of the
noun. The meaning of the morpheme is abstract and significative: it does not
name the referent, but only signifies it.

1
6
• Lexemic (level of lexemes, or words); The 3rd level in the segmental lingual
hierarchy is the lexemic level or the level of words, or lexemes, nominative
lingual units, which express direct, nominative meanings: they name, or
nominate various referents. The words consist of morphemes, and the shortest
word can include only one morpheme, e.g.: cat. The difference is in the
quality of the meaning.
• Phrasemic (level of phrasemes, or word-groups); The 4th level is the
phrasemic or the level of word combinations, or phrasemes, the combinations
of two or more notional words, which represent complex nominations of
various referents (things, actions, qualities, and even situations) in a sentence,
e.g.: a beautiful girl, their sudden departure. In a more advanced treatment,
phrases along with separate words can be seen as the constituents of
sentences, notional parts of the sentence, which make the fourth language
level.
• Proposemic (level of proposemes, or sentences); The 5th level is the
proposemic or the level of sentences, or proposemes, lingual units which
name certain situations, or events, and at the same time express predication,
i.e. they show the relations of the event named to reality - whether the event is
real or unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a fact or asked about, affirmed
or negated, etc., e.g.: Their departure was sudden (a real event, which took
place in the past, stated as a fact, etc.). Thus, the sentence is often defined as a
predicative lingual unit. The minimal sentence can consist of just one word,
e.g.: Fire!
• Supra-proposemic (level of supra-proposemes, or sentence groups); The
6th level is formed by sentences in a text or in actual speech. For the sake of
unified terminology, this level can be called “supra-proposemic”.
• Textemic / discoursemic (level of textemes/discoursemes, or
texts/discourses).
Not all lingual units are meaningful and, thus, they can not be defined as
signs: phonemes and syllables (which are also distinguished as an optional
lingual level by some linguists) participate in the expression of the meaning
of the units of upper levels; they

7
 § 8. The structure of the language vs. the structure of our knowledge

Modern linguistics establishes a certain correspondence between the

structure of the language and the structure of our knowledge. In other words, a
correspondence is created between language levels and knowledge levels
(Kaменская). According to this view the language, which is a means of
communication, serves to actualize our knowledge of the world for the purpose
of communication. So it is natural that the stratification of the language should be
somewhat related to the generalized structure of our knowledge (Koлшанский).
Let us examine the table proposed by professor Kamenskaya .
Table 1
Knowledge levels vs. Language levels

Level Knowledge level Language level

6 Total world knowledge Totality of texts
5 Branch of knowledge Field of texts
4 Fragment of knowledge Text
3 Proposition Sentence
2 Notion Word
1 Incomplete notion Morpheme
0 Distinction of notions Phoneme
Thus, each language level corresponds to a certain knowledge level and serves
as a means of its expression. The text is seen as the principal unit of the
language, the basic unit of communication, while the units of lower levels
participate in communication but indirectly, only through the text.

§9. Grammatical system vs. grammatical structure

Proceeding from the above definition of grammar as a part of linguistics

which studies the grammatical structure of language, excluding phonemics
and lexis, we can definitely state that the grammatical structure of language
involves all language levels excluding the level of phonemes. Phonemes are
studied by theoretical phonology. As for the lexemic level, words are studied both
by lexicology and grammar. Lexicology studies the word as a unit of lexis, e.g. its
naming capacity, while grammar analyzes the grammatical meaning, form and
function of the word, apart from its lexical meaning.
In this course we will follow the six-level hierarchy of grammatical levels
(grammatical structure) which seems most reasonable (top-down):
• Text/Discourse;
• Superphrasal unity (sentence-group);
8
 • Sentence;
• Phrase (word-group);
• Word;
• Morpheme.
Thus, the grammatical system of language comprises the following units and
their relations: morphemes, words, phrases (word-groups), sentences,
superphrasal unities (sentence-groups), and texts/discourses.
Since every element of the grammatical system is a sign, it has its
grammatical meaning, grammatical form, and grammatical function.

§ 10. Lexical and grammatical meaning

In addition to expressing a certain lexical meaning every word has a more

general and more abstract meaning which is divorced from its lexical meaning,
e.g.:

Book - books The words in the vertical columns have

Dog - dogs different lexical meanings, while those in the
Child - children horizontal ones have the same, but in the left
Ox - oxen column they all express the meaning of
oneness, while in the right column they all
express plurality.
Lives - lived The words in the vertical columns have
Sees - saw different lexical meanings as well, while
Drink — drank those in the horizontal ones have die same,
Eats - ate but in the left column they all express the
meaning of present time, while in the right
column - that of the past.
This more abstract and more general meaning is called grammatical
meaning. Grammatical meaning may be defined as the meaning recurrent in
identical sets of individual forms of different words (Гинзбург).
There is a prevailing point of view that any grammatical meaning is
dependent on the lexical one and is expressed through it. However, a number of
linguists point to the fact that grammatical meaning is transparent even if the lexis
is not. For example, take academician
L.V. Scherba's «Глокая куздра штеко будланула бокра и кудрячит
токастенького бокрёнка» or Ch.Fries's "The uggled doggie waggled the
doggled uggle" and the grammatical meanings will be quite clear to you without
the lexical ones. Nevertheless, it is important to note that grammatical meanings
do not exist by themselves, but are expressed in different ways.

9
 § 11. General types of devices to express grammatical meaning
1. Grammatical meaning and grammatical form
as intrinsic planes of the linguistic sign

There are three general types of devices to express grammatical

meaning: forms of words, function words, and word order.
The form of the word, which expresses grammatical meaning, is called its
grammatical form. The way in which the word book differs from the word books
indicates one grammatical meaning; the way in which the word lives differs from
the word lived expresses another; and the way in which smarter differs from smart
shows another.
A system of opposed grammatical forms with homogenous grammatical
meaning is called grammatical category. For example, book - books (Number);
lives - lived - will live (Tense); smart - smarter - the smartest (Degrees of
comparison).
Many of the grammatical meanings formerly expressed by the grammatical
forms are now expressed by function words of which prepositions are most
important. These words frequently have very little meaning apart from the
grammatical relationship they express. Examples are "He writes with a pen", "You
study at the University", "A cabin of wood" (Case). Conjunctions are also used to
express grammatical meanings: "John and Mary" (coordination), "He laughs as if
he were crazy" (subordination).
Word order is another important means of expressing grammatical meaning
in the word-group and in the sentence. For example, "text grammar - grammar
text", "computer desk - desk computer" (head-word and modifier), "They are
craving for a break. - Are they craving for a break?" (type of the sentence).
The three general devices to express grammatical meaning (forms of words,
function words and a fixed word order) prove that Modern English is an analytical
language. The chief features of an analytical language are as follows:
• Few grammatical inflections.
• A wide use of prepositions.
• A fixed word order.

§ 12. Grammatical function as extrinsic plane of the linguistic sign

10
 Нaving finished with the two intrinsic planes of the linguistic sign: its
grammatical form and grammatical meaning, let us consider the third, which is
extrinsic - its grammatical function. This is one of the most controversial and least
investigated problems of grammar. By grammatical function traditional grammar
understands the syntactic properties of a type of word, namely its method of
combining with other words (coordination, subordination, interdependence,
cumulation, apposition) and its function in the sentence (subject, predicate,
object, attribute, adverbial modifier) (Ильиш).
A new version of grammar called functional grammar studies language
(sentences, superphrasal unities and texts) in terms of three functions: ideational
'content' function (action, event, process, quality, quantity, time, place, etc.),
interpersonal function (statements, questions, offers, commands, mood, modality,
person, etc.) and textual function (voice, information structures, theme - rheme,
etc.) (Halliday).
We can clearly see that in relation to function the two grammars do not exclude
each other, but rather add on to one another: traditional grammar stops at the level
of sentences while functional grammar starts at this very level. But in all cases the
proper function of any linguistic sign is realized through extrinsic linguistic and
extralinguistic context.

§ 13. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations

The signs in the language system enter into relations of two different kinds:
syntagmatic and paradigmatic. These relations are commonly illustrated
diagrammatically as two axes, the syntagmatic (horizontal) and the paradigmatic
(vertical) (Fig. 1):

Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a

sequence: morphemes, words, phrases, sentences, superphrasal unities are linked,
11
 or chained, together according to grammatical rules. For example: My love is like
a cabbage divided into two: the leaves I give to others, but the heart I give to you.
In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the morphemes divide/d, in/to,
leave/s, other/s; the words My/love, a/cabbage, into/two, the/leaves, I/give,
to/others, the/heart, to/you, the word-groups like/a cabbage, is/like a cabbage,
divided/into two, a cabbage/divided into two, My love/is like a cabbage divided
into two, the leaves/I/give to others, the heart/I/give to you, the sentences My
love is like a cabbage divided into two: / the leaves I give to others, / but my heart
I give to you. The combination of two related linguistic units is referred to as a
syntagma.
The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic, are paradigmatic
relations, which exist between the elements of a system. In the grammatical
system each element is included in a set or series of connections based on different
formal and functional properties. For example, the noun enters into sets of related
forms realizing grammatical categories of number and case, the verb - grammatical
number, person, tense, aspect, phase, mood, and voice, the sentence - patterns of
various functional destination (declarative, imperative, interrogative, and
exclamatory), the text - patterns of different genres (a story, a novel, a poem, etc.)
and so on. These sets of paradigmatic forms of grammatical units are called
grammatical paradigms. The minimal paradigm consists of two forms, e.g.: boy -
boys. A more complex paradigm is that of the finite verb which can be divided into
subparadigms: has been working (number, person, tense, aspect, phase, mood, and
voice). Grammatical paradigms express various grammatical categories.
Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that
some sort of syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realization of any
paradigmatic set, that is which words to choose for linking together: This guy is a
student - These guys are students.

§ 14. Different approaches to the analysis of grammatical phenomena

There are several ways of looking at the language. We distinguish three

general approaches, which, in turn, group together methods of linguistic analysis
of the same orientation. They are the semiotic approach, the systemic-structural
approach and the static-dynamic approach.
The semiotic approach looks at grammatical units as signs and, hence, studies
their three planes: meaning, form and function. The methods used for this
purpose are as follows:
• Formal method, which is concerned only with the form, i.e. the structure of
words, word-groups, sentences, superphrasal unities and texts. For example, the
12
 verb "lived" in the following sentences is considered to be Past Indefinite
irrespective of the meaning: He lived here - If he lived here I would know about
it. As there is no direct correspondence between the planes of content and
expression, i.e. meaning and form, we face the phenomenon of grammatical
polysemy, when two or more units of the plane of content (meaning) correspond
to one unit of the plane of expression (form). The relation is that of one form
having several meanings, which are similar in some respect. In our case the
form of the Past Indefinite can express the meanings of real past and unreal
present actions or states.
 Semantic method, which is concerned only with the meaning, i.e. the
grammatical meaning of words, word-groups, sentences, etc. For instance,
the verb "lived" in the above examples represents two homonymous
forms, each having its own meaning, which is in no way similar to the
other. So in the first sentence it will be Past Indefinite Indicative, while
in the second - Subjunctive 2. The relation is that of one meaning - one
form, where cases of homonymy are not infrequent.
Note that the term "syncretism" is often applied to a combination
of two or more homonymous forms. In English there is regularly a
syncretism between the forms of the Past Indefinite and Past Participle (He
lived - He has lived), the morpheme -s/-es of the Plural, the Genitive case
of the noun, and the Third Person Singular Present Indefinite of the verb,
e.g. Essential services will be maintained - The nineties saw the banking
service's rapid growth - The company services washing machines.
An alternative term is "neutralization", which means mat the
underlying contrast is not manifested on the surface. Thus, to take another
example, the distinction between Singular and Plural is neutralized
(destroyed) in a word such as sheep, or the distinction between Past and
Present Tense is neutralized in a word such as "lived" in the above
examples.

• Functional method, which describes various functions of grammatical forms in

speech. There are two types of functional method (Bepxoвская):
• From form to function - this type of functional method describes various
functions, which may be acquired by the grammatical form in speech. For instance,
the Past Indefinite form of the verb has several functions in speech depending on
the context or situation: it may denote a momentary action (The dog jumped), a
repeated action (The old man came every evening), an action of some duration
(We stayed in the hotel for a fortnight), an unreal action (I wish you knew him),
etc.
13
• From function to form - this type consists in describing different means
(forms) of expressing a certain function. It reveals functional or lexical and
grammatical fields. Every field has the center (core) and the periphery. For
example, modality is expressed by various means: by the category of mood of the
verb, by modal verbs and modal words, etc. The center of the field is mood, while
the periphery consists of words and forms for which the modal meaning is
secondary, e.g. Past Indefinite in clauses of unreal condition.
The components of the functional field are often synonymous, that is, two or
more units of the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the plane of
content. Grammatical synonyms are defined as structurally similar
grammatical forms, which coincide in one or more of their grammatical
meanings (Ярцева, Иванова, Шендельс). For instance, future indefinite, future
continuous, present indefinite and present continuous forms of the verb can in
certain contexts render the same meaning of a future action: The ship will sail
tomorrow - The ship will be sailing tomorrow - The ship sails tomorrow - The ship
is sailing tomorrow.
Functional synonyms (variants) are referred to as different linguistic forms
(morphological, lexical, and syntactical) which realize similar language
functions. For instance, imperative unreality may be expressed by various means:
morphological (mood) - Take a seat! ; lexical and morphosyntactic - / suggest that
we take a seat; lexical and syntactic - I suggest that we should take a seat. All of
these may be considered synonymous.
This completes the discussion of the semiotic approach to grammatical
analysis.

§ 15. The systemic-structural and the static-dynamic approaches

The systemic-structural approach views grammatical units as interrelated

elements of a structured system. There are several models
of grammatical analysis discerned within the systemic-structural approach: these
are usually known as word and paradigm (WP), item and process (IP), item and
arrangement (IA), kernel and transformation (KT), text and procedure (TP),
discourse and action (DA).
The static-dynamic approach discriminates between lingual synchrony
(static) and diachrony (dynamic). Synchronic language studies are aimed at
describing a language as a whole at a particular point in time, while the
diachronic study of language means comparing at different stages in its history.
Types of Grammars

14
 The complex nature of grammatical phenomena and the variety of
approaches and methods of grammatical analysis, as described above, give way
to different types of grammars. Some examples are: case grammar, categorial
grammar, functional grammar, generative grammar, structural grammar,
category grammar, systemic grammar, text grammar, traditional grammar,
transformational-generative grammar, universal grammar, etc.

Summary
In summary, modern scholars understand grammar as a part of linguistics
which studies the grammatical system and structure of the language, excluding
phonemics and lexis.
Grammatical system is a structured set of elements related to each other by a
common function of giving expression to human thoughts.
Grammatical structure is a hierarchy of levels. Grammatical levels comprise
the following units and their relations (bottom-up): morphemes, words, phrases
(word-groups), sentences, superphrasal unities (sentence-groups), and texts/
discourses.
Since every element of the grammatical system is a sign, it has its
grammatical meaning, grammatical form, and grammatical function.
Grammatical meaning may be defined as the meaning recurrent in identical
sets of individual forms of different words.
The form of the word, which expresses grammatical meaning, is called its
grammatical form.
A system of opposed grammatical forms with homogenous grammatical
meaning is called grammatical category.
By grammatical function traditional grammar understands the syntactic
properties of a type of word, namely its method of combining with other words and
its function in the sentence.
The signs in the language system enter into relations of two different kinds:
syntagmatic and paradigmatic.
Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a
sequence. Paradigmatic relations exist between the elements of a system.

Lecture 2. MORPHOLOGY AS A PART OF GRAMMAR

1. Introduction: Three Parts of Grammar

15
 Traditionally grammar is divided into two parts: morphology (the grammar
of words) and syntax (the grammar of the sentence). The role of these parts in the
grammatical structure of different languages is different and depends on the type of
a language. In highly inflectional languages like Russian the syntactic role of the
word in the sentence is manifested primarily by the grammatical form of the word
and therefore morphology plays a very important role in the expression of
grammatical meanings of words and their role in the sentence, therefore the word
order is comparatively free.
In isolating languages like Chinese the syntactic role of a word is manifested
not by its grammatical form, but by its position in the sentence and therefore the
word order is fixed. English has the features of both inflectional and isolating
languages: words do have grammatical markers of their syntactic role in the
sentence (e.g. / saw him}, but these markers are very few and in most cases the
syntactic role of a word in the sentence is manifested by its position rather than by its
grammatical form (e.g. A hunter caught a bear), and therefore the word order in the
sentence is fixed.
Modern linguistics divides Grammar into three parts: morphology – the part of
grammar which deals with word-forms (morphemes and words), syntax – the part of
grammar, which deals with combinations of words into word-groups and sentences,
and text grammar – the part of grammar, which deals with the text macrostructure.
Traditional grammar analysis stops at sentence length. It considers morphemes,
words, phrases (word-groups) and sentences as basic units of grammar.
However scholars have repeatedly pointed out that the line between
morphology and syntax is not hard and fast. For example, is the problem of
tenses to be treated by morphology or syntax? On the one hand, the problem seems
one of the form and belongs to morphology since tenses have different forms: go /
goes – went – shall / will go. But on the other hand, the use of tenses seems to belong
to syntax. In subordinate clauses the choice of tenses depends on the type of the
clause: You said toy were American (object clause – Sequence of Tenses); The girl
who is smiling at us graduated from this college two years ago (attribute clause – free
use of tenses).
To take another example, the classification of words into parts of speech
seems to belong to morphology, as it describes words and their grammatical forms,
meanings and functions. But in English we may not be able to determine what part of
speech a word is if it if not regarded within a word-group or a sentence. Compare
words derived by conversion: Take a left turn! (n) – Turn left (v); to be chicken (a) –
to be a chicken (n) – to chicken (v).

16
 2. Text-grammar / discourse analysis

The development of modern linguistics has lead to recognition of the 3rd part of
grammar, namely text grammar/ discourse analysis. Text was defined as a unit
larger than sentence and the research was oriented towards discovering and classifying
types of text structures (composition forms, or macrostructure). Later linguists turned
to the analysis of the text macrostructure, a large-scale statement of the text’s content
(meaning). In terms of six-level grammatical structure basic units of the text grammar
are superphrasal unities (sentence-groups) and texts.

The term discourse analysis was introduced as the name for ‘a method of
analysis of connected speech’ and for ‘correlating ‘culture and language’ (Harris
1952). The second part of the definition is very important, because it delineates
discourse analysis from text grammar.

Basic units of discourse analysis are discourses, that is texts in social

context. Discourses are not only texts but everything that is connected with them: the
participants involved, their age, occupation, gender, race, education; the purpose of
text production; social, cultural, and personal meanings; interpretation of those
meanings; actions performed by people and so on.

According to this view the term ‘text’ and ‘discourse’ do not refer to different
domains. They are aspects of the same phenomenon, i.e. communication. The terms
reflect the difference in focus. Text is the basic means of this communication.
Discourse is the process of this communication, with a special emphasis on its
functional (social) plane. It is a more embracing term: if comprises both text and
social context. However the linguistic unit under analysis remain the same: it is the
text. Thus in addition to text grammar we assign discourse analysis to the third
part of grammar.

3. Morphology vs. accidence

What we must really try to do when we study morphology is not merely to

understand the abstract Schemes, but to acquire practical knowledge of the
actual functioning of morphological oppositions. We want to know how words
are actually inflected in English and, furthermore, how one is to learn to make
full use of the existing morphological oppositions.
Outside linguistics, “morphology” as a biological term implies a scientific
study of animals and plants; when applied to a language, “morphology” is
understood as part of grammar that studies the forms of words. Grammarians
17
have always used another term, * accidence”. Accidence is a word of Latin origin,
its dictionary definition runs as follows: that part of grammar which treats the
inflection of words, or the declension of nouns, adjectives etc, and the conjugation
of verbs; also a small book containing the rudiments of grammar. As a word, it can
be traced back to ad and cado (= to fall), whence case, cadence, casual, decadence
etc.
From the definitions taken from Modern English language dictionaries | it
can be seen that accidence deals mainly with the inflectional or inflected word-
forms, while morphology as a more general term means also the study of those
elements of language which are used to extend or limit the meaning of a word, or
to define its relation to other parts of a sentence.

4. Morphology, phonology and morphonology

Since words are made up of sounds, we can also say that morphology is
concerned with sequences of phonemes that have meaning. The word “word” is
such a sequence. While phonology studies speech sounds as a means of
differentiating the sound-cauls [ko:lz] (оболочки) of words and morphemes which
are semiologically relevant, morphonology is aimed at analysing the relations
between phonology and morphology, the ways the phonological oppositions are
used to render morphologically or grammatically relevant differences. Thus,
phonological differences in discipline <disciple, zip — sip, zeal — seal, rice —
rise are morphologically, or rather lexically-morphologically, pertinent, whereas,
morphonological variation in come — came, meet met, ways — processes — units
is said to be grammatically morphologically important.
The word morphology itself consists of two meaningful elements: Greek
morphe (=form), and logos (=word), similarly, these constituent elements can be
observed in some other units, like morpheme, allomorph, or biology, theology,
archeology, another element -y recurs in history (Latin historia), unity (Old French
unite), beauty (Middle English beaute = pretty). Although its meaning is rather
abstract, it helps us to recognise the latter three words as nouns. The expression of
plurality, for example of objects, facts or human beings named by the nouns is
achieved by the use of a special grammatical device — a morpheme in one of its
realisations: [s] in patients'; [z] in medical histories', [iz] in unities of time, place
and action', [z] in nouns are names etc. These number distinctions are regularly
expressed in nouns to show the grammatical importance of the opposition of two
forms of a single category (number).
Morphology is 1) that branch of linguistics which concerns itself with the
structure of words as dependent on the meaning of constituent morphemes and 2)
18
the system of morphological oppositions in a given language including their
grammatical categories as unities of form and content. ■ For instance, the word-
forms speaks and worked consist of two morphemes: speak + s, work + ed. The
left-hand parts of these words are called lexical morphemes. They carry the lexical
meaning of the words in question, whereas -s, -ed are grammatical morphemes,
because they serve to express the grammatical meanings of mood, tense, number,
person and other grammatical-morphological distinctions of the verb in Modern
English.
Morphology and morphonology have that in common that a certain unit
acquires a meaning, becomes semiologically relevant, only in opposition with
other units within the same system. (By contrast with words, as units of lexicology,
where each one has got an individual extralinguistic referent.) With phonology,
morphonology and morphology the situation is much more complex: phonemes
and grammatical morphemes have no individual extralinguistic referents, they
become units of language only when mutually opposed, like [t] and [d] in tusk and
dusk, or [-t] and [-d] in asked and cried.

5. A morpheme vs. semanteme

The central notion of morphology is the morpheme. There exist several

definitions of the morpheme. The Russian scholar I.A.Beaudoin de Courtenay defined
the morpheme as the smallest meaningful part of the word and this
understanding of the morpheme is shared by many scholars. Leonard Bloomfield
defined the morpheme as the minimum linguistic form. This definition fits very
well into the context of descriptive linguistics with its emphasis on the form rather
than the meaning, yet it does not reveal the difference between a morpheme and a
one-root word.
A much wider understanding of the morpheme is presented in the works of the
French scholar J. Vendryes. He divided all the units of the language, irrespective of
their level belonging, into two large groups: units which express notions and units
which express relations between notions. The first group was called semantemes and
the second - the morphemes. In his classification the class of morphemes included
all the functional means of the language: word-and form-building morphemes,
function words, prosodic means. In his classification root morphemes were referred
to the class of semantemes which invariably blurs (затемняет) the difference
between the word as an autonomous unit and the root morpheme as apart of a word.

6. A morpheme in Beaudoin de Courtenay’s interpretation

19
 Thus the interpretation of the morpheme given by Beaudoin de Courtenay
appears to be most satisfactory as it shows both the function of the morpheme (it
expresses meaning) and its difference from the word (it is a part of a word).
Morphemes are prefabs (блоки) for building words and grammatical forms of words
but unlike words they are not autonomous. Another important point of difference
between a word and a morpheme lies in the sphere of meaning. Morphemes are
meaningful units of the language, but their meanings are very specific and differ from
the meanings of a word. The meanings of grammatical and lexico-grammatical
morphemes are usually more abstract and wider than the meanings of a word. The
meaning of a root morpheme also differs from that of a word. Words, being
autonomous units, name objects of reality or objects of our thought. The meaning
of words is thus conceptual, they are related to concepts.

The morphemes are not autonomous and the meaning of root morphemes is best
described as associative: it evokes in our mind associations with the words having the
given root morpheme and with different concepts expressed by these words, yet
these concepts are not expressed by the morpheme itself, but by the words built
with this or that morpheme. For example, when we look at the morpheme - friend,
it evokes associations with many concepts and, consequently, many words that are
built with the help of this morpheme, such as a friend, friendship, to befriend,
friendly. Unlike the morpheme -friend, the word friend evokes in our minds the
concept of a friend (which, by the way, may be different in different cultures).'

However, as we shall later on see, Beaudoin de Courtenay's definition of the

morpheme does not include one type of morphemes which is important for analytical
languages like English. This is the so-called discontinuous morpheme (разрывная
морфема) which consists of an auxiliary element and a suffixational morpheme and
which is used to build analytical forms of a word, e.g. be - ing (is doing), have - ed
(have disappeared). For this reason we consider it possible to stretch the definition
of the morpheme a little bit and define it as the smallest meaningful unit of the
language (not a part of the word), which as it appears may be larger than a word
in the case of analytical forms of words.

7. Classification of morphemes

Morphemes can be classified according to several principles, such as: 1)

position in the word; 2) function; 3) material form; 4) distribution.

20
 According to their position in the word morphemes are subdivided into
central, or root morphemes and peripheral, or affixational morphemes. Root
morphemes are usually described as free (they are more autonomous than
affixational) and affixational morphemes are referred to as bound.

According to their function morphemes fall into two classes: notional and
functional morphemes. Notional morphemes serve as carriers of the material part of
the lexical meaning of a word, and functional morphemes change either the lexical
meaning of a word (derivational, or word-building morphemes) or the grammatical
meaning (form-building, or inflectional morphemes). Thus, if we take the word
postimpressionists, we can see all types of morphemes in it: post-impress-ion-ist-s,
impress is a root morpheme, post-, -ion and -ist are derivational morphemes and -s is
an inflectional morpheme.

The borderline between the notional and the functional morphemes is not rigid
and* they can change their status in the course of time. Some of the word-building
suffixes, such as -dom, and -hood developed from root morphemes. Such processes
are going on in the present-day English too. The function of the morpheme -man in
such words as a seaman and a policeman can be compared to the function of the
derivational morpheme - or/er in the words sailor and officer. The .unit -man
functions like a suffix which makes possible such phrases as a female policeman.

Usually morphemes evolutionize from notional to functional, but the

opposite direction is also possible and it can be observed in the case of the
derivational suffix -teen which acquires the status of a notional morpheme in such
words and phrases as a teenager, teen problems, teen tunes, teen fashion etc.
Occasionally suffixes are used as notional words for expressive purposes. E.g. "You
shouldn Y be against York, you should be against the French. Their colonialism ".
"Isms andocracies. Give me facts " (G. Greene).

According to the material form of expressing meaning morphemes can be

positive and zero. A zero morpheme can be defined as a meaningful absence of a
morpheme. A meaning is manifested by an absence of a formal marker which becomes
obvious only in an opposition, as in a cloud :: clouds, where -s is the marker of
plurality, and -0 is the marker of singularity.

According to distribution, or linear characteristics morphemes are

subdivided into continuous and discontinuous. A continuous morpheme is the one
which is not interrupted by other elements, whereas a discontinuous morpheme
consists of two parts: an auxiliary element and a suffix with a root morpheme in-
21
between, e.g. has translat-ed, or will be do-ing. The recognition of a discontinuous
morpheme makes it necessary, as I have already mentioned, to slightly modify the
definition of the morpheme and consider it as the smallest meaningful unit of the
language, which in case of analytical forms may exceed the boundaries of a word.

8. Word vs. morpheme vs. morph vs. allomorph

Most linguists agree that morphology is the study of word-forms and

their meaningful parts. Thus, in the English word watched, two bits of meaning
are present: WATCH plus PAST TENSE, which are generally called morphemes.
In the word pens two morphemes PEN and PLURAL are present. A word such as
unhelpful has three morphemes: NEGATIVE + HELP + ADJECTIVE. But terms
such as past tense, negative, plural and adjective are abstract; they are not real
forms. The real forms that represent them (-ed, un-, -s, -ful) are therefore usually
called morphs.
We can represent the examples thus (McCarthy, 1991: 314):
Words Morphs Morphemes
Watched watch –ed watch + PAST
Pens pen –s pen + PLURAL
Unhelpful un-help-ful NEGATIVE+help+ADJECTIVE
The morpheme is one of the central notions of grammatical theory and has
presented difficulties of definition and identification. Without going into details, we
can briefly define the morphemes as the smallest meaningful units into which a
word form may be divided, and the morphs as the real forms that represent
them.
However, the morpheme will often be recognized without its form being
identical. A clear examole if the formation of plurals in English. If we compare the
final elements in hands [z], cats [s] and matches [iz], we can observe a common
meaning [PLURAL], a common distribution [N+PLURAL] and phonological
resemblances. So the morpheme [PLURAL] is realized by three different variants,
which are called allomorphs [z], [s], and [iz]. Similarly the English PAST
morpheme has its allomorphs in the different realizations of –ed in hooked [t],
raised [d] and handed [id]. These allomorphs are said to be phonologically
conditioned (by preceding voiceless or voiced consonants).
But there are morphologically conditioned allomorphs as well. If we
compare other plurals as ox – oxen, man – men, foot – feet or past tenses drink –
drank, write – write with the regular plural as in cats and past as in landed, we can
clearly see that the meaning and function of –en (oxen), and the very change of
[æ] into [e] (man – men), or [u] into [u:] (foot – feet) is the same as the meaning
22
and function of –s plural (cats), while the meaning and function of the change of [i]
into [æ] (drink – drank) and [ai] into [ou] (write – wrote) is the same as the
meaning and function of –ed in landed. Thus, the morpheme of the plural has
three allomorphs in this case: -s, -en, and vowel change, and the morpheme of
the past has two allomorphs; -d and vowel change. All of them are
morphologically conditioned.
The notion of allomorphs raises a further problem. Sheep can be singular
and plural, and put is the present, past or past participle of the verb. To overcome
this difficulty, some linguists have proposed the existence of a zero morph (written
Ø). Then in the case of English plurals, Ø will be an allomorph of the morpheme
PLURAL, alternating with phonologically conditioned [z], [s], and [iz] or
morphologically conditioned –s, -en, and vowel change. Similarly Ø would be an
allomorph of the PAST alternating with [t], [d], and [id] or –ed, and vowel change.
The morpheme is always an abstraction and presents a sum of its variants
which are called allomorphs. Let us take the morpheme of the plural of English
nouns. It is represented by a number of allomorphs: - z (boys), -s (cats), -iz
(classes), -en (oxen), -ren (children), 0 (bison), - ae (antennae), - a (sanatoria), -it
(radii) etc. Some of the allomorphs are phonetically conditioned, i.e. depend on the
position in the word, some are historically conditioned and are the result of the
language evolution or borrowings (words were borrowed together with their form-
building suffixes).

9. Types of morphs and morphemes

Morphemes and the morphs that represent them are clearly of different types.
In the word repainted, the morph paint can stand alone as a word and is therefore a
free morph; re- and -ed cannot stand alone and are therefore bound morphs.
Another distinction is often made between lexical morphs, that is morphs
which have lexical meaning and can be used in the creation of new words, e.g.
head, line, paint, -ist, -er, etc and grammatical morphs, those which have
grammatical meaning and simply represent grammatical categories such as person,
tense, number, case, etc.
Lexical morphs, which form the core of the word such as help in unhelpful or
build in rebuild, are called roots. The root is that part of the word which is left
when all the affixes, that is all the morphs that have been added to it whether
before or after it, are taken away. The root is central to the building of new
words. Not all the roots can stand as free words (econom-ist, -y, Ac), so some roots
are bound.

23
 Affixes (affixational morphs) are divided into prefixes, occurring at the
beginning of words and suffixes, occurring at the end of words. Infixes, raorphs
inserted within other morphs, also exist in some languages (stand-stood; Lat.
rupit-rumpit/broke-breaks). In English the commonest process is that of
suffixation.

10. The Scope of Morphology

The place and the scope of morphology within grammar have been the subject
of much debate. A sample of English words will illustrate the areas which are
referred to morphology by different linguists (McCarthy, 1991: 317):
1. Locates, locating, heated.
2. Location, locative, dislocate.
3. Earache, workload, timebomb.
Suffixes in group one realize morphemes such as present, present participle,
past, but do not change the nature of locate as the verb. Morphemes, such as
present, past, plural, person etc, that express grammatical meanings, are called
inflectional morphemes.
Inflection is a major category of morphology. It has no lexical meaning or
function. Its meaning is purely structural. Thus, there is no difference in the way
of lexical meaning between locate and located, or between house and houses. But
there is difference in grammatical meaning between these words (present-past,
singular-plural). The place of inflection within grammar is indisputable. .-' "
Group two adds bound morphs to locate which change its word class and
enable us to derive new words (adjective, noun, verb with opposite lexical
meaning). The process of adding bound morphs to create new words of the same or
different word classes is called derivation.
Group three shows examples of words, which are made by combining two free
roots. This is called composition or compounding, and earache, workload and
timebomb are compounds.
Groups two and three are different from one, in that they enable new words to
be formed; they are examples of word-formation.

11. Different views on the scope of morphology

As noted above, there's difference of opinion on the scope of morphology, and

the main point of argument is the status of word-formation (derivation and
compounding).
24
 Early transformational grammarians, N.Chomsky among them, explained
word-formation processes in terms of syntactic transformations.
For example: a compound such as manservant was seen to incorporate the
sentence The servant is a man; this sentence by transformation generates the
compound. This description seems problematic. However, according to the
transformationalist view word-formation is referred to syntax.
Opposing this view the lexicalist view transferred derivation and
compounding to the lexicon proper. According to this view rules of word-
formation may be stored in the dictionary and word-formation occurs entirely
within the lexicon.
In the 1970's and 1980's important works on morphology were produced which
place derivation, and compounding together with inflection within a
morphological component of the grammar (Jackendoff, 1975; Selkirk, 1982;
Anderson, 1982). This may be termed the broad interpretation of morphology.
However, in the Russian linguistic tradition morphology is reduced to
word-change/inflection proper, which is the narrow interpretation of
morphology. The proponents of this approach include professors A.I.Smirnitsky,
B.A.Ilyish, L.S.Barchudarov, D.A.Shtelling, G,N.Vorontsova and others. Their
view is that grammar concerns grammatical or structural meaning of
morphemes: we do not study the meanings of root morphemes, which are
necessarily lexical, and other lexical morphs, which are used to build words. These
are studied in lexicology. This is the approach we are familiar with from
schoolbook descriptions of grammar and we will use it in this course.
It is important to note that irrespective of ail the differences the word and the
morpheme are central and fundamental units in morphology.
Since we adopted the view that morphology studies inflection or word-change,
let us turn to inflection as the subject of morphology and its types.

12. Inflection as a subject of morphology

Leonard Bloomfield (1933) referred to inflection as the outer layer of the

morphology of word-forms. In other words, inflections are added when all
derivational and compositional processes are complete. The plural form of
motorbike and painter will be motorbikes and painters, not *motorsbike and
*paintser.
Inflections such as tense, number, person, etc will be attached to ready-made
stems. Stems are the forms to which inflections may be added, but which may

25
 already have derivational affixes (repaint -repaints, repaint-ed; computerize -
computerizes - computeriz-ed).
Inflectional categories such as tense, voice and number play an important
role in syntax and are called morphosyntactic categories, since they affect both
the words within which they occur and the words around them. For example, the
category of number of the noun-subjects predetermines the same category of
number of the predicate-verb or vice-versa: students study - this student studies.
Inflectional morphemes are very productive: the third person singular
present tense s can be added to any new English verb: the same cannot be said
about derivational affixes: we can say repaint-rework-remake, but not *rebe or
*relove.
13. Types of Inflection. Word-change

There are two main types of Inflection:

1. Synthetic, i.e. occurring within the body of the word, without auxiliary
words (dogs, land-ed, boy-'s, works, etc);
2. Analytical, i.e. using auxiliary words (have come, is known, more
interesting, etc).
In addition, there are a few special cases of different forms of a word built from
altogether different stems, called suppletive formations (go-went, good-better,
etc).
Synthetic types. Morphemic types

These include morphemic and vowel-change types.

The number of morphemes used for deriving word-forms in Modem English is
very small. They are: Noun morphemes:
• Suffix s/es (with three allomorphs) used to form the plural of almost all nouns
(cats, dogs, horses), suffixes -en/-ren used for the same purposes (oxen, children,
brethren);
• Suffix -'s (with three allomorphs) used to form the genitive case of nouns
(mother's, Pat s, George's).
Verb morphemes:
• Suffix -s/es for the 3rd person singular Present Indefinite (with three allomorphs),
e.g. works, wins, watches;
• Suffix -d/ed for the Past Tense of certain (regular) verbs (with three allomorphs),
e.g. worked, wondered, wanted.
Past Participle morphemes:
• Suffix -d/ed with certain (regular) verbs (with three allomorphs), e.g. lived,
laughed, landed;
26
 • Suffix -n/en with certain verbs, e.g. shown, known, written. Present
Participle and Gerund morpheme:
• Suffix -ing, e.g. working, watching winning. Adjective and adverb
morphemes:
• Suffixes -er and -est used to form the degrees of comparison, e.g. smarter, the
smartest.
It should be noted that most of these morphs are monosemantic, that is, they
denote only one grammatical category. This is certainly not the case with the
suffix -s/es of the 3rd person singular. It expresses at least four grammatical
categories: person, number, tense and mood. This is the case of grammatical
syncretism.

Vowel change/sound alternation type

Examples are as follows: mouse - mice, write - wrote - written, take - took -
taken, etc.

14. Analytical types of morphemes

The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognizes it as a

combination of an auxiliary word with a basic word,
e.g. have lived, is writing, was built, will come, more beautiful, etc (Блох). The
auxiliary word in this interpretation is a word, which has practically lost its lexical
meaning and is mainly used to express some grammatical category of the basic
word. To analytical forms in traditional interpretation belong:

• Perfect, Perfect Continuous, Continuous Tenses, Passive Voice, Questions,

and Negation - all of these are no doubt analytical forms: has written, has been
writing, is writing, was written, Do you know? - I don't know, etc. As indicated
above, analytical and synthetic forms may be used together to express different
grammatical meanings. They form a unity in Perfect, Perfect Continuous,
Continuous Tenses and Passive Voice (see the examples above).
Future Tenses with shall/will: I/we shall go - he/she/it/you/they will go.
Doubt has been expressed about these formations. There is a view that shall and
will have a lexical meaning as modal verbs do. However, according to traditional
grammar shall and will are auxiliary verbs and constitute a typical feature of the
analytical structure of Modern English.

• Degrees of comparison of adjectives and adverbs are formed with the help of
auxiliary words more and most, e.g. more vivid (ly) - most vivid (ly).
27
 However, there is a tendency to recognize as analytical not all such
combinations, but only those of them that have a discontinuous morpheme
(EapxyflapoB, 1975: 67-70). The discontinuous morpheme is a composite
inflectional morpheme consisting of two disconnected parts: a stem of the
auxiliary word and an inflection of the basic word, e.g. has taken {have = +
-en}, have changed {have = + -ed}, is taking {be — + -ing}> was begun {be = +
-vowel change}, has cut0 {have= + -0} etc. According to this view combinations
o f shall/will + infinitive and degrees of comparison of adjectives (more beautiful -
the most beautiful) are not analytical forms but free combinations of notional
words. The reason for this is as follows: they lack the discontinuous morpheme and
the lexical meaning of the first component is very pronounced.

Suppletive formations

In addition to synthetic and analytical means of word-change in Modern

English, there is another way, called suppletion, which is found in a few cases. By
a suppletive formation we mean building a form of the word from an altogether
different stem. For example: I-me, be-am-is-are-was-were, go-went, good-better,
bad-worse.
Suppletion is a very insignificant element in word-change but it concerns a
few very widely used words.

Summary

To sum up, we have seen that modem linguistics accepts a threefold division of
Grammar into Morphology, Syntax and Text Grammar/Discourse Analysis.
Morphology, a part of Modern English Grammar, is the paradigmatic study of
words and morphemes. Morphology studies Word-Change, or Inflection. It
consists of grammatical morphemes, morphs and allomorphs, which express
different grammatical categories. There are synthetic, analytical and suppletive
types of Inflection. Synthetic types are represented by a few inflectional
morphemes and vowel change, while analytical types are represented by auxiliary
words or discontinuous morphemes. Both types may be used together. However,
analytical types of Inflection are the most productive. Combining analytical types
with prepositions and fixed word order enhances the idea that English is an
analytical language.

Lecture 3.
28
 Classification of words. Parts of speech.

"Parts of speech are metaphors because the whole

nature is a metaphor of a human mind"
R. W.Emerson
1. The position of parts of speech in the system of the language

From the aspect of internal systemic properties language presents a

structured system of signs. It is a huge system and it consists of many subsystems.
One of the most important subsystems in any language is the system of parts of
speech which reflects the categorization of words into classes. The necessity for
such a categorization was understood from the early days of linguistics. The first
classification of vocabulary into groups, or classes was made by ancient Greeks
and this system of classification has come to be known as "parts of speech" ("parts
orationis"). The term "parts of speech" came to stay, though theoretically it is not
very precise because in fact we deal with the classification of words on the level
of language and not speech, but the term has survived, partially through tradition
and largely due to the great respect for ancient scholars and their contribution to
linguistics. We shall use the terms "parts of speech" and "classes of words" as
synonyms.
The ancient Greeks believed that there exists a basic correlation between the
way the world is organized and the way language is organized. Thus, they
supposed that the world consists of two basic parts: entities or things and
processes which relate these entities to one another, i.e. things and what these
things do. This relationship was reflected in the two main parts of speech first
pointed out by Aristotle: the Name and the Verb (to which he later added the
Adjective and the Adverb).
The present day linguistics however is more focused not on the world
outside us, i.e. the physical environment but rather on the world inside us, i.e. the
reflection of this world in the human mind (the picture of the world), the
conceptualization and categorization of the world by the human mind. This new
focus has important consequences for the further development of parts-of-speech
theory.
Parts of speech occupy the central position in the language system as they
present the meeting point of the two main domains of the language: its lexicon and
grammar. Therefore they are indispensable for both the theory of the language and
the language acquisition. It is impossible to present a word in a dictionary without
placing it into a certain part of speech. Nor is it possible to explain the meaning of
a word in the process of teaching a language, especially a foreign language without
identifying its part-of-speech belonging. As for a native language such an
explanation is not always necessary just because the parts-of-speech classification
29
is actually a part of language competence which is partially innate (many scholars
believe in the existence of the so-called language instinct in human beings [Pinker
1994]).
In traditional grammars the word is in fact rarely given any definition,
although it is very important, because other linguistic units are defined in terms
of the word. Thus, a sentence is defined as a combination of words, and the parts
of speech as classes of words. It is simply assumed that everyone knows what a
word is.
In modern grammar the word is defined as a minimum free form
(Bloomfield). As a definition this has been often criticized. The English definite
article the would normally be called a word, and so would in. Could these words
appear on their own? It seems unlikely. Nevertheless, as a characteristic of words
as a class, the above definition is beyond dispute.
The main problem with the word has been the problem of classification and
its principles.
2. Principles of word classification
In the first lecture we defined the word as a linguistic sign. Thus, the
analysis of the word could be made in three different directions: its meaning,
form and function. Hence, the main principles, or bases for classification of
words are the follows:
1. The semantic principle presupposes the evaluation of the general
meaning common to all the words of the given class, the kind of
reference they have. It is important to note that the general meaning of
the words belong to a given class does not coincide with their lexical
or grammatical meanings but is close to both. For this reason some
linguists call it lexical-grammatical (A.I. Smirnitsky). Thus, the general
meaning of the nouns that refer to things or substances is thingness /
substantivity, the meaning of the verb is that of process (action or state),
etc.
2. The formal principle provides for the study of all the specific
inflectional features common to all the words of the given class, i.e.
classes of words can be defined according to how the words of the
various classes take on various forms according to rules of inflections.
As we have seen, sets of opposed inflections form grammatical
categories. This is, word classes are characterized by common
grammatical (morphological) categories. E.g. the noun is characterized
by the categories of number & case, while the verb is characterized by
the categories of tense, mood, voice, aspect, etc.
3. The functional principle concerns the syntactic role of the words of the
given class in the sentence and their ability to combine with other words.
30
 E.g. the syntactic function of adjectives is that of an attribute, while their
combinability is mainly restricted to nouns.
It is important to remember that in order to have scientific validity any
classification must be organized on a constituent basis, i.e. the adopted principles
must be applicable to all the words of the given class, and the classes must be
mutually exclusive.

Unfortunately most classifications of words prove to be inconsistent as well,

and are severely criticized. What approaches to classification of words have been
attempted?

3. Different classifications of words

The classical approach.
The first division of words into classes is traced back to ancient Greek. Later
I was applied to Latin. The most respected grammar of the medieval period was the
adaptation of Greek grammar to Latin by Priscian (500 AD).
The Greek developed the notion of parts of speech, which meant ‘elements
of the sentence’. To analyze a sentence was to assign (отнести) each word to its
part, in other words to parse (to resolve into elements).
At the highest level each word was assigned to a part of speech : Noun, verb,
Participle, pronoun, Preposition, adverb, Conjunction & Interjection (8 parts of
speech all in all) on the basis of the semantic principle. E.g. ‘the noun is a part of
speech that assigns to each of its subjects, bodies, or things a common or proper
quality’ (the referents are mentioned).
Each part of speech was then subclassified according to what in Latin were
called its accidentia or ‘accidents’, which correspond to grammatical categories in
modern terminology. E.g. noun accidents were case, number, and gender; verb
accidents – number, person, voice, mood (quality), conjugation, etc.
All the forms of the same word were seen as inflections (modifications) of a
basis, unmodified or leading form.
The paradigm of a word was defined as a set of interrelated forms, all of
which were seen as modifications of the leading form. E.g.> flos ‘flower’ – floris
‘flower’s, flores ‘flowers’ = florum ‘flowers’.
Compared to modern structuralists, the ancient grammarians basically
thought of words as wholes (the notion of morpheme had not been established).
It is also important to note that two bases for classification were in
operation, e.g. first, the noun is defined on the basis of what it refers to, a
semantic type of classification, and second, on formal grounds – it is conjugated
for case.

31
 Modern critics of the classical approach demonstrate that it was an
insufficient description of Latin because ancient grammarians underemphasized
formal features while overemphasizing meaning in the process of classification.
However, Priscian’s grammar was the most respected grammar of the medieval
period.
Through Latin, the classical approach found its way into grammar books
describing Modern languages.

4. Modern adaptations of the classical approach.

Semantic and formal adaptations
The present day traditional classification of words into part of speech, which
we find in most grammar schoolbooks, is seen as a modern adaptation of the
classical approach.

According to most traditional grammars there are 8 parts of speech, which

correspond to those of the classical approach with the exception that the adjective
is introduced instead of participle.
Parts of speech are mainly defined on the semantic principle, i.e. the noun
is a word used for naming anything, where anything may be a person, quality,
action, feeling, collection, ect.
The verb is a word used for saying something about something else, and
so on. However, the conjunction and the pronoun were defined on the functional
principle, i.e. the pronoun is a word used instead of a noun; the conjunction
links sentences or parts of them together. The classification seems to be
inconsistent because two bases are applied to different classes of words.
It should be noted that some grammarians have criticized the semantic
principle of the traditional grammar. Among these grammarians is the famous
Danish linguist Otto Jespersen (1860-1943). In his treatise (труд) ‘Philosophy of
grammar’ he makes the following argument: traditional grammar says, ‘by means
of the verb something is said about something or somebody’. In the sentence ‘You
are a scoundrel’, Jespersen goes on, it is the word scoundrel that says something
about somebody. Thus according to the semantic principle it should have been
regarded as a verb.
In traditional grammar, nouns are said to denote things, objects or
substances, verbs denote actions or states, adjectives – qualities or properties
and so on. But there are nouns, such as action, arrival, flight, discussion, speech,
rest which denote actions or states; there are other nouns such as whiteness,
stubbornness which denote qualities.

32
 This shows the semantic principle to be insufficient for classifying parts of
speech in English.

Other grammarians believe that the only principle according to which words
should be divided into classes is their form. What they mean by form is that there
is some element (inflection) in a given word that identifies it as belonging to
the given class. E.g. the class of nouns in Russian includes all words that are able
to participate in the opposition of cases, number, and gender, irrespective of
whether they are used to denote a substance, quality or action. Such a classification
is called formal.
However, in analytical languages where the system of inflections is
scarce, the formal criterion raises more questions than gives answers. What shall
we do with invariable words, such as prepositions, conjunctions, interjections,
some pronouns, adjectives, adverbs, nouns, verbs? A possible answer may be to
group them together into one class, but then the description of English would be
inadequate and incorrect. All this proves that the formal principle is insufficient
to classify words into classes.

5. Development of a threefold part-of-speech classification

We have seen that the semantic and the formal principles taken
separately proved inadequate for the purposes of part-of-speech classification.
Linguists were looking for new approaches and methods of dividing words into
classes, which could be more consistent and reliable. Thus, a complex threefold
approach emerged. It included the form, meaning and function as the necessary
principles for a part-of-speech classification. The first advocates of this
approach were Henry Sweet & O. Jespersen.
O. Jespersen showed that jump, play, address taken separately, cannot be
determined as parts of speech. In order to define the part of speech to which they
belong, it is necessary to analyze these words in sentences and take into
account their morphological and syntactic properties. In addition, Jespersen
declares that ’everything should be kept in view, form, function and meaning’.
Sweet’s classification attempts to improve the conventional division of
words into classes, asserting the expediency of the three mentioned principles.
However, in reality, these authors consider only one of these criteria.
It is important to note that Russian linguists developed the threefold complex
approach to part-of-speech classification and put it into practice with remarkable
consistency. Three celebrated scholars notable for the elaboration of these
principles are V.V. Vinogradov in connection with his study of the Russian
33
language, and Smirnitsky and B.A. Ilish in connection with their study of English
Grammar.
However, even the threefold classification is not free of some drawbacks,
especially when it concerns the status of modal, auxiliary, aspective verbs, etc.,
which have the form of notional words but the function of formatives.

6. Functional (syntactic) classification of words

Another attempt to develop a consistent classification of words was made by

Charles Fries (1887-1967), a representative of American descriptive linguistics. He
used an entirely new method of establishing classes of words in English based on
the functional (syntactic) principle.
In his book ‘The Structure of English’ Fries introduces methods of
descriptive linguistics into syntax. Fries’s main assumption was that all words
that can occupy the same set of positions in English sentences belong to the
same class, i.e. part of speech. He chose 3 sentences which he called test-frames.
By means of substitution he tried to find words which could be used in those test-
frames without a change in structural meaning.
The test frames were as follows:
FA: The concert was good.
FB: The clerk remembered the tax.
FC: The team went there.
By replacing the word concert in FA Fries makes a list of words that can
substitute for it and represent the same functional unit in English sentence
structure. The words such as food, coffee, taste, difference, family, etc belong to
this list. The words that were singled out this way were called words of Class 1.
The same method of substitution was used to establish words of Class 2,
replacing was with remembered and went.
Class 3 words replaced good. And Class 4 words replaced there.
In this way, assuming that all words can occupy the same position in a
sentence belong to the same class, Fries establishes four major form-classes of
words in English. These classes are not denoted by special terms, such as noun,
verb, adjective, and adverb instead they are given numbers. Roughly speaking
these classes correspond to the traditional classes of parts of speech: Class 1 –
nouns, Class 2 – verbs, Class 3 – adjectives, Class 4 – adverbs.
As to other words, Fries calls them function words, and divides them into 15
groups (A, B, C, D, etc).
Group A, for example, comprises determiners: articles and all their
substitutes (no, your, few, both, many, John’s, twenty, etc.).
34
 Group B is modal verbs and auxiliary verbs.
Group C includes only one word ‘not’.
These groups differ from traditional classification, but the main problem
with function words is that they are grouped not on the functional (syntactic)
principle as Fries promised, but on the semantic one. Fries wrote that function
words must be learnt as separate words signaling particular structural meaning. But
if they are to be learnt separately why are they divided into 15 groups? There
probably should be as many groups as there are words.
The drawbacks of Fries’s classification of words into form-classes are as
follows:
- His method is inconsistent: it claims to be functional (syntactical), but
often resorts to meaning (two bases for classification of function words);
- His classification does not explain the difference between form-classes
and groups of function words.
- His classification is very long, which makes it unacceptable for practical
purposes.

We have seen that a number of attempts have been made to divide words
into classes, none of them being ideal. Still, the majority of modern linguists
subscribe to the threefold classification of words in English according to form,
meaning and function. This classification, while not perfect, proved to be more
consistent than not, and quite acceptable for teaching purposes.

7. The system of parts of speech

Following the threefold approach to part-of-speech classification, a part of

speech is defined as a class of words having a common referential meaning,
common morphological properties (form) and common syntactic functions. Within
the threefold classification modern grammar distinguishes at least 8 parts of speech
in English (Table 1)

35
Category of phase (the opposition of perfect and nоn-perfect forms)
Predicative - is (part of) a clause predicate
36
 8. Notional and Function (formal) words

According to the view held by some grammarians, Smirnitsky, Ilish, Fries

among them, all parts of speech should be further subdivided into two categories:
notional words and function (formal, structural) words.
Notional words are characterized by the following:
- They denote things, actions, and other extralinguistic phenomena.
- They have distinct clear-cut lexical meaning (book, good, fly, work, etc.).
- They perform various syntactic functions in the sentence.
- They represent ‘open’ classes (it is possible to create new items.).

Function words have the following characteristics:

- They denote relations and connections between notional words.

- They have less distinct meaning.
- They do not perform any syntactic function.
- They represent ‘closed’ classes (their number is limited – 154 function
words), but they occur frequently.
- They are not used independently, i.e. without notional words (there are
no sentences consisting of function words only.

It is worth mentioning that the boundaries between notional & function

words are flexible, as some words belonging to a notional part of speech may
perform the function of a formal one. Verbs such as to be, to have, to do are good
examples: I have some money (notional word) – I have lost some money (function
word).

9. Controversial issues in part-of-speech classification.

Pronouns

There are some classes of words that cause controversies in part-of-speech

classification. Let us now consider the most important cases of such controversies
(Verkhovskaya).

There are at least two questions which we must answer dealing with
pronouns. The first one is whether pronouns constitute a separate part of speech. If
we answer ‘yes’, we must answer the second question: whether pronouns belong to
notional or functional parts of speech.

37
 Some linguists (H. Sweet, Л.В. Щерба) think that pronouns are not a
separate part of speech and should be distributed between nouns and adjectives
(we, somebody are nouns-pronouns, while my, some in some tea are adjective-
pronouns.

Some linguists of the classical school used the term pronoun with reference
to noun-pronouns only because it literally means ‘instead of a noun’. However
Jespersen points out that this definition cannot be applied to all pronouns.

It is true that syntactically pronouns function in the same way as nouns or

adjectives. But unlike nouns or adjectives pronouns do not name objects or
properties. They only point to them, without naming them. Thus, their categorical
meaning is that of indication, while the categorical meanings of nouns and
adjectives are those of thingness and property respectively.

Besides this semantic difference, pronouns can be characterized by some

other features that distinguish them from nouns and adjectives.

- They cannot be used with articles and other determiners.

- Personal, possessive and reflexive pronouns have person distinction,
while nouns and adjectives do not.
- Personal pronouns have a case system different from nouns.
- In the 3rd person singular personal, possessive and reflexive pronouns
distinguish between masculine, feminine and neuter or non-personal
gender (he-she-it, his-her-its, himself-herself-itself).
- Relative and interrogative pronouns distinguish between personal and
non-personal gender (who, whom, whose – what, which).
All these differences make the majority of grammarians believe that the
pronoun should be recognized as a separate part of speech. Another question
relates to whether pronouns belong to notional or functional parts of speech.
Grammarians of the classical school were inclined to treat pronouns as
notional words, especially as they did not see them as a separate part of speech and
regarded them as nouns or adjectives.
A majority of present-day grammarians consider pronouns to be
functional parts of speech for the following reasons.
- Pronouns have an extremely abstract and generalized meaning, which is
characteristic of function words.
- Like other functional parts of speech they form a ‘closed’ system, which
means that they cannot be normally extended by the creation of
additional members, while notional parts of speech can.

38
 Prof. L.S. Barchudarov expressed an opinion that pronouns belong to a
special type of words, which he called structural words. He goes on to say that
structural words are intermediate between notional and function words.
Function words, according to L.S. Barchudarov, cannot be used as independent
parts of the sentence (prepositions & conjunctions). The use in an independent
syntactical function is characteristic of notional words. Pronouns have this feature
in common with notional words, therefore they are intermediate between notional
and function words).

10. The Article. The Status of the Article in English

The theory of article is problematic. The points that arouse ‘controversy in

the English language are as follows.
- The status of the article.
- The meaning of the article.
- The function of articles.

Opinions differ on whether the article is a morpheme or a word. In some

languages the article is definitely a morpheme. E.g. in Swedish the article is
attached to a noun as a kind of suffix.

In other languages it is quite clear that the article is a word. E.g. it is

impossible to say that the article in German is a morpheme, since it is declined
and, therefore, every form consists of two morphemes: the genitive singular des as
opposed to the nominative and accusative das. Thus, in German the article is a
word.

In English the article is not inflected, and this makes it possible for some
linguists to assert that the combination ‘article+noun’ forms a unit in which the
article is a kind of form-building morpheme.

However, most linguists do not agree with this point of view for the
following reasons.

 The article can change its position in relation to the noun: it can be
separated from the noun by other words, a dog – a big black dog…
 The article can be substituted by other words, the so-called determiners
(детерминативы): the dog – his/her dog.

The above features are not characteristic of the English morphemes. That is
why most linguists treat the article as a separate word.

39
 However, different views have been expressed concerning the status of the
article as a word as well, that is whether the article is a special part of speech or
whether it belongs to some other part of speech.

Grammarians of the classical school treat the articles as belonging to one or

another part of speech. Thus, O. Jespersen and A.I. Smirnitsky treat the articles as
pronouns; G. Curme calls the article ‘a pronominal attribute’.

Some linguists treat the article as an auxiliary word similar to an auxiliary

verb (M.Y. Bloch). From this point of view the combination ‘article+noun” is
an analytical form similar to analytical forms of the verb. This treatment is
doubtful because unlike true analytical forms the combination ‘article+noun” does
not have a discontinuous morpheme.

A majority of modern linguists both abroad and this country consider articles
as function words belonging to a group of determiners. The first to suggest this
treatment was Charles Fries.

In addition to articles, determiners include words that can take the position
of an article in a noun phrase. They are:

- Demonstrative pronouns: this-these, that-those.

- The conjoint form of possessive pronouns: my, your, her…
- The pronouns which, whose, each, every, some, any, no, neither and the
adverbs enough, much, many, more, most.
- Nouns in the genitive case.

The following features distinguish determiners from other modifiers.

- Either an article or another determiner could be used before a noun, but not
both simultaneously, e.g. the novel, his novel, any novel, etc. Thus, a noun
phrase can contain only one determiner.
- Determiners occupy the initial position in the noun phrase. The only
exception is when a noun is modified by so-called predeterminer. There are
three predeterminers in English: all. both, and half, e.g. all the boys, both
his friends, half the time.

The treatment of the article as a function word seems to reflect the facts of
the language more adequately than the other points of view.

40
 11. The number of articles in English

The number of articles in English is another debatable question. Obviously

there are two material articles: the definite article the & the indefinite article
a/an.

However, we know that nouns in the plural cannot be used with the
indefinite article and that the absence of the article corresponds to the indefinite
article with the nouns in the singular. Because of its origin the indefinite article is
associated with the idea of oneness, while the absence of the article implies
more-than-oneness.

Besides, there are nouns, which cannot be used with indefinite article
because they cannot be associated with the idea of oneness: these are uncountable
nouns – names of materials and abstract notions: water, gold, love, peace…

The older grammatical tradition describes the absence of article as

‘omission of the article’. This is inadequate because its absence in the above-
mentioned cases is significant. Therefore, many grammarians speak about ‘the
meaningful absence’ of the article in such cases.

There is a third point of view put forward by prof. A.I. Smirnitsky. He

suggests that the absence of the article is a special kind of article, termed ‘the zero
article’. The idea of the zero article takes its origin in the notion of the zero
morpheme. The application of this notion to the article can be justified if the article
is treated as a morpheme.

However, since we have decided that the article should be regarded as a

function word, the idea of ‘the zero article’ seems unacceptable. Nevertheless, it is
important to note that a number of grammarians nowadays use the term ‘the
absence of the article’ and ‘the zero article’ as synonyms though they consider the
article to be a function word (E.M. Gordon, I.P. Krylova).

To sum up, we recognize the indefinite article a/an, the definite article ‘the’
and ‘the meaningful absence of the article.

12. The meanings of the Article

Another problem addresses the semantics of the articles. The meanings of

the articles are extremely abstract, diverse and hard to define. The main meaning
can be summarized as definiteness-indefinitness of the object denoted by the
noun, which corresponds to the names of the definite and indefinite articles
respectively. The general meaning of definiteness-indefinitness is a system of
41
major submeanings, which are different for both articles. Let’s now consider
them in turn.
The indefinite article. It refers the object denoted by the noun to a certain
class of similar objects and has two distinct meanings.
- With countable nouns it has the nominating or classifying meaning:
it is used when we wish to name an object: She took a dictionary. We
are going to buy a car.
- With uncountable nouns the indefinite article has the so-called
aspective meaning, which has nothing to do with the verbal category
of aspect and serves to bring into prominence a ceratin aspect of the
notion expressed by the noun: After a long silence he began his story.
There was an irony in his voice, which surprised her.

The definite article. It is used to identify, or individualize the referent of the

noun. The definite article has three distinct meanings:

- With countable nouns, both in the singular & plural, it has the
individualizing meaning: it singles out an object or a group of objects from
all the other objects of the same class: The girl didn’t want to see him. He
got into the car and drove away.
- With countable nouns the definite article may also have the generic
meaning: it indicates that the noun becomes a symbol of the class. It is
meant as its composite image: The telephone was invented in the 19th
century. The cat is a graceful animal.
- With uncountable nouns the definite article has the restricting meaning:
first, it restricts the abstract notion expressed by the noun to a concrete
instance: I didn’t want to show the joy I felt. Second, it restricts the material
denoted by the noun to a definite quantity or locality: The water in the glass
was too cold to drink (quantity). The water in the lake was too cold for us to
bathe (locality).

The meaningful absence of the article has the same nominating meaning as the
indefinite article: I don’t like to write letters. He liked pleasure and comfort.

13. The functions of the article

Modern scholars distinguish several functions of the article. They are as

follows
- The semantic function of the article is to actualize the notion expressed by
the noun; in other words, the articles correlate this or that notion with reality.

42
 - The monosyntactic function of the article is to serve as a formal indicator
of a noun: the presence of the article signals that a noun follows.
- The syntactic function of the article is to separate the noun phrase from
other parts of the sentence I have bought a book / an interesting book / an
interesting English book.
- The textual function of the article is to connect sentences within a text. It
correlates the noun with some word or a group of words in the previous
context: I have bought a book . The book is interesting.
- The communicative function of the article is to specify the information
focus of the sentence. Thus, the indefinite article indicates that the noun
introduces a new element in the sentence: A boy ran into the room. The
indefinite article in this case is said to have a rhematic function. The
definite article, on the contrary, performs a thematic function, that is it
shows that the noun is not the centre of communication: The boy ran into
the room.

We have seen that the article belongs to function words. We distinguish the
definite article, the indefinite article and the meaningful absence of the article. The
general meaning of the article is definiteness-indefinitness, which is realized in a
number of submeanings. The article performs a number of functions, from purely
morphosyntactic to communicative, which makes it occupy a specific position in
the system of function words.

14. Words of the category of state

Academicians L.V. Scherba and V.V. Vinogradov expressed an opinion that

Russian short adjectives such as ясен, смешон, важен used as predicatives should
be singled out as a separate part of speech, namely the category of state (категория
состояния). Some Russian grammarians studying English grammar, Ilish, &
Zhigadlo among them, think that words of the category of state (statives) exist in
English as well. These are such words as afraid, afoot, aloof, aflame, aware,
ashamed, awake, alike, etc.
These words have some common morphological, semantic and syntactic
features. We can see that morphologically they are characterized by the presence
of the prefix-a-. They perform the same syntactic functions in the sentence, used
as predicatives She was ashamed of it; objective predicatives We found her alone
in the house; postpositional attributes The boy asleep on the floor didn’t hear
anything. Semantically all these words express state.

43
 However, most grammarians, among them prof. Barchudarov, do not
recognize such words as a special part of speech, but as a group of adjective with
a specific derivational structure. The reasons are as follows.
- The meaning of state is only a variant meaning of property typical of
adjectives. A great number of adjectives express state: happy, angry,
hopeful, etc.
- A- is a derivational affix, not an inflectional one. There are other
adjectives, which differ from each other by derivational affixes:
tactful-tactless, wise-unwise, etc.
- Like other adjectives these words can be preceded by the adverb more
(more afraid) and modified by adverbs (painfully aware).
- These words cannot be used as prepositional attributes, but there are
adjectives which cannot be used in this function either, e.g. fond,
sorry, glad, ill, ect.

Thus, it seems more convincing to treat such words as adjectives.

15. Interjections

Interjections have been an object of controversies for a long time. The

characteristic feature of interjections that distinguishes them from other words is
that they are not names of anything but expressions of emotions. In other words,
they express emotions without naming them. Their meaning becomes clear from
the context. E.g. the interjection oh can express joy, surprise, satisfaction, and
anger: Oh, wonderful! (satisfaction); Oh, don’t be so stupid! (anger). The
interjection alas expresses sadness, dissatisfaction: Alas! It can’t be helped!
Thus, however, does not mean that interjections are involuntary outcries
common to all languages. They are restricted to a specific language. E.g. when
plunging into cold water a Russian will cry Ух! Уф! While American will exclaim
Ouch! Every language has its own set of interjections.
Some linguists think that interjections should be treated as word-sentences
since they are semantically and syntactically indivisible, and, as a rule, they are not
semantically connected with any part of the sentence. In addition, some
interjections may be represented as phrases (dear me, my goodness, goodness
gracious, etc.).
However, most linguists today treat interjections as a special part of
speech. Their syntactic function is that of parenthesis (вводное слово).

44
 This brief overview of controversial issues in the part-of-speech
classification is by no means as exhaustive one. Numerals, modal words, particles
and some other groups of words remain outside the sphere of our analysis.
However, we should be mindful that each theory ‘is based on certain conceptions,
which pave the way to the respective conclusions. The choice should be made in
favour of the one that gives a simpler and more consistent presentation of language
facts’.

Summary

Morphology is the study of words and morphemes. The main problem with
the word has been the problem of classification. The principles of word
classification are semantic principle, the formal principle, and the functional
principle, which follow the definition of the word as a linguistic sign.
A number of attempts have been made to divide words into classes, none of
them being ideal. Modern classification of words into parts of speech are seen as
adaptations of the classical approach. Ch. Fries’s functional method of establishing
classes of words in English and a threefold classification of words based on form,
meaning and function are not free of some drawbacks either. However, the
threefold classification proved to be more consistent than not, and quite acceptable
for teaching purposes.
Following the threefold approach, a part of speech is defined as a class of
words having a common referential meaning, common morphological properties
(form) and common syntactic function. Within the threefold classification modern
grammar distinguishes at least 8 parts of speech in English. However, there are
some classes of words that cause controversies, among them pronouns, articles,
words of the category of state, interjections, numerals and some others too.

45