Polysemy/Homonymy

Ilyish:

He lived here five years ago. I knew it all along.

If he lived here he would come at once. If I knew his address I should write to him.

Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцов:

Subjunctive MOOD includes forms homonymous with Past and Past Perfect, but they differ in time correlation and absence of time as such.

Seminar 8-9 The Verbals

1. The status of verbals in Modern English. Their semantic, morphological and syntactic properties.

Iliysh:

As the verbals (infinitive, gerund, and participle) make up a part of the English verb system, they have some features in common with the finite forms, and in so far as they are singled out of the forms of the verb, they must have some peculiarities of their own.

Don’t possess	Possess
Person, mood, number	Aspect, tense, correlation, voice

e.g. The infinitive possesses the category of aspect, i.e. the distinction between the common and the continuous aspect.

To speak – to be speaking

To have spoken – to have been speaking

He seems to be enjoying himself quite a lot – the continuous infinitive gives more prominence to the idea of the continuity, which is obviously much stringer than the mere statement.

With the gerund and the participle things are different. They exhibit no such distinction (no continuous forms).

Occasionally, a continuous participle is found: The younger Miss Thorpes being also dancing, Catherine was left to the mercy of Mrs Thorpe and Mrs Allen, between whom she now remained  a continuous Participle I is at least potentially a part of the morphological system of the English verb. But this use appears to be obsolete (archaic).

TENSE and CORRELATION.

The category of tense and the category of correlation have to be considered together.

Oppositions
Infinitive	Gerund, Participle I
To speak – to have spoken To be speaking – to have been speaking	Speaking – having spoken Being spoken – having been spoken

??? What category is at the base of these oppositions?

If we start from the way these forms are derived we shall say that it is the category of correlation which finds its expression here, the 1^st-column forms having no pattern “have + Participle II” and the 2^nd-column forms having this very pattern. If we turn to the meaning of the 2^nd-column forms, we shall find that they express precedence, whereas the 1^st-column forms do not express it. We see that in each pair one item is unmarked both in meaning and in form whereas the other (the perfect) is marked both in meaning (expressing precedence) and in form (“have + Participle II”).

 The category of correlation is much more universal in the ME verb than that of tense: correlation appears in all forms of the English verb, both finite and non-finite, except the imperative, while tense is only found in the indicative mood and nowhere else.

Since the verbals are hardly ever the predicate of a sentence, they do not express the category of tense in the way the finite verb forms do.

VOICE.

Like the finite forms of the verb, the verbals have a distinction between active and passive.

To read – to be read

To have read – to have been read

Reading – being read

Having read – having been read

It concerns all other voices (reflexive, reciprocal, middle).

Blokh:

Verbids are the forms of the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech. The mixed features are revealed in their meaning, structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions.

The processual meaning is exposed by them in a substantive or adjectival-adverbial interpretation: they render processes as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They are formed by special morphemic elements which do not express either grammatical time or mood. They can be combined with verbs like non-processual lexemes performing non-verbal functions in the sentence), and they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence).

??? Do verbids enter the system of the verb? Should we consider the verbids as a special lexemic class, a separate part of speech, or an inherent component of the class of verbs?

BUT: first of all, their syntactic function is different; finite forms function in the sentence as predicate, while non-finite forms serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate.

Хаймович/Роговская:

Verbids (features):

1. Their lexico-grammatical meaning is of dual nature. The verbal meaning of “action, process” is presented as some kind of “substance” (gerund, infinitive) or “quality” (participle).

2. They have peculiar morphemes: -ing (gerund, participle I), -(e)d, -(e)n (participle II), to (infinitive).

3. There is duality in their combinability. They form connections with adverbs, nouns, pronouns like finite verbs, and with finite verbs, like nouns or adverbs. There are also other combinative models typical of verbids.

4. Their syntactical functions are quite different from those of the finite verb. They are very rarely used as predicates, but they are used in almost any other function in the sentence.

2. The category of finitude.

Blokh:

The opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category. The differential feature of the opposition is constituted by the expression of verbal time and mood: while the time-mood grammatical signification characterizes the finite verb in a way that it underlies its finite predicative function, the verbid has no immediate means of expressing time-mood categorial semantics and therefore presents the weak member of the opposition.  The category expressed by this opposition can be called the category of “finitude” (by B.Strang). The syntactic content of the category of finitude is the expression of predication.

 full predication (finites) VS semi-predication (non-finites).

Бархударов:

Finite forms possess the morpheme of tense. This category is more definitely expressed as compared to the categories of mood, number, person, as very few homonyms are met in this category (present and past).

As concerns syntax, finite forms function as predicates, and non-finite forms function as any part of the sentence, except for the predicate.

The differential feature of the forms is the predicate feature. The opposition is: predicate (finite) – non-predicate (non-finite). Predicate feature is expressed morphologically – with the help of the morphemes of tense, person, number, mood, which serve as the markers of the predicate; while non-finite forms do not possess these categories  finite forms are marked, non-finite forms are unmarked.

3. The Infinitive.

Blokh:

The Infinitive is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun, serving as the verbal name of the process. The infinitive represents the actual derivational base for all the forms of regular verbs.

Functions:

1. a notional, self-positional syntactic part of the sentence (grammatically “free”);

2. the notional constituent of a complex verbal predicate built up around a predicator verb (grammatically “half-free”);

3. the notional constituent of a finite conjugation form of the verb (grammatically “bound).

The infinitive denotes the corresponding process in an abstract, substance-like

Combinability:

1. verb-type combinability:

1. with nouns, expressing the object of the action

2. with nouns, expressing the subject of the action

3. with modifying adverbs

4. with predicator verbs of semi-functional nature forming a verbal predicate

5. with auxiliary finite verbs in the analytical forms of the verb

2. noun-type combinability:

1. with finite notional verbs as the object of the action

2. with finite notional verbs as the subject of the action.

The self-positional infinitive performs the functions of all types of notional sentence-parts: subject, object, predicative, attribute, adverbial modifier.

The English infinitive exists in 2 presentational forms:

1. free use of the infinitive with the pre-positional marker to;  the “to-infinitive”, or “marked infinitive”

2. the bound se of the infinitive, without the marker to  zero-suffixed form  “bare infinitive”, or “unmarked infinitive”.

4. Ing-forms.

Е.Крейзинг, В.Я.Плоткин, Л.С.Бархударов look upon the Gerund and the PI as one form.

А.И.Смирницкий, Б.Стрэнг differetiate between the 2 forms.

Blokh:

The GERUND is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun. The GERUND serves as the verbal name of a process, but its substantive quality is more strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive  the GERUND can be modified by a noun in the possessive case or its pronominal equivalents and it can be used with prepositions.

??? Why the INFINITIVE and not the GERUND is taken as head-form of the verbal lexeme as a whole, its accepted representative in the lexicon.

The GERUND cannot perform the function of the paradigmatic verbal head-form for a number of reasons:

1. It is more detached from the finite verb than the INFINITIVE semantically, tending to be a far more substantival unit categorially.

2. As different from the INFINITIVE, it does not join in the conjugation of the finite verb.

3. It is a suffixial form, which makes it less generalized than the infinitive in terms of properties of the verbal lexeme.

4. It is less definite than the INFINITIVE form the lexico-grammatical point of view, being subject to easy neutralization in its opposition with the verbal noun in -ing, as well as with the present participle.

 The GERUBD is not rival of the INFINITIVE in the paradigmatic head-form function.

The general combinability of the GERUND is dual, sharing some features with the verb, and some features with the noun:

1. The VERB-type combinability of the GERUND is displayed in its combining:

1. with nouns expressing the object of the action

2. with modifying adverbs

3. with certain semi-functional predicator verbs (non-modal)

2. The NOUN-type combinability of the GERUND:

1. with finite notional verbs as the object of the action

2. with finite notional verbs as the prepositional adjunct (приложение, дополнение, определение) of various functions

3. with finite notional verbs as the subject of the action

4. with nouns as the prepositional adjunct of various functions.

The GERUND performs the functions of all the types of notional sentence-parts: the subject, the object, the predicative, the attribute, the adverbial modifier.

One of the specific GERUND patterns is its combination with the noun in the possessive case or its possessive pronominal equivalent expressing the subject of the action. The gerundial construction is used in cases when the subject of the gerundial process differs from the subject of the governing sentence-situation, i.e. when the gerundial sentence-part has its own, separate subject (e.g. Powell’s being rude like that was disgusting).

The possessive with the GERUND displays one of the distinctive categorial properties of the GERUND as such, establishing it in the English lexemic system as the form of the verb with nounal characteristics. From the point of view of the inner semantic relations, this combination is of a verbal type, while form the point of view of the formal categorial features, this combination is of nounal type.

Reconstruction:

I can’t stand his criticizing artistic works that are beyond his competence

 verbal – He is criticizing artistic works.

 nounal – His criticism of artistic works.

The PARTICIPLE I is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective and adverb, serving as the qualifying-processual name. In its form the PARTICIPLE I is wholly homonymous with the GERUND, ending in the suffix –ing and distinguishing the same grammatical categories of retrospective coordination and voice.

Like all the verbids, the PRESENT PARTICIPLE has no categorial time distinctions, and the attribute “present” in its conventional name is not immediately explanatory.

Since the PARTICIPLE I possesses some traits of adjective and adverb, the present participle is not only dual, but triple by its lexico-grammatical properties, which is displayed in its combinability, as well as in its syntactic functions.

1. The VERB-type combinability:

1. with nouns expressing the object of the action

2. with nouns expressing the subject of the action (in semi-predicative complexes)

3. with modifying adverbs

4. with auxiliary finite verbs (word-morphemes) in the analytical forms of the verb

2. The ADJECTIVE-type combinability: with the modified nouns, some modifying adverbs (adverbs of degree).

3. The ADVERB-type combinability: with the modified verbs.

The self-positional PARTICIPLE I, in the proper syntactic arrangements, performs the functions of the predicative, the attribute, the adverbial modifier of various types.

The PARTICIPLE I, similar to the INFINITIVE, can build up semi-predicative complexes of objective and subjective types. The 2 groups of complexes may exist in parallel:

Nobody noticed the scouts approach the enemy trech.

Nobody noticed the scouts approaching the enemy trench with slowly, cautious, expertly calculated movements.

A peculiar use of the PARTICIPLE I is seen in the absolute participial constructions of various types, forming complexes of detached semi-predication:

The messenger waiting in the hall, we had only a couple of minutes to make a decision.

Ilyish:

The ing-forms

There is no external difference between the Gerund and the Participle I, they are complete homonyms.

??? Are they 2 different sets of forms?

The difference: The Gerund has substantival qualities besides the verbal ones; The Participle I has adjectival qualities besides the verbal ones  The Gerund may be the subject od the object of the action, rarely attribute, The Participle is an attribute first and foremost.

The opposition between them is neutralized in:

Do you mind my smoking? (gerund)

Do you mind me smoking? (participle)

Do you mind her smoking? (neutralized)

5. Participle II.

Blokh:

The PARTICIPLE II is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective, serving as the qualifying-processual name. The PARTCIPLE II is a single form, having no paradigm of its own (it conveys implicitly the categorial meaning of the perfect and the passive). The main self-positional functions of the PII in the sentence are those of the attribute and the predicative.

In the attributive use, the PII meanings of the perfect and the passive are expressed in dynamic correlation with the aspective lexico-grammatical character of the verb  the attributive PII of limitive verbs in a neutral content expresses priority, while the PII of unlimitive verbs expresses simulteneity:

A tree broken by the storm blocked the narrow passage between the cliffs and the water (priority in the passive).

I saw that the picture admired by the general public hardly had a fair chance with the judges (simultaneity in the passive).

The PII is capable of making up semi-predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as of absolute complex. The absolute PII complex as a rule expresses priority in the correlation of 2 events: e.g. The preliminary talks completed, it became possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda.