2. The morphemic structure of the word. Classification of morphemes: lexical, functional, derivational morphemes; free, bound morphemes; zero morphemes.

The morpheme is a meaningful segmental component of the word, the morpheme is formed by phonemes; as a meaningful component of the word it is elementary (i.e. indivisible into smaller segments as regards its significative function.) Morphemes are not abstract units, they are real parts of words, combinations of morphemes constitute words. E.g. bene|fact|r|ess|es, child|r|en/

The word is a nominative unit of language and it is used to name things, persons, abstract phenomena, relations etc; it is formed by morphemes; it enters the lexicon of language as its elementary component (i.e. indivisible into smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with other nominative units the word is used for the formation of the sentence – a unit of information in the communicative process.

In accord with traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided into root morphemes (roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). The roots express the concrete meaning of the word, while the affixes express the specificational part of the meaning of the word.

Morphemes can be classified into lexical, grammatical and derivational.

The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes, i.e. they express the concrete material parts of the meaning of the word, while grammatical morphemes express the specificational part of the meaning of the word (the meanings of grammatical categories).

Derivational morphemes produce one part of speech from another. E.g. hero|ine, poet|ess, black|mail|ing etc.

Morphemes can be divided into free and bound ones. Free morphemes coincide with separate words. E.g. –hand, -clock,-sugar

Bound morphemes can only occur in a cluster with other morphemes to form a new word. E.g. hang|ful, clock|wise

In English grammar we also distinguish zero morphemes which are defined as the unmarked member of grammatical oppositions.

E.g. a child – children(отсутствие определенного артикля у слов во множественном числе)

##### - water

#### - snow

Morphemes can be additive and innerflexional. E.g take – took

Прерывистые морфемы [be-ben]-passive

[have-en] – perfect

[be-ing]-aspect

Алломорф S/es/en/# - морфемы множественного числа

4. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in grammar. The notions of a syntagm and a paradigm. Types of syntagms in English.

Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are intermediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence(string). e.g. The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster rocket. in this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups “the spaceship”, “was launched”, “the spaceship was launched”, “was launched without the help”, “the helf of a rocket”, “a booster rocket”. Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically. Space-ship, launch-ed, boost-er. Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within the morphemes and words, as well as at various junctive points. The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit which is referres to as a syntactic “syntagma”. There are four main types of notional syntagmas: predicative(the combination of a subject and a predicative), objective (verb+object), attributive (noun+attributive), adverbial(modified notional word, such as verb, adjective or adverb+adverbial modifier). Since syntagmatic relations are actually observed in utterances, they are described by the latin formula “in praesentia”(in the presence).

The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called “paradigmatic”, are such as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur. Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realization of any paradigmatic series.

A paradigm is a set of associated signifiers or signifieds which are all members of some defining category, but in which each is significantly different.

A syntagm is an orderly combination of interacting signifiers which forms a meaningful whole within a text - sometimes, following Saussure, called a 'chain'. Such combinations are made within a framework of syntactic rules and conventions (both explicit and inexplicit). in a broad sense, any sequence of linguistic elements linked by the relationship of dependent member to governing member. This is F. de Saussure’s concept of syntagm. Pr. Blokh distinguishes 4 types of phrases or syntagms:

1. predicative syntagm (s+p)

2. object syntagm (P+O)

3. Attributive syntagm (Adj+n)

4. Adverbial syntagm (P+D)

6. Modern English nouns. General characteristics (word-building elements, classification into common and proper nouns, countable and uncountable nouns, animate and inanimate nouns, abstract, material and collective nouns, singularia and pluralia tantum nouns. Examples of transposition of nouns. “Cannon ball problem”.

The noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of “substance” or “thingness”, it follows from this that the noun is the main nominative part of speech, effecting nomination of the fullest value within the framework of the notional division of the lexicon.

Nouns can be classified according to the criteria of form and meaning.

Form: 1. Simple(house, drive)

2. Derived(misconduct, inexperience)

3. compound(blackboard, snowball)

4. composite (brother-in-low, merry-go-round, stick-in-the-mind)

As the part of speech, the noun is also characterized by a set of formal features determining its specific status in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its word building distinctions, including typical suffixes, compound stem models, conversion patterns. It discriminates the grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination.

The cited formal features taken together are relevant for the division of nouns into several subclasses, which are identified by means of explicit classificational criteria. The most general and rigorously delimited subclasses of nouns are grouped into four oppositional pairs.

The first nounal subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation of this division is “type of nomination”. With regard to proper nouns we can say the sign and the designated objects form an indivisible unity. (Moscow. Olga, The Baikal). Proper nouns serve not only to name but to identify.

Common nouns are different from proper nouns in the matter of their semantic structure. Proper nouns do not have a developed semantic structure unlike common class nouns.

The second subclass opposition differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of “form of existence”. The third subclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the basis of “personal quality”. The fourth subclass opposition differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis of “quantitative structure”

singularia and pluralia tantum are the subclasses of uncountable nouns. Singularia tantum or absolute singular excludes the use of the modifying numeral one, as well as the indefinite article. Pluralia tantum or absolute plural, as different from the common plural, cannot directly combine with numerals, and only occasionally it does combine with discrete quantifiers(many, few etc).

Examples of transposotion:

Prepositional combinability with another noun, a verb, an adj or an adverb. e.g. an entrance to the house

The casal (possessive) combinability - prepositional combinability of a noun with another noun. e.g. the speech of the president Unlike in many other languages, nouns in English can form contact strings word sequences in which one noun in the common case refers as an attribute to the following noun.

e.g. court regulations, address book, air conditioner, assembly line, burglar alarm. Credit card etc.

The problem (a cannon ball problem) is whether these contact strings should be analized as word groups (phrases) or composite words (nouns). In fact, these structure resemble both and in many cases the two words in them grow into one.

e.g. headquarters, fireplace, armchair.