Present Past
Future I Future II
Generally speaking, the major tense-distinction in English is undoubtedly that which is traditionally described as an opposition of past::present. But this is best regarded as a contrast of past:: non-past. Quite a lot of scholars do not recognize the existence of future tenses, because what is described as the 'future' tense in English is realized by means of auxiliary verbs will and shall. Although it is undeniable that will and shall occur in many sentences that refer to the future, they also occur in sentences that do not. And they do not necessarily occur in sentences with a future time reference. That is why future tenses are often treated as partly modal.
5. The Category of Aspect
The category of aspect is a linguistic representation of the objective category of Manner of Action. It is realized through the opposition Continuous::Non-Continuous (Progressive::Non-Progressive). The realization of the category of aspect is closely connected with the lexical meaning of verbs.
There are some verbs in English that do not normally occur with progressive aspect, even in those contexts in which the majority of verbs necessarily take the progressive form. Among the so-called ‘non-progressive’ verbs are think, understand, know, hate, love, see, taste, feel, possess, own, etc. The most striking characteristic that they have in common is the fact that they are ‘stative’ - they refer to a state of affairs, rather than to an action, event or process. It should be observed, however, that all the ‘non-progressive' verbs take the progressive aspect under particular circumstances. As the result of internal transposition verbs of non-progressive nature can be found in the Continuous form: Now I'm knowing you. Generally speaking the Continuous form has at least two semantic features - duration (the action is always in progress) and definiteness (the action is always limited to a definite point or period of time). In other words, the purpose of the Continuous form is to serve as a frame which makes the process of the action more concrete and isolated.
THE ADJECTIVE
General Characteristics
While traditional grammars usually define nouns and verbs semantically, they often shift to functional criteria to characterize adjectives. For example, Rayevska defines an adjective as a word which expresses the attributes of substances (good, young, easy, soft, loud, hard, wooden, flaxen). As a class of lexical words adjectives are identified by their ability to fill the position between noun-determiner and noun and the position after a copula-verb and a qualifier.
Semantic features of the adjective.The adjective expresses property or quality of a substance. According to Blokh, each adjective used in the text, presupposes relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes, such as material, colour, dimensions, position, state, and other characteristics both permanent and temporary. It follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative value. Indeed, words like long, hospitable, fragrant cannot affect any self-dependent nominations; as units of informative sequences they exist only in collocations showing what is long, who is hospitable, what is fragrant.
Considered in meaning, adjectives fall into two large groups:
qualitative adjectives,
relative adjectives.
Qualitative adjectives denote qualities of size, shape, colour, etc. which an object may possess in various degrees. Qualitative adjectives have degrees of comparison.
Relative adjectives express qualities which characterise an object through its relation to another object; wooden tables → tables made of wood, woollen gloves → gloves made of wool, Siberian wheat → wheat from Siberia. Further examples of relative adjectives are: rural, industrial, urban, etc.
Linguistically it is utterly impossible to draw a rigid line of demarcation between the two classes, for in the course of language development the so-called relative adjectives gradually develop qualitative meanings. Thus, for instance, through metaphoric extension adjectives denoting material have come to be used in the figurative sense, e. g.: golden age золотий вік, golden hours щасливий час, golden mean золота середина, golden opportunity чудова нагода, golden hair золотаве волосся, etc.
Morphological features of the adjective. Adjectives in Modern English are invariable. As is well known, it has neither number, nor case, nor gender distinctions. Some adjectives have, however, degrees of comparison, which make part of the morphological system of a language. It seems practical to distinguish between base adjectives and derived adjectives.
Base adjectives exhibit the following formal qualities: they may take inflections -er and -est or have some morphophonemic changes in cases of the suppletion, such as, for instance, in good —better —the best; bad — worse — the worst. Base adjectives are also distinguished formally by the fact that they serve as stems from which nouns and adverbs are formed by the derivational suffixes -ness and -ly.
Base adjectives are mostly of one syllable, and none have more than two syllables except a few that begin with a derivational prefix un-or in-, e. g.: uncommon, inhuman, etc. They have no derivational suffixes and usually form their comparative and superlative degrees by means of the inflectional suffixes -er and -est. Quite a number of based adjectives form verbs by adding the derivational suffix -en, the prefix en- or both: blacken, brighten, cheapen, sweeten, widen, enrich, enlarge, embitter, enlighten, enliven, etc.
Derived adjectives are formed by the addition of derivational suffixes to free or bound stems. They usually form analytical comparatives and superlatives by means of the qualifiers more and most. Some of the more important suffixes which form derived adjectives are:
-able added to verbs and bound stems, denoting quality with implication of capacity, fitness or worthness to be acted upon; -able is often used in the sense of "tending to", "given to", "favouring", "causing", "able to" or "liable to". This very common suffix is a live one which can be added to virtually any verb thus giving rise to many new coinages. As it is the descendant of an active derivational suffix in Latin, it also appears as a part of many words borrowed from Latin and French. Examples formed from verbs: remarkable, adaptable, conceivable, drinkable, eatable, regrettable, understandable, etc.; examples formed from bound stems: capable, portable, viable. The unproductive variant of the suffix -able is the suffix -ible (Latin -ibilis, -bilis), which we find in adjectives Latin in origin: visible, forcible, comprehensible, etc.; -ible is no longer used in the formation of new words.
-al, -ial (Lat. -alls, French -al, -el) denoting quality "belonging to", "pertaining to", "having the character of", "appropriate to", e. g.: elemental, bacterial, automnal, fundamental, etc.
The suffix -al added to nouns and bound stems (fatal, local, natural, national, traditional, etc.) is often found in combination with -ic, e. g.: biological, botanical, juridical, typical, etc.
-ish —Germanic in origin, denoting nationality, quality with the meaning "of the nature of", "belonging to", "resembling" also with the sense "somewhat like", often implying contempt, derogatory in force, e. g.: Turkish, bogish, outlandish, whitish, wolfish.
-y — Germanic in origin, denoting quality "pertaining to", "abounding in", "tending or inclined to", e.g.: rocky, watery, bushy, milky, sunny, etc.
Syntactic features. (a) Adjectives combine with nouns both preceding and (occasionally) following them (large room, times immemorial). They also combine with a preceding adverb (very large). Adjectives can be followed by the phrase "preposition + noun" (free from danger). Occasionally they combine with a preceding verb (married young). (b) In the sentence, an adjective can be either an attribute (large room) or a predicative (is large). It can also be an objective predicative (painted the door green).
The Category of Intensity and Comparison
1) how many degrees of comparison has the English adjective?
If we take, for example, the three forms of an English adjective: large, larger, (the) largest, shall we say that they are, all three of them, degrees of comparison? In that case we ought to term them positive, comparative, and superlative. Or shall we say that only the latter two are degrees of comparison (comparative and superlative), whereas the first (large), does not express any idea of comparison and is therefore not a degree of comparison at all? Both views have found their advocates in grammatical theory.
Now it is well known that not every adjective has degrees of comparison. This may depend on two factors. One of these is not grammatical, but semantic. Since degrees of comparison express a difference of degree in the same property, only those adjectives admit of degrees of comparison which denote properties capable of appearing in different degrees. Thus, it is obvious that, for example, the adjective middle has no degrees of comparison. The same might be said about many other adjectives, such as blind, deaf, dead, etc. However, this should not be taken too absolutely. Occasionally we may meet with such a sentence as this: You cannot be deader than dead.
2) A more complex problem in the sphere of degrees of comparison is that of the formations more difficult, (the) most difficult, or more beautiful, (the) most beautiful. The question is this: is more difficult an analytical comparative degree of the adjective difficult? In that case the word more would be an auxiliary word serving to make up that analytical form, and the phrase would belong to the sphere of morphology. Or is more difficult a free phrase, not different in its essential character from the phrase very difficult or somewhat difficult"? In that case the adjective difficult would have no degrees of comparison at all (forming degrees of comparison of this adjective by means of the inflections -er, -est is impossible), and the whole phrase would be a syntactical formation. The traditional view held both by practical and theoretical grammars until recently was that phrases of this type were analytical degrees of comparison. Recently, however, the view has been put forward that they do not essentially differ from phrases of the type very difficult, which, of course, nobody would think of treating as analytical forms.
Let us examine the arguments that have been or may be put forward in favour of one and the other view.
The view that formations of the type more difficult are analytical degrees of comparison may be supported by the following considerations: (1) The actual meaning of formations like more difficult, (the) most difficult does not differ from that of the degrees of comparison larger, (the) largest. (2) Qualitative adjectives, like difficult, express properties which may be present in different degrees, and therefore they are bound to have degrees of comparison.
The argument against such formations being analytical degrees of comparison would run roughly like this. No formation should be interpreted as an analytical form unless there are compelling reasons for it, and if there are considerations contradicting such a view. Now, in this particular case there are such considerations: (1) The words more and most have the same meaning in these phrases as in other phrases in which they may appear, e. g. more time, most people, etc. (2) Alongside of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult there are also the phrases less difficult, (the) least difficult, and there seems to be no sufficient reason for treating the two sets of phrases in different ways, saying that more difficult is an analytical form, while less difficult is not. Besides, the very fact that more and less, (the) most and (the) least can equally well combine with difficult, would seem to show that they are free phrases and none of them is an analytical form. The fact that more difficult stands in the same sense relation to difficult as larger to large is of course certain, but it should have no impact on the interpretation of the phrases more difficult, (the) most difficult from a grammatical viewpoint.
Taking now a general view of both lines of argument, we can say that, roughly speaking, considerations of meaning tend towards recognising such formations as analytical forms, whereas strictly grammatical considerations lead to the contrary view.
A few adjectives do not, as is well known, form any degrees of comparison by means of inflections. Their degrees of comparison are derived from a different root. These are good, better, best; bad, worse, worst, and a few more. Should these formations be acknowledged as suppletive forms of the adjectives good, bad, etc., or should they not? There seems no valid reason for denying them that status. The relation good: better = large: larger is indeed of the same kind as the relation go: went = live: lived, where nobody has expressed any doubt about went being a suppletive past tense form of the verb go. Thus, it is clear enough that there is every reason to take better, worse, etc., as suppletive degrees of comparison to the corresponding adjectives.
THE ADVERB
Semantic features. The meaning of the adverb as a part of speech is hard to define. Indeed, some adverbs indicate time or place of an action (yesterday, here), while others indicate its property (quickly) and others again the degree of a property (very). As, however, we should look for one central meaning characterising the part of speech as a whole, it seems best to formulate the meaning of the adverb as "property of an action or of a property".
Morphological features. Adverbs are invariable. Some of them, however, have degrees of comparison (fast, faster, fastest).
Syntactic features. (a) An adverb combines with a verb (run quickly), with an adjective (very long), occasionally with a noun (the then president) and with a phrase (so out of things). (b) An adverb can sometimes follow a preposition (from there). (c) In a sentence an adverb is almost always an adverbial modifier, or part of it (from there), but it may occasionally be an attribute.
THE PRONOUN
Semantic features. The meaning of the pronoun as a separate part of speech is somewhat difficult to define. In fact, some pronouns share essential peculiarities of nouns (e.g. he), while others have much in common with adjectives (e. g. which). This made some scholars think that pronouns were not a separate part of speech at all and should be distributed between nouns and adjectives. However, this view proved untenable and entailed insurmountable difficulties. Hence it has proved necessary to find a definition of the specific meaning of pronouns, distinguishing them from both nouns and adjectives. From this angle the meaning of pronouns as a part of speech can be stated as follows: pronouns point to the things and properties without naming them. Thus, for example, the pronoun it points to a thing without being the name of any particular class of things. The pronoun its points to the property of a thing by referring it to another thing. The pronoun what can point both to a thing and a property.
Pronoun Type |
Members of the Subclass |
Example |
Possessive |
mine, yours, his, hers, ours, theirs |
The white car is mine |
Reflexive |
myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, oneself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves |
He injured himself playing football |
Reciprocal |
each other, one another |
They really hate each other |
Relative |
that, which, who, whose, whom, where, when |
The book that you gave me was really boring |
Demonstrative |
this, that, these, those |
This is a new car |
Interrogative |
who, what, why, where, when, whatever |
What did he say to you? |
Indefinite |
anything, anybody, anyone, something, somebody, someone, nothing, nobody, none, no one |
There's something in my shoe |
Morphological features. As far as form goes pronouns fall into different types. Some of them have the category of number (singular and plural), e. g. this, while others have no such category, e. g. somebody. Again, some pronouns have the category of case (he — him, somebody — somebody's), while others have none (something).
Syntactic features. (a) Some pronouns combine with verbs (he speaks, find him), while others can also combine with a following noun (this room). (b) In the sentence, some pronouns may be the subject (he, what) or the object, while others are the attribute (my). Pronouns can be predicatives.
THE NUMERAL
The treatment of numerals presents some difficulties, too. The so-called cardinal numerals (one, two) are somewhat different from the so-called ordinal numerals (first, second).
Semantic features. Numerals denote either number or place in a series.
Morphological features. Numerals are invariable.
Syntactic features. (a) As far as phrases go, both cardinal and ordinal numerals combine with a following noun (three rooms, third room); occasionally a numeral follows a noun (soldiers three, George the Third). (b) In a sentence, a numeral most usually is an attribute (three rooms, the third room), but it can also be subject, predicative, and object: Three of them came in time; "We Are Seven" (the title of a poem by Wordsworth); I found only four.
THE PREPOSITION
The problem of prepositions has caused very heated discussions, especially in the last few years. Both the meaning and the syntactical functions of prepositions have been the subject of controversy.
Semantic features. The meaning of prepositions is obviously that of relations between things and phenomena.
Morphological features. Prepositions are invariable.
Syntactic features. Prepositions enter into phrases in which they are preceded by a noun, adjective, numeral, verb or adverb, and followed by a noun, adjective, numeral or pronoun. (b) In a sentence a preposition never is a separate part of it. It goes together with the following word to form an object, adverbial modifier, predicative or attribute, and in extremely rare cases a subject (There were about a hundred people in the hall).
THE CONJUNCTION
The problem of conjunctions is of the same order as that of prepositions, but it has attracted less attention.
Semantic features.Conjunctions express connections between things and phenomena.
Morphological features. Conjunctions are invariable.
Syntactic features. (a) They connect any two words, phrases or clauses. (b) In a sentence, conjunctions are never a special part of it. They either connect homogeneous parts of a sentence or homogeneous clauses (the so-called co-ordinating conjunctions), or they join a subordinate clause to its head clause (the so-called subordinating conjunctions).
A further remark is necessary here. We have said that prepositions express relations between phenomena, and conjunctions express connections between them. It must be acknowledged that the two notions, relations and connections, are somewhat hard to distinguish. This is confirmed by the well-known fact that phrases of one and the other kind may be more or less synonymous: cf., e. g., an old man and his son and an old man with his son. It is also confirmed by the fact that in some cases a preposition and a conjunction may be identical in sound and have the same meaning (e. g. before introducing a noun and before introducing a subordinate clause; the same about after). Since it is hard to distinguish between prepositions and conjunctions as far as meaning goes, and morphologically they are both invariable, the only palpable difference between them appears to be their syntactical function. It may be reasonably doubted whether this is a sufficient basis for considering them to be separate parts of speech. It might be argued that prepositions and conjunctions make up a single part of speech, with subdivisions based on the difference of syntactical functions. Such a view would go some way toward solving the awkward problem of homonymy with reference to such words as before, after, since, and the like. However, since this is an issue for further consideration, we will, for the time being, stick to the traditional view of prepositions and conjunctions as separate parts of speech.
THE PARTICLE
By particles we mean such word as only, solely, exclusively, even (even old people came), just (just turn the handle), etc. These were traditionally classed with adverbs, from which they, however, differ in more than one respect.
Semantic features. The meaning of particles is very hard to define. We might say, approximately, that they denote subjective shades of meaning introduced by the speaker or writer and serving to emphasise or limit some point in what he says.
Morphological features. Particles are invariable.
Syntactic features. (a) Particles may combine with practically every part of speech, more usually preceding it (only three), but occasionally following it (for advanced students only). (b) Particles never are a separate part of a sentence. They enter the part of the sentence formed by the word (or phrase) to which they refer. (It might also be argued that particles do not belong to any part of a sentence.)
MODAL WORD
Modal words have only recently been separated from adverbs, with which they were traditionally taken together. By modal words we mean such words as perhaps, possibly, certainly.
Semantic features. Modal words express the speaker's evaluation of the relation between an action and reality.
Morphological features. Modal words are invariable.
Syntactic features. (a) Modal words usually do not enter any phrases but stand outside them. In a few cases, however, they may enter into a phrase with a noun, adjective, etc. (he will arrive soon, possibly to-night). (b) The function of modal words in a sentence is a matter of controversy. We will discuss this question at some length in Chapter XXI and meanwhile we will assume that modal words perform the function of a parenthesis. Modal words may also be a sentence in themselves.
THE INTERJECTION
Semantic features. Interjections express feelings (ah, alas). They are not names of feelings but the immediate expression of them. Some interjections represent noises, etc., with a strong emotional colouring (bang!).
Morphological features. Interjections are invariable.
Syntactic features. (a) Interjections usually do not enter into phrases. Only in a few cases do they combine with a preposition and noun or pronoun, e.g. alas for him! (b) In a sentence an interjection forms a kind of parenthesis. An interjection may also be a sentence in itself, e. g. Alas! as an answer to a question.
So far we have been considering parts of speech as they are usually termed and treated in grammatical tradition: we have been considering nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc. Some modern linguists prefer to avoid this traditional grouping and terminology and to establish a classification of types of words based entirely on their morphological characteristics and on their ability (or inability) to enter into phrases with other words of different types.