- •Chapter I
- •§ 1. Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical
- •§ 6. In the light of the exposed characteristics of the categories, we may specify the status of grammatical paradigms of changeable forms.
- •§ 4. We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by modern linguists on the lines of traditional morphology.
- •§ 9. Functional words re-interpreted by syntactic approach also reveal some important traits that remained undiscovered in earlier descriptions.
- •§ 10. Pronouns considered in the light of the syntactic principles receive a special systemic status that characteristically stamps the general presentation of the structure of the lexicon as a whole.
- •§ 11. As a result of the undertaken analysis we have obtained a foundation for dividing the whole of the lexicon on the upper level of classification into three unequal parts.
- •§ 2. The categorial functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties.
- •§ 2. The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal pronouns of the third person. These serve as specific gender classifiers
- •§ 2. The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulties of interpretation.
- •§ 2. Four special views advanced at various times by different scholars should be considered as successive stages in the analysis of this problem.
- •§ 2. A mere semantic observation of the articles in English, I.E. The definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not two, but three meaningful
- •§ 6. The essential grammatical features of the articles exposed in the above considerations and tests leave no room for misinterpretation at the final, generalising stage of analysis.
- •§ 5. The class of verbs falls into a number of subclasses distinguished by different semantic and lexico-grammatical features.
- •§ 8. On the basis of the subject-process relation, all the notional verbs can be divided into actional and statal.
- •Non-finite verbs (verbids)
- •§ 2. Approached from the strictly morphemic angle, the analysis of the verbal person and number leads the grammarian to the statement of the following converging and diverging features of their forms.
- •§ 1. The aspective meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal meaning, reflects the inherent mode of the realisation of the process irrespective of its timing.
- •§ 2. At this point of our considerations, we should like once again to call the reader's attention to the difference between the categorial terminology and the definitions of categories.
- •Chapter XVI verb: voice
- •§ 1. The verbal category of voice shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the syntactic construction.
- •Chapter XVIII adjective
- •§ 2. All the adjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative and relative.
- •§ 7. Let us examine now the combinations of less/least with the basic form of the adjective.
- •§ 8. Having considered the characteristics of the category of comparison, we can see more clearly the relation to this category of some usually non-comparable evaluative adjectives.
- •§ 3. In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple and derived.
- •§ 4. Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.
- •§ 5. Among the various types of adverbs, those formed from adjectives by means of the suffix -ly occupy the most representative place and pose a special problem.
- •§ 1. Performing their semantic functions, words in an utterance form various syntagmatic connections with one another.
- •§ 2. Groupings of notional words fall into two mutually opposite types by their grammatical and semantic properties.
- •§ 6. The completive, one-way connection of words (monolateral domination) is considered as subordinative on the
- •1G—1499 241
- •Actual division of the sentence
- •§ 2. An attempt to revise the traditional communicative classification of sentences was made by the American scholar Ch. Fries who classed them, as a deliberate challenge to the
- •§ 4. The communicative properties of sentences can further be exposed in the light of the theory of actual division of the sentence.
- •17—1499 257
- •§ 5. As far as the strictly interrogative sentence is concerned, its actual division is uniquely different from the actual division of both the declarative and the imperative sentence-types.
- •§ 8. In the following dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at the same time contains a distinct pronominal question:
- •§ 9. The next pair of correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative sentences.
- •§ 10. Imperative and interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative patterns.
- •Simple sentence: constituent structure
- •Chapter XXV simple sentence: paradigmatic structure
- •§ 5. As part of the constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as other, expanded base-sentences undergo derivational changes into clauses and phrases.
- •Chapter XXVI
- •19-1499 289
- •§ 6. Clauses of primary nominal positions — subject, predicative, object — are interchangeable with one another in easy reshufflings of sentence constituents. Cf.:
- •§ 10. Complex sentences which have two or more subordinate clauses discriminate two basic types of subordination arrangement: parallel and consecutive.
- •Chapter XXVIII compound sentence
- •§ 4. It is easily seen that coordinative connections are correlated semantically with subordinative connections so that a compound sentence can often be transformed into
- •Chapter XXIX semi-complex sentence
- •§ 3. Semi-complex sentences of subject-sharing are built up by means of the two base sentences overlapping round the common subject. E.G.:
- •§ 6. Semi-complex sentences of adverbial complication are derived from two base sentences one of which, the insert
- •Chapter XXX semi-compound sentence
- •Chapter XXXI sentence in the text
- •§ 1. We have repeatedly shown throughout the present work that sentences in continual speech are not used in isolation; they are interconnected both semantically-topically and syntactically.
- •§ 3. Sentences in a cumulative sequence can be connected either "prospectively" or "retrospectively".
- •§ 4. On the basis of the functional nature of connectors, cumulation is divided into two fundamental types: conjunctive cumulation and correlative cumulation.
- •§ 6. Cumuleme in writing is regularly expressed by a paragraph, but the two units are not wholly identical.
- •§ 7. The introduction of the notion of cumuleme in linguistics helps specify and explain the two peculiar and rather important border-line phenomena between the sentence and the sentential sequence.
- •24- 371
- •Марк Яковлевич Блох
§ 3. In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple and derived.
Simple adverbs are rather few, and nearly all of them display functional semantics, mostly of pronominal character: here, there, now, then, so, quite, why, how, where, when.
The typical adverbial affixes in affixal derivation are, first and foremost, the basic and only productive adverbial suffix -ly (slowly, tiredly, rightly, firstly), and then a couple of others of limited distribution, such as -ways (sideways, crossways), -wise (clockwise), -ward(s) (homewards, seawards, afterwards). The characteristic adverbial prefix is a- (away, ahead, apart, across).
Among the adverbs there are also peculiar composite formations and phrasal formations of prepositional, conjunctional and other types: sometimes, nowhere, anyhow; at least, at most, at last; to and fro; upside down; etc.
Some authors include in the word-building sets of adverbs also formations of the type from outside, till now, before then, etc. However, it is not difficult to see that such formations differ in principle from the ones cited above. The difference consists in the fact that their parts are semantically not blended into an indivisible lexemic unity and present combinations of a preposition with a peculiar adverbial substantive — a word occupying an intermediary lexico-grammatical status between the noun and the adverb. This is most clearly seen on ready examples liberally offered by English texts of every stylistic standing. E. g.:
223
The pale moon looked at me from above. By now Sophie must have received the letter and very soon we shall hear from her. The departure of the delegation is planned for later this week.
The freely converted adverbial substantives in prepositional collocations belong to one of the idiomatic characteristics of English, and may be likened, with due alteration of details, to partially substantivised adjectives of the adjectivid type (see Ch. XVIII, §4). On this analogy the adverbial substantives in question may be called "adverbids".
Furthermore, there are in English some other peculiar structural types of adverbs which are derivationally connected with the words of non-adverbial lexemic classes by conversion. To these belong both adverbs of full notional value and adverbs of half-notional value.
A peculiar set of converted notional adverbs is formed by adjective-stem conversives, such as fast, late, hard, high, close, loud, tight, etc. The peculiar feature of these adverbs consists in the fact that practically all of them have a parallel form in -ly, the two component units of each pair often differentiated in meaning or connotation. Cf.: to work hard — hardly to work at all; to fall flat into the water — to refuse flatly; to speak loud — to criticise loudly; to fly high over the lake — to raise a highly theoretical question; etc.
Among the adjective-stem converted adverbs there are a few words with the non-specific -ly originally in-built in the adjective: daily, weekly, lively, timely, etc.
The purely positional nature of the conversion in question, i.e. its having no support in any differentiated categorial paradigms, can be reflected by the term "fluctuant conversives" which we propose to use as the name of such formations.
As for the fluctuant conversives of weakened pronominal semantics, very characteristic of English are the adverbs that positionally interchange with prepositions and conjunctive words: before, after, round, within, etc. Cf.: never before — never before our meeting; somewhere round — round the corner; not to be found within — within a minute; etc.
Of quite a different nature are preposition-adverb-like elements which, placed in post-position to the verb, form a semantical blend with it. By combining with these elements, verbs of broader meaning are subjected to a regular, systematic multiplication of their semantic functions.
224
E. g.: to give — to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away, to give over, etc.; to set — to set up, to set in, to set forth, to set off, to set down, etc.; to get — to get on, to get off, to get up, to get through, to get about, etc.; to work — to work up, to work in, to work out, to work away, to work over, etc.; to bring — to bring about, to bring up, to bring through, to bring forward, to bring down, etc.
The function of these post-positional elements is either to impart an additional aspective meaning to the verb-base, or to introduce a lexical modification to its fundamental semantics. E.g.: to bring about — to cause to happen; to reverse; to bring up — to call attention to; to rear and educate; to bring through — to help overcome a difficulty or danger; to save (a sick person); to bring forward — to introduce for discussion; to carry to the next page (the sum of figures); to bring down — to kill or wound; to destroy; to lower (as prices, etc.).
The lexico-grammatical standing of the elements in question has been interpreted in different ways. Some scholars have treated them as a variety of adverbs (H. Palmer, A. Smirnitsky); others, as preposition-like functional words (I. Anichkov, N. Amosova); still others, as peculiar prefix-like suffixes similar to the German separable prefixes (Y. Zhluktenko); finally, some scholars have treated these words as a special set of lexical elements functionally intermediate between words and morphemes (B. A. Ilyish; B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya). The cited variety of interpretations, naturally, testifies to the complexity of the problem. Still, we can't fail to see that one fundamental idea is common to all the various theories advanced, and that is, the idea of the functional character of the analysed elements. Proceeding from this idea, we may class these words as a special functional set of particles, i.e. words of semi-morphemic nature, correlative with prepositions and conjunctions.
As for the name to be given to the words for their descriptive identification, out of the variety of the ones already existing ("postpositions", "adverbial word-morphemes", "adverbial postpositions", etc.) we would prefer the term "post-positives" introduced by N. Amosova. While evading the confusion with classical "postpositions" developed in some languages of non-Indo-European types (i.e. post-nounal analogues of prepositions), this term is fairly convenient for descriptive purposes and at the same time is neutral categorially, i.e. it easily admits of additional specifications of
15—1499 225
the nature of the units in question in the course of their further linguistic study.