5. Coordinators: and, not, but, nor, rather, than, either ... or, etc.

6. Interrogators:

1. Simple: when, where, how, why (whence, whither), whenever, etc.

2. Interrogative pronouns: who, which, what, whoever, whichever, whatever.

(g) lncluders:

1. Simple: after, although, how, lest, since, etc.

2. Relative pronouns: who, which, that, when, where, whoever, etc. (h) Sentence-linkers:

1. Simple: consequently, furthermore, hence, however, moreover, nevertheless, therefore.

2. Phrasal: at least, in addition, in fact, etc.

There are also function verbs in Francis' classification which stand in place of a full verb-phrase, when the full verb has been expressly stated or strongly implied in the immediate linguistic context or the non-linguistic context.

We cannot fail to see that applying formal structural methods of analysis which seem to be more objective than semantic criteria, grammarians come to somewhat different results.

In terms of N. Chomsky's theory of syntax, sentences have a surface structure and a deep structure, the latter is more complicated, being based on one or more underlying abstract simple structures.

In certain very simple sentences the difference between the surface structure and the deep structure is minimal. Sentences of this kind (simple, active, declarative, indicative) are designated as kernel sentences. They can be adequately described by phrase or constituent structure methods, as consisting of noun and verb phrases (the so-called P-markers, the NP's and VP's). According to syntactic structures, kernel sentences are produced by applying only obligatory transformations to the phrase-structure strings (e. g. the transformation of affix + verb into verb + + affix in the present tense, hit -s, etc.). Non-kernel or derived sentences involve optional transformations in addition, such as active to passive (the boy was hit by the man). But later interpretations of the transformational theory have made less use of this distinction, stressing rather the distinction between the underlying "deep structure" of a sentence and its "surface structure" that it exhibits after the transformations have been applied. Transformational operations consist in rearrangement, addition, deletion and combination of linguistic elements.

32

Phrase structure rules form a counterpart in the theory of generative grammar to two techniques of linguistic analysis (one old and one rather new).

In the words of E. Bach, the old practice is the schoolroom drill of parsing, that is, of assigning grammatical labels to parts of a sentence. In a schoolroom drill the following analysis might occur:

The man article noun	gave verb	me pronoun	a article	book noun
whole subject		indirect object		direct object
		whole	predicate

The other technique — in reality only a more sophisticated version of parsing — is so-called immediate constituent (IC) analysis. It attempts to break down constructions into subparts that are in some sense grammatically relevant.

The theory of transformational grammar begins by making fundamental distinction between two kinds of sentences: kernel sentences and their transforms. Kernel sentences are the basic elementary sentences of the language from which all else is made. All constructions that are not basic are transforms, i. e. they are derived from the basic ones by certain grammatical rules. Transformations can change and expand the kernel in many ways to form the great variety of sentences possible in a given language.

The system of any language contains a rather small number of basic sentences and other structural elements (such as morphemes and phonemes). All the other linguistic forms, sentences of different structure, are derived (generated) from these basic (kernel) elements by certain regular derivation rules involving different kind of operations. This understanding of the system of any language is, in fact, the main assumption of the transformational grammar.

The two basic problems of the T-grammar are: a) the establishment of the set of kernel or basic structures, and b) the establishment of the set of transformation rules for deriving all the other sentences as their transforms¹.

A transformational rule is a rule which requires or allows us to perform certain changes in the kernel structure: rearrangement of linguistic elements, so-called "permutation", substitution, deletion, the use of function words, etc.

The transformational rules show how to derive something from something else by switching things about, putting things or leaving them out and so on ².

It is to be pointed out that transformational analysis applied in teaching on different instruction levels can hardly be considered as altogether quite novel. Transformational relations involved in tense-formation and passive forms, for instance, were, in fact, always presented as devices of obligatory transformations on the morphological level. The

¹See: Z. S. Harris. Co-occurrence and Transformation in Linguistic Structure. "Language", v. 33, No. 3, 1957.

² See: P. Roberts. English Syntax. New York, 1964, p. 97. - 3

33

recognition of brought as the past tense of bring, and similarly be brought as the passive of bring, depends primarily on relating large numbers of sentences and on the analysis of collocations between nouns and verbs in the sentences.

Such are also number and person transformations or, say, different kind of transformations which were applied implicitly in traditional grammar on the syntactic level depending on the purpose of communication: constructing negative transforms, changing an affirmative sentence into a question, transformations which produce exclamatory sentences, etc.

Deficiencies of various kind have been discovered in the first attempts to formulate a theory of transformational generative grammar and in the descriptive analysis of particular languages that motivated these formulations. At the same time, it has become apparent that these formulations can be extended and deepened in certain ways.

N. Chomsky's Aspects of the Theory of Syntax ¹ is a notable attempt to review these developments and to propose a reformulation of the theory of transformational generative grammar that takes them into account. The emphasis in this study is syntax; semantic and phonological aspects of language structure are discussed only insofar as they bear on syntactic theory.

The author reviews the general orientation of all work in generative grammar since the middle fifties. His specific intent is to determine exactly how this work is related — in its divergencies as well as its connections — to earlier developments in linguistics and to see how this work relates to traditional issues in psychology and philosophy.

N. Chomsky implicitly relates his grammar to language teaching and learning by associating his results with traditional grammars. He mentions that these do not give explicit rules for putting words together into sentences, although they give enough rules of word concord, examples and so on, to allow the student to do this intuitively. N. Chomsky gives no rules for putting sentences together to make discourses, but leaves this to the intuitions of the learner. His aim is to put forward the rules to generate all possible sentences of a language in terms of a given set of morphemes. In his words, any language has a finite set of available morphemes, but an infinite set of sentences; this shows definite hypostatisation of the unit "sentence".

Transformational grammar involving a reorientation of linguistic theory has naturally given rise to vigorous controversy in linguistic studies, and much still remains to be done in language learning to evaluate its potentialities adequately. It is to be expected, however, that the theory of T-grammar will continue to develop and contribute to general linguistic study by solving some important previously overlooked issues.

The structural procedures of modern descriptive theory are used by Soviet linguists to identify the nature of some linguistic facts. It must, however, be emphatically stressed that in some questions our standpoint is essentially different. Some American linguists are known to

¹ See: N. Chomsky. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1965.

34

advocate rigorous separation of levels and a study of language as an autonomous system. Such abstraction seems altogether erroneous and brings little scientific order to language learning; dogmatic assumptions of this kind are always responsible for the distortion of linguistic facts. This approach seems to have already been abandoned by most structuralists (Z. Harris, N. Chomsky).

What is also open to criticism is setting absolutely apart synchronic and diachronic aspects of linguistic units. In language reality the two aspects are organically related and as such cannot be always absolutely isolated. Regrettable mistakes occur if this is overlooked.

There are a number of European schools of linguistics, and the differences between them are in some instances rather significant. The linguistic theories which they hold have, in fact, been developed in a variety of ways.

With the diversity of view-points within descriptive linguistics, it is not surprising that English descriptive grammar is not as a type uniform. Sometimes grammarians differ in the view of language that underlies them. Some of grammars differ only in terminology, in stylistic conventions of statement, or in other basically inconsequential matters. For the most part there is a variation in many directions, with intergradations in linguistic analysis. But despite a considerable divergency of their aims and linguistic approaches there is a certain continuousness in different English grammars observed in their keeping up the grammatical tradition. The foundations of the English grammatical theory were laid already in the first part of the prescriptive grammar, though its morphological system was based on Latin and syntactic concepts depended largely upon rhetoric and logic.

The prescriptive normative grammar has the longest tradition and is still prevalent in class-room instruction. Its most important contribution to grammatical theory was the syntactic system developed in 19th century.

Though much has been done, the three types of scientific English grammars have not yet succeeded in creating any quite independent and new grammatical systems.

R. W. Zandvoort's Handbook of English Grammar (1957—1965) is a descriptive grammar of contemporary English. It deals with accidence and syntax, leaving aside what belongs rather to idiom and is not amenable to general statement. It likewise eschews historical digressions; synchronic and diachronic grammar are, in the author's opinion, best treated separately. In this, as in other respects, R. Zandvoort confesses himself a pupil of Kruisinga, whose Handbook of Present-day English, despite certain extravagances in its fifth and final edition, he considers to be the most original and stimulating treatment of English syntax.

* * *

A major contribution to the development of modern linguistics has been made by Soviet scholars.

The accomplishments of Soviet linguists in the theory of English structure are presented by the great wealth and variety of individual

35

studies of numerous problems treated in various monographs, grammar books and work-papers which appeared during this period and have been noted in our bibliography.

Linguistic studies of Modern English structure made by Soviet scholars contain most valuable information about the language as system and have notable merits in the grammatical theory making its study more illuminating and contributing to a scientific understanding of language development. Such are, for instance, the monographs and books edited in this country in 50-60-ies by V. N. Yartseva, A. I. Smirnitsky, O. S. Akhmanova, Y. N. Vorontsova, B. A. Ilyish, N. N. Amosova, I. P. Ivanova, I. V. Arnold and others.

Most perceptive and useful treatments coordinating and deepening the grasp of the language will be found in V. N. Yartseva's monographs and scholarly accounts made at a special academic level, with much new insight on the subject in the light of modern linguistics.

A valuable source of significant information revealing important aspects of language in discussion of syntax and morphology will be found in well known A. I. Smirnitsky's grammar books.

A major stimulus to intensive studies of the theory of English structure in Soviet linguistics was the research of our scholars in recent times. This has brought new accomplishments in modern grammatical theory which are original, significant and practical. Investigations of recent years gain an important insight into the structural methods of linguistic analysis, syntactic description, in particular. Such are the grammar books edited by O. S. Akhmanova, V. N. Yartseva, L. Barkhudarov, L. L. Iofik, Y. O. Zhluktenko, G. G. Pocheptsov and others.

Current work in grammar attempts to provide the insight into semantic aspects of syntax, the processes of sentence formation and their interpretation, the processes that underlie the actual use of language.

Investigations of Soviet scholars throw much additional light on numerous aspects of language encouraging fresh attempts not only in the theory of English structure but also comparative studies of grammar (V. N. Yartseva, Y. O. Zhluktenko).

The structural procedures of modern descriptive theory are widely used by Soviet linguists to identify the nature of some linguistic facts of different levels of the language.

Important observations are presented in A. Korsakov's book where we find the description of the system of the English verb, revealing to the student the way in which the language actually works. The book is not only intended to show the student how the English tenses are actually used. It is also helpful as an introduction of some methods and ways of linguistic analysis.

Various aspects of grammar have been described in a considerable number of dissertations defended in this country on specialised topics, such as semantic aspects of syntax, the grammar of English nominalisations, synonymic correlation of linguistic units, comparative study of languages, etc. to which we turn the attention of the student with suggestions for further reading.

36

Grammar in Its Relation to Other Levels of Linguistic Structure

Interactions between grammar and other levels of linguistic structure are of the essence of language and probably the most significant point to notice in studying the structure of a language in general.

Language as system consists of several subsystems all based on oppositions, differences, samenesses and positional values.

The grammatical system breaks up into its subsystems owing to its relations with vocabulary and the unity of lexical meaning of the words of each group. Grammar and vocabulary are organically related and interdependent but they do not lie on one plane. As a bilateral unity of form and content the grammar of any language always retains the categories underlying its system.

Numberless examples in different languages show that grammar is not indifferent to the concrete lexical meaning of words and their capacity to combine with one another in certain patterns. The use of some grammatical rules is well known to be lexically restricted.

The statement about abstraction and generalisation in grammar should not thus be understood as formal mechanical separation of the "general" facts from the "special" ones.

It is not always easy to draw precise boundaries between the two branches of learning.

Sometimes the subject matter becomes ambiguous just at the borderline.

Internal relations of elements are of the essence of language as systems at all levels. The functions of every linguistic element and abstraction depend on its relative place therein. This is, in fact, one of the fundamental features of language. And this is the starting point of the treatment of grammar in the present book. Grammatical phenomena can and should be considered from various (often supplementary) points of view. With this approach to linguistic facts problems of grammar in our day have taken on new vitality and interest.

The linguistic features of grammar and vocabulary make it abundantly clear that the two branches of learning are organically related to each other. No part of grammar can be adequately described without reference to vocabulary. With all this, linguistic students should understand what separates grammar from vocabulary, wherein lie the peculiarities of each of the two levels and their relationship in general. To ignore this is to ignore the dialectical nature of language.

That grammar and vocabulary are organically related to each other may be well illustrated by the development of analytical forms which are known to have originated from free syntactic groups. These consist of at least two words but actually constitute one sense-unit. Only one of the elements has lexical meaning, the second has none, and being an auxiliary word possesses only grammatical meaning.

Not less characteristic are periphrastic grammatical forms of the verb, such as, for instance, the going to-future or, say, patterns with the verb to get + participle II established by long use in the language

37

to indicate voice distinctions. Verb-phrases of analytical structure denoting the aspective character of the action, such as: used to + V_inf, would + V_inf, come to + V_inf, take to + V_ing, fall + prp + V_ing, have + nomen acti, etc.

The constant reciprocal action between vocabulary and grammar makes itself quite evident in contextual restrictions of word-meanings. Examples are not far to seek.

The verb to mean + V_inf means "to intend", to mean + V_ing means "to signify", "to have as a consequence", "to result in something". Compare the following:

1. He had never really meant to write that letter → He had never intended to write that letter.

2. This meant changing all my plans → This resulted in changing all my plans.

To remember + V_ing refers to the past and means "not to need to be reminded", to remember + V_inf refers to the future and means "not to omit to do something". Cf.: I remember doing so. Remember to go to the post-office.

To try takes a gerund when it means "to make an experiment"; when followed by an infinitive it means "to make an attempt to do something", e. g.: She tried for a time helping us in music but found it was not a success. Try to keep perfectly still for a moment.

The construction verb + V_ing can also be compared with one consisting of a verb + adverbial infinitive, e. g.: The horse stopped to drink. The horse stopped drinking.

Further examples of the so-called "grammatical context" which operates to convey the necessary meaning will be found in cases when, for instance, the passive form of the verb gives a clue concerning its particular lexical meaning. To give examples. The verb to succeed, as registered in dictionaries, can mean: 1) слідувати за чимсь або кимсь, бути наступником, змінювати щось; 2) мати успіх, досягати мети, встигати.

As is known, the passive form of this verb excludes the second range of its meanings.

Not less characteristic is the use of the verb to make; its passive forms, for instance, are incompatible with such lexical meanings as given below:

The moment I greeted her she made to turn back.

She rose abruptly and made to quit the room, but Andrew stopped her before she reached the door. (Cronin)

The use of the passive form would signal the causative meaning «заставити», «примусити», e. g.: She was made to quit the room.

Compare also the meaning of the verb to treat in the following sentences:

He treated my words as a joke. The book treats of poetry. They treated us to sweet wine. He is treating my son cruelly.

38

In homonymic patterns the meaning of the verb is generally defined by the immediate lexical context, which is always explicit enough to make the meaning clear. Compare the following:

1. She made a good report. She made a good wife.

2. He called his sister a heroine. He called his sister a taxi.

Variation in lexical environment may change the meaning of a grammatical form, and the use of a grammatical form may, in its turn, change the lexical meaning of the word involved. Examples are not far to seek. The organic interrelation between grammar and vocabulary merits at this point special consideration.

In the "activo-passive" use of verbs, for instance, the medial meaning is generally signalled by the lexical meaning of the subject. Examples are numerous:

(a) But it occurred to her, as her dance-list was filling up, that there was not much left for Mr. Cowperwood, if he should care to dance with her. (Dreiser)

(was filling up = was being filled up)

(b) When the storm stopped the fields were white over, the sky a milk blue, low and still threatening. But the snowcovered fields, in spite his shivering, felt good to be in. (Sillitoe)

(felt good=were felt)

(c) This play reads better than it acts (= This play should be read rather than acted).

Grammatical forms must be studied in all the variety of their distribution in actual speech. Contexts have a way of making a grammatical form convey different structural meanings including sometimes the exact opposite of what is ordinarily intended.

The organic interrelation between grammar and vocabulary becomes most evident when we carry our attention to transpositions of grammatical forms, their functional re-evaluation in different contexts and to semantic aspects of syntax.

The constant reciprocal action of vocabulary and grammar will be well exemplified by various processes of word-formation, such as compounding, conversion, derivation and others.

Evidence to prove the interrelation between grammar and vocabulary will readily be seen in the history of so-called function words, e. g.: prepositions and conjunctions which have come from the notional parts of speech:

provided a) past participle from the verb to provide b) conjunction

regarding a) present participle from the verb to regard b) preposition

owing a) present participle from to owe b) preposition

failing a) present participle from to fail b) preposition

33

The same is true of such formations in other languages. Cf. Russian and Ukrainian:

относительно а) предлог відносно а) прийменник б) наречие б) прислівник

не смотря 1 а) деепричастие не зважаючи \ а) дієприслівник

(несмотря)} б) предлог (незважаючи)) б) прийменник

French: vu a) participe passe

b) preposition pendant )

durant \ a) participe present

touchant / b) preposition

German:

a) Partizip II ausgenommen

b) position Zeit (zeit)

1 a) Substantiv Kraft (kraft) /

b) Präposition

That grammar should be viewed in relation to other parts of linguistic learning, such as phonetics and style, is also obvious.

The phonetic interpretation of the linguistic material is of undoubted interest in modern grammar learning. Modulation features, intonation and stress are well known to effect both morphology and syntax. Patterns of grammatical arrangement may be structurally ambiguous or at least potentially so. In speech however, there are prosodic patterns which clearly distinguish the various types of construction. This is an area of English grammar where much remains to be done before a complete description is available.

Changes in the intonation pattern, for instance, can change the functional sentence perspective, the interpretation of the whole utterance, say, from a statement to a question, from a positive to a negative sense, from interrogative to exclamatory, etc., e. g.:

Fleur darted after him.

"He gives me up? You mean that? Father!" (Galsworthy)

Instinctively they both took cigarettes, and lighted each others. Then Michael said: "Fleur, knows?" (Galsworthy)

"Did you hear it! That boy of hers is away to London again".

The sentence-final contours are used in speech to signal the sentence divisions within an utterance composed of more than one sentence. In "nexus of deprecation", for instance, the connection between two members of an ordinary affirmative sentence may be brushed aside as impossible by intonation which is the same as in questions, often in an exaggerated form or not infrequently given to the two members separately, e. g.:

We surrender? Never!

I catch cold! No fear.

The interrogative form of exclamatory sentences in such patterns make them most colourful and expressive.

"You,— I said,— a favourite with Mr. Rocherster? You gifted with

40

the power of pleasing him? You of importance to him in any way? Go; Your folly sickens me" (Brontë).

Further examples to show the relation of phonetics to grammar are not far to seek. We may take, for instance, word-making through the so-called "morphological" or "semantic" stress. A fair number of nouns (Romanic in origin) are distinguished from the corresponding verbs only by the position of the accent, the noun being accented on the first syllable and the verb on the second, e. g. 'present—to pre'sent, 'export-to ex'port, 'conduct — to con'duct, etc.

Structural ambiguity in homonymic patterns on the syntactic level is very often resolved by the intonation patterns.

In written English, for instance, because of the lack of stress the use of some words results in ambiguity. By way of illustration:

He talked with a pretty French accent — with the stress on French the word pretty is used adverbially and means in or to some degree; when pretty is stressed it is used attributively and means good, fine.

Examine also the difference in grammar between:

What did you bring the parcel in? Why did you bring the parcel in? Are you going to be doing it? How long are you going to be doing it?

Features of stress and juncture are well known to effect various kind of modification structures, e. g. the phrase old men and women, for instance, could be divided into immediate constituents in either of two ways, depending on whether old is referred to both the men and the women or just the men. In speech the difference would normally be conveyed by the corresponding stress and juncture.

It will probably be helpful if at this point we take the example given by A. Hill in his Introduction to Linguistic Structures to show the importance of modulation features in downgraded sentences with piled up verb-forms:

What the house John had had had had, had had its importance.

Since the writing system does not indicate the superfixes accurately and they are therefore puzzles for the reader who has to sort them out, sentences of this sort are usually avoided in written composition. It is possible, for instance, to construct a sentence which is a real problem when read, but is plain enough when pronounced. The sentence is a freak in writing, which no writer in his senses would use. Spoken, it is only mildly queer, and is at least intelligible. Even though these sentences are understandably rare in writing, the reader should not suppose that they are either uncommon or unnatural in speech ¹.

Patterns of stress sometimes show the structural meaning unambiguously in the spoken language where without the help of context it would be ambiguous in the written. Examples follow.

When I have instructions to leave is equivalent in meaning to I have instructions that I am to leave this place, dominant stress is ordinarily on leave. When the same sequence is equivalent in meaning to I have instructions which I am to leave, dominant stress is ordinarily on instructions.

¹ See: A. H і I 1. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. New York, 1958.

41