- •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
§ 4. Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.
By qualitative such adverbs are meant as express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly. E. g.:
The little boy was crying bitterly over his broken toy. The plainly embarrassed Department of Industry confirmed the fact of the controversial deal.
The adverbs interpreted as "quantitative" include words of degree. These are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be subdivided into several very clearly pronounced sets.
The first set is formed by adverbs of high degree. These adverbs are sometimes classed as "intensifiers": very, quite, entirely, utterly, highly, greatly, perfectly, absolutely, strongly, considerably, pretty, much. The second set includes adverbs of excessive degree (direct and reverse) also belonging to the broader subclass of intensifiers: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically. The third set is made up of adverbs of unexpected degree: surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly. The fourth set is formed by adverbs of moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, moderately, rather. The fifth set includes adverbs of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit. The sixth set is constituted by adverbs of approximate degree: almost, nearly. The seventh set includes adverbs of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently, adequately. The eighth set is formed by adverbs of inadequate degree: insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably, ridiculously. The ninth set is made up of adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.
As we see, the degree adverbs, though usually described under the heading of "quantitative", in reality constitute a specific variety of qualitative words, or rather some sort of intermediate qualitative-quantitative words, in so far as they are used as quality evaluators. In this function they are distinctly different from genuine quantitative adverbs which are directly related to numerals and thereby form sets of words of pronominal order. Such are numerical-pronominal
226
adverbs like twice, thrice, four times, etc.; twofold, threefold, many fold, etc.
Thus, we will agree that the first general subclass of adverbs is formed by qualitative adverbs which are subdivided into qualitative adverbs of full notional value and degree adverbs — specific functional words.
Circumstantial adverbs are also divided into notional and functional.
The functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. Besides quantitative (numerical) adverbs mentioned above, they include adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming functionals. Here belong such words as now, here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.
As for circumstantial adverbs of more self-dependent nature, they include two basic sets: first, adverbs of time; second, adverbs of place: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom, early, late; homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc. The two varieties express a general idea of temporal and spatial orientation and essentially perform deictic (indicative) functions in the broader sense. Bearing this in mind, we may unite them under the general heading of "orientative" adverbs, reserving the term "circumstantial" to syntactic analysis of utterances.
Thus, the whole class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and pronominal, and the nominal adverbs will be subdivided into qualitative and orientative, the former including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter falling into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of more detailed specifications.
As is the case with adjectives, this lexemic subcategorisation of adverbs should be accompanied by a more functional and flexible division into evaluative and specificative, connected with the categorial expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to evaluation grading by degree words expresses the category of comparison, much in the same way as, mutatis mutandis, adjectives do. Thus, not only qualitative, but also orientative adverbs, providing they come under the heading of evaluative, are included into the categorial system of comparison. Cf.: quickly — quicker — quickest — less quickly — least quickly; frequently — more frequently — most frequently — less frequently — least
15* 227
frequently; ashore — more ashore — most ashore — less ashore — least ashore, etc.
Barring the question of the uses of articles in comparative — superlative collocations, all the problems connected with the adjectival degrees of comparison retain their force for the adverbial degrees of comparison, including the problem of elative superlative.