1) Nominal

- qual­itative

qualitative - express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. -ly

quantitative- words of degree (of high degree: very, quite; of excessive degree: too, awfully; of unexpected degree: surprisingly; of moderate degree: relatively; of low degree: a little; of approximate degree: almost; of optimal degree: adequate­ly; of inadequate degree: unbearably; of under-degree/ hardly.)

-orientative : adverbs of time {today, never, shortly) and adverbs of place (homeward(s), near, ashore)

2) Pronominal

As is the case with adjectives, this lexemic subxcategorization 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 evaluational grading by degree words expresses the category of comparison, much in the same way as adjectives do. Thus, not only qualitative, but also orientative adverbs, proving they come under the heading of evalua­tive, are included into the categorial system of comparison, e.g.: ashore - more ashore - most ashore - less ashore ~ least asJ'hore.

Problems: 1) a problem of inter-class connections (Blokh)

The problem is introduced by the very regularity of derivation (adjective+ly), the rule of which can be formulated quite simply: each qualitative adjective has a parallel adverb in -ly. E. g.: silent — silently, slow — slowly

=>??? both sets of words belong to the same part of speech, the qualitative adverbs in -ly being in fact adjectives of specific combinability? – Smirnistky

On the whole, the theory in question is hardly acceptable for the mere reason that derivative relations in general are not at all relations of lexico-grammatical identi­ty; since they actually constitute a system of production of one type of lexical units from another type of lexical units.

2) formations of a type: bring up - phrases or words? (Ilyish 146)

1. Phrases – what part of speech is the 2 element? Adverb – most scholars think, but H. Palmer, Smirnitsky – “preposition-like adverbs”; Anitchkov – “adverbial postpositions”; Amosova – “postpositives”

2. Words => the 2 element is a morpheme - Zhluktenko. Unacceptable point of view as it’d destroy the notion of a “word” altogether

Structural parts of speech – classes of words that render relations of parts of speech without naming these relations. The main item of difference is that struct parts don’t function as the parts of the sentence. Don’t have full lexical meaning either.

Some also discriminate

1. structural parts- служебные части речи: prep, conj, interj, part

2. function words = auxiliary words служебные слова be, have, do…They belong to notional parts of sp. Due to their morphological qualities can be used as full notional words.

Так что попрошу не путать!

Дальше все по Ильишу, товарищи! 149-166 Предоставляю вам краткий конспект. При желании можно сократить и его, но эту почетную миссию поручаю вам

THE PREPOSITION

Prepositions express the relations between words in a sentence, and this is taken as a definition of the meaning of prepositions. They also denote relations between phenomena in the extralinguistic world.

There are cases in which a preposition does not express relations between extralinguistic phenomena but merely serves as a link between words. This depends on you. We саn sау that the preposition on is here predicted by the verb depend.

The syntactical functions of prepositions. As far as phrases are concerned, the function of prepositions is to connect words with each other. On the sentence level: a preposition is never a part of a sentence by itself; it enters the part of sentence whose main centre is the fol­lowing noun, or pronoun, or gerund.

Sometimes the boundary line between a preposition and another part of speech is not quite clear. Thus, with reference to the words like and near there may be doubtful cases from this viewpoint. Adjective – the near future, prep – near me

Degrees of comparison? (Nearest where they sat) We have here a borderline case of transition between an adjective in the superlative degree and a preposition.

In some phrases, which are not part of a sentence, a preposition does not connect two words because there is no word at all before it, and so its ties are one­sided: they point only forwards, not back. The preposition either expresses a relation between the thing expressed by the noun and something not mentioned in the text (as in "To a Skylark"), or it gives the characteristic of the place where some­thing not specified takes place ("Under the Greenwood Tree").

We also find two prepositions close to each other in different contexts. The cat stretched its paw from under the table. it is also possible to view this case in a somewhat different way, namely to suppose that from under is a phrase equiv­alent to a preposition, and then we should not have two preposi­tions following one another here. This problem should be further investigated.

Prepositions can sometimes be followed by adverbs, which ap­parently become partly substantivized when so used. The groups from there, from where, since then, since when.

Sometimes even a parenthetical clause come between the pre­position and the noun it introduces, e. g. Some weeks ago Mr Bles-sington came down to me in, as it seemed to me, a state of consider­able agitation. The looseness of the tie between the preposition and the follow­ing noun can be offset by a closer tie between the preposition and the preceding word.

It should also be noted that a preposition does not necessarily connect the word which immediately precedes it with the one that follows.

THE CONJUNCTION

Every conjunc­tion has its own meaning, expressing some connection or other existing between phenomena in extralinguistic reality. The use of a conjunction is never predicted by any preceding word.

On the phrase level it must be said that conjunctions connect words and phrases. It is the so-called co-ordinating conjunctions that are found here, and only very rarely subordinating ones.

On the sentence level it must be said that conjunctions connect clauses (of different kinds). Here we find both so-called co-ordinat­ing and so-called subordinating conjunctions. co-ordi­nating conjunctions imply co-ordination of clauses, and subordinat­ing conjunctions imply subordination of clauses.

Some preposi­tions are very close in meaning to subordinating conjunctions, and in some cases a preposition and a subordinating conjunction sound exactly the same.

After, before, since – prep – conj how to deal?

One way is to say, there is the word after, which may function both as a preposition and as a conjunction. But then the question arises, what part of speech is after? If it can only function as a pre­position and as a conjunction, this would mean that it is neither the one nor the other.

Another way is to say that after the preposition and after the conjunction are homonyms. This will not do either, since homo-nymy, by definition, supposes complete difference of meaning, whereas the meaning of after the preposition and after the conjunction is absolutely the same. A fully convincing solution of this problem has yet to be found.

The distinction between preposition and conjunction is based only on semantic criteria and, also, on the use of these words in other contexts, where they are not interchangeable.

THE PARTICLE

The question of the place of a particle in sentence structure re­mains unsolved. It would appear that the following three solutions are possible: (1) a particle is a separate secondary member of the sentence, which should be given a special name; (2) a particle is an element in the part of the sentence which is formed by the word (or phrase) to which the particle refers (thus the particle may be an element of the subject, predicate, object, etc.); (3) a particle neither makes up a special part of the sentence, nor is it an element in any part of the sentence; it stands outside the structure of the sentence and must be neglected when analysis of a sentence is given.

we shall have to adhere to the first view

THE PARTICLE Not

On the one hand, it may stand outside the predicate. It also stands outside the predicate in a type of so-called short answers, in which the neg­ative is expressed by the particle not, if it is accompanied by a modal word like certainly, perhaps, or a phrase equivalent to a modal word, e. g. of course: Certainly not. Perhaps not. Of course not. ' Compare also: / am afraid not, I think not, etc. In these cases the particle not appears to be the main part of the sentence.

Another use of the particle not is that within the predicate. In these cases it is customary to treat it as part of the verb itself. The particle not is thus treated as an auxiliary element making part of the verb form.

The particle not undergoes further fusion with forms of the verb in the following cases, where indeed it is no longer a word at all but a morpheme within a verb form. The first step in this direc­tion is clearly seen in the form cannot, where it preserves its vowel sound, and the next step in the contracted forms isn't, aren't (also the subliterary ain't), wasn't, weren't,

There are some words which may be classed either as particles or as adverbs. Among these we should cite the words almost and nearly, which are close to each other in meaning. The word nearly may occasionally have the adverb very standing before it and modifying it. Since the status of the word nearly was doubtful anyway, the phrase very nearly casts a definite weight against its being a particle and in favour of its being an adverb.

MODAL WORDS

The distinction between modal words and adverbs is, as we saw in our general survey of parts of speech, based on two criteria: (1) their meaning: modal words express the speaker's view concern­ing the reality of the action expressed in the sentence, (2) their syntactical function: they are not adverbial modifiers but paren­theses, whether we take a parenthesis to be a special part of the sentence or whether we say that it stands outside its structure.

Modal words have been variously classified into groups accord­ing to their meaning: those expressing certainty, such as certainly, surely, undoubtedly; those expressing doubt, such as perhaps, maybe, possibly, etc. The number of types varies greatly with dif­ferent authors. From the gram­matical viewpoint it is sufficient to state that all modal words express some kind of attitude of the speaker concerning the reality of the action expressed in the sentence.

A modal word can also make up a sentence by itself. This hap­pens when it is used to answer a general question, that is, a ques­tion admitting of a yes- or nо-answer. Certainly, perhaps, maybe,

There are various means of expressing modality — modal words, modal verbs (can, must, etc.) and the category of mood.

THE INTERJECTION. WORDS

NOT INCLUDED IN THE CLASSIFICATION

There has been some doubt whether they are words of a definite language in the same sense that nouns, verbs, etc. are, and whether they are not rather involuntary outcries, provoked by violent feelings of pain, joy, surprise, etc., not restricted to any given lan­guage but common to all human beings as biological phenomena are.

We can now safely say that interjections are part of the word stock of a language as much as other types of words are.

The interjections, as distinct from nouns, verbs, prepositions, etc., are not names of anything, but expressions of emotions. Some interjections seem to express merely feeling in general, without being attached to some particular feeling.

In the vast majority of cases an interjection does not make part of any phrase but stands isolated. However, that does not mean that it is impossible for an interjection to make part of a phrase. Alas for my friends! Oh dear!

On the sentence level The usual interpretation is that the in­terjection stands outside the structure of the sentence. Another view is that it is syntactically a kind of parenthesis at least in some cases.

There may be words in a language which are not included under any category, and then, they would belong nowhere. – Scherba’s viewpoint

Please, yes, no. если интересно, продолжение на стр 168 в ильише

23. The verbals. The infinitive. (лекция + Блох стр. 99-105)

Verbs can be divided into finite and non-finite according to the nature of predication. The function of non-finite verbs is limited to secondary and potential predication (fallen leaves – potential, for him to come - secondary), while the function of finite verbs is that of expressing primary predication in the sentence. Other differential features of non-finite verbs are: - they are devoid of any indication of person-number, their paradigms are defective (they are formed by special morphemic elements which do not express either grammatical time or mood); can be combined with verbs performing non-verbal functions in the sentence.

Practically, finites and non-finites are different classes bound together on the basis of grammatical categories and on the basis of predicativity.

Place of verbals:

1. Constitute a separate part of speech (‘cause they are different in semantic meaning (the processual meaning is exposed by them in a substantive or adjectival-adverbial interpretation), in paradigmatic properties, functions, combinability)

2. Separate sub-class of verbs (common fundamental grammatical meaning of process, have the same morphological categories, according to the ‘field’ theory they find themselves in the periphery of the verb)

3. Forms of the verb, that means we should differentiate the category of finitude.

(*Bloch – distinguishes the morphological category of finitude, manifested in the opposition of finite vs. non-finite verbs. Common feature – expression of verbal predication in the sentence. expression of verbal time and mood. The syntactic content – the expression of verbal predication. The strong member is the finite verb, marked in their tense and mood forms, primary predication. The weak (unmarked) member is the non-finite verb. Still, some linguists consider this category to be syntactic (eg, Смирницкий))

The infinitive (Inf) is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb and the noun, serving as the verbal name of a process. ‘Cause of its general process-naming function, the Inf should be considered as the head form of the whole paradigm of the verb (although not all the forms of the Inf, but only the indefinite non-perfect active form), it represents the actual derivation base for all the forms of regular verbs.

The Inf is used in 3 fundamentally different types of functions:

• as a notional, self-positional syntactic part of the sentence (as the Subj, Obj, Adv.Mod), the use is grammatically free (To do it is a bad idea)

• as a notional constituent of a complex verb predicate built up around a predicator verb, the use is half-free (You should do it immediately)

• as the notional constituent of a finite conjugation form of the verb, the use is bound (meet (imperative mood), should meet, would meet) – within the paradigm of the verb

The dual verbal-nominal meaning of the Inf is expressed in full measure in its free use. It denotes the corresponding process in an abstract, substance-like presentation. It can be proved by question transformation. Do you really mean to go away? – What do you really mean?

The combinability also reflects the dual semantic nature. 1. Verb-type combinability (with: nouns expressing the object of the action, nouns expressing the subject of the action, modifying adverbs, predicator verbs of semi-functional nature forming a verbal predicate, auxiliary finite verbs in the analytical forms of the verb). 2. Noun-type combinability (with: finite notional verbs as the object of the action, finite notional verbs as the subject of the action)

The Inf exists in 2 presentation forms: 1) characteristic of the free uses, distinguished by ‘to’ (also called ‘to-Inf’, ‘arked Inf’); 2) characteristic of the bound uses, does not imply ‘to’ (‘bare/unmarked Inf’)

‘to’ should be considered a word-morpheme, its function is to build up and identify the Inf form as such. So, we may say that it is the analytical form, ‘cause: 1) it can be used in an isolated position to represent the whole corresponding construction syntactically zeroed in the text (You are welcome to acquaint yourself with any of the documents if you want to); 2) it can be separated from its Inf part by a word or a phrase (My task is to thoroughly investigate, to clearly define and to consistently systemize the facts)

The choice of the presentation form depends on the environment of the Inf (eg, ‘to’ is not used with modal verbs, verbs of sense perception and so on)

The Inf has 3 grammatical categories: category of development, of retrospective coordination, of voice. The Inf has 8 forms.

24. Word order in English (Ilysh pp. 238-249).

Acc. to Ilysh, the term “word order” is an unhappy one, as it is based on the confusion of two levels of language structure: the level of phrases and that of the sentence. But the term is so firmly established that speaking about word order in English we should bear in mind the order of the parts of the sentence.

Modern English is characterized by a rigid word order. And any deviation from the rigid word order is termed inversion. However, more traditional is considered the 2^nd view, acc. to which inversion is a deviated order of the principal parts of speech, i.e. S and Pr.

So the 1^st question in this sphere is that of the relative position of S and PR. There are only 2 possible variants of their mutual position: “S + Pr”, or “Pr + S”. And the problem is which of them should be taken as a norm.

The common view is that the normal order in English is “S + Pr” and any case of the order “Pr + S” is an inversion. If we take the 2^nd view, we will in the 1^st place distinguish between interrogative and declarative sentences. The normal order in the declarative sent. will be of course “S + Pr”, but the normal order in interrogative sent. will be “Pr +S”.

So it is preferable to speak about between 2 sets of phenomena: 1) normal order, which may be either “S + Pr”, as in the most declarative sentences, or “Pr + S”, as in most interrogative sentences; 2) inverted order (inversion), which may be the order “Pr + S” in a special type of declarative sentences ( e.g. Only at the sunset did I leave the house. – emphasis), or “S + Pr” in a special type of sentences, characterized in general by the order “Pr + S” (it’s a rare case).

There are declarative sentences in which the order “Pr + S” is normal:

1) Constructions there is/ are;

2) Emphatic sentences beginning with the particle only;

3) Sentences beginning with an adv. modifier: In the corner sat the band;

4) Conditional “inversion”: Had she foreseen it, she would have acted differently.;

5)After sentence initial elements (Never, Nor, Scarcely, Not only, Hardly ever, etc);

6) After So and Neither: So do I. Neither does he.

Twaddell consider the last three cases to be the principal cases of inversion in English, which he calls “the sequence Auxiliary + S”.

In interrogative sentences the order “S + Pr” is treated as a norm among sentences having an interrogative pronoun within the subject group.

Object.

It well known that the usual place of the object is after the predicate, and if there are 2 objects in a sentence, the order is fixed: if they are both non-prepositional, the indirect object comes first and the direct object next; if one of the objects is prepositional, it comes after the non-prepositional.

Adverbial modifier.

The position of adv. modifiers is comparatively more free than that of other parts. Adverbials of place and time are normally placed either at the end, or at the beginning of the sentence. In case there are both an adverbial place and an adverbial time, the former comes nearer the verb than the latter.

Adverbials of indefinite time anв frequency are placed before a synthetic predicate or within an analytical predicate form. Smirnitsky explains such position as a sort of time attribute to the verb, owing to which they form an inalienable part of the predicate. If these adverbials are placed at the head of the sentence they become emphatic (Never shall I forget that day).

Attribute.

Attributes may precede or follow the word they modify and accordingly we distinguish between prepositive and postpositive attributes. Both types of attributes are placed in close proximity to the noun modified. The position of the attribute before or after its head word largely depends on its morphological type. An attribute consisting of a prepositional phrase can only come after its head word. Adjectival attributes usually stands before their head word, but in some cases they follow it (e.g. adj. in –able, -ible; in certain set expressions, like from time immemorial; after the pronoun something e.g. something important, etc.)

Also, don’t forget about order of attributes, when there are several of them (SASCOM – size, age, shape, color, origin, material).

On the whole, the problem of word order proves to be a highly complex one, requiring great care and subtlety in the handling. As far as we can see, different factors have something to do with determining the place of one part of a sentence or another.