- •The Subject Matter of Grammar
- •The Evolution of English Grammars
- •The XX th Century Linguistic Schools
- •Prague Linguistic School (Functional Linguistics)
- •American Descriptive Linguistics
- •Transformational and Transformational Generative Grammar
- •Semantic Syntax
- •Methods of Linguistic Analysis
- •Parsing (Traditional Syntactic Analysis)
- •The Oppositional Method
- •The Distributional method
- •The ic Method (method of immediate constituents)
- •The Transformational Method
- •The Method of Deep and Surface Structures
- •The Functional Sentence Perspective Method (fsp)
- •The Componential Method
- •The Contextual Method
- •The Levels of Language
- •The Morphological Structure of me
- •The Classifications of Morphemes
- •Paradigmatics and Syntagmatics
- •The Asymmetry of a Linguistic Sign
- •Parts of Speech Classifications of Parts of Speech.
- •Notionals and Functionals
- •Heterogeneity
- •Field and Periphery
- •Subcategorization
- •Onomaseological approach
- •The Noun The General Properties of a Noun
- •The Category of Gender.
- •The Category of Number
- •The Category of Case
- •Debated Problems within the Category of Case
- •Genitive Constructions (n’s n)
- •The Article Debated Problems
- •The Functions of Articles in a Sentence
- •The Verb The General Properties of a Verb
- •The Category of Tense
- •Classifications of Tenses
- •The Future Tense
- •The Present Tense
- •The Past Tense
- •The Future-in-the-Past Tense
- •The Category of Aspect
- •The Category of Time Relation (or Correlation)
- •The Category of Voice
- •The Category of Mood
- •The Indicative Mood
- •The Imperative Mood
- •The Subjunctive Mood
- •Points of Similarities with the Finites
- •Points of Differences with the Finites
- •Debated Problems within The Verbals
- •The Functions of Non-Finites
- •Types of Syntax
- •The theory of the phrase
- •Devices of Connecting Words in a Phrase
- •Debated Problems within the Theory of the Phrase
- •Classifications of Phrases
- •The theory of the simple sentence
- •The Definition of a Sentence
- •Syntactic Modelling of the Sentence
- •Semantic Modelling of the Sentence
- •The Notion of a Syntactic Paradigm
- •Structural Classification of Simple Sentences
- •Predicative Constructions Within a simple sentence we distinguish primary and secondary (independent/ dependent) elements, the structural nucleus and its adjuncts.
- •Syntactic Processes
- •The Principal Parts of a Simple Sentence
- •The Secondary Parts of a Simple Sentence
- •An Object
- •An Adverbial Modifier
- •An Attribute
- •Debated Problems within a Simple Sentence
- •A composite sentence
- •A Compound Sentence
- •I. The General Notion of a Complex Sentence.
- •2. The Status of the Subordinate Clause.
- •3.1. Classifications of Subordinate Clauses.
- •3.2. Types of Subordinate Clauses.
- •4. Connections between the Principal and the Subordinate Clause.
- •5. Neutralization between Subordination and Coordination.
- •6. The Character of the Subordinating Conjunction
- •7. Levels of Subordination
- •Syntactic Processes in the Complex Sentence.
- •9. Communicative Dynamism within a Composite Sentence( Compound and Complex) and a Supra-phrasal Unit.
The Indicative Mood
Semantically it is the most objective mood, morphologically it is most developed.
The Imperative Mood
This mood expresses order, command, a stimulus. It is the least developed mood resembling in form Sujunctive I and the infinitive. Hence, some scholars do not recognize its existence.Though it is undeveloped as compared with Russian, we encounter very peculiar forms in syntagmatics { Have done it by the time he comes ( the perfect form of the imperative). Be always searching for new sensations (the continuous form of the imperative)}. It can become polysemantic and develop the meanings of condition or concession. Make me do these things and you would destroy me (J.London) can be transformed into If you make me do these things, you will destroy me.
The Subjunctive Mood
It is the most confusing mood. In Old English there was a fully inflective Subjunctive comparable with Latin or German. It denoted problematic, hypothetical and purely imaginary actions.
In English The Subjunctive has long been in a state of decay as compared with other European languages. The simple Subjunctive (Subjunctive I) is being supplanted (вытеснять) by the forms lest he should die or that he may die. Subjunctive II is being supplanted by was (I wish he was in Hell). The present day syntax allows very few formal distinctions: God bless my wife. I wish he were here.
The difference between the Indicative mood and the Subjunctive mood has practically come to be blotted out (If I wasn’t your friend, I think I’d blame you). Hence, many scholars (O. Jespersen, L. Barchudarov) do not recognize the existence of this Mood. According to O. Jespersen’s theory of the imaginative use of tenses, past tenses indicate, in certain syntactic conditions, hypothesis, supposition, problemacity. In the sentence He smiles as if he had never heard about it the underlined form, according to O.Jespersen, is in before past time expressing unreality. In the contaminated clause, embracing the properties of two sub-clauses ( a predicative clause and an adverbial clause of unreal comparison) in the complex sentence It is as if he had never been there the underlined form of before past time expresses unreal comparison. According to O. Jespersen, the absence of the Subjunctive is made up for by some stereotyped phrases, grammatical idioms (so be it), combinations of modal verbs and infinitives and the imaginative use of past tenses (times) which become modally coloured in some patterns ( I wish he had done it).
According to Eric Partridge, the Subjunctive is not an extinct (вымирающий) mood. It is a living mood to be found in different patterns of simple sentences, in complex sentences (both in the principal and subordinate clauses) (God bless you. If he knew, he would come. (a conditional clause). Even if he had come he wouldn’t have understood (a concessive clause). I wish he came (an object clause), etc.The Subjunctive, depending upon syntactical patterns, embraces different forms: might, came, should, had come, were, be. It is a semantic-syntactic- morphological category.
M.Y. Bloch distinguishes 3 Subjunctives: The Stipulative (Subjunctive II: I wish he came), The Spective (Subjunctive I : God bless him), The Consecutive (Subjunctive III: He would have refused).
Most convenient for practical analysis is A. I. Smirnitsky’s classification of moods. He proceeds from formal criteria. Each mood is presented by peculiar models on the level of the simple and complex sentences ( For example, Subjunctive II on the level of the simple sentence : Oh, that I were a glove upon that hand (W.Shakespeare).Oh, if he were here. Oh, that he were here. If only he were here. Were he only here! ; Subjunctive II on the level of the complex sentence: It is as if he were here. If he were here, he would understand. Even if he were here he wouldn’t understand. I wish he came).
The category of mood is hard to represent in terms of binary oppositions. Prof. Zandvoort represents it in the following opposition: he play:: he plays (non-fact :: fact). One integral form of the Indicative is opposed to one integral form of the Subjunctive.
The category of Mood in English is not yet stabilized. It is still in the making.
The Non-Finites (The Verbals)
The Verbals (infinitives, participles I, participles II, gerunds) are non-finite forms of the verb. They have double nature, verbal and nominal. The Infinitive has the properties of the noun and of the verb, Participle I and Participle II have the properties of the verb, of the adjective and of the adverb. The Gerund has the properties of the verb and of the noun. Is is accounted for by the fact that ,historically, the Infinitive and the Gerund are connected with the noun, while Participle I and Participle II are connected with the adjective and the adverb. So, the verbals treat actions as substances and qualities.