1)First and foremost language is treated as a semiotic system (system of signs). A system is a structured set of elements united by a common function. Language is a system of specific interconnected and interdependent lingual signs united by their common function of forming, storing and exchanging ideas in the process of human intercourse. Ferdinand de Saussure was also among the first scholars who defined lingual units as specific signs - bilateral (two-sided) units that have both form and meaning. The units of language are of two types: segmental and supra-segmental. Segmental lingual units consist of phonemes, which are the smallest material segments of the language; segmental units form different strings of phonemes (morphemes, words, sentences, etc.). Supra-segmental lingual units do not exist by themselves, their forms are realized together with the forms of segmental units; they are: intonation contours, accents, pauses, patterns of word-order, etc. Cf., the change of word-order and intonation pattern in the following examples: He is at home (statement). – Is he at home? (question). Supra-segmental lingual units form the secondary line of speech, accompanying its primary phonemic line. Segmental lingual units form a hierarchy of levels. The term ‘hierarchy’ denotes a structure in which the units of any higher level are formed by the units of the lower level. The 1st level is formed by phonemes, the smallest material lingual elements, or segments. They have form, but they have no meaning. Phonemes differentiate the meanings of morphemes and words. E.g.: man – men.The 2nd level is composed of morphemes, the smallest meaningful elements built up by phonemes. The shortest morpheme can consist of one phoneme, e.g.: step-s; -s renders the meaning of the 3rd person singular form of the verb, or, the plural form of the noun. The meaning of the morpheme is abstract and significative: it does not name the referent, but only signifies it.The 3rd level consists of words, or lexemes, nominative lingual units, which express direct, nominative meanings: they name, or nominate various referents. The words consist of morphemes, and the shortest word can include only one morpheme, e.g.: cat. The difference is in the quality of the meaning.

The 4th level is formed by word-combinations, or phrasemes, the combinations of two or more notional words, which represent complex nominations of various referents (things, actions, qualities, and even situations) in a sentence, e.g.: a beautiful girl, their sudden departure. In a more advanced treatment, phrases along with separate words can be seen as the constituents of sentences, notional parts of the sentence, which make the fourth language level and can be called “denotemes”. The 5th level is the level of sentences, or proposemes, lingual units which name certain situations, or events, and at the same time express predication, i.e. they show the relations of the event named to reality - whether the event is real or unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a fact or asked about, affirmed or negated, etc., e.g.: Their departure was sudden (a real event, which took place in the past, stated as a fact, etc.). Thus, the sentence is often defined as a predicative lingual unit. The minimal sentence can consist of just one word, e.g.: Fire!The 6th level is formed by sentences in a text or in actual speech. Textual units are traditionally called supra-phrasal unities; we will call such supra-sentential constructions, which are produced in speech, dictemes.Not all lingual units are meaningful and, thus, they can not be defined as signs: phonemes and syllables (which are also distinguished as an optional lingual level by some linguists) participate in the expression of the meaning of the units of upper levels; they are called “cortemes” (from Lat. cortex: ‘bark, crust, shell’) as opposed to the majority of meaningful lingual units, called “signemes”.

2) Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech - the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse.The system of language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units — sounds, morphemes, words, word-groups; on the other hand, the regularities or "rules" of the use of these units. Speech comprises both the act of producing utterances, and the utterances themselves, i.e. the text. Language and speech are inseparable, they form together an organic unity. Thus, language is analysed by linguistics into two different aspects — the system of signs (language proper) and the use of signs (speech proper). The sign (meaningful unit) in the system of language has only a potential meaning. In speech - made situationally significant as part of the grammatically organised text.Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic.Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence (string). E.g.: The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster rocket. In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the spaceship", "was launched", "the space-ship was launched", "was launched without the help", "the help of a rocket", "a booster rocket". Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically. E.g.: space/ship; launch/ed; with/out; boost/er. Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as well as at various juncture points (cf. the processes of assimilation and dissimilation). The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit which is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma". There are four main types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the combination of a subject and a predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its object), attributive (the combination of a noun and its attribute), adverbial (the combination of a modified notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier). The other type of relations, called "paradigmatic", are such as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur.Each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections based on different formal and functional properties." In the domain of grammar series of related forms realise grammatical numbers and cases, persons and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence-patterns of various functional destination, etc. A lingual unit has been described above as a sign – a bilateral unit, which has its form and its meaning. Thus, two language planes can be distinguished - the plane of content and the plane of expression: the plane of content comprises all the meaningful, semantic elements contained in the language, while the plane of expression comprises all the material, formal units of the language. In cases of polysemy and homonymy two or more units of the plane of content correspond to one unit of the plane of expression, for example, the lexical homonyms: seal, hand, etc. In cases of synonymy, just the other way round, two or more units of the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the plane of content, for example, the lexical synonyms: pretty, nice, beautiful, etc.

3) Morphological units. Classifications of morphemes.

The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic structure of words.The morpheme is the elementary meaningful lingual unit built up from phonemes and used to make words. It has meaning, but its meaning is abstract, significative, not concrete, or nominative, as is that of the word. Morphemes constitute the words; they do not exist outside the words. Studying the morpheme we actually study the word: its inner structure, its functions, and the ways it enters speech. In traditional grammar, the study of the morphemic structure of the word is based on two criteria: the positional criterion - the location of the morphemes with regard to each other, and the semantic (or functional) criterion - the contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the word. Morphemes are divided into root-morphemes(roots) and affixal morphemes (affixes). Affixal specification may be of two kinds: of lexical or grammatical character. So, according to the semantic criterion affixes are further subdivided into lexical, or word-building (derivational) affixes, which together with the root constitute the stem of the word, and grammatical, or word-changing affixes, expressing different morphological categories, such as number, case, tense and others. According to the positional criterion affixes are divided into prefixes, e.g.: under-estimate, and suffixes,e.g.: underestim-ate.+ an infix, e.g.: a lexical infix – blood – to bleed; a grammatical infix – tooth – teeth.The morphemic structure of the word can be analyzed in a linear way; for example, in the following way: underestimates - W= {[Pr +(R+L)]+Gr}, where W denotes the word, R the root, L the lexical suffix, Pr the prefix, and Gr the grammatical suffix.Free morphemes can build up words by themselves, are opposed to bound morphemes, used only as parts of words; e.g.: in the word ‘hands’ hand- is a free morpheme and -s is a bound morpheme.Overt and covert morphemes are opposed to each other: the latter shows the meaningful absence of a morpheme distinguished in the opposition of grammatical forms in paradigms; it is also known as the “zero morpheme”, e.g.: in the number paradigm of the noun, hand – hands, the plural is built with the help of an overt morpheme,hand-s, while the singular - with the help of a zero or covert morpheme, handØ.Full or meaningful morphemes are opposed to empty morphemes, which have no meaning and are left after singling out the meaningful morphemes; some of them used to have a certain meaning, but lost it in the course of historical development, e.g.: in the word ‘children’ child- is the root of the word, bearing the core of the meaning, -en is the suffix of the plural, while -r- is an empty morpheme, having no meaning at all, the remnant of an old morphological form.

Segmental morphemes, consisting of phonemes, are opposed to supra-segmental morphemes, which leave the phonemic content of the word unchanged, but the meaning of the word is specified with the help of various supra-segmental lingual units, e.g.: `convert (a noun) - con`vert (a verb). Additive morphemes,e.g.: look+ed, small+er, are opposed to replacive morphemes, e.g.: sing -sang – sung.Continuous morphemes, combined with each other in the same word, e.g.: worked, are opposed to discontinuous morphemes, which consist of two components used jointly to build the analytical forms of the words, e.g.: have worked, is working."Allo-emic" theory. Lingual units are described by means of two types of terms: allo-terms and eme-terms. Eme-terms denote the generalised invariant units of language characterised by a certain functional status: phonemes, morphemes. Allo-terms denote the concrete manifestations, or variants of the generalised units dependent on the regular co-location with other elements of language: allophones, allomorphs.

4) Grammatical category, form, opposition. The most general notions reflecting the most general properties of phenomena are referred to in logic as "categorial notions", or "categories".The grammatical category presents the same as the grammatical "form", a unity of form and meaning and constitutes a certain signemic system.

The grammatical category is a system of expressing a generalised grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms.The opposition is a generalised correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements of the opposition must possess common features and differential features.Qualitative types of oppositions: "privative", "gradual", and "equipollent". By the number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary (two members) and more than binary (ternary, quaternary, etc.).The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterised by the presence of a certain differential feature ("mark"), the other member - by the absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the "marked", or "strong", or "positive" member, + (plus); the member in which the feature is absent is called the "unmarked", or "weak", or "negative" member, — (minus). (the voiced and devoiced consonants form a privative opposition [b, d, g —p, t, k]). The differential feature of the opposition is "voice". The gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or аbsenсе of a feature, but by the degree of it. (the front vowels [i:—i—e—ae] form a quaternary gradual opposition, since they are differentiated by the degree of their openness).

The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features. (the phonemes [m] and [b], both bilabial consonants, form an equipollent opposition, [m] being sonorous nazalised, [b ] being plosive).Oppositions are traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical.

Synthetical grammatical forms are realised by the inner morphemic composition of the word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of "substantial" meaning. Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion (take — took — taken), outer inflexion ( cat - cats), and suppletivity (be — am — are — is — was — were;).Analytical grammatical forms are built by the combination of the notional word with auxiliary words, e.g.: come - have come.

6)The traditional term “parts of speech” was developed in Ancient Greek linguistics and reflects the fact that at that time there was no distinction between language as a system and speech, between the word as a part of an utterance and the word as a part of lexis. There are three types of grammatically relevant properties of words that differentiate classes of words called “parts of speech”: semantic, formal and functional properties.The semantic criterion refers to the generalized semantic properties common to the whole class of words, e.g.: the generalized (or, categorial) meaning of nouns is “thingness”, of verbs process, of adjectives substantive property, of adverbs non-substantive property. The formal criterion embraces the formal features (word-building and word-changing) that are characteristic for a particular part of speech, e.g.: the noun is characterized by a specific set of word-building affixes, cf.: property, bitterness, worker, etc., and is changed according to the categories of number, case and article determination: boy-boys, boy – boy’s, boy – the boy – a boy, etc. The functional criterion is based on the functions that the words of a particular class fulfill in the sentence, e.g.: the most characteristic functions of the noun are those of a subject and an object; the only function of the finite form of the verb is that of a predicate; the adjective functions in most contexts as an attribute; the adverb as an adverbial modifier. Traditionally, all parts of speech are subdivided on the upper level of classification into notional words and functional words. Notional words, which traditionally include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and numerals, have complete nominative meanings, are in most cases changeable and fulfill self-dependent syntactic functions in the sentence. The noun, for example, as a part of speech, is traditionally characterized by 1) the categorial meaning of substance (“thingness”), 2) a specific set of word-building affixes, the grammatical categories of number, case and article determination, prepositional connections and modification by an adjective, and 3) the substantive functions of subject, object or predicative in the sentence. Functional words, which include conjunctions, prepositions, articles, interjections, particles, and modal words, have incomplete nominative value, are unchangeable and fulfill mediatory, constructional syntactic functions. Ch. Fries selected the most widely used grammatical constructions and used them as substitution frames: the frames were parsed into parts, or positions, each of them got a separate number, and then Ch. Fries conducted a series of substitution tests to find out what words can be used in each of the positions. All the words that can be used in place of the article made one group, the ones that could be used instead of the word “clerk” another, etc. The results of his experiments were surprisingly similar to the traditional classification of parts of speech: four main positions were distinguished in the sentences; the words which can be used in these positions without affecting the meaning of the structures were united in four big classes of words, and generally speaking coincide with the four major notional parts of speech in the traditional classification: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Besides these “positional words” (“form-words”), Ch. Fries distinguished 15 limited groups of words, which cannot fill in the positions in the frames. These “function words” are practically the same as the functional words in the traditional classificationThe combination of syntactico-distributional and traditional classifications strongly suggests the unconditional subdivision of the lexicon into two big supra-classes: notional and functional words. The major formal grammatical feature of this subdivision is their open or closed character. The notional parts of speech are open classes of words, with established basic semantic, formal and functional characteristics. There are only four notional classes of words, which correlate with the four main syntactic positions in the sentence: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. The functional words are closed classes of words: they cannot be further enlarged and are given by lists. The closed character of the functional words is determined by their role in the structure of the sentence: the functional words expose various constructional functions of syntactic units, and this makes them closer to grammatical rather than to lexical means of the language. As for pronouns and the numerals, according to the functional approach they form a separate supra-class of substitutional parts of speech, since they have no function of their own in the sentence, but substitute for notional parts of speech and perform their characteristic functions. The borderlines between the classes of words are not rigid; instead of borderlines there is a continuum of numerous intermediary phenomena, combining the features of two or more major classes of words. Field theory states that in each class of words there is a core, the bulk of its members that possess all the characteristic features of the class, and a periphery (marginal part), which includes the words of mixed, dubious character, intermediary between this class and other classes. For example, the non-finite forms of the verbmake up the periphery of the verbal class: they lack some of the features of a verb, but possess certain features characteristic to either nouns, or adjectives, or adverbs

7) А. NOUN: GENERAL

The noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of "substance" or "thingness". The noun can isolate different properties of substances (i.e. direct and oblique qualities, and also actions and states as processual characteristics of substantive phenomena) and present them as corresponding self-dependent substances. E.g.: Her words were unexpectedly bitter.— We were struck by the unexpected bitterness of her words. It is the central nominative lexemic unit of language.The categorial functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties.The function of the object in the sentence is also typical of the noun as the substance word. Other functions: attributive, adverbial, predicative. While performing these non-substantive functions, the noun differs from the other parts of speech used in similar sentence positions. Ex, transformations: Mary is a flower-girl.→ The flower-girl (you are speaking of) is Mary. He lives in Glasgow.→ Glasgow is his place of residence.

The noun is characterised by some special types of combinability.typical - is the prepositional combinability E.g.: an entrance to the house; to turn round the corner; The casal (possessive) combinability. E.g.: the speech of the President — the President's speech; They can combine with one another by sheer (чистым) contact, unmediated (неустановл) by any special lexemic or morphemic means. In the contact group the noun in preposition plays the role of a semantic qualifier to the noun in post-position. E.g.: a cannon ball; a log cabin; a sports event; film festivals.Such combination - a specific word-group with intermediary features. Cf.: a cannon ball→ a ball for cannon; the funds distribution → the distribution of the funds.The comparatively closer connection between the stems in compound nouns is reflected by the spelling (contact or hyphenated presentation). E.g.: fireplace→ place where fire is made; theatre-goer → a person who goes to theatres.Subclasses: 1. proper and common nouns. (type of nomination"). 2. animate and inanimate (form of existence). 3. human and non-human (personal quality). 4. countable and (quantitative structure). ALSO: concrete and abstract.Ex: There were three Marys in our company. The cattle have been driven out into the pastures.The noun Mary – proper, animate, human, countable. The noun cattle – common, animate, non-human, uncountable.ВАЖНО: their syntagmatic combinability. Нельзя: The horse was crumbling. (лошадь рушилась) The tree was laming. (дерево убегало) The cat's love of music.

В)NOUN: NUMBER

The category of number is expressed by the opposition of the plural form of the noun to the singular. The strong member is the plural, its mark being the suffix -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz ] Ex. dog — dogs. The other, non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are vowel interchange in several relict forms (man — men, tooth — teeth, the archaic suffix -(e)n supported by phonemic interchange in a couple of other relict forms (ox — oxen, child — children, brother — brethren), the correlation suffixes in borrowed nouns formula — formulae. In some cases the plural form of the noun is homonymous with the singular form (sheep, deer, fish, etc.).Difficulties of interpretation. On the surface of semantic relations, the meaning of the singular will be understood as simply "one", as opposed to the meaning of the plural as "many" in the sense of "more than one". Ex. book — books, lake — lakes. However, there exist plurals and singulars that cannot be fully accounted for by the above ready-made approach. tear (one drop falling from the eye) and tears (treacles on the cheeks as tokens of grief or joy. It is sometimes stated that the plural form presents both multiplicity (разнообразия) of separate objects ("discrete" plural, e.g. three houses) and ("plural of measure", e.g. three hours). On the other hand, there are semantic varieties of the plural forms that differ from one another in their plural quality. Ex. plural form expresses a definite set of objects {eyes of the face, wheels of the vehicle, etc.), various types of the referent {wines, tees, steels), intensity of the presentation of the idea {years and years, thousands upon thousands), picturesqueness {sands, waters, snows).The CON is one of the regular variable categories in the grammatical system of English.The two subclasses of uncountable nouns - singularia tantum (only singular) (СЛАБЫЙ) and pluralia tantum (only plural) (СИЛЬНЫЙ). The singularia tantum: the "absolute" singular, as different from the "correlative" or "common" singular of the countable nouns. The absolute singular excludes the use of the modifying numeral one, as well as the indefinite article.The absolute singular is characteristic of the names of abstract notions {peace, love, joy.), of the branches of professional activity {chemistry, architecture.), of mass-materials {water, snow of collective inanimate objects (fruit, furniture).

Common number with uncountable singular nouns can also be expressed by means of combining them with words showing discreteness, such as bit, piece, item, sort. Cf.: The last two items of news were quite sensational. One or two pieces of furniture in the hall.The absolute singular can be used with countable nouns. Waltz is a lovely dance. There was dead desert all around them. The absolute plural form - uncountable. (many, few, etc.). The abs. plural is characteristic of the uncountable nouns which denote objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors.), also: clothes, police, etc.The absolute plural, by way of functional oppositional reduction, can be:The 1st type of reduction: the use of the absolute plural with countable nouns in the singular form. Cf.: The family were gathered round the table. The government are unanimous in disapproving the move of the opposition. IT IS multitude plural.

The 2nd type: the use of the abs. plural with uncountable nouns in the plural form, it results in expressive transposition. Cf.: the sands of the desert; the snows of the Arctic; the waters of the ocean; - descriptive uncountable plural.The 3rd type; concerns common countable nouns used in repetition groups. Ex. There were trees and trees all around us. – repetition plural.

8) NOUN: GENDER

There is a contradiction between the presentation of gender in English by theoretical treatises and practical manuals.

1. A. I. Smirnitsky's theoretical "Morphology of English" - the non-existence of gender in English. 2. Practical "English grammar" by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Vasilevskaya presents a description of the would-be non-existent (потенциальных несущ-х) gender distinctions of the English noun as a part of speech.The category of gender (COG) is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the per. pronouns of the 3rd person. The COG is strictly oppositional. Two oppositions related to each other on a hierarchical basis.1. One opposition. Nouns: person (human) - non-person (non-human). - the upper opposition.2. masculine - feminine nouns. - the lower opposition.As a result of the double oppositional correlation, a specific system of three genders arises, which is represented by the traditional terminology: the neuter (i.e. non-person) gender, the masculine (i.e. masculine person) gender, the feminine (i.e. feminine person) gender.The strong member of the upper opposition is the human subclass of nouns, its SEMEMIK mark being "person", or "personality". The weak member comprises both inanimate and animate non-person nouns. Here belong such nouns as tree, mountain, love, etc.; cat, swallow, ant, etc.; society, crowd, association, etc.; bull and cow, cock and hen, horse and mare, etc.In cases of oppositional reduction, non-person nouns and their substitute (it) are naturally used in the position of neutralisation. E.g.: Suddenly something moved in the darkness. Could it be a man, in this place, at this time of night? The strong member of the lower opposition is the feminine subclass of person nouns, its SEMEMIK mark being "female sex". Here belong such nouns as woman, girl, mother, bride, etc. The masculine subclass of person nouns comprising such words as man, boy, father, bridegroom, etc. - the weak member of the opposition.The oppositional structure of the COG: GENDER: Person (Feminine, Masculine) – Non-person.A great many person nouns in English are capable of expressing both feminine and masculine person genders (common gender). Words - person, parent, friend, cousin, doctor, president, etc. E.g.: The President of our Medical Society isn't going to be happy about the suggested way of cure. In general she insists on quite another kind of treatment in cases like that. – это всё грамматически

English nouns can show the sex of their referents lexically, either by means of being combined with certain notional words used as sex indicators, or else by suffixal derivation. Cf.: boy-friend, girl-friend; man-producer, woman-producer; landlord, landlady; he-bear, she-bear; actor, actress; In fact, the referents of such nouns as jenny-ass, or pea-hen, or the like will in the common use quite naturally be represented as it, the same as the referents of the corresponding masculine nouns jack-ass, pea-cock, and the like. This kind of representation is different in principle from the corresponding representation of such nounal pairs as woman — man, sister — brother, etc.On the other hand, a grammatical personifying transposition is very typical of English. This kind of transposition affects animate nouns, also inanimate nouns, being regulated in every-day language by cultural-historical traditions. (she with the names of countries, vehicles, weaker animals, etcThe COG in English is semantic, i.e. meaningful in so far as it reflects the actual features of the named objects. But the semantic nature of the category does not in the least make it into "non-grammatical".In Russian, German, and many other languages characterised by the gender division of nouns, the gender has purely formal features that may even "run contrary" to semantics. Suffice it to compare such Russian words as стакан — он, чашка—она, блюдце — оно, as well as their German corresp as well as their German correspondences das Glas — es, die Tasse — sie, der Teller — er, etc. But this phenomenon is rather an exception than the rule in terms of grammatical categories in general.In particular, the Russian gender differs idiomatically from the English gender in so far as it divides the nouns by the higher opposition not into "person — non-person" ("human— non human"), but into "animate —inanimate", discriminating within the former (the animate nounal set) between masculine, feminine, and a limited number of neuter nouns. Thus, the Russian category of gender essentially divides the noun into the inanimate set having no meaningful gender, and the animate set having a meaningful gender. In distinction to this, the English category of gender is only meaningful, and as such it is represented in the nounal system as a whole.

9) The problem of the category of case of the noun. Different case theories.

Ilyish:Case is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things, or properties, or actions, and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself (e.g. inflection, zero-morpheme).

The problem of case in ME nouns is one of the most vexed (disputed) problems in English grammar. The views on the subject differ widely. Views:The number of approaches is due to a difference in the interpretation of the category of case.LIMITED CASE THEORY: Prof.Ilyish doesn’t recognize any case expressed by non-morphological means ? preposition + Noun is not a case form ? English nouns have 2 cases: common case (e.g. father) and genitive case (e.g. father’s); H.Sweet, O.Jespersen, prof.Smirnitsky, prof.Barhudarov.POSITIONAL CASE THEORY: The number of cases in English is more than 2 (3, 4, 5 …); the case may be expressed by prepositions or by word order;Max Deutschbein: ME nouns have 4 cases: nominative; genitive (-‘s; of…); dative (to…; word order); accusative (word order). I.I.Meshchaninov:+ instrumental case (e.g. with the pen);+ locative case (e.g. in the pen).John Lyons: Nominative, e.g. Bill died.Accusative, e.g. John killed Bill.Dative, e.g. John gave the book to Tom. John gave Tom the book.Genitive, e.g. It’s Harry’s pencil.Instrumental, e.g. John killed Bill with a knife.Agentive, e.g. Bill was killed by John with a knife.Commitative, e.g. John went to town with Mary.

Bryant:nominative,genitive,objective.Curme: PREPOSITIONAL CASE THEORY – there are as many cases as there are prepositions (e.g. of Peter, to peter, with Peter…etc)The category of case has been destroyed ? The theory of possessive postposition (prof.Vorontsova). There are no cases in English nouns at all, e.g. Smith and Brown’s office (the office belonging to both Smith and Brown). The man I saw yesterday’s son – “noun + attributive clause + -‘s). ? views: -when –‘s belongs to a noun it is still the genitive ending, when it belongs to a phrase it tends to become a syntactical element, a postposition; -since –‘s can belong to a phrase it is no longer a case inflection even when it belongs to a single noun; -the -‘s when belonging to a noun, no longer expresses a case, but a new grammatical category of ‘possession”. !!! Weak point: 94% -‘s is added to single nouns and the function is always “attribute”.Хаймович/Роговская:The category of case of nouns is the system of opposemes (girl-girl’s) showing the relations of the noun to other words in speech. Case is one of those categories which show the close connection (a) between language and speech, (b) between morphology and syntax. a.the members of the case opposeme John-John’s are united paradigmatically on the basis of their syntagmatic differences.b.Though case is a morphological category it has a distinct syntactical significance. Common case ? the functions of subject and object; possessive case ? the function of an attribute.

10) The verb as a part of speech. Classification of verbs.

Verb is a part of speech with grammatical meaning of process, action. Verb performs the central role of the predicative function of the sentence.Verb is a very complex part of speech and first of all because of it’s various subcalss division.If we admit the existance of the category of finitude as Prof.Blokh does that we’re divide all the verbs into 2 large sets: the finite set and non-finite set.They are profoundly defferent from each other. Here we will talk about the finite verbs. As we have said the general processual meaning is in the semantics of all the verbs including those denoting states, forms of existance and combinability. It mainly combines with nouns and with adverbs. Syntactical function is that of the predicate, because the finite verb expresses the processual categorial features of predication that is time, voice, aspect and mood. Verbs are characterized by specific forms of word-building. The stems may be simple ex: go, take, read. Sound replacive: food-feed, blood-bleed. Stress replacive ex;Import-impOrt The composite verb stems ex:to black mail.According to their semantic structure the finite verbs are divided into:-notional which possess full lexical meaning-seminotional – they have very general faded lexical meaning. a.auxiliary verbs-they perform purely grammatical function.b.modal verbs-they express relational meaning, ability, obligation and so on.auxiliary – no lexical meaning, only grammatical //do, be. c.link verbs-introducing predicative which is expressed by noun,adj,phrase (to seem)Here we’re to mention of the existance of the notional link verbs, this are verbs which have the power to perform the function of link verbs and they preserve their lexical value. Ex:The Moon rose red. Due to the double syntactic character, the hole predicate is reffered to as a double predicate (a predicate of double orientation)Notional verbs-the 1-st categorization on the basis of the subject process relation. The verbs are divided into actional and statal.Actional-express the action, performed by the subject (do,act,make).Statal verbs-they denote the state of their subject (be,stand,know)This criteria apply to more specific subsets of words:ex: The verbs of mental process, here we observe the verbs of mental perception and activity, sensual process (see-look)The 2-nd categorization is baised on the aspective characteristic. Too aspective subclasses of verbs should be recognized in English limitive (close,arrive) and unlimitive (behave,move). The basis of this division is the idea of a processual limit. That is some border point beyond which the process doesn’t exist.

The 3-rd categorization is based on the combining power of the verbs. The combing power of words in relation to other words in syntactically subordinate positions is called their syntactic valency. Syntactic valency may be obligatory & optional.The obligatory adjuncts are called complements and optional adjuncts are called supplements. According as verbs have or don’t have the power to take complements, the notional words should classed as complimentive (transitive and intransitive)or uncomplimentive (personal and impersonal)Terminative – denote actions which can’t develop beyond a certain limit (to stand up, to sit down, to come, to take).Non-terminative – have no limit (to love, to sit, to work, to walk)

11) Verb. Category of Tense

The immediate expression of time is one of the typical fun-s of the V, because the meaning of the process is inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme. That’s why expression of time constitutes the basis of the verbal finitudefinite-non-finite.Time. Gen. notion – universal form of the consecutive change of phenomena. Lex. expr-n of time: In Modern English, the grammatical expression of verbal time, i.e. tense, is effected in two correlated stages. -first stage, the process receives an absolutive time characteristic by means of opposing the past tense to the present tense. The marked member of this opposition is the past form. -the second stage, the process receives a non-absolutive relative time characteristic by means of opposing the forms of the future tense to the forms of no future marking. Since the two stages of the verbal time denotation are expressed separately there are two temporal categories in English. the first of them the category of "primary time", and the second, the category of "prospective time", or, contractedly, "prospect".The category of primary time, as has just been stated, provides for the absolutive expression of the time of the process denoted by the V, i.e. such an expression of it as gives its evaluation, in the long run, in reference to the moment of speech. The formal sign of the opposition constituting this category is, with regular verbs, the dental suffix -(e)d [-d, -t, -id], and with irregular verbs, phonemic interchanges of more or less individual specifications. The suffix marks the verbal form of the past time (the past tense), leaving the opposite form unmarked. Thus, the opposition is to be rendered by the formula "the past tense — the present tense", the latter member representing the non-past tense, according to the accepted oppositional interpretation. The specific feature of the category of primary time is, that it divides all the tense forms of the English verb into two temporal planes: the plane of the present and the plane of the past, which affects also the future forms.The fact that the present tense is the unmarked member of the opposition explains a very wide range of its meanings exceeding by far the indication of the "moment of speech" chosen for the identification of primary temporality. The meaning of the present with this connotation will be conveyed by such phrases as at this very moment, or this instant, or exactly now, or some other phrase like that. however, are utterances where the meaning of the past tense stands in contrast with the meaning of some adverbial phrase referring the event to the present moment. Cf.: Today again I spoke to Mr. Jones on the matter, and again he failed to see the urgency of it. The seeming linguistic paradox of such cases consists exactly in the fact that their two-type indications of time, one verbal-grammatical, and one adverbial-lexical, approach the same event from two opposite angles.There’s a discussion about whether the combinations of the verbs shall and will with the infinitive really constitute, together with the forms of the past and present, the categorial expression of verbal tense, or are just modal phrases.Quite a few scholars, among them the successors of Descriptive Linguistics, consider these verbs as part of the general set of modal verbs, "modal auxiliaries", expressing the meanings of capability, probability, permission, obligation, and the like. A well-grounded objection against the inclusion of the construction shall/will + Infinitive in the tense system of the verb on the same basis as the forms of the present and past has been advanced by L. S. Barkhudarov [Бархударов, (2), 126 и сл.]. His objection consists in the demonstration of the double marking of this would-be tense form by one and the same category: the combinations in question can express at once both the future time and the past time (the form "future-in-the-past"), which hardly makes any sense.Reconsidering the status of the construction shall/will + Infinitive in the light of oppositional approach it marks its own grammatical category, namely, that of prospective time (prospect). The meaningful contrast underlying the category of prospective time is between an after-action and a non-after-action. The after-action, or the "future", having its shall/will-feature, constitutes the marked member of the opposition.The category of prospect is also temporal, in so far as it is immediately connected with the expression of processual time, like the category of primary time. the expression of the future receives the two mutually complementary manifestations: one manifestation for the present time-plane of the verb, the other manifestation for the past time-plane of the verb.In the clear-cut modal uses of the verbs shall and will the idea of the future either is not expressed at all, or else is only rendered by way of textual connotation, the central semantic accent being laid on the expression of obligation, necessity, inevitability, promise, intention, desire. These meanings may be easily seen both on the examples of ready phraseological citation, and genuine everyday conversation exchanges: He who does not work neither shall he eat (phraseological citation). "I want a nice hot curry, do you hear?"

Accounting for the modal meanings of the combinations under analysis, traditional grammar gives the following rules: shall + Infinitive with the first person, will + Infinitive with the second and third persons express pure future; the reverse combinations express modal meanings, the most typical of which are intention or desire for I will and promise or command on the part of the speaker for you shall, he shall.The combination of the predicator be going with the infinitive.The combination may denote a sheer intention (either the speaker's or some other person's) to perform the action expressed by the infinitive, thus entering into the vast set of "classical" modal constructions. E.g.:

I am going to ask you a few more questions about the mysterious disappearance of the document, Mr. Gregg. He looked across at my desk and I thought for a moment he was going to give me the treatment, too.

Because of these properties it would appear tempting to class the construction in question as a specific tense form, namely, the tense form of "immediate future", analogous to the French futur immédiat (e.g. Le spectacle va cornmencer — The show is going to begin).But these simple modal uses of be going are countered by cases where the direct meaning of intention rendered by the predicator stands in contradiction with its environmental implications and is subdued by them. Cf.:You are trying to frighten me. But you are not going to frighten me any more (L. Hellman). The oppositional basis of the category of prospective time is neutralised in certain uses, in keeping with the general regularities of oppositional reductions. The process of neutralisation is connected with the shifting of the forms of primary time (present and past) from the sphere of absolute tenses into the sphere of relative tenses.