14)Verb: mood

§ 1. The category of mood is the most controversial category of the verb. The knowledge of verbal structure, the understanding of its working in the construction of speech utterances have been tellingly deepened by the studies of the mood system within the general framework of modern grammatical theories, especially by the extensive investigations undertaken by Soviet scholars in the past three decades. The main contributions made in this field concern the more and more precise statement of the significance of the functional plane of any category; Among the scholars are A. I. Smirnitsky, whose theories revolutionised the presentation of English verbal grammar; then B. A. Ilyish, then G. N. Vorontsova, L. S. Barkhudarov, I. B. Khlebnikova, and a number of others.

§ 2. The category of mood expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of a hypothesis, speculation, desire. It follows from this that the functional opposition underlying the category as a whole is constituted by the forms of oblique mood meaning, i.e. those of unreality, contrasted against the forms of direct mood meaning, i.e. those of reality, the former making up the strong member, the latter, the weak member of the opposition. The most general principle of the interpretation of the category of mood within the framework of the approaches is the statement of the semantic content of the: category as determining the reality factor of the verbal action, i.e. showing whether the denoted action is real or unreal.

In this respect, it should be clear that the category of mood, like the category of voice, differs in principle from the immanent verbal categories of time, prospect, development, and retrospective coordination. the category of mood expresses the outer interpretation of the action as a whole, namely, the speaker's introduction of it as actual or imaginary. Together with the category of voice, this category, gives an integrating appraisal of the process and establishes its lingual representation in a syntactic context.

§ 3. The formal description of the category has its source in the traditional school grammar. These differences, similar to the categorial forms of person, number, and time, are most clearly pronounced with the unique verb be.

Namely, it is first and foremost with the verb be that the pure infinitive stem in the construction of the verbal form of desired or hypothetical action is made prominent. "Be it as you wish", "So be it", "Be what may", "The powers that be", "The insistence that the accused be present" — such and like constructions. Together with the isolated, notional be, as well as the linking be, in the capacity of the same mood form come also the passive manifestations of verbs with be in a morphologically bound position, cf.: The stipulation that the deal be made with-out delay, the demand that the matter be examined carefully, etc. By way of correlation with the oblique be, the infinitive stem of the other verbs is clearly seen as constituting the same form of the considered verbal mood. Not only constructions featuring the third person singular without its categorial mark -(e)s, but also constructions of other personal forms of the verb are ordered under this heading. Thus, we distinguish the indicated mood form of the verb in sentences like "Happen what may", "God forgive us", "Long live our friendship", "It is important that he arrive here as soon as possible", and also "The agreement stipulates that the goods pass customs free", "It is recommended that the elections start on Monday", "My orders are that the guards draw up", etc.it also signifies different attitudes towards the process denoted by the verb and the situation denoted by the construction built up around it, namely, besides desire, also supposition, speculation, suggestion, recommendation, inducement of various degrees of insistence including commands.Thus, the analysed form-type presents the mood of attitudes. Traditionally it is called "subjunctive", or in more modern terminological nomination, "subjunctive one". Since the term "subjunctive" is also used to cover the oblique mood system as a whole, some sort of terminological specification is to be introduced that would give a semantic alternative to the purely formal "subjunctive one" designation. it is easy to see that the verbal imperative morphemically coincides with the spective mood, since it presents the same infinitive stem, though in relation to the second person only cf.: Be on your guard! Be off! Do be careful with the papers! Don't be blue! Do as I ask you! Put down the address, will you? About turn!the imperative mood is analysed in certain grammatical treatises as semantically direct mood, in this sense being likened to the indicative. This kind of interpretation is hardly convincing. The imperative form displays every property of a form of attitudes, which can easily be shown by means of equivalent transforma-tions. Cf.:Be off! > I demand that you be off. Do be careful with the papers! > My request is that you do be careful with the papers. Do as I ask you! > I insist that you do as I ask you. About turn! > I command that you turn about.since the expression of verbal time is categorial, a consideration of it does not necessarily break off with the formal principle of observation. In this connection, first, the infinitive stem taken for the building up of the spective is just the present-tense stem of the integral conjugation of the verb. The spective be, the irregular (suppletive) formation, is the only exception from this correlation (though, as we have seen, it does give the general pattern for the mood identification in cases other than the third person singular). Second, we observe that constructions with the spective, though expressed by the present-stem of the verb, can be transferred into the past plane context. Cf.:It was recommended that that the elections start on Monday. My orders were that the guards draw up. The agreement stipulated that the goods pass customs free.This phenomenon marks something entirely new from the point of view of the categorial status of the verbal time in the indicative. Here our purely formal, i.e. morphemic consideration of the present stem of the subjunctive comes to an end.

§ 4. Observations of the materials undertaken on the comparative functional basis have led linguists to the identification of a number of construction types rendering the same semantics as is expressed by the spective mood forms demonstrated above. These generalised expressions of attitudes may be classed into the following three groups.The first construction type of attitude series is formed by the combination may/might + Infinitive. It is used to express wish, desire, hope in the contextual syntactic conditions similar to those of the morphemic (native) spective forms. Cf.:May it be as you wish! May it all happen as you desire! May success attend you. I hope that he may be safe. The second construction type of attitude series is formed by the combination should + Infinitive. It is used in various subordinate predicative units to express supposition, speculation, suggestion, recommendation, inducements of different kinds and degrees of intensity. Cf.:Whatever they should say of the project, it must be considered seriously. It has been arranged that the delegation should be received by the President of the Federation. Orders were given that the searching group should start out at once.The third construction type of the same series is formed by the combination let + Objective Substantive+Infinitive. It is used to express inducement (i.e. an appeal to commit an action) in relation to all the persons, but preferably to the first person plural and third person both numbers. The notional homonym let, naturally, is not taken into account. Cf.:Let's agree to end this wait-and-see policy. Now don't let's be hearing any more of this. All the three types of constructions are characterised by a high frequency occurrence, by uniformity of structure, by regularity of correspondence to the "pure", native morphemic spec-tive form of the verb. For that matter, taken as a whole, they are more universal stylistically than the pure spective form, in so far as they are less bound by conventions of usage and have a wider range of expressive connotations of various kinds. These qualities show that the described constructions may safely be identified as functional equivalents of the pure spective mood. Since they specialise, within the general spective mood meaning, in semantic destination, the specialisation being determined by the semantic type of their modal markers, we propose to unite them under the tentative heading of the "modal" spective mood forms, or, by way of the usual working contraction, the modal spective mood, as contrasted against the "pure" spective expressed by native morphemic means (morphemic zeroing). The functional varieties of the modal spective, i.e. its spe-cialised forms, as is evident from the given examples, should be classed as, first, the "desiderative" series (may-spective, the form of desire); second, the "considerative" series (should-spective, the form of considerations); third, the "imperative" series (let-spective, the form of commands).Very important for confirming the categorial nature of the modal spective forms is the way they express the timing of the process. The verbal time proper is neutralised with these forms and, considering their relation to the present-order pure spective, they can also be classed as "present" in this sense. The occasional perfect with the imperative gives accent to the idea of some time-limit being transgressed, or stresses an urge to fulfil the action in its en-tirety. Cf.:Try and have done, it's not so difficult as it seems. Let's have finished with the whole affair!Still, when it is justified by the context, the regularity of ex-pressing time through aspect is displayed by the specialised modal spective with the proper distinctness. Cf.:I wish her plans might succeed (the present simultaneity — posteriority). I wished her plans might succeed (the past simultaneity — posteriority). I wish her plans might have succeeded (failure in the present priority). I wished her plans might have succeeded (failure in the past priority). Whatever the outcome of the conference should be, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present simultaneity — posteriority). The commentator emphasised that, whatever the outcome of the conference should be, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past simultaneity — posteriority). Whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present priority, the outcome of the conference is unknown). The commentator emphasized that, whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past priority, the outcome of the conference was unknown).

The perfect of the modal spective makes up for the defi-ciency of the pure spective which lacks the perfect forms. Cf.:Be it so or otherwise, I see no purpose in our argument (si-multaneity in the present).

§ 5. As the next step of the investigation, we are to consider the forms of the subjunctive referring to the past order of the verb. the categorial expression of unreal process. E.g.:Oh, that he were together with us now! If I were in your place, I'd only be happy. As is the case with be in the present subjunctive (spective), the sphere of its past subjunctive use is not confined to its notional and linking functions, but is automatically extended to the broad imperfect system of the passive voice, as well as the imperfect system of the present continuous. Cf.:If he were given the same advice by an outsider, he would no doubt profit by it; with the relatives it might be the other way about, I'm afraid. The rest of the forms coincide with the past indicative. More-over, the discriminate personal finite was more and more penetrates into the subjunctive, thus liquidating the scarce remnants of differences between the subjunctive and the indicative of the past order as a whole. Cf.: If he was as open-hearted as you are, it would make all the difference.Comparisons with the subjunctive are expressed in adverbial clauses and in predicative clauses. In both cases condition is implied by way of contracted implication. Cf. an adverbial comparative clause: She was talking to Bennie as if he were a grown person.The inherent condition is exposed by reconstructing the logic of the imaginary situation: > She was talking to Bennie as she would be talking to him if he were a grown person.

A similar transformation applies to the predicative comparative clause: It looks as if it had been snowing all the week. > It looks as it would look if it had been snowing all the week.In the subjunctive expression of urgency (temporal limit) the implied urgent condition

15) Syntax. Greek origin “syntax” means formation or order. Ancient stoics introduce this term. Syntax may be used in several meanings:1. denotes a certain levels in the system of language: • level of the phrase (word combination/word group)• level of the sentence.Syntax discriminates:• minor syntax = level of the phrase• major syntax = level of the sentence2. grammatical theory which studies these levels (part of grammatical theory which studies the regularity in the formation and functioning of language units building up a sentence)

The theory of phrases was worked out by Russian linguists in 18 century. Neither West European nor American linguists worked it out.Fortunatov and Peshkovsky are the founders of this theory of word combination. They considered word combination to be the main syntactic unit.They may be predicative: Цветут сады; and non-predicative: Читать стихи. Shakhmatov developed their theory but he pointed out that word combination can be only non-predicative: the head word + one or more subordinate words.Vinogradov made 3 important statements:

1. word combinations are built up by notional words which are joined by the relations of subordination.

2. a word combination as well as a word is a means of nomination, unlike the sentence it’s devoid of intonation and of temporal characteristics.3. it can participate in realization as a constitute part of a sentence

In modern grammar the communicative function is realized. In modern interpretation the word combination is understood differently.A word group – every combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but is not an analytical form of some word (the perfect forms). Modern grammar also points out that a word phrase is any syntactically organized group of words including words joined by means of predication.Foreign linguistics. In 19 century the term phrase was first used, designating any group of words. Later views changed. H. Sweet considered relations within the word group to be based on subordination only. American linguist L. Bloomfield distinguished two types according to the functional criterion: endocentric and exocentric. Ex.: Poor John, John and Mary =endocentricJohn ran away -> Poor John ran away -> John and Mary ran away.Exocentric – all that are not endocentric.Ex.: besides John. Ch. Hocett subdivided several groups where the criterion is the place of a head word:

1. groups with the head word in post-position (new books)2. -||- pre-position (experiment shopping)3. -||- in the centre (as good as that)4. framing structure (did not go)5. groups of words with free relations with them (yes please), paratactic contrasted to hypotactic. In hypotactic elements are interdependent.The phrase is not communicatively oriented. Any type of phrase is devode of suprasegmental characteristics (intonation, patterns of stress and other). Members of phrase are described in terms of linear or syntagmatic relations. Phrase together with suprasegmental units serve to form units of the upper level. Notional phrases of a free type are studied by the smaller syntax (minor) it is apposed to the larger syntax which studies sentences. Set phrases are not studied by grammar, they’re studied by lexicology. Both phrase and word are naming and nominative units of the language. Words are mononominative, phrases – polynominative. Combinations of notional words are autosemantic, self-dependent. Combinations of functional words are contextually dependent.As a phrase is a syntactic unit it’s not a mere sum of constitute meanings of these words.Ex.: - What’s this berry called?- It’s blackberry.- Than why it’s red?- Because it’s green.

Components often preserve their meaning but to a different degree.Ex.: to show one’s hand = to show one’s opinion; a heavy hand = tyranny; a high hand = dictatorial manner.The meaning of the whole group may contain something new; the position of the constituency may The meaning of the whole group may contain something new; the position of the constituency may also be important. Ex.: a horse race/a race horse; card phone/phone card. Syntagmatic groups of functional words serve as connectors and specify a notional words.Ex.: could be done; so as to

16) Types of syntactic connections:

• coordination• subordination• correspondence (interdependence).Modern grammar also discriminates predication, cumulation, and accumulation. Coordination joins elements of the same rank, they are independent relatively. Not all elements can replace each other within the position of word group. The reason for its strict position is their length. The short must precede (woman-women). The 2nd reason is etiquette (my mom and I). The 3rd reason is logic (the door closed and not the sound was heard). Coordinately connected elements may be asyndetic and syndetic. Subordination joins elements of unequal rank (dominational connection or hypotaxes). It’s a relation of syntactic inequality. Ex.: a modern (ajunk, expansion) comedy (kernel).There are two basic types:1. the kernel + ajunk(s) (speak fluently)2. ajunk(s) + the kernel (continual heavy rain).According to he direction of subordination it may be monolateral or 1way domination (the best policy) and bilateral or 2way domination. Words of monolateral domination allow the transformation.Ex.: that woman was astonishly beautiful Qualifying types: • attributive (an emerald dream; a man of the world)• adverbial (to be panic striken; strikingly alive).Bilateral connection unites the subject and the predicate. In other treaties it’s called interdependence or coordinating.Morphologically subordination falls into 3 types:• agreement (typical for inflective language; умное лицо, умная статья)• government (prepositional, not prepositional; explain to me, see me)• ajoinment (boat race, race boat)

17) Types of W/comb

2 ways of class-n 1) based on special positional relations 2) the inner structure.The el-ts making the inner st-re may be related on an equal rank = equipotent (or non-kurnel). In other st-res it’s not equal. The head-word in the kurnel groups isn’t subord. in any other group its f-n can’t be defined within the group itself ex: very young – very young faces (the synth f-n of the underlined word is not revealed unless it’s extended, but then it stops being a Head)

Progressive W/c = head preceeds Regressive = head follows (awfully naughty, demographic transition). [Burlakova] W/gr Acc to the st-re = kurnel and non-kurnel (ex; men, women and kids). Acc to the position of a kurnel Kurnel gr = Regressive and Progressive. Non-k = independent (=morphologically similar and morphologically dissimilar) and dependent.(= morph similar and morph dissimilar).Acc to the part of speech reference Kurnel regressive can be: 1) adverbial head (very clearly) 2) adjectival head (definitely superior) 3) substantive head (new books). Kurnel progressive : 1) substantive head (a sensation of relief) 2) adj head (rich in minerals) 3) verbal head (to open the door) 4) prepositional (under the net).Non-K indep morph similar : syndetic coord (nice & good) and asyndetic (men, women, kids). Non-K ind-t dissimilar – primary predication (she smiles) . Non-K dep-t similar – qumulation (wise old man) Non-K dep-t dissimilar: qumulation (his old friend0 and secondary pred-n (to find smth)

18)The definition of the category of predication is similar to the definition of the category of modality, which also shows a connection between the named objects and actual reality. However, modality is a broader category, revealed not only in grammar, but in the lexical elements of language; for example, various modal meanings are expressed by modal verbs (can, may, must, etc.), by word-particles of specifying modal semantics (just, even, would-be, etc.), by semi-functional modal words and phrases of subjective evaluation (perhaps, unfortunately, by all means, etc.) and by other lexical units. Predication can be defined as syntactic modality, expressed by the sentence. First it was borrowed by philosophy from logic, then it appeared in linguistics and mathematics. There is no unanimity to understand the nature of modality, its structure, its meaning, its level reference. Predication and modality establish relation between the action or the utterance and actual language. Some linguists believe that the category of predication is broader than modality. According to Bloch it is the modality that broader than predication. Modality is revealed in grammatical level plus in lexical. Modality is the category that exists in several levels. Lexical means engaged in expressing modality are versatile. Lexemes of full notional standing with such meaning : probability, necessity, desirability. They also include semi-functional words and phrases such as perhaps, may be, by all means. They also include what particles that specify modal semantics such as even, just, would be, and so on. And modal verbs besides express modality are also involved in the expression of predicative semantics. Modality of the second order contributes the subjective evaluation of situation. These means are structurally optional. They are used to express the speaker’s , writer’s viewpoint. Eg. This is true. This is definitely true. This must be true. This has to be true. Optional modality is expressed by language units which may complicate the sentence structure to a considerable degree. A narrow definition of modality – only the modal verbs, the modal adjuncts such as possibly, probably, certainly. It includes lexical meaning of expressing modality. According to the degree likelihood can be high, mid, low. High: certainly, in all probability, without doubt; Mid: probably; Low: possibly. Requirements can also be high, mid, low. The expression of likelihood may be explicitly personal if we use such clauses: I’m sure that. Expression of require may also be explicitly personal: I require you to…, This necessary for you to do that… I forbid you…

19) The sentence as the central syntactic unit (Gen. overview)

The Sentences are used to build up the upper-domain in the syntactic structure. The S. may be described as predicative syntagma or independent phrase or predicative word-group.

Vinogradov “The S. is the central syntactical unit, it serves as means of forming, expressing, and conveying expression.”We distinguish:1) The level of its syntactical structure – the S. is autonomous synt-l unit expressing a complex thought and realizing its constituents obligatory connections.2) The level of semantic-syntactical structure – the S. is described in terms of predication and modality and its nominative function.Structural grammar comprises one- and two-member sentences, complete – incomplete, expanded – unexpanded. 2-member S. comprises a subject and a predicate. 1-member S. – one principle part, neither subject nor predicate.~ Yes! John! Another day of fog!The existence of 1-member S. is a peculiar combination of words.A word-sentence is radically different from a word-lexeme. A word is a readymade constituent of a word-stock. It is mononominative. A word-sent. makes a situational event and shows the connection of this event with the reality.Many of these meanings are rendered by intonations (statement, interrogation, exclamation) or graphically (dot, exclamation mark).There are classifications of a sentence: 1) According to the type of the subject: personal – impersonal.2) According to the purpose of communication: declarative, imperative, interrogative.3) According to the logical criteria: affirmative – negative.

The study of 2-member S. helped scholars to distinguish basic syntactic pattern (or the elementary sentence or the kernel sentence).Representatives of the transformational grammar (Harris, Chomsky) distinguished two classes:

1) Kernel S. 2) Non-Kernel S.Harris believed 2) is derived from 1). It is fulfilled by transformational rules. Acc. to Harris:~ 1. John ate the apple. – is 1). It may be transformed into 2).: ~ 2. The apple was eaten by John. Did John eat the apple?Chomsky took a different view: 1. and 2. both belonged to the surface structure, they are differ syntactically. 1. is active (John – subject, apple - object), 2. is passive (apple – subject, John – adv. modifier). Both sentences are syntactically related and derived from one kernel sentence. And 1. is belonged to the deep structure. (“Surface, Deep structure” introduced by Hockett).The study of sentence of deep structure and its surface structure, derived by the successive operation, is claimed by modern scholars the semantic interpretation. Interest turned from structure to semantics.Structurally Kernel S. coincides with Elementary S. They both denote a combination of sentence part which cannot be destroyed without distinguishing the sentence proper.Foreign scholars discriminated six-seven models of Kernel S.:Model 1 – N <->V – Nelly spoke; Model 2 – N <-> VA – Mary was happy; Model 3 – N <-> VN – Lions eat meat; Model 4 – N <-> LinkVN – This woman is my mother; Model 5 – N <-> VNN – John gave his brother a book; Model 6 – N <-> OVNN (OV – objective complement verb) – Albert sent my brother a monkey; Model 7 – V <-> NAdv – There is a snake under the house.Pospelov singled out 39 models:

The first 10 are based on the combination of finite verb with others: S <->Pred, S <-> Pred. Dir. Object – He used a match, S <-> Pred. Addressee Dir. Object – He had given her a match.Next 14 models disclose the combinability of the V+Adv. Mod. And so on.Ilyish points out such disclosion gave raise to paradigmatic syntax (PS). It treats sentences as different form of the same verb: ~ He has arrived ~ He has not arrived ~ Has he arrived? ~ He will arrive.The connection with the reality is denoted by the category of predication. Smirnitsky: “Predication refers the utterance to reality”.Predication also refers the contents of the sentence to reality. The centre of predication is the finite verb. It expresses essential predicative meanings: tense, mood, etc.Besides purely verbal categories the predication semantics includes many others meanings: the purpose of communication, different modal meanings, affirmation or negation, actual division of the sentence.Bloch concludes the predicative functions work on the deep nominative base (should name the event then refer it to reality).Attention should be paid that the nominative function of the sentence is different from the nominative function of word: words are mononominative, word-groups are polynominative, sentences name events. Sentence nomination includes: names of process, of agents, of objects.

Bloch points out direct transformation relations may be established between word-groups and sentence. ~ My parents arrived – My parents’ arrival.When a sentence turns into a phrase is called syntactic nomination. It destroys the predicative aspect of the sentence but leaves the nomination. Bloch specifies the essence of the category of predication: “The notion of predication should be referred the nominative content to reality.” The predicate expression includes two kinds of types: 1) of a predicate type (action states???) 2) of a non-predicate type (functions, agent, patient)Some scholars determinate several names of deep cases/ semantic structures of sent. by Sussov: 1) The level of the relational structure 2) The level of predicative structure 3) The level of the modificational structure (definite description, tense, mood, aspect).Scholars noticed the same situation may be presented with the help of different means. It depends on the speaker and the type of the languages.

~ Муха сидит на потолке – The fly stands on the silk, ~ хлопать в ладоши – clap hands, ~ рискнуть головой – risk a neck.The difference between the languages may also concern the choice of the syntactical structure: Passive voice is used in Eng more often than in Rus.~ PV: He was followed by a dog – AV: За ним шла собака.The situation may be presented differently in one and the same situation: ~ The news shocked the public – The public were shocked by the news.The semantico-syntactical structure is a poly-level phenomenon and must be analyzed.