ловить блох

Решебник дидактический материал математике 3 к с а козлова в н гераськин л. Количество мест ограничено, звоните : ПРЕДВАРИТЕЛЬНАЯ ЗАПИСЬ И ВОПРОСЫ по тел. It must be stressed that the distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish or in any way depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Theoretical English Grammar: Seminars Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского.

Ключи - дополнение к Учебнику китайского языка тех же авторов, вышедшему в 2003. Systemic Conception of Language...........................

ловить блох - Практикум по английскому языку: Грамматика. Книга Практикум по английскому языку М.

Grammar in the Systemic Conception of Language Chapter II. Morphemic Structure of the Word Chapter III. Categorial Structure of the Word Chapter IV. Grammatical Classes of Words Chapter V. Noun: General Chapter VI. Noun: Gender Chapter VII. Noun: Number Chapter VIII. Noun: Case Chapter IX. Noun: Article Determination Chapter X. Verb: General Chapter XI. Non-Finite Verbs Verbids Chapter XII. Finite Verb: Introduction Chapter XIII. Verb: Person and Number Chapter XIV. Verb; Tense Chapter XV. Verb: Aspect Chapter XVI. Verb: Voice Chapter XVII. Verb: Mood Chapter XVIII. Syntagmatic Connections of Words Chapter XXI. Sentence: General Chapter XXII. Actual Division of the Sentence Chapter XXIII. Communicative Types of Sentences Chapter XXIV. Simple Sentence: Constituent Structure Chapter XXV. Simple Sentence: Paradigmatic Structure Chapter XXVI. Composite Sentence as a Polypredicative Construction Chapter XXVII. Complex Sentence Chapter XXVIII. Compound Sentence Chapter XXIX. Semi-Complex Sentence Chapter XXX. Semi-Compound Sentence Chapter XXXI. Sentence in the Text PREFACE This book, containing a theoretical outline of English grammar, is intended as a manual for the departments of English in Universities and Teachers' Colleges. Its purpose is to present an introduction to the problems of up-to-date grammatical study of English on a systemic basis, sustained by demonstrations of applying modern analytical techniques to various grammatical phenomena of living English speech. The suggested description of the grammatical structure of English, reflecting the author's experience as a lecturer on theoretical English grammar for students specialising as teachers of English, naturally, cannot be regarded as exhaustive in any point of detail. While making no attempt whatsoever to depict the grammar of English in terms of the minutiae of its arrangement and functioning the practical mastery of the elements of English grammar is supposed to have been gained by the student at the earlier stages of tuition , we rather deem it as our immediate aims to supply the student with such information as will enable him to form judgments of his own on questions of diverse grammatical intricacies; to bring forth in the student a steady habit of trying to see into the deeper implications underlying the outward appearances of lingual correlations bearing on grammar; to teach him to independently improve his linguistic qualifications through reading and critically appraising the available works on grammatical language study, including the current materials in linguistic journals; to foster his competence in facing academic controversies concerning problems of grammar, which, unfortunately but inevitably, are liable to be aggravated by polemical excesses and terminological discrepancies. In other words, we wish above all to provide for the condition that, on finishing his study of the subject matter of the book, under the corresponding guidance of his College tutor, the student should progress in developing a grammatically-oriented mode of understanding facts of language, viz. The emphasis laid on cultivating an active element in the student's approach to language and its grammar explains why the book gives prominence both to the technicalities of grammatical observations and to the general methodology of linguistic knowledge: the due application of the latter will lend the necessary demonstrative force to any serious consideration of the many special points of grammatical analysis. In this connection, throughout the whole of the book we have tried to point out the progressive character of the development of modern grammatical theory, and to show that in the course of disputes and continued research in manifold particular fields, the grammatical domain of linguistic science arrives at an ever more adequate presentation of the structure of language in its integral description. We firmly believe that this kind of outlining the foundations of the discipline in question is especially important at the present stage of the developing linguistic knowledge Ч the knowledge which, far from having been by-passed by the general twentieth century advance of science, has found itself in the midst of it. Suffice it to cite such new ideas and principles introduced in the grammatical theory of our times, and reflected in the suggested presentation, as the grammatical aspects of the correlation between language and speech; the interpretation of grammatical categories on the strictly oppositional basis; the demonstration of grammatical semantics with the help of structural modelling; the functional-perspective patterning of utterances; the rise of the paradigmatic approach to syntax; the expansion of syntactic analysis beyond the limits of a separate sentence into the broad sphere of the continual text; and, finally, the systemic principle of description applied to the interpretation of language in general and its grammatical structure in particular. It is by actively mastering the essentials of these developments that the student will be enabled to cope with the grammatical aspects of his future linguistic work as a graduate teacher of English. Materials illustrating the analysed elements of English grammar have been mostly collected from the literary works of British and American authors. Some of the offered examples have been subjected to slight alterations aimed at giving the necessary prominence to the lingual phenomena under study. Source references for limited stretches of text are not supplied except in cases of special relevance such as implications of individual style or involvement of contextual background. The author pays tribute to his friends and colleagues Ч teachers of the Lenin State Pedagogical Institute Moscow for encouragement and help they extended to him during the years of his work on the presented matters. The author's sincere thanks are due to the staff of the English Department of the Dobrolyubov State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages Gorky and to Prof. Nelyubin for the trouble they took in reviewing the manuscript. Their valuable advice and criticisms were carefully taken into consideration for the final preparation of the text. Blokh CHAPTER I GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE І 1. Language is a means of forming and storing ideas as re-flections of reality and exchanging them in the process of human intercourse. Language is social by nature; it is inseparably connected with the people who are its creators and users; it grows and develops together with the development of society. These parts are the phonological system, the lexical system, the grammatical system. Only the unity of these three elements forms a language; without any one of them there is no human language in the above sense. The phonological system is the subfoundation of language; it determines the material phonetical appearance of its significative units. The lexical system is the whole set of naming means of language, that is, words and stable word-groups. The grammatical system is the whole set of regularities determining the combination of naming means in the formation of utterances as the embodiment of thinking process. Each of the three constituent parts of language is studied by a particular linguistic discipline. Thus, the phonological description of language is effected by the science of phonology; the lexical description of language is effected by the science of lexicology; the grammatical description of language is effected by the science of grammar. Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A practical description is aimed at providing the student with a manual of practical mastery of the corresponding part of language within the limits determined by various factors of educational destination and scientific possibilities. Since the practice of lingual intercourse, however, can only be realised by employing language as a unity of all its constituent parts, practical linguistic manuals more often than not comprise the three types of description presented in a complex. As for theoretical linguistic descriptions, they pursue analytical aims and therefore present the studied parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain insights into their inner structure and expose the intrinsic mechanisms of their functioning. Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a language is to present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i. In earlier periods of the development of linguistic knowledge, grammatical scholars believed that the only purpose of grammar was to give strict rules of writing and speaking correctly. The rigid regulations for the correct ways of expression, for want of the profound understanding of the social nature of language, were often based on purely subjective and arbitrary judgements of individual grammar compilers. Traces of this arbitrary prescriptive approach to the grammatical teaching may easily be found even in to-date's school practice. I feel a good deal of hesitation about telling you this story of my own. You see it is not a story like other stories I have been telling you: it is a true story J. Or let us take the rule forbidding the use of the continuous tense-forms with the verb be as a link, as well as with verbs of perceptions. Here are examples to the contrary: My holiday at Crome isn't being a disappointment A. For the first time, Bobby felt, he was really seeing the man A. The said traditional view of the purpose of grammar has lately been re-stated by some modern trends in linguistics. But their examples and deductions, too, are often at variance with real facts of lingual usage. Worthy of note are the following two artificial utterances suggested as far back as 1956: Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green colourless. According to the idea of their creator, the American scholar N. Thus, the examples, by way of contrast, were intensely demonstrative so believed the scholar of the fact that grammar as a whole amounted to a set of non-semantic rules of sentence formation. However, a couple of years later this assessment of the lingual value of the given utterances was disputed in an experimental investigation with informants Ч natural speakers of English, who could not come to a unanimous conclusion about the correctness or incorrectness of both of them. Namely, they are connected with the most general and abstract parts of content inherent in the elements of language. Such are, for instance, the categories of number or mood in morphology, the categories of communicative purpose or emphasis in syntax, etc. Since the grammatical forms and regularities are meaningful, it becomes clear that the rules of grammar must be stated semantically, or, more specifically, they must be worded functionally. For example, it would be fallacious to state without any further comment that the inverted word order in the English declarative sentence is grammatically incorrect. Word order as an element of grammatical form is laden with its own meaningful functions. It can express, in particular, the difference between the central idea of the utterance and the marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive modes of speech, between different types of style. Thus, if the inverted word order in a given sentence does express these functions, then its use should be considered as quite correct. The word arrangement in the utterance expresses a narrative description, with the central informative element placed in the strongest semantic position in narration, i. Com-pare the same sort of arrangement accompanying a plainer presentation of subject matter: Inside on a wooden bunk lay a young Indian woman E. Compare, further, the following: And ever did his Soul tempt him with evil, and whisper of terrible things. Yet did it not prevail against him, so great was the power of his love O. Here the inverted word order is employed to render intense emphasis in a legend-stylised narration. One thing and one thing only could she do for him R. Inversion in this case is used to express emotional intensification of the central idea. Examples of this and similar kinds will be found in plenty in Modern English literary texts of good style repute. The nature of grammar as a constituent part of language is better understood in the light of explicitly discriminating the two planes of language, namely, the plane of content and the plane of expression. The plane of content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in language, while the plane of expression comprises the material formal units of language taken by themselves, apart from the meanings rendered by them. The two planes are inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be realised without some material means of expression. Grammatical elements of language present a unity of content and expression or, in somewhat more familiar terms, a unity of form and meaning. In this the grammatical elements are similar to the lingual lexical elements, though the quality of grammatical meanings, as we have stated above, is different in principle from the quality of lexical meanings. On the other hand, the correspondence between the planes of content and expression is very complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This complexity is clearly illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy, and synonymy. 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 instance, the verbal form of the present indefinite one unit in the plane of expression polysemantically renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, action at the pre-sent moment, action taken as a general truth several units in the plane of content. In cases of synonymy, conversely, two or more units of the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the plane of content. For instance, the forms of the verbal future indefinite, future continuous, and present continuous several units in the plane of expression can in certain contexts synonymically render the meaning of a future action one unit in the plane of content. Taking into consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may say that the purpose of grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the long run, to disclose and formulate the regularities of the correspondence between the plane of con-tent and the plane of expression in the formation of utterances out of the stocks of words as part of the process of speech production. Modern linguistics lays a special stress on the systemic character of language and all its constituent parts. It accentuates the idea that language is a system of signs meaningful units which are closely interconnected and interdependent. Units of immediate interdependencies such as classes and subclasses of words, various subtypes of syntactic constructions, etc. Each system is a structured set of elements related to one another by a common function. The common function of all the lingual signs is to give expression to human thoughts. Due to this fact, even the earliest grammatical treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times, disclosed some systemic features of the described material. But the scientifically sustained and consistent principles of systemic approach to language and its grammar were essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely, after the publication of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay and the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated the difference between lingual synchrony coexistence of lingual elements and diachrony different time-periods in the development of lingual elements, as well as language as a whole and defined language as a synchronic system of meaningful elements at any stage of its historical evolution. On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between language proper and speech proper can be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the identification of the object of linguistic science. Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech in the same narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse. Speech comprises both the act of producing utterances, and the utterances themselves, i. Language and speech are inseparable, they form together an organic unity. As for grammar the grammatical system , being an integral part of the lingual macrosystem it dynamically connects language with speech, because it categorially determines the lingual process of utterance production. Thus, we have the broad philosophical concept of language which is analysed by linguistics into two different aspects Ч 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. 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. Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically. Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as well as at various juncture points cf. 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. These intra-systemic relations and dependencies find their expression in the fact that each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections based on different formal and functional properties. In the sphere of the vocabulary these series are founded on the correlations of synonymy and antonymy, on various topical connections, on different word-building dependencies. 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. Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realisation of any paradigmatic series. This is especially evident -in a classical grammatical paradigm which presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a syntagmatic connection of two elements: one common for the whole of the series stem , the other specific for every individual form in the series grammatical feature Ч inflexion, suffix, auxiliary word. Grammatical paradigms express various grammatical categories. The minimal paradigm consists of two form-stages. This kind of paradigm we see, for instance, in the expression of the category of number: boy Ч boys. A more complex paradigm can be divided into component paradigmatic series, i. In other words, with paradigms, the same as with any other systemically organised material, macro- and micro-series are to be discriminated. Units of language are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental units consist of phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status syllables, morphemes, words, etc. Supra-segmental units do not exist by themselves, but are realised together with segmental units and express different modificational meanings functions which are reflected on the strings of segmental units. To the supra-segmental units belong intonations intonation contours , accents, pauses, pat-terns of word-order. The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of a kind that units of any higher level are analyzable into i. Thus, morphemes are decomposed into phonemes, words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc. But this hierarchical relation is by no means reduced to the mechanical composition of larger units from smaller ones; units of each level are characterised by their own, specific functional features which provide for the very recognition of the corresponding levels of language. The lowest level of lingual segments is phonemic: it is formed by phonemes as the material elements of the higher -level segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential: it differentiates morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no meaning, it is not a sign. Phonemes are combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental group of phonemes, is not a sign, either; it has a purely formal significance. Due to this fact, it could hardly stand to reason to recognise in language a separate syllabic level; rather, the syllables should be considered in the light of the intra-level combinability properties of phonemes. Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the level-forming signs of language. The level located above the phonemic one is the morphemic level. The morpheme is the elementary meaningful part of the word. It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one phoneme. The third level in the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words, or lexemic level. The word, as different from the morpheme, is a directly naming nominative unit of language: it names things and their relations. Since words are built up by morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit morpheme only. The next higher level is the level of phrases word-groups , or phrasemic level. To level-forming phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These combinations, like separate words, have a nominative function, but they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a concrete thing, an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Notional phrases may be of a stable type and of a free type. The stable phrases phraseological units form the phraseological part of the lexicon, and are studied by the phraseological division of lexicology. Free phrases are built up in the process of speech on the existing productive models, and are studied in the lower division of syntax. In this sense, as different from the word and the phrase, the sentence is a predicative unit. The sentence is produced by the speaker in the process of speech as a concrete, situationally bound utterance. At the same time it enters the system of language by its syntactic pattern which, as all the other lingual unit-types, has both syntagmatic and paradigmatic characteristics. But the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of levels. The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences forming a textual unity. Such combinations are subject to regular lingual patterning making them into syntactic elements. Cumulation, the same as formation of composite sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic. Lisette did not speak and there was silence between them. But his appetite satisfied, his mood changed; he began to feel sorry for himself rather than angry with her, and with a strange ignorance of woman's heart he thought to arouse Lisette's remorse by exhibiting himself as an object of pity S. In the typed text, the supra-sentential construction commonly coincides with the paragraph as in the example above. However, unlike the paragraph, this type of lingual signeme is realised not only in a written text, but also in all the varieties of oral speech, since separate sentences, as a rule, are included in a discourse not singly, but in combinations, revealing the corresponding connections of thoughts in communicative progress. We have surveyed six levels of language, each identified by its own functional type of segmental units. If now we carefully observe the functional status of the level-forming segments, we can distinguish between them more self-sufficient and less self-sufficient types, the latter being defined only in relation to the functions of other level units. Indeed, the phonemic, lexemic and proposemic levels are most strictly and exhaustively identified from the functional point of view: the function of the phoneme is differential, the function of the word is nominative, the function of the sentence is predicative. As different from these, morphemes are identified only as significative components of words, phrases present poly-nominative combinations of words, and supra-sentential constructions mark the transition from the sentence to the text. Furthermore, bearing in mind that the phonemic level forms the subfoundation of language, i. The first is analysed by morphology, which is the grammatical teaching of the word; the second is analysed by syntax, which is the grammatical teaching of the sentence. CHAPTER II MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD І 1. The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the morphemic structure of words. It follows from this that morphology as part of grammatical theory faces the two segmental units: the morpheme and the word. But, as we have already pointed out, the morpheme is not identified otherwise than part of the word; the functions of the morpheme are effected only as the corresponding constituent functions of the word as a whole. However, the past tense as a definite type of grammatical meaning is expressed not by the dental morpheme in isolation, but by the verb i. It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the word, i. This difficulty is explained by the fact that the word is an extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the framework of different linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence, the minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component of the sentence, the articulate sound-symbol, the grammatically arranged combination of sound with meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately identifiable lingual unit, the uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc. None of these definitions, which can be divided into formal, functional, and mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the lexical segments of language without a residue remaining outside the field of definition. The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the word as the basic element of language. In particular, American scholars Ч representatives of Descriptive Linguistics founded by L. In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and the like, as well as their simple derivatives, e. But if we compare with the given one-stem words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman, password, yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter as separate words is much complicated by the fact that they themselves are decomposable into separate words. One could point out that the peculiar property distinguishing composite words from phrases is their linear indivisibility, i. But this would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for analytical wordforms, e. In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that each speaker has at his disposal a ready stock of naming units more precisely, units standing to one another in nominative correlation by which he can build up an infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of reality. Within a complex system of interrelated elements, polar phenomena are the most clearly identifiable, they stand to one another in an utterly unambiguous opposition. By some of their properties intermediary phenomena are similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while by other properties they are similar to the other, opposing pole. The analysis of the intermediary phenomena from the point of view of their relation to the polar phenomena reveal their own status in the system. At the same time this kind of analysis helps evaluate the definitions of the polar phenomena between which a continuum is established. In this connection, the notional one-stem word and the morpheme should be described as the opposing polar phenomena among the meaningful segments of language; it is these elements that can be defined by their formal and functional features most precisely and unambiguously. As for functional words, they occupy intermediary positions between these poles, and their very intermediary status is gradational. In particular, the variability of their status is expressed in the fact that some of them can be used in an isolated response position for instance, words of affirmation and negation, interrogative words, demonstrative words, etc. The nature of the element of any system is revealed in the character of its function. The function of words is realised in their nominative correlation with one another. On the other hand, nominative correlation reduces the morpheme as a type of segmental signeme to the role of an element in the composition of the word. As we see, if the elementary character indivisibility of the morpheme as a significative unit is established in the structure of words, the elementary character of the word as a nominative unit is realised in the system of lexicon. Summing up what has been said in this paragraph, we may point out some of the properties of the morpheme and the word which are fundamental from the point of view of their systemic status and therefore require detailed investigations and descriptions. The morpheme is a meaningful segmental component of the word; the morpheme is formed by phonemes; as a meaningful component of the word it is elementary i. The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it enters the lexicon of language as its elementary component i. In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional the location of the marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones and semantic or functional the correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the word. The combination of these two criteria in an integral description has led to the rational classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research linguistic work and in practical lingual tuition. In accord with the traditional classification, morphemes on the upper level are divided into root-morphemes roots and affixal morphemes affixes. The roots of notional words are classical lexical morphemes. Of these, pre-fixes and lexical suffixes have word-building functions, together with the root they form the stem of the word; inflexions grammatical suffixes express different morphological categories. The root, according to the positional content of the term i. Therefore one and the same morphemic segment of functional i. Ч words, in which out- serves as a prefix; look-out, knock-out, shut-out, time-out, etc. Ч words nouns , in which -out serves as a suffix. The morphemic composition of modern English words has a wide range of varieties; in the lexicon of everyday speech the preferable morphemic types of stems are root-stems one-root stems or two-root stems and one-affix stems. Thus, the abstract complete morphemic model of the common English word is the following: prefix + root + lexical suffix+grammatical suffix. The syntagmatic connections of the morphemes within the model form two types of hierarchical structure. The first is characterised by the original prefixal stem e. In accord with this 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. A set of iso-functional allo-units identified in the text on the basis of their co-occurrence with other lingual units distribution is considered as the corresponding eme-unit with its fixed systemic status. The immediate aim of the distributional analysis is to fix and study the units of language in relation to their textual environments, i. In this word the left environment of the root is the negative prefix un-, the right environment of the root is the qualitative suffix -able. Respectively, the root -pardon- is the right environment for the prefix, and the left environment for the suffix. The distribution of a unit may be defined as the total of all its environments; in other words, the distribution of a unit is its environment in generalised terms of classes or categories. In the distributional analysis on the morphemic level, phonemic distribution of morphemes and morphemic distribution of morphemes are discriminated. The study is conducted in two stages. At the first stage, the analysed text i. At the second stage, the environmental features of the morphs are established and the corresponding identifications are effected. Three main types of distribution are discriminated in the distributional analysis, namely, contrastive distribution, non-contrastive distribution, and complementary distribution. Contrastive and non-contrastive distributions concern identical environments of different morphs. The morphs are said to be in contrastive distribution if their meanings functions are different. Such morphs constitute different morphemes. The morphs are said to be in non-contrastive distribution or free alternation if their meaning function is the same. As different from the above, complementary distribution concerns different environments of formally different morphs which are united by the same meaning function. If two or more morphs have the same meaning and the difference in heir form is explained by different environments, these morphs are said to be in complementary distribution and considered the allomorphs of the same morpheme. As we see, for analytical purposes the notion of complementary distribution is the most important, because it helps establish the identity of outwardly altogether different elements of language, in particular, its grammatical elements. It must be stressed that the distributional classification of morphemes cannot abolish or in any way depreciate the traditional morpheme types. Rather, it supplements the traditional classification, showing some essential features of morphemes on the principles of environmental study. We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of immediate correlation. Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves, they are identified only as component segmental parts of words. As different from this, free morphemes can build up words by themselves, i. For instance, in the word handful the root hand is a free morpheme, while the suffix -ful is a bound morpheme. There are very few productive bound morphemes in the morphological system of English. Being extremely narrow, the list of them is complicated by the relations of homonymy. Overt morphemes are genuine, explicit morphemes building up words; the covert morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence of morpheme expressing a certain function. The notion of covert morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme in the oppositional description of grammatical categories see further. For instance, the word-form clocks consists of two overt morphemes: one lexical root and one grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-morpheme word-form clock, since it expresses the singular, is also considered as consisting of two morphemes, i. The usual symbol for the covert morpheme employed by linguists is the sign of the empty set: 0. Interpreted as supra-segmental morphemes in distributional terms are intonation contours, accents, pauses. The said elements of language, as we have stated elsewhere, should beyond dispute be considered signemic units of language, since they are functionally bound. They form the secondary line of speech, accompanying its primary phonemic line phonemic complexes. On the other hand, from what has been stated about the morpheme proper, it is not difficult to see that the morphemic interpretation of suprasegmental units can hardly stand to reason. Indeed, these units are functionally connected not with morphemes, but with larger elements of language: words, word-groups, sentences, supra-sentential constructions. Interpreted as additive morphemes are outer grammatical suffixes, since, as a rule, they are opposed to the absence of morphemes in grammatical alternation. In distinction to these, the root phonemes of grammatical inter-change are considered as replacive morphemes, since they re-place one another in the paradigmatic forms. It should be remembered that the phonemic interchange is utterly unproductive in English as in all the Indo-European languages. As it stands, however, this type of gram-matical means can be understood as a kind of suppletivity i. By the discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i. These two elements, as it were, embed the notional stem; hence, they are symbolically represented as follows: be... CHAPTER III CATEGORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD І 1. Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical morphological meanings. These features determine the grammatical form of the word. Grammatical meanings are very abstract, very general. Therefore the grammatical form is not confined to an individual word, but unites a whole class of words, so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning together with its individual, concrete semantics. For instance, the meaning of the substantive plural is rendered by the regular plural suffix - e s, and in some cases by other, more specific means, such as phonemic interchange and a few lexeme-bound suffixes. As we see, the grammatical form presents a division of the word on the principle of expressing a certain grammatical meaning. The most general meanings rendered by language and expressed by systemic correlations of word-forms are interpreted in linguistics as categorial grammatical meanings. The forms themselves are identified within definite paradigmatic series. The categorial meaning e. More specifically, the grammatical category is a system of expressing a generalised grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms. The ordered set of grammatical forms expressing a categorical function constitutes a paradigm. The opposition in the linguistic sense may be defined as a generalised correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements members of the opposition must possess two types of features: common features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in question. The oppositional theory was originally formulated as a ; phonological theory. By the number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary two members and more than bi-nary ternary, quaternary, etc. The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition; the other types of oppositions are reducible to the binary privative opposition. This feature is present in the voiced consonants, so their set forms the marked member of the opposition. The devoiced consonants, lacking the feature, form the unmarked member of the opposition. 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 equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features. We have noted above that any opposition can be reformulated in privative terms. Indeed, any positive feature distinguishing an oppositionally characterised lingual element is absent in the oppositionally correlated element, so that considered from the point of view of this feature alone, the opposition, by definition, becomes privative. The descriptive advantages of this kind of characterisation are self-evident. Unlike phonemes which are monolateral lingual elements, words as units of morphology are bilateral; therefore morphological oppositions must reflect both the plane of expression form and the plane of content meaning. The most important type of opposition in morphology, the same as in phonology, is the binary privative opposition. The privative morphological opposition is based on a morphological differential feature which is present in its strong parked member and absent in its weak unmarked member. In another kind of wording, this differential feature may be said to mark one of the members of the opposition positively the strong member , and the other one negatively the weak member. The featuring in question serves as the immediate means of expressing a grammatical meaning. For instance, the expression of the verbal present and past tenses is based on a privative opposition the differential feature of which is the dental suffix - e d. This suffix, rendering the meaning of the past tense, marks the past form of the verb positively we worked , and the present form negatively we work. For instance, the nounal form cats expresses the seme of plurality, as opposed to the form cat which expresses, by contrast, the seme of singularity. The two forms constitute a privative opposition in which the plural is the marked member. It is connected with the fact that the meaning of the weak member of the privative opposition is more general and abstract as compared with the meaning of the strong member, which is, respectively, more particular and concrete. Due to this difference in meaning, the weak member is used in a wider range of contexts than the strong member. For instance, the present tense form of the verb, as different from the past tense, is used to render meanings much broader than those directly implied by the corresponding time-plane as such. To err is human. They don't speak French in this part of the country. Equipollent oppositions in the system of English morphology constitute a minor type and are mostly confined to formal relations only. An example of such an opposition can be seen in the correlation of the person forms of the verb be: am Ч are Ч is. Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognized; in principle, they can be identified as a minor type on the semantic level only. An example of the gradual morphological opposition can be seen in the category of comparison: strong Ч stronger Ч strongest. A grammatical category must be expressed by at least one opposition of forms. These forms are ordered in a paradigm in grammatical descriptions. Both equipollent and gradual oppositions in morphology, the same as in phonology, can be reduced to privative oppositions within the framework of an oppositional presentation of some categorial system as a whole. Thus, a word-form, like a phoneme, can be represented by a bundle of values of differential features, graphically exposing its categorial structure. For instance, the verb-form listens is marked negatively as the pre-sent tense tense Ч , negatively as the indicative mood mood Ч , negatively as the passive voice voiceЧ , positively as the third person person + , etc. This principle of presentation, making a morphological description more compact, at the same time has the advantage of precision and helps penetrate deeper into the inner mechanisms of grammatical categories. In various contextual conditions, one member of an op-position can be used in the position of the other, counter-member. By way of example, let us consider the following case of the singular noun-subject: Man conquers nature. In other words, the noun is used generically, it implies the class of denoted objects as a whole. Thus, in the oppositional light, here the weak member of the categorial opposition of number has replaced the strong member. Consider another example: Tonight we start for London. The verb in this sentence takes the form of the present, while its meaning in the context is the future. The oppositional reduction shown in the two cited cases is stylistically indifferent, the demonstrated use of the forms does not transgress the expressive conventions of ordinary speech. The position of neutralisation is, as a rule, filled in by the weak member of the opposition due to its more general semantics. Alongside of the neutralising reduction of oppositions there exists another kind of reduction, by which one of the members of the opposition is placed in contextual conditions uncommon for it; in other words, the said reductional use of the form is stylistically marked. The contradiction is, of course, purposeful: by exaggeration, it intensifies the implied disapproval of the man's behaviour. Transposition is based on the contrast between the members of the opposition, it may be defined as a contrastive use of the counter-member of the op-position. As a rule but not exclusively transpositionally employed is the strong member of the opposition, which is explained by its comparatively limited regular functions. The means employed for building up member-forms of categorial oppositions are traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms themselves are classed into synthetical and analytical, too. Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer inflexion, and suppletivity; hence, the forms are referred to as innerinflexional, outer-inflexional, and suppletive. Inner inflexion, or phonemic vowel interchange, is not productive in modern Indo-European languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most ancient lexemic elements. Since the corresponding oppositions of forms are based on phonemic interchange, the initial paradigmatic form of each lexeme should also be considered as inflexional. Suppletivity, like inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely morphological type of form. It is based on the correlation of different roots as a means of paradigmatic differentiation. In other words, it consists in the grammatical interchange of word roots, and this, as we pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in principle with inner inflexion or, rather, makes the latter into a specific variety of the former. Suppletivity is used in the forms of the verbs be and go, in the irregular forms of the degrees of comparison, in some forms of personal pronouns. In a broader morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognised in paradigmatic correlations of some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns, as well as certain nouns of peculiar categorial properties lexemic suppletivity Ч see Ch. The shown unproductive synthetical means of English morphology are outbalanced by the productive means of affixation outer inflexion , which amount to grammatical suffixation grammatical prefixation could only be observed in the Old English verbal system. In the previous chapter we enumerated the few grammatical suffixes possessed by the English language. These are used to build up the number and case forms of the noun; the Person-number, tense, participial and gerundial forms of the verb; the comparison forms of the adjective and adverb. In the oppositional correlations of all these forms, the initial paradigmatic form of each opposition is distinguished by a zero suffix. Taking this into account, and considering also the fact that each grammatical form paradigmatically correlates with at least one other grammatical form on the basis of the category ex-pressed e. Scarce in English are not the synthetical forms as such, but the actual affixal segments on which the paradigmatic differentiation of forms is based. The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognises two lexemic parts in it, stating that it presents a combination of an auxiliary word with a basic word. The analytical means underlying the forms in question consist in the discontinuity of the corresponding lexemic constituents. Rather, they should be regarded as an integral part of this system, in which, the provision granted, a gradation of idiomatism is to be recognised. In this case, alongside of the classical analytical forms of verbal perfect or continuous, such analytical forms should also be discriminated as the analytical infinitive go Ч to go , the analytical verbal person verb plus personal pronoun , the analytical degrees of comparison of both positive and negative varieties more important Ч less important , as well as some other, still more unconventional form-types. Moreover, alongside of the standard analytical forms characterised by the unequal ranks of their components auxiliary elementЧbasic element , as a marginal analytical form-type grammatical repetition should be recognised, which is used to express specific categorial semantics of processual intensity with the verb, of indefinitely high degree of quality with the adjective and the adverb, of indefinitely large quantity with the noun. Oh, I feel I've got such boundless, boundless love to give to somebody K. Two white-haired severe women were in charge of shelves and shelves of knitting materials of every description A. The grammatical categories which are realised by the described types of forms organised in functional paradigmatic oppositions, can either be innate for a given class of words, or only be expressed on the surface of it, serving as a sign of correlation with some other class. For instance, the category of number is organically connected with the functional nature of the noun; it directly ex-poses the number of the referent substance, e. The category of number in the verb, however, by no means gives a natural meaningful characteristic to the de-noted process: the process is devoid of numerical features such as are expressed by the grammatical number. Indeed, what is rendered by the verbal number is not a quantitative characterisation of the process, but a numerical featuring of the subject-referent. Ч The girls are smiling. The ship is in the harbour. Ч The ships are in the harbour. Categorial forms based on subordinative grammatical agreement such as the verbal person, the verbal number are reflective, while categorial forms stipulating grammatical agreement in lexemes of a contiguous word-class such as the substantive-pronominal person, the substantive number are immanent. Immanent are also such categories and their forms as are closed within a word-class, i. Another essential division of grammatical categories is based on the changeability factor of the exposed feature. An example of constant feature category can be seen in the category of gender, which divides the class of English nouns into non-human names, human male names, human female names, and human common gender names. This division is rep-resented by the system of the third person pronouns serving as gender-indices see further. He male human : man, father, husband, uncle, etc. She female human : woman, lady, mother, girl, etc. He or she common human : per-son, parent, child, cousin, etc. Variable feature categories can be exemplified by the substantive number singular Ч plural or the degrees of comparison positive Ч comparative Ч superlative. Constant feature categories reflect the static classifications of phenomena, while variable feature categories expose various connections between phenomena. Some marginal categorial forms may acquire intermediary status, being located in-between the corresponding categorial poles. In distinction to these, the gender word-building pairs should be considered as a clear example of hybrid constant-variable formations, since their constant feature of gender has acquired some changeability properties, i. In the light of the exposed characteristics of the categories, we may specify the status of grammatical paradigms of changeable forms. Grammatical change has been interpreted in traditional terms of declension and conjugation. By declension the nominal change is implied first of all, the case system , while by conjugation the verbal change is implied the verbal forms of person, number, tense, etc. However, the division of categories into immanent and reflective invites a division of forms on a some-what more consistent basis. In accord with this principle, the noun in such synthetical languages as Russian or Latin is declined by the forms of gender, number, and case, while the adjective is conjugated by the same forms. As for the English verb, it is conjugated by the reflective forms of person and number, but declined by the immanent forms of tense, aspect, voice, and mood. CHAPTER IV GRAMMATICAL CLASSES OF WORDS І 1. The words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided into grammatically relevant sets or classes. This name was introduced in the grammatical teaching of Ancient Greece, where the concept of the sentence was not yet explicitly identified in distinction to the general idea of speech, and where, consequently, no strict differentiation was drawn between the word as a vocabulary unit and the word as a functional element of the sentence.

Speech comprises both the act of producing utterances and the utterances themselves, i. I feel a good deal of hesitation about telling you this story of my own. Language Units and Language Levels Units of language are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Курсы иностранных языков в Москве и за рубежом. Here are examples to the contrary: My holiday at Crome isn't being a disappointment A. Денисова Самоучители и пособия. Бюллетень новых поступлений с 28 августа по 25 сентября. Решебник грамматика британского языка голицынский практикум по британскому языку. На нашем сервисе 0.