Теоретическая грамматика английского языка

in the morphological system of Eng be cause its semantics is also rendered by the Common Case noun in prepositional collocations & in contact.

In the discussion of the case probl. 4 main views advanced by diff. scholars should be considered: the "theory of positional cases", the "theory of prepositional cases", the "limited case theory", & the "postpositional theory". Acc. to the "theory of positional cases", the Eng noun distinguishes the inflectional genitive case & 4 non-inflectional, purely positional, cases - Nominative, Vocative, Dative, Accusative. The cardinal weak point of this theory lies in the fact that it mixes up the func.al (syntactic) characteristics of the sent. parts & the morphological feat.s of the noun.

The "theory of prepositional cases" regards nounal combinations with the prepositions in certain object & attributive collocations as morphological case forms: the Dative Case (to + N, for + N), the Genitive Case (of + N).

The "limited case theory" recognizes the existence in Eng of a limited case system whose members are the Genitive Case (a strong form) & the Common Case (a weak form).

The "postpositional theory" claims that the Eng noun in the course of its historical development has completely lost the morpho­logical cat. of case; that is why the trad. Genitive Case is treated by its advocates as a combination of a noun with a particle.

Taking into account the advantages of the 2 theories - the "limit­ed case theory" & the "postpositional theory" opens new perspectives in the treatment of the cat. of case. It st&s to reason to regard the element -s I -es as a special case particle. Thus, acc. to the "particle case theory" the 2-case system of the noun is to be recognized in Eng: the Common Case is a direct case, the Genitive Case is an oblique case. As the case opp. does not work with all Ns, from the func.al point of view the Genitive Case is to be regarded as subsidi­ary to the syntactic system of prepositional phrases.

16. Cat. of Gender

The probl. of gender in Eng is being vigorously disputed. Linguistic scholars as a rule deny the existence of gender in Eng r as a gr. cat. & stress its purely semantic character.' The actual gender distinctions of Ns are not denied by any1; what is disputable is the character of the gender class-tion: whether it is purely semantic or semantico-gr..

In fact, the cat. of gender in Eng is expressed with the help of the obligatory correlation of Ns with the personal pro­Ns of the third person. The third person proNs being specific & obligatory classifiers of Ns, Eng gender distinctions dis­play their gr. nature.

The cat. of gender is based on 2 hierarchically arranged opp.s: the upper opp. is general, it func.s in the whole set of Ns; the lower opp. is partial, it func.s in the subset of person Ns only. As a result of the double opp.al correla­tion, in Modern Eng a specific system of 3 genders arises: the neuter, the masculine, & the feminine genders.

In Eng there are many person Ns capable of expressing both feminine & masculine genders by way of the pronominal cor­relation. These Ns comprise a group of the so-called "common' gender" Ns, e.g.: "person", "friend", etc.

In the plural all the gender distinctions are neutralized but they are rendered obliquely through the correlation with the singular.

Alongside of the gr. (or lexico-gr.) gender distinctions, Eng Ns can show the sex of their referents also lexi­cally with the help of special lexical markers, e.g.: bull-calf/cow-calf, cock-sparrow/hen-sparrow, he-bear/she-bear, etc. or through suffixal derivation: sultan/sultana, lion/li1ss, etc.

The cat. of gender can undergo the process of opp.al reduction. It can be easily neutralized (with the group of "common gender" Ns) & transponized (the process of "personification").

The Eng gender differs much from the Russian gender: the Eng gender has a semantic character (opp.ally, i.e. gr.ly expressed), while the gender in Russian is partially semantic (Russian animate Ns have semantic gender distinctions), & partially formal.

17. Cat. of Article Determination

The probl. of Eng articles has been the subject of hot dis­cussions for many years. Today the most disputable ?s con­cerning the system of articles in Eng are the following: the identifiction of the article status in the hierarchy of lang. units, the nurriber of articles, their categorial & pragmatic func.s.

There exist 2 basic approaches to the probl. of the article status some scholars consider the article a self-sufficient word which forms with the modified noun a syntactic syntagma; others identify the article with the morpheme-like element which builds up with the nounal, stem a specific morph.

In recent works on the probl. of article determination of Eng Ns, more often than not an opinion is expressed that in the hierarchy of lang. units the article occupies a peculiar place - the place intermediary btw the word & the morpheme.

In the light of the opp.al theory the cat. of article de­termination of the noun is regarded as 1 which is based on 2 binary opp.s: 1 of them is upper, the other is lower. The opp. of the higher level operates in the whole system of articles & contrasts the definite article with the noun against the 2 other forms of article determination of the noun - the indefinite article & the meaningful absence of the article. The opp. of the lower level operates within the sphere of realizing the categorial meaning of non-identification (the sphere of the weak member of the upper opp.) & contrasts the 2 types of generalization - the relat. generalization & the absol. generalization. As a result, the sys­tem of articles in Eng is described as 1 consisting of 3 arti­cles - the definite article, the indefinite article, & the 0 article, which, correspondingly, express the categorial func.s (meanings) of identification, relat. generalization, & absol. generalization.

The article paradigm is generalized for the whole system of the common Ns in Eng & is transpositionally outstretched into the subsystems of proper Ns & Unica (unique Ns) as well as into the system of proNs.

18. Non-finite forms of the V

Non-finite forms of the V (Vids) are the forms of the V which have feat.s intermediary btw the V & the non-processual parts of spee4. They perform mixed, Val & non-Val, syntactic func.s. They are: inf-ve, gerund, pres. participle, past participle.

The inf-ve combines the properties of the V with those of the noun, as a result it serves as the Val name of a process. By virtue of its general process-naming func., the inf-ve should be considered as the head-form of the whole paradigm of the V. The inf-ve has a dual, V-type & noun-type, valency. The inf-ve has 3 gr. cat.: the aspective cat. of development (the opp. of Continuous & Non-Continuous forms), the aspective cat. of retrospective coordination (the opp. of Perf. & Non-Perf. forms), the cat. of voice (the opp. of Pass. & Non-Pass. forms). Conseq-ly, the categorial paradigm of the inf-ve of the objective V incl.s eight forms: the Indefinite Act., the Continuous Act., the Perf. Act., the Perf. Continuous Act.; the Indefinite Pass., the Continuous Pass., the Perf. Pass., the Perf. Continuous Pass.. The inf-ve paradigm of the non-objective V, correspond­ingly, incl.s 4 forms.

The gerund, like the infinitive, combines the properties of the-V with those of the noun & gives the process the Val name. In comp. with the infinitive the gerund reveals stronger substan­tive properties. Namely, as diff. from the infinitive, & similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the possessive case or its pronominal equivalents (expressing the subject of the Val process), & it can be used with prepositions.

The combinability of the gerund is dual: it has a mixed, V-type & noun-type, valency. Like the infinitive, the gerund performs the syntactic func.s of the subject, the object, the predicative, the attrib., & the adVial modifier. The gerund has 2 gr. cat.: the aspective cat. of retrospective coordination & the cat. of voice. Conseq-ly, the categorial paradigm of the gerund of the objective V includes four forms: the Simple Active, the Perf. Active, the Simple Passive, the Perf. Passive. The ge-rundial paradigm of the non-objective V, correspondingly, includes 2 forms.

The pres. participle serves as a qualifying-processual name. It combines the properties of the V with those of the adjective & adV.

The pres. participle has 2 cat.: the cat. of retro­spective coordination & the cat. of voice. The triple nature of the pres. participle finds its expression in its mixed (V-type, ad­jective-type, adV-type) valency & its syntactic func.s (those of the predicative, the attrib., & the adVial modifier).

The pres. participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-predicative complexes of objective & subjective types.

The past participle combines the properties of the V with those of the adjective. The categorial meaning of the past participle is qual­ifying: it gives some sort of qualification to the denoted process. The past participle has no paradigmatic forms; by way of paradigmatic correlation with the pres. participle, it conveys implicitly the cate­gorial meanings of the perf. & the passive. Its valency is not spe­cific; its typical syntactic func.s are those of the attrib. & the predicative.

Like the pres. participle, the past participle is capable of mak­ing up semi-predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as absolute complexes.

The consideration of the English Vids in their mutual comp., supported & supplemented by comparing them with their non­Val counterparts, reveals a peculiar character of their correlation.

The correlation of the infinitive, the gerund, & the Val noun, being of an indisputably systemic nature & covering a vast propor­tion of the lexicon, makes up a special lexico-gr. cat. of processual repres.ation. The 3 stages of this cat. repres. the referential processual entity of the lexemic series, respective­ly, as dynamic (the infinitive & its phrase), semi-dynamic (the ger­und & its phrase), & static (the Val noun & its phrase). The cat. of processual repres.ation underlies the predicative diff. between various situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalization.

19. Cat. of Tense.

The cat. of tense is considered to be an immanent gr. Cat. which means that the finite V form alw expresses time distinctions.

The cat. of tense finds diff. interpretations with diff. scholars. Thus, in trad. linguistics gr. time is often repres.ed as a 3-form cat. consisting of the "lin­ear" past, pres., & future forms. The future-in-the-past does not find its place in the scheme based on the linear principle, hence, this system is considered to be deficient, not covering all lingual data.

At the same time linguists build up new systems of tenses in order to find a suitable place in them for future-in-the past. Nevertheless, many of such schemes are open to criticism for their inconsistency which finds its expression in the fact that some of them deny the inde­pendent status of future tenses while others exclude from the analysis future-in-the-past forms.

The said inconsistency can be overcome if we accept the idea that in Eng there exist 2 tense cat..

The 1st cat. - the cat. of primary time - expresses a direct retrospective evaluation of the time of the process denoted, due to which the process receives an absolutive time characteristic. This cat. is based upon the opp. of "the past tense" & "the pres. tense", the past tense being its strong member.

The 2nd tense cat. is the cat. of "prospective time", it is based upon the opp. of "after-action" & "non-after-ac­tion", the marked member being the future tense. The cat. of prospect is relat. by nature which means that it characterizes the action from the point of view of its correlation with some other ac­tion. As the future Val form may be relat. either to the pres. time, or to the past time incl.d in non-future, the Eng V acquires 2 diff. future forms: the future of the pres. & the future of the past. It means that the future of the past is doubly strong expressing the strong members of the cat. of primary time & the cat. of prospect.

The cat. of primary time is subjected to neutralization & transposition, transposition being more typical. The vivid cases of transposition are the "historical pres." & the "Preterite of Mod­esty". As for the cat. of prospect, it is often neutralized; neutral­ization can be of 2 types: syntactically optional & syntactically obligatory.

20. Cat. of Aspect

Gr. aspective meanings form a variable gr. cat. which is trad.ly associated with the opp. of con­tinuous & non-continuous forms of the V. Yet, 1 can find a great divergence of opinions on the probl. of the Eng aspect. The main difference lies in the interpretation of the categorial seman­tics of the opp.al members - continuous & indefinite forms: the categorial meaning of the continuous form is usually defined as the meaning of duration, while the interpretation of the categorial semantics of the Indefinite form causes controversy (the indefinite form may be interpreted as having no aspective meaning (I.P. Ivanova), as a form having a vague content (G.N. Vorontsova), as a form stressing the fact of the performance of the action (A.I. Smirnitsky). In Modern Linguistics A.I. Smirnitsky's interpretation of the cate­gorial semantics of the indefinite form is widely accepted.

In theoretical gr-ar the interpretation of perf. / non-perf. V-forms also refers to disputable ?s. Some linguists inter­pret the opp. of perf. / non-perf. forms as aspective (O. Jespersen, I.P. Ivanova, G.N. Vorontsova), others - as the opp. of tense forms (H. Sweet, G.O. Curme, A. Korsakov). A.I. Smirnitsky was the 1st to prove that perf. & non-perf. make up a special, self-sufficient, cat. which he called