Definition of grammar.

Grammar is defined as a branch of philology dealing with the structure of words, and their
interrelation, with the help of which logically correct phrases and sentences are generated. The
grammatical description of many, if not all the languages, is divided into two complementary sections
morphology and syntax: morphology, it seems, deals with the internal grammatical structure of words,
syntax deals with the relations between words in phrase and sentence structures. For example, the relation
between boy - boys, man - men would be a part of morphology; the relation between the boy (man) is here
would be a part of syntax. Morphology is the study of word formation and structure. It studies how words
are put together from their smaller parts and the rules governing this process. The elements that are
combining to form words are called morphemes. A morpheme is the smallest unit of meaning you can
have in a language. The word cats, for example, contains the morphemes cat and the plural -s.
The principal division within morphology is between inflection and derivation (or word formation).
Roughly speaking, inflectional constructions can be defined as yielding sets of forms that are
grammatically distinct items, whereas derivational constructions yield distinct vocabulary items. For
example, sings, sang, and sung are all inflectional forms traditionally referred to the verb "to sing"; but
singer, and singing are formed of the word "sing" by adding morphemes -er and -ing, which produce
different vocabulary items. Syntax deals with the formation of phrases and sentences showing the
relation between their component parts. In the language such as English, the main device for showing the
relation of words with each other is called word order. The basic element of grammar - grammatical
category - represents, it seems, a unity of form and content (which is also called "grammatical meaning").
Grammatical meaning is a nucleus of the category; it reflects the most common properties and relations of
objects. Grammatical form serves to express the meaning required by the context(past, esperanto,
agglutination). In the course of transmission, grammatical structures change, just as do pronunciation and
meanings. Summing up this debate, Noam Chomsky, an American linguist, offered a thesis of universal
grammar—a formal structure that underlies all languages, no matter how diverse their grammatical forms
seem on the surface. Moreover, he suggested that all humans have the same innate capacity for coining
languages, language structures and hence their thoughts in the same way.
Grammar and other branches of linguistics
The main levels of language structure (phoneme, morpheme, word, phrase, sentence) reflect certain
branches of linguistics. Phonology (phonetics), for example, deals with the study of sound patterns that
occur within languages In this view, grammar may be divided into three parts: a) syntactic component,
which is a set of rules describing the ways in which words may form sentences; b) the lexicon, which is
a list of all the words and the categories to which they belong; c) phonological component, which is a
set of rules that relates phonetic descriptions of sentences to syntactic and lexical descriptions.
Intonation is a matter of variation in the pitch level of voice, but in such languages as English,
stress and rhythm are also involved.. Intonation seems to be one of the most important means of structural
and semantic parts of sentence building. Grammar is closely connected with lexicology. Word is an
object of study both in lexicology and grammar. The majority of English words (nouns, adjectives, verbs)
are changeable, and the form of morpheme is selected depending on lexeme. The next aspect of
lexicology and grammar relationship is realized in the ability of their units to express common meanings.
Thus the word form "understood. Grammar and stylistics as two branches of philology come especially
closely to each other in studying such sections of linguistics as grammatical synonymy, secondary
functions, and transferred grammatical meanings. This traditional idea arises from the possibility of
choice among alternative forms of expression, as for example, between children, kids, kiddies,
youngsters, and youths, each has a different evocative meaning. The relation of grammar to the history of
language is determined by the fact that grammar evolves slower, than the lexicon and the sound
(phonetic) system. In the grammatical structure of any language one can always find out archaic forms
and usages, quite often concerning, however, the most widespread words. Numerous "inconsistencies"
and "illogical formations" (for example, availability of three forms of the verb: go - went – gone.
 Language and speech. Actualization.
Grammar studies the appropriate language facts not only on the level of language system, but also
on the level of speech, i.e. in their interaction and realization. We know that language, being a set of
organized means, distinguishes between two aspects: systems (structure) and norm. System is a unity of
conventional (spoken or written) symbols by means of which human beings, as members of social group
and as participants of some certain culture, communicate. Language system, defined in such a way, is a
peculiar possession of humans. Norm is a form of grammatical category expression, established in the
given language by the speaking collective. For example, perfect and continuous aspects are expressed by
an auxiliary verb + participle II. Thus in the sentence Jill wants Jack to give her an apple it is possible to
change places of Jill and Jack
Speech is defined as human communication through spoken language. As a rule speech is
described in terms of syntax (rules for putting words together to form phrases, clauses, or sentences),
lexicon (meanings of words or of morphemes, and phonology (sounds). The collective speech – usage - is
an important component of the language functioning, for to have a good command of one's own language,
the speaker should know the rules of using them in different situations and contexts. The use of language
means in speech, including grammatical ones, is called actualization. The speaker's consciousness keeps
only virtual (potential) signs in mind; while hi speech they are actualized, i.e. applied to designate
concrete subjects, events, relation. The theory of actualization was developed by a number of European
linguists. Modern linguists of different trends singled out specific means of actualization in their native
languages, which are called the agents of actualization. For example, the agents of noun actualization in
English are articles and other determiners.
Units of Grammar
Within the grammar of a language there is a hierarchy of levels, i.e. units of one level being
composed of units of the level below. In many languages, there are five such levels: morpheme, word,
phrase, clause, and sentence. Morpheme is a grammatical element, which is characterized by the unity
of meaning and form. The meaning of morpheme can be determined as a general notion about the
property or quality of an object, while the form is represented as a set of variants – allomorphs. The
meaning of word has two aspects: a common notion about an object of the material world and abstract
notion, i.e. reference to some category. The first aspect forms concrete lexicon of the word, the second -
its belonging to a certain part of speech Word in a certain grammatical form makes a word-form.
Therefore it acts as a set of word-forms. For example, the verb speak reflects a set of forms: speaks,
spoke, speaking, has spoken, etc. Collocation it's a group of words forming a syntactic unit with a single
grammatical function. If a phrase is analysed on the part of its formal organization, it is called a syntagma
or a syntactic group, i.e. a linguistic unit made up of sets of phonemes, words, or phrases that are arranged
sequentially. Fulfilling the function of a part of sentence: a) the word acquires ability of carrying out
certain syntactic functions, 6) the word acquires additional grammatical meanings, c) the member of the
sentence acquires a peculiar feature - the form, which is called syntactic form of the word. So English has
become the world language at present there are 5 full sense words and 4 syntactic words,
Sentence consists of words and phrases (syntactic groups) and is a major feature of the language -
a unit of communication. Three levels: a) syntactical aspect. subject, predicate, object and some other
members, which are characterized by specific grammatical features, b) logical-communicative aspect
(otherwise called actual division of the sentence).Here we single out theme - a definite part of information
and rheme - a new piece of information, which generates the sentence, c) semantic aspect. Sentence may
be characterized as means of denoting a piece of reality. Subject-predicate-object order.Utterances.
Discourse.A number of sentences linked semantically and by certain grammatical and lexical means of
relation form utterance-length unity. The language system consists of: morphemes, words, phrases
(their syntactic patterns), sentences (their structural schemes). Speech system includes: morphs (variants
of morpheme), word-forms, members of the sentence, phrase, utterance, utterance-length unity, text.
 Types of grammatical descriptions
Depending on the grammarian's approach, grammar can be descriptive, i.e. showing how language
is actually used, or generative, i.e. providing instructions for the production of an infinite number of
sentences in the language. In the use of grammatical forms the role of the speakers is also essential: the
choice of the grammatical forms and their interpretation depends on the speaker. All the relations of
language sign can be represented as follows: formal grammar, named sometimes structural. The
formal grammar is opposed to various kinds of semantic grammars, which aspire to explain language
facts by their relations to external phenomena. There are three types of semantic grammars: a) logical
grammar emphasizes the connection between grammatical categories and categories of thinking (concept,
judgement). b) situational (referential) grammar proceeds from overt objects and relations designated by
the grammatical forms. c) psychological grammar reveals the influence of collective or individual
psychology on the use and understanding of grammatical forms. Each kind of grammar may be viewed
statically or dynamically in relation to language facts. Statically facts are only revealed and classified.
Consequently, the linguists single out (inside structural grammars) descriptive, using distributive
technique based on sintagmatic relations between the elements of language, and transformational
(generative) grammars, based on paradigmatic relations between the elements of language. Grammatical
elements of language can also be investigated in two ways: 1) analysis proceeds from form to contents;
here linguists study the meanings and functions of the grammatical forms. This approach towards
research is called semasiological where different meanings are formed as a result of the grammatical form
interaction with lexicon, intonation, context, situation. For example, inversion can be found in question,
exclamation sentence, in the dependence of subordinate clause upon main clause, in actual division of the
sentence, etc. 2) analysis is carried out from contents to form, where linguists study different ways of
certain lexical meaning expression. This direction refers to onomasiological approach, for example,
means of question expression (inversion, intonation, question words, etc.) These approaches may be
correlated with two types of grammars: grammar of decoding, for the listener and grammar of coding for
the speaker.

General characteristics of simple sentence.

Sentence is a major syntactic unit, which H. Sweet in his A new English Grammar defined as
”a word or groups of words capable of expressing a complete thought or meaning”. To define
sentence as a syntactic construction and a communicative unit is possible with some reservation
only. Not every group of words makes a syntactic construction. Having restricted the sentence
thus means that we have to touch upon the properties associating sentence with some other
syntactic units.
As to the specific feature of sentence we should take into account three aspects characterizing
each meaningful sign unit: structure, semantics and pragmatics. Let's begin from the last.
Sentence is a minimal unit of speech communication.. Words are not capable of independent use
outside of and irrespective of the sentence.
Further, sentence (even of one word structure) despite word and word collocation designates
some actualized situation correlated in some way with the reality of situation. Night. In addition
it has received modal characteristics (the speaker considers this phenomenon as a piece of reality
existing in certain time perspective (present, past or future tense). Actualization as a syntactic
phenomenon turns into predicativity. It is based on two categories: modality and tense.
And finally, a major structural feature of sentence is a set of syntactic connections framing the
sentence. It is a minimal syntactic construction, which is used in the acts of speech
communication, characterized by predicativity and realizes a certain structural organization.
 Predicativity and some other sentence properties.
The actualization of sentence contents makes predicativity an integral property of each
sentence. Language sign can be most vividly illustrated and realized in the means of lexical
nomination. For example, the same person can be named as Peter, you, I, this (young) man, my
roommate, Johnson's son, Mary's brother and so on. The same variable ways of nominating
properties is also inherent in syntactic units. To denote a situation one may use a sentence the
doctor has arrived as an independent syntactic unit, a phrase the doctor's arrival and a word
Doctor! as component parts of the sentence. The most essential distinction between them is the
presence or absence of predicativity. Those scholars seem to be right who consider that
correlation with reality is the property of speech in general, but not of separate sentences. It is
the sentence that has means of predicativity expression.
Alongside with the point of view analyzed above there exists a concept, which states that the
situation making the sentence concept is realized in the sentence after having been processed by
human thought. The most important parameter of this processing is subject-predicate structure,
which is doomed to correlate with the situation.

Sentence modal aspect.

Modal plan is structurally the basic one and it is expressed by the category of mood in the
verb-predicate. It is inherent in each sentence. Even sentences without verb-predicate are
comprehended as expressing this or that shade of modality, but explicitly. These are, first of all,
modal words and different modal constructions. Its inclusion into the modal semantics of the
sentence creates a “second layer“, called subjective modality. As a result common modal
meaning expressed by the category of mood can be “reinforced” or, on the contrary, can be
“weakened”. Perhaps you have seen her portrait in the papers. (A. C. Doyle) – weakens.
While the category of mood (with the help of verb forms) conveys the author's modal
position almost imperceptibly, the introduction of modal words and modal constructions show
the author's position clearly. Structurally more complex is the task to include into the sentence
contents additional modal meanings of the second layer. For an average man normally using
language, it is practical not to store in memory ready-made sentences "for all occasions" (and it
is simply impossible!) but to construct new sentences for a single use even for similar situations.
In a book containing thousands of sentences it is difficult to find “an identical twin". With the
development of generative grammar, however, the “patterning of sentences” becomes one of the
main tasks of linguistics at least in the USA.
Sentence as any other language unit has a form. Strange it may seem but the speaker’s
attention is seldom fixed on the form of the sentence (except the period of mastering language).
Lined in certain sequence. In grammar structural organization means a mutual sequence of
sentence component parts; in phonetics it is their association within the borders of some common
intonation contour. Compare, for example, intonation of affirmative, interrogative and negative
sentences. In the hierarchy of language means expressing narration/interrogation phonetic
parameters come to the foreground of communicative process.
 Sentence as a central syntactic unit.
The description of language system in many respects depends on what is accepted by the
researcher as basic, central in this system through which and in connection with which other
elements of language are examined. In syntax the central unit is represented by sentence, for the
sentence is a final product of this system. All other structural units function to form sentence as a
final language unit. Sentence has communicative assignment; it is not simply a structural unit but
a communicative unit. Only having come onto the level of sentence the researcher can capture
the whole variety of the language phenomena from melody, tone pitch up to semantic features.
The majority of them are realized only in the sentence.
The reality of text as a special speech construction can not be put under doubt. Text has no
precise and unequivocal structural characteristics similar to those, which sentence has. Neither
has it uniform structures, which are typical of every meaningful unit. The fact that text is not a
structural unit of language, can be seen in the following. Every meaningful structural unit of
language carries out a function of nomination, as a language sign. In this respect the functions of
morpheme, word, word collocation, sentence are similar. "text linguistics".
Sentence is a concept of wide scope covering an extensive range of sentence-like
constructions from “one word” up to complex poly-predicative constructions. Simple sentence
completely answers all the requirements of a structural and communicative unit. At the same
time, it is the bases of all other syntactic constructions of any complexity.

Aspects of sentence.
Sentence is a most complex unit in the system of language. Its complexity lies in the
multiplicity of its components, whose number is not limited structurally. Sentence complexity is
defined by the inherent multiplicity of probable relations between contents and form. We know
that being a sign unit the sentence is characterized by form and contents. The usual multiplicity
of sentence features puts on the foreground the task of relations: how the words in the sentence
are united (joined) into what they are, i.e. sentence structure, and how that structure differs from
a simple row or line of words. Consequently the given feature of the sentence is called the aspect
of sentence structural organization. Alongside with "sentence organization" one has to study
formal parameters of grammatical meanings: affirmation/negation, inducement/enquiry,
personal/impersonal features.
The second aspect of sentence is a semantic one. Certain mutual semantic relations are also
characteristic of parts complex sentence. At last, sentence elements have, alongside with
functional semantic meanings, such as "object" or "adverbial modifier", the meanings of
semantic roles, such as "agent" (агенс), "patience" (патиенс), etc. These semantic roles, and
their configurations, inherent in the sentence.
At last, it is possible to allocate pragmatic aspect of the sentence. It is connected with the use
of the sentence in the acts of speech. Sentence is a unit of language, which has no other obvious
functional assignment than that of serving a basic unit of speech communication. From here
proceed differences of communicative plan (sentence division into statements, questions,
inducements). Semantic and pragmatic aspects are least investigated in the syntactic theory.
Three aspects named above (structural, semantic and pragmatic) are considered the basis of
system but it can be expanded. For example, it was offered to allocate seven aspects to be found
in modern Indo-European languages: 1) logical-grammatical, 2) modal, 3) sentence
completeness, 4) role in relation to other sentence in a developed speech, 5) cognitive role of the
speaker, or sentence actual division, 6) communicative task and 7) emotional. However it is not
difficult to see that all aspects, named in this list, can be reduced to the three basic aspects.
 General characteristics of parts of speech.
Parts of speech, being the largest groupings of words, are traditionally distinguished by a set
of three attributes: semantic, morphological and syntactic, i.e. a) by general category meaning,
for example, the words table, boy, silence denote living beings, objects, abstract notions; the
words go, know, bring denote actions, processes; b) by grammatical forms, i.e. for example, the
word table(s), child(ren) can change in numbers; the words write, take, understand show the
distinction in number, persons, tense, mood in the sentence; c) by syntactic function, in the way
that the words children, table can be used in the function of subject; have, instruct - in the
function of predicate, etc. The discussion of parts of speech in English is centered on the
following problems: 1) necessity of parts of speech allocation; 2) hierarchy between parts of
speech; 4) principles of discretion. Whatever classifications were offered, there would always
remain elements, which did not enter any class. For example, French words voici and voila. F.
Brüno considered that the concept "part of speech" is nothing more that scholasticism, which
should be got rid of. Such a point of view becomes understandable, when we learn that Brüno
developed onomasiological grammar (the branch of linguistics that studies how meaning is
expressed) in which the initial thesis is "concept should be cleaned from grammatical forms".
The primary are objects, qualities, actions; as to the forms of their expression they play a
supporting role. So, a group of words, which are used mostly as relaters in the sentence are hard
to refer either to adverbs or conjunctions, as in yet, as yet, so far, before that, meanwhile,
meantime, since then, after that, firstly, secondly, etc. The same doubtful position occupy
prepositions or adverbs, such as above, below, behind, under, over, across, through, past, down,
along, beyond, which share their lexical meaning with adverbs, which have the same form.
Unsatisfied with the term "part of speech", inherited from antique grammar (Latin: partes
orationis), some modern linguists offer other terms, such as parts of language (Гийом), lexical
categories (Балли), kinds of words (Теньер), grammatical classes (Дюбуа), grammatical
samples (Гиро), etc.
Criteria of classification.
There are a lot of problems, disputes and different inconsistencies in the criteria of their delimitation.
Theories based on semantic criteria. heavy stress on the general meaning of words, i.e. nouns specify ob-
jects, verbs specify processes, adjectives and adverbs specify qualities of actions and processes. However
grammatical forms (as markers of actualization) and their functions participate in the process of parts of
sentence differentiation. So, noun can be characterized only by adjective, and vice versa. On the left verge
of parts of speech semantic field interjections and the right boarder is occupied by grammatical markers.
Their function is to form syntagmas and sentences. have succeeded in having established parts of speech
hierarchy. Theories based on structural criteria. They consider wrong to assert that noun denotes
substances, verb denotes processes and so on. For example, the words hatred, strength, division,
importance denote abstract essence, quality, process, attitude, but all of them are included in the class of
nouns, only because they, behave similarly to words man, country. It is necessary to distinguish noun-
sense (designation of an object) and noun-form, as, for example, the word singing. The positive feature
of this theory is that it points to semantic heterogeneity of parts of speech ("real" and "formal" nouns).
Theories based on semantic-structural criteria. The third group of philologists tries to combine semantic
and structural features, refusing from the term "parts of speech ", and offer another classification of
words, which is determined by crossing of two concepts: categories and classes. There are four of them:
central - factive (denoting phenomenon) and substantive (denoting substances), auxiliary - adjective
(denoting qualities of substances) and affonctive (characterizing phenomena). Theories based on the
concept of word classes in sentence structure. Three classes differ: a) struments, which are service words,
pronoun, particle; b) verbs, which are treated as independent words making the nucleus of sentence and c)
names, which are also treated as independent words but they are deprived of linking function. They show
a variety of structures of some grammatical categories (verbs, for instance are divided into four groups,
adverbs - into three).
L. Tesniere a) full sense words, and empty (yunctives anaphoric) words b) differential
(конститутивные) words and auxiliary; c) changeable words and unchangeable words. 9parts
Classification of parts of speech in English. Classical approach.
The American linguist Charles Carpenter Fries, in his work The Structure of English (1952),
divided most English words into four great form classes that generally correspond to the noun,
verb, adjective, and adverb in the standard classification. He classified 154 other words as
function words. The whole stock of English can be divided into certain lexical-grammatical
classes named traditionally as parts of speech. Basic principles of such a classification were
explicitly formulated by L.V. Shcherba in our country: they are lexical meaning, morphological
form and syntactic functioning.The classification of parts of speech continues to be at issue; H.
Sweet, the author of the first scientific grammar of English (A New English Grammar. Oxford,
1892) divides parts of speech into two basic groups - declinables and indeclinables. Morphologi-
cal properties are considered as the basic principle of classification. Inside the group of
declinables he adhered to the traditional division - nouns, adjectives, verbs. Adverbs,
prepositions, conjunctions and interjections are incorporated in the group of indeclinables.
Alongside with this classification H. Sweet offers the grouping based on syntactic functioning of
certain classes of words. So, the group of nominal words (noun-words) includes, in addition to
nouns words similar to nouns in functioning, such as "nominal" pronouns (noun-pronouns),
"nominal" numerals (noun-numerals), infinitive and gerund; the group of adjective words
includes, besides adjectives, adjective-pronouns, adjective-numerals, participles. As to
indeclinables, they grouped completely diverse elements: adverbs, which can function as
members of the sentence, conjunctions, prepositions and interjections, which do not. For
example, prepositions function inside predicative units, and conjunctions connect predicative
units. Otto Jespersen (Philosophies of grammar. London, 1935; A Modern English Grammar
on Historical Principles, London, 1949 in 7 volumes and number of other works) fully realized
the difficulty to reconcile two basic principles - form and function, i.e. morphology and syntax,
without taking into account lexical meaning. O. Jespersen has offered a dual system: alongside
with the description of traditional parts of speech, which he regards in their morphological form
and conceptual contents, the same classes are analyzed from the point of their functioning in
syntactic constructions (sentences and word collocations). So, in the collocation A furiously
barking dog the noun dog is primary, barking, directly determines dog, i.e. secondary, and the
adverb furiously directly determines barking, i.e. tertiary. O. Jespersen called it the theory of
three ranks.
Parts of speech field structure.
The complexity of units inside each part of speech, can be well disposed in the theory of
grammatical field developed by J. Trier, a famous German philologist of the 20 th century. Theory
of morphological fields having added the following: in each part of speech there are units
completely having all features of the given part of speech, this is its nucleus. But there are also
such units, which have only some features of the given part of speech. Traditionally parts of
speech are divided into two large groups: notional and structural parts of speech. Notional parts
of speech include units, which have lexical meaning, i.e. they name concepts: fable, dog, joy,
strength; to bring, to cry, to enumerate; big, difficult; soon, well and so on. Morphological
properties to a certain extent join them: only notional parts of speech are characterized by word
changes. Structural parts of speech are incapable of being an object of thought, i.e. they have no
independent lexical meaning. So, of, and, since, the, can not designate objects of thought as they
do not name separate concepts. Singling out both notional and structural parts of speech is
debateful; there are such "basic" parts of speech, whose existence is out of doubt (for example,
noun, verb, adjective, adverb); among structural parts of speech the existence of such categories,
as preposition and conjunction do not cause problems. Now the time has come to precisely
differentiate structural parts of speech and service (syntactic) words. Service words refer to
notional parts of speech, but in certain conditions they lose their lexical contents. Take, for
example, the auxiliary verb have. This verb is capable of usage with its own lexical contents, for
example, as in I have a new television set. However in the next sentence it is used as an auxiliary
verb in perfect form: I have lost my glasses.
 New tendencies in classifying English words.
Among works, in which authors try to find uniform principles of parts of speech
classification, deserves special attention Ch. Fries's book (The Structure of English, New York,
1956). Fries rejects the traditional classification and tries to construct a system of word classes
based on the positions of words in the sentence. By means of substitution tables Fries singles out
words of four classes traditionally named as nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. So, class 1 is
compiled of all words capable of occupying a position of the word concert in the sentence;
words of class 2 occupy a position of the word is/was, remembered in the same sentence; words
of class 3 stand in a position of good in the sentence The (good) concert was good, and words of
class 4 - in a position there in model: 3 1 2 3 4 Beside four classes, Ch. Fries allocates 15
groups. In them Ch. Fries also uses the principle of position and therefore words of divergent
types get into these groups Ch. Fries names these groups "function words". From the given
examples it becomes clear that morphological properties of words are completely ignored, and,
strictly speaking, syntactic functions are hardly taken into account. G. Trager and G. Smith
offered a dual classification, based on morphological paradigmatic features and on syntactic
functions. This dual analysis is not absolutely parallel, that is why they could not create a more
or less consistent classification.
H.A. Gleason offers classification based on two formal criteria - morphological form and
word order. He divides all vocabulary items into two large groups: the words of the first group
have formal features of word changes, and the second group has none. The second group
includes classes, united by their position in the sentence but here also belong those words that
were excluded from paradigmatic groups described above. So, beautiful, which occupies the
same positions as fine, is included into the second group. Classification offered by J. Sledd in his
A Short Introduction to English Grammar. Glenview Illinois, 1959 is very close in principles to
that of Gleason. He also distinguishes "inflectional" and "positional" classes. Both the linguists
have paid attention to heterogeneity of properties characterizing some units inside a certain lexi-
cal grammatical class.
Introduction
Philology has coined the term grammatical category for denoting the unity of
grammatical meaning and its means of expression. Though the term “category” represents the
main concept of grammar, its definitions are numerous and far from clarity. 1. ‘Grammatical
category can be defined as relation of opposed meanings expressed by means of opposition of
not more than two mutually incompatible rows of forms’ (D. A. Shteling). This definition is
based on the main law of dialectics and human thinking (unity of appositions – единство
противоположностей). 2. ‘Grammatical category can be defined as an aggregate of
grammatical meanings opposed to each other and expressed by some formal criteria. They vary
greatly by a number of opposed grammemes (meanings) and by formal means of expression and
by reference of meanings to reality’ (Y.S. Maslov). This definition stresses the fact that
grammatical categories unite opposed grammemes. 3. ‘Grammatical category is defined as an
aggregate of homogeneous or opposed grammatical meanings, (V.N. Peretrukhin). In this and
other interpretations grammatical category is mostly defined as a general grammatical meaning
(notion), which is expressed by morphological or syntactic means. 4. Yu.S. Stepanov defined
grammatical category as ‘a unity (really existing in the language) of some grammatical meaning
and formal means of its expression in which preference is given to grammatical meaning as a
leading and organizing element.Philologists revealed the existence of several separate
grammemes and several expressive means within one category meaning. Take, for instance,
genitive case of Russian nouns. This category includes several grammemes (semes), such as
possessiveness, part of the whole, attributiveness.
Every grammatical category represents by itself a certain field, an exclusive space
(замкнутое пространство) with nucleus in the middle and periphery at the outskirts. One may
suppose that nucleus represents grammatical category in its typical features.
Classification of grammatical categories.
Grammatical categories differ from each other not only in different languages, but also in the
same language 1. Grammatical categories of words. These categories identify classes of words based on
some common feature. For example, a common meaning and some formal criterion identify all the words
naming substances of the material world (they are nouns), common meaning of and other formal criterion
unite all the words naming processes (they are verbs). Some of these classes have a full set of standard
features, they make nucleus of grammatical categories of the given class of words. So, out of seven or
eight classes of words called parts of speech only four (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) have “typical”
distinctive features in full volume. 2. Grammatical categories of word forms. These categories unite and
identify classes of word-forms by some common semantic criteria known to us as case forms, gender
forms, tense forms, aspect forms, degrees of comparison forms, etc. 3. Grammatical categories of word
positions. These categories unite and identify full-sense words by the same position in the sentence. Thus,
subject, predicate, object adverbial modifier, attribute are those distinctive relations between words in the
sentence. Thus, subject is, first of all, not this or that word, but "position" with. typical relations between
words in the sentence. 4. Grammatical categories of syntactic constructions. These categories unite and
identify various statements by some common features. These features manifest themselves in some
standard syntactic structures, called syntactic patterns, which repeat from statement to statement in the
current of speech. When we speak we choose one structure out of several offered by language system of
some speaking collective at a certain stage of language development. Grammar is a whole complex and
system of grammatical categories inherent in the give language. Morphology includes a set of
grammatical categories of words and word forms inherent in the given language. Syntax is a set of
grammatical categories of word positions and syntactic constructions inherent in the given language.

Grammatical categories in the plane of contents.

Semantic varieties of grammatical categories in English depend on various aspects:
1. The number of internal oppositions. They can be binary, when two meanings are opposed, and
multiple, when more than two meanings are opposed. 2. Extralinguistic reality. In their primary functions
grammatical categories can be divided into three groups: a) contents-based objective categories, which
reflect properties and relation of objects in their meanings. b) contents-based objective-subjective
categories, which reflect properties and relation of objects of the material word but from the speaker’s
point of view. c) non-semantic formal categories. For example gender and number of uncountable nouns.
Many categories combine different functions. For example, the category of number is meaningful with
countable nouns and meaningless with the uncountable ones. 3. Classes of words. Linguists divide all
categories into classifying and word changing.
Lexical and grammatical meanings. Words, we remember, possess independent nominative
function, i.e. denote objects of the material world independently. Grammatical forms have either a
dependent nominative function, or haven’t got any function at all in the way that they are incapable of
pointing out to an object of the material world Grammatical meaning covers the whole class or a
significant part of its words. For example, verb or noun prefixes can express different shades of aspects in
the action So, every English noun is used in a certain form of number. While the addition of lexical
elements (word building) to the word changes its meaning. As far as grammatical meanings “must
accompany” the word, their number is supposed to be limited.Functional-semantic relationship of lexicon
and grammar. Semantic interaction of lexicon and grammar is shown in the fact that grammatical
meanings are coordinated with lexical meanings of words. Thus, in the sentence John and Jill will leave
tomorrow both the verb and the adverb are semantically related due to the common category of futurity.
Functional mutual compensation of lexicon and grammar is based on the fact that lexical means are used
to express grammatical meanings, whereas grammatical means are used instead of word building means.
One can observe the following processes here: a) grammaticalization of lexical elements woman-doctor
b) on the contrary, lexicalization of grammatical forms shop+lift= “shoplifting”. Lexical-grammatical
fields. Grammatical and lexical means, which express common meanings, form lexical-grammatical
(functional, conceptual) fields, whose elements can act as synonyms. Nucleus of every lexical-
grammatical field consists of certain grammatical forms (usually, mood forms). Desemantization and
grammaticalization. It happens that grammaticalization more often takes place with the words, which
acquire abstract meanings, functioning in such verbal phrases as have no doubt.. It is typical of English
to express different grammatical meanings by suppletive forms, as in I am, You are, He is, She was, They
were; in I, you, etc. go – I, you, he, etc. went. This is morphological suppletion (супплетивность).
Grammatical category in the plane of expression.
Any change in grammatical expression is shown in the change of language elements (phonetic or
graphic). If these changes are realized within words, then appropriate grammatical meanings refer to
morphology; if they take place in sentences, meanings refer to syntax. Jack likes to talk to the children
playing in the yard . The problem of word discretion as well as other language units concerns two
aspects: the identity of the unit and its borders. (See А.И. Смирницкий. Лексикология английского
языка. М., 1956, с.6). The first is connected with paradigmatic relations; the second - with syntagmatic
relations there is a phenomenon in English, known as liaison, which partly erases the boundaries between
words. It is usually considered that word corresponds to one concept. E. Benvenist calls such formations
as synapsies (In Latin sunapsis means “connection”, or “to join”). An indivisible (единое) concept can be
expressed even by a word collocation. For example, the nouns watch-maker, forget-me-not seem to be
one word, as the morpheme of the plural number watch-makers, forget-me-nots characterize the whole set
Besides there are nouns in English, which have only one form, as in a reliable means of communication.
It is generally considered that non-separability is a reliable criterion of word borders in the way
that one can’t include extraneous (посторонний) elements inside the word. In English it is impossible to
shuffle the elements of analytical forms as a pack of cards, they follow each other in strict order as in I
would rather, Jack had better go for apples. A positive feature of the general theory of grammatical word,
it seems, is the linguists idea to distinguish non-acualized word in language system and actualized word
in speech. Sometimes grammatical changes (morphemes) spread on the root of the word; as a result there
appears a certain feature called “inner inflection”. In English we have four types of meaningful elements:
а) independent words; b) service (syntactic) words; c) auxiliary words; d) inseparable morphemes.
The problem of analytical forms is considered the most complicated in theoretical grammar.
But the same problem gets less acute if we suppose that between syntax and morphology there
exists a wide zone of various constructions and phrases, which to a greater or lesser extent have
undergone morphologization. pre-morphological

General characteristics of verb.

Verb is a main part of speech. It is characterized by common meaning, grammatical forms and
syntactic features. Scholars define verb as a part of speech, which designates process, i.e. a
dynamic characteristics proceeding in time. However: it is not only the process , but verb also
denotes action, state and an indication that the given object exists, that it refers to a certain
class of objects In grammar verb can have three moods: indicative, which expresses reality, as
in The earth rotates round the sun; subjunctive, which expresses wish, desire, unreality, as in If
wishes were horses, beggars would ride; and imperative, which expresses inducement,
command, request, as in Walk! Right turn! Do come in!
In practical grammars it is taken for granted to define verb as a part of speech, which denotes
process, action or state. L.S. Barchoudarov, however, proves that such a definition should not be
taken as a scientific criterion for distinguishing parts of speech.
From the course of practical grammar we remember that the word-building structure of
English verb: affixation -en (to redden, to strengthen); –fy, -ize (to magnify, to dignify, to
realize, to formalize); b) conversion,work – to work, cry – to cry); a reversion, (to blackmail -
from blackmailing, to seabathe - from sea-bathing.
The most numerous group - standard verbs – build their basic forms by adding dental suffix
[d],saved [seivd ], echoed [ekoud]
The second group - non-standard verbs-build their basic forms by alternating root sounds,
sometimes by adding a dental suffix.
Apart stands a group of verbs, which are called unchangeable, namely to put, to let, to hit, to
cast.
 Syntactic features of the verb:
- ability to be determined by the adverbs:all adverbs are used, including adverbs formed from
adjectives with the help of suffix -1у in any position, as in he walks quickly, to walk quickly, to
be quickly walking, etc.
-ability to be used in the syntactic function of predicate. any predicate is a verb form (or it
includes verb form as its grammatical nucleus), but not every verb form is predicate.
Ch. Fries’s states that any word, word-group or syntactic construction can be used in any
positions in the sentence. Therefore the given syntactic characteristics doesn’t seem to play a
defining role as it is sometimes declared by philologists. There is only one thing that one can say
for sure that it is not necessary to define verb by its functioning as predicate; on the contrary, the
predicate in the sentence is defined by the presence of verb in the finite form.
-the combinability of verb in the form of unmarked infinitive with modal verbs such as can,
may, must
Grammatical categories of the verb.
Te verb in English has the most complex and most advanced system of grammatical
categories.But the trouble is that the study of grammatical categories of English verb is
connected with a number of difficulties.
L.S. Barkhoudarov points at traditional grammar has unreasonably expanded the concept of
analytical or descriptive forms, including here not only constructions with auxiliary verbs be and
have, such as is taken, is taking, has taken, but also combination with modal verbs, as for
example, shall take, will take, should take and even must take, may take, might take and so on.
Let's consider the traditional paradigm of verb conjugation in the present tense of indicative
and imperative moods:
Present indicative Imperative
I play We play
You play You play Play!
He, she, it plays They play
It turns out that from seven English verb forms six have zero morphemes. It is possible to
characterize those basic principles, which, should be taken as a guideline while analyzing the
system of English verb forms:
1) The system of verb forms should be fixed neither on the sample of other languages, nor on
the basis of the logical-philosophical concepts, but on the analysis of formal distinctions, really
existing in the given language, and oppositions, formed by them.;
2) Grammatical forms and verb categories should be described both from the point of view of
external means of their expression, and from the point of view of inherent semantic category
contents.
3) Grammatical forms and categories of verb should be uniform as much as possible, i.e. it is
necessary to carry out the research in such a way as to establish an uniform paradigm of forms
for different subclasses and groups of verbs.
4) Analytical forms determined on the criterion given above should be included in the system
of English verb forms.
5) A necessary pretext for recognizing some forms as homonymous is the existence of formal
distinctions in the parallel forms of other verbs. This theses can be deciphered as follows: (a) if
the forms do not differ in any verbs, we have one morphologically indecipherable form; (b) if
the forms differ in any verbs, we have a number of homonymous forms.
Functional classification of verb.
The functional classification here is understood as a distribution of verbs by their ability to be
used in this or that type of predicate.
a) by semantic and grammatical independence they are divided into service verbs and full
sense verbs;
b) by internal properties of process into limiting and non-limiting, static and dynamic;
c) by a number and character of elements combined with them, i.e. groups of valency. Verb
semantics depends on their environment, they easily pass from one group into another, quite
often in their different meaning and usages, thus start belonging to different groups.
Service verbs differ from full sense ones by desemantization (by the loss, complete or partial,
of its own meaning) and by the inability to represent themselves as separate members of the
sentence. Service verbs can get semi-serviceable function in some certain conditions. Two
functional versions of service verbs differ as:
a) real service verbs, which, together with the full sense verb, form one member of the
sentence. b) auxiliary verbs are a part of morphological form, as in Jack has brought an apple to
Jill. The service verbs are subdivided into auxiliary and linking. Auxiliary verbs participate in
analytical verb forms as purely grammatical components; The second subclass is linking verbs.
Their grammatical function is, in the interpretation of A.I. Smirnitsky, to indicate to the object’s
connection with its attribute. Therefore, link-verbs function as independent syntactic units. They
are also used with “erased” lexical semantics, but the last is in some way reflected in the
semantics of the relation transmitted by them. The verbs to be, to keep designate the
preservation of this attribute, while the verbs to become, to get, to turn indicate to its change.
The modal verbs carry on the relation of agent to action, such as opportunity, obligation, etc.

Aspectual character of verb.

It is a dependent grammatical meaning, that unites verbs by their attitude towards referring
action with some limit. Based on this feature verbs are subdivided into terminative, non-
terminative (durative) and dual aspectual character.
Terminative (limiting) verbs designate such an action, which after achieving some limit can
not proceed: the limit puts a barrier, the action exhausts itself, as in to arrive, to bring, to catch,
to break, to discover; it is impossible to continue to arrive after the arrival has been stopped; it is
impossible to continue to catch after something has been caught and so on.
Non-terminative (durative) verbs do not contain the seme of a limit in the action, denoted by
them; the limit can be thought of as brought from outside, a barrier caused by non-language
reality, but not as proceeding from verb semantics, as in to sleep, to live, to belong, to enjoy.
Between these two groups are numerous group of verbs of dual character being used in this or
that meaning, depending on the context, as in to laugh, to feel, to move, to walk, to look..
In English the category of person and number of verb are expressed rather poorly.
Morphological paradigm here is completely asymmetric: morpheme -s does not transfer
category of number either, as there exists the form designating singular and which has no -s: .
Thus, the –s verb form is isolated paradigmatically. However, if one analyzed its functioning
in the sentence he would see, that it is very precisely opposed to the form of the subject
expressed by noun, as in the train stop-s, the train's stop. In the paradigm of future tense there
exist forms of person: for the first person of both numbers shall, for others - will. The category of
number, hence, even by these rules is absent. But also the category of person is less precisely
expressed, than it is formulated by normative grammar: firstly, there is in colloquial speech the
form -'ll, deprived of attributes of person or number; secondly, alongside with the use of the form
-'ll, the tendency is very strong to use will with pronouns of the first person.
 Continuous aspect category. General characteristics.
Continuous is a tense-aspect form showing an action in its duration. Semantically a certain
action is considered within this category as going on, i.e. in the process of its development
regardless of its beginning or end. There are two sets of forms in the Modern English verb,
which are contrasted with each other on the principle of : writes — is writing; wrote — was
writing; will write — will be writing; has written — has been writing. is writing denotes an
action proceeding continuously at a definite period of time, within certain time limits. writes
denotes an action occurring repeatedly or once, without any notion of lasting duration at a given
moment.
It seems easier to find a name for the type is writing than for the type writes. The term
continuous aspect has now been in use for some time already and indeed it seems very
appropriate to the phenomenon. As to the type writes, by the term common aspect, which is
indefinite enough to give room for various uses. 0. Jespersen treated the type is writing as a
means of expressing limited duration, that is, in his own words, expressing an action serving as
frame to another, which is performed within the frame set by that first action. (0. Jespersen, The
Philosophy of Grammar) A somewhat similar view has been proposed by Prof. N.F. Irtenyeva
who thinks that the basic meaning of the form is writing is that of simultaneity of an action with
another action. Another view is held by Prof. I.P. Ivanova. She recognizes the existence of
continuous aspect in English, but treats it in a peculiar way: is writing is an aspect form, namely
that of continuous aspect, but writes is not an aspect form at all, because its meaning is vague
and cannot be clearly defined. Continuous aspect is marked both in meaning and in form (be +
first participle), whereas common aspect is non-marked both in meaning and in form. H. Sweet
used the term "definite tenses" for what we call continuous aspect. (H. Sweet. A new English
Grammar). This term is not a happy one, as the word tense disguises the fact that we find here a
peculiar grammatical category different from that of tense. Another term, which has been used, is
"expanded form" or "progressive form".
Present continuous category.
Here the action is thought of as non-constant, unlimited in time. It is impossible to use this
form in the statements of eternal truths, for example * Water is boiling at 100o. It is used with
non-limiting verbs: 1) to express an action going on at the present moment, i.e. the moment of
speaking. That means that the action began before the moment of speaking, is now in progress
and will continue for some time. The precise time limits of the action are not known, its
beginning and its end are not specified. The indication of time is not necessary in this case
though occasionally such adverbial modifiers as now and at present are found as in I asked: "Is
anything new happening?" 2) to express an action going on at the present period. In this case the
precise time limits of the action are not known either. 3) to express actions generally
characterizing the person denoted by the subject, bringing out the person's typical traits. 4) to
express actions which will take place in the near future due to one's previous decision. For that
reason the action is regarded as something definitely settled. We usually find an indication of
future time in this case, as in "I am sailing early next month," he said.
However, some stative verbs when they change their meaning can be used in continuous form.
"Are you seeing Clare tonight?" she asked.
Special attention should be paid to the verb to have which in its original meaning to possess
does not admit of continuous form. But with a change of its meaning, the use of continuous form
becomes the rule if it is required by the sense. I know you are having your difficulties. Some
durative verbs, for example, verbs of bodily sensation (to ache, to feel, to hurt, to itch, etc.) and
such verbs as to wear, to look (= to seem), to shine and others can be used either in present
indefinite or in present continuous with little difference in meaning.
Summarizing the grammatical meaning of present continuous aspect, it is possible to say that
it denotes some piece or stage of action in its process or duration, which can be seen as
incompletion, simultaneity, vividness of description and emotion coloring at a given moment in
the present.
Past continuous category.
Past continuous aspect, as well as present continuous, shows the continuation of action, a
stage of action within a certain period of time; but the starting point in this case differs from that
of present continuous aspect.
We remember that past tense is the main means for expressing the change of actions in
narration. Its starting point is not the moment of speech, but the moment in the sphere of past
tense, which linguists call time center of the past . Practical grammar books single out four cases
of past continuous usage: 1) It expresses an action, which was going on at a given moment in
the past. That means that the action began before that definite past moment, was in progress at
that moment and continued for some time after it. The most typical feature of this usage is that
the precise time limit of the action is not known,She was eating an ice-cream cone. 2) Past
continuous aspect is used to express an action going on at a given period of time in the past. In
this case the precise limits of the action are not known either. The indication of the past period of
time is generally understood from the context “What were you doing in Paris?” 3) Past
continuous aspect may be used to express actions generally characterizing the person denoted by
the subject, bringing out the person's typical traits. 4) Past continuous is often found to indicate a
future action viewed from the past. It is an action, which was supposed to lake place in the
nearest future due to one's previous decision. Why didn't you tell me you were starting?

Perfect category.
The place of perfect in the system of aspect-tense forms causes the greatest commotion and
disputes among philologists. Linguists of the past (before structuralism) considered it as a form
of tense (H. Sweet, H. Poutsma, C.T. Onions) Some time later G. Н. Vorontsova, and also B.A.
Ilyish specified an aspectual contents of perfect forms.. So Ilyish has formulated its basic
grammatical meaning as that of “result”. Vorontsova called it the meaning of retrospective
aspect. As a result there came a conclusion from here: perfect can not be called as aspect
category. He developed a very interesting and deep analysis of perfect category and offered to
consider it as the category of tense relativity.
The theory of dichotomy opposition offered by R. Quirk and his co-authors, where two lines
are given: progressive - non-progressive, perfective - non-perfective. A rather cautious position
is held by B.A. Ilyish in the book "The Structure of Modern English". He considers that the term
tense relativity is unsuccessful, as it pulls together the category of perfect with the category of
tense. Instead he offers the term the category of relativity.
Accepting the idea of grammatical forms and their meanings, we refuse to recognize inevitability
of dichotomy opposition. The relation of signs is much more complex, than the relation of non-
sign. The meaning of priority described by A.I. Smirnitsky is undoubtedly present in the forms
of perfect, however, this meaning functions differently in present perfect and past perfect.
Philologists have long since come to the conclusion that not a single aspect form exist outside of
without relation to tense meaning in the English language. Relative connection in time is
obligatory. Any aspect meaning comes to the foreground only in relation to time. Only in this
respect all aspect forms can be considered as the forms of tense relativity.
 Present perfect category.
Present perfect denotes completeness of the action within the sphere of the present. It is
correlated with the moment of speech, Present perfect is an analytical form which is built up by
means of the auxiliary verb have in present indefinite and participle II of the notional verb,
Present perfect deals with the actions within the sphere of present and is not used in narration
where reference is made to past events, Present perfect has three distinct usages. E.M. Gordon
refers them to three different perfects. 1) Present perfect proper. It is used to express a
completed action, which is viewed from the moment of speaking as part of present situation.
Attention in this case is centered on the action itself. It should be especially noted that though the
action expressed in present perfect is regarded as already completed, it belongs to the present
time sphere and is treated as a present action. Present perfect may be found with certain adverbs
of indefinite time and frequency such as just (только что), not...yet, already, before, always,
ever, never, often, seldom, recently, lately, of late, as in I haven't even had coffee yet 2) Present
perfect expresses an action, which began before the moment of speaking and continues into it or
via it. a) It is used compulsory with stative verbs, as in I've known the young lady all her life. b)
With some dynamic verbs of durative meaning present perfect is sometimes used instead of
present perfect continuous with little difference in meaning, for example, It's a pretty room, isn't
it? I've slept in it for fifteen years. 3) Present perfect is found in adverbial clauses of time
introduced by the conjunctions when, before, after, as soon as, till and until where it is used to
express a future action. It shows that the action of the subordinate clause will precede the action
of the principal clause (which is usually expressed by the Future Indefinite). As soon as we have
had some tea, Ann, we shall go to inspect your house. It is important to note, that present perfect
is never used to convey consecutive actions, connected in time, i.e. narrating. Thus, the meaning
of present perfect may be defined as that of completeness of a separate, isolated action in the
sphere of present time.
Past perfect category.
in past it is necessary to have a correlation with the past tense center expressed either by
direct lexical indication or by another verb expressing the main action towards which the action
expressed by past perfect is a detailing feature. The verb expressing the starting point in time is
used in the form of the past (preterit) and is the narrative center of the text.
Past perfect is an analytical form which is built up
Past perfect has three distinct uses:
1) to express an action completed before a given past moment and viewed back from that past
moment. It may be a single point action, an action of some duration or a recurrent action.
We often find this use of past perfect in narration when a string of consecutive actions is
broken up because it becomes necessary to refer back to a previously accomplished action. 2) to
express an action which began before the given past moment and continues into it or up to it.
This grammatical meaning is mainly expressed by the past perfect continuous. a) Its use is
compulsory with stative verbs, as in She began to do all the things that she had wanted to do for
years. It is noteworthy that past perfect is associated with certain time indications:
3) Past perfect is used in adverbial clauses of time introduced by the conjunctions when,
before, after, as soon as and till/until to express a future action viewed from the past. It shows
that the action of the subordinate clause will be completed before the action of the prin cipal
clause, which is usually expressed by the future-in-the-past. This use is structurally dependent as
it is restricted only to the mentioned types of clauses. As has been said above, the past perfect is
usually found in past-time contexts. However, it may also be used in present-time contexts in its
various meanings. - I hadn't thought about it, he said.
 General characteristics of tenses.
Tense as a grammatical category is universally recognized. In the most general way the
category of tense is defined as a feature, which reflects objective time and expresses on this
background the relations between the time of action and the time of utterance.
In English there are the three tenses (past, present and future) represented by the forms wrote,
writes, will write, Some doubts have been expressed about the existence of future tense in
English. 0. Jespersen discussed English has not worked out means and ways expressing "pure
futurity". A different view of tense system in English has been put forward by Prof. N. F.
Irtenyeva. According to this view, the system is divided into two halves: with the center in the
present, and with the center in the past. The former would comprise present, present perfect,
future, present continuous, and present perfect continuous, whereas the latter would include past,
past perfect, future-in-the-past, past continuous, and past perfect continuous.
Many modern scholars agree, however, that English tense-aspect system includes four
paradigmatic classes: indefinite, continuous, perfect, perfect continuous.
Present tense of basic category places the action in the period of present time and is used in
the following cases:1) to express recurrent or permanent actions in the present: Usually he wakes
up around six o'clock and has a cup of coffee. 2) to express general statement or universal truth.
3) to express a succession of point actions occasionally taking place at the time of speaking
They shake hands.. 4) to express a single action going on at the moment of speaking where
normally present continuous is to be used: a) present indefinite becomes obligatory with stative
verbs, as in I quite understand b) present indefinite is also used to express instantaneous actions
not viewed in its progress. You leave me no choice 5) to express future actions: a) the use is
structurally dependent, i.e. compulsory, in subordinate clauses of time, condition and concession
when the action refers to the future. b) its use is lexically dependent in object clauses after to see
(to), to take care, to make (be) sure, as in I'll see that the baby is looked after properly. c) it is
used with reference to the immediate future, as in Where do we go now? d) it is used to indicate a
future action, which is certain to take place according to a time-table, program. 6) it is used in
literary style to describe a succession of actions in the past to make a vivid narrative of past
events. She arrives full of life and spirit. And about a quarter of an hour later she sits down in a

Past tense of basic category.

This tense indicates that the action took place within the interval of time, which did not
include the moment of speech, i.e. in the past is used:
1) to express a single action completed in the past within an indicated period of time Things
came to a crisis in July
2) to express an action, which occupied through a whole period of time before now. I admit I
was wrong.
3) to express a succession of actions in narrations, for example So I went up the stairs. I
bathed.
4) to express recurrent actions. You often mentioned her in your letters.
5) to express permanent actions She had a large, blunt, knobby nose, and her eyes protruded:
they were light blue, staring and slightly puzzled.
6) to express a future action viewed from the past. It occurs in clauses of time, condition and
concession Probably she knew that, whatever happened, he would not give her away.
Past indefinite is the main form of narration; the point is that only this form can transfer
changes of consecutive actions in time.
 Future tense of basic category.
This category is formed analytically, i.e. with the help of auxiliary verbs shall for the first
person and will for others persons.
a) is used to express any action referring to the future: You'll think his ideas absurd. She'll
know the truth soon.
b) is found in the principal clause of a complex sentence with a clause of time, condition and
concession: We shall catch the train if we start now," she insisted.
c) is found in passive constructions, as in My chief will be informed of your request.
d) is used to express a succession of actions in the future. I'll take a walk to the sea and on my
way back I'll buy you a newspaper.
e) is used when the time of the action’s realization is indefinite or when its realization is
remote as in We shall meet again one day.
f) is used to denote actions whose realization is uncertain, doubtful You mustn't cry. Please,
don't, or I shall go to pieces.
g) is found in object clauses after verbs expressing personal views or opinion: He thinks a
scandal will ruin his reputation.
Notice the use of future indefinite in the following stereotyped sentences: You'll excuse me,
Gardner. It'll do you good.
English has special forms to express action viewed from the past: future indefinite-in-the-
past, future continuous-in-the-past, and future perfect-in-the-past.
Rules of the Sequence of Tenses.

General characteristics of basic category. the basic category places action in this or that
period of time, without any additional aspectual characteristics; however, the action’s procedure
is stipulated (обусловлено) by the aspectual character of verb, and also by context.
А.I. Smirnitsky regarded only continuous as the category of aspect (he did not refer perfect to
aspect forms), but in this case an isolated aspect form seems opposed to purely tense form.
Another view was held by Prof. I.P. Ivanova. She recognized the existence of aspect category in
English, but treated it in a peculiar way. According to Ivanova, is writing is an aspect form,
namely that of the continuous aspect, but writes is not an aspect form at all, because its meaning
is vague and cannot be clearly defined. So the author comes to the conclusion that some finite
forms of English verb have the category of aspect, while others have no aspect and are therefore
purely tense form.
 General characteristics of mood.
The category of mood in English has given rise to so many disputes, and has been treated in
so many different ways, that it seems hardly possible to arrive at any more or less convincing
and universally acceptable conclusion. Indeed, the only points in the sphere of mood, which have
not so far been disputed seem to be the following: (a) there is a category of mood in English
verb, (b) there are at least two moods, one of which is indicative. As to the number of other
moods, their meanings and their names the opinions are as far apart today as they were in the
past. Academician V.V. Vinogradov defined mood as a grammatical category expressing the
relation of the action to reality as stated by the speaker. This definition seems objective on the
whole, though the words relation of the action to reality are of disputable nature. Besides there
are other means of expressing reality or possibility of the action, for example, by modal verbs
(may, can, must, etc.), and modal words (perhaps, probably, etc.).
Indicative mood expresses the action considered by the speaker as a real fact. As a result
there appears necessity of correlating it with this or that tense form as there is not a single action,
which can take place outside of time relation. The verb forms of indicative mood are those of
tense-aspect forms of the basic category. 1) The role of the speaker who represents the action as
real is most essential.When the speaker uses indicative mood form in the sentence he represents
the action as a fact, but he may be mistaken or telling a deliberate lie. 2) The “reality” meaning
of indicative mood may be doubted when it is used in conditional clauses, such as the following:
I will speak to him if I meet him it is no more certain than any action expressed by the form of the
future tense.

Imperative mood.
Imperative mood expresses volition directed at the interlocutor. The form of the verb in
imperative mood coincides with that of infinitive and present tense of basic category, except for
the 3-rd person singular, as in Stop talking! Be quiet! Imperative mood has grammatical features
and characteristics, which cannot be found in any other moods: it is characterized negatively, i.e.
it has no person, number, tense, or aspect distinctions, and it is limited in its use to imperative
sentences only If we accept the definition of imperative mood as the speaker’s intention to
represent the action as a request, demand or command there would seem to be no ground to
deny that the imperative forms constitute a rightful mood.
A serious difficulty connected with imperative mood is the absence of any specific
morphological characteristics: with all verbs, including the verb be, it coincides with the
infinitive, and in all verbs, except be, it also coincides with present indefinite apart from the 3rd
person singular. Even the absence of the pronoun you, which would be its syntactic
characteristics, is not a reliable feature at all, as sentences like You sit here! occur often enough.
There seems to be only one case of what might be called the perfect imperative, namely, the
form Have done! of the verb do. It has to a great extent been lexicalized and it now means, 'Stop
immediately'. This is quite an isolated case, and of course there is no perfect imperative in the
English verb system as a whole.Imperative mood functioning is not limited by the facts
described above. Imperative mood form inducing some other person (but the interlocutor) to
action, is built syntactically with the help of the verb let, as in Let us begin! Let her try again!
Let’s not talk about it! Don’t let’s talk about it! The verb let in this case occupies an unstressed
position with completely rubbed off semantics.
Subjunctive mood.
Subjunctive mood represents a rather mixed set of forms and causes therefore serious
disagreements in its treatment. This set of forms includes: 1) the forms borrowed from the
paradigm of synthetic forms, for example, be as in If it be true ...; 2) the form were functioning
without stylistic restrictions, as in If I were you, 1 should do it; 3) the form coinciding with that
of present tense (basic category) without -s in the third person, as in I suggest that he go.
H. Sweet allocates the mood, which expresses unreality and names it "thought-mood". He
divides it into sub-types depending on the means of expression – synthetic forms or analytical
forms. The sub-type, expressed by analytical forms with the auxiliary verbs should and would, is
called conditional mood; the combinations with may and might is called permissive mood.
Further, the authors approached the problem of subjunctive mood differently, however in most
cases one can observe an attempt to split subjunctive mood into sub-types, basically depending
on meaning (see: H. Poutsma, G. O. Curme). A.I. Smirnitsky distinguishes a) subjunctive I (if he
be; I suggest that he go), including the statements not contradicting reality; b) subjunctive II, on
the contrary, means the statements contradicting reality (if it were, if he had known); c)
suppositional, formed by a combination of should+infinitive with any subject (should you meet
him); d) conditional mood having analytical forms with should and would, functioning in the
main clause of conditional sentences (What would you answer if you were asked...). This is
mostly a semantic classification.
I.B. Khlebnikova distinguishes conditional mood (conditional - should go, would go),
subjunctive, including synthetic form (be, were, if I knew) and variants of subjunctive mood,
which do not form any system. L.S. Barkhudarov denies the existence of subjunctive mood in
English on the ground that the forms with should and would are not universally recognized as
analytical because the second component of these forms, infinitive, may be used in free
collocations too. Subjunctive mood is interpreted by B.A. Ilyish 1) One and the same form
expresses different meanings; 2) One and the same meaning is transferred by different forms. As
to the problem of choosing between identity of the form and difference of meaning, B.A. Ilyish
considers that any shift of grammatical meaning should be viewed as a special use of
grammatical form in some certain environment, With the Inclusion of inducement (i.e.
imperative), he singles out four major meanings: inducement, possibility, unreal condition and
consequence of unreal condition. If we reject imperative as an independent mood and past
indefinite and past perfect forms as occasional cases in the system of subjunctive mood, then
there remain three clearly cut sets of forms: 1) unchangeable form come, be, were i.e. synthetic
ways of unreal action expression, as in If I were you 2) should for all persons, as in There is no
reason that I know why he should hunt me. (M. Stewart); 3) should for first and would for two
other persons: If we changed it drastically at a single stroke, it would alter the place overnight.
All subjunctive mood forms, as is seen from above-stated, sound homonymous with the forms
of indicative mood or with compound predicate including the modal verb should. Thus there is a
question on differentiation of homonimy and grammatical alternativeness of forms.
If you take the point of view treating the forms if he lived. if I knew as homonyms to past
indefinite, but not as proper subjunctive mood forms then we should recognize the form start in
the sentence I start to-morrow as the form of the future time. It will mean a complete neglect of
formal criteria and a recognition of semantics as the guiding principle On the other hand, it
seems logically correct to analyze should and would in subjunctive mood as homonyms of
modal verbs on the ground that they express a completely identical (unrealized) action I should
value it if you would keep me in touch (subjunctive).
Another important argument for the benefit of considering should and would as subjunctive
mood auxiliary forms (instead of modal verbs) is also that both these verbs can be reduced in
subjunctive mood to auxiliary verbs, as they are used in an unstressed position, whereas modal
verbs carrying on some lexical semantics, thus are not reduced. Compare:
I should have acted differently if I had known you were on the way (Subjunctive).
 The Other Moods
the absence of a straightforward mutual relation between meaning and form. The first of these two
points may be illustrated by the sequence we should come, The second of the two points maу be
illustrated by comparing the two sentences, I suggest that he go and I suggest that he should go, and we
will for the present neglect the fact that the first of the-two variants is more typical of American, and the
second of British English. A satisfactory solution may be found by combining the two approaches (that
based on meaning and that based on form) in some way. Matters are still further complicated by two
phenomena: the choice between polysemy and homonymy. One of these concerns forms like lived, knew,
etc. Such forms appear in two types of contexts, of which one may be exemplified by the sentences, He
lived here five years ago, or I knew it all along, and the other by the sentences, // he lived here he would
come at once, or, // I knew his address I should write to him. In sentences of the first type the form
obviously is the past tense of the indicative mood. The second type admits of two interpretations: either
the forms lived, knew, etc. are the same forms of the past indicative that were used in the first type, but
they have acquired another meaning in this particular context, or else the forms lived, knew, etc. are forms
of some other mood, which only happen to be homonymous with forms of the past indicative but are
basically different. The problem of ’polysemy or homonymy with reference to such forms as knew, lived,
or should come, would come, and the like is a very hard one to solve.
There is another peculiar complication in the analysis of mood. The question is, what verbs are
auxiliaries of mood in Modern English? The verbs should and would are auxiliaries expressing unreality
(whatever system of moods we may adopt after all). But the question is less clear with the verb may when
used in such sentences as Come closer that I may hear what you say May you be happy! Last of all, a
question arises concerning the forms traditionally named the imperative mood, i.e. forms like come in the
sentence Come here, please! or do not be in the sentence Do not be angry with him, please! The usual
view that they are mood forms has recently been attacked on the ground that their use in sentences is
rather different from that of other mood forms.
Polysemy or Homonymy of Moods
Some basic principle should be chosen here to consider the facts. Either we shall accept
homonymy or we shall avoid homonymy. Let us now assume that we shall avoid homonymy as
far as possible and try to keep the unity of form in its various uses. The first question to be
considered here is that about forms of the type lived and knew. We might also take the view that
wherever difference in meaning is found we have to deal with homonyms. In that case we
should say that there are two homonymous lived forms: lived is the past indicative of the verb
live, and lived is its present subjunctive A similar problem concerns the groups "should +
infinitive" and "would + infinitive". With this group the problem is further complicated by the
fact that both "should + intinitive" and "would + infinitive" have other meanings, besides
temporal and modal ones As a third pattern, it would be necessary to give the sentences in which
there is no subordinate clause, e. g. I should be very glad to see him. Here, however, the
distinction between the temporal and the modal meaning is a matter of extreme subtlety and no
doubt many lexical peculiarities would have to be taken into account. Especially in the so-called
represented speech the conditions for the one and the other meaning to be realized are very
intricate.
If we endorse the other view, that is, if we take the temporal and the modal groups "should
(would) + infinitive" to be homonyms, the patterns themselves will not change. The change will
affect the headings. We shall have to say, in that case, that the patterns serve to distinguish
between two basically different forms sounding alike. Again, just as in the case of lived and
knew, this will be a matter of interpreting facts, rather than of the facts as such.
 Mood and Tense
We have already discussed some relations between mood and tense in dealing with such
forms as lived, knew, and such forms as should come, would come. There are, however, some
other problems in this field, which we have not so far touched upon. First of all, there is the use
of the future tense to denote an action referring to the present and considered as probable
In a similar way the future perfect can be used to denote an action, which is thought of as
finished by the time of speaking and represented as probable. This is seen in such sentences as
the following: ...You'll not have spoken to her mother yet?, which is equivalent to Probably you
have not spoken to her mother yet? Interdependence between mood and tense which has a much
wider meaning may be found if we analyze the system of tenses together with that of moods. The
cause of this is evident enough: it is the indicative mood, which is used to represent real actions,
and these are such actions which are described by exact temporal characteristics. Things are
quite clear in the sphere of the imperative. Since its basic meaning is an appeal to the listener to
perform an action it is obviously incompatible with the past tense. A difference might exist
between present and future, in the sense that the speaker might appeal to the listener to perform
the action either immediately or at some future time. However, no such difference is found in the
imperative forms either in English or in most other languages.
If we take the view that knew is the past indicative which in this context is used to express an
unreal action in the present, and would come the future-in-the-past, which in this context is used
to express an unreal consequence in the present, there is nothing more to be said about the tense
or any other category appearing in this type of sentence.
General characteristics.
In so far as the verbals (infinitive, gerund, and participle) make up a part of English verb
system, they have some features in common with finite forms, and as they are singled out amid
the verb forms, they must have some peculiarities of their own.
Non-finite forms infinitive, participle II, participle I and gerund, are capable of carrying out
all syntactic functions, except the function of simple predicate. In this respect they stand close to
nominal parts of speech, i.e. they fulfill the same functions in the sentence; though, infinitive
differs a little from other non-finite forms in this aspect.
Combinability of non-finite forms is similar to that of the verb, except for participle II, all
these forms can combine with direct object and all of them are defined by adverb, all these forms
have aspect paradigm, except for participle II. They have no category of person and number;
category of tense or mood as they are unable to place the action in this or that space of real time,
they can only correlate the action denoted by them with the action of the verb-predicate by way
of simultaneity or priority. Therefore we can say for sure that non-finite forms express only
relative time. All these forms have appeared in English as nominal forms; and only gradually in
the course of the language development they have grown into the system of verb and got verbal
categories of aspect, voice and also verbal combinability.
As to the existing oppositions of non-finite forms they may be considered as building certain
grammatical categories peculiar only of them. The opposition of the whole set of finite forms to
the whole set of non-finite forms can be considered as a specific grammatical category called the
category of finitude (this term was offered by B. Strang in her work “Modern English Structure”.
London, 1962). The differential sign distinguishing finite forms from non-finite forms is the
feature of predicativity; therefore the basis for allocating the grammatical category of finitude is
the opposition of finite and non-finite forms based on the feature predicativity – non-
predicativity. It is essential to emphasize, that predicativity in the system of finite forms is
expressed morphologically, i.e. by morphemes of tense and person/number/mood, which are the
parameters of predicativity in English, while "non-predicativity" of non-finite forms is expressed
only negatively - by the absence of appropriate morphemes. It gives us the right to consider a set
of finite forms as marked and intensive, while a set of non-finite forms as unmarked and
extensive members of the given opposition.
 Category of voice. It is based on the opposition active – passive forms:
Active voice forms are unmarked, i.e. characterized by a zero parameter. Passive voice forms
are marked, analytical, i.e. characterized by the presence of a discontinuous morpheme {be+en}.
The opposition of active - passive voice is peculiar not to all the verbs. There are verbs, which
are not used in the form of passive voice, for example be, seem. Semantically the active voice
form shows that the subject (person or thing or any other phenomenon) is the doer of the action,
while the passive voice form shows that the subject (person, thing or other phenomenon) is the
object of the action. Such a statement appears basically correct in relation to passive voice forms.
The source here, the subject (субъект) of the action in passive constructions, can be always
expressed by the object with preposition by, which is equal to the subject of the initial active
construction,. However, if we analyze such constructions as The door opened, The concert
began– the subject in such sentences, certainly, does not denote the doer of the action.
(1) In the sentences John opened the door. the subject denotes the doer, and the object
denotes the bearer of the action; (2) In the sentences The concert began. The book sells well .The
door opened. The book reads like a detective story, etc. the subject points to the thing, towards
which the action has developed and within the limits of which it proceeds. The typical feature of
this meaning is the absence and impossibility of object, used with the verb middle voice. (3) In
the sentences John dressed. He washed and shaved. The action proceeds from the person (thing)
and it comes back to the same person (thing) reflexive. (4) In the sentences They kissed. John
and Bill met in the street the subject denotes simultaneously both the doer, and the bearer of the
action. reciprocal. So, the active - passive forms opposition is based on the action’s non-
directness; the unmarked form of active voice is used much more often, than the marked form of
passive voice.

Category of tense relativity (correlation). The category of tense relativity is built by means
of opposing non-perfect to perfect forms:
The category form of non-perfect relativity is not marked. The category form of perfect relativity
is marked, analytical, characterized by the presence of non-continuous morpheme {have + -en}.
Or else, the meaning of the perfect form as such can be characterized as 1) priority; 2) relativity.
And the use of perfect form is possible only if both of these semes are present simultaneously.
So, in the sentence He entered the room and opened the He had finished his meal and Sally was
clearing away 1) The moment of time, to which the action in perfect form is seen as preceding,
comes to light from the context. By 6 o'clock he had already finished his work 2) The features
particularizing relativity of perfect form action with the following moment of time is specified
only in the context. He'd always been so spruce and smart; he was shabby and unwashed and
wild-eyed (S. Maugham). As to the form of non-perfect relativity it can be said extensive by its
semantic contents; action expressed by this form, is seen going on as if by itself, not correlated
with any other action or moment of time.
So, the opposition of perfect – non-perfect forms is based on the feature of relativity of action:
perfect form (marked, intensive) expresses priority and relativity of action with some moment of
time, while non-perfect (unlabelled, extensive) form expresses absence of priority (non-priority)
and does not relate actions with any moment of time. In conclusion it is necessary to say some
words about the distribution of morphemes within the limits of one verbal form of passive voice,
continuous aspect and perfect category. When two or three morphemes are united in one word
form there exist the following order of their distribution: perfect morpheme positionally precedes
continuous morpheme, and this in turn precedes passive voice morpheme, as in has been writing
(*is having written. Similarly while building passive voice perfect form first comes the
morpheme of voice {be +-en}, and then be gets perfect morpheme: has been written (*is had
written)..
 Infinitive
Infinitive is the most abstract verb form in the basic category of active voice; it only names
the action. The infinitive, as well as other verbals, can be realized in the forms of aspect and
voice. There are four forms of infinitive in active voice and only two for basic category and
perfect. Infinitive particle to is a formal marker of infinitive distinguishing it from homonymous
finite forms, The infinitive can have syntactic functions of a) subject, b) nominal part of
compound nominal predicate, c) object, d) attribute, e) adverbial modifier.
The infinitive of the basic category expresses a simultaneity of the action with the action of
verb - predicate; depending on the context it can denote the action, which is to take place in the
future in relation to the action of predicate: Перфект expresses the action having taken place
before the action of the verb - predicate: Fulfilling the function of subject, infinitive denotes the
most generalized meaning, which has not been correlated with any person or thing, However,
being in the structure of object, infinitive is correlated with the semantic person or thing
designated object, as in I’m telling you not to worry. (Snow) Especially clearly this correlation is
traced in complex object structure.

Participle II.
When the second participle makes part of an analytical form, it loses some of its own
characteristics, Again, in analyzing the meaning and the functions of the second participle, we
must exclude the cases where it has been adjectivized. The use of the second participle outside
the analytical formations is comparatively limited. We find it either as a predicative in such cases
as The door is shut, or as an objective predicative, e. g. He found the door shut, or as an attribute.
Let us first consider the problems of aspect, tense, and correlation with reference to this
participle. such forms as been, laughed, run, sat, lain, wept, etc. can only appear within a perfect
form and do not exist as separate participles. A few second participles of intransitive verbs can,
however, be used as attributes, e. g. retired in expressions like a retired colonel, or a retired
teacher. Things are different with transitive verbs. Here, though the use of the second participle
as an attribute is limited, there can be no doubt that it exists as a separate form of the verb and
not merely as a component of the analytical perfect or passive. It is only necessary to mention
the few special cases in which the second participle has no passive meaning in the usual sense, e.
g. a well-read man 'one who has read much', not 'one who has been read or he was drunk, and a
few more. As to aspect, tense, and correlation, the problem appears to be this: Which of these
categories find expression in the form of the second participle itself: (1) a young man liked by
everybody, (2) a young man killed in the war.. The only category which is expressed in it is that
of voice (namely, the passive voice); the other categories, namely, aspect, tense, and correlation
(and, of course, mood, person, and number) find no expression in it. Owing to these peculiarities,
the second participle occupies a unique position in the verbal system. In all other passive forms,
whether finite or non-finite, the category of the passive voice is expressed by the group "be +
second participle", whereas the second participle itself, of course, goes without the verb be. We
have to choose between accepting this state of things and excluding the second participle from
the passive system (that is, if we insist that «very passive form must contain the verb be)
 The ing-forms.
So far we have spoken of the ing-forms as of two different sets of homonymous forms: the
gerund (with its distinctions of correlation and voice) and the participle (with its distinctions of
correlation and voice). As there is no external difference between the two sets (they are complete
homonyms), the question may arise whether there is reason enough to say that there are two
different sets of forms. Such a view (though without detailed argumentation) was indeed put
forward by the Dutch scholar E. Kruisinga.. The difference between the gerund and the participle
is basically this. The gerund, along with its verbal qualities, has substantival qualities as well; the
participle, along with its verbal qualities, has adjectival qualities. This of course brings about a
corresponding difference in their syntactical functions: the gerund may be the subject or the
object in a sentence, and only rarely an attribute, whereas the participle is an attribute. We should
also bear in mind that in certain syntactical contexts the difference tends to be obliterated. Do
you mind my smoking? (where smoking is a gerund) we substitute me for my, in the resulting
sentence Do you mind me smoking? Note: The notion of neutralization was first introduced by N.
Trubetzkoy in his book on essentials of phonology. An opposition existing between two
phonemes may under certain circumstances (which are to be strictly defined in each case)
disappear, that is, it may lose its validity and become irrelevant. Trubetzkoy says, accordingly,
that the opposition between [tj and [d] is neutralized in those conditions. To put it more exactly,
whereas in the word том the relevant features of the initial phoneme are three, namely, it is (a) a
forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, and (c) voiceless, and the initial consonant of дом also has
three relevant features, namely, it is (a) a forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, (c) voiced, the final
consonant in рот or род has only two relevant features: it is (a) a forelingual consonant, and (b) a
stop. No third relevant feature is found here.

General characteristics of phrases.

Minimal phrase is a two-word structure, maximal phrase can be theoretically unlimited there
hasn’t been coined a suitable definition of this syntactic unit; Word collocation frequently
receives negative definition, the absence of communicative orientation (направленность) Ф. Ф.
Фортунатов, A. A. Шахматов and A. M. Пешковский defined word collocation as any
syntactically organized group of words irrespective of its structure and syntactic relations
between components L. Bloomfild According to his theory phrases in any language break up into
two basic groups: 1) endocentric and 2) exocentric. The former include all those phrases, in
which any of components can function in a greater poor John In exocentric phrases a component
can not replace John ra. divides all endocentric structures into two types: subordinate phrases,
as in poor John and coordinate Tom and Mary. exocentric structures into predicative phrases, as
in John ran away and prepositional, as in beside John. Sub-categorization of endocentric
phrases offered by Ch. Hocket. 1 type - nucleus in postposition - new books 2 types - nucleus in
preposition - experiment perilous 3 types - nucleus in the center of structure - as good as that 4
types - nucleus frames up structure - did not go. Parataxic, for example, Yes, please. hypotaxis,
i.e. dependences.
Despite divergent views concerning the essence and nature of phrase, the most convincing is
the point of view, according to which a syntactic unit called phrase, is any syntactically
organized group of words consisting either of notional words, such as to disregard the remark,
busy life, very new, or service words and notional words grouped together, such as on the beach,
under the net, in the corner, connected by any of existing types of syntactic relations.
 Phrase meaning.
The semantics of phrases is not a simple sum of meanings of words included in it, but it
represents a complex totality. For example, the noun table.
Attributive phrases are most indicative in this respect. They are usually formed of two nouns,
where the meaning of the whole combination depends not only on the semantics of combining
elements, but also on their distribution towards each other. a dog house and a house dog. These
phrases (identical in structure, but differing in distribution) influence the mutual distributions of
elements to such an extent that the sense of the whole unit becomes obviously different. The
relation between the headword and its modifier in noun groups can be rather divergent. a fruit
salad designates food prepared from fruit, whereas in the phrase a fruit knife the relation between
the components is different. This is a knife intended for cleaning and cutting fruit. Of great
interest is the comparison of two attributive noun groups: horse shoes (подкова) and alligator
shoes as 'footwear made of a crocodile skin'. In the phrase “adjective + noun", the meaning of
an adjective is exposed to modifications depending on what noun it combines with. white in
white hair ('an old man with white hair'); a white lie ('a harmless lie'); white meat ('pork, veal,
poultry').

Structural completeness of phrases.

The structural completeness of a linear construction has been achieved in two ways: by
substitution and representation. a black dog and two gray ones;. However despite one, which
replaces only the noun without its attributes, the pronoun of the 3d person replaces the noun
together with its attributes, as in Rudolph's wife sat on a bench in the park; She.. Full-sense verbs
are usually substituted by do, as in She sleeps more than I do;
Representation differs from substitution by the fact that a new element is not entered into the
structure. To represent the whole phrase only its part is used, as in I could not help them though I
tried to.
The difference between a phrase and a sentence is a fundamental one. A phrase is a means of
naming some phenomena or processes, just as a word is. Each component of a phrase can
undergo grammatical changes in accordance with grammatical categories represented in it,
without destroying the identity of the phrase. With a sentence, things are entirely different. A
sentence is a unit with every word having its definite form. A change in the form of one or more
words would produce a new sentence. For instance, from the grammatical point of view the
phrases read letters and invite friends are identical, since they are built on the same pattern verb
+ noun indicating the object of the action. From the lexicological point of view, on the other
hand,, they are essentially different, as the verbs belong to totally different semantic spheres, and
the nouns too;
 Types of Phrases
The type noun + noun” is a most usual type of phrase in Modern English. The type noun in
the common case + noun such as speech sound, silver watch. The first component may also be a
proper name London Bridge. The type noun in the genitive case + noun has a more restricted
meaning, while a very common type adjective + noun is used to express all possible kinds of
things with their properties. The type verb + noun may correspond to two different types of
relation between an action and a thing. the noun denotes a measure walk a mile etc. It is only the
meaning of the verb and that of the noun, which enable the hearer or reader to understand the
relation correctly. An important question arises concerning the pattern "noun + verb. If we take
the combination noun + verb as a sentence, which is sometimes possible, we are analyzing it on
a different level, namely, on sentence level, Thus, the groups, a man writes, men write, a man
wrote, men are writing, men have written, a man would have been writing, etc., are all variants
of the same phrase, just as man and men are forms of the same noun, while writes, wrote, has
written, etc. are forms of the same verb. It is also important to note that a phrase as such has no
intonation of its own. Besides phrase patterns consisting of two notional words with or without a
preposition between them, there are also phrases consisting of a preposition and another word,
mainly a noun. Thus, such groups as in the street, at the station, at noon, after midnight, in time,
by heart, etc. are prepositional phrases performing some function or other in a sentence. Some of
these phrases are phraseological units (e.g. in time, by heart).

Syntactic Relations
They fall under two main groups: (1) agreement (concord), (2) government. By agreement we
mean a method of expressing a syntactical relationship, which consists in making the subordinate
word take the form similar to that of the word to which it is subordinate. the pronouns this and
that, which agree in number with their headword. As to the agreement of verb with noun or
pronoun denoting the subject (the child plays, the children play), this is a controversial problem.
Usually it is treated as agreement of the predicate with the subject, that is, as a phenomenon of
sentence structure. The verb-predicate does not always follow the noun-subject in the category of
number. Such examples as My family are early risers and The United Nations is an
international organization prove that the verb can be independent of the noun in this respect. the
verb shows whether the subject of the action is to be thought of as singular or plural, no matter
what the category of number in the noun may be. A. Meillet (Introduction a I'etude comparative
des langues indoeuropeennes, 1924), and A. Peshkovsky (see A. M. Пешковский, Русский син-
таксис в научном освещении, изд. 7-е, 1956). By government in phrases scholars understand
the use of a certain form of the subordinate word required by its head word, not coinciding with
the form of the head word itself. That is where the difference between agreement and
government lies. The role of government in Modern English is almost as insignificant as that of
agreement. The only thing that may be termed government in Modern English is the use of the
objective case of personal pronouns and of the pronoun who when they are subordinate to the
verb or follow the preposition. Thus, for instance, the forms me, him, her, us, them, are required
if the pronoun follows the verb (e. g. find or invite) or any preposition whatever.
 Other Ways
In the Russian linguistic theory, there is a third way of expressing syntactical relations
between components of a phrase, which is termed примыкание, No exact definition of this
notion is given in English: its characteristic feature is usually described in a negative way, as
absence both of agreement and of government. An adverb is subordinate to its headword, but
without either agreeing with or being governed. For instance, if we take such a simple case as
lashes of rain striped the great windows almost horizontally and inquire what it is that shows the
adverb horizontally to be subordinate to the verb striped, we shall have to conclude that this is
achieved by a certain combination of factors. Here a lexicological factor intervenes: adverb must
be semantically compatible with its headword.
It may called "enclosure" (Russian замыкание) and its essence is this. Some element of a
phrase is enclosed between two parts. The most widely known case of "enclosure" is putting a
word between an article and the noun to which article belongs. A phrase may also be modified
by a pronoun It is quite evident that the whole phrase three or four months is here modified by
the pronoun every. The phrase "noun + after + the same noun" may be a syntactic unit
introduced as a whole by a preposition, Sometimes a phrase of the pattern "adverb + preposition
+ noun" may be introduced by another preposition. Compare this sentence from Prof. D. Jones's:
For help in the preparation of this new edition I am particularly indebted to Mr P. A. D.
MacCarthy, who supplied me with upwards of 500 notes and suggestions. The phrase upwards of
500 notes and suggestions means the same as more than 500 notes and suggestions, and this may
explain its use after the preposition with (upwards of).

Phrases equivalent to prepositions and conjunctions.

Under this heading we will treat such formations as apart from, with reference to, as soon as,
so long as, etc., which quite obviously are phrases rather than words, and which quite definitely
perform the same function in a sentence as prepositions and conjunctions respectively.
We will stick to the principle that a phrase (as different from a word) cannot be a part of
speech and that phrases should be studied in Syntax. An obstacle to this treatment was the view
that a phrase must include at least two notional words. Among phrases equivalent to prepositions
we note the pattern "adverb + preposition", represented, .for instance, by out of, apart from,
Another pattern of prepositional phrases is "preposition + noun + preposition", e. g. in front of,
on behalf of, with reference to. Other types of phrases ought to be carefully studied in a similar
way, for example the phrase of course, which is the equivalent of a modal word, etc.
There are several patterns of conjunctional phrases. One of them is "adverb + adverb +
conjunction" (as soon as, as long as, so long as). There is also the pattern "preposition -I- noun +
conjunction", as in the phrase in order that, which is used to introduce adverbial clauses of
purpose. In passing now from a study of phrases to that of the sentence we are, it should be
remembered, proceeding to a different level of language structure. Notions referring to the
phrase level should be carefully kept apart from those referring to the sentence and its. members.