стр. 2
(всего 3)



Я буду рассказывать тебе интересные истории. Расскажу о страшных кометах, о битве воздушных кораблей, о гибели прекрасной страны по ту сторону гор. Тебе не будет скучно любить меня (А. Толстой). Немедленно на берег. Найдешь генерала Иолшина, скажешь: путь свободен. Пусть строит дорогу для артиллерии (Б. Васильев).
The future forms of the verbs in the first of the above Russian examples clearly express promise (i. e. a future action conveyed as a promise); those in the second example render a command.
Moreover, in the system of the Russian tenses there is a specialised modal form of analytical future expressing intention (the combination of the verb стать with the imperfective infinitive). E. g.: Что же вы теперь хотите делать? - Тебя это не касается, что я стану делать. Я план обдумываю. (А. Толстой).
Within the framework of the universal meaningful features of the verbal future, the future of the English verb is highly specific in so far as its auxiliaries in their very immediate etymology are words of obligation and volition, and the survival of the respective connotations in them is backed by the inherent quality of the future as such. Still, on the whole, the English categorial future differs distinctly from the modal constructions with the same predicator verbs.
§ 6. In the clear-cut modal uses of the verbs shall and will the idea of the future either is not expressed at all, or else is only rendered by way of textual connotation, the central semantic accent being laid on the expression of obligation, necessity, inevitability, promise, intention, desire. These meanings may be easily seen both on the examples of ready phraseological citation, and genuine everyday conversation exchanges. Cf.:
He who does not work neither shall he eat (phraseological citation). "I want a nice hot curry, do you hear?" - "All right, Mr. Crackenthorpe, you shall have it" (everyday speech). None are so deaf as those who will not hear (phraseological citation). Nobody's allowed to touch a thing - I won't have a woman near the place (everyday speech).
The modal nature of the shall/will + Infinitive 146

combinations in the cited examples can be shown by means of equivalent substitutions:
... > He who does not work must not eat, either. ... > All right, Mr. Crackenthorpe, I promise to have it cooked. ... > None are so deaf as those who do not want to hear. ... > I intend not to allow a woman to come near the
Accounting for the modal meanings of the combinations under analysis, traditional grammar gives the following rules: shall + Infinitive with the first person, will + Infinitive with the second and third persons express pure future; the reverse combinations express modal meanings, the most typical of which are intention or desire for I will and promise or command on the part of the speaker for you shall, he shall. Both rules apply to refined British English. In American English will is described as expressing pure future with all the persons, shall as expressing modality.
However, the cited description, though distinguished by elegant simplicity, cannot be taken as fully agreeing with the existing lingual practice. The main feature of this description contradicted by practice is the British use of will with the first person without distinctly pronounced modal connotations (making due allowance for the general connection of the future tense with modality, of which we have spoken before). Cf.:
I will call for you and your young man at seven o'clock (J. Galsworthy). When we wake I will take him up and carry him back (R. Kipling). I will let you know on Wednesday what expenses have been necessary (A. Christie). If you wait there on Thursday evening between seven and eight I will come if I can (H. С Merriman).
That the combinations of will with the infinitive in the above examples do express the future time, admits of no dispute. Furthermore, these combinations, seemingly, are charged with modal connotations in no higher degree than the corresponding combinations of shall with the infinitive. Cf.:
Haven't time; I shall miss my train (A. Bennett). I shall be happy to carry it to the House of Lords, if necessary (J. Galsworthy). You never know what may happen. I shan't have a minute's peace (M. Dickens).

Granted our semantic intuitions about the exemplified
uses are true, the question then arises: what is the real difference, if any, between the two British first person expressions of the future, one with shall, the other one with will? Or are they actually just semantic doublets, i.e. units of complete synonymy, bound by the paradigmatic relation of free alternation?
A solution to this problem is to be found on the basis of syntactic distributional and transformational analysis backed by a consideration of the original meanings of both auxiliaries.
§ 7. Observing combinations with will in stylistically neutral collocations, as the first step of our study we note the adverbials of time used with this construction. The environmental expressions, as well as implications, of future time do testify that from this point of view there is no difference between will and shall, both of them equally conveying the idea of the future action expressed by the adjoining infinitive.
As our next step of inferences, noting the types of the infinitive-environmental semantics of will in contrast to the contextual background of shall, we state that the first person will-future expresses an action which is to be performed by the speaker for choice, of his own accord. But this meaning of free option does not at all imply that the speaker actually wishes to perform the action, or else that he is determined to perform it, possibly in defiance of some contrary force. The exposition of the action shows it as being not bound by any extraneous circumstances or by any special influence except the speaker's option; this is its exhaustive characteristic. In keeping with this, the form of the will-future in question may be tentatively called the "voluntary future".
On the other hand, comparing the environmental characteristics of shall with the corresponding environmental background of will, it is easy to see that, as different from will, the first person shall expresses a future process that will be realised without the will of the speaker, irrespective of his choice. In accord with the exposed meaning, the shall-form of the first person future should be referred to as the "non-voluntary", i.e. as the weak member of the corresponding opposition.
Further observations of the relevant textual data show that some verbs constituting a typical environment of the

non-voluntary shall-future (i.e. verbs inherently alien to the expression of voluntary actions) occur also with the voluntary will, but in a different meaning, namely, in the meaning of an active action the performance of which is freely chosen by the speaker. Cf.: Your arrival cannot have been announced to his Majesty. I will see about it (B. Shaw).
In the given example the verb see has the active meaning of ensuring something, of intentionally arranging matters connected with something, etc.
Likewise, a number of verbs of the voluntary will-environmental features (i.e. verbs presupposing the actor's free will in performing the action) combine also with the non-voluntary shall, but in the meaning of an action that will take place irrespective of the will of the speaker. Cf.: I'm very sorry, madam, but I'm going to faint. I shall go off, madam, if I don't have something (K. Mansfield).
Thus, the would-be same verbs are in fact either homonyms, or else lexico-semantic variants of the corresponding lexemes of the maximally differing characteristics.
At the final stage of our study the disclosed characteristics of the two first-person futures are checked on the lines of transformational analysis. The method will consist not in free structural manipulations with the analysed constructions, but in the textual search for the respective changes of the auxiliaries depending on the changes in the infinitival environments.
Applying these procedures to the texts, we note that when the construction of the voluntary will-future is expanded (complicated) by a syntactic part re-modelling the whole collocation into one expressing an involuntary action, the auxiliary will is automatically replaced by shall. In particular, it happens when the expanding elements convey the meaning of supposition or Uncertainty. Cf.:
Give me a goddess's work to do; and I will do it (B. Shaw). > I don't know what I shall do with Barbara (B. Shaw). Oh, very well, very well: I will write another prescription (B. Shaw). > I shall perhaps write to your mother (K. Mansfield).
Thus, we conclude that within'the system of the English future tense a peculiar minor category is expressed which affects only the forms of the first person. The category is constituted by the opposition of the forms will + Infinitive and shall + Infinitive expressing, respectively, the voluntary

future and the non-voluntary future. Accordingly, this category may tentatively be called the "category of futurity option".
The future in the second and third persons, formed by the indiscriminate auxiliary will, does not express this category, which is dependent on the semantics of the persons: normally it would be irrelevant to indicate in an obligatory way the aspect of futurity option otherwise than with the first person, i.e. the person of self.
This category is neutralised in the contracted form -'ll, which is of necessity indifferent to the expression of futurity option. As is known, the traditional analysis of the contracted future states that -'ll stands for will, not for shall. However, this view is not supported by textual data. Indeed, bearing in mind the results of our study, it is easy to demonstrate that the contracted forms of the future may be traced both to will and to shall. Cf.:
I'll marry you then, Archie, if you really want it (M. Dickens). > I will marry you. I'll have to think about it (M. Dickens). > I shall have to think about it.
From the evidence afforded by the historical studies of the language we know that the English contracted form of the future -'ll has actually originated from the auxiliary will. So, in Modern English an interesting process of redistribution of the future forms has taken place, based apparently on the contamination will > 'll <- shall. As a result, the form -'ll in the first person expresses not the same "pure" future as is expressed by the indiscriminate will in the second and third persons.
The described system of the British future is by far more complicated than the expression of the future tense in the other national variants of English, in particular, in American English, where the future form of the first person is functionally equal with the other persons. In British English a possible tendency to a similar levelled expression of the future is actively counteracted by the two structural factors. The first is the existence of the two functionally differing contractions of the future auxiliaries in the negative form, i. e. shan't and won't, which imperatively support the survival of shall in the first person against the levelled positive (affirmative) contraction -'ll. The second is the use of the future tense in interrogative sentences, where with the first person only shall is normally used. Indeed, it is quite natural that a genuine question directed by the speaker to

himself, i.e. a question showing doubt or speculation, is to be asked about an action of non-wilful, involuntary order, and not otherwise. Cf.:
What shall we be shown next? Shall I be able to master shorthand professionally? The question was, should I see Beatrice again before her departure?
The semantics of the first person futurity question is such that even the infinitives of essentially volition-governed actions are transferred here to the plane of non-volition, subordinating themselves to the general implication of doubt, hesitation, uncertainty. Cf.:
What shall I answer to an offer like that? How shall we tackle the matter if we are left to rely on our own judgment?
Thus, the vitality of the discriminate shall/will future, characteristic of careful English speech, is supported by logically vindicated intra-lingual factors. Moreover, the whole system of Modern British future with its mobile inter-action of the two auxiliaries is a product of recent language development, not a relict of the older periods of its history. It is this subtly regulated and still unfinished system that gave cause to H. W. Fowler for his significant statement: ".. of the English of the English shall and will are the shibboleth."*
§ 8. Apart from shall/will + Infinitive construction, there is another construction in English which has a potent appeal for being analysed within the framework of the general problem of the future tense. This is the combination of the predicator be going with the infinitive. Indeed, the high frequency occurrence of this construction in contexts conveying the idea of an immediate future action can't but draw a very close attention on the part of a linguistic observer.
The combination may denote a sheer intention (either the speaker's or some other person's) to perform the action expressed by the infinitive, thus entering into the vast set of "classical" modal constructions. E.g.:
I am going to ask you a few more questions about the mysterious disappearance of the document, Mr. Gregg. He looked across at my desk and I thought for a moment he was going to give me the treatment, too.
* Fowler H. W. Л Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Ldn., 1941, p. 729,

But these simple modal uses of be going are countered by cases where the direct meaning of intention rendered by the predicator stands in contradiction with its environmental implications and is subdued by them. Cf.:
You are trying to frighten me. But you are not going to frighten me any more (L. Hellman). I did not know how I was going to get out of the room (D. du Maurier).
Moreover, the construction, despite its primary meaning of intention, presupposing a human subject, is not infrequently used with non-human subjects and even in impersonal sentences. Cf.:
She knew what she was doing, and she was sure it was going to be worth doing (W. Saroyan). There's going to be a contest over Ezra Grolley's estate (E. Gardner).
Because of these properties it would appear tempting to class the construction in question as a specific tense form, namely, the tense form of "immediate future", analogous to the French futur immediat (e.g. Le spectacle va cornmencer - The show is going to begin).
Still, on closer consideration, we notice that the non-intention uses of the predicator be going are not indifferent stylistically. Far from being neutral, they more often than not display emotional colouring mixed with semantic connotations of oblique modality.
For instance, when the girl from the first of the above examples appreciates something as "going to be worth doing", she is expressing her assurance of its being so. When one labels the rain as "never going to stop", one clearly expresses one's annoyance at the bad state of the weather. When a future event is introduced by the formula "there to be going to be", as is the case in the second of the cited examples, the speaker clearly implies his foresight of it, or his anticipation of it, or, possibly, a warning to beware of it, or else some other modal connotation of a like nature. Thus, on the whole, the non-intention uses of the construction be going + Infinitive cannot be rationally divided into modal and non-modal, on the analogy of the construction shall/will + Infinitive. Its broader combinability is based on semantic transposition and can be likened to broader uses of the modal collocation be about, also of basically intention semantics.

§ 9. The oppositional basis of the category of prospective time is neutralised in certain uses, in keeping with the general regularities of oppositional reductions. The process of neutralisation is connected with the shifting of the forms of primary time (present and past) from the sphere of absolute tenses into the sphere of relative tenses.
One of the typical cases of the neutralisation in question consists in using a non-future temporal form to express a future action which is to take place according to some plan or arrangement. Cf.:
The government meets in emergency session today over the question of continued violations of the cease-fire. I hear your sister is soon arriving from Paris? Naturally I would like to know when he's coming. Etc.
This case of oppositional reduction is optional, the equivalent reconstruction of the correlated member of the opposition is nearly always possible (with the respective changes of connotations and style). Cf.:
... > The government will meet in emergency session. ... > Your sister will soon arrive from Paris? ... > When will he be coming"?
Another type of neutralisation of the prospective time opposition is observed in modal verbs and modal word combinations. The basic peculiarity of these units bearing on (he expression of time is, that the prospective implication is inherently in-built in their semantics, which reflects not the action as such, but the attitude towards the action expressed by the infinitive. For that reason, the present verb-form of these units actually renders the idea of the future (and, respectively, the past verb-form, the idea of the future-in-the-past). Cf.:
There's no saying what may happen next. At any rate, the woman was sure to come later in the day. But you have to present the report before Sunday, there's no alternative.
Sometimes the explicit expression of the future is necessary even with modal collocations. To make up for the lacking categorial forms, special modal substitutes have been developed in language, some of which have received the status of suppletive units (see above, Ch. III). Cf.:
But do not make plans with David. You will not be able to carry them out. Things will have to go one way or the other.

Alongside of the above and very different from them, there is still another typical case of neutralisation of the analysed categorial opposition, which is strictly obligatory. It occurs in clauses of time and condition whose verb-predicate expresses a future action. Cf.:
If things turn out as has been arranged, the triumph will be all ours. I repeated my request to notify me at once whenever the messenger arrived.
The latter type of neutralisation is syntactically conditioned. In point of fact, the neutralisation consists here in the primary tenses shifting from the sphere of absolutive time into the sphere of relative time, since they become dependent not on their immediate orientation towards the moment of speech, but on the relation to another time level, namely, the time level presented in the governing clause of the corresponding complex sentence.
This kind of neutralising relative use of absolutive tense forms occupies a restricted position in the integral tense system of English. In Russian, the syntactic relative use of tenses is, on the contrary, widely spread. In particular, this refers to the presentation of reported speech in the plane of the past, where the Russian present tense is changed into the tense of simultaneity, the past tense is changed into the tense of priority, and the future tense is changed into the tense of prospected posteriority. Cf.:
(1) Он сказал, что изучает немецкий язык. (2) Он сказал, что изучал немецкий язык. (3) Он сказал, что будет изучать немецкий язык.
In English, the primary tenses in similar syntactic conditions retain their absolutive nature and are used in keeping with their direct, unchangeable meanings. Compare the respective translations of the examples cited above:
(1) He said that he was learning German (then). (2) He said that he had learned German (before). (3) He said that he would learn German (in the time to come).
It doesn't follow from this that the rule of sequence of tenses in English complex sentences formulated by traditional grammar should be rejected as false. Sequence of tenses is an important feature of all narration, for, depending on the continual consecutive course of actual events in reality, they are presented in the text in definite successions ordered

against a common general background. However, what should be stressed here, is that the tense-shift involved in the translation of the present-plane direct information into the past-plane reported information is not a formal, but essentially a meaningful procedure.
§ 1. The aspective meaning of the verb, as different from its temporal meaning, reflects the inherent mode of the realisation of the process irrespective of its timing.
As we have already seen, the aspective meaning can be in-built in the semantic structure of the verb, forming an invariable, derivative category. In English, the various lexical aspective meanings have been generalised by the verb in its subclass division into limitive and unlimitive sets. On the whole, this division is loose, the demarcation line between the sets is easily trespassed both ways. In spite of their want of rigour, however, the aspective verbal subclasses are grammatically relevant in so far as they are not indifferent to the choice of the aspective grammatical forms of the verb. In Russian, the aspective division of verbs into perfective and imperfective is, on the contrary, very strict. Although the Russian category of aspect is derivative, it presents one of the most typical features of the grammatical structure of the verb, governing its tense system both formally and semantically.
On the other hand, the aspective meaning can also be represented in variable grammatical categories. Aspective grammatical change is wholly alien to the Russian language, but it forms one of the basic features of the categorial structure of the English verb.
Two systems of verbal forms, in the past grammatical tradition analysed under the indiscriminate heading of the "temporal inflexion", i. e. synthetic inflexion proper and analytical composition as its equivalent, should be evaluated in this light: the continuous forms and the perfect forms.
The aspective or non-aspective identification of the forms in question will, in the long run, be dependent on whether or not they express the direct, immediate time of the action denoted by the verb, since a general connection between the

aspective and temporal verbal semantics is indisputable.
The continuous verbal forms analysed on the principles of oppositional approach admit of only one interpretation, and that is aspective. The continuous forms are aspective because, reflecting the inherent character of the process performed by the verb, they do not, and cannot, denote the timing of the process. The opposition constituting the corresponding category is effected between the continuous and the non-continuous (indefinite) verbal forms. The categorial meaning discloses the nature of development of the verbal action, on which ground the suggested name for the category as a whole will be "development". As is the case with the other categories, its expression is combined with other categorial expressions in one and the same verb-form, involving also the category that features the perfect. Thus, to be consistent in our judgments, we must identify, within the framework of the manifestations of the category of development, not only the perfect continuous forms, but also the perfect indefinite forms (i.e. non-continuous).
The perfect, as different from the continuous, does reflect a kind of timing, though in a purely relative way. Namely, it coordinates two times, locating one of them in retrospect towards the other. Should the grammatical meaning of the perfect have been exhausted by this function, it ought to have been placed into one and the same categorial system with the future, forming the integral category of time coordination (correspondingly, prospective and retrospective). In reality, though, it cannot be done, because the perfect expresses not only time in relative retrospect, but also the very connection of a prior process with a time-limit reflected in a subsequent event. Thus, the perfect forms of the verb display a mixed, intermediary character, which places them apart both from the relative posterior tense and the aspective development. The true nature of the perfect is temporal aspect reflected in its own opposition, which cannot be reduced to any other opposition of the otherwise recognised verbal categories. The suggested name for this category will be "retrospective coordination", or, contractedly, "retrospect". The categorial member opposed to the perfect, for the sake of terminological consistency, will be named "imperfect" (non-perfect). As an independent category, the retrospective coordination is manifested in the integral verb-form together with the manifestations of other categories, among them the

aspective category of development. Thus, alongside of the forms of perfect continuous and perfect indefinite, the verb distinguishes also the forms of imperfect continuous and imperfect indefinite.
§ 2. At this point of our considerations, we should like once again to call the reader's attention to the difference between the categorial terminology and the definitions of categories.
A category, in normal use, cannot be represented twice in one and the same word-form. It follows from this that the integral verb-form cannot display at once more than one expression of each of the recognised verbal categories, though it does give a representative expression to all the verbal categories taken together through the corresponding obligatory featuring (which can be, as we know, either positive or negative). And this fact provides us with a safe criterion of categorial identification for cases where the forms under analysis display related semantic functions.
We have recognised in the verbal system of English two temporal categories (plus one "minor" category of futurity option) and two aspective categories. But does this mean that the English verb is "doubly" (or "triply", for that matter) inflected by the "grammatical category" of tense and the "grammatical category" of aspect? In no wise.
The course of our deductions has been quite the contrary. It is just because the verb, in its one and the same, at each time uniquely given integral form of use, manifests not one, but two expressions of time (for instance, past and future); it is because it manifests not one, but two expressions of aspect (for instance, continuous and perfect), that we have to recognise these expressions as categorially different. In other words, such universal grammatical notions as "time", "tense", "aspect", "mood" and others, taken by themselves, do not automatically presuppose any unique categorial systems. It is only the actual correlation of the corresponding grammatical forms in a concrete, separate language that makes up a grammatical category. In particular, when certain forms that come under the same meaningful grammatical heading are mutually exclusive, it means that they together make up a grammatical category. This is the case with the three Russian verbal tenses. Indeed, the Russian verbal form of the future cannot syntagmatically coexist with the present or past forms - these forms are mutually exclusive, thereby constituting

one unified category of time (tense), existing in the three categorial forms: the present, the past, the future. In English, on the contrary, the future form of the verb can freely re-occur with the strongly marked past form, thereby making up a category radically different from the category manifested by the system of "present - past" discrimination. And it is the same case with the forms of the continuous and the perfect. Just because they can freely coexist in one and the same syntagmatic manifestation of the verb, we have to infer that they enter (in the capacity of oppositional markers) essentially different categories, though related to each other by their general aspective character.
§ 3. The aspective category of development is constituted by the opposition of the continuous forms of the verb to the non-continuous, or indefinite forms of the verb. The marked member of the opposition is the continuous, which is built up by the auxiliary be plus the present participle of the conjugated verb. In symbolic notation it is represented by the formula be...ing. The categorial meaning of the continuous is "action in progress"; the unmarked member of the opposition, the indefinite, leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. expresses the non-continuous.
The evolution of views in connection with the interpretation of the continuous forms has undergone three stages.
The traditional analysis placed them among the tense-forms of the verb, defining them as expressing an action going on simultaneously with some other action. This temporal interpretation of the continuous was most consistently developed in the works of H. Sweet and O. Jespersen. In point of fact, the continuous usually goes with a verb which expresses a simultaneous action, but, as we have stated before, the timing of the action is not expressed by the continuous as such - rather, the immediate time-meaning is conveyed by the syntactic constructions, as well as the broader semantic context in which the form is used, since action in progress, by definition, implies that it is developing at a certain time point.
The correlation of the continuous with contextual indications of time is well illustrated on examples of complex sentences with while-clauses. Four combinations of the continuous and the indefinite are possible in principle in these constructions (for two verbs are used here, one in the principal clause and one in the subordinate clause, each capable

of taking both forms in question), and all the four possibilities are realised in contexts of Modern English. Cf.:
While I was typing, Mary and Tom were chatting in the
adjoining room. While I typed, Mary and Tom were
chatting in the adjoining room. While I was typing,
they chatted in the adjoining room. While I typed, they
chatted in the adjoining room.
Clearly, the difference in meaning between the verb-entries in the cited examples cannot lie in their time denotations, either absolutive, or relative. The time is shown by their tense-signals of the past (the past form of the auxiliary be in the continuous, or the suffix -{e)d in the indefinite). The meaningful difference consists exactly in the categorial semantics of the indefinite and continuous: while the latter shows the action in the very process of its realisation, the former points it out as a mere fact.
On the other hand, by virtue of its categorial semantics of action in progress (of necessity, at a definite point of time), the continuous is usually employed in descriptions of scenes correlating a number of actions going on simultaneously - since all of them are actually shown in progress, at the time implied by the narration. Cf.:
Standing on the chair, I could see in through the barred window into the hall of the Ayuntamiento and in there it was as it had been before. The priest was standing, and those who were left were kneeling in a half circle around him and they were all praying. Pablo was sitting on the big table in front of the Mayor's chair with his shotgun slung over his back. His legs were hanging down from the table and he was rolling a cigarette. Cuatro Dedos was sitting in the Mayor's chair with his feet on the table and he was smoking a cigarette. All the guards were sitting in different chairs of the administration, holding their guns. The key to the big door was on the table beside Pablo (E. Hemingway).
But if the actions are not progressive by themselves (i.e. if they are not shown as progressive), the description, naturally, will go without the continuous forms of the corresponding verbs. E. g.:
Inland, the prospect alters. There is an oval Maidan, and a long sallow hospital. Houses belonging to Eurasians stand on the high ground by the railway station. Beyond the railway - which runs parallel to the river - the land sinks,

then rises again rather steeply. On the second rise is laid out the little civil station, and viewed hence Chandrapore appears to be a totally different place (E. M. Forster ).
A further demonstration of the essentially non-temporal meaning of the continuous is its regular use in combination with the perfect, i.e. its use in the verb-form perfect continuous. Surely, the very idea of perfect is alien to simultaneity, so the continuous combined with the perfect in one and the same manifestation of the verb can only be understood as expressing aspectuality, i.e. action in progress.
Thus, the consideration of the temporal element in the continuous shows that its referring an action to a definite time-point, or its expressing simultaneity irrespective of absolutive time, is in itself an aspective, not a temporal factor.
At the second stage of the interpretation of the continuous, the form was understood as rendering a blend of temporal and aspective meanings - the same as the other forms of the verb obliquely connected with the factor of time, i.e. the indefinite and the perfect. This view was developed by I. P. Ivanova.
The combined temporal-aspective interpretation of the continuous, in general, should be appraised as an essential step forward, because, first, it introduced on an explicit, comprehensively grounded basis the idea of aspective meanings in the grammatical system of English; second, it demonstrated the actual connection of time and aspect in the integral categorial semantics of the verb. In fact, it presented a thesis that proved to be crucial for the subsequent demonstration, at the next stage of analysis, of the essence of the form on a strictly oppositional foundation.
This latter phase of study, initiated in the works of A. I.Smirnitsky, V. N. Yartseva and B. A. Ilyish, was developed further by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya and exposed in its most comprehensive form by L. S. Barkhudarov.
Probably the final touch contributing to the presentation of the category of development at this third stage of study should be still more explicit demonstration of its opposition working beyond the correlation of the continuous non-perfect form with the indefinite non-perfect form. In the expositions hitherto advanced the two series of forms - continuous and perfect - have been shown, as it were, too emphatically in the light of their mutual contrast against the

primitive indefinite, the perfect continuous form, which has been placed somewhat separately, being rather interpreted as a "peculiarly modified" perfect than a "peculiarly modified'' continuous. In reality, though, the perfect continuous is equally both perfect and continuous, the respective markings belonging to different, though related, categorial characteristics.
§ 4. The category of development, unlike the categories of person, number, and time, has a verbid representation, namely, it is represented in the infinitive. This fact, for its part, testifies to another than temporal nature of the continuous.
With the infinitive, the category of development, naturally, expresses the same meaningful contrast between action in progress and action not in progress as with the finite forms of the verb. Cf.:
Kezia and her grandmother were taking their siesta together. It was but natural for Kezia and her grandmother
to be taking their siesta together. What are you complaining about?--Is there really anything for you to be complaining about?
But in addition to this purely categorial distinction, the form of the continuous infinitive has a tendency to acquire quite a special meaning in combination with modal verbs, namely that of probability. This meaning is aspectual in a broader sense than the "inner character" of action: the aspectuality amounts here to an outer appraisal of the denoted process. Cf.:
Paul must wait for you, you needn't be in a hurry. Paul must be waiting for us, so let's hurry up.
The first of the two sentences expresses Paul's obligation to wait, whereas the second sentence renders the speaker's supposition of the fact.
The general meaning of probability is varied by different additional shades depending on the semantic type of the modal verb and the corresponding contextual conditions, such as uncertainty, incredulity, surprise, etc. Cf.:
But can she be taking Moyra's words so personally? If the flight went smoothly, they may be approaching the West Coast. You must be losing money over this job.
The action of the continuous infinitive of probability,
11-1499 161

in accord with the type of the modal verb and the context, may refer not only to the plane of the present, but also to the plane of the future. Cf.: Ann must be coming soon, you'd better have things put in order.
The gerund and the participle do not distinguish the category of development as such, but the traces of progressive meaning are inherent in these forms, especially in the present participle, which itself is one of the markers of the category (in combination with the categorial auxiliary). In particular, these traces are easily disclosed in various syntactic participial complexes. Cf.:
The girl looked straight into my face, smiling enigmatically. > The girl was smiling enigmatically as she looked straight into my face. We heard the leaves above our heads rustling in the wind. > We heard how the leaves above our heads were rustling in the wind.
However, it should be noted, that the said traces of meaning are still traces, and they are more often than not subdued and neutralised.
§ 5. The opposition of the category of development undergoes various reductions, in keeping with the general regularities of the grammatical forms functioning in speech, as well as of their paradigmatic combinability.
The easiest and most regular neutralisational relations in the sphere continuous - indefinite are observed in connection with the subclass division of verbs into limitive and unlimitive, and within the unlimitive into actional and statal.
Namely, the unlimitive verbs are very easily neutralised in cases where the continuity of action is rendered by means other than aspective. Cf.:
The night is wonderfully silent. The stars shine with a fierce brilliancy, the Southern Cross and Canopus; there is not a breath of wind. The Duke's face seemed flushed, and more lined than some of his recent photographs showed. He held a glass in his hand.
As to the statal verbs, their development neutralisation amounts to a grammatical rule. It is under this heading that the "never-used-in-the-continuous" verbs go, i. e. the uniques be and have, verbs of possession other than have, verbs of relation, of physical perceptions, of mental perceptions. The opposition of development is also neutralised easily with

verbs in the passive voice, as well as with the infinitive, the only explicit verbid exposer of the category.
Worthy of note is the regular neutralisation of the development opposition with the introductory verb supporting the participial construction of parallel action. E. g.: The man stood smoking a pipe. (Not normally: The man was standing smoking a pipe.)
On the other hand, the continuous can be used transpositionally to denote habitual, recurrent actions in emphatic collocations. Cf.: Miss Tillings said you were always talking as if there had been some funny business about me (M. Dickens).
In this connection, special note should be made of the broadening use of the continuous with unlimitive verbs, including verbs of statal existence. Here are some very typical examples:
I only heard a rumour that a certain member here present has been seeing the prisoner this afternoon (E. M. Forster). I had a horrid feeling she was seeing right through me and knowing all about me (A. Christie). What matters is, you're being damn fools, both of you (A. Hailey).
Compare similar transpositions in the expressions of anticipated future:
Dr Aarons will be seeing the patient this morning, and I wish to be ready for him (A. Hailey). Soon we shall be hearing the news about the docking of the spaceships having gone through.
The linguistic implication of these uses of the continuous is indeed very peculiar. Technically it amounts to de-neutralising the usually neutralised continuous. However, since the neutralisation of the continuous with these verbs is quite regular, we have here essentially the phenomenon of reverse transposition - an emphatic reduction of the second order, serving the purpose of speech expressiveness.
We have considered the relation of unlimitive verbs to the continuous form in the light of reductional processes.
As for the limitive verbs, their standing with the category of development and its oppositional reductions is quite the reverse. Due to the very aspective quality of limitiveness, these verbs, first, are not often used in the continuous form

in general, finding no frequent cause for it; but second, in cases when the informative purpose does demand the expression of an action in progress, the continuous with these verbs is quite obligatory and normally cannot undergo reduction under any conditions. It cannot be reduced, for otherwise the limitive meaning of the verb would prevail, and the informative purpose would not be realised. Cf.:
The plane was just touching down when we arrived at the airfield. The patient was sitting up in his bed, his eyes riveted on the trees beyond the window.
The linguistic paradox of these uses is that the continuous aspect with limitive verbs neutralises the expression of their lexical aspect, turning them for the nonce into unlimitive verbs. And this is one of the many manifestations of grammatical relevance of lexemic categories.
§ 6. In connection with the problem of the aspective category of development, we must consider the forms of the verb built up with the help of the auxiliary do. These forms, entering the verbal system of the indefinite, have been described under different headings.
Namely, the auxiliary do, first, is presented in grammars as a means of building up interrogative constructions when the verb is used in the indefinite aspect. Second, the auxiliary do is described as a means of building up negative constructions with the indefinite form of the verb. Third, it is shown as a means of forming emphatic constructions of both affirmative declarative and affirmative imperative communicative types, with the indefinite form of the verb. Fourth, it is interpreted as a means of forming elliptical constructions with the indefinite form of the verb.
L. S. Barkhudarov was the first scholar who paid attention to the lack of accuracy, and probably linguistic adequacy, in these definitions. Indeed, the misinterpretation of the defined phenomena consists here in the fact that the do-forms are presented immediately as parts of the corresponding syntactic constructions, whereas actually they are parts of the corresponding verb-forms of the indefinite aspect. Let us compare the following sentences in pairs:
Fred pulled her hand to his heart. Did Fred pull her
hand to his heart? You want me to hold a smile. You
don't want me to hold a smile. In dreams people change

into somebody else. - In dreams people do change into
somebody else. Ask him into the drawing-room. Do
ask him into the drawing-room. Mike liked the show immensely, and Kitty liked it too. Mike liked the show immensely, and so did Kitty.
On the face of the comparison, we see only the construction-forming function of the analysed auxiliary, the cited formulations being seemingly vindicated both by the structural and the functional difference between the sentences: the right-hand constituent utterances in each of the given pairs has its respective do-addition. However, let us relate these right-hand utterances to another kind of categorial counterparts:
Did Fred pull her hand to his heart? Will Fred pull
her hand to his heart? You don't want me to hold a smile.
You won't want me to hold a smile. In dreams people do
change into somebody else. In dreams people will change
into somebody else. Mike liked the show immensely, and
so did Kitty. Mike will like the show immensely, and
so will Kitty.
Observing the structure of the latter series of constructional pairs, we see at once that their constituent sentences are built up on one and the same syntactic principle of a special treatment of the morphological auxiliary element. And here lies the necessary correction of the interpretation of Jo-forms. As a matter of fact, do-forms should be first of all described as the variant analytical indefinite forms of the verb that are effected to share the various constructional functions with the other analytical forms of the verb placing their respective auxiliaries in accented and otherwise individualised positions. This presentation, while meeting the demands of adequate description, at the same time is very convenient for explaining the formation of the syntactic constructional categories on the unified basis of the role of analytical forms of the verb. Namely, the formation of interrogative constructions will be explained simply as a universal word-order procedure of partial inversion (placing the auxiliary before the subject for all the categorial forms of the verb); the formation of the corresponding negative will be described as the use of the negative particle with the analytical auxiliary for all the categorial forms of the verb; the formation of the corresponding emphatic constructions will be described as the accent of the analytical auxiliaries,

including the indefinite auxiliary; the formation of the corresponding reduced constructions will be explained on the lines of the representative use of the auxiliaries in general (which won't mar the substitute role of do).
For the sake of terminological consistency the analytical form in question might be called the "marked indefinite", on the analogy of the term "marked infinitive". Thus, the indefinite forms of the non-perfect order will be divided into the pure, or unmarked present and past indefinite, and the marked present and past indefinite. As we have pointed out above, the existence of the specifically marked present and past indefinite serves as one of the grounds for identifying the verbal primary time and the verbal prospect as different grammatical categories.
§ 7. The category of retrospective coordination (retrospect) is constituted by the opposition of the perfect forms of the verb to the non-perfect, or imperfect forms. The marked member of the opposition is the perfect, which is built up by the auxiliary have in combination with the past participle of the conjugated verb. In symbolic notation it is expressed by the formula have ... en.
The functional meaning of the category has been interpreted in linguistic literature in four different ways, each contributing to the evolution of the general theory of retrospective coordination.
The first comprehensively represented grammatical exposition of the perfect verbal form was the "tense view": by this view the perfect is approached as a peculiar tense form. The tense view of the perfect is presented in the works of H. Sweet, G. Curme, M. Bryant and J. R. Aiken, and some other foreign scholars. In the Soviet linguistic literature this view was consistently developed by N. F. Irtenyeva. The tense interpretation of the perfect was also endorsed by the well-known course of English Grammar by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Vasilevskaya.
The difference between the perfect and non-perfect forms of the verb, according to the tense interpretation of the perfect, consists in the fact that the perfect denotes a secondary temporal characteristic of the action. Namely, it shows that the denoted action precedes some other action or situation in the present, past, or future. This secondary tense quality of the perfect, in the context of the "tense view", is naturally contrasted against the secondary tense quality of the

cantinuous, which latter, according to N. F. Irtenyeva, intensely expresses simultaneity of the denoted action with some other action in the present, past, or future.
The idea of the perfect conveying a secondary time characteristic of the action is quite a sound one, because it shows that the perfect, in fact, coexists with the other, primary expression of time. What else, if not a secondary time meaning of priority, is rendered by the perfect forms in the following example: Grandfather has taken his morning stroll and now is having a rest on the veranda.
The situation is easily translated into the past with the time correlation intact: > Grandfather had taken his morning stroll and was having a rest on the veranda.
With the future, the correlation is not so clearly pronounced. However, the reason for it lies not in the deficiency of the perfect as a secondary tense, but in the nature of the future time plane, which exists only as a prospective plane, thereby to a degree levelling the expression of differing timings of actions. Making allowance for the unavoidable prospective temporal neutralisations, the perfective priority expressed in the given situation can be clearly conveyed even in its future translations, extended by the exposition of the corresponding connotations:
> By the time he will be having a rest on the veranda, Grandfather will surely have taken his morning stroll. > Grandfather will have a rest on the veranda only after he has taken his morning stroll.
Laying emphasis on the temporal function of the perfect, the "tense view", though, fails to expose with the necessary distinctness its aspective function, by which the action is shown as successively or "transmissively" connected with a certain time limit. Besides, the purely oppositional nature of the form is not disclosed by this approach either, thus leaving the categorial status of the perfect undefined.
The second grammatical interpretation of the perfect was the "aspect view": according to this interpretation the perfect is approached as an aspective form of the verb. The aspect view is presented in the works of M. Deutschbein, E.A. Sonnenschein, A. S. West, and other foreign scholars. In the Soviet linguistic literature the aspective interpretation of the perfect was comprehensively developed by G. N. Vorontsova. This subtle observer of intricate interdependencies of language masterly demonstrated the idea of the

successive connection of two events expressed by the perfect, prominence given by the form to the transference or "transmission" of the accessories of a pre-situation to a post-situation. The great merit of G. N. Vorontsova's explanation of the aspective nature of the perfect lies in the fact that the resultative meaning ascribed by some scholars to the perfect as its determining grammatical function is understood in her conception within a more general destination of this form, namely as a particular manifestation of its transmissive functional semantics.
Indeed, if we compare the two following verbal situations, we shall easily notice that the first of them expresses result, while the second presents a connection of a past event with a later one in a broad sense, the general inclusion of the posterior situation in the sphere of influence of the anterior situation:
The wind has dropped, and the sun burns more fiercely than ever.
"Have you really never been to a ball before, Leila? But, my child, how too weird -" cried the Sheridan girls.
The resultative implication of the perfect in the first of the above examples can be graphically shown by the diagnostic transformation, which is not applicable to the second example: > The sun burns more fiercely than ever as a result of the wind having dropped.
At the same time, the plain resultative semantics quite evidently appears as a particular variety of the general transmissive meaning, by which a posterior event is treated as a successor of an anterior event on very broad lines of connection.
Recognising all the merits of the aspect approach in question, however, we clearly see its two serious drawbacks. The first of them is that, while emphasising the aspective side of the function of the perfect, it underestimates its temporal side, convincingly demonstrated by the tense view of the perfect described above. The second drawback, though, is just the one characteristic of the tense view, repeated on the respectively different material: the described aspective interpretation of the perfect fails to strictly formulate its oppositional nature, the categorial status of the perfect being left undefined.
The third grammatical interpretation of the perfect was the "tense-aspect blend view"; in accord with this

interpretation the perfect is recognised as a form of double temporal-aspective character, similar to the continuous. The tense-aspect interpretation of the perfect was developed in the works of I. P. Ivanova. According to I. P. Ivanova, the two verbal forms expressing temporal and aspective functions in a blend are contrasted against the indefinite form as their common counterpart of neutralised aspective properties.
The achievement of the tense-aspect view of the perfect is the fact that it demonstrates the actual double nature of the analysed verbal form, its inherent connection with both temporal and aspective spheres of verbal semantics. Thus, as far as the perfect is concerned, the tense-aspect view overcomes the one-sided approach to it peculiar both to the first and the second of the noted conceptions.
Indeed, the temporal meaning of the perfect is quite apparent in constructions like the following: I have lived in this city long enough. I haven't met Charlie for years.
The actual time expressed by the perfect verbal forms used in the examples can be made explicit by time-test questions: How long have you lived in this city? For how long haven't you met Charlie?
Now, the purely aspective semantic component of the perfect form will immediately be made prominent if the sentences were continued like that: I have lived in this city long enough to show you all that is worth seeing here. I haven't met Charlie for years, and can hardly recognise him in a crowd.
The aspective function of the perfect verbal forms in both sentences, in its turn, can easily be revealed by aspect-test questions: What can you do as a result of your having lived in this city for years? What is the consequence of your not having met Charlie for years?
However, comprehensively exposing the two different sides of the integral semantics of the perfect, the tense-aspect conception loses sight of its categorial nature altogether, since it leaves undisclosed how the grammatical function of the perfect is effected in contrast with the continuous or indefinite, as well as how the "categorial blend" of the perfect-continuous is contrasted against its three counterparts, i.e. the perfect, the continuous, the indefinite.
As we see, the three described interpretations of the perfect, actually complementing one another, have given in combination a broad and profound picture of the semantical

content of the perfect verbal forms, though all of them have failed to explicitly explain the grammatical category within the structure of which the perfect is enabled to fulfil its distinctive function.
The categorial individuality of the perfect was shown as a result of study conducted by the eminent Soviet linguist A. I. Smirnitsky. His conception of the perfect, the fourth in our enumeration, may be called the "time correlation view", to use the explanatory name he gave to the identified category. What was achieved by this brilliant thinker, is an explicit demonstration of the fact that the perfect form, by means of its oppositional mark, builds up its own category, different from both the "tense" (present - past - future) and the "aspect" (continuous - indefinite), and not reducible to either of them. The functional content of the category of "time correlation" ("временная отнесенность") was defined as priority expressed by the perfect forms in the present, past or future contrasted against the non-expression of priority by the non-perfect forms. The immediate factor that gave cause to A. I. Smirnitsky to advance the new interpretation of the perfect was the peculiar structure of the perfect continuous form in which the perfect, the form of precedence, i.e. the form giving prominence to the idea of two times brought in contrast, coexists syntagmatically with the continuous, the form of simultaneity, i.e. the form expressing one time for two events, according to the "tense view" conception of it. The gist of reasoning here is that, since the two expressions of the same categorial semantics are impossible in one and the same verbal form, the perfect cannot be either an aspective form, granted the continuous expresses the category of aspect, or a temporal form, granted the continuous expresses the category of tense. The inference is that the category in question, the determining part of which is embodied in the perfect, is different from both the tense and the aspect, this difference being fixed by the special categorial term "time correlation".
The analysis undertaken by A. I. Smirnitsky is of outstanding significance not only for identifying the categorial status of the perfect, but also for specifying further the general notion of a grammatical category. It develops the very technique of this kind of identification.
Still, the "time correlation view" is not devoid of certain limitations. First, it somehow underestimates the aspective plane of the categorial semantics of the perfect, very

convincingly demonstrated by G. N. Vorontsova in the context of the "aspect view" of the perfect, as well as by I. P. Ivanova in the context of the "tense-aspect blend view" of the perfect. Second, and this is far more important, the reasoning by which the category is identified, is not altogether complete in so far as it confuses the general grammatical notions of time and aspect with the categorial status of concrete word-forms in each particular language conveying the corresponding meanings. Some languages may convey temporal or aspective meanings within the functioning of one integral category for each (as, for instance, the Russian language), while other languages may convey the same or similar kind of meanings in two or even more categories for each (as, for instance, the English language). The only true criterion of this is the character of the representation of the respective categorial forms in the actual speech manifestation of a lexeme. If a lexeme normally displays the syntagmatic coexistence of several forms distinctly identifiable by their own peculiar marks, as, for example, the forms of person, number, time, etc., it means that these forms in the system of language make up different grammatical categories. The integral grammatical meaning of any word-form (the concrete speech entry of a lexeme) is determined by the whole combination ("bunch") of the categories peculiar to the part of speech the lexeme belongs to. For instance, the verb-form "has been speaking" in the sentence "The Red Chief has just been speaking" expresses, in terms of immediately (positively) presented grammatical forms, the third person of the category of person, the singular of the category of number, the present of the category of time, the continuous of the category of development, the perfect of the category under analysis. As for the character of the determining meaning of any category, it may either be related to the meaning of some adjoining category, or may not - it depends on the actual categorial correlations that have shaped in a language in the course of its historical development. In particular, in Modern English, in accord with our knowledge of its structure, two major purely temporal categories are to be identified, i.e. primary time and prospective time, as well as two major aspective categories. One of the latter is the category of development. The other, as has been decided above, is the category of retrospective coordination featuring the perfect as the marked component form and the imperfect as its unmarked counterpart. We have considered it advisable

to re-name the indicated category in order, first, to stress its actual retrospective property (in fact, what is strongly expressed in the temporal plane of the category, is priority of action, not any other relative time signification), and second, to reserve such a general term as "correlation" for more unrestricted, free manipulations in non-specified uses connected with grammatical analysis.
§ 8. Thus, we have arrived at the "strict categorial view" of the perfect, disclosing it as the marking form of a separate verbal category, semantically intermediate between aspective and temporal, but quite self-dependent in the general categorial system of the English verb. It is this interpretation of the perfect that gives a natural explanation to the "enigmatic" verbal form of the perfect continuous, showing that each categorial marker - both perfect and continuous - being separately expressed in the speech entry of the verbal lexeme, conveys its own part in the integral grammatical meaning of the entry. Namely, the perfect interprets the action in the light of priority and aspective transmission, while the continuous presents the same action as progressive. As a result, far from displaying any kind of semantic contradiction or discrepancy, the grammatical characterisation of the action gains both in precision and vividness. The latter quality explains why this verbal form is gaining more and more ground in present-day colloquial English.
As a matter of fact, the specific semantic features of the perfect and the continuous in each integrating use can be distinctly exposed by separate diagnostic tests. Cf.: A week or two ago someone related an incident to me with the suggestion that I should write a story on it, and since then I have been thinking it over (S. Maugham).
Testing for the perfect giving prominence to the expression of priority in retrospective coordination will be represented as follows: > I have been thinking over the suggestion for a week or two now.
Testing for the perfect giving prominence to the expression of succession in retrospective coordination will be made thus: > Since the time the suggestion was made I have been thinking it over.
Finally, testing for the continuous giving prominence to the expression of action in progress will include expansion: > Since the suggestion was made I have been thinking it over continually,

Naturally, both perfect indefinite and perfect continuous, being categorially characterised by their respective features, in normal use are not strictly dependent on a favourable contextual environment and can express their semantics in isolation from adverbial time indicators. Cf.:
Surprisingly, she did not protest, for she had given up the struggle (M. Dickens). "What have you been doing down there?" Miss Peel asked him. "I've been looking for you all over the play-ground" (M. Dickens).
The exception is the future perfect that practically always requires a contextual indicator of time due to the prospective character of posteriority, of which we have already spoken.
It should be noted that with the past perfect the priority principle is more distinct than with the present perfect, which again is explained semantically. In many cases the past perfect goes with the lexical indicators of time introducing the past plane as such in the microcontext. On the other hand, the transmissive semantics of the perfect can so radically take an upper hand over its priority semantics even in the past plane that the form is placed in a peculiar expressive contradiction with a lexical introduction of priority. In particular, it concerns constructions introduced by the subordinative conjunction before. Cf.:
It was his habit to find a girl who suited him and live with her as long as he was ashore. But he had forgotten her before the anchor had come dripping out of the water and been made fast. The sea was his home (J. Tey).
§ 9. In keeping with the general tendency, the category of retrospective coordination can be contextually neutralised, the imperfect as the weak member of the opposition filling in the position of neutralisation. Cf.:
"I feel exactly like you," she said, "only different, because after all I didn't produce him; but, Mother, darling, it's all right..." (J. Galsworthy). Christine nibbled on Oyster Bienville. "I always thought it was because they spawned in summer" (A. Hailey).
In this connection, the treatment of the lexemic aspective division of verbs by the perfect is, correspondingly, the reverse, if less distinctly pronounced, of their treatment by the continuous. Namely, the expression of retrospective

coordination is neutralised most naturally and freely with limitive verbs. As for the unlimitive verbs, these, by being used in the perfect, are rather turned into "limitive for the nonce". Cf.:
"I'm no beaten rug. I don't need to feel like one. I've been a teacher all my life, with plenty to show for it" (A. Hailey).
Very peculiar neutralisations take place between the forms of the present perfect - imperfect. Essentially these neutralisations signal instantaneous subclass migrations of the verb from a limitive to an unlimitive one. Cf.:
Where do you come from? (I.e. What is the place of your origin?) I put all my investment in London. (I.e. I keep all my money there).
Characteristic colloquial neutralisations affect also some verbs of physical and mental perceptions. Cf.:
I forget what you've told me about Nick. I hear the management has softened their stand after all the hurly-burly!
The perfect forms in these contexts are always possible, being the appropriate ones for a mode of expression devoid of tinges of colloquialism.
§ 10 The categorial opposition "perfect versus imperfect" is broadly represented in verbids. The verbid representation of the opposition, though, is governed by a distinct restrictive regularity which may be formulated as follows: the perfect is used with verbids only in semantically strong positions, i.e. when its categorial meaning is made prominent. Otherwise the opposition is neutralised, the imperfect being used in the position of neutralisation. Quite evidently this regularity is brought about by the intermediary lexico-grammatical features of verbids, since the category of retrospective coordination is utterly alien to the non-verbal parts of speech. The structural neutralisation of the opposition is especially distinct with the present participle of the limitive verbs, its indefinite form very naturally expressing priority in the perfective sense. Cf.: She came to Victoria to see Joy off, and Freddy Rigby came too, bringing a crowd of the kind of young people Rodney did not care for (M. Dickens).
But the rule of the strong position is valid here also. Cf.: Her Auntie Phyll had too many children. Having

brought up six in a messy, undisciplined way, she had started all over again with another baby late in life (M. Dickens).
With the gerund introduced by a preposition of time the perfect is more often than not neutralised. E.g.: He was at Cambridge and after taking his degree decided to be a planter (S. Maugham).
Cf. the perfect gerund in a strong position: The memory of having met the famous writer in his young days made him feel proud even now.
Less liable to neutralisation is the infinitive. The category of retrospective coordination is for the most part consistently represented in its independent constructions, used as concise semi-predicative equivalents of syntactic units of full predication. Cf.:
It was utterly unbelievable for the man to have no competence whatsoever (simultaneity expressed by the imperfect). - It was utterly unbelievable for the man to have had no competence whatsoever (priority expressed by the perfect).
The perfect infinitive of notional verbs used with modal predicators, similar to the continuous, performs the two types of functions. First, it expresses priority and transmission in retrospective coordination, in keeping with its categorial destination. Second, dependent on the concrete function of each modal verb and its equivalent, it helps convey gradations of probabilities in suppositions. E.g.:
He may have warned Christine, or again, he may not have warned her. Who can tell? Things must have been easier fifty years ago. You needn't worry, Miss Nickolson. The children are sure to have been following our instructions, it can't have been otherwise.
In addition, as its third type of function, also dependent on the individual character of different modal verbs, the perfect can render the idea of non-compliance with certain rule, advice, recommendation, etc. The modal verbs in these cases serve as signals of remonstrance (mostly the verbs ought to and should). Cf.: Mary ought to have thought of the possible consequences. Now the situation can't be mended, I'm afraid.
The modal will used with a perfect in a specific collocation renders a polite, but officially worded statement of the presupposed hearer's knowledge of an indicated fact. Cf.:

"You will no doubt have heard, Admiral Morgan, that Lord Vaughan is going to replace Sir Thomas Lynch as Governor of Jamaica," Charles said, and cast a glance of secret amusement at the strong countenance of his most famous sailor (J. Tey). It will not have escaped your attention, Inspector, that the visit of the nuns was the same day that poisoned wedding cake found its way into that cottage (A. Christie).
Evident relation between the perfect and the continuous in their specific modal functions (i.e. in the use under modal government) can be pointed out as a testimony to the category of retrospective coordination being related to the category of development on the broad semantic basis of aspectuality.
§ 1. The verbal category of voice shows the direction of the process as regards the participants of the situation reflected in the syntactic construction.
The voice of the English verb is expressed by the opposition of the passive form of the verb to the active form of the verb. The sign marking the passive form is the combination of the auxiliary be with the past participle of the conjugated verb (in symbolic notation: be ... en - see Ch. II, § 5). The passive form as the strong member of the opposition expresses reception of the action by the subject of the syntactic construction (i.e. the "passive" subject, denoting the object of the action); the active form as the weak member of the opposition leaves this meaning unspecified, i.e. it expresses "non-passivity".
In colloquial speech the role of the passive auxiliary can occasionally be performed by the verb get and, probably, become* Cf.:
Sam got licked for a good reason, though not by me. The young violinist became admired by all.
The category of voice has a much broader representation in the system of the English verb than in the system of the
* For discussion see: [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 128-129]. 176

Russian verb, since in English not only transitive, but also intransitive objective verbs including prepositional ones can be used in the passive (the preposition being retained in the absolutive location). Besides, verbs taking not one, but two objects, as a rule, can feature both of them in the position of the passive subject. E.g.:
I've just been rung up by the police. The diplomat was refused transit facilities through London. She was undisturbed by the frown on his face. Have you ever been told that you're very good looking? He was said to have been very wild in his youth. The dress has never been tried on. The child will be looked after all right. I won't be talked to like this. Etc.
Still, not all the verbs capable of taking an object are actually used in the passive. In particular, the passive form is alien to many verbs of the statal subclass (displaying a weak dynamic force), such as have (direct possessive meaning), belong, cost, resemble, fail, misgive, etc. Thus, in accord with their relation to the passive voice, all the verbs can be divided into two large sets: the set of passivised verbs and the set of non-passivised verbs.
A question then should be posed whether the category of voice is a full-representative verbal category, i.e. represented in the system of the verb as a whole, or a partial-representative category, confined only to the passivised verbal set. Considerations of both form and function tend to interpret voice rather as a full-representative category, the same as person, number, tense, and aspect. Three reasons can be given to back this appraisal.
First, the integral categorial presentation of non-passivised verbs fully coincides with that of passivised verbs used in the active voice (cf. takes - goes, is taking - is going, has taken - has gone, etc.). Second, the active voice as the weak member of the categorial opposition is characterised in general not by the "active" meaning as such (i.e. necessarily featuring the subject as the doer of the action), but by the extensive non-passive meaning of a very wide range of actual significations, some of them approaching by their process-direction characteristics those of non-passivised verbs (cf. The door opens inside the room; The magazine doesn't sell well). Third, the demarcation line between the passivised and non-passivised sets is by no means rigid, and the verbs of the non-passivised order may migrate into the
12-1499 177

passivised order in various contextual conditions (cf. The bed has not been slept in; The house seems not to have been lived in for a long time).
Thus, the category of voice should be interpreted as being reflected in the whole system of verbs, the non-passivised verbs presenting the active voice form if not directly, then indirectly.
As a regular categorial form of the verb, the passive voice is combined in the same lexeme with other oppositionally strong forms of the verbal categories of the tense-aspect system, i.e. the past, the future, the continuous, the perfect. But it has a neutralising effect on the category of development in the forms where the auxiliary be must be doubly employed as a verbid (the infinitive, the present participle, the past participle), so that the future continuous passive, as well as the perfect continuous passive are practically not used in speech. As a result, the future continuous active has as its regular counterpart by the voice opposition the future indefinite passive; the perfect continuous active in all the tense-forms has as its regular counterpart the perfect indefinite passive. Cf.:
The police will be keeping an army of reporters at bay. > An army of reporters will be kept at bay by the police. We have been expecting the decision for a long time. -" The decision has been expected for a long time.
§ 2. The category of voice differs radically from all the other hitherto considered categories from the point of view of its referential qualities. Indeed, all the previously described categories reflect various characteristics of processes, both direct and oblique, as certain facts of reality existing irrespective of the speaker's perception. For instance, the verbal category of person expresses the personal relation of the process. The verbal number, together with person, expresses its person-numerical relation. The verbal primary time denotes the absolutive timing of the process, i.e. its timing in reference to the moment of speech. The category of prospect expresses the timing of the process from the point of view of its relation to the plane of posteriority. Finally, the analysed aspects characterise the respective inner qualities of the process. So, each of these categories does disclose some actual property of the process denoted by the verb, adding more and more particulars to the depicted processual situation. But we cannot say the same about the category of voice.

As a matter of fact, the situation reflected by the passive construction does not differ in the least from the situation reflected by the active construction - the nature of the process is preserved intact, the situational participants remain in their places in their unchanged quality. What is changed, then, with the transition from the active voice to the passive voice, is the subjective appraisal of the situation by the speaker, the plane of his presentation of it. It is clearly seen when comparing any pair of constructions one of which is the passive counterpart of the other. Cf.: The guards dispersed the crowd in front of the Presidential Palace. > The crowd in front of the Presidential Palace was dispersed by the guards.
In the two constructions, the guards as the doer of the action, the crowd as the recipient of the action are the same; the same also is the place of action, i.e. the space in front of the Palace. The presentation planes, though, are quite different with the respective constructions, they are in fact mutually reverse. Namely, the first sentence, by its functional destination, features the act of the guards, whereas the second sentence, in accord with its meaningful purpose, features the experience of the crowd.
This property of the category of voice shows its immediate connection with syntax, which finds expression in direct transformational relations between the active and passive constructions.
The said fundamental meaningful difference between the two forms of the verb and the corresponding constructions that are built around them goes with all the concrete connotations specifically expressed by the active and passive presentation of the same event in various situational contexts. In particular, we find the object-experience-featuring achieved by the passive in its typical uses in cases when the subject is unknown or is not to be mentioned for certain reasons, or when the attention of the speaker is centred on the action as such. Cf., respectively:
Another act of terrorism has been committed in Argentina. Dinner was announced, and our conversation stopped. The defeat of the champion was very much regretted.
All the functional distinctions of the passive, both categorial and contextual-connotative, are sustained in its use with verbids.
For instance, in the following passive infinitive phrase the categorial object-experience-featuring is accompanied by

the logical accent of the process characterising the quality of its situational object (expressed by the subject of the passive construction): This is an event never to be forgotten.
Cf. the corresponding sentence-transform: This event will never be forgotten.
The gerundial phrase that is given below, conveying the principal categorial meaning of the passive, suppresses the exposition of the indefinite subject of the process: After being wrongly delivered, the letter found its addressee at last.
Cf. the time-clause transformational equivalent of the gerundial phrase: After the letter had been wrongly delivered, it found its addressee at last.
The following passive participial construction in an absolutive position accentuates the resultative process: The enemy batteries having been put out of action, our troops continued to push on the offensive.
Cf. the clausal equivalent of the construction: When the enemy batteries had been put out of action, our troops continued to push on the offensive.
The past participle of the objective verb is passive in meaning, and phrases built up by it display all the cited characteristics. E. g.: Seen from the valley, the castle on the cliff presented a fantastic sight.
Cf. the clausal equivalent of the past participial phrase: When it was seen from the valley, the castle on the cliff presented a fantastic sight.
§ 3. The big problem in connection with the voice identification in English is the problem of "medial" voices, i.e. the functioning of the voice forms in other than the passive or active meanings. All the medial voice uses are effected within the functional range of the unmarked member of the voice opposition. Let us consider the following examples:
I will shave and wash, and be ready for breakfast in half an hour. I'm afraid Mary hasn't dressed up yet. Now I see your son is thoroughly preparing for the entrance examinations.
The indicated verbs in the given sentences are objective, • transitive, used absolutely, in the form of the active voice. But the real voice meaning rendered by the verb-entries is not active, since the actions expressed are not passed from the subject to any outer object; on the contrary, these actions

are confined to no other participant of the situation than the subject, the latter constituting its own object of the action performance. This kind of verbal meaning of the action performed by the subject upon itself is classed as "reflexive". The same meaning can be rendered explicit by combining the verb with the reflexive "self-pronoun: I will shave myself, wash myself; Mary hasn't dressed herself up yet; your son is thoroughly preparing himself. Let us take examples of another kind:
The friends will be meeting tomorrow. Unfortunately, Nellie and Christopher divorced two years after their magnificent marriage. Are Phil and Glen quarrelling again over their toy cruiser?
The actions expressed by the verbs in the above sentences are also confined to the subject, the same as in the first series of examples, but, as different from them, these actions are performed by the subject constituents reciprocally: the friends will be meeting one another; Nellie divorced Christopher, but Christopher, in his turn, divorced Nellie; Phil is quarrelling with Glen, but Glen, in his turn, is quarrelling with Phil. This verbal meaning of the action performed by the subjects in the subject group on one another is called "reciprocal". As is the case with the reflexive meaning, the reciprocal meaning can be rendered explicit by combining the verbs with special pronouns, namely, the reciprocal pronouns: the friends will be meeting one another; Nellie and Christopher divorced each other; the children are quarrelling with each other.
The cited reflexive and reciprocal uses of verbs are open to consideration as special grammatical voices, called, respectively, "reflexive" and "reciprocal". The reflexive and reciprocal pronouns within the framework of the hypothetical voice identification of the uses in question should be looked upon as the voice auxiliaries.
That the verb-forms in the given collocations do render the idea of the direction of situational action is indisputable, and in this sense the considered verbal meanings are those of voice. On the other hand, the uses in question evidently lack a generalising force necessary for any lingual unit type or combination type to be classed as grammatical. The reflexive and reciprocal pronouns, for their part, are still positional members of the sentence, though phrasemically bound with their notional kernel elements. The inference is that

the forms are not grammatical-categorial; they are phrasal-derivative, though grammatically relevant.
The verbs in reflexive and reciprocal uses in combination with the reflexive and reciprocal pronouns may be called, respectively, "reflexivised" and "reciprocalised". Used absolutively, they are just reflexive and reciprocal variants of their lexemes.
Subject to reflexivisation and reciprocalisation may be not only natively reflexive and reciprocal lexemic variants, but other verbs as well. Cf.:
The professor was arguing with himself, as usual. The parties have been accusing one another vehemently.
To distinguish between the two cases of the considered phrasal-derivative process, the former can be classed as "organic", the latter as "inorganic" reflexivisation and reciprocalisation.
The derivative, i.e. lexemic expression of voice meanings may be likened, with due alteration of details, to the lexemic expression of aspective meanings. In the domain of aspectuality we also find derivative aspects, having a set of lexical markers (verbal post-positions) and generalised as limitive and non-limitive.
Alongside of the considered two, there is still a third use of the verb in English directly connected with the grammatical voice distinctions. This use can be shown on the following examples:
The new paper-backs are selling excellently. The suggested procedure will hardly apply to all the instances. Large native cigarettes smoked easily and coolly. Perhaps the loin chop will eat better than it looks.
The actions expressed by the otherwise transitive verbs in the cited examples are confined to the subject, though not in a way of active self-transitive subject performance, but as if going on of their own accord. The presentation of the verbal action of this type comes under the heading of the "middle" voice.
However, lacking both regularity and an outer form of expression, it is natural to understand the "middle" voice uses of verbs as cases of neutralising reduction of the voice opposition. The peculiarity of the voice neutralisation of this kind is, that the weak member of opposition used in

the position of neutralisation does not fully coincide in function with the strong member, but rather is located somewhere in between the two functional borders. Hence, its "middle" quality is truly reflected in its name. Compare the shown middle type neutralisation of voice in the infinitive:
She was delightful to look at, witty to talk to - altogether the most charming of companions. You have explained so fully everything there is to explain that there is no need for me to ask questions.
§ 4. Another problem posed by the category of voice and connected with neutralisations concerns the relation between the morphological form of the passive voice and syntactical form of the corresponding complex nominal predicate with the pure link be. As a matter of fact, the outer structure of the two combinations is much the same. Cf.:
You may consider me a coward, but there you are mistaken. They were all seised in their homes.
The first of the two examples presents a case of a nominal predicate, the second, a case of a passive voice form. Though the constructions are outwardly alike, there is no doubt as to their different grammatical status. The question is, why?
As is known, the demarcation between the construction types in question is commonly sought on the lines of the semantic character of the constructions. Namely, if the construction expresses an action, it is taken to refer to the passive voice form; if it expresses a state, it is interpreted as a nominal predicate. Cf. another pair of examples:
The door was closed by the butler as softly as could be. The door on the left was closed.
The predicate of the first sentence displays the "passive of action", i.e. it is expressed by a verb used in the passive voice; the predicate of the second sentence, in accord with the cited semantic interpretation, is understood as displaying the "passive of state", i.e. as consisting of a link-verb and a nominal part expressed by a past participle.
Of course, the factor of semantics as the criterion of the dynamic force of the construction is quite in its place, since the dynamic force itself is a meaningful factor of language.

But the "technically" grammatical quality of the construction is determined not by the meaning in isolation; it is determined by the categorial and functional properties of its constituents, first and foremost, its participial part. Thus, if this part, in principle, expresses processual verbality, however statal it may be in its semantic core, then the whole construction should be understood as a case of the finite passive in the categorial sense. E.g.: The young practitioner was highly esteemed in his district.
If, on the other hand, the participial part of the construction doesn't convey the idea of processual verbality, in other words, if it has ceased to be a participle and is turned into an adjective, then the whole construction is to be taken for a nominal predicate. But in the latter case it is not categorially passive at all.
Proceeding from this criterion, we see that the predicate in the construction "You are mistaken" (the first example in the present paragraph) is nominal simply by virtue of its notional part being an adjective, not a participle. The corresponding non-adjectival participle would be used in quite another type of constructions. Cf.: I was often mistaken for my friend Otto, though I never could tell why.
On the other hand, this very criterion shows us that the categorial status of the predicate in the sentence "The door was closed" is wholly neutralised in so far as it is categorially latent, and only a living context may de-neutralise it both ways. In particular, the context including the by-phrase of the doer (e.g. by the butler) de-neutralises it into the passive form of the verb; but the context in the following example de-neutralises it into the adjectival nominal collocation: The door on the left was closed, and the door on the right was open.
Thus, with the construction in question the context may have both voice-suppressing, "statalising" effect, and voice-stimulating, "processualising" effect. It is very interesting to note that the role of processualising stimulators of the passive can be performed, alongside of action-modifying adverbials, also by some categorial forms of the verb itself, namely, by the future, the continuous, and the perfect - i.e. by the forms of the time-aspect order other than the indefinite imperfect past and present. The said contextual stimulators are especially important for limitive verbs, since their past participles combine the semantics of processual passive with that of resultative perfect. Cf.:

The fence is painted. - The fence is painted light green. - The fence is to be painted. - The fence will be painted. _ The fence has just been painted. -The fence is just being painted.
The fact that the indefinite imperfect past and present are left indifferent to this gradation of dynamism in passive constructions bears one more evidence that the past and present of the English verb constitute a separate grammatical category distinctly different from the expression of the future (see Ch. XIV).
§ 1. The category of mood, undoubtedly, is the most controversial category of the verb. On the face of it, the principles of its analysis, the nomenclature, the relation to other categories, in particular, to tenses, all this has received and is receiving different presentations and appraisals with different authors. Very significant in connection with the theoretical standing of the category are the following words by B. A. Ilyish: "The category of mood in the present English verb has given rise to so many discussions, 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 concerning it" [Ilyish, 99].
Needless to say, the only and true cause of the multiplicity of opinion in question lies in the complexity of the category as such, made especially peculiar by the contrast of its meaningful intricacy against the scarcity of the English word inflexion. But, stressing the disputability of so many theoretical points connected with the English mood, the scholars are sometimes apt to forget the positive results already achieved in this domain during scores of years of both textual researches and the controversies accompanying them.
We must always remember that the knowledge of verbal structure, the understanding of its working in the construction of speech utterances have been tellingly deepened by the studies of the mood system within the general framework of modern grammatical theories, especially by the extensive

investigations undertaken by Soviet scholars in the past three decades. The main contributions made in this field concern the more and more precise statement of the significance of the functional plane of any category; the exposition of the subtle paradigmatic correlations that, working on the same unchangeable verbal basis, acquire the status of changeable forms; the demonstration of the sentence-constructional value of the verb and its mood, the meaningful destination of it being realised on the level of the syntactic predicative unit as a whole. Among the scholars we are indebted to for this knowledge and understanding, to be named in the first place is A. I. Smirnitsky, whose theories revolutionised the presentation of English verbal grammar; then B. A. Ilyish, a linguist who skilfully demonstrated the strong and weak points of the possible approaches to the general problem of mood; then G. N. Vorontsova, L. S. Barkhudarov, I. B. Khlebnikova, and a number of others, whose keen observations and theoretical generalisations, throwing a new light on the analysed phenomena and discussed problems, at the same time serve as an incentive to further investigations in this interesting sphere of language study. It is due to the materials gathered and results obtained by these scholars that we venture the present, of necessity schematic, outline of the category under analysis.
§ 2. The category of mood expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of a hypothesis, speculation, desire. It follows from this that the functional opposition underlying the category as a whole is constituted by the forms of oblique mood meaning, i.e. those of unreality, contrasted against the forms of direct mood meaning, i.e. those of reality, the former making up the strong member, the latter, the weak member of the opposition. What is, though, the formal sign of this categorial opposition? What kind of morphological change makes up the material basis of the functional semantics of the oppositional contrast of forms? The answer to this question, evidently, can be obtained as a result of an observation of the relevant language data in the light of the two correlated presentations of the category, namely, a formal presentation and a functional presentation.

But before going into details of fact, we must emphasise, that the most general principle of the interpretation of the category of mood within the framework of the two approaches is essentially the same; it is the statement of the semantic content of the. category as determining the reality factor of the verbal action, i.e. showing whether the denoted action is real or unreal.
In this respect, it should be clear that the category of mood, like the category of voice, differs in principle from the immanent verbal categories of time, prospect, development, and retrospective coordination. Indeed, while the enumerated categories characterise the action from the point of view of its various inherent properties, the category of mood expresses the outer interpretation of the action as a whole, namely, the speaker's introduction of it as actual or imaginary. Together with the category of voice, this category, not reconstructing the process by way of reflecting its constituent qualities, gives an integrating appraisal of she process and establishes its lingual representation in a syntactic context.
§ 3. The formal description of the category has its source in the traditional school grammar. It is through the observation of immediate differences in changeable forms that the mood distinctions of the verb were indicated by the forefathers of modern sophisticated descriptions of the English grammatical structure. These differences, similar to the categorial forms of person, number, and time, are most clearly pronounced with the unique verb be.
Namely, it is first and foremost with the verb be that the pure infinitive stem in the construction of the verbal form of desired or hypothetical action is made prominent. "Be it as you wish", "So be it", "Be what may", "The powers that be", "The insistence that the accused be present" - such and like constructions, though characterised by a certain bookish flavour, bear indisputable testimony to the fact that the verb be has a special finite oblique mood form, different from the direct indicative. Together with the isolated, notional be, as well as the linking be, in the capacity of the same mood form come also the passive manifestations of verbs with be in a morphologically bound position, cf.: The stipulation that the deal be made without delay, the demand that the matter be examined carefully, etc.

By way of correlation with the oblique be, the infinitive stem of the other verbs is clearly seen as constituting the same form of the considered verbal mood. Not only constructions featuring the third person singular without its categorial mark -(e)s, but also constructions of other personal forms of the verb are ordered under this heading. Thus, we distinguish the indicated mood form of the verb in sentences like "Happen what may", "God forgive us", "Long live our friendship", "It is important that he arrive here as soon as possible", and also "The agreement stipulates that the goods pass customs free", "It is recommended that the elections start on Monday", "My orders are that the guards draw up", etc.
Semantical observation of the constructions with the analysed verbal form shows that within the general meaning of desired or hypothetical action, it signifies different attitudes towards the process denoted by the verb and the situation denoted by the construction built up around it, namely, besides desire, also supposition, speculation, suggestion, recommendation, inducement of various degrees of insistence including commands.
Thus, the analysed form-type presents the mood of attitudes. Traditionally it is called "subjunctive", or in more modern terminological nomination, "subjunctive one". Since the term "subjunctive" is also used to cover the oblique mood system as a whole, some sort of terminological specification is to be introduced that would give a semantic alternative to the purely formal "subjunctive one" designation. Taking into account the semantics of the form-type in question, we suggest that it should be named the "spective" mood, employing just the Latin base for the notion of "attitudes". So, what we are describing now, is the spective form of the subjunctive mood, or, in keeping with the usual working linguistic parlance, simply the spective mood, in its pure, classical manifestation.
Going on with our analysis, we must consider now the imperative form of the verb, traditionally referred to as a separate, imperative mood.
In accord with the formal principles of analysis, it is easy to see that the verbal imperative morphemically coincides with the spective mood, since it presents the same infinitive stem, though in relation to the second person only. Turning to the semantics of the imperative, we note here as constitutive the meaning of attitudes of the general

spective description. This concerns the forms both of be and the other verbs, cf.: Be on your guard! Be off! Do be careful with the papers! Don't be blue! Do as I ask you! Put down the address, will you? About turn!
As is known, the imperative mood is analysed in certain grammatical treatises as semantically direct mood, in this sense being likened to the indicative [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 200]. This kind of interpretation, though, is hardly convincing. The imperative form displays every property of a form of attitudes, which can easily be shown by means of equivalent transformations. Cf.:
Be off! > I demand that you be off. Do be careful with the papers! > My request is that you do be careful with the papers. Do as I ask you! > I insist that you do as I ask you. About turn! > I command that you turn about.
Let us take it for demonstrated, then, that the imperative verbal forms may be looked upon as a variety of the spective, i.e. its particular, if very important, manifestation.*
At this stage of study we must pay attention to how time is expressed with the analysed form. In doing so we should have in mind that, since the expression of verbal time is categorial, a consideration of it does not necessarily break off with the formal principle of observation. In this connection, first, we note that the infinitive stem taken for the building up of the spective is just the present-tense stem of the integral conjugation of the verb. The spective be, the irregular (suppletive) formation, is the only exception from this correlation (though, as we have seen, it does give the general pattern for the mood identification in cases other than the third person singular). Second, we observe that constructions with the spective, though expressed by the present-stem of the verb, can be transferred into the past plane context. Cf.:
It was recommended that the elections start on Monday. My orders were that the guards draw up. The agreement stipulated that the goods pass customs free.
This phenomenon marks something entirely new from the point of view of the categorial status of the verbal time in the indicative. Indeed, in the indicative the category of time
* Cf. L. S. Barkhudarov's consideration of both varieties of forms under the same heading of "imperative".

is essentially absolutive, while in the sphere of the subjunctive (in our case, spective) the present stem, as we see, is used relatively, denoting the past in the context of the past.
Here our purely formal, i.e. morphemic consideration of the present stem of the subjunctive comes to an end. Moreover, remaining on the strictly formal ground in the strictly morphemic sense, we would have to state that the demonstrated system of the spective mood exhausts, or nearly exhausts, the entire English oblique mood morphology. See: [Бархударов, (2), 129]. However, turning to functional considerations of the expression of the oblique mood semantics, we see that the system of the subjunctive, far from being exhausted, rather begins at this point.
§ 4. Observations of the materials undertaken on the comparative functional basis have led linguists to the identification of a number of construction types rendering the same semantics as is expressed by the spective mood forms demonstrated above. These generalised expressions of attitudes may be classed into the following three groups.
The first construction type of attitude series is formed by the combination may/might + Infinitive. It is used to express wish, desire, hope in the contextual syntactic conditions similar to those of the morphemic (native) spective forms. Cf.:
May it be as you wish! May it all happen as you desire! May success attend you. I hope that he may be safe. Let's pray that everything might still turn to the good, after all. May our friendship live long.
The second construction type of attitude series is formed by the combination should + Infinitive. It is used in various subordinate predicative units to express supposition, speculation, suggestion, recommendation, inducements of different kinds and degrees of intensity. Cf.:
Whatever they should say of the project, it must be considered seriously. It has been arranged that the delegation should be received by the President of the Federation. Orders were given that the searching group should start out at once.
The third construction type of the same series is formed by the combination let + Objective Substantive+Infinitive. It is used to express inducement (i.e. an appeal to commit

an action) in relation to all the persons, but preferably to the first person plural and third person both numbers. The notional homonym let, naturally, is not taken into account. Cf.:
Let's agree to end this wait-and-see policy. Now don't let's be hearing any more of this. Let him repeat the accusation in Tim's presence. Let our military forces be capable and ready. Let me try to convince them myself.
All the three types of constructions are characterised by a high frequency occurrence, by uniformity of structure, by regularity of correspondence to the "pure", native morphemic spective form of the verb. For that matter, taken as a whole, they are more universal stylistically than the pure spective form, in so far as they are less bound by conventions of usage and have a wider range of expressive connotations of various kinds. These qualities show that the described constructions may safely be identified as functional equivalents of the pure spective mood. Since they specialise, within the general spective mood meaning, in semantic destination, the specialisation being determined by the semantic type of their modal markers, we propose to unite them under the tentative heading of the "modal" spective mood forms, or, by way of the usual working contraction, the modal spective mood, as contrasted against the "pure" spective expressed by native morphemic means (morphemic zeroing).
The functional varieties of the modal spective, i.e. its specialised forms, as is evident from the given examples, should be classed as, first, the "desiderative" series (may-spective, the form of desire); second, the "considerative" series (should-spective, the form of considerations); third, the "imperative" series (let-spective, the form of commands).
We must stress that by terming the spective constructional forms "modal" we don't mean to bring down their grammatical value. Modality is part and parcel of predication, and the modern paradigmatic interpretation of syntactic constructions has demonstrated that all the combinations of modal verbs as such constitute grammatical means of sentence-forming. On the other hand, the relevance of medial morpho-syntactic factor in the structure of the forms in question can't be altogether excluded from the final estimation of their status. The whole system of the English subjunctive mood is far from stabilised, it is just in the making, and all that we can say about the analysed spective forms

in this connection is that they tend to quickly develop into rigidly "formalised" features of morphology.
Very important for confirming the categorial nature of the modal spective forms is the way they express the timing of the process. The verbal time proper is neutralised with these forms and, considering their relation to the present-order pure spective, they can also be classed as "present" in this sense. As to the actual expression of time, it is rendered relatively, by means of the aspective category of retrospective coordination: the imperfect denotes the relative present (simultaneity and posteriority), while the perfect denotes the relative past (priority in the present and the past). This regularity, common for all the system of the subjunctive mood, is not always clearly seen in the constructions of the spective taken by themselves (i.e. without a comparison with the subjunctive of the past order, which is to be considered further) due to the functional destination of this mood.
The perfect is hardly ever used with the pure spective non-imperative. As far as the imperative is concerned, the natural time-aspect plane is here the present-oriented imperfect strictly relative to the moment of speech, since, by definition, the imperative is addressed to the listener. The occasional perfect with the imperative gives accent to the idea of some time-limit being transgressed, or stresses an urge to fulfil the action in its entirety. Cf.:
Try and have done, it's not so difficult as it seems. Let's have finished with the whole affair!
Still, when it is justified by the context, the regularity of expressing time through aspect is displayed by the specialised modal spective with the proper distinctness. Cf.:
I wish her plans might succeed (the present simultaneity
- posteriority). I wished her plans might succeed (the
past simultaneity - posteriority). I wish her plans might
have succeeded (failure in the present priority). I wished
her plans might have succeeded (failure in the past priority). Whatever the outcome of the conference should be, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present simultaneity - posteriority). The commentator emphasised that, whatever the
outcome of the conference should be, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past simultaneity - posteriority). Whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate cannot be tolerated (the present priority, the outcome of

the conference is unknown). The commentator emphasised
that, whatever the outcome of the conference should have been, stalemate could not be tolerated (the past priority, the outcome of the conference was unknown).
The perfect of the modal spective makes up for the deficiency of the pure spective which lacks the perfect forms. Cf.:
Be it so or otherwise, I see no purpose in our argument (simultaneity in the present). - Should it have been otherwise, there might have been some purpose in our argument (priority in the present).
§ 5. As the next step of the investigation, we are to consider the forms of the subjunctive referring to the past order of the verb. The approach based on the purely morphemic principles leads us here also to the identification of the specific form of the conjugated be as the only native manifestation of the categorial expression of unreal process. E.g.:
Oh, that he were together with us now! If I were in your place, I'd only be happy. If it were in my power, I wouldn't hesitate to interfere.
As is the case with be in the present subjunctive (spective), the sphere of its past subjunctive use is not confined to its notional and linking functions, but is automatically extended to the broad imperfect system of the passive voice, as well as the imperfect system of the present continuous. Cf.:
If he were given the same advice by an outsider, he would no doubt profit by it; with the relatives it might be the other way about, I'm afraid. I'd repeat that you were right from the start, even though Jim himself were putting down each word I say against him.
Unfortunately, the cited case types practically exhaust the native past subjunctive distinctions of be, since with the past subjunctive, unlike the present, it is only the first and third persons singular that have the suppletive marking feature were. The rest of the forms coincide with the past indicative. Moreover, the discriminate personal finite was more and more penetrates into the subjunctive, thus liquidating the scarce remnants of differences between the
13-1499 193

subjunctive and the indicative of the past order as a whole. Cf.: If he was as open-hearted as you are, it would make all the difference.
Thus, from here on we have to go beyond the morphemic principle of analysis and look for other discriminative marks of the subjunctive elsewhere. Luckily, we don't have to wander very far in search of them, but discover them in the explicitly distinctive, strikingly significant correlation of the aspective forms of retrospective coordination. These are clearly taken to signify the time of the imaginary process, namely, imperfect for the absolute and relative present, perfect for the absolute and relative past. Thereby, in union with the past verbal forms as such, the perfect-imperfect retrospective coordination system is made to mark the past subjunctive in universal contradistinction to the past and present indicative. This feature is all the more important, since it is employed not only in the structures patterned by the subjunctive were and those used in similar environmental conditions, but also in the further would - should-structures, in which the feature of the past is complicated by the feature of the posteriority, also reformed semantically. Cf.:
I'm sure if she tried, she would manage to master riding not later than by the autumn, for all her unsporting habits
(simultaneity - posteriority in the present). I was sure
if she tried, she would manage it by the next autumn (simultaneity - posteriority in the past). How much embarrassment should I have been spared if only I had known the truth
before! (priority of the two events in the present). I
couldn't keep from saying that I should have been spared much embarrassment if only I had known the truth before (priority of the two events in the past).
The sought-for universal mark of the subjunctive, the "unknown quantity" which we have undertaken to find is, then, the tense-retrospect shift noted in a preliminary way above, while handling the forms of the present (i.e. spective) subjunctive. The differential mark is unmistakable, both delimiting the present and past subjunctive in their different functional spheres (the present and the past verbal forms as such), and distinguishing the subjunctive as a whole from the indicative as a whole (the tense-retrospect shift taken in its entirety). The mark is explicit not by virtue of the grammatical system being just so many ready-made,

presunmovable sets of units and forms; it is explicit due to something very important existing in addition to the static correlations and interdependencies making up the base of the system. What renders it not only distinct, but absolutely essential, is the paradigmatic relations in dynamics of language functioning. It is this dynamic life of paradigmatic connections in the course of speech production and perception that turns the latent structural differences, if small and insignificant in themselves, into regular and accurate means of expression. The tense-retrospect shift analysed within the framework of the latent system is almost imperceptible, almost entirely hidden under the cover of morphemic identity. But this identity proves ephemeral the very moment the process of speech begins. The paradigmatic connections all come into life as if by magic; the different treatments of absolutive and relative tenses sharply contrast one against the other; the imperfect and perfect indicative antagonise those of the subjunctive; the tense-retrospect shift manifests its working in explicit structural formations of contexts and environments, not allowing grammatical misunderstandings between the participants of lingual communication.
Thus, having abandoned the exhausted formal approach in the traditional sense in order to seek the subjunctive distinctions on the functional lines, we return to formality all the same, though existing on a broader, dynamic, but none the less real basis.
As for the functional side of it, not yet looked into with the past subjunctive, it evidently differs considerably from that which we have seen in the system of the present subjunctive. The present subjunctive is a system of verbal forms expressing a hypothetical action appraised in various attitudes, namely, as an object of desire, wish, consideration, etc. The two parallel sets of manifestations of the present subjunctive, i.e. the pure spective and the modal spective, stand in variant functional inter-relations, conveying essentially identical basic semantics and partially complementing each other on the connotative and structural lines. As different from this, the past subjunctive is not a mood of attitudes. Rather, it is a mood of reasoning by the rule of contraries, the contraries being situations of reality opposed to the corresponding situations of unreality, i.e. opposed to the reflections of the same situations placed by an effort of thinking in different, imaginary connections with one another. Furthermore, the past subjunctive, unlike the

present subjunctive, is not a system of two variant sets of forms, though, incidentally, it does present two sets of forms constituting a system. The difference is, that the systemic sets of the past subjunctive are functional invariants, semantically complementing each other in the construction of complex sentences reflecting the causal-conditional relations of events.
The most characteristic construction in which the two form-types occur in such a way that one constitutes the environment of the other is the complex sentence with a clause of unreal condition. The subjunctive form-type used in the conditional clause is the past unposterior; the subjunctive form-type used in the principal clause is the past posterior. By referring the verbal forms to the past, as well as to the posterior, we don't imply any actual significations effected by the forms either of the past, or of the posterior: the terms are purely technical, describing the outer structure, or morphemic derivation, of the verbal forms in question. The method by which both forms actualise the denotation of the timing of the process has been described above.
The subjunctive past unposterior is called by some grammarians "subjunctive two". Since we have reserved the term "subjunctive" for denoting the mood of unreality as a whole, another functional name should be chosen for this particular form-type of the subjunctive. "Spective" can't be used here for the simple reason that the analysed mood form differs in principle from the spective in so far as its main functions, with the exception of a few construction-types, do not express attitudes. So, to find an appropriate functional name for the mood form in question, we must consider the actual semantic role served by it in syntactic constructions.
We have already stated that the most typical use of the past unposterior subjunctive is connected with the expression of unreal actions in conditional clauses (see examples cited above). Further observations of texts show that, in principle, in all the other cases of its use the idea of unreal condition is, if not directly expressed, then implied by way of "subtext". These are constructions of concession and comparison, expressions of urgency, expressions of wish introduced independently and in object clauses. Let us examine them separately.
The syntactic clause featuring the analysed form in the context nearest to the clause of condition is the clause of concession. E.g.:

Even if he had been a commanding officer himself, he wouldn't have received a more solemn welcome in the mess. Even though it were raining, we'll go boating on the lake.
It is easy to see, that the so-called "concession" in the cited complex sentences presents a variety of condition. Namely, it is unreal or hypothetical condition which is either overcome or neglected. And it is expressed intensely. Thus, the transformational exposition of the respective implications will be the following:
... > In spite of the fact that he was not a commanding officer, he was given the most solemn welcome of the sort commanding officers were given. ... > We don't know whether it will be raining or not, but even in case it is raining we will go boating.
Comparisons with the subjunctive are expressed in adverbial clauses and in predicative clauses. In both cases condition is implied by way of contracted implication. Cf. an adverbial comparative clause: She was talking to Bennie as if he were a grown person.
The inherent condition is exposed by re-constructing the logic of the imaginary situation: > She was talking to Bennie as she would be talking to him if he were a grown person.
A similar transformation applies to the predicative comparative clause: It looks as if it had been snowing all the week. > It looks as it would look if it had been snowing all the week.
In the subjunctive expression of urgency (temporal limit) the implied urgent condition can be exposed by indicating a possible presupposed consequence. Cf.: It is high time the right key to the problem were found. * > * The finding of the right key to the problem is a condition that has long been necessary to realise; those interested would be satisfied in this case.
In clauses and sentences of wish featuring the subjunctive, the implied condition is dependent on the expressed desire of a situation contrary to reality, and on the regret referring jo the existing state of things. This can also be exposed by indicating a possible presupposed consequence. Cf. a complex sentence with an object clause of wish-subjunctive:
* The symbol *> denotes approximate transformation,

I wish my brain weren't in such a whirl all the time. *> My brain not being in such a whirl all the time is a condition for my attending to matters more efficiently.
The wish-subjunctive in independent sentences has the same implication: Oh, that the distress signals had only been heard when we could be in time to rescue the crew! *> Our hearing the distress signals was a condition for the possibility of our being in time to rescue the crew. We are in despair that it was not so.
As is indicated in grammars, modal verbs used in similar constructions display the functional features of the subjunctive, including the verb would which implies some effort of wilful activity. Cf.:
I wish he could have cornel - The implication is that, unfortunately, he had no such possibility. I wish he would have cornel - The implication is that he had not come of his own free will.
As we see, the subjunctive form under analysis in its various uses does express the unreality of an action which constitutes a condition for the corresponding consequence. Provided our observation is true, and the considered subjunctive uses are essentially those of stipulation, the appropriate explanatory term for this form of the subjunctive would be "stipulative". Thus, the subjunctive form-type which is referred to on the structural basis as the past unposterior, on the functional basis will be referred to as stipulative.
Now let us consider the form-type of the subjunctive which structurally presents the past posterior. As we have stated before, its most characteristic use is connected with the principal clause of the complex sentence expressing a situation of unreal condition: the principal clause conveys the idea of its imaginary consequence, thereby also relating to unreal state of events. Cf.: If the peace-keeping force had not been on the alert, the civil war in that area would have resumed anew.
The consequential situation of fact is dependent on the conditional situation of fact as a necessity; and this factual correlation is preserved in reference to the corresponding imaginary situations. This can be shown by a transformation: > For the civil war in that area not to have resumed anew, the peace-keeping force had to be on the alert.
Cf. another example: If two people were found with a great bodily resemblance, the experiment would succeed. >

For the experiment to succeed, it is necessary to find two people with a great bodily resemblance.
In keeping with its functional meaning, this kind of consequence may be named a "consequence of necessity".
A consequence dependent on a "concessive" condition shown above has another implication. Two semantic varieties of clauses of consequence should be pointed out as connected with the said concessive condition and featuring the subjunctive mood. The first variety presents a would-be effected action in consequence of a would-be overcome unfavourable condition as a sort of challenge. E.g.: I know Sam. Even if they had tried to cajole him into acceptance, he would have flatly refused to cooperate.
The second variety of concessive-conditional consequence featuring the subjunctive, as different from the "consequence of challenge", expresses neglect of a hypothetical situation. Cf.: Even though weather-conditions were altogether forbidding, the reconnaissance flight would start as scheduled.
Apart from complex sentences, the past posterior form of the subjunctive can be used in independent sentences. It is easy to see, though, that these sentences are based on the presupposition of some condition, the consequence of which they express. It means that from the point of view of the analysed functions they practically do not differ from the constructions of consequence shown above. Cf: He would be here by now: he may have missed his train. > He may have missed his train, otherwise (i.e. if he hadn't missed it) he would be here by now.
As we see, the subjunctive form-type in question in the bulk of its uses essentially expresses an unreal consequential action dependent on an unreal stipulating action. In grammars which accept the idea of this form being a variety of the verbal mood of unreality, it is commonly called "conditional". However, the cited material tends to show that the term in this use is evidently inadequate and misleading. In keeping with the demonstrated functional nature of the analysed verbal form it would be appropriate, relying on the Latin etymology, to name it "consective". "Consective" in function, "past posterior" in structure - the two names will go together similar to the previously advanced pair "stipulative" - "past unposterior" for the related form of the subjunctive.
Thus, the functions of the two past form-types of the subjunctive are really different from each other on the semantic

lines. On the other hand, this difference is of such a kind that the forms complement each other within one embedding syntactic construction, at the same time being manifestations of the basic integral mood of unreality. This allows us to unite both analysed form-types under one heading, opposed not only structurally, but also functionally to the heading of the spective mood. And the appropriate term for this united system of the past-tense subjunctive will be "conditional". Indeed, the name had to be rejected as the designation of the consequential (consective) form of the subjunctive taken separately, but it will be very helpful in showing the actual unity of the forms not only on the ground of their structure (i.e. the past tense order), but also from the point of view of their semantico-syntactic destination.
The conditional system of the subjunctive having received its characterisation in functional terms, the simplified "numbering" terminology may also be of use for practical teaching purposes. Since the purely formal name for the stipulative mood-form, now in more or less common use, is "subjunctive two", it would stand to reason to introduce the term "subjunctive three" for the consective form of the subjunctive. "Subjunctive three" will then finish the set of numbering names for the three pure forms of the mood of unreality, the "modal spective" being left out of the set due to its non-pure and heterogeneous character.
§ 6. We have surveyed the structure of the category of mood, trying to expose the correlation of its formal and semantic features, and also attempting to choose the appropriate terms of linguistic denotation for this correlation. The system is not a simple one, though its basic scheme is not so cumbersome as it would appear in the estimation of certain academic opinion. The dynamic scheme of the category has been much clarified of late in the diverse researches carried out by Soviet and foreign linguists.
One of the drawbacks of the descriptions of the category of mood in the existing manuals is the confusion of the functional (semantic) terms of analysis with the formal (categorial) terms of analysis.
To begin with, hardly convenient in this respect would appear the shifted nomination of the "oblique" tenses broadly used in grammars, i.e. the renaming of the past imperfect into the "present" and the past perfect into the simple "past". By this shift in terms the authors, naturally, meant to

indicate the tense-shift of the "oblique moods", i.e. the functional difference of the tenses in the subjunctive mood from their counterparts in the indicative mood. But the term "tense" is clearly a categorial name which ought to be consistent with the formal structure of the category common for the whole of the verb. As a result of the terminological shift, the tense-structure of the verb receives a hindering reflection, the confusion being aggravated by the additional difficulty of contrasting the "present" tense of one system of the oblique moods (which is formally past) against the "present" tense of another system of the oblique moods (which is formally present).
Hardly consistent with adequacy would appear the division of the general mood system into several moods on the upper level of presentation. "Imperative", "subjunctive one", "subjunctive two", "conditional", "suppositional" - these are in fact shown in separate contrasts to the indicative, which hinders the observation of the common basis underlying the analysed category.
The notions "synthetical" moods and "analytical" moods, being formal, hardly meet the requirements of clarity in correlation, since, on the one hand, the "synthetical" formation in the English subjunctive is of a purely negative nature (no inflexion), and, on the other hand, the "analytical" oblique formations ("conditional", "suppositional") and the "synthetical" oblique formations ("subjunctive one", "subjunctive two") are asymmetrically related to the analytical and synthetical features of the temporal-aspective forms of the verb ("subjunctive one" plus part of "subjunctive two" against the "analytical moods" plus the other part of "subjunctive two").
Apparently inconsistent with the function of the referent form is the accepted name "conditional" by which the form-type of consequence is designated in contrast to the actual form-type of condition ("subjunctive two").
The attempted survey of the system of the English mood based on the recent extensive study of it (undertaken, first of all, by Soviet scholars) and featuring oppositional interpretations, has been aimed at bringing in appropriate correlation the formal and the functional presentations of its structure.
We have emphasised that, underlying the unity of the whole system, is the one integral form of the subjunctive standing in opposition to the one integral form of the

indicative. The formal mark of the opposition is the tense-retrospect shift in the subjunctive, the latter being the strong member of the opposition. The shift consists in the perfect aspect being opposed to the imperfect aspect, both turned into the relative substitutes for the absolutive past and present tenses of the indicative. The shift has been brought about historically, as has been rightly demonstrated by scholars, due to the semantic nature of the subjunctive, since, from the point of view of semantics, it is rather a mood of meditation and imagination.
The term "subjunctive" itself cannot be called a very lucky one: its actual motivation by the referent phenomena has long been lost so that at present it is neither formal, nor functional. The mood system of unreality designated by the name "subjunctive" might as well be called "conjunctive", another meaningless term, but stressing the unity of English with other Germanic languages. We have chosen the name "subjunctive", though, as a tribute to the purely English grammatical tradition. As for its unmotivated character, with a name of the most general order it might be considered as its asset, after all.
The subjunctive, the integral mood of unreality, presents the two sets of forms according to the structural division of verbal tenses into the present and the past. These form-sets constitute the two corresponding functional subsystems of the subjunctive, namely, the spective, the mood of attitudes, and the conditional, the mood of appraising causal-conditional relations of processes. Each of these, in its turn, falls into two systemic sub-sets, so that on the immediately working level of presentation we have the four subjunctive form-types identified on the basis of the strict correlation between their structure and their function: the pure spective, the modal spective, the stipulative conditional, the consective conditional.
For the sake of simplifying the working terminology and bearing in mind the existing practice, the non-modal forms of the subjunctive can be called, respectively, subjunctive one (spective), subjunctive two (stipulative), subjunctive three (consective); against this background, the modal spective can simply be referred to as the modal subjunctive, which will exactly correspond to its functional nature in distinction to the three "pure" subjunctive forms.
The described system is not finished in terms of the historical development of language; on the contrary, it is in the

state of making and change. Its actual manifestations are complicated by neutralisations of formal contrasts (such as, for instance, between the past indicative and the past subjunctive in reported speech); by neutralisations of semantic contrasts (such as, for instance, between the considerative modal spective and the desiderative modal spective); by fluctuating uses of the auxiliaries (would - should); by fluctuating uses of the finite be in the singular (were - was); etc. Our task in the objective study of language, as well as in language teaching, is to accurately register these phenomena, to explain their mechanism and systemic implications, to show the relevant tendencies of usage in terms of varying syntactic environments, topical contexts, stylistic preferences.
As we see, the category of mood, for all the positive linguistic work performed upon it, continues to be a tremendously interesting field of analytical observation. There is no doubt that its numerous particular properties, as well as its fundamental qualities as a whole, will be further exposed, clarified, and paradigmatically ordered in the course of continued linguistic research.
§ 1. The adjective expresses the categorial semantics of property of a substance. It means that each adjective used in the text presupposes relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes, such as its material, colour, dimensions, position, state, and other characteristics both permanent and temporary. It follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative value. Indeed, words like long, hospitable, fragrant cannot effect any self-dependent nominations; as units of informative sequences they exist only in collocations showing what is long, who is hospitable, what is fragrant.
The semantically bound character of the adjective is emphasised in English by the use of the prop-substitute one in the absence of the notional head-noun of the phrase. E.g.: I don't want a yellow balloon, let me have the green one over there.
On the other hand, if the adjective is placed in a

nominatively self-dependent position, this leads to its substantivisation. E.g.: Outside it was a beautiful day, and the sun tinged the snow with red. Cf.: The sun tinged the snow with the red colour.
Adjectives are distinguished by a specific combinability with nouns, which they modify, if not accompanied by adjuncts, usually in pre-position, and occasionally in postposition; by a combinability with link-verbs, both functional and notional; by a combinability with modifying adverbs.
In the sentence the adjective performs the functions of an attribute and a predicative. Of the two, the more specific function of the adjective is that of an attribute, since the function of a predicative can be performed by the noun as well. There is, though, a profound difference between the predicative uses of the adjective and the noun which is determined by their native categorial features. Namely, the predicative adjective expresses some attributive property of its noun-referent, whereas the predicative noun expresses various substantival characteristics of its referent, such as its identification or classification of different types. This can be shown on examples analysed by definitional and transformational procedures. Cf.:
You talk to people as if they were a group. > You talk to people as if they formed a group. Quite obviously, he was a friend. -" His behaviour was like that of a friend.
Cf., as against the above:
I will be silent as a grave. > I will be like a silent grave. Walker felt healthy. > Walker felt a healthy man. It was sensational. > That fact was a sensational fact.
When used as predicatives or post-positional attributes, a considerable number of adjectives, in addition to the general combinability characteristics of the whole class, are distinguished by a complementive combinability with nouns. The complement-expansions of adjectives are effected by means of prepositions. E.g. fond of, jealous of, curious of, suspicious of; angry with, sick with; serious about, certain about, happy about; grateful to, thankful to, etc. Many such adjectival collocations render essentially verbal meanings and some of them have direct or indirect parallels among verbs. Cf.: be fond of - love, like; be envious of - envy; be angry with - resent; be mad for, about - covet; be thankful to - thank.

Alongside of other complementive relations expressed with the help of prepositions and corresponding to direct and prepositional object-relations of verbs, some of these adjectives may render relations of addressee. Cf.: grateful to, indebted to, partial to, useful for.
To the derivational features of adjectives, belong a number of suffixes and prefixes of which the most important are: -ful (hopeful), -less (flawless), -ish (bluish), -ous (famous), -ive (decorative), -ic (basic); un- (unprecedented), in- (inaccurate), pre- (premature). Among the adjectival affixes should also be named the prefix a-, constitutive for the stative subclass which is to be discussed below.
As for the variable (demutative) morphological features, the English adjective, having lost in the course of the history of English all its forms of grammatical agreement with the noun, is distinguished only by the hybrid category of comparison, which will form a special subject of our study.
§ 2. All the adjectives are traditionally divided into two large subclasses: qualitative and relative.
Relative adjectives express such properties of a substance as are determined by the direct relation of the substance to some other substance. E.g.: wood - a wooden hut; mathematics - mathematical precision; history - a historical event; table - tabular presentation; colour - coloured postcards; surgery - surgical treatment; the Middle Ages - mediaeval rites.
The nature of this "relationship" in adjectives is best revealed by definitional correlations. Cf.: a wooden hut - a hut made of wood; a historical event - an event referring to a certain period of history; surgical treatment - treatment consisting in the implementation of surgery; etc.
Qualitative adjectives, as different from relative ones, denote various qualities of substances which admit of a quantitative estimation, i.e. of establishing their correlative quantitative measure. The measure of a quality can be estimated as high or low, adequate or inadequate, sufficient or insufficient, optimal or excessive. Cf.: an awkward situation - a very awkward situation; a difficult task - too difficult a task; an enthusiastic reception - rather an enthusiastic reception; a hearty welcome - not a very hearty welcome; etc.
In this connection, the ability of an adjective to form degrees of comparison is usually taken as a formal sign of

its qualitative character, in opposition to a relative adjective which is understood as incapable of forming degrees of comparison by definition. Cf.: a pretty girl - a prettier girl; a quick look - a quicker look; a hearty welcome - the heartiest of welcomes; a bombastic speech - the most bombastic speech.
Mow ever, in actual speech the described principle of distinction is not at all strictly observed, which is noted in the very grammar treatises putting it forward. Two typical cases of contradiction should be pointed out here.
In the first place, substances can possess such qualities as are incompatible with the idea of degrees of comparison. Accordingly, adjectives denoting these qualities, while belonging to the qualitative subclass, are in the ordinary use incapable of forming degrees of comparison. Here refer adjectives like extinct, immobile, deaf, final, fixed, etc.
In the second place, many adjectives considered under the heading of relative still can form degrees of comparison, thereby, as it were, transforming the denoted relative property of a substance into such as can be graded quantitatively. Cf.: a mediaeval approach-rather a mediaeval approach - a far more mediaeval approach; of a military design - of a less military design - of a more military design; a grammatical topic - a purely grammatical topic - the most grammatical of the suggested topics.
In order to overcome the demonstrated lack of rigour in the definitions in question, we may introduce an additional linguistic distinction which is more adaptable to the chances of usage. The suggested distinction is based on the evaluative function of adjectives. According as they actually give some qualitative evaluation to the substance referent or only point out its corresponding native property, all the adjective functions may be grammatically divided into "evaluative" and "specificative". In particular, one and the same adjective, irrespective of its being basically (i.e. in the sense of the fundamental semantic property of its root constituent) "relative" or "qualitative", can be used either in the evaluative function or in the specificative function.
For instance, the adjective good is basically qualitative. On the other hand, when employed as a grading term in teaching, i.e. a term forming part of the marking scale together with the grading terms bad, satisfactory, excellent, it acquires the said specificative value; in other words, it becomes a specificative, not an evaluative unit in the grammatical sense

(though, dialectically, it does signify in this case a lexical evaluation of the pupil's progress). Conversely, the adjective wooden is basically relative, but when used in the broader meaning "expressionless" or "awkward" it acquires an evaluative force and, consequently, can presuppose a greater or lesser degree ("amount") of the denoted properly in the corresponding referent. E.g.:
Bundle found herself looking into the expressionless, wooden face of Superintendent Battle (A. Christie). The superintendent was sitting behind a table and looking more wooden than ever (Ibid).
The degrees of comparison are essentially evaluative formulas, therefore any adjective used in a higher comparison degree (comparative, superlative) is thereby made into an evaluative adjective, if only for the nonce (see the examples above).
Thus, the introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses of adjectives, in the long run, emphasises the fact that the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is potentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is constitutive for it.
§ 3. Among the words signifying properties of a nounal referent there is a lexemic set which claims to be recognised as a separate part of speech, i.e. as a class of words different from the adjectives in its class-forming features. These are words built up by the prefix a- and denoting different states, mostly of temporary duration. Here belong lexemes like afraid, agog, adrift, ablaze. In traditional grammar these words were generally considered under the heading of "predicative adjectives" (some of them also under the heading of adverbs), since their most typical position in the sentence is that of a predicative and they are but occasionally used as pre-positional attributes to nouns.
Notional words signifying states and specifically used as predicatives were first identified as a separate part of speech in the Russian language by L. V. Shcherba and V. V. Vinogradov. The two scholars called the newly identified part of speech the "category of state" (and, correspondingly, separate words making up this category, "words of the category of state"). Here belong the Russian words mostly ending in -o, but also having other suffixes: тепло, зябко, одиноко, радостно, жаль, лень, etc. Traditionally the Russian

words of the category of state were considered as constituents of the class of adverbs, and they are still considered as such by many Russian scholars.
On the analogy of the Russian "category of state", the English qualifying a-words of the corresponding meanings were subjected to a lexico-grammatical analysis and given the part-of-speech heading "category of state". This analysis was first conducted by B. A. Ilyish and later continued by other linguists. The term "words of the category of state", being rather cumbersome from the technical point of view, was later changed into "stative words", or "statives".
The part-of-speech interpretation of the statives is not shared by all linguists working in the domain of English, and has found both its proponents and opponents.
Probably the most consistent and explicit exposition of the part-of-speech interpretation of statives has been given by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 199 ff]. Their theses supporting the view in question can be summarised as follows.
First, the statives, called by the quoted authors "ad-links" (by virtue of their connection with link-verbs and on the analogy of the term "adverbs"), are allegedly opposed to adjectives on a purely semantic basis, since adjectives denote "qualities", and statives-adlinks denote "states". Second, as different from adjectives, statives-adlinks are characterised by the specific prefix a-. Third, they allegedly do not possess the category of the degrees of comparison. Fourth, the combinability of statives-adlinks is different from that of adjectives in so far as they are not used in the pre-positional attributive function, i.e. are characterised by the absence of the right-hand combinability with nouns.
The advanced reasons, presupposing many-sided categorial estimation of statives, are undoubtedly serious and worthy of note. Still, a closer consideration of the properties of the analysed lexemic set cannot but show that, on the whole, the said reasons are hardly instrumental in proving the main idea, i.e. in establishing the English stative as a separate part of speech. The re-consideration of the stative on the basis of comparison with the classical adjective inevitably discloses the fundamental relationship between the two, - such relationship as should be interpreted in no other terms than identity on the part-of-speech level, though, naturally, providing for their distinct differentiation on the subclass level.

The first scholar who undertook this kind of re-consideration of the lexemic status of English statives was L. S. Barkhudarov, and in our estimation of them we essentially follow his principles, pointing out some additional criteria of argument.
First, considering the basic meaning expressed by the stative, we formulate it as "stative property", i.e. a kind of property of a nounal referent. As we already know, the adjective as a whole signifies not "quality" in the narrow sense, but "property", which is categorially divided into "substantive quality as such" and "substantive relation". In this respect, statives do not fundamentally differ from classical adjectives. Moreover, common adjectives and participles in adjective-type functions can express the same, or, more specifically, typologically the same properties (or "qualities" in a broader sense) as are expressed by statives.
Indeed, the main meaning types conveyed by statives are: the psychic state of a person (afraid, ashamed, aware); the physical state of a person (astir, afoot); the physical state of an object (afire, ablaze, aglow); the state of an object in space (askew, awry, aslant). Meanings of the same order are rendered by pre-positional adjectives. Cf.:
the living predecessor - the predecessor alive; eager curiosity - curiosity agog; the burning house - the house afire; a floating raft - a raft afloat; a half-open door - a door adjar; slanting ropes - ropes aslant; a vigilant man
- a man awake; similar cases - cases alike; an excited crowd
- a crowd astir.
It goes without saying that many other adjectives and participles convey the meanings of various states irrespective of their analogy with statives. Cf. such words of the order of psychic state as despondent, curious, happy, joyful; such words of the order of human physical state as sound, refreshed, healthy, hungry; such words of the order of activity state as busy, functioning, active, employed, etc.
Second, turning to the combinability characteristics of statives, we see that, though differing from those of the common adjectives in one point negatively, they basically coincide with them in the other points. As a matter of fact, statives are not used in attributive pre-position, but, like adjectives, they are distinguished by the left-hand categorial combinability both with nouns and link-verbs. Cf.:
14-1499 209

The household was all astir. The household was all excited It was strange to see the household astir at this hour of the day. It was strange to see the household active at this hour of the day.
Third, analysing the functions of the stative corresponding to its combinability patterns, we see that essentially they do not differ from the functions of the common adjective. Namely, the two basic functions of the stative are the predicative and the attribute. The similarity of functions leads to the possibility of the use of a stative and a common adjective in a homogeneous group. E.g.: Launches and barges moored to the dock were ablaze and loud with wild sound.
True, the predominant function of the stative, as different from the common adjective, is that of the predicative. But then, the important structural and functional peculiarities of statives uniting them in a distinctly separate set of lexemes cannot be disputed. What is disputed is the status of this set in relation to the notional parts of speech, not its existence or identification as such.
Fourth, from our point of view, it would not be quite consistent with the actual lingual data to place the stative strictly out of the category of comparison. As we have shown above, the category of comparison is connected with the functional division of adjectives into evaluative and specificative. Like common adjectives, statives are subject to this flexible division, and so in principle they are included into the expression of the quantitative estimation of the corresponding properties conveyed by them. True, statives do not take the synthetical forms of the degrees of comparison, but they are capable of expressing comparison analytically, in cases where it is to be expressed. Cf.:
Of us all, Jack was the one most aware of the delicate situation in which we found ourselves. I saw that the adjusting lever stood far more askew than was allowed by the directions.
Fifth, quantitative considerations, though being a subsidiary factor of reasoning, tend to support the conjoint part-of-speech interpretation of statives and common adjectives. Indeed, the total number of statives does not exceed several dozen (a couple of dozen basic, "stable" units and, probably,

thrice as many "unstable" words of the nature of coinages for the nonce (Жигадло, Иванова, Иофик, 170]). This number is negligible in comparison with the number of words of the otherwise identified notional parts of speech, each of them counting thousands of units. Why, then, an honour of the part-of-speech status to be granted to a small group of words not differing in their fundamental lexico-grammatical features from one of the established large word-classes?
As for the set-forming prefix a-, it hardly deserves a serious consideration as a formal basis of the part-of-speech identification of statives simply because formal features cannot be taken in isolation from functional features. Moreover, as is known, there are words of property not distinguished by this prefix, which display essential functional characteristics inherent in the stative set. In particular, here belong such adjectives as ill, well, glad, sorry, worth {while), subject (to), due (to), underway, and some others. On the other hand, among the basic statives we find such as can hardly be analysed into a genuine combination of the type "prefix+root", because their morphemic parts have become fused into one indivisible unit in the course of language history, e.g. aware, afraid, aloof.
Thus, the undertaken semantic and functional analysis shows that statives, though forming a unified set of words, do not constitute a separate lexemic class existing in language on exactly the same footing as the noun, the verb, the adjective, the adverb; rather it should be looked upon as a subclass within the general class of adjectives. It is essentially an adjectival subclass, because, due to their peculiar features, statives are not directly opposed to the notional parts of speech taken together, but are quite particularly opposed to the rest of adjectives. It means that the general subcategorisation of the class of adjectives should be effected on the two levels: on the upper level the class will be divided into the subclass of stative adjectives and common adjectives; on the lower level the common adjectives fall into qualitative and relative, which division has been discussed in the foregoing paragraph.
As we see, our final conclusion about the lexico-grammatical nature of statives appears to have returned them into the lexemic domain in which they were placed by traditional grammar and from which they were alienated in the course of subsequent linguistic investigations. A question then arises, whether these investigations, as well as the discussions

accompanying thorn, have served any rational purpose at all.
The answer to this question, though, can only be given in the energetic affirmative. Indeed, all the detailed studies of statives undertaken by quite a few scholars, all the discussions concerning their systemic location and other related matters have produced very useful results, both theoretical and practical.
The traditional view of the stative was not supported by any special analysis, it was formed on the grounds of mere surface analogies and outer correlations. The later study of statives resulted in the exposition of their inner properties, in the discovery of their historical productivity as a subclass, in their systemic description on the lines of competent inter-class and inter-level comparisons. And it is due to the undertaken investigations (which certainly will be continued) that we are now in a position, though having rejected the fundamental separation of the stative from the adjective, to name the subclass of statives as one of the peculiar, idiomatic lexemic features of Modern English.
§ 4. As is widely known, adjectives display the ability to be easily substantivised by conversion, i.e. by zero-derivation. Among the noun-converted adjectives we find both old units, well-established in the system of lexicon, and also new ones, whose adjectival etymology conveys to the lexeme the vivid colouring of a new coinage.
For instance, the words a relative or a white or a dear bear an unquestionable mark of established tradition, while such a noun as a sensitive used in the following sentence features a distinct flavour of purposeful conversion: He was a regional man, a man who wrote about sensitives who live away from the places where things happen (M. Bradbury).
Compare this with the noun a high in the following example: The weather report promises a new high in heat and humidity (Ibid.).
From the purely categorial point of view, however, there is no difference between the adjectives cited in the examples and the ones given in the foregoing enumeration, since both groups equally express constitutive categories of the noun, i.e. the number, the case, the gender, the article determination, and they likewise equally perform normal nounal functions.
On the other hand, among the substantivised adjectives

there is a set characterised by hybrid lexico-grammatical features, as in the following examples:
The new bill concerning the wage-freeze introduced by the Labour Government cannot satisfy either the poor, or the rich (Radio Broadcast). A monster. The word conveyed the ultimate in infamy and debasement inconceivable to one not native to the times (J. Vance). The train, indulging all his English nostalgia for the plushy and the genteel, seemed to him a deceit (M. Bradbury).
The mixed categorial nature of the exemplified words is evident from their incomplete presentation of the part-of speech characteristics of either nouns or adjectives. Like nouns, the words are used in the article form; like nouns, they express the category of number (in a relational way); but their article and number forms are rigid, being no subject to the regular structural change inherent in the normal expression of these categories. Moreover, being categorially unchangeable, the words convey the mixed adjectival-nounal semantics of property.
The adjectival-nounal words in question are very specific. They are distinguished by a high productivity and, like statives, are idiomatically characteristic of Modern English.
On the analogy of verbids these words might be called "adjectivids", since they are rather nounal forms of adjectives than nouns as such.
The adjectivids fall into two main grammatical subgroups, namely, the subgroup pluralia tantum (the English, the rich, the unemployed, the uninitiated, etc.), and the subgroup singularia tantum (the invisible, the abstract, the tangible, etc.). Semantically, the words of the first subgroup express sets of people (personal multitudes), while the words of the second group express abstract ideas of various types and connotations.
§ 5. The category of adjectival comparison expresses the quantitative characteristic of the quality of a nounal referent, i.e. it gives a relative evaluation of the quantity of a quality. The purely relative nature of the categorial semantics of comparison is reflected in its name.
The category is constituted by the opposition of the three forms known under the heading of degrees of comparison; the basic form (positive degree), having no features of

comparison; the comparative degree form, having the feature of restricted superiority (which limits the comparison to two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the feature of unrestricted superiority.
It should be noted that the meaning of unrestricted superiority is in-built in the superlative degree as such, though in practice this form is used in collocations imposing certain restrictions on the effected comparison; thus, the form in question may be used to signify restricted superiority, namely, in cases where a limited number of referents are compared. Cf.: Johnny was the strongest boy in the company.
As is evident from the example, superiority restriction is shown here not by the native meaning of the superlative, but by the particular contextual construction of comparison where the physical strength of one boy is estimated in relation to that of his companions.
Some linguists approach the number of the degrees of comparison as problematic on the grounds that the basic form of the adjective does not express any comparison by itself and therefore should be excluded from the category. This exclusion would reduce the category to two members only, i.e. the comparative and superlative degrees.
However, the oppositional interpretation of grammatical categories underlying our considerations does not admit of such an exclusion; on the contrary, the non-expression of superiority by the basic form is understood in the oppositional presentation of comparison as a pre-requisite for the expression of the category as such. In this expression of the category the basic form is the unmarked member, not distinguished by any comparison suffix or comparison auxiliary, while the superiority forms (i.e. the comparative and superlative) are the marked members, distinguished by the comparison suffixes or comparison auxiliaries.
That the basic form as the positive degree of comparison does express this categorial idea, being included in one and the same categorial series with the superiority degrees, is clearly shown by its actual uses in comparative syntactic constructions of equality, as well as comparative syntactic constructions of negated equality. Cf.: The remark was as bitter as could be. The Rockies are not so high as the Caucasus.
These constructions are directly correlative with comparative constructions of inequality built around the comparative and superlative degree forms. Cf.: That was the bitterest

remark I have ever heard from the man. The Caucasus is higher than the Rockies.
Thus, both formally and semantically, the oppositional basis of the category of comparison displays a binary nature. In terms of the three degrees of comparison, on the upper level of presentation the superiority degrees as the marked member of the opposition are contrasted against the positive degree as its unmarked member. The superiority degrees, in their turn, form the opposition of the lower level of presentation, where the comparative degree features the functionally weak member, and the superlative degree, respectively, the strong member. The whole of the double oppositional unity, considered from the semantic angle, constitutes a gradual ternary opposition.
§6. The synthetical forms of comparison in -er and -(e)st coexist with the analytical forms of comparison effected by the auxiliaries more and most. The analytical forms of comparison perform a double function. On the one hand, they are used with the evaluative adjectives that, due to their phonemic structure (two-syllable words with the stress on the first syllable ending in other grapho-phonemic complexes than -er, -y, -le, -ow or words of more than two-syllable composition) cannot normally take the synthetical forms of comparison. In this respect, the analytical comparison forms are in categorial complementary distribution with the synthetical comparison forms. On the other hand, the analytical forms of comparison, as different from the synthetical forms, are used to express emphasis, thus complementing the synthetical forms in the sphere of this important stylistic connotation. Cf.: The audience became more and more noisy, and soon the speaker's words were drowned in the general hum of voices.
The structure of the analytical degrees of comparison is meaningfully overt; these forms are devoid of the feature of "semantic idiomatism" characteristic of some other categorial analytical forms, such as, for instance, the forms of the verbal perfect. For this reason the analytical degrees of comparison invite some linguists to call in question their claim to a categorial status in English grammar.
In particular, scholars point out the following two factors in support of the view that the combinations of more/most with the basic form of the adjective are not the analytical

expressions of the morphological category of comparison, but free syntactic constructions: first, the more/most-combinations are semantically analogous to combinations of less/least with the adjective which, in the general opinion, are syntactic combinations of notional words; second, the most-combination, unlike the synthetic superlative, can take the indefinite article, expressing not the superlative, but the elative meaning (i.e. a high, not the highest degree of the respective quality).
The reasons advanced, though claiming to be based on an analysis of actual lingual data, can hardly be called convincing as regards their immediate negative purpose.
Let us first consider the use of the most-combination with the indefinite article.
This combination is a common means of expressing elative evaluations of substance properties. The function of the elative most-construction in distinction to the function of the superlative most-construction will be seen from the following examples:
The speaker launched a most significant personal attack on the Prime Minister. The most significant of the arguments in a dispute is not necessarily the most spectacular one.
While the phrase "a most significant (personal) attack" in the first of the two examples gives the idea of rather a high degree of the quality expressed irrespective of any directly introduced or implied comparison with other attacks on the Prime Minister, the phrase "the most significant of the arguments" expresses exactly the superlative degree of the quality in relation to the immediately introduced comparison with all the rest of the arguments in a dispute; the same holds true of the phrase "the most spectacular one". It is this exclusion of the outwardly superlative adjective from a comparison that makes it into a simple elative, with its most-constituent turned from the superlative auxiliary into a kind of a lexical intensifier.
The definite article with the elative most-construction is also possible, if leaving the elative function less distinctly recognisable (in oral speech the elative most is commonly left unstressed, the absence of stress serving as a negative mark of the elative). Cf.: I found myself in the most awkward situation, for I couldn't give a satisfactory answer to any question asked by the visitors.
Now, the synthetical superlative degree, as is known,

can be used in the elative function as well, the distinguishing feature of the latter being its exclusion from a comparison. Cf.:
Unfortunately, our cooperation with Danny proved the worst experience for both of us. No doubt Mr. Snider will show you his collection of minerals with the greatest pleasure.
And this fact gives us a clue for understanding the expressive nature of the elative superlative as such - the nature that provides it with a permanent grammatico-stylistic status in the language. Indeed, the expressive peculiarity of the form consists exactly in the immediate combination of the two features which outwardly contradict each other: the categorial form of the superlative on the one hand, and the absence of a comparison on the other.
That the categorial form of the superlative (i.e. the superlative with its general functional specification) is essential also for the expression of the elative semantics can, however paradoxical it might appear, be very well illustrated by the elative use of the comparative degree. Indeed, the comparative combination featuring the elative comparative degree is constructed in such a way as to place it in the functional position of unrestricted superiority, i.e. in the position specifically characteristic of the superlative. E.g.:
Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to greet you as our guest of honour. There is nothing more refreshing than a good swim.
The parallelism of functions between the two forms of comparison (the comparative degree and the superlative degree) in such and like examples is unquestionable.
As we see, the elative superlative, though it is not the regular superlative in the grammatical sense, is still a kind of a specific, grammatically featured construction. This grammatical specification distinguishes it from common elative constructions which may be generally defined as syntactic combinations of an intensely high estimation. E.g.: an extremely important amendment; a matter of exceeding urgency; quite an unparalleled beauty; etc.
Thus, from a grammatical point of view, the elative superlative, though semantically it is "elevated", is nothing else but a degraded superlative, and its distinct featuring mark with the analytical superlative degree is the indefinite

article: the two forms of the superlative of different functional purposes receive the two different marks (if not quite rigorously separated in actual uses) by the article determination treatment.
It follows from the above that the possibility of the most-combination to be used with the indefinite article cannot in any way be demonstrative of its non-grammatical character, since the functions of the two superlative combinations in question, the elative superlative and the genuine superlative, are different.
Moreover, the use of the indefinite article with the synthetical superlative in the degraded, elative function is not altogether impossible, though somehow such a possibility is bluntly denied by certain grammatical manuals. Cf.: He made a last lame effort to delay the experiment; but Basil was impervious to suggestion (J. Vance).
But there is one more possibility to formally differentiate the direct and elative functions of the synthetical superlative, namely, by using the zero article with the superlative. This latter possibility is noted in some grammar books [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 85]. Cf.: Suddenly I was seised with a sensation of deepest regret.
However, the general tendency of expressing the superlative elative meaning is by using the analytical form. Incidentally, in the Russian language the tendency of usage is reverse: it is the synthetical form of the Russian superlative that is preferred in rendering the elative function. Cf.: слушали с живейшим интересом; повторялась скучнейшая история; попал в глупейшее положение и т.д.
§ 7. Let us examine now the combinations of less/least with the basic form of the adjective.
As is well known, the general view of these combinations definitely excludes them from any connection with categorial analytical forms. Strangely enough, this rejectionist view of the "negative degrees of comparison" is even taken to support, not to reject the morphological interpretation of the more/most-combinations.
The corresponding argument in favour of the rejectionist interpretation consists in pointing out the functional parallelism existing between the synthetical degrees of comparison and the more/most-combinations accompanied by their complementary distribution, if not rigorously pronounced (the different choice of the forms by different syllabic-phonetical

forms of adjectives). The less/least-combinations, according to this view, are absolutely incompatible with the synthetical degrees of comparison, since they express not only different, but opposite meanings [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 77-78].
Now, it does not require a profound analysis to see that, from the grammatical point of view, the formula "opposite meaning" amounts to ascertaining the categorial equality of the forms compared. Indeed, if two forms express the opposite meanings, then they can only belong to units of the same general order. And we cannot but agree with B. A. Ilyish's thesis that "there seems to be no sufficient reason for treating the two sets of phrases in different ways, saying that 'more difficult' is an analytical form, while 'less difficult' is not" [Ilyish, 60]. True, the cited author takes this fact rather as demonstration that both types of constructions should equally be excluded from the domain of analytical forms, but the problem of the categorial status of the more/most-combinations has been analysed above.
Thus, the less/least-combinations, similar to the morel most-combinations, constitute specific forms of comparison, which may be called forms of "reverse comparison". The two types of forms cannot be syntagmatically combined in one and the same form of the word, which shows the unity of the category of comparison. The whole category includes not three, but five different forms, making up the two series - respectively, direct and reverse. Of these, the reverse series of comparison (the reverse superiority degrees) is of far lesser importance than the direct one, which evidently can be explained by semantic reasons. As a matter of fact, it is more natural to follow the direct model of comparison based on the principle of addition of qualitative quantities than on the reverse model of comparison based on the principle of subtraction of qualitative quantities, since subtraction in general is a far more abstract process of mental activity than addition. And, probably, exactly for the same reason the reverse comparatives and superlatives are rivalled in speech by the corresponding negative syntactic constructions.
§ 8. Having considered the characteristics of the category of comparison, we can see more clearly the relation to this category of some usually non-comparable evaluative adjectives.
Outside the immediate comparative grammatical change

of the adjective stand such evaluative adjectives as contain certain comparative sememic elements in their semantic structures. In particular, as we have mentioned above, here belong adjectives that are themselves grading marks of evaluation. Another group of evaluative non-comparables is formed by adjectives of indefinitely moderated quality, or, tentatively, "moderating qualifiers", such as whitish, tepid, half-ironical, semi-detached, etc. But the most peculiar lexemic group of non-comparables is made up by adjectives expressing the highest degree of a respective quality, which words can tentatively be called "adjectives of extreme quality", or "extreme qualifiers", or simply "extremals".
The inherent superlative semantics of extremals is emphasised by the definite article normally introducing their nounal combinations, exactly similar to the definite article used with regular collocations of the superlative degree. Cf.: The ultimate outcome of the talks was encouraging. The final decision has not yet been made public.
On the other hand, due to the tendency of colloquial speech to contrastive variation, such extreme qualifiers can sometimes be modified by intensifying elements. Thus, "the final decision" becomes "a very final decision"; "the ultimate rejection" turns into "rather an ultimate rejection"; "the crucial role" is made into "quite a crucial role", etc. As a result of this kind of modification, the highest grade evaluative force of these words is not strengthened, but, on the contrary, weakened; the outwardly extreme qualifiers become degraded extreme qualifiers, even in this status similar to the regular categorial superlatives degraded in their elative use.
§ 1. The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing either property of an action, or property of another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs. This definition, though certainly informative and instructive, fails to directly point out the relation between the adverb and the adjective as the primary qualifying part of speech.
In an attempt to overcome this drawback, let us define the adverb as a notional word expressing a non-substantive

property, that is, a property of a non-substantive referent. This formula immediately shows the actual correlation between the adverb and the adjective, since the adjective is a word expressing a substantive property.
Properties may be of a more particular, "organic" order, and a more general and detached, "inorganic" order. Of the organic properties, the adverb denotes those characterising processes and other properties. Of the inorganic properties, the adverb denotes various circumstantial characteristics of processes or whole situations built around processes.
The above definition, approaching the adverb as a word of the secondary qualifying order, presents the entire class of adverbial words as the least self-dependent of all the four notional parts of speech. Indeed, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the truly complete nominative value is inherent only in the noun, which is the name of substances. The verb comes next in its self-dependent nominative force, expressing processes as dynamic relations of substances, i.e. their dynamic relational properties in the broad sense. After that follow qualifying parts of speech -• first the adjective denoting qualifications of substances, and then the adverb denoting qualifications of non-substantive phenomena which find themselves within the range of notional signification.
As we see, the adverb is characterised by its own, specific nominative value, providing for its inalienable status in the system of the parts of speech. Hence, the complaints of some linguists that the adverb is not rigorously defined and in fact presents something like a "dump" for those words which have been rejected by other parts of speech can hardly be taken as fully justified. On the other hand, since the adverb does denote qualifications of the second order, not of the first one like the adjective, it includes a great number of semantically weakened words which are in fact intermediate between notional and functional lexemes by their status and often display features of pronominal nature.
§ 2. In accord with their categorial meaning, adverbs are characterised by a combinability with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in expressing different adverbial modifiers. Adverbs can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under the heading of situation-"determinants". Cf.:

The woman was crying hysterically. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand contact combination with the verb-predicate) Wilson looked at him appraisingly. (an adverbial modifier of manner, in left-hand distant combination with the verb-predicate) Without undressing she sat down to the poems, nervously anxious to like them... (an adverbial modifier of property qualification, in right-hand combination with a post-positional stative attribute-adjective) You've gotten awfully brave, awfully suddenly. (an adverbial modifier of intensity, in right-hand combination with an adverb-aspective determinant of the situation) Then he stamps his boots again and advances into the room. (two adverbial determinants of the situation: the first - of time, in right-hand combination with the modified predicative construction; the second - of recurrence, in left-hand combination with the modified predicative construction)
Adverbs can also combine with nouns acquiring in such cases a very peculiar adverbial-attributive function, essentially in post-position, but in some cases also in pre-position. E.g.:
The world today presents a picture radically different from what it was before the Second World War. Our vigil overnight was rewarded by good news: the operation seemed to have succeeded. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, proclaimed the "New Deal" - a new Government economic policy.
The use of adverbs in outwardly attributive positions in such and like examples appears to be in contradiction with the functional destination of the adverb - a word that is intended to qualify a non-nounal syntactic element by definition.
However, this seeming inconsistence of the theoretical interpretation of adverbs with their actual uses can be clarified and resolved in the light of the syntactic principle of nominalisation elaborated within the framework of the theory of paradigmatic syntax (see further). In accord with this principle, each predicative syntactic construction paradigmatically correlates with a noun-phrase displaying basically the same semantic relations between its notional constituents. A predicative construction can be actually changed into a noun-phrase, by which change the dynamic situation expressed by the predicative construction receives a static

name. Now, adverbs-determinants modifying in constructions of this kind the situation as a whole, are preserved in the corresponding nominalised phrases without a change in their inherent functional status. Cf.:
The world that exists today. > The world today. We kept vigil overnight. > Our vigil overnight. Then he was the President. > The then President.
These paradigmatic transformational correlations explain the type of connection between the noun and its adverbial attribute even in cases where direct transformational changes would not be quite consistent with the concrete contextual features of constructions. What is important here, is the fact that the adverb used to modify a noun actually relates to the whole corresponding situation underlying the nounphrase.
§ 3. In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple and derived.
Simple adverbs are rather few, and nearly all of them display functional semantics, mostly of pronominal character: here, there, now, then, so, quite, why, how, where, when.
The typical adverbial affixes in affixal derivation are, first and foremost, the basic and only productive adverbial suffix -ly (slowly, tiredly, rightly, firstly), and then a couple of others of limited distribution, such as -ways (sideways, crossways), -wise (clockwise), -ward(s) (homewards, seawards, afterwards). The characteristic adverbial prefix is a- (away, ahead, apart, across).
Among the adverbs there are also peculiar composite formations and phrasal formations of prepositional, conjunctional and other types: sometimes, nowhere, anyhow; at least, at most, at last; to and fro; upside down; etc.
Some authors include in the word-building sets of adverbs also formations of the type from outside, till now, before then, etc. However, it is not difficult to see that such formations differ in principle from the ones cited above. The difference consists in the fact that their parts are semantically not blended into an indivisible lexemic unity and present combinations of a preposition with a peculiar adverbial substantive - a word occupying an intermediary lexico-grammatical status between the noun and the adverb. This is most clearly seen on ready examples liberally offered by English texts of every stylistic standing. E. g.:

The pale moon looked at me from above. By now Sophie must have received the letter and very soon we shall hear from her. The departure of the delegation is planned for later this week.
The freely converted adverbial substantives in prepositional collocations belong to one of the idiomatic characteristics of English, and may be likened, with due alteration of details, to partially substantivised adjectives of the adjectivid type (see Ch. XVIII, §4). On this analogy the adverbial substantives in question may be called "adverbids".
Furthermore, there are in English some other peculiar structural types of adverbs which are derivationally connected with the words of non-adverbial lexemic classes by conversion. To these belong both adverbs of full notional value and adverbs of half-notional value.
A peculiar set of converted notional adverbs is formed by adjective-stem conversives, such as fast, late, hard, high, close, loud, tight, etc. The peculiar feature of these adverbs consists in the fact that practically all of them have a parallel form in -ly, the two component units of each pair often differentiated in meaning or connotation. Cf.: to work hard - hardly to work at all; to fall flat into the water - to refuse flatly; to speak loud - to criticise loudly; to fly high over the lake - to raise a highly theoretical question; etc.
Among the adjective-stem converted adverbs there are a few words with the non-specific -ly originally in-built in the adjective: daily, weekly, lively, timely, etc.
The purely positional nature of the conversion in question, i.e. its having no support in any differentiated categorial paradigms, can be reflected by the term "fluctuant conversives" which we propose to use as the name of such formations.
As for the fluctuant conversives of weakened pronominal semantics, very characteristic of English are the adverbs that positionally interchange with prepositions and conjunctive words: before, after, round, within, etc. Cf.: never before - never before our meeting; somewhere round - round the corner; not to be found within - within a minute; etc.
Of quite a different nature are preposition-adverb-like elements which, placed in post-position to the verb, form a semantical blend with it. By combining with these elements, verbs of broader meaning are subjected to a regular, systematic multiplication of their semantic functions.

E. g.: to give - to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away, to give over, etc.; to set - to set up, to set in, to set forth, to set off, to set down, etc.; to get - to get on, to get off, to get up, to get through, to get about, etc.; to work - to work up, to work in, to work out, to work away, to work over, etc.; to bring - to bring about, to bring up, to bring through, to bring forward, to bring down, etc.
The function of these post-positional elements is either to impart an additional aspective meaning to the verb-base, or to introduce a lexical modification to its fundamental semantics. E.g.: to bring about - to cause to happen; to reverse; to bring up - to call attention to; to rear and educate; to bring through - to help overcome a difficulty or danger; to save (a sick person); to bring forward - to introduce for discussion; to carry to the next page (the sum of figures); to bring down - to kill or wound; to destroy; to lower (as prices, etc.).
The lexico-grammatical standing of the elements in question has been interpreted in different ways. Some scholars have treated them as a variety of adverbs (H. Palmer, A. Smirnitsky); others, as preposition-like functional words (I. Anichkov, N. Amosova); still others, as peculiar prefix-like suffixes similar to the German separable prefixes (Y. Zhluktenko); finally, some scholars have treated these words as a special set of lexical elements functionally intermediate between words and morphemes (B. A. Ilyish; B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya). The cited variety of interpretations, naturally, testifies to the complexity of the problem. Still, we can't fail to see that one fundamental idea is common to all the various theories advanced, and that is, the idea of the functional character of the analysed elements. Proceeding from this idea, we may class these words as a special functional set of particles, i.e. words of semi-morphemic nature, correlative with prepositions and conjunctions.
As for the name to be given to the words for their descriptive identification, out of the variety of the ones already existing ("postpositions", "adverbial word-morphemes", "adverbial postpositions", etc.) we would prefer the term "post-positives" introduced by N. Amosova. While evading the confusion with classical "postpositions" developed in some languages of non-Indo-European types (i.e. post-nounal analogues of prepositions), this term is fairly convenient for descriptive purposes and at the same time is neutral categorially, i.e. it easily admits of additional specifications of
15-1499 225

the nature of the units in question in the course of their further linguistic study.
§ 4. Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial.
By qualitative such adverbs are meant as express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly. E. g.:
The little boy was crying bitterly over his broken toy. The plainly embarrassed Department of Industry confirmed the fact of the controversial deal.
The adverbs interpreted as "quantitative" include words of degree. These are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be subdivided into several very clearly pronounced sets.
The first set is formed by adverbs of high degree. These adverbs are sometimes classed as "intensifiers": very, quite, entirely, utterly, highly, greatly, perfectly, absolutely, strongly, considerably, pretty, much. The second set includes adverbs of excessive degree (direct and reverse) also belonging to the broader subclass of intensifiers: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically. The third set is made up of adverbs of unexpected degree: surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly. The fourth set is formed by adverbs of moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, moderately, rather. The fifth set includes adverbs of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit. The sixth set is constituted by adverbs of approximate degree: almost, nearly. The seventh set includes adverbs of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently, adequately. The eighth set is formed by adverbs of inadequate degree: insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably, ridiculously. The ninth set is made up of adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.
As we see, the degree adverbs, though usually described under the heading of "quantitative", in reality constitute a specific variety of qualitative words, or rather some sort of intermediate qualitative-quantitative words, in so far as they are used as quality evaluators. In this function they are distinctly different from genuine quantitative adverbs which are directly related to numerals and thereby form sets of words of pronominal order. Such are numerical-pronominal

adverbs like twice, thrice, four times, etc.; twofold, threefold, many fold, etc.
Thus, we will agree that the first general subclass of adverbs is formed by qualitative adverbs which are subdivided into qualitative adverbs of full notional value and degree adverbs - specific functional words.
Circumstantial adverbs are also divided into notional and functional.
The functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. Besides quantitative (numerical) adverbs mentioned above, they include adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming functionals. Here belong such words as now, here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.
As for circumstantial adverbs of more self-dependent nature, they include two basic sets: first, adverbs of time; second, adverbs of place: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom, early, late; homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc. The two varieties express a general idea of temporal and spatial orientation and essentially perform deictic (indicative) functions in the broader sense. Bearing this in mind, we may unite them under the general heading of "orientative" adverbs, reserving the term "circumstantial" to syntactic analysis of utterances.
Thus, the whole class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and pronominal, and the nominal adverbs will be subdivided into qualitative and orientative, the former including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter falling into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of more detailed specifications.
As is the case with adjectives, this lexemic subcategorisation of adverbs should be accompanied by a more functional and flexible division into evaluative and specificative, connected with the categorial expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to evaluation grading by degree words expresses the category of comparison, much in the same way as, mutatis mutandis, adjectives do. Thus, not only qualitative, but also orientative adverbs, providing they come under the heading of evaluative, are included into the categorial system of comparison. Cf.: quickly - quicker - quickest - less quickly - least quickly; frequently - more frequently - most frequently - less frequently - least
15* 227

frequently; ashore - more ashore - most ashore - less ashore - least ashore, etc.
Barring the question of the uses of articles in comparative - superlative collocations, all the problems connected with the adjectival degrees of comparison retain their force for the adverbial degrees of comparison, including the problem of elative superlative.
§ 5. Among the various types of adverbs, those formed from adjectives by means of the suffix -ly occupy the most representative place and pose a special problem.
The problem is introduced by the very regularity of their derivation, the rule of which can be formulated quite simply: each qualitative adjective has a parallel adverb in -ly. E. g.: silent - silently, slow - slowly, tolerable - tolerably, pious - piously, sufficient - sufficiently, tired - tiredly, explosive - explosively, etc.
This regularity of formation accompanied by the general qualitative character of semantics gave cause to A. I. Smirnitsky to advance the view that both sets of words belong to the same part of speech, the qualitative adverbs in -ly being in fact adjectives of specific combinability [Смирницкий, (2), 174-175].
The strong point of the adjectival interpretation of qualitative adverbs in -ly is the demonstration of the actual similarity between the two lexemic sets in their broader evaluative function, which fact provides for the near-identity of the adjectival and adverbial grammatical categories of comparison. On the whole, however, the theory in question is hardly acceptable for the mere reason that derivative relations in general are not at all relations of lexico-grammatical identity; for that matter, they are rather relations of non-identity, since they actually constitute a system of production of one type of lexical units from another type of lexical units. As for the types of units belonging to the same or different lexemic classes, this is a question of their actual status in the system of lexicon, i. e. in the lexemic paradigm of nomination reflecting the fundamental correlations between the lexemic sets of language (see Ch. IV, § 8). Since the English lexicon does distinguish adjectives and adverbs; since adjectives are substantive-qualifying words in distinction to adverbs, which are non-substantive qualifying words; since, finally, adverbs in -ly do preserve this fundamental nonsubstantive-qualification character - there can't be any

question of their being "adjectives" in any rationally conceivable way. As for the regularity or irregularity of derivation, it is absolutely irrelevant to the identification of their class-lexemic nature.
Thus, the whole problem is not a problem of part-of-speech identity; it is a problem of inter-class connections, in particular, of inter-class systemic division of functions, and, certainly, of the correlative status of the compared units in the lexical paradigm of nomination.
But worthy of attention is the relation of the adverbs in question to adverbs of other types and varieties, i. e. their intra-class correlations. As a matter of fact, the derivational features of other adverbs, in sharp contrast to the ly-adverbs, are devoid of uniformity to such an extent that practically all of them fall into a multitude of minor non-productive derivational groups. Besides, the bulk of notional qualitative adverbs of other than ly-derivation have ly-correlatives (both of similar and dissimilar meanings and connotations'". These facts cannot but show that adverbs in -ly should be looked upon as the standard type of the English adverb as a whole.
§ 1. Performing their semantic functions, words in an utterance form various syntagmatic connections with one another.
One should distinguish between syntagmatic groupings of notional words alone, syntagmatic groupings of notional words with functional words, and syntagmatic groupings of functional words alone.
Different combinations of notional words (notional phrases) have a clearly pronounced self-dependent nominative destination, they denote complex phenomena and their properties in their inter-connections, including dynamic interconnections (semi-predicative combinations). Cf.: a sudden trembling; a soul in pain; hurrying along the stream; to lead to a cross-road; strangely familiar; so sure of their aims.
Combinations of a notional word with a functional word are equivalent to separate words by their nominative function. Since a functional word expresses some abstract

relation, such combinations, as a rule, are quite obviously non-self-dependent; they are, as it were, stamped as artificially isolated from the context. Cf.: in a low voice; with difficulty; must finish; but a moment; and Jimmy; too cold; so unexpectedly.
We call these combinations "formative" ones. Their contextual dependence ("synsemantism") is quite natural; functionally they may be compared to separate notional words used in various marked grammatical forms (such as, for instance, indirect cases of nouns). Cf.: Eng. Mr. Snow's - of Mr. Snow; him - to him; Russ. Иванов - к Иванову; лесом - через лес.
Expanding the cited formative phrases with the corresponding notional words one can obtain notional phrases of contextually self-dependent value ("autosemantic" on their level of functioning). Cf.: Eng. Mr. Snow's considerations - the considerations of Mr. Snow; gave it him - gave it to him; Russ. позвонили Иванову - позвонили к Иванову; шли лесом - шли через лес.
In this connection we should remember that among the notional word-classes only the noun has a full nominative force, for it directly names a substance. Similarly, we may assert that among various phrase-types it is the noun-phrase that has a full phrasal nominative force (see further).
As for syntagmatic groupings of functional words, they are essentially analogous to separate functional words and are used as connectors and specifiers of notional elements of various status. Cf.: from out of; up to; so that; such as; must be able; don't let's.
Functional phrases of such and like character constitute limited groups supplementing the corresponding subsets of regular one-item functional words, as different from notional phrases which, as free combinations, form essentially open subsets of various semantic destinations.
§ 2. Groupings of notional words fall into two mutually opposite types by their grammatical and semantic properties.
Groupings of the first type are constituted by words related to one another on an equal rank, so that, for a case of a two-word combination, neither of them serves as a modifier of the other. Depending on this feature, these combinations can be called "equipotent".
Groupings of the second type are formed by words which are syntactically unequal in the sense that, for a case of a

two-word combination, one of them plays the role of a modifier of the other. Due to this feature, combinations of the latter type can be called "dominational".
§ 3. Equipotent connection in groupings of notional words is realised either with the help of conjunctions (syndetically), or without the help of conjunctions (asyndetically). Cf.: prose and poetry; came and went; on the beach or in the water; quick but not careless; - no sun, no moon; playing, chatting, laughing; silent, immovable, gloomy; Mary's, not John's.
In the cited examples, the constituents of the combinations form logically consecutive connections that are classed as coordinative. Alongside of these, there exist equipotent connections of a non-consecutive type, by which a sequential element, although equal to the foregoing element by its formal introduction (coordinative conjunction), is unequal to it as to the character of nomination. The latter type of equipotent connections is classed as "cumulative".
The term "cumulation" is commonly used to mean connections between separate sentences. By way of restrictive indications, we may speak about "inner cumulation", i. e. cumulation within the sentence, and, respectively, "outer cumulation".
Cumulative connection in writing is usually signalled by some intermediary punctuation stop, such as a comma or a hyphen. Cf: Eng. agreed, but reluctantly; quick - and careless; satisfied, or nearly so. Russ. сыт, но не очень; согласен, или почти согласен; дал - да неохотно.
Syndetic connection in a word-combination can alternate with asyndetic connection, as a result of which the whole combination can undergo a semantically motivated sub-grouping. Cf.: He is a little man with irregular features, soft dark eyes and a soft voice, very shy, with a gift of mimicry and a love of music (S. Maugham).
In enumerative combinations the last element, in distinction to the foregoing elements, can be introduced by a conjunction, which underlines the close of the syntagmatic series. Cf.: All about them happy persons were enjoying the good things of life, talking, laughing, and making merry (S. Maugham).
The same is true about combinations formed by repetition. E. g.: There were rows of books, books and books everywhere.

§ 4. Dominational connection, as different from equipotent connection, is effected in such a way that one of the constituents of the combination is principal (dominating) and the other is subordinate (dominated). The principal element is commonly called the "kernel", "kernel element", or "headword"; the subordinate element, respectively, the "adjunct", "adjunct-word", "expansion".
Dominational connection is achieved by different forms of the word (categorial agreement, government), connective words (prepositions, i. e. prepositional government), word-order.
Dominational connection, like equipotent connection, can be both consecutive and cumulative. Cf.: a careful observer an observer, seemingly careful; definitely out of the
point - - out of the point, definitely; will be helpful in any case will be helpful - at least, in some cases.
The two basic types of dominational connection are bilateral (reciprocal, two-way) domination and monolateral (one-way) domination. Bilateral domination is realised in predicative connection of words, while monolateral domination is realised in completive connection of words.
§ 5. The predicative connection of words, uniting the subject and the predicate, builds up the basis of the sentence. The reciprocal nature of this connection consists in the fact that the subject dominates the predicate determining the person of predication, while the predicate dominates the subject, determining the event of predication, i. e. ascribing to the predicative person some action, or state, or quality. This difference in meaning between the elements of predication, underlying the mutually opposite directions of domination, explains the seeming paradox of the notion of reciprocal domination, exposing its dialectic essence. Both directions of domination in a predicative group can be demonstrated by a formal test.
The domination of the subject over the predicate is exposed by the reflective character of the verbal category of person and also the verbal category of number which is closely connected with the former.
The English grammatical forms of explicit subject-verb agreement (concord) are very scarce (the inflexion marking the Third person singular present, and some special forms of the verb be). Still, these scarce forms are dynamically correlated

with the other, grammatically non-agreed forms. Cf.: he went - he goes I went - I go.
But apart from the grammatical forms of agreement, the predicative person is directly reflected upon the verb-predicate as such; the very semantics of the person determines the subject reference of the predicative event (action, state, quality). Thus, the subject unconditionally dominates over the predicate by its specific substantive categories in both agreed, and non-agreed forms of predicative connection.
As for the predicate dominating the subject in its own sphere of grammatical functions, this fact is clearly demonstrated by the correlation of the sentence and the corresponding noun-phrase. Namely, the transformation of the sentence into the noun-phrase places the predicate in the position of the head-word, and the subject, in the position of the adjunct. Cf.: The train arrived. > The arrival of the train.
Alongside of fully predicative groupings of the subject and the finite verb-predicate, there exist in language partially predicative groupings formed by a combination of a non-finite verbal form (verbid) with a substantive element. Such are infinitival, gerundial, and participial constructions.
The predicative person is expressed in the infinitival construction by the prepositional for-phrase, in the gerundial construction by the possessive or objective form of the substantive, in the participial construction by the nominative (common) form of the substantive. Cf.: The pupil understands his mistake -" for the pupil to understand his mistake -" the pupil('s) understanding his mistake - the pupil understanding his mistake.
In the cited semi-predicative (or potentially-predicative) combinations the "event"-expressing element is devoid of the formal agreement with the "person"-expressing element, but the two directions of domination remain valid by virtue of the very predicative nature of the syntactic connection in question (although presented in an incomplete form).
Thus, among the syntagmatic connections of the reciprocal domination the two basic subtypes are distinguished: first, complete predicative connections, second, incomplete predicative connections (semi-predicative, potentially-predicative connections).
§ 6. The completive, one-way connection of words (monolateral domination) is considered as subordinative on the

ground that the outer syntactic status of the whole combination is determined by the kernel element (head-word). Cf.:
She would be reduced to a nervous wreck. > She would be reduced to a wreck. > She would be reduced. That woman was astonishingly beautiful. > That woman was beautiful.
In the cited examples the head-word can simply be isolated through the deletion of the adjunct, the remaining construction being structurally complete, though schematic. In other cases, the head-word cannot be directly isolated, and its representative nature is to be exposed, for instance, by diagnostic questions. Cf.: Larry greeted the girl heartily. -" Whom did Larry greet? > How did Larry greet the girl?
The questions help demonstrate that the verb is presupposed as the kernel in its lines of connections, i. e. objective and adverbial ones.
All the completive connections fall into two main divisions: objective connections and qualifying connections.
Objective connections reflect the relation of the object to the process and are characterised as, on the whole, very close. By their form these connections are subdivided into non-prepositional (word-order, the objective form of the adjunct substantive) and prepositional, while from the semantico-syntactic point of view they are classed as direct (the immediate transition of the action to the object) and indirect or oblique (the indirect relation of the object to the process). Direct objective connections are non-prepositional, the preposition serving as an intermediary of combining words by its functional nature. Indirect objective connections may be both prepositional and non-prepositional. Since, on the other hand, some prepositional objective connections, in spite of their being indirect, still come very near to direct ones in terms of closeness of the process-substance relation expressed, all the objective connections may be divided into "narrow" and "broader". Semantically, narrow prepositional objective connections are then to be classed together with direct objective connections, the two types forming the corresponding subclasses of non-prepositional (direct) and prepositional (indirect) narrow objective connections of words. Cf.:
He remembered the man. I won't stand any more nonsense. I sympathised with the child. They were working on the problem. Etc.

Cf. examples of broader indirect objective connections, both non-prepositional and prepositional:
Will you show me the picture? Whom did he buy it for? Tom peeped into the hall. Etc.
Further subdivision of objective connections is realised on the basis of subcategorising the elements of objective combinations, and first of all the verbs; thus, we recognise objects of immediate action, of perception, of speaking, etc.
Objective connection may also combine an adjunct substance word with a kernel word of non-verbal semantics (such as a state or a property word), but the meaning of some processual relation is still implied in the deep semantic base of such combinations all the same. Cf.: aware of John's presence > am aware; crazy about her > got crazy about her; full of spite > is full of spite; etc.
Qualifying completive connections are divided into attributive and adverbial. Both are expressed in English by word-order and prepositions.
Attributive connection unites a substance with its attribute expressed by an adjective or a noun. E. g.: an enormous appetite; an emerald ring; a woman of strong character, the case for the prosecution; etc.
Adverbial connection is subdivided into primary and secondary.
The primary adverbial connection is established between the verb and its adverbial modifiers of various standings. E.g.: to talk glibly, to come nowhere; to receive (a letter) with surprise; to throw (one's arms) round a person's neck; etc.
The secondary adverbial connection is established between the non-verbal kernel expressing a quality and its adverbial modifiers of various standings. E.g.: marvellously becoming; very much at ease; strikingly alike; no longer oppressive; unpleasantly querulous; etc.
§ 7. Different completive noun combinations are distinguished by a feature that makes them into quite special units on the phrasemic level of language. Namely, in distinction to all the other combinations' of words they are directly related to whole sentences, i. e. predicative combinations of words. This fact was illustrated above when we described the verbal domination over the subject in a predicative grouping of words

(see § 5). Compare some more examples given in the reverse order:
The arrival of the train > The train arrived. The baked potatoes > The potatoes are baked. The gifted pupil > The pupil has a gift.
Completive combinations of adjectives and adverbs (adjective-phrases and adverb-phrases), as different from noun combinations (noun-phrases), are related to predicative constructions but indirectly, through the intermediary stage of the corresponding noun-phrase. Cf.: utterly neglected - utter neglect - The neglect is utter; very carefully - great carefulness - The carefulness is great; speechlessly reproachful - speechless reproach - The reproach is speechless.
These distinctions of completive word combinations are very important to understand for analysing paradigmatic relations in syntax (see further).
§ 1. The sentence is the immediate integral unit of speech built up of words according to a definite syntactic pattern and distinguished by a contextually relevant communicative purpose. Any coherent connection of words having an informative destination is effected within the framework of the sentence. Therefore the sentence is the main object of syntax as part of the grammatical theory.
The sentence, being composed of words, may in certain cases include only one word of various lexico-grammatical standing. Cf.: Night. Congratulations. Away! Why? Certainly.
The actual existence of one-word sentences, however,
does not contradict the general idea of the sentence as a special syntactic combination of words, the same as the notion of one-element set in mathematics does not contradict the general idea of the set as a combination of certain elements. Moreover, this fact cannot lead even to the inference that under some circumstances the sentence and the word may wholly coincide: a word-sentence as a unit of the text is radically different from a word-lexeme as a unit of lexicon, the differentiation being inherent in the respective places

occupied by the sentence and the word in the hierarchy of language levels. While the word is a component element of the word-stock and as such is a nominative unit of language, the sentence, linguistically, is a predicative utterance-unit. It means that the sentence not only names some referents with the help of its word-constituents, but also, first, presents these referents as making up a certain situation, or, more specifically, a situational event, and second, reflects the connection between the nominal denotation of the event on the one hand, and objective reality on the other, showing the time of the event, its being real or unreal, desirable or undesirable, necessary or unnecessary, etc. Cf.:
I am satisfied, the experiment has succeeded. I would have been satisfied if the experiment had succeeded. The experiment seems to have succeeded - why then am I not satisfied?
Thus, even one uninflected word making up a sentence is thereby turned into an utterance-unit expressing the said semantic complex through its concrete contextual and consituational connections. By way of example, compare the different connections of the word-sentence "night" in the following passages:
1) Night. Night and the boundless sea, under the eternal star-eyes shining with promise. Was it a dream of freedom coining true? 2) Night? Oh no. No night for me until 1 have worked through the case. 3) Night. It pays all the day's debts. No cause for worry now, I tell you.
Whereas the utterance "night" in the first of the given passages refers the event to the plane of reminiscences, the "night" of the second passage presents a question in argument connected with the situation wherein the interlocutors are immediately involved, while the latter passage features its "night" in the form of a proposition of reason in the flow of admonitions.
It follows from this that there is another difference between the sentence and the word. Namely, unlike the word, the sentence does not exist in the system of language as a ready-made unit; with the exception of a limited number of utterances of phraseological citation, it is created by the speaker in the course of communication. Stressing this fact, linguists point out that the sentence, as different from the word, is not a unit of language proper; it is a chunk of text

built up as a result of speech-making process, out of different units of language, first of all words, which are immediate means for making up contextually bound sentences, i. e. complete units of speech.
It should be noted that this approach to the sentence, very consistently exposed in the works of the prominent Soviet scholar A. I. Smirnitsky, corresponds to the spirit of traditional grammar from the early epoch of its development. Traditional grammar has never regarded the sentence as part of the system of means of expression; it has always interpreted the sentence not as an implement for constructing speech, but as speech itself, i. e. a portion of coherent flow of words of one speaker containing a complete thought.
Being a unit of speech, the sentence is intonationally delimited. Intonation separates one sentence from another in the continual flow of uttered segments and, together with various segmental means of expression, participates in rendering essential communicative-predicative meanings (such as, for instance, the syntactic meaning of interrogation in distinction to the meaning of declaration). The role of intonation as a delimiting factor is especially important for sentences which have more than one predicative centre, in particular more than one finite verb. Cf.:
1) The class was over, the noisy children fitted the corridors. 2) The class was over. The noisy children filled the corridors.
Special intonation contours, including pauses, represent the given speech sequence in the first case as one compound sentence, in the second case as two different sentences (though, certainly, connected both logically and syntactically).
On the other hand, as we have stated elsewhere, the system of language proper taken separately, and the immediate functioning of this system in the process of intercourse, i.e. speech proper, present an actual unity and should be looked upon as the two sides of one dialectically complicated substance - the human language in the broad sense of the term. Within the framework of this unity the sentence itself, as a unit of communication, also presents the two different sides, inseparably connected with each other. Namely, within each sentence as an immediate speech element of the communication process, definite standard syntactic-semantic features are revealed which make up a typical model, a generalised pattern repeated in an indefinite number of actual utterances.

This complicated predicative pattern does enter the system of language. It exists on its own level in the hierarchy of lingual segmental units in the capacity of a "linguistic sentence" and as such is studied by grammatical theory,
Thus, the sentence is characterised by its specific category of predication which establishes the relation of the named phenomena to actual life. The general semantic category of modality is also defined by linguists as exposing the connection between the named objects and surrounding reality. However, modality, as different from predication, is not specifically confined to the sentence; this is a broader category revealed both in the grammatical elements of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. In this sense, every word expressing a definite correlation between the named substance and objective reality should be recognised as modal. Here belong such lexemes of full notional standing as "probability", "desirability", "necessity" and the like, together with all the derivationally relevant words making up the corresponding series of the lexical paradigm of nomination; here belong semi-functional words and phrases of probability and existential evaluation, such as perhaps, may be, by all means, etc.; here belong further, word-particles of specifying modal semantics, such as just, even, would-be, etc.; here belong, finally, modal verbs expressing a broad range of modal meanings which are actually turned into elements of predicative semantics in concrete, contextually-bound utterances.
As for predication proper, it embodies not any kind of modality, but only syntactic modality as the fundamental distinguishing feature of the sentence. It is the feature of predication, fully and explicitly expressed by a contextually relevant grammatical complex, that identifies the sentence in distinction to any other combination of words having a situational referent.
The centre of predication in a sentence of verbal type (which is the predominant type of sentence-structure in English) is a finite verb. The finite verb expresses essential predicative meanings by its categorial forms, first of all, the categories of tense and mood (the category of person, as we have seen before, reflects the corresponding category of the subject). However, proceeding from the principles of sentence analysis worked out in the Russian school of theoretical syntax, in particular, in the classical treatises of V.V. Vinogradov, we insist that predication is effected not only by the

forms of the finite verb connecting it with the subject, but also by all the other forms and elements of the sentence establishing the connection between the named objects and reality, including such means of expression as intonation, word order, different functional words. Besides the purely verbal categories, in the predicative semantics are included such syntactic sentence meanings as purposes of communication (declaration - interrogation - inducement), modal probability, affirmation and negation, and others, which, taken together, provide for the sentence to be identified on its own, proposemic level of lingual hierarchy.
§ 2. From what has been said about the category of predication, we see quite clearly that the general semantic content of the sentence is not at all reduced to predicative meanings only. Indeed, in order to establish the connection between some substance and reality, it is first necessary to name the substance itself. This latter task is effected in the sentence with the help of its nominative means. Hence, the sentence as a lingual unit performs not one, but two essential signemic (meaningful) functions: first, substance-naming, or nominative function; second, reality-evaluating, or predicative function.
The terminological definition of the sentence as a predicative unit gives prominence to the main feature distinguishing the sentence from the word among the meaningful lingual units (signernes). However, since every predication is effected upon a certain nomination as its material semantic base, we gain a more profound insight into the difference between the sentence and the word by pointing out the two-aspective meaningful nature of the sentence. The semantics of the sentence presents a unity of its nominative and predicative aspects, while the semantics of the word, in this sense, is monoaspective.
Some linguists do not accept the definition of the sentence through predication, considering it to contain tautology, since, allegedly, it equates the sentence with predication ("the sentence is predication, predication is the sentence"). However, the identification of the two aspects of the sentence pointed out above shows that this negative attitude is wholly unjustified; the real content of the predicative interpretation of the sentence has nothing to do with definitions of the "vicious circle" type. In point of fact" as follows from the given exposition of predication, predicative meanings

do not exhaust the semantics of the sentence; on the contrary, they presuppose the presence in the sentence of meanings of quite another nature, which form its deeper nominative basis. Predicative functions work upon this deep nominative basis, and as a result the actual utterance-sentence is finally produced.
On the other hand, we must also note a profound difference between the nominative function of the sentence and the nominative function of the word. The nominative meaning of the syntagmatically complete average sentence (an ordinary proposemic nomination) reflects a processual situation or event that includes a certain process (actional or statal) as its dynamic centre, the agent of the process, the objects of the process, and also the various conditions and circumstances of the realisation of the process. This content of the proposemic event, as is known from school grammar, forms the basis of the traditional syntactic division of the sentence into its functional parts. In other words, the identification of traditional syntactic parts of the sentence is nothing else than the nominative division of the sentence. Cf.:
The pilot was steering the ship out of the harbour.
The old pilot was carefully steering the heavily loaded ship through the narrow straits out of the harbour.
As is easily seen, no separate word, be it composed of so many stems, can express the described situation-nominative semantics of the proposition. Even hyperbolically complicated artificial words such as are sometimes coined for various expressive purposes by authors of fiction cannot have means of organising their root components analogous to the means of arranging the nominative elements of the sentence.
Quite different in this respect is a nominal phrase - a compound signemic unit made up of words and denoting a complex phenomenon of reality analysable into its component elements together with various relations between them. Comparative observations of predicative and non-predicative combinations of words have unmistakably shown that among the latter there are quite definite constructions which are actually capable of realising nominations of proposemic situations. These are word-combinations of full nominative value represented by expanded substantive phrases. It is these combinations that, by their nominative potential, directly correspond to sentences expressing typical proposemic situations. Cf.:
1G-1499 241

... > The pilot's steering of the ship out of the harbour. ... > The old pilot's careful steering of the heavily loaded ship through the narrow straits out of the harbour.
In other words, between the sentence and the substantive word-combination of the said full nominative type, direct transformational relations are established: the sentence, interpreted as an element of paradigmatics, is transformed into the substantive phrase, or "nominalised", losing its processual-predicative character. Thus, syntactic nominalisation, while depriving the sentence of its predicative aspect (and thereby, naturally, destroying the sentence as an immediate communicative unit), preserves its nominative aspect intact.
The identification of nominative aspect of the sentence effected on the lines of studying the paradigmatic relations in syntax makes it possible to define more accurately the very notion of predication as the specific function of the sentence.
The functional essence of predication has hitherto been understood in linguistics as the expression of the relation of the utterance (sentence) to reality, or, in more explicit presentation, as the expression of the relation between the content of the sentence and reality. This kind of understanding predication can be seen, for instance, in the well-known "Grammar of the Russian Language" published by the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, where it is stated that "the meaning and purpose of the general category of predication forming the sentence consists in referring the content of the sentence to reality".* Compare with this the definition advanced by A. I. Smirnitsky, according to which predication is understood as "referring the utterance to reality" [Смирницкий, (1), 102].
The essential principles of this interpretation of predication can be expressed even without the term "predication" as such. The latter approach to the exposition of the predicative meaning of the sentence can be seen, for instance, in the course of English grammar by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Vasilevskaya, who write: "Every sentence shows the relation of the statement to reality from the point of view of the speaker" [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 321].
Now, it is easily noticed that the cited and similar
* Грамматика русского языка. M., 1960. T. 2, Ч. I. с. 79.-80.
definitions of predication do not explicitly distinguish the two cardinal sides of the sentence content, namely, the nominative side and the predicative side. We may quite plausibly suppose that the non-discrimination of these two sides of sentence meaning gave the ultimate cause to some scholars for their negative attitude towards the notion of predication as the fundamental factor of sentence forming.
Taking into consideration the two-aspective character of the sentence as a signemic unit of language, predication should now be interpreted not simply as referring the content of the sentence to reality, but as referring the nominative content of the sentence to reality. It is this interpretation of the semantic-functional nature of predication that discloses, in one and the same generalised presentation, both the unity of the two identified aspects of the sentence, and also their different, though mutually complementary meaningful roles.
§ 1. The notional parts of the sentence referring to the basic elements of the reflected situation form, taken together, the nominative meaning of the sentence. For the sake of terminological consistency, the division of the sentence into notional parts can be just so called - the "nominative division" (its existing names are the "grammatical division" and the "syntactic division"). The discrimination of the nominative division of the sentence is traditional; it is this type of division that can conveniently be shown by a syntagmatic model, in particular, by a model of immediate constituents based on the traditional syntactic analysis (see Ch. XXIV).
Alongside of the nominative division of the sentence, the idea of the so-called "actual division" of the sentence has been put forward in theoretical linguistics. The purpose of the actual division of the sentence, called also the "functional sentence perspective", is to reveal the correlative significance of the sentence parts from the point of view of their actual informative role in an utterance, i.e. from the point of view of the immediate semantic contribution they make to the total information conveyed by the sentence in the context of connected speech. In other words,

the actual division of the sentence in fact exposes its informative perspective.
The main components of the actual division of the sentence are the theme and the rheme. The theme expresses the starting point of the communication, i.e. it denotes an object or a phenomenon about which something is reported. The rheme expresses the basic informative part of the communication, its contextually relevant centre. Between the theme and the rheme are positioned intermediary, transitional parts of the actual division of various degrees of informative value (these parts are sometimes called "transition").
The theme of the actual division of the sentence may or may not coincide with the subject of the sentence. The rheme of the actual division, in its turn, may or may not coincide with the predicate of the sentence - either with the whole predicate group or its part, such as the predicative, the object, the adverbial.
Thus, in the following sentences of various emotional character the theme is expressed by the subject, while the rheme is expressed by the predicate:
Max bounded forward. Again Charlie is being too clever! Her advice can't be of any help to us.
In the first of the above sentences the rheme coincides with the whole predicate group. In the second sentence the adverbial introducer again can be characterised as a transitional element, i.e. an element informationally intermediary between the theme and the rheme, the latter being expressed by the rest of the predicate group, The main part of the rheme - the "peak" of informative perspective -- is rendered in this sentence by the intensified predicative too clever. In the third sentence the addressee object to us is more or less transitional, while the informative peak, as in the previous example, is expressed by the predicative of any help.
In the following sentences the correlation between the nominative and actual divisions is the reverse: the theme is expressed by the predicate or its part, while the rheme is rendered by the subject:
Through the open window came the purr of an approaching motor car. Who is coming late but John! There is a difference of opinion between the parties.
Historically the theory of actual division of the sentence is connected with the logical analysis of the proposition. The

principal parts of the proposition, as is known, are the logical subject and the logical predicate. These, like the theme and the rheme, may or may not coincide, respectively, with the subject and the predicate of the sentence. The logical categories of subject and predicate are prototypes of the linguistic categories of theme and rheme. However, if logic analyses its categories of subject and predicate as the meaningful components of certain forms of thinking, linguistics analyses the categories of theme and rheme as the corresponding means of expression used by the speaker for the sake of rendering the informative content of his communications.
§ 2. The actual division of the sentence finds its full expression only in a concrete context of speech, therefore it is sometimes referred to as the "contextual" division of the sentence. This can be illustrated by the following example: Mary is fond of poetry.
In the cited sentence, if we approach it as a stylistically neutral construction devoid of any specific connotations, the theme is expressed by the subject, and the rheme, by the predicate. This kind of actual division is "direct". On the other hand, a certain context may be built around the given sentence in the conditions of which the order of actual division will be changed into the reverse: the subject will turn into the exposer of the rheme, while the predicate, accordingly, into the exposer of the theme. Cf.: "Isn't it surprising that Tim is so fond of poetry?" - "But you are wrong. Mary is fond of poetry, not Tim."
The actual division in which the rheme is expressed by the subject is to be referred to as "inverted".
§ 3, The close connection of the actual division of the sentence with the context in the conditions of which it is possible to divide the informative parts of the communication into those "already known" by the listener and those "not yet known" by him, gave cause to the recognised founder of the linguistic theory of actual division J. Mathesius to consider this kind of sentence division as a purely semantic factor sharply opposed to the "formally grammatical" or "purely syntactic" division of the sentence (in our terminology called its "nominative" division).
One will agree that the actual division of the sentence will really lose all connection with syntax if its components are to be identified solely on the principle of their being

"known" or "unknown" to the listener. However, we must bear in mind that the informative value of developing speech consists not only in introducing new words that denote things and phenomena not mentioned before; the informative value of communications lies also in their disclosing various new relations between the elements of reflected events, though the elements themselves may be quite familiar to the listener. The expression of a certain aspect of these relations, namely, the correlation of the said elements from the point of view of their immediate significance in a given utterance produced as a predicative item of a continual speech, does enter the structural plane of language. This expression becomes part and parcel of the structural system of language by the mere fact that the correlative informative significance of utterance components are rendered by quite definite, generalised and standardised lingual constructions. The functional purpose of such constructions is to reveal the meaningful centre of the utterance (i.e. its rheme) in distinction to the starting point of its content (i.e. its theme).
These constructions do not present any "absolutely formal", "purely differential" objects of language which are filled with semantic content only in the act of speech communication. On the contrary, they are bilateral signemic units in exactly the same sense as other meaningful constructions of language, i.e. they are distinguished both by their material form and their semantics. It follows from this that the constructional, or immediately systemic side of the phenomenon which is called the "actual division of the sentence" belongs to no other sphere of language than syntax. And the crucial syntactic destination of the whole aspect of the actual division is its rheme-identifying function, since an utterance is produced just for the sake of conveying the meaningful content expressed by its central informative part, i.e. by the rheme.
§ 4. Among the formal means of expressing the distinction between the theme and the rheme investigators name such structural elements of language as word-order patterns, intonation contours, constructions with introducers, syntactic patterns of contrastive complexes, constructions with articles and other determiners, constructions with intensifying particles.
The difference between the actual division of sentences signalled by the difference in their word-order patterns can

be most graphically illustrated by the simplest type of transformations. Cf.:
The winner of the competition stood on the platform in the middle of the hall. > On the platform in the middle of the hall stood the winner of the competition. Fred didn't notice the flying balloon. > The one who didn't notice the flying balloon was Fred. Helen should be the first to receive her diploma. > The first to receive her diploma should be Helen.
In all the cited examples, i.e. both base sentences and their transforms, the rheme (expressed either by the subject or by an element of the predicate group) is placed towards the end of the sentence, while the theme is positioned at the beginning of it. This kind of positioning the components of the actual division corresponds to the natural development of thought from the starting point of communication to its semantic centre, or, in common parlance, from the "known data" to the "unknown (new) data". Still, in other contextual conditions, the reversed order of positioning the actual division components is used, which can be shown by the following illustrative transformations:
It was unbelievable to all of them. > Utterly unbelievable it was to all of them. Now you are speaking magic words, Nancy. > Magic words you are speaking now, Nancy. You look so well! > How well you look!
It is easily seen from the given examples that the reversed order of the actual division, i.e. the positioning of the rheme at the beginning of the sentence, is connected with emphatic speech.
Among constructions with introducers, the there-pattern provides for the rhematic identification of the subject without emotive connotations. Cf.:
Tall birches surrounded the lake. > There were tall birches surrounding the lake. A loud hoot came from the railroad. > There came a loud hoot from the railroad.
Emphatic discrimination of the rheme expressed by various parts of the sentence is achieved by constructions with the anticipatory it. Cf.:
Grandma gave them a moment's deep consideration. > It was a moment's deep consideration that Grandma gave

them. She had just escaped something simply awful. ˜* It was something simply awful that she had just escaped. At that moment Laura joined them. > It was Laura who joined them at that moment.
Syntactic patterns of contrastive complexes are used to expose the rheme of the utterance in cases when special accuracy of distinction is needed. This is explained by the fact that the actual division as such is always based on some sort of antithesis or "contraposition" (see further), which in an ordinary speech remains implicit. Thus, a syntactic contrastive complex is employed to make explicative the inner contrast inherent in the actual division by virtue of its functional nature. This can be shown on pairs of nominatively cognate examples of antithetic constructions where each member-construction will expose its own contrastively presented element. Cf.:
The costume is meant not for your cousin, but for you.
The costume, not the frock, is meant for you, my dear.
The strain told not so much on my visitor than on myself.
The strain of the situation, not the relaxation of it, was
what surprised me.
Determiners, among them the articles, used as means of forming certain patterns of actual division, divide their functions so that the definite determiners serve as identifiers of the theme while the indefinite determiners serve as identifiers of the rheme. Cf.:
The man walked up and down the platform. -- A man walked up and down the platform. The whole book was devoted to the description of a tiny island on the Pacific.
A whole book is needed to describe that tiny island on the Pacific. I'm sure Nora's knitting needles will suit you. - I'm sure any knitting needles will suit you.
Intensifying particles identify the rheme, commonly imparting emotional colouring to the whole of the utterance. Cf.:
Mr. Stores had a part in the general debate. > Even Mr. Stores had a part in the general debate. Then he sat down in one of the armchairs. > Only then did he sit down in one of the armchairs. We were impressed by what we heard and saw. > We were so impressed by what we heard and saw.

As for intonation as a means of realising the actual division, it might appear that its sphere is relatively limited, being confined to oral speech only. On closer consideration, however, this view of rheme-identifying role of intonation proves inadequate. To appreciate the true status of intonation in the actual division of the sentence, one should abstract oneself from "paper syntax" (description of written texts) and remember that it is phonetical speech, i.e. articulately pronounced utterances that form the basis of human language as a whole. As soon as the phonetical nature of language is duly taken account of, intonation with its accent-patterns presents itself not as a limited, but as a universal and indisputable means of expressing the actual division in all types and varieties of lingual contexts. This universal rheme-identifying function of intonation has been described in treatises on logic, as well as in traditional philological literature, in terms of "logical accent". The "logical accent", which amounts linguistically to the "rhematic accent", is inseparable from the other rheme-identifying means described above, especially from the word-order patterns. Moreover, all such means in written texts in fact represent the logical accent, i.e. they indicate its position either directly or indirectly. This can be seen on all the examples hitherto cited in the present chapter.
§ 5. While recognising the logical accent as a means of effecting the actual division, we must strictly distinguish between the elements immediately placed under the phonetical, "technical" stress, and the sentence segments which are identified as the informative centre of communication in the true sense of the term.
Technically, not only notional, but functional units as well can be phrasally stressed in an utterance, which in modern printed texts is shown by special graphical ways of identification, such as italics, bold type, etc. Cf.:
"I can't bring along someone who isn't invited." - "But I am invited!" said Miss Casement (I. Murdoch). Moreover, being a highly intelligent young woman, she'd be careful not to be the only one affected (Л. Christie).
However, it would be utterly incorrect to think that in such instances only those word-units are logically, i.e. rhematically, marked out as are stressed phonetically. As a matter of fact, functional elements cannot express any self-dependent nomination; they

do not exist by themselves, but make up units of nomination together with the notional elements of utterances whose meanings they specify. Thus, the phrasal phonetical stress, technically making prominent some functional element, thereby identifies as rhematic the corresponding notional part ("knot") of the utterance as a whole. It is such notional parts that are real members of the opposition "theme - rheme", not their functional constituents taken separately. As for the said functional constituents themselves, these only set up specific semantic bases on which the relevant rhematic antitheses are built up.
§ 6. The actual division, since it is effected upon the already produced nominative sentence base providing for its contextually relevant manifestation, enters the predicative aspect of the sentence. It makes up part of syntactic predication, because it strictly meets the functional purpose of predication as such, which is to relate the nominative content of the sentence to reality (see Ch. XXI). This predicative role of the actual division shows that its contextual relevance is not reduced to that of a passive, concomitant factor of expression. On the contrary, the actual division is an active means of expressing functional meanings, and, being organically connected with the context, it is not so much context-governed as it is |context-governing: in fact, it does build up concrete contexts out of constructional sentence-models chosen to reflect different situations and events.
One of the most important manifestations of the immediate contextual relevance of the actual division is the regular deletion (ellipsis) of the thematic parts of utterances in dialogue speech. By this syntactic process, the rheme of the utterance or its most informative part (peak of informative perspective) is placed in isolation, thereby being very graphically presented to the listener. Cf.:
"You've got the letters?" - "In my bag" (G. W. Target). "How did you receive him?" - "Coldly" (J. Galsworthy).
In other words, the thematic reduction of sentences in the context, resulting in a constructional economy of speech, performs an informative function in parallel with the logical accent: it serves to accurately identify the rheme of the utterance.

§ 1. The sentence is a communicative unit, therefore the primary classification of sentences must be based on the communicative principle. This principle is formulated in traditional grammar as the "purpose of communication".
The purpose of communication, by definition, refers to the sentence as a whole, and the structural features connected with the expression of this sentential function belong to the fundamental, constitutive qualities of the sentence as a lingual unit.
In accord with the purpose of communication three cardinal sentence-types have long been recognised in linguistic tradition: first, the declarative sentence; second, the imperative (inducive) sentence; third, the interrogative sentence. These communicative sentence-types stand in strict opposition to one another, and their inner properties of form and meaning are immediately correlated with the corresponding features of the listener's responses.
Thus, the declarative sentence expresses a statement, either affirmative or negative, and as such stands in systemic syntagmatic correlation with the listener's responding signals of attention, of appraisal (including agreement or disagreement), of fellow-feeling. Cf.:
"I think," he said, "that Mr. Desert should be asked to give us his reasons for publishing that poem." - "Hear, hear!" said the К. С. (J. Galsworthy). "We live very quietly here, indeed we do; my niece here will tell you the same." - "Oh, come, I'm not such a fool as that," answered the squire (D. du Maurier).
The imperative sentence expresses inducement, either affirmative or negative. That is, it urges the listener, in the form of request or command, to perform or not to perform a certain action. As such, the imperative sentence is situationally connected with the corresponding "action response" (Ch. Fries), and lingually is systemically correlated with a verbal response showing that the inducement is either complied with, or else rejected. Cf.:
"Let's go and sit down up there, Dinny." - "Very well" (J. Galsworthy). "Then marry me." - "Really, Alan, I never met anyone with so few ideas" (J. Galsworthy). "Send him back!" he said again. - "Nonsense, old chap" (J. Aldridge).

Since the communicative purpose of the imperative sentence is to make the listener act as requested, silence on the part of the latter (when the request is fulfilled), strictly speaking, is also linguistically relevant. This gap in speech, which situationally is filled in by the listener's action, is set off in literary narration by special comments and descriptions. Cf.:
"Knock on the wood." - Retan's man leaned forward and knocked three times on the barrera (E. Hemingway). "Shut the piano," whispered Dinny; "let's go up." - Diana closed the piano without noise and rose (J. Galsworthy).
The interrogative sentence expresses a question, i.e. a request for information wanted by the speaker from the listener. By virtue of this communicative purpose, the interrogative sentence is naturally connected with an answer, forming together with it a question-answer dialogue unity. Cf.:
"What do you suggest I should do, then?" said Mary helplessly. - "If I were you I should play a waiting game," he replied (D. du Maurier).
Naturally, in the process of actual communication the interrogative communicative purpose, like any other communicative task, may sporadically not be fulfilled. In case it is not fulfilled, the question-answer unity proves to be broken; instead of a needed answer the speaker is faced by silence on the part of the listener, or else he receives the latter's verbal rejection to answer. Cf.:
"Why can't you lay off?" I said to her. But she didn't even notice me (R. P. Warren). "Did he know about her?" - "You'd better ask him" (S. Maugham).
Evidently, such and like reactions to interrogative sentences are not immediately relevant in terms of environmental syntactic featuring.
§ 2. An attempt to revise the traditional communicative classification of sentences was made by the American scholar Ch. Fries who classed them, as a deliberate challenge to the

"accepted routine", not in accord with the purposes of communication, but according to the responses they elicit [Fries, 29-53].
In Fries's system, as a universal speech unit subjected to communicative analysis was chosen not immediately a sentence, but an utterance unit (a "free" utterance, i.e. capable of isolation) understood as a continuous chunk of talk by one speaker in a dialogue. The sentence was then defined as a minimum free utterance.
Utterances collected from the tape-recorded corpus of dialogues (mostly telephone conversations) were first classed into "situation utterances" (eliciting a response), and "response utterances". Situation single free utterances (i.e. sentences) were further divided into three groups:
1) Utterances that are regularly followed by oral responses only. These are greetings, calls, questions. E.g.:
Hello! Good-bye! See you soon! ... Dad! Say, dear! Colonel Howard! ... Have you got moved in? What are you going to do for the summer? ...
2) Utterances regularly eliciting action responses. These are requests or commands. E.g.:
Read that again, will you? Oh, wait a minute! Please have him call Operator Six when he comes in! Will you see just exactly what his status is?
3) Utterances regularly eliciting conventional signals of attention to continuous discourse. These are statements. E.g.:
I've been talking with Mr. D - in the purchasing department about our type-writer. (-Yes?). That order went in March seventh. However it seems that we are about eighth on the list. (- I see). Etc.
Alongside of the described "communicative" utterances, i.e. utterances directed to a definite listener, another, minor type of utterances were recognised as not directed to any listener but, as Ch. Fries puts it, "characteristic of situations such as surprise, sudden pain, disgust, anger, laughter, sorrow" [Fries, 53]. E.g.: Oh, oh! Goodness! My God! Darn! Gosh! Etc.
Such and like interjectional units were classed by Ch. Fries as "noncommunicative" utterances.
Observing the given classification, it is not difficult to

see that, far from refuting or discarding the traditional classification of sentences built up on the principle of the "purpose of communication", it rather confirms and specifies it. Indeed, the very purpose of communication inherent in the addressing sentence is reflected in the listener's response. The second and third groups of Ch, Fries's "communicative" sentences-utterances are just identical imperative and declarative types both by the employed names and definition. As for the first group, it is essentially heterogeneous, which is recognised by the investigator himself, who distinguishes in its composition three communicatively different subgroups. One of these ("C") is constituted by "questions", i.e. classical interrogative sentences. The other two, viz. greetings ("A") and calls ("B"), are syntactically not cardinal, but, rather, minor intermediary types, making up the periphery of declarative sentences (greetings - statements of conventional goodwill at meeting and parting) and imperative sentences (calls - requests for attention). As regards "non-communicative" utterances - interjectional units, they are devoid of any immediately expressed intellective semantics, which excludes them from the general category of sentence as such (see further).
Thus, the undertaken analysis should, in point of fact, be looked upon as an actual application of the notions of communicative sentence-types to the study of oral speech, resulting in further specifications and development of these notions.
§ 3. Alongside of the three cardinal communicative sentence-types, another type of sentences is recognised in the theory of syntax, namely, the so-called exclamatory sentence. In modern linguistics it has been demonstrated that exclamatory sentences do not possess any complete set of qualities that could place them on one and the same level with the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. The property of exclamation should be considered as an accompanying feature which is effected within the system of the three cardinal communicative types of sentences.* In other words, each of the cardinal communicative sentence types can be represented in the two variants, viz. non-exclamatory and exclamatory. For instance, with the following
* See: Грамматика русского языка. М., 1960. Т, 2. Синтаксис, ч. I, с. 353; 365 и сл.

exclamatory sentences-statements it is easy to identify their non-exclamatory declarative prototypes:
What a very small cabin it was! (K. Mansfield) - It was a very small cabin. How utterly she had lost count of events! (J. Galsworthy) <- She had lost count of events. Why, if it isn't my lady! (J. Erskine) "- It is my lady.
Similarly, exclamatory questions are immediately related in the syntactic system to the corresponding non-exclamatory interrogative sentences. E.g.:
Whatever do you mean, Mr. Critchlow? (A. Bennett) "-What do you mean? Then why in God's name did you come? (K. Mansfield) "- Why did you come?
Imperative sentences, naturally, are characterised by a higher general degree of emotive intensity than the other two cardinal communicative sentence-types. Still, they form analogous pairs, whose constituent units are distinguished from each other by no other feature than the presence or absence of exclamation as such. E.g.:
Francis, will you please try to speak sensibly! (E. Hemingway) "- Try to speak sensibly. Don't you dare to compare me to common people! (B. Shaw) <- Don't compare me to common people. Never so long as you live say I made you do that! (J. Erskine) <- Don't say I made you do that.
As is seen from the given examples, all the three pairs of variant communicative types of sentences (non-exclamatory - exclamatory for each cardinal division) make up distinct semantico-syntactic oppositions effected by regular grammatical means of language, such as intonation, word-order and special constructions with functional-auxiliary lexemic elements. It follows from this that the functional-communicative classification of sentences specially distinguishing emotive factor should discriminate, on the lower level of analysis, between the six sentence-types forming, respectively, three groups (pairs) of cardinal communicative quality.
§ 4. The communicative properties of sentences can further be exposed in the light of the theory of actual division of the sentence.
The actual division provides for the informative content of the utterance to be expressed with the due gradation of

its parts according to the significance of their respective role in the context. But any utterance is formed within the framework of the system of communicative types of sentences. And as soon as we compare the communication-purpose aspect of the utterance with its actual division aspect we shall find that each communicative sentence type is distinguished by its specific actual division features, which are revealed first and foremost in the nature of the rheme as the meaningful nucleus of the utterance.
The strictly declarative sentence immediately expresses a certain proposition. By virtue of this, the actual division of the declarative sentence presents itself in the most developed and complete form. The rheme of the declarative sentence makes up the centre of some statement as such. This can be distinctly demonstrated by a question-test directly revealing the rhematic part of an utterance. Cf.: The next instant she had recognised him. > What had she done the next instant?
The pronominal what-question clearly exposes in the example the part "(had) recognised him" as the declarative rheme, for this part is placed within the interrogative-pronominal reference. In other words, the tested utterance with its completed actual division is the only answer to the cited potential question; the utterance has been produced by the speaker just to express the fact of "his being recognised".
Another transformational test for the declarative rheme is the logical superposition. The logical superposition consists in transforming the tested construction into the one where the rheme is placed in the position of the logically emphasised predicate. By way of example let us take the second sentence in the following sequence: And I was very uneasy. All sorts of forebodings assailed me.
The logical superposition of the utterance is effected thus: > What assailed me was all sorts of forebodings.
This test marks out the subject of the utterance "all sorts of forebodings" as the rheme, because it is just this part of the utterance that is placed in the emphatic position of the predicate in the superpositional transform.
Similar diagnostic procedures expose the layer-structure of the actual division in composite syntactic constructions. For instance, in the following complex sentence rhematic question-tests easily reveal the three declarative rhemes on the three consecutive syntactic layers: I knew that Mr, Wade had been very excited by something that he had found out.

Test for the first syntactic layer: What did I know?
Test for the second syntactic layer: What state was Mr. Wade in?
Test for the third syntactic layer: What made him excited? (By what was he excited?)
The strictly imperative sentence, as different from the strictly declarative sentence, does not express by its immediate destination any statement of fact, i.e. any proposition proper. It is only based on a proposition, without formulating it directly. Namely, the proposition underlying the imperative sentence is reversely contrasted against the content of the expressed inducement, since an urge to do something (affirmative inducement) is founded on the premise that something is not done or is otherwise not affected by the wanted action, and, conversely, an urge not to do something (negative inducement) is founded on the directly opposite premise. Cf.:
Let's go out at once! (The premise: We are in.) Never again take that horrible woman into your confidence, Jerry! (The premise: Jerry has taken that horrible woman into his confidence.)
Thus, the rheme of the imperative utterance expresses the informative nucleus not of an explicit proposition, but of an inducement - a wanted (or unwanted) action together with its referential attending elements (objects, qualities, circumstances).
Due to the communicative nature of the inducement addressed to the listener, its thematic subject is usually zeroed, though it can be represented in the form of direct address. Cf.:
Don't try to sidetrack me (J. Braine). Put that dam* dog down, Fleur; I can't see your face (J. Galsworthy). Kindly tell me what you meant, Wilfrid (J. Galsworthy).
Inducements that include in the address also the speaker himself, or are directed, through the second person medium, to a third person (persons) present their thematic subjects explicit in the construction. E.g.:
I say, Bob, let's try to reconstruct the scene as it developed. Please don't let's quarrel over the speeds now. Let her produce the document if she has it.
The whole composition of an ordinary imperative utterance is usually characterised by a high informative value,
17-1499 257

so that the rheme proper, or the informative peak, may stand here not so distinctly against the background information as in the declarative utterance. Still, rhematic testing of imperative utterances does disclose the communicative stratification of their constituents. Compare the question-tests of a couple of the cited examples:
Put that dam' dog down, Fleur. > What is Fleur to do with the dog? Kindly tell me what you meant, Wilfrid. > What is Wilfrid to tell the speaker?
As for the thematic, and especially the subrhematic (transitional) elements of the imperative utterance, they often are functionally charged with the type-grading of inducement itself,-i.e.-with making it into a command, prohibition, request, admonition, entreaty, etc. Compare, in addition to the cited, some more examples to this effect:
Let us at least remember to admire each other (L. Hellman). Oh, please stop it... Please, please stop it (E. Hemingway). Get out before I break your dirty little neck (A. Hailey).
The second-person inducement may include the explicit pronominal subject, but such kind of constructions should be defined as of secondary derivation. They are connected with a complicated informative content to be conveyed to the listener-performer, expressing, on the one hand, the choice of the subject out of several persons-participants of the situation, and on the other hand, appraisals rendering various ethical connotations (in particular, the type-grading of inducement mentioned above). Cf.:
"What about me?" she asked. - "Nothing doing. You go to bed and sleep" (A. Christie). Don't you worry about me, sir. I shall be all right (B..K. Seymour).
At a further stage of complication, the subject of the inducement may be shifted to the position of the rheme. E.g.:
"...We have to do everything we can." - "You do it," he said. "I'm tired" (E. Hemingway).
The essentially different identifications of the rheme in the two imperative utterances of the cited example can be proved by transformational testing: ... > What we have to do is (to do) everything we can. ... > The person who should do it is you.
The inducement with the rhematic subject of the latter

type may be classed as the "(informatively) shifted inducement".
§ 5. As far as the strictly interrogative sentence is concerned, its actual division is uniquely different from the actual division of both the declarative and the imperative sentence-types.
The unique quality of the interrogative actual division is determined by the fact that the interrogative sentence, instead of conveying some relatively self-dependent content, expresses an inquiry about information which the speaker (as a participant of a typical question-answer situation) does not possess. Therefore the rheme of the interrogative sentence, as the nucleus of the inquiry, is informationally open (gaping); its function consists only in marking the rhematic position in the response sentence and programming the content of its filler in accord with the nature of the inquiry.
Different types of questions present different types of open rhemes.
In the pronominal ("special") question, the nucleus of inquiry is expressed by an interrogative pronoun. The pronoun is immediately connected with the part of the sentence denoting the object or phenomenon about which the inquiry ("condensed" in the pronoun) is made. The gaping pronominal meaning is to be replaced in the answer by the wanted actual information. Thus, the rheme of the answer is the reverse substitute of the interrogative pronoun: the two make up a rhematic unity in the broader question-answer construction. As for the thematic part of the answer, it is already expressed in the question, therefore in common speech it is usually zeroed. E.g.:
"Why do you think so?" - "Because mostly I keep my eyes open, miss, and I talk to people" (A. Hailey).
The superpositional rhematic test for the pronominal question may be effected in the following periphrastic-definitional form: -" The question about your thinking so is: why?
For the sake of analytical convenience this kind of superposition may be reduced as follows: > You think so - why?
Compare some more pronominal interrogative superpositions:
What happens to a man like Hawk Harrap as the years go by? (W. Saroyan). > To a man like Hawk Harrap, as

the years go by - what happens? How do you make that out, mother? (E. M. Forster) > You make that out, mother, - how? How's the weather in the north? (D. du Maurier) > The weather in the north - how is it? What's behind all this? (A. Hailey) > Behind all this is - what?
The rheme of non-pronominal questions is quite different from the one described. It is also open, but its openness consists in at least two semantic suggestions presented for choice to the listener. The choice is effected in the response; in other words, the answer closes the suggested alternative according to the interrogative-rhematic program inherent in it. This is clearly seen in the structure of ordinary, explicit alternative questions. E.g.: Will you take it away or open it here? (Th. Dreiser)
The superposition of the utterance may be presented as follows: > You in relation to it - will take (it) away, will open (it) here?
The alternative question may have a pronominal introduction, emphasising the open character of its rheme. Cf.: In which cave is the offence alleged, the Buddhist or the Jain? (E. M. Forster)
The superposition: > The offence is alleged - in the Buddhist cave, in the Jain cave?
Thus, in terms of rhematic reverse substitution, the pronominal question is a question of unlimited substitution choice, while the alternative question is a question of a limited substitution choice, the substitution of the latter kind being, as a rule, expressed implicitly. This can be demonstrated by a transformation applied to the first of the two cited examples of alternative questions: Will you take it away or open it here? > Where will you handle it - take it away or open it here?
The non-pronominal question requiring either confirmation or negation ("general" question of yes-no response type) is thereby implicitly alternative, though the inquiry inherent in it concerns not the choice between some suggested facts, but the choice between the existence or non-existence of an indicated fact. In other words, it is a question of realised rhematic substitution (or of "no substitution choice"), but with an open existence factor (true to life or not true to life?), which makes up its implicitly expressed alternative. This can be easily shown by a superposition; Are they going to stay long? > They are going to stay - long, not long?

The implicit alternative question can be made into an explicit one, which as a rule is very emphatic, i.e. stylistically "forced". The negation in the implied alternative part is usually referred to the verb. Cf.: > Are they going to stay long, or are they not going to stay long?
The cited relation of this kind of question to interrogative reverse substitution (and, together with it, the open character of its rheme) is best demonstrated by the corresponding pronominal transformation: > How long are they going to stay - long (or not long)?
As we see, the essential difference between the two types of alternative questions, the explicit one and the implicit one, remains valid even if the latter is changed into an explicit alternative question (i.e. into a stylistically forced explicit alternative question). This difference is determined by the difference in the informative composition of the interrogative constructions compared.
In general terms of meaning, the question of the first type (the normal explicit alternative question) should be classed as the alternative question of fact, since a choice between two or more facts is required by it; the question of the second type (the implicit alternative question) should be classed as the alternative question of truth, since it requires the statement of truth or non-truth of the indicated fact. In terms of actual division, the question of the first type should be classed as the polyperspective alternative question (biperspective, triperspective, etc.), because it presents more than one informative perspectives (more than one actual divisions) for the listener's choice; the question of the second type, as opposed to the polyperspective, should be classed as the monoperspective alternative question, because its both varieties (implicit and explicit) express only one informative perspective, which is presented to the listener for the existential yes-no appraisal.
§ 6. The exposition of the fundamental role of actual division in the formation of the communicative sentence types involves, among other things, the unequivocal refutation of recognising by some linguists the would-be "purely exclamatory sentence" that cannot be reduced to any of the three demonstrated cardinal communicative types.*
* The existence of the "purely exclamatory sentence" is defended, in particular, by B. A. Ilyish in his cited book (pp. 186-187).

Indeed, by "purely exclamatory sentences" are meant no other things than interjectional exclamations of ready-made order such as "Great Heavens!", "Good Lord!", "For God's sake!" "Fiddle-dee-dee!", "Oh, I say!" and the like, which, due to various situational conditions, find themselves in self-dependent, proposemically isolated positions in the text. Cf.:
"Oh, for God's sake!" - "Oh, for God's sake!" the boy had repeated (W. Saroyan). "Ah!" said Lady Mont. "That reminds me" (J. Galsworthy).
As is seen from the examples, the isolated positions of the interjectional utterances do not make them into any meaningfully articulate, grammatically predicated sentences with their own informative perspective (either explicit, or implicit). They remain not signals of proposemically complete thoughts, not "communicative utterances" (see above), but mere symptoms of emotions, consciously or unconsciously produced shouts of strong feelings. Therefore the highest rank that they deserve in any relevant linguistic classification of "single free units of speech" is "non-sentential utterances" (which is just another name for Ch. Fries's "noncommunicative utterances").
Of quite another nature are exclamatory sentences with emphatic introducers derived on special productive syntactic patterns. Cf.:
Oh, that Mr. Thornspell hadn't been so reserved! How silly of you! If only I could raise the necessary sum! Etc.
These constructions also express emotions, but they are meaningfully articulate and proposemically complete. They clearly display a definite nominative composition which is predicated, i.e. related to reality according to the necessary grammatical regularities. And they inevitably belong to quite a definite communicative type of sentences, namely, to the declarative type.
§ 7. The vast set of constructional sentence models possessed by language is formed not only by cardinal, mono-functional communicative types; besides these, it includes also intermediary predicative constructions distinguished by mixed communicative features. The true nature of such intermediary constructions can be disclosed in the light of the

actual division theory combined with the general theory of paradigmatic oppositions.
Observations conducted on the said principles show that intermediary communicative sentence models may be identified between all the three cardinal communicative correlations (viz., statement - question, statement - inducement, inducement - question); they have grown and are sustained in language as a result of the transference of certain characteristic features from one communicative type of sentences to another.
§ 8. In the following dialogue sequence the utterance which is declarative by its formal features, at the same time contains a distinct pronominal question:
"I wonder why they come to me about it. That's your job, sweetheart." - I looked up from Jasper, my face red as fire. "Darling," I said, "I meant to tell you before, but - but I forgot" (D. du Maurier).
Semantic-syntactic comparison of the two utterances produced by the participants of the cited dialogue clearly shows in the initial utterance the features inherently peculiar to the interrogative communicative type, namely, its open rhematic part ("why they come to me about it") and the general programming character of its actual division in relation to the required response.
Compare some more examples of a similar nature:
"But surely I may treat him as a human being." - "Most certainly not" (B. Shaw), "I don't disturb you, I hope, Mr Cokane." - "By no means" (B. Shaw). "Wait a second, you haven't told me your address." - "Oh, I'm staying at the Hotel du Phare" (A. Christie), "I should like to hear your views on that," replied Utterson (R. L. Stevenson).
As is seen from the examples, utterances intermediary between statements and questions convey meanings and connotations that supplement the direct programming of the answer effected by strictly monofunctional, cardinal interrogative constructions. Namely, they render the connotation of insistency in asking for information, they express a more definite or lass definite supposition of the nature of information possessed by the listener, they present a suggestion to

the listener to perform a certain action or imply a request for permission to perform an action, etc.
On the other hand, in the structural framework of the interrogative sentence one can express a statement. This type of utterance is classed as the "rhetorical question" - an expressive construction that has been attracting the closest attention of linguistic observers since ancient times.
A high intensity of declarative functional meaning expressed by rhetorical questions is best seen in various proverbs and maxims based on this specifically emphatic predicative unit. Cf.:
Can a leopard change his spots? Can man be free if woman be a slave? O shame! Where is thy blush? Why ask the Bishop when the Pope's around? Who shall decide when the doctors disagree?
Compare rhetorical questions in stylistically freer, more common forms of speech:
That was my mission, you imagined. It was not, but where was I to go? (O. Wilde) That was all right; I meant what I said. Why should I feel guilty about it? (J. Braine) How could I have ever thought I could get away with it! (J. Osborne)
It should be noted that in living speech responses to rhetorical questions exactly correspond to responses elicited by declarative sentences: they include signals of attention, appraisals, expressions of fellow feeling, etc. Cf.:
"How can a woman be expected to be happy with a man who insists on treating her as if she were a perfectly rational being?" - "My dear!" (O. Wilde)
A rhetorical question in principle can be followed by a direct answer, too. However, such an answer does not fill up the rheme of the rhetorical question (which, as different from the rheme of a genuine question, is not at all open), but emphatically accentuates its intensely declarative semantic nature. An answer to a rhetorical question also emphasises its affirmative or negative implication which is opposite to the formal expression of affirmation or negation in the outer structure of the question. Cf.: "What more can a gentleman desire in this world?" - "Nothing more, I am quite sure" (O. Wilde).
Due to these connotations, the answer to a rhetorical

question can quite naturally be given by the speaker himself: Who, being in love, is poor? Oh, no one (O. Wilde).
The declarative nature of the rhetorical question is revealed also in the fact that it is not infrequently used as an answer to a genuine question - namely, in cases when an expressive, emphatic answer is needed. Cf.: "Do you expect to save the country, Mr Mangan?" - "Well, who else will?" (B. Shaw)
Rhetorical questions as constructions of intermediary communicative nature should be distinguished from such genuine questions as are addressed by the speaker to himself in the process of deliberation and reasoning. The genuine quality of the latter kind of questions is easily exposed by observing the character of their rhematic elements. E.g.: Had she had what was called a complex all this time? Or was love always sudden like this? A wild flower seeding on a wild wind? (J. Galsworthy)
The cited string of questions belongs to the inner speech of a literary personage presented in the form of non-personal direct speech. The rhemes of the questions are definitely open, i.e. they are typical of ordinary questions in a dialogue produced by the speaker with an aim to obtain information from his interlocutor. This is clearly seen from the fact that the second question presents an alternative in relation to the first question; as regards the third question, it is not a self-dependent utterance, but a specification, cumulatively attached to the foregoing construction.
Genuine questions to oneself as part of monologue deliberations can quite naturally be followed by corresponding responses, forming various kinds of dialogue within monologue. Cf.:
Was she tipsy, week-minded, or merely in love? Perhaps all three! (J. Galsworthy). My God! What shall I do? I dare not tell her who this woman really is. The shame would kill her (O. Wilde).
§ 9. The next pair of correlated communicative sentence types between which are identified predicative constructions of intermediary nature are declarative and imperative sentences.
The expression of inducement within the framework of a declarative sentence is regularly achieved by means of constructions with modal verbs. E.g.:

You ought to get rid of it, you know (C. P. Snow). "You can't come in," he said. "You mustn't get what I have" (E. Hemingway). Well, you must come to me now for anything you want, or I shall be quite cut up (J. Galsworthy). "You might as well sit down," said Javotte (J. Erskine).
Compare semantically more complex constructions in which the meaning of inducement is expressed as a result of interaction of different grammatical elements of an utterance with its notional lexical elements:
"And if you'll excuse me, Lady Eileen, I think it's time you were going back to bed." The firmness of his tone admitted of no parley (A. Christie). If you have anything to say to me, Dr Trench, I will listen to you patiently. You will then allow me to say what I have to say on my part (B. Shaw).
Inducive constructions, according to the described general tendency, can be used to express a declarative meaning complicated by corresponding connotations. Such utterances are distinguished by especially high expressiveness and intensity. E.g.: The Forsyte in him said: "Think, feel, and you're done for!" (J. Galsworthy)
Due to its expressiveness this kind of declarative inducement, similar to rhetorical questions, is used in maxims and proverbs. E.g.:
Talk of the devil and he will appear. Roll my log and I will roll yours. Live and learn. Live and let live.
Compare also corresponding negative statements of the formal imperative order: Don't count your chickens before they are hatched. Don't cross the bridge till you get to it.
§ 10. Imperative and interrogative sentences make up the third pair of opposed cardinal communicative sentence types serving as a frame for intermediary communicative patterns.
Imperative sentences performing the essential function of interrogative sentences are such as induce the listener not to action, but to speech. They may contain indirect questions. E.g.:
"Tell me about your upbringing." - "I should like to hear about yours" (E. J. Howard). "Please tell me what I can do. There must be something I can do." - "You can take the leg off and that might stop it..." (E. Hemingway).

The reverse intermediary construction, i.e. inducement effected in the form of question, is employed in order to convey such additional shades of meaning as request, invitation, suggestion, softening of a command, etc. E.g.:
"Why don't you get Aunt Em to sit instead, Uncle? She's younger than I am any day, aren't you, Auntie?" (J. Galsworthy) "Would - would you like to come?" - "I would," said Jimmy heartily. "Thanks ever so much, Lady Coote" (A. Christie).
Additional connotations in inducive utterances having the form of questions may be expressed by various modal constructions. E.g.:
Can I take you home in a cab? (W. Saroyan) "Could you tell me," said Dinny, "of any place close by where I could get something to eat?" (J. Galsworthy) I am really quite all right. Perhaps you will help me up the stairs? (A. Christie)
In common use is the expression of inducement effected in the form of a disjunctive question. The post-positional interrogative tag imparts to the whole inducive utterance a more pronounced or less pronounced shade of a polite request or even makes it into a pleading appeal. Cf.:
Find out tactfully what he wants, will you? (J. Tey) And you will come too, Basil, won't you? (O. Wilde)
§ 11. The undertaken survey of lingual facts shows that the combination of opposite cardinal communicative features displayed by communicatively intermediary sentence patterns is structurally systemic and functionally justified. It is justified because it meets quite definite expressive requirements. And it is symmetrical in so far as each cardinal communicative sentence type is characterised by the same tendency of functional transposition in relation to the two other communicative types opposing it. It means that within each of the three cardinal communicative oppositions two different intermediary communicative sentence models are established, so that at a further level of specification, the communicative classification of sentences should be expanded by six subtypes of sentences of mixed communicative features. These are, first, mixed sentence patterns of declaration (interrogative-declarative, imperative-declarative); second, mixed sentence patterns of interrogation (declarative-interrogative, imperative-interrogative); third,

mixed sentence-patterns of inducement (declarative-imperative, interrogative-imperative). All the cited intermediary communicative types of sentences belong to living, productive syntactic means of language and should find the due reflection both in theoretical linguistic description and in practical language teaching.
§ 1. The basic predicative meanings of the typical English sentence, as has already been pointed out, are expressed by the finite verb which is immediately connected with the subject of the sentence. This predicative connection is commonly referred to as the "predicative line" of the sentence. Depending on their predicative complexity, sentences can feature one predicative line or several (more than one) predicative lines; in other words, sentences may be, respectively, "monopredicative" and "polypredicative". Using this distinction, we must say that the simple sentence is a sentence in which only one predicative line is expressed. E.g.:
Bob has never left the stadium. Opinions differ. This may happen any time. The offer might have been quite fair. Etc.
According to this definition, sentences with several predicates referring to one and the same subject cannot be considered as simple. E.g.: I took the child in my arms and held him.
It is quite evident that the cited sentence, although it includes only one subject, expresses two different predicative lines, since its two predicates are separately connected with the subject. The content of the sentence reflects two closely connected events that happened in immediate succession: the first - "my taking the child in my arms"; the second - "my holding him".
Sentences having one verb-predicate and more than one subject to it, if the subjects form actually separate (though interdependent) predicative connections, cannot be considered as simple, either. E.g.: The door was open, and also the front window.

Thus, the syntactic feature of strict monopredication should serve as the basic diagnostic criterion for identifying the simple sentence in distinction to sentences of composite structures of various systemic standings.
§ 2. The simple sentence, as any sentence in general, is organised as a system of function-expressing positions, the content of the functions being the reflection of a situational event. The nominative parts of the simple sentence, each occupying a notional position in it, are subject, predicate, object, adverbial, attribute, parenthetical enclosure, addressing enclosure; a special, semi-notional position is occupied by an interjectional enclosure. The parts are arranged in a hierarchy, wherein all of them perform some modifying role. The ultimate and highest object of this integral modification is the sentence as a whole, and through the sentence, the reflection of the situation (situational event).
Thus, the subject is a person-modifier of the predicate. The predicate is a process-modifier of the subject-person. The object is a substance-modifier of a processual part (actional or statal). The adverbial is a quality-modifier (in a broad sense) of a processual part or the whole of the sentence (as expressing an integral process inherent in the reflected event). The attribute is a quality-modifier of a substantive part. The parenthetical enclosure is a detached speaker-bound modifier of any sentence-part or the whole of the sentence. The addressing enclosure (address) is a substantive modifier of the destination of the sentence and hence, from its angle, a modifier of the sentence as a whole. The interjectional enclosure is a speaker-bound emotional modifier of the sentence.
All the said modifiers may be expressed either singly (single modifiers) or collectively, i.e. in a coordinative combination (co-modifiers, in particular, homogeneous ones).
The traditional scheme of sentence parsing shows many essential traits of the said functional hierarchy. On the scheme presented graphically, sentence-parts connected by bonds of immediate domination are placed one under the other in a successive order of subordination, while sentence-parts related to one another equipotently are placed in a horizontal order. Direct connections between the sentence-parts are represented by horizontal and vertical lines.
By way of example, let us take an ordinary English sentence featuring the basic modifier connections, and see its

traditional parsing presentation (Fig. 3): The small lady listened to me attentively.
Fig. 3
The scheme clearly shows the basic logical-grammatical connections of the notional constituents of the sentence. If necessary, it can easily be supplemented with specifying linguistic information, such as indications of lexico-grammatical features of the sentence-parts the same as their syntactic sub-functions.
However, observing the given scheme carefully, we must note its one serious flaw. As a matter of fact, while distinctly exposing the subordination ranks of the parts of the sentence, it fails to consistently present their genuine linear order in speech.
This drawback is overcome in another scheme of analysis called the "model of immediate constituents" (contractedly, the "IC-model").
The model of immediate constituents is based on the group-parsing of the sentence which has been developed by traditional grammar together with the sentence-part parsing scheme. It consists in dividing the whole of the sentence into two groups: that of the subject and that of the predicate, which, in their turn, are divided into their sub-group constituents according to the successive subordinative order of the latter. Profiting by this type of analysis, the IC-model explicitly exposes the binary hierarchical principle of subordinative connections, showing the whole structure of the sentence as made up by binary immediate constituents. As for equipotent (coordinative) connections, these are, naturally, non-binary, but, being of a more primitive character than subordinative connections, they are included in the

analysis as possible inner subdivisions of subordinative connections.
Thus, structured by the IC-model, the cited sentence on the upper level of analysis is looked upon as a united whole (the accepted symbol S); on the next lower level it is divided into two maximal constituents - the subject noun-phrase (NP-subj) and the predicate verb-phrase (VP-pred); on the next lower level the subject noun-phrase is divided into the determiner (det) and the rest of the phrase to which it semantically refers (NP), while the predicate noun-phrase is divided into the adverbial (DP, in this case simply D) and the rest of the verb-phrase to which it semantically refers; the next level-stages of analysis include the division of the first noun-phrase into its adjective-attribute constituent (AP, in this case A) and the noun constituent (N), and correspondingly, the division of the verb-phrase into its verb constituent (V or Vf - finite verb) and object noun-phrase constituent (NP-obj), the latter being, finally, divided into the preposition constituent (prp) and noun constituent (N). As we see, the process of syntactic IC-analysis continues until the word-level of the sentence is reached, the words being looked upon as the "ultimate" constituents of the sentence.
The described model of immediate constituents has two basic versions. The first is known as the "analytical IC-diagrarn", the second, as the "IС-derivation tree". The analytical IC-diagram commonly shows the groupings of sentence constituents by means of vertical and horizontal lines (see Fig. 4). The IC-derivation tree shows the groupings of

ME NP-pro
Fig. 4
sentence constituents by means of branching nodes: the nodes symbolise phrase-categories as unities, while the branches mark their division into constituents of the corresponding sub-categorial standings (see Fig. 5).

§ 3. When analysing sentences in terms of syntagmatic connections of their parts, two types of subordinative relations are exposed: on the one hand, obligatory relations, i.e. such as are indispensable for the existence of the syntactic unit as such; on the other hand, optional relations, i.e. such as may or may not be actually represented in the syntactic unit. These relations, as we have pointed out elsewhere, are at present interpreted in terms of syntactic valency (combining power of the word) and are of especial importance for the characteristic of the verb as the central predicative organiser of the notional stock of sentence constituents. Comparing the IC-representation of the sentence with the pattern of obligatory syntactic positions directly determined by the valency of the verb-predicate, it is easy to see that this pattern reveals the essential generalised model of the sentence, its semantico-syntactic backbone. For instance, in the cited sentence this pattern will be expressed by the string "The lady listened to me", the attribute "small" and the adverbial "attentively" being the optional parts of the sentence. The IC-model of this key-string of the sentence is logically transparent and easily grasped by the mind (see Fig. 6).


Thus, the idea of verbal valency, answering the principle of dividing all the notional sentence-parts into obligatory and optional, proves helpful in gaining a further insight into the structure of the simple sentence; moreover, it is of crucial importance for the modern definition of the simple sentence.
In terms of valencies and obligatory positions first of all the category of "elementary sentence" is to be recognised; this is a sentence all the positions of which are obligatory. In other words, this is a sentence which, besides the principal parts, includes only complementive modifiers; as for supplementive modifiers, they find no place in this type of predicative construction.
After that the types of expansion should be determined which do not violate the syntactic status of the simple sentence, i.e. do not change the simple sentence into a composite one. Taking into consideration the strict monopredicative character of the simple sentence as its basic identification predicative feature, we infer that such expansions should not complicate the predicative line of the sentence by any additional predicative positions.
Finally, bearing in mind that the general identification of obligatory syntactic position affects not only the principal parts of the sentence but is extended to the complementive secondary parts, we define the unexpanded simple sentence as a monopredicative sentence formed only by obligatory notional parts. The expanded simple sentence will, accordingly, be defined as a monopredicative sentence which includes, besides the obligatory parts, also some optional parts, i.e. some supplementive modifiers which do not constitute a predicative enlargement of the sentence.
Proceeding from the given description of the elementary sentence, it must be stressed that the pattern of this construction presents a workable means of semantico-syntactic analysis of sentences in general. Since all the parts of the elementary sentence are obligatory, each real sentence of speech should be considered as categorially reducible to one or more elementary sentences, which expose in an explicit form its logical scheme of formation. As for the simple sentence, however intricate and expanded its structure might be, it is formed, of necessity, upon a single-elementary sentence-base exposing its structural key-model. E.g.: The tall trees by the island shore were shaking violently in the gusty wind.
This is an expanded simple sentence including a number

of optional parts, and its complete analysis in terms of a syntagmatic parsing is rather intricate. On the other hand, applying the idea of the elementary sentence, we immediately reveal that the sentence is built upon the key-string "The trees were shaking", i.e. on the syntagmatic pattern of an intransitive verb.
As we see, the notions "elementary sentence" and "sentence model" do not exclude each other, but, on the contrary, supplement each other: a model is always an abstraction, whereas an elementary sentence can and should be taken both as an abstract category (in the capacity of the "model of an elementary sentence") and as an actual utterance of real speech.
§ 4. The subject-group and the predicate-group of the sentence are its two constitutive "members", or, to choose a somewhat more specific term, its "axes" (in the Russian grammatical tradition - "составы предложения"). According as both members are present in the composition of the sentence or only one of them, sentences are classed into "two-member" and "one-member" ones.
Scholars point out that "genuine" one-member sentences are characterised not only as expressing one member in their outer structure; in addition, as an essential feature, they do not imply the other member on the contextual lines. In other words, in accord with this view, elliptical sentences in which the subject or the predicate is contextually omitted, are analysed as "two-member" sentences [Ilyish, 190, 252].
We cannot accept the cited approach because, in our opinion, it is based on an inadequate presupposition that in the system of language there is a strictly defined, "absolute" demarcation line between the two types of constructions. In reality, though, each one-member sentence, however pure it might appear from the point of view of non-association with an ellipsis, still, on closer observation, does expose traits of this association.
For instance, the sentence "Come on!" exemplifying one of the classical one-member sentence varieties, implies a situational person (persons) stimulated to perform an action, i.e. the subject of the event. Similarly, the construction "All right!" rendering agreement on the part of the speaker, is a representative unit standing for a normal two-member utterance in its contextual-bound implication plane, otherwise it would be senseless.

Bearing in mind the advanced objection, our approach to the syntactic category of axis part of the sentence is as follows.
All simple sentences of English should be divided into two-axis constructions and one-axis constructions.
In a two-axis sentence, the subject axis and the predicate axis are directly and explicitly expressed in the outer structure. This concerns all the three cardinal communicative types of sentences. E.g.:
The books come out of the experiences. What has been happening here? You better go back to bed.
In a one-axis sentence only one axis or its part is explicitly expressed, the other one being non-presented in the outer structure of the sentence. Cf.:
"Who will meet us at the airport?" - "Mary." The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the subject-axis expressed and the predicate-axis implied: > *Mary will meet us at the airport. Both the non-expression of the predicate and its actual implication in the sub-text are obligatory, since the complete two-axis construction renders its own connotations.
"And what is your opinion of me?" - "Hard as nails, absolutely ruthless, a born intriguer, and as self-centred as they make 'em." The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the predicate-axis expressed (partially, by its predicative unit) and the subject-axis (together with the link-verb of the predicate) implied: > *You are hard as nails, etc.
"I thought he might have said something to you about it." - "Not a word." The response utterance is a one-axis sentence with the predicate-axis partially expressed (by the object) and the subject-axis together with the verbal part of the predicate-axis implied: > *He said not a word to me.
"Glad to see you after all these years!" The sentence is a one-axis unit with the predicate-axis expressed and the subject-axis implied as a form of familiarity: > *I am glad to see you ...
All the cited examples belong to "elliptical" types of utterances in so far as they possess quite definite "vacant" positions or zero-positions capable cf being supplied with the corresponding fillers implicit in the situational contexts. Since the restoration of the absent axis in such sentences is,

So to speak, "free of avail", we class them as "free" one-axis sentences. The term "elliptical" one-axis sentences can also be used, though it is not very lucky here; indeed, "ellipsis" as a sentence-curtailing process can in principle affect both two-axis and one-axis sentences, so the term might be misleading.
Alongside of the demonstrated free one-axis sentences, i.e. sentences with a direct contextual axis-implication, there are one-axis sentences without a contextual implication of this kind; in other words, their absent axis cannot be restored with the same ease and, above all, semantic accuracy.
By way of example, let us read the following passage from S. Maugham's short story "Appearance and Reality";
Monsieur Le Sueur was a man of action. He went straight up to Lisette and smacked her hard on her right cheek with his left hand and then smacked her hard on the left cheek with his right hand. "Brute," screamed Lisette.
The one-axis sentence used by the heroine does imply the you-subject and can, by association, be expanded into the two-axis one "You are a brute" or "You brute", but then the spontaneous "scream-style" of the utterance in the context (a cry of indignation and revolt) will be utterly distorted.
Compare another context, taken from R. Kipling's "The Light that Failed":
"...I'm quite miserable enough already." - "Why? Because you're going away from Mrs Jennett?" - "No." - "From me, then?" - No answer for a long time. Dick dared not look at her.
The one-axis sentence "No answer for a long time" in the narrative is associated by variant lingua! relations with the two-axis sentence "There was no answer...". But on similar grounds the association can be extended to the construction "He received no answer for a long time" or "No answer was given for a long time" or some other sentence supplementing the given utterance and rendering a like meaning. On the other hand, the peculiar position in the text clearly makes all these associations into remote ones: the two-axis version of the construction instead of the existing one-axis one would destroy the expressive property of the remark conveying Dick's strain by means of combining the author's line of narration with the hero's inner perception of events.
Furthermore, compare the psychologically tense description

of packing up before departure given in short, deliberately disconnected nominative phrase-sentences exposing the heroine's disillusions (from D. du Maurier's "Rebecca"):
Packing up. The nagging worry of departure. Lost keys, unwritten labels, tissue paper lying on the floor. I hate it all.
Associations referring to the absent axes in the cited sentences are indeed very vague. The only unquestionable fact about the relevant implications is that they should be of demonstrative-introductory character making the presented nominals into predicative names.
As we see, there is a continuum between the one-axis sentences of the free type and the most rigid ones exemplified above. Still, since all the constructions of the second order differ from those of the first order just in that they are not free, we choose to class them as "fixed" one-axis sentences.
Among the fixed one-axis sentences quite a few subclasses are to be recognised, including nominative (nominal) constructions, greeting formulas, introduction formulas, incentives, excuses, etc. Many of such constructions are related to the corresponding two-axis sentences not by the mentioned "vague" implication, but by representation; indeed, such one-axis sentence-formulas as affirmations, negations, certain ready-made excuses, etc., are by themselves not word-sentences, but rather sentence-representatives that exist only in combination with the full-sense antecedent predicative constructions. Cf.:
"You can't move any farther back?" - "No." (I.e. "I can't move any farther back"). "D'you want me to pay for your drink?" - "Yes, old boy." (I.e. "Yes, I want you to pay for my drink, old boy"). Etc.
As for the isolated exclamations of interjectional type ("Good Lord!", "Dear me!" and the like), these are not sentences by virtue of their not possessing the inner structure of actual division even through associative implications (see Ch. XXII).
Summing up what has been said about the one-axis sentences we must stress the two things: first, however varied, they form a minor set within the general system of English sentence patterns; second, they all are related to two-axis sentences either by direct or by indirect association.

§ 5. The semantic classification of simple sentences should be effected at least on the three bases: first, on the basis of the subject categorial meanings; second, on the basis of the predicate categorial meanings; third, on the basis of the subject-object relation.
Reflecting the categories of the subject, simple sentences are divided into personal and impersonal. The further division of the personal sentences is into human and non-human; human - into definite and indefinite; non-human - into animate and inanimate. The further essential division of impersonal sentences is into factual (It rains, It is five o'clock) and perceptional (It smells of hay here).
The differences in subject categorial meanings are sustained by the obvious differences in subject-predicate combinability.
Reflecting the categories of the predicate, simple sentences are divided into process-featuring ("verbal") and, in the broad sense, substance-featuring (including substance as such and substantive quality - "nominal"). Among the process-featuring sentences actional and statal ones are to be discriminated (The window is opening - The window is glistening in the sun); among the substance-featuring sentences factual and perceptional ones are to be discriminated (The sea is rough - The place seems quiet).
Finally, reflecting the subject-object relation, simple sentences should be divided into subjective (John lives in London), objective (John reads a book) and neutral or "potentially" objective (John reads), capable of implying both the transitive action of the syntactic person and the syntactic person's intransitive characteristic.
§ 1. Traditional grammar studied the sentence from the point of view of its syntagmatic structure: the sentence was approached as a string of certain parts fulfilling the corresponding syntactic functions. As for paradigmatic relations, which, as we know, are inseparable from syntagmatic relations, they were explicitly revealed only as part of morphological descriptions, because, up to recent times, the idea of the sentence-model with its functional variations was not

developed. Moreover, some representatives of early modern linguistics, among them F. de Saussure, specially noted that it was quite natural for morphology to develop paradigmatic (associative) observations, while syntax "by its very essence" should concern itself with the linear connections of words.
Thus, the sentence was traditionally taken at its face value as a ready unit of speech, and systemic connections between sentences were formulated in terms of classifications. Sentences were studied and classified according to the purpose of communication, according to the types of the subject and the predicate, according to whether they are simple or composite, expanded or unexpanded, compound or complex, etc.
In contemporary modern linguistics paradigmatic structuring of lingual connections and dependencies has penetrated into the would-be "purely syntagmatic" sphere of the sentence. The paradigmatic approach to this element of rendering communicative information, as we have mentioned before, marked a new stage in the development of the science of language; indeed, it is nothing else than paradigmatic approach that has provided a comprehensive theoretical ground for treating the sentence not only as a ready unit of speech, but also and above all as a meaningful lingual unit existing in a pattern form.
§ 2. Paradigmatics finds its essential expression in a system of oppositions making the corresponding meaningful (functional) categories. Syntactic oppositions are realised by correlated sentence patterns, the observable relations between which can be described as "transformations", i.e, as transitions from one pattern of certain notional parts to another pattern of the same notional parts. These transitions, being oppositional, at the same time disclose derivational connections of sentence-patterns. In other words, some of the patterns are to be approached as base patterns, while others, as their transforms.
For instance, a question can be described as transformationally produced from a statement; a negation, likewise, can be presented as transformationally produced from an affirmation. E.g.:
You are fond of the kid. > Are you fond of the kid? You are fond of the kid. > You are not fond of the kid.
Why are the directions of transitions given in this way

and not vice versa? - Simply because the ordinary affirmative statement presents a positive expression of a fact in its purest form, maximally free of the speaker's connotative appraisals.
Similarly, a composite sentence, for still more evident reasons, is to be presented as derived from two or more simple sentences. E.g.:
He turned to the waiter.+The waiter stood in the door. > He turned to the waiter who stood in the door.
These transitional relations are implicitly inherent in the syntagmatic classificational study of sentences. But modern theory, exposing them explicitly, has made a cardinal step forward in so far as it has interpreted them as regular derivation stages comparable to categorial form-making processes in morphology and word-building.
And it is on these lines that the initial, basic element of syntactic derivation has been found, i.e. a syntactic unit serving as a "sentence-root" and providing an objective ground for identifying syntactic categorial oppositions. This element is known by different names, such as the "basic syntactic pattern", the "structural sentence scheme", the "elementary sentence model", the "base sentence", though as the handiest in linguistic use should be considered the "kernel sentence" due to its terminological flexibility combined with a natural individualising force.
Structurally the kernel sentence coincides with the elementary sentence described in the previous chapter. The difference is, that the pattern of the kernel sentence is interpreted as forming the base of a paradigmatic derivation in the corresponding sentence-pattern series.
Thus, syntactic derivation should not be understood as an immediate change of one sentence into another one; a pronounced or written sentence is a finished utterance that thereby cannot undergo any changes. Syntactic derivation is to be understood as paradigmatic production of more complex pattern-constructions out of kernel pattern-constructions as their structural bases. The description of this production ("generation") may be more detailed and less detailed, i.e. it can be effected in more generalised and less generalised terms, depending on the aim of the scholar. The most concrete presentation concerns a given speech-utterance analysed into its derivation history on the level of the word-forms.

By way of example let us take the following English sentence: I saw him come.
This sentence is described in school grammar as a sentence with a complex object, which is syntagmatically adequate, though incomplete from the systemic point of view. The syntagmatic description is supplemented and re-interpreted within the framework of the paradigmatic description presenting the sentence in question as produced from the two kernel sentences: I saw him. + He came. > I saw him come.

The same may be given in terms of the IC-derivation tree diagrams (see Fig. 7). The indices specifying the basic sym-

In a more generalised, categorial-oriented paradigmatic presentation the sentence will be shown as a transformational combination of the two kernel pattern-formulas:
bols can vary in accord with the concrete needs of analysis and demonstration.
§ 3. The derivation of genuine sentences lying on the "surface" of speech out of kernel sentences lying in the "deep base" of speech can be analysed as a process falling into sets of elementary transformational steps or procedures. These procedures make up six major classes.
The first class includes steps of "morphological arrangement" of the sentence, i.e. morphological changes expressing syntactically relevant categories, above all, the predicative categories of the finite verb: tense, aspect, voice, mood. The syntactic role of these forms of morphological change (systematised into morphological paradigms) consists in the fact

that they make up parts of the more general syntactico-paradigmatic series. E.g.:
John+start (the kernel base string) > John starts. John will be starting. John would be starting. John has started. Etc.
The second class of the described procedures includes various uses of functional words (functional expansion). From the syntactic point of view these words are transformers of syntactic constructions in the same sense as the categorial morphemes {e.g. inflexions) are transformers of lexemes, i.e. morphological constructions. E.g.:
He understood my request. > He seemed to understand my request. Now they consider the suggestion. > Now they do consider the suggestion.
The third class of syntactic derivational procedures includes the processes of substitution. Among the substitutes we find personal pronouns, demonstrative-substitute pronouns, indefinite-substitute pronouns, as well as substitutive combinations of half-notional words. Cf.:
The pupils ran out of the classroom. > They ran out of the classroom. I want another pen, please. > I want another one, please.
The fourth class of the procedures in question is formed by processes of deletion, i.e. elimination of some elements of the sentence in various contextual conditions. As a result of deletion the corresponding reduced constructions are produced. E.g.:
Would you like a cup of tea? > A cup of tea? It's a pleasure! > Pleasure!
The fifth class of syntactic derivational procedures includes processes of positional arrangement, in particular, permutations (changes of the word-order into the reverse patterns). E.g.:
The man is here. > Is the man here? Jim ran in with an excited cry. -" In ran Jim with an excited cry.
The sixth class of syntactic derivational procedures is formed by processes of intonational arrangement, i.e. application of various functional tones and accents. This arrangement is represented in written and typed speech by

punctuation marks, the use of different varieties of print, the use of various modes of underlining and other graphical means. E.g.:
We must go. > We must go? We? Must go?? You care nothing about what I feel. > You care nothing about what I feel!
The described procedures are all functionally relevant, i.e. they serve as syntactically meaningful dynamic features of the sentence. For various expressive purposes they may be applied either singly or, more often than not, in combination with one another. E.g.: We finish the work. > We are not going to finish it.
For the production of the cited sentence-transform the following procedures are used: morphological change, introduction of functional words, substitution, intonational arrangement. The functional (meaningful) outcome of the whole process is the expression of the modal future combined with a negation in a dialogue response. Cf.:
Are we ever going to finish the work? > Anyway, we are not going to finish it today!
§ 4. The derivational procedures applied to the kernel sentence introduce it into two types of derivational relations in the sentential paradigmatic system: first, the "constructional" relations; second, the "predicative" relations. The constructional derivation effects the formation of more complex clausal structures out of simpler ones; in other words, it provides for the expression of the nominative-notional syntactic semantics of the sentence. The predicative derivation realises the formation of predicatively different units not affecting the constructional volume of the base; in other words, it is responsible for the expression of the predicative syntactic semantics of the sentence. Both types of derivational procedures form the two subsystems within the general system of syntactic paradigmatics.
§ 5. As part of the constructional system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as other, expanded base-sentences undergo derivational changes into clauses and phrases.
The transformation of a base sentence into a clause can "be called "clausalisation". By way of clausalisation a

sentence is changed into a subordinate or coordinate clause in the process of subordinative or coordinative combination of sentences. The main clausalising procedures involve the use of conjunctive words - subordinators and coordinators. Since a composite sentence is produced from minimum two base sentences, the derivational processes of composite sentence production are sometimes called "two-base transformations". For example, two kernel sentences "They arrived" and "They relieved me of my fears" (> I was relieved of my fears), combined by subordinative and coordinative clausalising, produce the following constructions:
> When they arrived I was relieved of my fears. > If they arrive, I shall be relieved of my fears. > Even though they arrive, I shan't be relieved of my fears. Etc. > They arrived, and I was relieved of my fears. > They arrived, but I was not relieved of my fears. Etc.
The transformation of a base sentence into a phrase can be called "phrasalisation". By phrasalisation a sentence is transformed either into a semi-predicative construction (a semi-clause), or into a nominal phrase.
Nominal phrases are produced by the process of nominalisation, i.e. nominalising phrasalisation which we have analyzed before (see Ch. XX). Nominalisation may be complete, consisting in completely depriving the sentence of its predicative aspect, or partial, consisting in partially depriving the sentence of its predicative aspect. Partial nominalisation in English produces infinitive and gerundial phrases. By other types of phrasalisation such semi-clauses are derived as complex objects of infinitive and participial types, various participial constructions of adverbial status and some other, minor complexes. The resulting constructions produced by the application of the cited phrasalising procedures in the process of derivational combination of base sentences will be both simple expanded sentences (in case of complete nominalisation) and semi-composite sentences (in case of various partial nominalisations and other phrasalisations). Cf.:
-" On their arrival I was relieved of my fears. -" They arrived to relieve me of my fears. > They arrived relieving me of my fears. > Having arrived, they did relieve me of my fears. Etc.

As is seen from the examples, each variety of derivational combination of concrete sentences has its own semantic purpose expressed by the procedures employed.
§ 6. As part of the predicative system of syntactic paradigmatics, kernel sentences, as well as expanded base-sentences, undergo such structural modifications as immediately express the predicative functions of the sentence, i.e. the functions relating the nominative meanings of the sentence to reality. Of especial importance in this respect is the expression of predicative functions by sentences which are elementary as regards the set of their notional constituents: being elementary from the point of view of nominative semantics, these sentences can be used as genuine, ordinary utterances of speech. Bearing in mind the elementary nominative nature of its constructional units, we call the system of sentences so identified the "Primary Syntactic System" (Lat. "Prima Systema Syntactica").
To recognise a primary sentence in the text, one must use the criteria of elementary sentence-structure identification applied to the notional constituents of the sentence, irrespective of the functional meanings rendered by it. For instance, the notionally minimal negative sentence should be classed as primary, though not quite elementary (kernel) in the paradigmatic sense, negation being not a notional, but a functional sentence factor. Cf.:
I have met the man. > I have not met the man. > I have never met the man.
Any composite (or semi-composite) sentence is analysable into two or more primary sentences (i.e. sentences elementary in the notional sense). E.g.:
Is it a matter of no consequence that I should find you with a young man wearing my pyjamas? "- Is it a matter of no consequence?+I should find you with a (young) man.+ The (young) man is wearing my pyjamas.
The kernel sentence can also have its representation in speech, being embodied by the simplest sentential construction not only in the notional, but also in the functional sense. In other words, it is an elementary sentence which is non-interrogative, non-imperative, non-negative, non-modal, etc. In short, in terms of syntactic oppositions, this is the "weakest"

construction in the predicative oppositional space of the primary syntactic system.
§ 7. The predicative functions expressed by primary sentence patterns should be divided into the two types: first, lower functions; second, higher functions. The lower functions include the expression of such morphological categories as tenses and aspects; these are of "factual", "truth-stating" semantic character. The higher functions are "evaluative" in the broad sense of the word; they immediately express the functional semantics of relating the nominative content of the sentence to reality.
The principal predicative functions expressed by syntactic categorial oppositions are the following.
First, question as opposed to statement. Second, inducement as opposed to statement. Third, negation as opposed to affirmation. Fourth, unreality as opposed to reality. Fifth, probability as opposed to fact. Sixth, modal identity (seem to do, happen to do, prove to do, etc.) as opposed to fact. Seventh, modal subject-action relation as opposed to fact (can do, may do, etc.). Eighth, specified actual subject-action relation as opposed to fact. Ninth, phase of action as opposed to fact. Tenth, passive action as opposed to active action. Eleventh, specialised actual division (specialised perspective) as opposed to non-specialised actual division (non-specialised perspective). Twelfth, emphasis (emotiveness) as opposed to emotional neutrality (unemotiveness).
Each opposition of the cited list forms a categorial set which is rather complex. For instance, within the framework of the question-statement opposition, pronominal and alternative questions are identified with their manifold varieties; within the system of phase of action, specialised subsets are identified rendering the phase of beginning, the phase of duration, the phase of end, etc. The total supersystem of all the pattern-forms of a given sentence base constitutes its general syntactic paradigm of predicative functions. This paradigm is, naturally, extremely complicated so that it is hardly observable if presented on a diagram. This fact shows that the volume of functional meanings rendered by a sentence even on a very high level of syntactic generalisation is tremendous. At the same time the derivation of each functional sentence-form in its paradigmatically determined position in the system is simple enough in the sense that it is quite explicit. This shows the dynamic essence of the paradigm

in question; the paradigm exactly answers the needs of expression at every given juncture of actual communication.
§ 8. All the cited oppositions-categories may or may not be represented in a given utterance by their strong function-members. In accord with this oppositional regularity, we advance the notion of the "predicative load" of the sentence. The predicative load is determined by the total volume of the strong members of predicative oppositions (i.e. by the sum of positive values of the corresponding differential features) actually represented in the sentence.
The sentence, by definition, always expresses predication, being a predicative unit of language. But, from the point of view of the comparative volume of the predicative meanings actually expressed, the sentence may be predicatively "loaded" or "non-loaded". If the sentence is predicatively "non-loaded", it means that its construction is kernel elementary on the accepted level of categorial generalisation. Consequently, such a sentence will be characterised in oppositional terms as non-interrogative, non-inducive, non-negative, non-real, non-probable, non-modal-identifying, etc., down to the last of the recognised predicative oppositions. If, on the other hand, the sentence is predicatively "loaded", it means that it renders at least one of the strong oppositional meanings inherent in the described categorial system. Textual observations show that predicative loads amounting to one or two positive feature values (strong oppositional members) may be characterised as more or less common; hence, we consider such a load as "light" and, correspondingly, say that the sentence in this case is predicatively "lightly" loaded. As for sentences whose predicative load exceeds two positive feature values, they stand out of the common, their functional semantics showing clear signs of intricacy. Accordingly, we consider such loads as "heavy", and of sentences characterised by these loads we say that they are "heavily" loaded. Predicative loads amounting to four feature values occur but occasionally, they are too complicated to be naturally grasped by the mind.
To exemplify the cited theses, let us take as a derivation sentence-base the construction "The thing bothers me". This sentence, in the above oppositional sense, is predicatively "non-loaded", or has the "zero predicative load". The predicative structure of the sentence can be expanded by the expression of the modal subject-action relation, for instance,

the ability relation. The result is: > "The thing can bother me"; the predicative load of the sentence has grown to 1. This construction, in its turn, can be used as a derivation base for a sentence of a higher predicative complexity; for instance, the feature of unreality can be added to it: > "The thing could bother me (now)". The predicative load of the sentence has grown to 2. Though functionally not simple, the sentence still presents a more or less ordinary English construction. To continue with our complicating it, we may introduce in the sentence the feature of passivity: > "I could be bothered (by the thing now)". The predicative semantics expressed has quite clearly changed into something beyond the ordinary; the sentence requires a special context to sound natural. Finally, to complicate the primary construction still further, we may introduce a negation in it: > "I could not be bothered (by the thing now)". As a result we are faced by a construction that, in the contextual conditions of real speech, expresses an intricate set of functional meanings and stylistic connotations. Cf.:
"...Wilmet and Henrietta Bentworth have agreed to differ already." - "What about?" - "Well, I couldn't be bothered, but I think it was about the P.M., or was it Portulaca? - they differ about everything" (J. Galsworthy).
The construction is indeed semantically complicated; but all its meaningful complexity is linguistically resolved by the demonstrated semantico-syntactic oppositional analysis showing the stage-to-stage growth of the total functional meaning of the sentence in the course of its paradigmatic derivation.
§ 1. The composite sentence, as different from the simple sentence, is formed by two or more predicative lines. Being a polypredicative construction, it expresses a complicated act of thought, i.e. an act of mental activity which falls into two or more intellectual efforts closely combined with one another. In terms of situations and events this means that the composite sentence reflects two or more elementary

situational events viewed as making up a unity; the constitutive connections of the events are expressed by the constitutive connections of the predicative lines of the sentence, i.e. by the sentential polypredication.
Each predicative unit in a composite sentence makes up a clause in it, so that a clause as part of a composite sentence corresponds to a separate sentence as part of a contextual sequence. E.g.:
When I sat down to dinner I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information that I had by accident run across the Driffields; but news travelled fast in Blackstable (S. Maugham).
The cited composite sentence includes four clauses which are related to one another on different semantic grounds. The sentences underlying the clauses are the following:
I sat down to dinner. I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information. I had by accident run across the Driffields. News travelled fast in Blackstable.
The correspondence of a predicative clause to a separate sentence is self-evident. On the other hand, the correspondence of a composite sentence to a genuine, logically connected sequence of simple sentences (underlying its clauses) is not evident at all; moreover, such kind of correspondence is in fact not obligatory, which is the very cause of the existence of the composite sentence in a language. Indeed, in the given example the independent sentences reconstructed from the predicative clauses do not make up any coherently presented situational unity; they are just so many utterances each expressing an event of self-sufficient significance. By way of rearrangement and the use of semantic connectors we may make them into a more or less explanatory situational sequence, but the exposition of the genuine logic of events, i.e. their presentation as natural parts of a unity, achieved by the composite sentence will not be, and is not to be replaced in principle. Cf.:
I ran by accident across the Driffields. At some time later on I sat down to dinner. While participating in the general conversation, I looked for an opportunity to slip in casually the information about my meeting them. But news travelled fast in Blackstable.
The logical difference between the given composite sentence and its contextually coherent de-compositional
19-1499 289

presentation is, that whereas the composite sentence exposes as its logical centre, i.e. the core of its purpose of communication, the intention of the speaker to inform his table-companions of a certain fact (which turns out to be already known to them), the sentential sequence expresses the events in their natural temporal succession, which actually destroys the original purpose of communication. Any formation of a sentential sequence more equivalent to the given composite sentence by its semantic status than the one shown above has to be expanded by additional elucidative prop-utterances with back-references; and all the same, the resulting contextual string, if it is intended as a real informational substitute for the initial composite, will hardly be effected without the help of some kind of essentially composite sentence constructions included in it (let the reader himself try to construct an equivalent textual sequence meeting the described semantic requirements).
As we see, the composite sentence in its quality of a structural unit of language is indispensable for language by its own purely semantic merits, let alone its terseness, as well as intellectual elegance of expression.
§ 2. As is well known, the use of composite sentences, especially long and logically intricate ones, is characteristic of literary written speech rather than colloquial oral speech. This unquestionable fact is explained by the three reasons: one relating to the actual needs of expression; one relating to the possibilities of production; and one relating to the conditions of perception.
That the composite sentence structure answers the special needs of written mode of lingual expression is quite evident. It is this type of speech that deals with lengthy reasonings, descriptions, narrations, all presenting abundant details of intricate correlations of logical premises and inferences, of situational foreground and background, of sequences of events interrupted by cross-references and parenthetical comments. Only a composite sentence can adequately and within reasonable bounds of textual space fulfil these semantic requirements.
Now, the said requirements, fortunately, go together with the fact that in writing it is actually possible to produce long composite sentences of complicated, but logically flawless structure (the second of the advanced reasons). This is possible here because the written sentence, while in the process of being

produced, is open to various alterations: it allows corrections of slips and errors; it can be subjected to curtailing or expanding; it admits of rearranging and reformulating one's ideas; in short, it can be prepared. This latter factor is of crucial importance, so that when considering the properties of literary written speech we must always bear it in mind. Indeed, from the linguistic point of view written speech is above all prepared, or "edited" speech: it is due to no other quality than being prepared before its presentation to the addressee that this mode of speech is structurally so tellingly different from colloquial oral speech. Employing the words in their broader sense, we may say that literary written speech is not just uttered and gone, but is always more carefully or less carefully composed in advance, being meant for a future use of the reader, often for his repeated use. In distinction to this, genuine colloquial oral speech is uttered each time in an irretrievably complete and final form, each time for one immediate and fleeting occasion.
We have covered the first two reasons explaining the composite sentence of increased complexity as a specific feature of written speech. The third reason, referring to the conditions of perception, is inseparable from the former two. Namely, if written text provides for the possibility for its producer to return to the beginning of each sentence with the aim of assessing its form and content, of rearranging or re-composing it altogether, it also enables the reader, after he has run through the text for the first time, to go back to its starting line and re-read it with as much care as will be required for the final understanding of each item and logical connection expressed by its wording or implied by its construction. Thus, the length limit imposed on the sentence by the recipient's immediate (operative) memory can in writing be practically neglected; the volume of the written sentence is regulated not by memory limitations as such, but by the considerations of optimum logical -balance and stylistic well-formedness.
§ 3. Logic and style being the true limiters of the written sentence volume, two dialectically contrasted active tendencies can be observed in the sentence-construction of modern printed texts. According to the first tendency, a given unity of reasons in meditation, a natural sequence of descriptive situations or narrative events is to be reflected in one composite sentence, however long and structurally complicated
19" 291

it might prove. According to the second, directly opposite tendency, for a given unity of reflected events or reasons, each of them is to be presented by one separate simple sentence, the whole complex of reflections forming a multisentential paragraph. The two tendencies are always in a state of confrontation, and which of them will take an upper hand in this or that concrete case of text production has to be decided out of various considerations of form and meaning relating to both contextual and con-situational conditions (including, among other things, the general purpose of the work in question, as well as the preferences and idiosyncrasies of its users).
Observe, for instance, the following complex sentence of mixed narrative-reasoning nature:
Once Mary waved her hand as she recognised her driver, but he took no notice of her, only whipping his horses the harder, and she realised with a rather helpless sense of futility that so far as other people were concerned she must be considered in the same light as her uncle, and that even if she tried to walk to Boduin or Launceston no one would receive her, and the door would be shut in her face (D. du Maurier).
The sentence has its established status in the expressive context of the novel, and in this sense it is unrearrangeable. On the other hand, its referential plane can be rendered by a multisentential paragraph, plainer in form, but somewhat more natural to the unsophisticated perceptions:
Once Mary recognised her driver. She waved her hand to him. But he took no notice of her. He only whipped his horses the harder. And she realised that so far as other people were concerned she must be considered in the same light as her uncle. This gave her a rather helpless sense of futility. Even if she tried to walk to Boduin or Launceston no one would receive her. Quite the contrary, the door would be shut in her face.
One long composite sentence has been divided into eight short sentences. Characteristically, though, in our simplification we could not do without the composite sentence structure as such: two of the sentential units in the adaptation (respectively, the fourth and the sixth) have retained their compositive features, and these structural properties seem

to be indispensable for the functional adequacy of the rearranged passage.
The cited example of syntactic re-formation of text will help us formulate the following composition rule of good non-fiction (neutral) prose style: in neutral written speech each sentence construction should be as simple as can be permitted by the semantic context.
§ 4. We have emphatically pointed out in due course (see Ch. I) the oral basis of human language: the primary lingual matter is phonetical, so that each and every lingual utterance given in a graphic form has essentially a representative character, its speech referent being constructed of so many phones organised in a rhythmo-melodical sequence. On the other hand, and this has also been noted before, writing in a literary language acquires a relatively self-sufficient status in so far as a tremendous proportion of what is actually written in society is not meant for an oral reproduction at all: though read and re-read by those to whom it has been addressed, it is destined to remain "silent" for ever. The "silent" nature of written speech with all its peculiarities leads to the development of specifically written features of language, among which, as we have just seen, the composite sentence of increased complexity occupies one of the most prominent places. Now, as a natural consequence of this development, the peculiar features of written speech begin to influence oral speech, whose syntax becomes liable to display ever more syntactic properties directly borrowed from writing.
Moreover, as a result of active interaction between oral and written forms of language, a new variety of speech has arisen that has an intermediary status. This type of speech, being explicitly oral, is at the same time prepared and edited, and more often than not it is directly reproduced from the written text, or else from its epitomised version (theses). This intermediary written-oral speech should be given a special linguistic name, for which we suggest the term "scripted speech", i.e. speech read from the script. Here belong such forms of lingual communication as public report speech, lecturer speech, preacher speech, radio- and television-broadcast speech, each of them existing in a variety of subtypes.
By way of example let us take the following passage from President Woodrow Wilson's address to the Congress urging it to authorise the United States' entering the World War (1917):

But the right is more precious than peace, and we shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest our hearts, - for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.
The text presents a typical case of political scripted speech with a clear tinge of solemnity, its five predicative units being complicated by parallel constructions of homogeneous objects (for-phrases) adding to its high style emphasis.
Compare the above with a passage from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's second inaugural address (1937):
In this nation I see tens of millions of its citizens - a substantial part of its whole population - who at this very moment are denied the greater part of what the very lowest standards of today call the necessities of life.
The sentence is not a long one, but its bookish background, although meant for oral uttering before an audience, is most evident: a detached appositional phrase, consecutive subordination, the very nature of the last appositional clausal complex of commenting type, all these features being carefully prepared to give the necessary emphasis to the social content of the utterance aimed at a public success.
Compare one more example - a passage from Bernard Shaw's paper read before the Medico-Legal Society in London (1909):
Nevertheless, trade in medical advice has never been formally recognised, and never will be; for you must realise that, whereas competition in ordinary trade and business is founded on an elaborate theoretic demonstration of its benefits, there has never been anyone from Adam Smith to our own time who has attempted such a demonstration with regard to the medical profession. The idea of a doctor being a tradesman with a pecuniary interest in your being ill is abhorrent to every thoughtful person.
The scripted nature of the cited sentential sequence is clearly seen from its arrangement as an expressive climax built upon a carefully balanced contrastive composite construction.

§ 5. We have hitherto defended the thesis of the composite sentence of increased complexity being specifically characteristic of literary written speech. On the other hand, we must clearly understand that the composite sentence as such is part and parcel of the general syntactic system of language, and its use is an inalienable feature of any normal expression of human thought in intercourse. This is demonstrated by cases of composite sentences that could not be adequately reduced to the corresponding sets of separate simple sentences in their natural contexts (see above). Fictional literature, presenting in its works a reflection of language as it is spoken by the people, gives us abundant illustrations of the broad use of composite sentences in genuine colloquial speech both of dialogue and monologue character.
Composite sentences display two principal types of construction: hypotaxis (subordination) and parataxis (coordination). Both types are equally representative of colloquial speech, be it refined by education or not. In this connection it should be noted that the initial rise of hypotaxis and parataxis as forms of composite sentences can be traced back to the early stages of language development, i. e. to the times when language had no writing. Profuse illustrations of the said types of syntactic relations are contained, for instance, in the Old English epic "Beowulf" (dated presumably from the VII с A. D.). As is known, the text of the poem shows all the basic forms of sentential composition including the grammatically completed presentation of reported speech, connection of clauses on various nominal principles (objective, subjective, predicative, attributive), connection of clauses on various adverbial principles (temporal, local, conditional, causal, etc.). E. g.:

* From: Beowulf/Ed. by A. J. Wyatt. New edition revised with introduction and notes by R. W, Chambers. Cambr., 1933, verses 590- 597.

Compare the tentative prose translation of the cited text into Modern English (with the corresponding re-arrangements of the word-order patterns):
Truly I say onto thee, oh Son Egglaf, that never would Grendel, the abominable monster, have done so many terrible deeds to your chief, (so many) humiliating acts in Heorot, if thy soul (and) heart had been as bold as thou thyself declarest; but he has found that he need not much fear the hostile sword-attack of your people, the Victorious Skildings.
Needless to say, the forms of composite sentences in prewriting periods of language history cannot be taken as a proof that the structure of the sentence does not develop historically in terms of perfecting its expressive qualities. On the contrary, the known samples of Old English compared with their modern rendering are quite demonstrative of the fact that the sentence does develop throughout the history of language; moreover, they show that the nature and scope of the historical structural change of the sentence is not at all a negligible matter. Namely, from the existing lingual materials we see that the primitive, not clearly identified forms of subordination and coordination, without distinct border points between separate sentences, have been succeeded by such constructions of syntactic composition as are distinguished first and foremost by the clear-cut logic of connections between their clausal predicative parts. However, these materials, and among them the cited passage, show us at the same time that the composite sentence, far from being extraneous to colloquial speech, takes its origin just in the oral colloquial element of human speech as such: it is inherent in the very oral nature of developing language.
§ 6. The two main types of the connection of clauses in a composite sentence, as has been stated above, are subordination and coordination. By coordination the clauses are arranged as units of syntactically equal rank, i. с equipotently; by subordination, as units of unequal rank, one being categorially dominated by the other. In terms of the positional structure of the sentence it means that by subordination one of the clauses (subordinate) is placed in a notional position of the other (principal). This latter characteristic has an essential semantic implication clarifying the difference

between the two types of polypredication in question. As a matter of fact, a subordinate clause, however important the information rendered by it might be for the whole communication, presents it as naturally supplementing the information of the principal clause, i.e. as something completely premeditated and prepared even before its explicit expression in the utterance. This is of especial importance for post-positional subordinate clauses of circumstantial semantic nature. Such clauses may often shift their position without a change in semantico-syntactic status. Cf.:
I could not help blushing with embarrassment when I looked at him. > When I looked at him I could not help blushing with embarrassment. The board accepted the decision, though it didn't quite meet their plans. > Though the decision didn't quite meet their plans, the board accepted it.
The same criterion is valid for subordinate clauses with a fixed position in the sentence. To prove the subordinate quality of the clause in the light of this consideration, we have to place it in isolation - and see that the isolation is semantically false. E.g.:
But all the books were so neatly arranged, they were so clean, that I had the impression they were very seldom read.> *But all the books were so neatly arranged, they were so clean. That I had the impression they were very seldom read. I fancy that life is more amusing now than it was forty years ago. > *I fancy that life is more amusing now. Than it was forty years ago.
As for coordinated clauses, their equality in rank is expressed above all in each sequential clause explicitly corresponding to a new effort of thought, without an obligatory feature of premeditation. In accord with the said quality, a sequential clause in a compound sentence refers to the whole of the leading clause, whereas a subordinate clause in a complex sentence, as a rule, refers to one notional constituent (expressed by a word or a phrase) in a principal clause [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 278]. It is due to these facts that the position of a coordinate clause is rigidly fixed in all cases, which can be used as one of the criteria of coordination in distinction to subordination. Another probe of rank equality of clauses in coordination is a potential possibility for any •coordinate sequential clause to take either the copulative

conjunction and or the adversative conjunction but as introducers. Cf.:
That sort of game gave me horrors, so I never could play it. > That sort of game gave me horrors, and I never could play it. The excuse was plausible, only it was not good enough for us. > The excuse was plausible, but it was not good enough for us.
§ 7. The means of combining clauses into a polypredicative sentence are divided into syndetic, i. e. conjunctional, and asyndetic, i. e. non-conjunctional. The great controversy going on among linguists about this division concerns the status of syndeton and asyndeton versus coordination and subordination. Namely, the question under consideration is whether or not syndeton and asyndeton equally express the two types of syntactic relations between clauses in a composite sentence.
According to the traditional view, all composite sentences are to be classed into compound sentences (coordinating their clauses) and complex sentences (subordinating their clauses), syndetic or asyndetic types of clause connection being specifically displayed with both classes. However, this view has of late been subjected to energetic criticism; the new thesis formulated by its critics is as follows: the "formal" division of clause connection based on the choice of connective means should be placed higher in the hierarchy than the "semantic" division of clause connection based on the criterion of syntactic rank. That is, on the higher level of classification all the composite sentences should be divided into syndetic and asyndetic, while on the lower level the syndetic composite sentences (and only these) should be divided into compound and complex ones in accord with the types of the connective words used. The cited principle was put forward by N. S. Pospelov as part of his syntactic analysis of Russian, and it was further developed by some other linguists.
But the new approach to coordination and subordination has not been left unchallenged. In particular, B. A. Ilyish with his characteristic discretion in formulating final decisions has pointed out serious flaws in the non-traditional reasoning resulting first of all from mixing up strictly grammatical criteria of classification with general semantic considerations [Ilyish, 318 ff.].
Indeed, if we compare the following asyndetic composite

sentences with their compound syndetic counterparts on the basis of paradigmatic approach, we shall immediately expose unquestionable equality in their semantico-syntactic status. E. g.:
My uncle was going to refuse, but we didn't understand why.> My uncle was going to refuse, we didn't understand why. She hesitated a moment, and then she answered him. > She hesitated a moment, then she answered him.
The equality of the compound status of both types of sentences is emphatically endorsed when compared with the corresponding complex sentences in transformational constructional paradigmatics. Cf.:


стр. 2
(всего 3)