THE ESSENCE OF THEORETICAL GRAMMAR
The main purpose of а theory of Grammar is to present the structure of
аparticular language as аn organized system, whose parts hang together and function
in accordance with definite laws and regulations characteristic of that language
alone. The interpretation of grammar facts bу different scholars and authors forms
part of а theory of Grammar.
Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose.
The aims of theoretical grammar are:
1. to present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to
scientifically analyze and define its grammatical categories. And study the
mechanisms of grammatical formation of utterances out of words in the
process of speech making. Thus, the knowledge of theoretical grammar makes
it possible to formulate grammatical rules.
2. to introduce the students into the problems of scientific research in Modern
English grammar.
3. to develop the students’ ability to understand the cases of grammatical
difficulty and ambiguity (двусмысленность), which will help in their future
work.
In contradiction to Theoretical Grammar authors of Practical Grammar mainly deal
with rules and exceptions of the use of grammar units, with their material structure,
with innumerable parts of speech.
The task of Theoretical Grammar is to show how language works, what concrete
elements and properties make it а system.
The nature of grammar as a constituent part of language is better understood
in the light of explicitly discriminating the two planes of language, namely, the plane
of content and the plane of expression.
The plane of content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in
language, while the plane of expression comprises the material (formal) units of
language. The two planes are inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be
realized without some material means of expression. Grammatical elements of
language present a unity of content and expression (or a unity of form and meaning).
The correspondence (соотношение) between the planes of content and
expression is very complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This complexity is
clearly illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy and synonymy.
In cases of polysemy and homonymy, two or more units of the plane of
content correspond to one unit of the plane of expression.
In cases of synonymy, conversely (or, on the contrary), two or more units of
the plane of expression correspond to one unit of the plane of content.
Taking into consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may
say that the purpose of grammar as a linguistic discipline is to disclose and formulate
the regularities of the correspondence between the plane of content and the plane of
expression in the formation of utterances out of the stocks of words as a part of the
process of speech production. Modern linguistics lays a special stress on the
systemic character of language. The systemic nature of grammar is probably more
evident than that of any other sphere of language, since grammar is responsible for
the very organization of the informative content of utterances (высказываний).
The principles of systemic approach to language and its grammar were
developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely, after the publication
of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay and the Swiss scholar
Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated the difference between
lingual synchrony (coexistence of lingual elements) and diachrony (different timeperiods in the development of lingual elements as well as language as a whole) and
defined language as a synchronic system of meaningful elements at any stage of its
history.
On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference
between language proper and speech proper can be strictly defined, which is very
important for the identification of the object of linguistic science.
The distinction between language and speech which was first introduced by
Ferdinand de Saussure in his book on general linguistics has since become one of
the cornerstones of modern linguistics.
Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations:
syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations
between units in a segmental sequence (string).
E.g.: The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster rocket. In this
sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the spaceship",
"was launched", "the spaceship was launched", "was launched without the help",
"the help of a rocket", "a booster rocket". Morphemes within the words are also
connected syntagmatically. E.g.: space/ship; launch/ed; with/out; boost/er.
Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as
well as at various juncture points (cf. the processes of assimilation and
dissimilation).
The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by
the other forms a unit which is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma".
There are four main types of notional syntagmas: There are four main types
of notional syntagmas:
- predicative (Subject + Predicate);
- objective (Verb +Object);
- attributive (Noun + Attribute);
- adverbial (Verb, Adjective or Adverb + Adverbial modifier).
The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called
“paradigmatic”, are such as exist between elements of the system outside the strings
where they co-occur.
These intra-systemic relations and dependencies find their expression in the
fact that each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections based on
different formal or functional properties.
In the domain of grammar, series of related forms realize grammatical
numbers and cases, persons and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence
patterns of various functional nature, etc/
Unlike syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly
observed in utterances, that is why they are referred to as relations "in absentia""
("in the absence"). Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such
a way that some sort of syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realisation of
any paradigmatic series. This is especially evident -in a classical grammatical
paradigm which presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a
syntagmatic connection of two elements: one common for the whole of the series
(stem), the other specific for every individual form in the series (grammatical
feature: inflexion, suffix, auxiliary word). Grammatical paradigms express various
grammatical categories. The minimal paradigm consists of two form-stages. This
kind of paradigm we see, for instance, in the expression of the category of number:
boy / boys.
Grammar studies two branches: morphology and syntax.
Morphology deals with forms of words. Syntax deals with their arrangement
into phrases and sentences.
BASIC MORPHOLOGICAL CONCEPTIONS
The morphological system of language reveals its properties through the
morphemic structure of words.
The morpheme is one of the central notions of grammatical theory. The
morpheme may be defined as an elementary component part of the word, having a
meaning of its own. It is bilateral (двусторонний) by nature, i.e. it’s a language sign
which has both form and meaning. Words may comprise only one morpheme. Then
they are monomorphemic.
Ex: good, man, yellow, day, go, etc.
If they consist of more than one morpheme, they are called polymorphemic.
Ex: better, days, daily, yellowness, etc.
The morpheme remains a constituent of the word even if the word includes
only one morpheme, it doesn’t exist by itself, because it has no nominative function.
The main function of morpheme is word differentiating. Traditionally,
morphemes are divided into lexical and grammatical, or inflexions. Lexical
morphemes are subdivided into root-morphemes and affixes.
Affixal morphemes include prefixes and suffixes. Otherwise, called
derivational morphemes. They have word-building functions. Together with rootmorphemes they form stems of words. Grammatical morphemes are known as
inflexions or endings. They express different grammatical categories and have no
lexical meaning.
Ex: inheritors
Word={[(Prefix + Root- Stem) + Lexical S.] +(s)-Gr. ending(suffix)}
The root is obligatory for any word. While affixes are not obligatory.
Therefore one and the same morph. segment of functional status. (I.e. non-notional
depending on various morph. environments can in principal be used now as an affix,
now as a root.
Ex: out, throughout, outing
W={Root}
outlook, outline, outrage. {Prefix}
look out, time out, shine out {suffix}
In Modern descriptive linguistics the term “morpheme” has been given a
somewhat different meaning. Scholars belonging to this trend admit that the
meaning and function of the suffix –en in “oxen” is the same as the meaning and
function of –s in “students”. On this account the –s and the –en are said to represent
the same morpheme: each of them is a “morph” representing the morpheme, and
they are termed “allomorphs”. Furthermore, the morph representing the morpheme
in “goose-geese” is set to be the very change of-oo-into-ee-. Thus, the morpheme in
this case has 3 allomorphs: -s, -en, oo-ee. ([s][z] [iz], [ən], [u:]-[i:]). The term
morpheme is used in reference to the whole class of allomorphs, having the same
meaning. Alternations at the morphemic level may be conditioned either
phonologically (ex: cats, dogs, watches) or morphologically (boys, children, goosegeese).
The allomorphemic identification of lingual elements is achieved by means of
so called distributional analyses. Eme-terms denote the generalized invariant units
of language characterized by a certain functional status: phonemes. Allo-terms
denote the concrete manifestations or variants of the generalized units depended on
the regular collocation with other elements of language: allo-phones, allo-morphs.
In traditional grammar the study of the morphemic structure of the word was
conducted in the light of the two basic criteria: positional (the location of the
marginal morphemes in relation to the central ones) and semantic or functional (the
correlative contribution of the morphemes to the general meaning of the word). The
combination of these two criteria in an integral description has led to the rational
classification of morphemes that is widely used both in research linguistic work and
in practical lingual tuition. Three main of distribution are discriminated in the
distributional analyses, namely contrastive distribution; non-contrastive distribution,
and complementary distribution. Contrastive and non-contrastive distribution
concern identical environment of different morphs.
Ex: returned, returning.
The morphs are set to be in contrastive distribution if their meanings
(functions) are different. Such morphs constitute different morphemes. Ex:
returned→returning.
Contrastive distribution is identical distribution of different morphemes. The
morphs are said to be in non-contrastive distribution (or free alternation) if their
meanings (functions) are the same.
Ex: learned-learnt. Such morphs constitute “free alternations” or “free
variants” of the same morpheme.
Non-contrastive distribution is identical distribution of the free variant of the
same morphemes.
Complementary distribution concerns different environments of formally
different morphs which are united by the same meaning, function. If two or more
morphs have the same meaning and the difference in their form is explained by
different environment, these morphs are said to be in complementary distribution
and considered the allomorphs of the same morpheme.
Ex: [s] [z] [ız] stand in phonemic complementary distribution, –s, -en stand in
morphemic complementary distribution.
As the result of the application of distributional analyses to the morphemic
level, different types of morphemes have been discriminated which can be called the
“distributional morpheme types”.
TYPES OF MORPHS
1. оn the basis of the degree of self-dependence we discriminate -FREE/BOUND
morphemes. BOUND morphemes саn' t form words bу themselves. They are
identified only as а component of а word. FREE morphemes сап build uр words bу
themselves. They саn bе used "freely".
HANDFUL
hand
ful
Free
bound
(the root)
(the suffix)
2. оn
the basis of formal presentation -OVERT I COVERT morphemes are
distinguished.
OVERT morphemes (открытые) are explicit.
COVERT morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme. They are implicit.
Books: book + s -overt morphemes
Book: book / zero - covert morphemes
3. оn the basis of grammatical alternation ADDITIVEIREPLACIVE morphemes
are distinguished.
The ADDITIVE morphemes are grammatical suffixes as opposed to the absence of
morphemes in grammatical alternation.
Look +ed - an additive morpheme. Great +er
The REPLACIVE morphemes are root morphemes with grammatical sound
interchange
since they replace оnе another in the paradigmatic forms.
Tooth-teeth, drive-drove-driven, mаn-mеn
4. оn the basis of linear characteristics CONTINUOUS/DISCONTINUOUS
morphemes are distinguished.
Ву the DISCONTINUOUS morpheme, opposed to the common, i.е.
uninterruptedly expressed, continuous morpheme, а two-element grammatical unit
is meant which is identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an
auxiliary word & а grammatical suffix.
ВЕ (root) - ING - discontinuous
HAVE - ЕD
ВЕ ... - EN
5. amalgamated morph - expresses different grammatical categories. PETS'
THE WORD
The word is a nominative unit of language; it is formed by morphemes; it
enters the lexicon of language as its elementary component (i.e. a component
indivisible into smaller segments as regards its nominative function); together with
other nominative units the word is used for the formation of the sentence in the
communication process.
The meaning of a word is also bilateral. It includes a certain lexical and a
certain grammatical meaning. Lexical meanings are individual meanings of words,
proper to them in any of their forms. Whereas (while) grammatical meanings of
words refer them to certain grammatical classes and represent grammatical
distinctions between them. Grammatical elements of language present a unity of
content and expression, i.e. meaning and form. The purpose of grammar as a
linguistic discipline is to disclose and formulate the regularities (rules) of the
correspondence between the plane of content and the plane of expression. In the
formation of utterances out of the stock of words. Grammatical meaning are
materially expressed by grammatical forms which may be synthetical or analytical.
Synthetical forms are represented by the inner morphemic composition of the word,
while analytical grammar forms are built by combination of at least two words, one
of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of
notional or substantial meaning.
Synthetical forms are based on:
1. inner inflection (sound alternation) by Ilyish;
2. outer inflection;
3. supplativity (the change of root)
Inner inflection is changing a sound inside the root. (ex: man-men, mousemice, write-wrote-written, take-took-taken, etc.). Inner inflection is not productive
in modern Indo-European languages. Supplativity is not productive either. By a
supplative formation we mean building a form of a word from an altogether different
stem. Supplativity is found in a very limited number of cases. (ex: be, am, are, was,
were, go-went, etc.) (bad-worse, much-more, little-less, I-me, we-us, she-her). The
shown unproductive syntactical means of English morphology are outbalanced by
the productive means of affixation (outer inflection). The number of morphemes
used for deriving word forms in ME is very small (s, es for Plurality; s, d, ed for the
Past). Though among outer inflectional forms are also non-productive ones (ex: the
suffix –en, -ren like in “children, oxen, breathren”).
Analytical forms are characterized by using a word (an auxiliary one) devoid
of any lexical meaning of its own, to express some grammatical categories of another
word. And though there is no doubt about the analytical character of such formation
as is done, is doing, does not do, etc, as auxiliaries here have completely last their
lexical meanings, there are controversial cases, such as e.g. more vivid, most vivid,
and such form as shall come and will come. Grammatical meanings are very abstract,
very general. Therefore the grammatical form is not confined to an individual word
but unites a whole class of words so that each word of the class alongside with its
individual concrete semantics expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning.
GRAMMATICAL CTEGORY AS THE MAIN IN THE THEORETICAL
GRAMMAR
The grammatical category is a unity of form & meaning & it is expressed
through а set of grammatical forms that is grammatical opposition. The oppositional
theory was originally formulated as а phonological theory bу Trubetskoy. Three
main qualitative types of oppositions were established.
-PRIVAT1VE
-GRADUAL
-EQU1POLLENT
Ву the number of members contrasted oppositions were divided into B1NARY (two
members) & more than binary (TERNARY -3х членов, MULTIPLE).
1. The most important type of opposition is ТНЕ B1NARY PRIVATIVE
OPPOSITION. It is formed bу а contrastive pair of members in which оnе member
is characterized bу а presence of а certain differential feature (mark), while the other
member is characterized bу the absence of this feature. The member in which the
feature is present is called ТНЕ МARKED (STRONG, POS1TIVE) mеmber.
The member in which the feature is absent is called ТНЕ UNМARKED (WEAK,
NEGAT1VE) member.
We work // we worked -ed
Weak
strong
2. GRADUAL OPPOS1T10N.
It is formed bу а contrastive group of members which are distinguished not bу the
presence or absence of the differential feature, but bу the degree of it. It сап bе seen
in the category of comparison & it is identified as а minor type оп the semantic level.
3. ТНЕ EQU1POLLENT opposition is formed bу а contrastive pair or group in
which the members are distinguished bу different positive features. In the system of
English morphology equipollent oppositions constitute а minor type. They сап bе
seen in the correlation of the person forms of the verb.
ТО ВЕ - АМ, ARE, AND IS.
In varies contents оnе member of а privative opposition саn bе used in the position
of the other. We speak about NEUTRALIZATION of oppositions, when the weak
member of the opposition is used instead of the strong оnе.
TONIGHT WE START FOR LONDON.
(The verb START takes the form of the present while the meaning is future).
FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS. (Singular form).
Alongside of the neutralizing reduction of oppositions there exists another type
of reduction TRANSPOSITION (перенос). When the strong member of the
opposition is used instead of the weak member.
SHE IS ALWAYS BE1NG LATE.
SNOWS OF K1LIМANGAROU.
Such usage is stylistically marked bу exaggeration.