> 1-25 26-50 51-75> . . " : "

. . " : " ( 3)

: . . " : ".


The absolutive time denotation, in compliance with the ex-perience gained by man in the course of his cognitive activity, distributes the intellective perception of time among three spheres: the sphere of the present, with the present moment in-cluded within its framework; the sphere of the past, which pre-cedes the sphere of the present by way of retrospect; the sphere of the future, which follows the sphere of the present by way of prospect.
Thus, words and phrases like now, last week, in our century, in the past, in the years to come, very soon, yesterday, in a cou-ple of days, giving a temporal characteristic to an event from the point of view of its orientation in reference to the present moment, are absolutive names of time.
The non-absolutive time denotation does not characterise an event in terms of orientation towards the present. This kind of denotation may be either "relative" or "factual".
The relative expression of time correlates two or more events showing some of them either as preceding the others, or following the others, or happening at one and the same time with them. Here belong such words and phrases as after that, before that, at one and the same time with, some time later, at an interval of a day or two, at different times, etc.
The factual expression of time either directly states the as-tronomical time of an event, or else conveys this meaning in terms of historical landmarks. Under this heading should be listed such words and phrases as in the year 1066, during the time of the First World War, at the epoch of Napoleon, at the early period of civilisation, etc.
In the context of real speech the above types of time naming are used in combination with one another, so that the denoted event receives many-sided and very exact characterisation re-garding its temporal status.
Of all the temporal meanings conveyed by such detailing lexical denotation of time, the finite verb generalises in its cate-gorial forms only the most abstract significations, taking them as dynamic characteristics of the reflected process. The funda-mental divisions both of absolutive time and of non-absolutive relative time find in the verb a specific presentation, idiomati-cally different from one language to another. The form of this presentation is dependent, the same as with the expression of other grammatical meanings, on the concrete semantic features chosen by a language as a basis

for the functional differentiation within the verb lexeme. And it is the verbal expression of abstract, grammatical time that forms the necessary background for the adverbial contextual time denotation in an utterance; without the verbal background serving as a universal temporal "polariser" and "leader", this marking of time would be utterly inadequate. Indeed, what in-formative content should the following passage convey with all its lexical indications of time {in the morning, in the afternoon, as usual, never, ever), if it were deprived of the general indica-tions of time achieved through the forms of the verb the unit of the lexicon which the German grammarians very signifi-cantly call "Zeitwort" the "time-word":
My own birthday passed without ceremony. I worked as usual in the morning and in the afternoon went for a walk in the solitary woods behind my house. I have never been able to discover what it is that gives these woods their mysterious at-tractiveness. They are like no woods I have ever known (S. Maugham).
In Modern English, the grammatical expression of verbal time, i.e. tense, is effected in two correlated stages. At the first stage, the process receives an absolutive time characteristic by means of opposing the past tense to the present tense. The marked member of this opposition is the past form. At the sec-ond stage, the process receives a non-absolutive relative time characteristic by means of opposing the forms of the future tense to the forms of no future marking. Since the two stages of the verbal time denotation are expressed separately, by their own oppositional forms, and, besides, have essentially different orientation characteristics (the first stage being absolutive, the second stage, relative), it stands to reason to recognise in the system of the English verb not one, but two temporal catego-ries. Both of them answer the question: "What is the timing of the process?" But the first category, having the past tense as its strong member, expresses a direct retrospective evaluation of the time of the process, fixing the process either in the past or not in the past; the second category, whose strong member is the future tense, gives the timing of the process a prospective evaluation, fixing it either in the future (i.e. in the prospective posterior), or not in the future. As a result of the combined working of the two categories, the time of the event reflected in the utterance finds its adequate location in the

temporal context, showing all the distinctive properties of the lingual presentation of time mentioned above.
In accord with the oppositional marking of the two temporal categories under analysis, we shall call the first of them the category of "primary time", and the second, the category of "prospective time", or, contractedly, "prospect".
2. The category of primary time, as has just been stated, provides for the absolutive expression of the time of the process denoted by the verb, i.e. such an expression of it as gives its evaluation, in the long run, in reference to the moment of speech. The formal sign of the opposition constituting this cate-gory is, with regular verbs, the dental suffix -(e)d [-d, -t, -id], and with irregular verbs, phonemic interchanges of more or less individual specifications. The suffix marks the verbal form of the past time (the past tense), leaving the opposite form un-marked. Thus, the opposition is to be rendered by the formula "the past tense the present tense", the latter member repre-senting the non-past tense, according to the accepted opposi-tional interpretation.
The specific feature of the category of primary time is, that it divides all the tense forms of the English verb into two tem-poral planes: the plane of the present and the plane of the past, which affects also the future forms. Very important in this re-spect is the structural nature of the expression of the category: the category of primary time is the only verbal category of im-manent order which is expressed by inflexional forms. These inflexional forms of the past and present coexist in the same verb-entry of speech with the other, analytical modes of various categorial expression, including the future. Hence, the English verb acquires the two futures: on the one hand, the future of the present, i.e. as prospected from the present; on the other hand, the future of the past, i.e. as prospected from the past. The fol-lowing example will be illustrative of the whole four-member correlation:
Jill returns from her driving class at five o'clock.
At five Jill returned from her driving class. I know that
Jill will return from her driving class at five o'clock.
I knew that at five Jill would return from her driving class.
An additional reason for identifying the verbal past-present time system as a separate grammatical category is provided by the fact that this system is specifically marked by the do-forms of the indefinite aspect with their various,

but inherently correlated functions. These forms, found in the interrogative constructions (Does he believe the whole story?), in the negative constructions (He doesn't believe the story), in the elliptical response constructions and elsewhere, are con-fined only to the category of primary time, i.e. the verbal past and present, not coming into contact with the expression of the future.
3. The fact that the present tense is the unmarked member of the opposition explains a very wide range of its meanings exceeding by far the indication of the "moment of speech" cho-sen for the identification of primary temporality. Indeed, the present time may be understood as literally the moment of speaking, the zero-point of all subjective estimation of time made by the speaker. The meaning of the present with this con-notation will be conveyed by such phrases as at this very mo-ment, or this instant, or exactly now, or some other phrase like that. But an utterance like "now while I am speaking" breaks the notion of the zero time proper, since the speaking process is not a momentary, but a durative event. Furthermore, the present will still be the present if we relate it to such vast periods of time as this month, this year, in our epoch, in the present mil-lennium, etc. The denoted stretch of time may be prolonged by a collocation like that beyond any definite limit. Still further-more, in utterances of general truths as, for instance, "Two plus two makes four", or "The sun is a star", or "Handsome is that handsome does", the idea of time as such is almost suppressed, the implication of constancy, unchangeability of the truth at all times being made prominent. The present tense as the verbal form of generalised meaning covers all these denotations, showing the present time in relation to the process as inclusive of the moment of speech, incorporating this moment within its definite or indefinite stretch and opposed to the past time.
Thus, if we say, "Two plus two makes four", the linguistic implication of it is "always, and so at the moment of speech". If we say, "I never take his advice", we mean linguistically "at no time in terms of the current state of my attitude towards him, and so at the present moment". If we say, "In our millennium social formations change quicker than in the previous periods of man's history", the linguistic temporal content of it is "in our millennium, that is, in the millennium including the moment of speech". This meaning is the invariant of the present, developed from its categorial

opposition to the past, and it penetrates the uses of the finite verb in all its forms, including the perfect, the future, the con-tinuous.
Indeed, if the Radio carries the news, "The two suspected terrorists have been taken into custody by the police", the im-plication of the moment of speech refers to the direct influence or after-effects of the event announced. Similarly, the statement "You will be informed about the decision later in the day" de-scribes the event, which, although it has not yet happened, is prospected into the future from the present, i.e. the prospection itself incorporates the moment of speech. As for the present continuous, its relevance for the present moment is self-evident.
Thus, the analysed meaning of the verbal present arises as a result of its immediate contrast with the past form which shows the exclusion of the action from the plane of the present and so the action itself as capable of being perceived only in temporal retrospect. Again, this latter meaning of the disconnection from the present penetrates all the verbal forms of the past, including the perfect, the future, the continuous. Due to the marked char-acter of the past verbal form, the said quality of its meaning does not require special demonstration.
Worthy of note, however, are utterances where the meaning of the past tense stands in contrast with the meaning of some adverbial phrase referring the event to the present moment. Cf.: Today again I spoke to Mr. Jones on the matter, and again he failed to see the urgency of it.
The seeming linguistic paradox of such cases consists ex-actly in the fact that their two-type indications of time, one ver-bal-grammatical, and one adverbial-lexical, approach the same event from two opposite angles. But there is nothing irrational here. As a matter of fact, the utterances present instances of two-plane temporal evaluation of the event described: the verb-form shows the process as past and gone, i.e. physically dis-connected from the present; as for the adverbial modifier, it presents the past event as a particular happening, belonging to a more general time situation which is stretched out up to the pre-sent moment inclusive, and possibly past the present moment into the future.
A case directly opposite to the one shown above is seen in the transpositional use of the present tense of the verb with the past adverbials, either included in the utterance as such, or else expressed in its contextual environment. E.g.:

Then he turned the corner, and what do you think happens next? He faces nobody else than Mr. Greggs accompanied by his private secretary!
The stylistic purpose of this transposition, known under the name of the "historic present" (Lat. praesens historicum) is to create a vivid picture of the event reflected in the utterance. This is achieved in strict accord with the functional meaning of the verbal present, sharply contrasted against the general back-ground of the past plane of the utterance content.
4. The combinations of the verbs shall and will with the infinitive have of late become subject of renewed discussion. The controversial point about them is, whether these combina-tions really constitute, together with the forms of the past and present, the categorial expression of verbal tense, or are just modal phrases, whose expression of the future time does not differ in essence from the general future orientation of other combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. The view that shall and will retain their modal meanings in all their uses was defended by such a recognised authority on English grammar of the older generation of the twentieth century linguists as O. Jespersen. In our times, quite a few scholars, among them the successors of Descriptive Linguistics, consider these verbs as part of the general set of modal verbs, "modal auxiliaries", ex-pressing the meanings of capability, probability, permission, obligation, and the like.
A well-grounded objection against the inclusion of the con-struction shall/will + Infinitive in the tense system of the verb on the same basis as the forms of the present and past has been advanced by L. S. Barkhudarov [, (2), 126 .]. His objection consists in the demonstration of the double mark-ing of this would-be tense form by one and the same category: the combinations in question can express at once both the fu-ture time and the past time (the form "future-in-the-past"), which hardly makes any sense in terms of a grammatical cate-gory. Indeed, the principle of the identification of any gram-matical category demands that the forms of the category in normal use should be mutually exclusive. The category is con-stituted by the opposition of its forms, not by their co-position!
However, reconsidering the status of the construction shall/will + Infinitive in the light of oppositional approach,

we see that, far from comparing with the past-present verbal forms as the third member-form of the category of primary time, it marks its own grammatical category, namely, that of prospective time (prospect). The meaningful contrast underly-ing the category of prospective time is between an after-action and a non-after-action. The after-action, or the "future", having its shall/will-feature, constitutes the marked member of the op-position.
The category of prospect is also temporal, in so far as it is immediately connected with the expression of processual time, like the category of primary time. But the semantic basis of the category of prospect is different in principle from that of the category of primary time: while the primary time is absolutive, i. e. present-oriented, the prospective time is purely relative; it means that the future form of the verb only shows that the de-noted process is prospected as an after-action relative to some other action or state or event, the timing of which marks the zero-level for it. The two times are presented, as it were, in pro-spective coordination: one is shown as prospected for the fu-ture, the future being relative to the primary time, either present or past. As a result, the expression of the future receives the two mutually complementary manifestations: one manifestation for the present time-plane of the verb, the other manifestation for the past time-plane of the verb. In other words, the process of the verb is characterised by the category of prospect irrespec-tive of its primary time characteristic, or rather, as an addition to this characteristic, and this is quite similar to all the other categories capable of entering the sphere of verbal time, e.g. the category of development (continuous in opposition), the cate-gory of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), the category of voice (passive in opposition): the respective forms of all these categories also have the past and present versions, to which, in due course, are added the future and non-future versions. Consider the following examples:
(1) I was making a road and all the coolies struck. (2) None of us doubted in the least that Aunt Emma would soon be mar-velling again at Eustace's challenging success. (3) The next thing she wrote she sent to a magazine, and for many weeks worried about what would happen to it. (4) She did not protest, for she had given up the struggle. (5) Felix knew that they would have settled the dispute by the time he could be ready to have his say. (6) He was being watched, shadowed,

chased by that despicable gang of hirelings. (7) But would little Jonny be *being looked after properly? The nurse was so young and inexperienced!
The oppositional content of the exemplified cases of finite verb-forms will, in the chosen order of sequence, be presented as follows: the past non-future continuous non-perfect non-passive (1); the past future continuous non-perfect non-passive (2) the past future non-continuous non-perfect non-passive (3); the past non-future non-continuous perfect non-passive (4); the past future non-continuous perfect non-passive (5); the past non-future continuous non-perfect passive (6); the past future continuous non-perfect passive (7) the latter form not in practical use.
As we have already stated before, the future tenses reject the do-forms of the indefinite aspect, which are confined to the ex-pression of the present and past verbal times only. This fact serves as a supplementary ground for the identification of the expression of prospect as a separate grammatical category.
Of course, it would be an ill turn to grammar if one tried to introduce the above circumstantial terminology with all its pe-dantic strings of "non's" into the elementary teaching of lan-guage. The stringed categorial "non"-terms are apparently too redundant to be recommended for ordinary use even at an ad-vanced level of linguistic training. What is achieved by this kind of terminology, however, is a comprehensive indication of the categorial status of verb-forms under analysis in a compact, terse presentation. Thus, whenever a presentation like that is called for, the terms will be quite in their place.
5. In analysing the English future tenses, the modal factor, naturally, should be thoroughly taken into consideration. A cer-tain modal colouring of the meaning of the English future can-not be denied, especially in the verbal form of the first person. But then, as is widely known, the expression of the future in other languages is not disconnected from modal semantics ei-ther; and this is conditioned by the mere fact that the future action, as different from the present or past action, cannot be looked upon as a genuine feature of reality. Indeed, it is only foreseen, or anticipated, or planned, or desired, or otherwise prospected for the time to come. In this quality, the Russian future tense does not differ in principle

from the verbal future of other languages, including English, Suffice it to give a couple of examples chosen at random:
. - , , . - (. ). -. , : . (. ).
The future forms of the verbs in the first of the above Rus-sian examples clearly express promise (i. e. a future action con-veyed 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 with the imperfective in-finitive). E. g.: ? , . . (. ).
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 ety-mology 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, in-evitability, promise, intention, desire. These meanings may be easily seen both on the examples of ready phraseological cita-tion, 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 in-tend 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 com-binations 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 de-scribed 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 ex-penses have been necessary (A. Christie). If you wait there on Thursday evening between seven and eight I will come if I can (H. Merriman).
That the combinations of will with the infinitive in the above examples do express the future time, admits of no dispute. Fur-thermore, these combinations, seemingly, are charged with mo-dal 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. Gals-worthy). 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 differ-ence, 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 synon-ymy, bound by the paradigmatic relation of free alternation?
A solution to this problem is to be found on the basis of syn-tactic distributional and transformational analysis backed by a consideration of the original meanings of both auxiliaries.
7. Observing combinations with will in stylistically neu-tral collocations, as the first step of our study we note the ad-verbials 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 infini-tive-environmental semantics of will in contrast to the contex-tual 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 cir-cumstances 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 character-istics of shall with the corresponding environmental back-ground 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 con-nected 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 homo-nyms, 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 trans-formational analysis. The method will consist not in free struc-tural manipulations with the analysed constructions, but in the textual search for the respective changes of the auxiliaries de-pending 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 (com-plicated) 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 fu-ture 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 + In-finitive 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 con-tracted 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. Dick-ens). > I will marry you. I'll have to think about it (M. Dick-ens). > 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 fu-ture -'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 contami-nation 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 counter-acted by the two structural factors. The first is the existence of the two functionally differing contractions of the future auxilia-ries in the negative form, i. e. shan't and won't, which impera-tively 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 Bea-trice 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, un-certainty. 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, char-acteristic 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 regu-lated 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 imme-diate 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 ex-pressed by the infinitive, thus entering into the vast set of "clas-sical" modal constructions. E.g.:
I am going to ask you a few more questions about the mys-terious 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. 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 impli-cations 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 sen-tences. Cf.:
She knew what she was doing, and she was sure it was go-ing to be worth doing (W. Saroyan). There's going to be a con-test 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 sty-listically. Far from being neutral, they more often than not dis-play emotional colouring mixed with semantic connotations of oblique modality.
For instance, when the girl from the first of the above ex-amples 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 an-noyance 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 di-vided into modal and non-modal, on the analogy of the con-struction 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 inten-tion 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 neutrali-sation 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 ar-rangement. 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 equiva-lent reconstruction of the correlated member of the opposition is nearly always possible (with the respective changes of con-notations 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 oppo-sition is observed in modal verbs and modal word combina-tions. The basic peculiarity of these units bearing on (he expres-sion 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 pre-sent 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 cate-gorial 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 pre-sented 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 pres-entation 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 fu-ture tense is changed into the tense of prospected posteriority. Cf.:
(1) , . (2) -, . (3) , .
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 transla-tions 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 gram-mar should be rejected as false. Sequence of tenses is an impor-tant 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 transla-tion of the present-plane direct information into the past-plane reported information is not a formal, but essentially a meaning-ful 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 invari-able, derivative category. In English, the various lexical aspec-tive 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 divi-sion of verbs into perfective and imperfective is, on the con-trary, 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 repre-sented in variable grammatical categories. Aspective grammati-cal change is wholly alien to the Russian language, but it forms one of the basic features of the categorial structure of the Eng-lish verb.
Two systems of verbal forms, in the past grammatical tradi-tion analysed under the indiscriminate heading of the "temporal inflexion", i. e. synthetic inflexion proper and analytical com-position 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, re-flecting 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 ef-fected between the continuous and the non-continuous (indefi-nite) verbal forms. The categorial meaning discloses the nature of development of the verbal action, on which ground the sug-gested name for the category as a whole will be "development". As is the case with the other categories, its expression is com-bined 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 co-ordinates 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, form-ing 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 termi-nological consistency, will be named "imperfect" (non-perfect). As an independent category, the retrospective coordination is manifested in the integral verb-form together with the manifes-tations of other categories, among them the

aspective category of development. Thus, alongside of the forms of perfect continuous and perfect indefinite, the verb dis-tinguishes 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 inte-gral 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 op-tion) 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 expres-sions 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 con-stituting

one unified category of time (tense), existing in the three cate-gorial 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 manifesta-tion 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 mem-ber 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 pro-gress"; 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 si-multaneously with some other action. This temporal interpreta-tion of the continuous was most consistently developed in the works of H. Sweet and O. Jespersen. In point of fact, the con-tinuous usually goes with a verb which expresses a simultane-ous action, but, as we have stated before, the timing of the ac-tion is not expressed by the continuous as such rather, the immediate time-meaning is conveyed by the syntactic construc-tions, 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 indica-tions of time is well illustrated on examples of complex sen-tences with while-clauses. Four combinations of the continuous and the indefinite are possible in principle in these construc-tions (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 corre-lating 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 win-dow 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 ciga-rette. 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 con-tinuous 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 con-tinuous, in general, should be appraised as an essential step forward, because, first, it introduced on an explicit, comprehen-sively 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 ad-vanced 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'' con-tinuous. 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 pro-gress and action not in progress as with the finite forms of the verb. Cf.:
Kezia and her grandmother were taking their siesta to-gether. 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 suppo-sition 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 un-certainty, 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 cate-gory 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 com-plexes. 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 under-goes 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 develop-ment opposition with the introductory verb supporting the par-ticipial 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 transposition-ally to denote habitual, recurrent actions in emphatic colloca-tions. 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, includ-ing verbs of statal existence. Here are some very typical exam-ples:
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 know-ing 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 antici-pated 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 neutrali-sation of the continuous with these verbs is quite regular, we have here essentially the phenomenon of reverse transposi-tion 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 re-verse. 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 cate-gory 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 in-definite 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 pre-sented immediately as parts of the corresponding syntactic con-structions, whereas actually they are parts of the corresponding verb-forms of the indefinite aspect. Let us compare the follow-ing 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 im-mensely, and Kitty liked it too. Mike liked the show immensely, and so did Kitty.
On the face of the comparison, we see only the construc-tion-forming function of the analysed auxiliary, the cited for-mulations 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 nec-essary 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 ac-cented and otherwise individualised positions. This presenta-tion, 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 de-scribed 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 corre-sponding 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 coordina-tion.
The first comprehensively represented grammatical exposi-tion 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 consis-tently 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 tempo-ral characteristic of the action. Namely, it shows that the de-noted action precedes some other action or situation in the pre-sent, 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 charac-teristic 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 per-fect 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 dis-tinctness 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 com-prehensively developed by G. N. Vorontsova. This subtle ob-server of intricate interdependencies of language masterly dem-onstrated the idea of the

successive connection of two events expressed by the perfect, prominence given by the form to the transference or "transmis-sion" of the accessories of a pre-situation to a post-situation. The great merit of G. N. Vorontsova's explanation of the aspec-tive nature of the perfect lies in the fact that the resultative meaning ascribed by some scholars to the perfect as its deter-mining grammatical function is understood in her conception within a more general destination of this form, namely as a par-ticular 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 evi-dently 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 ques-tion, 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, con-vincingly demonstrated by the tense view of the perfect de-scribed 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 ver-bal forms expressing temporal and aspective functions in a blend are contrasted against the indefinite form as their com-mon 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 ana-lysed 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 appar-ent 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 per-fect 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 ques-tions: 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 concep-tion loses sight of its categorial nature altogether, since it leaves undisclosed how the grammatical function of the perfect is ef-fected in contrast with the continuous or indefinite, as well as how the "categorial blend" of the perfect-continuous is con-trasted against its three counterparts, i.e. the perfect, the con-tinuous, the indefinite.
As we see, the three described interpretations of the perfect, actually complementing one another, have given in combina-tion 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 demonstra-tion of the fact that the perfect form, by means of its opposi-tional mark, builds up its own category, different from both the "tense" (present past future) and the "aspect" (continu-ous indefinite), and not reducible to either of them. The func-tional content of the category of "time correlation" ( ) was defined as priority expressed by the per-fect forms in the present, past or future contrasted against the non-expression of priority by the non-perfect forms. The imme-diate 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 con-tinuous, 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 cate-gory of tense. The inference is that the category in question, the determining part of which is embodied in the perfect, is differ-ent 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 out-standing 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. Sec-ond, 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 par-ticular language conveying the corresponding meanings. Some languages may convey temporal or aspective meanings within the functioning of one integral category for each (as, for in-stance, the Russian language), while other languages may con-vey 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 manifesta-tion 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 gram-matical 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 sen-tence "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 con-tinuous of the category of development, the perfect of the cate-gory 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 ac-tual 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 ma-jor purely temporal categories are to be identified, i.e. primary time and prospective time, as well as two major aspective cate-gories. 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 ac-tual 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 grammati-cal analysis.
8. Thus, we have arrived at the "strict categorial view" of the perfect, disclosing it as the marking form of a separate ver-bal category, semantically intermediate between aspective and temporal, but quite self-dependent in the general categorial sys-tem 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 ex-pressed 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 vivid-ness. 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 per-fect 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 con-tinually,

Naturally, both perfect indefinite and perfect continuous, being categorially characterised by their respective features, in normal use are not strictly dependent on a favourable contex-tual 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 be-fore. 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 continu-ous. Namely, the expression of retrospective

coordination is neutralised most naturally and freely with limi-tive 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 neutralisa-tions 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 man-agement has softened their stand after all the hurly-burly!
The perfect forms in these contexts are always possible, be-ing 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 regular-ity 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 opposi-tion 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 partici-ple of the limitive verbs, its indefinite form very naturally ex-pressing priority in the perfective sense. Cf.: She came to Vic-toria 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 per-fect is more often than not neutralised. E.g.: He was at Cam-bridge 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 rep-resented 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 compe-tence whatsoever (simultaneity expressed by the imperfect). It was utterly unbelievable for the man to have had no compe-tence 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 retro-spective 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 presup-posed 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 gov-ernment) can be pointed out as a testimony to the category of retrospective coordination being related to the category of de-velopment 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 oc-casionally be performed by the verb get and, probably, be-come* 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 in-transitive objective verbs including prepositional ones can be used in the passive (the preposition being retained in the abso-lutive 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 re-fused 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 actu-ally 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. Considera-tions 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 ap-praisal.
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 mi-grate into the
121499 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 neu-tralising 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 op-position the future indefinite passive; the perfect continuous ac-tive in all the tense-forms has as its regular counterpart the per-fect 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 ref-erential 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 num-ber, together with person, expresses its person-numerical rela-tion. 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 dis-close 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 re-flected 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 ac-tion, 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 re-verse. 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 trans-formational relations between the active and passive construc-tions.
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 de-feat 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 ver-bids.
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 con-struction): 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 ex-position 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 ge-rundial phrase: After the letter had been wrongly delivered, it found its addressee at last.
The following passive participial construction in an absolut-ive position accentuates the resultative process: The enemy bat-teries having been put out of action, our troops continued to push on the offensive.
Cf. the clausal equivalent of the construction: When the en-emy 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 mean-ing, and phrases built up by it display all the cited characteris-tics. 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 pre-sented a fantastic sight.
3. The big problem in connection with the voice identifi-cation in English is the problem of "medial" voices, i.e. the functioning of the voice forms in other than the passive or ac-tive meanings. All the medial voice uses are effected within the functional range of the unmarked member of the voice opposi-tion. 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 per-formance. 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 pre-paring himself. Let us take examples of another kind:
The friends will be meeting tomorrow. Unfortunately, Nel-lie 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 per-formed 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 pro-nouns, 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, respec-tively, "reflexive" and "reciprocal". The reflexive and recipro-cal 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 gener-alising 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 sen-tence, 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, re-spectively, "reflexivised" and "reciprocalised". Used absolut-ively, they are just reflexive and reciprocal variants of their lex-emes.
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 par-ties have been accusing one another vehemently.
To distinguish between the two cases of the considered phrasal-derivative process, the former can be classed as "or-ganic", the latter as "inorganic" reflexivisation and reciprocali-sation.
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 ex-amples:
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 go-ing on of their own accord. The presentation of the verbal ac-tion of this type comes under the heading of the "middle" voice.
However, lacking both regularity and an outer form of ex-pression, 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 be-tween 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 se-mantic character of the constructions. Namely, if the construc-tion expresses an action, it is taken to refer to the passive voice form; if it expresses a state, it is interpreted as a nominal predi-cate. 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 dy-namic 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 under-stood 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 predi-cate. 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 cate-gorial 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 par-ticular, 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 im-portant for limitive verbs, since their past participles combine the semantics of processual passive with that of resultative per-fect. 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 con-structions 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 con-troversial category of the verb. On the face of it, the principles of its analysis, the nomenclature, the relation to other catego-ries, in particular, to tenses, all this has received and is receiv-ing 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 con-nected 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 con-troversies 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 stud-ies of the mood system within the general framework of mod-ern 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 func-tional plane of any category; the exposition of the subtle para-digmatic correlations that, working on the same unchangeable verbal basis, acquire the status of changeable forms; the demon-stration 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 understand-ing, 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 demon-strated 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 ma-terials gathered and results obtained by these scholars that we venture the present, of necessity schematic, outline of the cate-gory under analysis.
2. The category of mood expresses the character of con-nection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that really hap-pened, happens or will happen, or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i.e. the subject of a hypothesis, speculation, de-sire. It follows from this that the functional opposition underly-ing 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 presen-tations 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 cate-gory 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 imma-nent verbal categories of time, prospect, development, and ret-rospective coordination. Indeed, while the enumerated catego-ries 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 integrat-ing appraisal of she process and establishes its lingual represen-tation 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 dis-tinctions of the verb were indicated by the forefathers of mod-ern sophisticated descriptions of the English grammatical struc-ture. These differences, similar to the categorial forms of per-son, 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 con-structions, 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 in-dicative. 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 with-out 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 indi-cated mood form of the verb in sentences like "Happen what may", "God forgive us", "Long live our friendship", "It is im-portant 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 ana-lysed verbal form shows that within the general meaning of de-sired or hypothetical action, it signifies different attitudes to-wards 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, in-ducement 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 ter-minological 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 in-troduced 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 keep-ing with the usual working linguistic parlance, simply the spec-tive mood, in its pure, classical manifestation.
Going on with our analysis, we must consider now the im-perative 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 se-mantics 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 ad-dress, 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 transforma-tions. 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 for-mal 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 ob-serve 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 rela-tively, 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, re-maining 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 Eng-lish oblique mood morphology. See: [, (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 com-parative 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 friend-ship live long.
The second construction type of attitude series is formed by the combination should + Infinitive. It is used in various subor-dinate 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 consid-ered 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 regu-larity of correspondence to the "pure", native morphemic spec-tive 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 mean-ing, 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 spe-cialised 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 mod-ern 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 ex-cluded from the final estimation of their status. The whole sys-tem 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 rig-idly "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 spec-tive, 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 im-perfect denotes the relative present (simultaneity and posteri-ority), while the perfect denotes the relative past (priority in the present and the past). This regularity, common for all the sys-tem 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 im-perative 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 en-tirety. 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 ex-pressing 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 defi-ciency of the pure spective which lacks the perfect forms. Cf.:
Be it so or otherwise, I see no purpose in our argument (si-multaneity in the present). - Should it have been other-wise, 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 cate-gorial 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 no-tional 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 per-sons singular that have the suppletive marking feature were. The rest of the forms coincide with the past indicative. More-over, the discriminate personal finite was more and more pene-trates 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 dif-ference.
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 contradistinc-tion 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 en-vironmental 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 (simulta-neity 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 "un-known 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 pre-sent and past subjunctive in their different functional spheres (the present and the past verbal forms as such), and distinguish-ing the subjunctive as a whole from the indicative as a whole (the tense-retrospect shift taken in its entirety). The mark is ex-plicit 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 cor-relations and interdependencies making up the base of the sys-tem. What renders it not only distinct, but absolutely essential, is the paradigmatic relations in dynamics of language function-ing. 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 indica-tive antagonise those of the subjunctive; the tense-retrospect shift manifests its working in explicit structural formations of contexts and environments, not allowing grammatical misun-derstandings between the participants of lingual communica-tion.
Thus, having abandoned the exhausted formal approach in the traditional sense in order to seek the subjunctive distinc-tions 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 in-ter-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 op-posed 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 sen-tences 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 deno-tation of the timing of the process has been described above.
The subjunctive past unposterior is called by some gram-marians "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 prin-ciple 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 un-real 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 di-rectly 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 con-text nearest to the clause of condition is the clause of conces-sion. 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 transforma-tional exposition of the respective implications will be the fol-lowing:
... > In spite of the fact that he was not a commanding of-ficer, he was given the most solemn welcome of the sort com-manding 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 adver-bial 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 compara-tive 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, un-fortunately, 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 vari-ous uses does express the unreality of an action which consti-tutes 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 be-fore, 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 con-ditional situation of fact as a necessity; and this factual correla-tion 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 peo-ple with a great bodily resemblance.
In keeping with its functional meaning, this kind of conse-quence 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 presuppo-sition of some condition, the consequence of which they ex-press. 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 ap-propriate, relying on the Latin etymology, to name it "consec-tive". "Consective" in function, "past posterior" in structure the two names will go together similar to the previously ad-vanced pair "stipulative" "past unposterior" for the related form of the subjunctive.
Thus, the functions of the two past form-types of the sub-junctive 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 syn-tactic 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 (con-sective) 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 destina-tion.
The conditional system of the subjunctive having received its characterisation in functional terms, the simplified "number-ing" terminology may also be of use for practical teaching pur-poses. 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 seman-tic 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 ap-pear 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 func-tional 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 confu-sion 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", "sub-junctive two", "conditional", "suppositional" these are in fact shown in separate contrasts to the indicative, which hin-ders the observation of the common basis underlying the ana-lysed category.
The notions "synthetical" moods and "analytical" moods, being formal, hardly meet the requirements of clarity in corre-lation, since, on the one hand, the "synthetical" formation in the English subjunctive is of a purely negative nature (no inflex-ion), and, on the other hand, the "analytical" oblique formations ("conditional", "suppositional") and the "synthetical" oblique formations ("subjunctive one", "subjunctive two") are asym-metrically 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 interpreta-tions, 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 as-pect 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 se-mantics, 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 "sub-junctive" might as well be called "conjunctive", another mean-ingless term, but stressing the unity of English with other Ger-manic 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 gen-eral 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 subjunc-tive, namely, the spective, the mood of attitudes, and the condi-tional, 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 func-tion: the pure spective, the modal spective, the stipulative con-ditional, 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 (con-sective); against this background, the modal spective can sim-ply 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 histori-cal development of language; on the contrary, it is in the

state of making and change. Its actual manifestations are com-plicated by neutralisations of formal contrasts (such as, for in-stance, 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 aux-iliaries (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 sys-temic implications, to show the relevant tendencies of usage in terms of varying syntactic environments, topical contexts, sty-listic preferences.
As we see, the category of mood, for all the positive linguis-tic work performed upon it, continues to be a tremendously in-teresting 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, po-sition, state, and other characteristics both permanent and tem-porary. It follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative value. Indeed, words like long, hospi-table, 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 empha-sised in English by the use of the prop-substitute one in the ab-sence 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 substan-tivisation. 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 ad-juncts, usually in pre-position, and occasionally in postposition; by a combinability with link-verbs, both functional and no-tional; 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 func-tion 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 dif-ferent types. This can be shown on examples analysed by defi-nitional 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 sensa-tional. > 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 distin-guished 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 collo-cations 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 prepo-sitional object-relations of verbs, some of these adjectives may render relations of addressee. Cf.: grateful to, indebted to, par-tial 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 re-vealed by definitional correlations. Cf.: a wooden hut a hut made of wood; a historical event an event referring to a cer-tain period of history; surgical treatment treatment consist-ing in the implementation of surgery; etc.
Qualitative adjectives, as different from relative ones, de-note various qualities of substances which admit of a quantita-tive 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 wel-come not a very hearty welcome; etc.
In this connection, the ability of an adjective to form de-grees 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 com-parison 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 dis-tinction is not at all strictly observed, which is noted in the very grammar treatises putting it forward. Two typical cases of con-tradiction should be pointed out here.
In the first place, substances can possess such qualities as are incompatible with the idea of degrees of comparison. Ac-cordingly, 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 ex-tinct, 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 approachrather a mediaeval approach a far more mediaeval approach; of a military design of a less mili-tary 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 linguis-tic 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 corre-sponding 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 evalua-tive 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 super-intendent was sitting behind a table and looking more wooden than ever (Ibid).
The degrees of comparison are essentially evaluative formu-las, 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 adjec-tives and is constitutive for it.
3. Among the words signifying properties of a nounal ref-erent 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 gener-ally 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 mak-ing up this category, "words of the category of state"). Here be-long the Russian words mostly ending in -o, but also having other suffixes: , , , , , , 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 Eng-lish 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 cumber-some 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 anal-ogy 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 pre-fix 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 char-acterised 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 ana-lysed 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 rela-tionship between the two, such relationship as should be in-terpreted in no other terms than identity on the part-of-speech level, though, naturally, providing for their distinct differentia-tion 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 fol-low his principles, pointing out some additional criteria of ar-gument.
First, considering the basic meaning expressed by the sta-tive, 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 "prop-erty", which is categorially divided into "substantive quality as such" and "substantive relation". In this respect, statives do not fundamentally differ from classical adjectives. Moreover, com-mon 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 curi-osity 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 parti-ciples convey the meanings of various states irrespective of their analogy with statives. Cf. such words of the order of psy-chic 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, func-tioning, active, employed, etc.
Second, turning to the combinability characteristics of sta-tives, 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.:
141499 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 consis-tent 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 divi-sion of adjectives into evaluative and specificative. Like com-mon 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 con-veyed by them. True, statives do not take the synthetical forms of the degrees of comparison, but they are capable of express-ing comparison analytically, in cases where it is to be ex-pressed. Cf.:
Of us all, Jack was the one most aware of the delicate situa-tion 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 cou-ple of dozen basic, "stable" units and, probably,

thrice as many "unstable" words of the nature of coinages for the nonce (, , , 170]). This number is negligible in comparison with the number of words of the oth-erwise identified notional parts of speech, each of them count-ing thousands of units. Why, then, an honour of the part-of-speech status to be granted to a small group of words not differ-ing 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 identifica-tion 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 sub-class, 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 adjec-tives 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 dis-cussed 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 tradi-tional 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 sta-tives 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 practi-cal.
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 re-sulted in the exposition of their inner properties, in the discov-ery of their historical productivity as a subclass, in their sys-temic description on the lines of competent inter-class and in-ter-level comparisons. And it is due to the undertaken investiga-tions (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 exam-ple: The weather report promises a new high in heat and hu-midity (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 fea-tures, 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 nostal-gia 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 struc-tural change inherent in the normal expression of these catego-ries. 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 "ad-jectivids", 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.). Semanti-cally, the words of the first subgroup express sets of people (personal multitudes), while the words of the second group ex-press 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 ele-ments only); the superlative degree form, having the feature of unrestricted superiority.
It should be noted that the meaning of unrestricted superior-ity is in-built in the superlative degree as such, though in prac-tice this form is used in collocations imposing certain restric-tions 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 com-parison as problematic on the grounds that the basic form of the adjective does not express any comparison by itself and there-fore should be excluded from the category. This exclusion would reduce the category to two members only, i.e. the com-parative 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 cate-gory 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, dis-tinguished by the comparison suffixes or comparison auxilia-ries.
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 compara-tive 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 pres-entation the superiority degrees as the marked member of the opposition are contrasted against the positive degree as its un-marked member. The superiority degrees, in their turn, form the opposition of the lower level of presentation, where the com-parative 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 co-exist 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 comple-menting 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 gen-eral 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 cate-gorial 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 com-binations of notional words; second, the most-combination, un-like the synthetic superlative, can take the indefinite article, ex-pressing 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 superla-tive most-construction will be seen from the following exam-ples:
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 ar-guments 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 recognis-able (in oral speech the elative most is commonly left un-stressed, 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 expres-sive 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 su-perlative on the one hand, and the absence of a comparison on the other.
That the categorial form of the superlative (i.e. the superla-tive with its general functional specification) is essential also for the expression of the elative semantics can, however para-doxical it might appear, be very well illustrated by the elative use of the comparative degree. Indeed, the comparative combi-nation featuring the elative comparative degree is constructed in such a way as to place it in the functional position of unre-stricted 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 com-parison (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 regu-lar superlative in the grammatical sense, is still a kind of a spe-cific, grammatically featured construction. This grammatical specification distinguishes it from common elative construc-tions 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 unparal-leled beauty; etc.
Thus, from a grammatical point of view, the elative superla-tive, 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 syntheti-cal superlative in the degraded, elative function is not altogether impossible, though somehow such a possibility is bluntly de-nied by certain grammatical manuals. Cf.: He made a last lame effort to delay the experiment; but Basil was impervious to sug-gestion (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, Va-silevskaya, 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.: -; ; - ..
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 in-terpretation 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 de-grees 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 gen-eral 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 do-main 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 re-verse superiority degrees) is of far lesser importance than the direct one, which evidently can be explained by semantic rea-sons. As a matter of fact, it is more natural to follow the direct model of comparison based on the principle of addition of quali-tative 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 rea-son 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 cate-gory of some usually non-comparable evaluative adjectives.
Outside the immediate comparative grammatical change

of the adjective stand such evaluative adjectives as contain cer-tain comparative sememic elements in their semantic structures. In particular, as we have mentioned above, here belong adjec-tives 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 re-spective quality, which words can tentatively be called "adjec-tives of extreme quality", or "extreme qualifiers", or simply "ex-tremals".
The inherent superlative semantics of extremals is empha-sised 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 modifi-cation, the highest grade evaluative force of these words is not strengthened, but, on the contrary, weakened; the outwardly ex-treme 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 ei-ther 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 express-ing 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 ad-verbial 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 dy-namic 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 sub-stances, 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 sys-tem of the parts of speech. Hence, the complaints of some lin-guists that the adverb is not rigorously defined and in fact pre-sents 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 modifi-ers. 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 suc-ceeded. Franklin D. Roosevelt, the then President of the United States, proclaimed the "New Deal" a new Government eco-nomic policy.
The use of adverbs in outwardly attributive positions in such and like examples appears to be in contradiction with the func-tional 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 in-terpretation of adverbs with their actual uses can be clarified and resolved in the light of the syntactic principle of nominali-sation elaborated within the framework of the theory of para-digmatic syntax (see further). In accord with this principle, each predicative syntactic construction paradigmatically correlates with a noun-phrase displaying basically the same semantic rela-tions between its notional constituents. A predicative construc-tion can be actually changed into a noun-phrase, by which change the dynamic situation expressed by the predicative con-struction receives a static

name. Now, adverbs-determinants modifying in constructions of this kind the situation as a whole, are preserved in the corre-sponding nominalised phrases without a change in their inher-ent functional status. Cf.:
The world that exists today. > The world today. We kept vigil overnight. > Our vigil overnight. Then he was the Presi-dent. > The then President.
These paradigmatic transformational correlations explain the type of connection between the noun and its adverbial at-tribute even in cases where direct transformational changes would not be quite consistent with the concrete contextual fea-tures 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 dis-play 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 forma-tions 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 dif-fer in principle from the ones cited above. The difference con-sists 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 oc-cupying an intermediary lexico-grammatical status between the noun and the adverb. This is most clearly seen on ready exam-ples liberally offered by English texts of every stylistic stand-ing. 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 struc-tural 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 para-digms, 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 cor-ner; not to be found within within a minute; etc.
Of quite a different nature are preposition-adverb-like ele-ments which, placed in post-position to the verb, form a seman-tical blend with it. By combining with these elements, verbs of broader meaning are subjected to a regular, systematic multi-plication 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 mor-phemes (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 ad-vanced, 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 con-junctions.
As for the name to be given to the words for their descrip-tive identification, out of the variety of the ones already exist-ing ("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 preposi-tions), 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
151499 225

the nature of the units in question in the course of their further linguistic study.
4. Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quan-titative and circumstantial.
By qualitative such adverbs are meant as express immedi-ate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other quali-ties. 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 na-ture expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be subdivided into several very clearly pro-nounced sets.
The first set is formed by adverbs of high degree. These ad-verbs are sometimes classed as "intensifiers": very, quite, en-tirely, 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, com-paratively, 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, ri-diculously. The ninth set is made up of adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.
As we see, the degree adverbs, though usually described un-der 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 qual-ity evaluators. In this function they are distinctly different from genuine quantitative adverbs which are directly related to nu-merals 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 pro-nominal nature. Besides quantitative (numerical) adverbs men-tioned 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 na-ture, 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 gen-eral idea of temporal and spatial orientation and essentially per-form 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 sub-divided into qualitative and orientative, the former including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter fal-ling into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible sub-divisions of more detailed specifications.
As is the case with adjectives, this lexemic subcategorisa-tion of adverbs should be accompanied by a more functional and flexible division into evaluative and specificative, con-nected with the categorial expression of comparison. Each ad-verb 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 compari-son. 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 compara-tive 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 represen-tative 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.: si-lent 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. Smirnit-sky 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 [, (2), 174-175].
The strong point of the adjectival interpretation of qualita-tive adverbs in -ly is the demonstration of the actual similarity between the two lexemic sets in their broader evaluative func-tion, 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 consti-tute 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 nonsubstan-tive-qualification character there can't be any

question of their being "adjectives" in any rationally conceiv-able 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 para-digm 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 utter-ance 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 destina-tion, 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 iso-lated 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 contex-tual dependence ("synsemantism") is quite natural; functionally they may be compared to separate notional words used in vari-ous marked grammatical forms (such as, for instance, indirect cases of nouns). Cf.: Eng. Mr. Snow's of Mr. Snow; him to him; Russ. ; .
Expanding the cited formative phrases with the correspond-ing notional words one can obtain notional phrases of contextu-ally self-dependent value ("autosemantic" on their level of func-tioning). Cf.: Eng. Mr. Snow's considerations the considera-tions of Mr. Snow; gave it him gave it to him; Russ. - ; .
In this connection we should remember that among the no-tional 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 lim-ited 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 op-posite 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, laugh-ing; 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 co-ordinative. Alongside of these, there exist equipotent connec-tions of a non-consecutive type, by which a sequential element, although equal to the foregoing element by its formal introduc-tion (coordinative conjunction), is unequal to it as to the char-acter of nomination. The latter type of equipotent connections is classed as "cumulative".
The term "cumulation" is commonly used to mean connec-tions between separate sentences. By way of restrictive indica-tions, 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 hy-phen. Cf: Eng. agreed, but reluctantly; quick and careless; satisfied, or nearly so. Russ. , ; , ; .
Syndetic connection in a word-combination can alternate with asyndetic connection, as a result of which the whole com-bination 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 constitu-ents 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 sub-ordinate 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 con-nection 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 recip-rocal nature of this connection consists in the fact that the sub-ject dominates the predicate determining the person of predica-tion, 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 be-tween the elements of predication, underlying the mutually op-posite 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 demon-strated 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 predi-cative groupings formed by a combination of a non-finite ver-bal form (verbid) with a substantive element. Such are infiniti-val, gerundial, and participial constructions.
The predicative person is expressed in the infinitival con-struction by the prepositional for-phrase, in the gerundial con-struction 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 mis-take.
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 (al-though 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 predica-tive connections (semi-predicative, potentially-predicative con-nections).
6. The completive, one-way connection of words (mono-lateral 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 ad-verbial 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. Indi-rect objective connections may be both prepositional and non-prepositional. Since, on the other hand, some prepositional ob-jective 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 to-gether 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 combina-tions, 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 sub-stance word with a kernel word of non-verbal semantics (such as a state or a property word), but the meaning of some proces-sual 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 attribu-tive 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 appe-tite; an emerald ring; a woman of strong character, the case for the prosecution; etc.
Adverbial connection is subdivided into primary and secon-dary.
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; un-pleasantly querulous; etc.
7. Different completive noun combinations are distin-guished 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 domi-nation 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 care-fully great carefulness The carefulness is great; speechlessly reproachful speechless reproach The reproach is speechless.
These distinctions of completive word combinations are very im-portant 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 connec-tion 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 in-clude 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 syntac-tic 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 com-bination 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 ob-jective 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 re-fers 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 ex-ception 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 consis-tently 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 re-garded 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. In-tonation separates one sentence from another in the continual flow of uttered segments and, together with various segmental means of ex-pression, 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 lan-guage proper taken separately, and the immediate functioning of this system in the process of intercourse, i.e. speech proper, present an ac-tual unity and should be looked upon as the two sides of one dialecti-cally 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, insepara-bly 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 lan-guage. 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 predica-tion, is not specifically confined to the sentence; this is a broader cate-gory revealed both in the grammatical elements of language and its lexical, purely nominative elements. In this sense, every word express-ing 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 existen-tial evaluation, such as perhaps, may be, by all means, etc.; here be-long 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 ele-ments of predicative semantics in concrete, contextually-bound utter-ances.


! . - .

. . : " ,
Copyright 2005-2018. ! ! homeenglish@mail.ru