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

. . " : " ( 2)

: . . " : ".



In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria: "semantic", "formal", and "func-tional". The semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalised meaning, which is characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given part of speech. This meaning is un-derstood as the "categorial meaning of the part of speech". The formal criterion provides for the exposition of the specific in-flexional and derivational (word-building) features of all the lexemic subsets of a part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of words in the sentence typical of a part of speech. The said three factors of categorial characterisa-tion of words are conventionally referred to as, respectively, "meaning", "form", and "function".
2. In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided into notional and functional, which reflects their division in the earlier grammatical tradition into changeable and unchangeable.
To the notional parts of speech of the English language be-long the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb.
The features of the noun within the identificational triad "meaning form function" are, correspondingly, the fol-lowing: 1) the categorial meaning of substance ("thingness"); 2) the changeable forms of number and case; the specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes in English do not discriminate parts of speech as such); 3) the substantive functions in the sen-tence (subject, object, substantival predicative); prepositional connections; modification by an adjective.
The features of the adjective: 1) the categorial meaning of property (qualitative and relative); 2) the forms of the

degrees of comparison (for qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) adjectival functions in the sen-tence (attribute to a noun, adjectival predicative).
The features of the numeral: 1) the categorial meaning of number (cardinal and ordinal); 2) the narrow set of simple nu-merals; the specific forms of composition for compound nu-merals; the specific suffixal forms of derivation for ordinal nu-merals; 3) the functions of numerical attribute and numerical substantive.
The features of the pronoun: 1) the categorial meaning of indication (deixis); 2) the narrow sets of various status with the corresponding formal properties of categorial changeability and word-building; 3) the substantival and adjectival functions for different sets.
The features of the verb: 1) the categorial meaning of proc-ess (presented in the two upper series of forms, respectively, as finite process and non-finite process); 2) the forms of the verbal categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite forms; 3) the function of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the mixed verbal other than verbal functions for the non-finite verb.
The features of the adverb: 1) the categorial meaning of the secondary property, i.e. the property of process or another property; 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualita-tive adverbs; the specific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) the functions of various adverbial modifiers.
We have surveyed the identifying properties of the notional parts of speech that unite the words of complete nominative meaning characterised by self-dependent functions in the sen-tence.
Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and non-self-dependent, me-diatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech.
On the principle of "generalised form" only unchangeable words are traditionally treated under the heading of functional parts of speech. As for their individual forms as such, they are simply presented by the list, since the number of these words is limited, so that they needn't be identified on any general, opera-tional scheme.
To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection.

The article expresses the specific limitation of the substan-tive functions.
The preposition expresses the dependencies and interde-pendences of substantive referents.
The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena.
The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series, alongside of other specifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as functional modifiers of verbs, etc.
The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pro-nounced or less pronounced detached position, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts. Here belong the functional words of probability (probably, per-haps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation and negation.
The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sen-tence, is a signal of emotions.
3. Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with various particular se-mantico-functional and formal features of the constituent words. This subdivision is sometimes called "subcategorisation" of parts of speech.
Thus, nouns are subcategorised into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract, etc. Cf.:
Mary, Robinson, London, the Mississippi, Lake Erie girl, person, city, river, lake;
man, scholar, leopard, butterfly earth, field, rose, ma-chine;
coin/coins, floor/floors, kind/kinds news, growth, water, furniture;
stone, grain, mist, leaf honesty, love, slavery, darkness.
Verbs are subcategorised into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional and statal, fac-tive and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
walk, sail, prepare, shine, blow can, may, shall, be, be-come;
take, put, speak, listen, see, give live, float, stay, ache, ripen, rain;

write, play, strike, boil, receive, ride exist, sleep, rest, thrive, revel, suffer;
roll, tire, begin, ensnare, build, tremble consider, ap-prove, mind, desire, hate, incline.
Adjectives are subcategorised into qualitative and relative, of constant feature and temporary feature (the latter are referred to as "statives" and identified by some scholars as a separate part of speech under the heading of "category of state"), factive and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
long, red, lovely, noble, comfortable wooden, rural, daily, subterranean, orthographical;
healthy, sickly, joyful, grievous, wry, blazing well, ill, glad, sorry, awry, ablaze;
tall, heavy, smooth, mental, native kind, brave, wonder-ful, wise, stupid.
The adverb, the numeral, the pronoun are also subject to the corresponding subcategorisations.
4. We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by modern lin-guists on the lines of traditional morphology.
It is known that the distribution of words between different parts of speech may to a certain extent differ with different au-thors. This fact gives cause to some linguists for calling in ques-tion the rational character of the part of speech classification as a whole, gives them cause for accusing it of being subjective or "prescientific" in essence. Such nihilistic criticism, however, should be rejected as utterly ungrounded.
Indeed, considering the part of speech classification on its merits, one must clearly realise that what is above all important about it is the fundamental principles of word-class identifica-tion, and not occasional enlargements or diminutions of the es-tablished groups, or re-distributions of individual words due to re-considerations of their subcategorial features. The very idea of subcategorisation as the obligatory second stage of the under-taken classification testifies to the objective nature of this kind of analysis.
For instance, prepositions and conjunctions can be com-bined into one united series of "connectives", since the function of both is just to connect notional components of the sentence. In this case, on the second stage of classification, the enlarged word-class of connectives will be

subdivided into two main subclasses, namely, prepositional connectives and conjunctional connectives. Likewise, the arti-cles can be included as a subset into the more general set of particles-specifiers. As is known, nouns and adjectives, as well as numerals, are treated in due contexts of description under one common class-term "names": originally, in the Ancient Greek grammatical teaching they were not differentiated be-cause they had the same forms of morphological change (de-clension). On the other hand, in various descriptions of English grammar such narrow lexemic sets as the two words yes and no, the pronominal determiners of nouns, even the one antici-pating pronoun it are given a separate class-item status though in no way challenging or distorting the functional char-acter of the treated units.
It should be remembered that modern principles of part of speech identification have been formulated as a result of pains-taking research conducted on the vast materials of numerous languages; and it is in Soviet linguistics that the three-criteria characterisation of parts of speech has been developed and ap-plied to practice with the utmost consistency. The three cele-brated names are especially notable for the elaboration of these criteria, namely, V. V. Vinogradov in connection with his study of Russian grammar, A. I. Smirnitsky and B. A. Ilyish in con-nection with their study of English grammar.
5. Alongside of the three-criteria principle of dividing the words into grammatical (lexico-grammatical) classes modern linguistics has developed another, narrower principle of word-class identification based on syntactic featuring of words only.
The fact is, that the three-criteria principle faces a special difficulty in determining the part of speech status of such lex-emes as have morphological characteristics of notional words, but are essentially distinguished from notional words by their playing the role of grammatical mediators in phrases and sen-tences. Here belong, for instance, modal verbs together with their equivalents suppletive fillers, auxiliary verbs, aspective verbs, intensifying adverbs, determiner pronouns. This diffi-culty, consisting in the intersection of heterogeneous properties in the established word-classes, can evidently be overcome by recognising only one criterion of the three as decisive.
Worthy of note is that in the original Ancient Greek

grammatical teaching which put forward the first outline of the part of speech theory, the division of words into grammatical classes was also based on one determining criterion only, namely, on the formal-morphological featuring. It means that any given word under analysis was turned into a classified lex-eme on the principle of its relation to grammatical change. In conditions of the primary acquisition of linguistic knowledge, and in connection with the study of a highly inflexional lan-guage this characteristic proved quite efficient.
Still, at the present stage of the development of linguistic science, syntactic characterisation of words that has been made possible after the exposition of their fundamental morphologi-cal properties, is far more important and universal from the point of view of the general classificational requirements.
This characterisation is more important, because it shows the distribution of words between different sets in accord with their functional destination. The role of morphology by this presentation is not underrated, rather it is further clarified from the point of view of exposing connections between the cate-gorial composition of the word and its sentence-forming rele-vance.
This characterisation is more universal, because it is not specially destined for the inflexional aspect of language and hence is equally applicable to languages of various morpho-logical types.
On the material of Russian, the principles of syntactic ap-proach to the classification of word stock were outlined in the works of A. M. Peshkovsky. The principles of syntactic (syn-tactico-distributional) classification of English words were worked out by L. Bloomfield and his followers Z. Harris and especially Ch. Fries.
6. The syntactico-distributional classification of words is based on the study of their combinability by means of substitu-tion testing. The testing results in developing the standard model of four main "positions" of notional words in the English sentence: those of the noun (N), verb (V), adjective (A), adverb (D). Pronouns are included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes. Words standing outside the "posi-tions" in the sentence are treated as function words of various syntactic values.

Here is how Ch. Fries presents his scheme of English word-classes [Fries].
For his materials he chooses tape-recorded spontaneous conversations comprising about 250,000 word entries (50 hours of talk). The words isolated from this corpus are tested on the three typical sentences (that are isolated from the records, too), and used as substitution test-frames:
Frame A. The concert was good (always).
Frame B. The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly).
Frame C. The team went there.
The parenthesised positions are optional from the point of view of the structural completion of sentences.
As a result of successive substitution tests on the cited "frames" the following lists of positional words ("form-words", or "parts of speech") are established:
Class 1. (A) concert, coffee, taste, container, difference, etc. (B) clerk, husband, supervisor, etc.; tax, food, coffee, etc. (C) team, husband, woman, etc.
Class 2. (A) was, seemed, became, etc. (B) remembered, wanted, saw, suggested, etc. (C) went, came, ran,... lived, worked, etc.
Class 3. (A) good, large, necessary, foreign, new, empty, etc.Class 4. (A) there, here, always, then, sometimes, etc.
(B) clearly, sufficiently, especially, repeatedly, soon, etc.
(C) there, back, out, etc.; rapidly, eagerly, confidently, etc. All these words can fill in the positions of the frames
without affecting their general structural meaning (such as "thing and its quality at a given time" the first frame; "ac-tor action thing acted upon characteristic of the ac-tion" the second frame; "actor action direction of the action" the third frame). Repeated interchanges in the substi-tutions of the primarily identified positional (i.e. notional) words in different collocations determine their morphological characteristics, i.e. characteristics referring them to various sub-classes of the identified lexemic classes.
Functional words (function words) are exposed in the cited process of testing as being unable to fill in the positions of the frames without destroying their structural meaning. These words form limited groups totalling 154 units.
The identified groups of functional words can be distributed among the three main sets. The words of the first set are used as specifiers of notional words. Here belong determiners of nouns, modal verbs serving as specifiers of notional

verbs, functional modifiers and intensifiers of adjectives and adverbs. The words of the second set play the role of inter-positional elements, determining the relations of notional words to one another. Here belong prepositions and conjunctions. The words of the third set refer to the sentence as a whole. Such are question-words {what, how, etc.), inducement-words (lets, please, etc.), attention-getting words, words of affirmation and negation, sentence introducers (it, there) and some others.
7. Comparing the syntactico-distributional classification of words with the traditional part of speech division of words, one cannot but see the similarity of the general schemes of the two: the opposition of notional and functional words, the four absolutely cardinal classes of notional words (since numerals and pronouns have no positional functions of their own and serve as pro-nounal and pro-adjectival elements), the interpreta-tion of functional words as syntactic mediators and their formal representation by the list.
However, under these unquestionable traits of similarity are distinctly revealed essential features of difference, the proper evaluation of which allows us to make some important gener-alisations about the structure of the lexemic system of lan-guage.
8. One of the major truths as regards the linguistic mecha-nism arising from the comparison of the two classifications is the explicit and unconditional division of the lexicon into the notional and functional parts. The open character of the no-tional part of the lexicon and the closed character of the func-tional part of it (not excluding the intermediary field between the two) receives the strict status of a formal grammatical fea-ture.
The unity of notional lexemes finds its essential demonstra-tion in an inter-class system of derivation that can be presented as a formal four-stage series permeating the lexicon and re-flected in regular phrase correlations. Cf.:
a recognising note a notable recognition to note rec-ognisingly to recognise notably; silent disapproval disap-proving silence to disapprove silently to silence disap-provingly; etc.
This series can symbolically be designated by the formula St (n.v.a.d.) where St represents the morphemic stem of

the series, while the small letters in parentheses stand for the derivational features of the notional word-classes (parts of speech). Each stage of the series can in principle be filled in by a number of lexemes of the same stem with possible hierarchi-cal relations between them. The primary presentation of the se-ries, however, may be realised in a four-unit version as follows:
strength to strengthen strong strongly peace to appease peaceful peacefully na-tion to nationalise national nationally friend to befriend friendly friendly, etc.
This derivational series that unites the notional word-classes can be named the "lexical paradigm of nomination". The gen-eral order of classes in the series evidently corresponds to the logic of mental perception of reality, by which a person dis-criminates, first, objects and their actions, then the properties of the former and the latter. Still, as the actual initial form of a par-ticular nomination paradigm within the general paradigmatic scheme of nomination can prove a lexeme of any word-class, we are enabled to speak about the concrete "derivational per-spective" of this or that series, i. e. to identify nomination para-digms with a nounal (N-V), verbal (V>), adjectival (A>), and adverbial (D>) derivational perspectives. Cf.:
N> power to empower powerful powerfully
V> to suppose supposition supposed supposedly
A> clear clarity to clarify clearly
D> out outing to out outer
The nomination paradigm with the identical form of the stem for all the four stages is not represented on the whole of the lexicon; in this sense it is possible to speak of lexemes with a complete paradigm of nomination and lexemes with an in-complete paradigm of nomination. Some words may even stand apart from this paradigm, i.e. be nominatively isolated (here belong, for instance, some simple adverbs).
On the other hand, the universal character of the nomination paradigm is sustained by suppletive completion, both lexemic and phrasemic. Cf.:
an end to end final finally
good goodness well to better
evidence evident evidently to make evident
wise wisely wisdom to grow wise, etc.

The role of suppletivity within the framework of the lexical paradigm of nomination (hence, within the lexicon as a whole) is extremely important, indeed. It is this type of suppletivity, i.e. lexemic suppletivity, that serves as an essential factor of the open character of the notional lexicon of language.
9. Functional words re-interpreted by syntactic approach also reveal some important traits that remained undiscovered in earlier descriptions.
The essence of their paradigmatic status in the light of syn-tactic interpretation consists in the fact that the lists of func-tional words may be regarded as paradigmatic series them-selves which, in their turn, are grammatical constituents of higher paradigmatic series on the level of phrases and espe-cially sentences.
As a matter of fact, functional words, considered by their role in the structure of the sentence, are proved to be exposers of various syntactic categories, i.e. they render structural mean-ings referring to phrases and sentences in constructional forms similar to derivational (word-building) and relational (gram-matical) morphemes in the composition of separate words. Cf.:
The words were obscure, but she understood the uneasiness that produced them.> The words were obscure, weren't they? How then could she understand the uneasiness that produced them?> Or perhaps the words were not too obscure, after all? Or, conversely, she didn't understand the uneasiness that pro-duced them?> But the words were obscure. How obscure they were! Still she did understand the uneasiness that produced them. Etc.
This role of functional words which are identified not by their morphemic composition, but by their semantico-syntactic features in reference to the embedding constructions, is ex-posed on a broad linguistic basis within the framework of the theory of paradigmatic syntax (see further).
10. Pronouns considered in the light of the syntactic prin-ciples receive a special systemic status that characteristically stamps the general presentation of the structure of the lexicon as a whole.
Pronouns are traditionally recognised on the basis of indica-tory (deictic) and substitutional semantic functions.

The two types of meanings form a unity, in which the deictic semantics is primary. As a matter of fact, indication is the se-mantic foundation of substitution.
As for the syntactic principle of the word stock division, while recognising their deictic aspect, it lays a special stress on the substitutive features of pronouns. Indeed, it is the substitu-tional function that immediately isolates all the heterogeneous groups of pronouns into a special set of the lexicon.
The generalising substitutional function of pronouns makes them into syntactic representatives of all the notional classes of words, so that a pronominal positional part of the sentence serves as a categorial projection of the corresponding notional subclass identified as the filler set of the position in question. It should be clearly understood that even personal pronouns of the first and second persons play the cited representative role, which is unambiguously exposed by examples with direct ad-dresses and appositions. Cf.:
I, Little Foot, go away making noises and tramplings. Are you happy, Lil?
Included into the system of pronouns are pronominal ad-verbs and verb-substitutes, in due accord with their substitu-tional functions. Besides, notional words of broad meaning are identified as forming an intermediary layer between the pro-nouns and notional words proper. Broad meaning words adjoin the pronouns by their substitutional function. Cf.:
I wish at her age she'd learn to sit quiet and not do things. Flora's suggestion is making sense. I will therefore briefly set down the circumstances which led to my being connected with the affair. Etc.
As a result of these generalisations, the lexical paradigm of nomination receives a complete substitutive representation. Cf.: one, it, they... do, make, act... such, similar, same... thus, so, there...
Symbolically the correlation of the nominal and pronominal paradigmatic schemes is stated as follows:
N V A D Npro Vpro Apro Dpro.
11. As a result of the undertaken analysis we have ob-tained a foundation for dividing the whole of the lexicon on the upper level of classification into three unequal parts.
The first part of the lexicon forming an open set includes

an indefinitely large number of notional words which have a complete nominative function. In accord with the said function, these words can be referred to as "names": nouns as substance names, verbs as process names, adjectives as primary property names and adverbs as secondary property names. The whole notional set is represented by the four-stage derivational para-digm of nomination.
The second part of the lexicon forming a closed set includes substitutes of names (pro-names). Here belong pronouns, and also broad-meaning notional words which constitute various marginal subsets.
The third part of the lexicon also forming a closed set in-cludes specifiers of names. These are function-categorial words of various servo-status.
Substitutes of names (pro-names) and specifiers of names, while standing with the names in nominative correlation as elements of the lexicon, at the same time serve as connecting links between the names within the lexicon and their actual uses in the sentences of living speech.
1. The noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of "substance" or "thingness". It follows from this that the noun is the main nominative part of speech, effecting nomination of the fullest value within the framework of the notional division of the lexicon.
The noun has the power, by way of nomination, to isolate different properties of substances (i.e. direct and oblique quali-ties, and also actions and states as processual characteristics of substantive phenomena) and present them as corresponding self-dependent substances. E.g.:
Her words were unexpectedly bitter. We were struck by the unexpected bitterness of her words. At that time he was down in his career, but we knew well that very soon he would be up again. His career had its ups and downs. The cable ar-rived when John was preoccupied with the arrangements for the party. The arrival of the cable interrupted his preoccupa-tion with the arrangements for the party.
This natural and practically unlimited substantivisation
4-1499 49

force establishes the noun as the central nominative lexemic unit of language.
2. The categorial functional properties of the noun are de-termined by its semantic properties.
The most characteristic substantive function of the noun is that of the subject in the sentence, since the referent of the sub-ject is the person or thing immediately named. The function of the object in the sentence is also typical of the noun as the sub-stance word. Other syntactic functions, i.e. attributive, adver-bial, and even predicative, although performed by the noun with equal ease, are not immediately characteristic of its sub-stantive quality as such. It should be noted that, while perform-ing these non-substantive functions, the noun essentially differs from the other parts of speech used in similar sentence posi-tions. This may be clearly shown by transformations shifting the noun from various non-subject syntactic positions into sub-ject syntactic positions of the same general semantic value, which is impossible with other parts of speech. E.g.:
Mary is a flower-girl.> The flower-girl (you are speaking of) is Mary. He lives in Glasgow.> Glasgow is his place of residence. This happened three years ago.> Three years have elapsed since it happened.
Apart from the cited sentence-part functions, the noun is characterised by some special types of combinability.
In particular, typical of the noun is the prepositional combi-nability with another noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb. E.g.: an entrance to the house; to turn round the corner; red in the face; far from its destination.
The casal (possessive) combinability characterises the noun alongside of its prepositional combinability with another noun. E.g.: the speech of the President the President's speech; the cover of the book the book's cover.
English nouns can also easily combine with one another by sheer contact, unmediated by any special lexemic or mor-phemic means. In the contact group the noun in preposition plays the role of a semantic qualifier to the noun in post-position. E.g.: a cannon ball; a log cabin; a sports event; film festivals.
The lexico-grammatical status of such combinations has presented a big problem for many scholars, who were uncertain as to the linguistic heading under which to treat them:

either as one separate word, or a word-group.* In the history of linguistics the controversy about the lexico-grammatical status of the constructions in question has received the half-facetious name "The cannon ball problem".
Taking into account the results of the comprehensive analy-sis undertaken in this field by Soviet linguists, we may define the combination as a specific word-group with intermediary features. Crucial for this decision is the isolability test (separa-tion shift of the qualifying noun) which is performed for the contact noun combinations by an easy, productive type of trans-formation. Cf.: a cannon ball> a ball for cannon; the court regulation> the regulation of the court; progress report > re-port about progress; the funds distribution > the distribution of the funds.
The corresponding compound nouns (formed from substan-tive stems), as a rule, cannot undergo the isolability test with an equal ease. The transformations with the nounal compounds are in fact reduced to sheer explanations of their etymological mo-tivation. The comparatively closer connection between the stems in compound nouns is reflected by the spelling (contact or hyphenated presentation). E.g.: fireplace> place where fire is made; starlight > light coming from stars; story-teller > teller (writer, composer) of stories; theatre-goer > a person who goes to (frequents) theatres.
Contact noun attributes forming a string of several words are very characteristic of professional language. E.g.:
A number of Space Shuttle trajectory optimisation problems were simulated in the development of the algorithm, including three ascent problems and a re-entry problem (From a scientific paper on spacecraft). The accuracy of offshore tanker unloading operations is becoming more important as the cost of petroleum products increases (From a scientific paper on control systems).
3. As a part of speech, the noun is also characterised by a set of formal features determining its specific status in the lexi-cal paradigm of nomination. It has its word-building distinc-tions, including typical suffixes, compound stem models, con-version patterns. It discriminates the grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination, which will be ana-lysed below.
* See: . . . ., 1956, 133; [ . ., . ., . . 255].

The cited formal features taken together are relevant for the division of nouns into several subclasses, which are identified by means of explicit classificational criteria. The most general and rigorously delimited subclasses of nouns are grouped into four oppositional pairs.
The first nounal subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation of this division is "type of nomination". The second subclass opposition differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of "form of exis-tence". The third subclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the basis of "personal quality". The fourth subclass opposition differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis of "quantitative structure".
Somewhat less explicitly and rigorously realised is the divi-sion of English nouns into concrete and abstract.
The order in which the subclasses are presented is chosen by convention, not by categorially relevant features: each subclass correlation is reflected on the whole of the noun system; this means that the given set of eight subclasses cannot be structured hierarchically in any linguistically consistent sense (some sort of hierarchical relations can be observed only between ani-mate inanimate and human non-human groupings). Con-sider the following examples: There were three Marys in our company. The cattle have been driven out into the pastures.
The noun Mary used in the first of the above sentences is at one and the same time "proper" (first subclass division), "ani-mate" (second subclass division), "human" (third subclass divi-sion), "countable" (fourth subclass division). The noun cattle used in the second sentence is at one and the same time "com-mon" (first subclass division), "animate" (second subclass divi-sion), "non-human" (third subclass division), "uncountable" (fourth subclass division).
The subclass differentiation of nouns constitutes a founda-tion for their selectional syntagmatic combinability both among themselves and with other parts of speech. In the selectional aspect of combinability, the subclass features form the corre-sponding selectional bases.
In particular, the inanimate selectional base of combina-bility can be pointed out between the noun subject and the verb predicate in the following sentence: The sandstone was crum-bling. (Not: *The horse was crumbling.)
The animate selectional base is revealed between the noun

subject and the verb in the following sentence: The poor crea-ture was laming. (Not: *The tree was laming.)
The human selectional base underlies the connection be-tween the nouns in the following combination: John's love of music (not: *the cat's love of music).
The phenomenon of subclass selection is intensely analysed as part of current linguistic research work.
1. There is a peculiarly regular contradiction between the presentation of gender in English by theoretical treatises and practical manuals. Whereas theoretical treatises define the gen-der subcategorisation of English nouns as purely lexical or "semantic", practical manuals of English grammar do invariably include the description of the English gender in their subject matter of immediate instruction.
In particular, a whole ten pages of A. I. Smirnitsky's theo-retical "Morphology of English" are devoted to proving the non-existence of gender in English either in the grammatical, or even in the strictly lexico-grammatical sense [, (2), 139-148]. On the other hand, the well-known practical "English grammar" by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Va-silevskaya, after denying the existence of grammatical gender in English by way of an introduction to the topic, still presents a pretty comprehensive description of the would-be non-existent gender distinctions of the English noun as a part of speech [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 40 ff.].
That the gender division of nouns in English is expressed not as variable forms of words, but as nounal classification (which is not in the least different from the expression of sub-stantive gender in other languages, including Russian), admits of no argument. However, the question remains, whether this classification has any serious grammatical relevance. Closer observation of the corresponding lingual data cannot but show that the English gender does have such a relevance.
2. The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal pronouns of the third person. These serve as specific gender classifiers

of nouns, being potentially reflected on each entry of the noun in speech.
The category of gender is strictly oppositional. It is formed by two oppositions related to each other on a hierarchical basis.
One opposition functions in the whole set of nouns, dividing them into person (human) nouns and non-person (non-human) nouns. The other opposition functions in the subset of person nouns only, dividing them into masculine nouns and feminine nouns. Thus, the first, general opposition can be referred to as the upper opposition in the category of gender, while the sec-ond, partial opposition can be referred to as the lower opposi-tion in this category.
As a result of the double oppositional correlation, a specific system of three genders arises, which is somewhat misleadingly represented by the traditional terminology: the neuter (i.e. non-person) gender, the masculine (i.e. masculine person) gender, the feminine (i.e. feminine person) gender.
The strong member of the upper opposition is the human subclass of nouns, its sememic mark being "person", or "per-sonality". The weak member of the opposition comprises both inanimate and animate non-person nouns. Here belong such nouns as tree, mountain, love, etc.; cat, swallow, ant, etc.; soci-ety, crowd, association, etc.; bull and cow, cock and hen, horse and mare, etc.
In cases of oppositional reduction, non-person nouns and their substitute (it) are naturally used in the position of neutrali-sation. E.g.:
Suddenly something moved in the darkness ahead of us. Could it be a man, in this desolate place, at this time of night? The object of her maternal affection was nowhere to be found. It had disappeared, leaving the mother and nurse desperate.
The strong member of the lower opposition is the feminine subclass of person nouns, its sememic mark being "female sex". Here belong such nouns as woman, girl, mother, bride, etc. The masculine subclass of person nouns comprising such words as man, boy, father, bridegroom, etc. makes up the weak member of the opposition.
The oppositional structure of the category of gender can be shown schematically on the following diagram (see Fig. I).


Feminine Nouns Masculine Nouns
Fig. 1
A great many person nouns in English are capable of ex-pressing both feminine and masculine person genders by way of the pronominal correlation in question. These are referred to as nouns of the "common gender". Here belong such words as person, parent, friend, cousin, doctor, president, etc. E.g.:
The President of our Medical Society isn't going to be happy about the suggested way of cure. In general she insists on quite another kind of treatment in cases like that.
The capability of expressing both genders makes the gender distinctions in the nouns of the common gender into a variable category. On the other hand, when there is no special need to indicate the sex of the person referents of these nouns, they are used neutrally as masculine, i.e. they correlate with the mascu-line third person pronoun.
In the plural, all the gender distinctions are neutralised in the immediate explicit expression, though they are rendered obliquely through the correlation with the singular.
3. Alongside of the demonstrated grammatical (or lexico-grammatical, for that matter) gender distinctions, English nouns can show the sex of their referents lexically, either by means of being combined with certain notional words used as sex indica-tors, or else by suffixal derivation. Cf.: boy-friend, girl-friend; man-producer, woman-producer; washer-man, washer-woman; landlord, landlady; bull-calf, cow-calf; cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow; he-bear, she-bear; master, mistress; actor, actress; ex-ecutor, executrix; lion, lioness; sultan, sultana; etc.
One might think that this kind of the expression of sex runs contrary to the presented gender system of nouns, since the sex distinctions inherent in the cited pairs of words refer not only to human beings (persons), but also to all the other animate be-ings. On closer observation, however, we see that this is not at all so. In fact, the referents of such nouns as

jenny-ass, or pea-hen, or the like will in the common use quite naturally be represented as it, the same as the referents of the corresponding masculine nouns jack-ass, pea-cock, and the like. This kind of representation is different in principle from the corresponding representation of such nounal pairs as woman man, sister brother, etc.
On the other hand, when the pronominal relation of the non-person animate nouns is turned, respectively, into he and she, we can speak of a grammatical personifying transposition, very typical of English. This kind of transposition affects not only animate nouns, but also a wide range of inanimate nouns, being regulated in every-day language by cultural-historical tradi-tions. Compare the reference of she with the names of coun-tries, vehicles, weaker animals, etc.; the reference of he with the names of stronger animals, the names of phenomena suggesting crude strength and fierceness, etc.
4. As we see, the category of gender in English is inher-ently semantic, i.e. meaningful in so far as it reflects the actual features of the named objects. But the semantic nature of the category does not in the least make it into "non-grammatical", which follows from the whole content of what has been said in the present work.
In Russian, German, and many other languages character-ised by the gender division of nouns, the gender has purely formal features that may even "run contrary" to semantics. Suf-fice it to compare such Russian words as , -, , as well as their German correspon-dences das Glas es, die Tasse sie, der Teller er, etc. But this phenomenon is rather an exception than the rule in terms of grammatical categories in general.
Moreover, alongside of the "formal" gender, there exists in Russian, German and other "formal gender" languages mean-ingful gender, featuring, within the respective idiomatic sys-tems, the natural sex distinctions of the noun referents.
In particular, the Russian gender differs idiomatically from the English gender in so far as it divides the nouns by the higher opposition not into "person non-person" ("human non human"), but into "animate inanimate", discriminating within the former (the animate nounal set) between masculine, femi-nine, and a limited number of neuter nouns. Thus, the Russian category of gender essentially divides the noun into the inani-mate set having no

meaningful gender, and the animate set having a meaningful gender. In distinction to this, the English category of gender is only meaningful, and as such it is represented in the nounal sys-tem as a whole.
1. The category of number is expressed by the opposition of the plural form of the noun to the singular form of the noun. The strong member of this binary opposition is the plural, its productive formal mark being the suffix -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz ] as presented in the forms dog dogs, clock clocks, box boxes. The productive formal mark correlates with the absence of the number suffix in the singular form of the noun. The se-mantic content of the unmarked form, as has been shown above, enables the grammarians to speak of the zero-suffix of the sin-gular in English.
The other, non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are vowel interchange in several relict forms (man men, woman women, tooth teeth, etc.), the archaic suffix -(e)n supported by phonemic interchange in a couple of other relict forms (ox oxen, child children, cow kine, brother brethren), the correlation of individual singular and plural suffixes in a limited number of borrowed nouns (for-mula formulae, phenomenon phenomena, alumnus alumni, etc.). In some cases the plural form of the noun is ho-monymous with the singular form (sheep, deer, fish, etc.).
2. The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulties of interpretation.
On the surface of semantic relations, the meaning of the sin-gular will be understood as simply "one", as opposed to the meaning of the plural as "many" in the sense of "more than one". This is apparently obvious for such correlations as book books, lake lakes and the like. However, alongside of these semantically unequivocal correlations, there exist plu-rals and singulars that cannot be fully accounted for by the above ready-made approach. This becomes clear when we take for comparison such forms as tear (one drop falling from the eye) and tears (treacles on the cheeks as

tokens of grief or joy), potato (one item of the vegetables) and potatoes (food), paper (material) and papers (notes or docu-ments), sky (the vault of heaven) and skies (the same sky taken as a direct or figurative background), etc. As a result of the comparison we conclude that the broader sememic mark of the plural, or "plurality" in the grammatical sense, should be de-scribed as the potentially dismembering reflection of the struc-ture of the referent, while the sememic mark of the singular will be understood as the non-dismembering reflection of the struc-ture of the referent, i.e. the presentation of the referent in its in-divisible entireness.
It is sometimes stated that the plural form indiscriminately presents both multiplicity of separate objects ("discrete" plural, e.g. three houses) and multiplicity of units of measure for an indivisible object ("plural of measure", e.g. three hours) [Ilyish, 36 ff.]. However, the difference here lies not in the content of the plural as such, but in the quality of the objects themselves. Actually, the singulars of the respective nouns differ from one another exactly on the same lines as the plurals do {cf. one house one hour).
On the other hand, there are semantic varieties of the plural forms that differ from one another in their plural quality as such. Some distinctions of this kind were shown above. Some further distinctions may be seen in a variety of other cases. Here belong, for example, cases where the plural form expresses a definite set of objects {eyes of the face, wheels of the vehicle, etc.), various types of the referent {wines, tees, steels), intensity of the presentation of the idea {years and years, thousands upon thousands), picturesqueness {sands, waters, snows). The ex-treme point of this semantic scale is marked by the lexicalisa-tion of the plural form, i.e. by its serving as a means of render-ing not specificational, but purely notional difference in mean-ing. Cf. colours as a "flag", attentions as "wooing", pains as "effort", quarters as "abode", etc.
The scope of the semantic differences of the plural forms might pose before the observer a question whether the category of number is a variable grammatical category at all.
The answer to the question, though, doesn't leave space or any uncertainty: the category of number is one of the regular variable categories in the grammatical system of he English language. The variability of the category is simply given in its form, i.e. in the forms of the bulk of English nouns which do distinguish it by means of the described

binary paradigm. As for the differences in meaning, these arise from the interaction between the underlying oppositional se-memic marks of the category and the more concrete lexical dif-ferences in the semantics of individual words.
3. The most general quantitative characteristics of individ-ual words constitute the lexico-grammatical base for dividing the nounal vocabulary as a whole into countable nouns and un-countable nouns. The constant categorial feature "quantitative structure" (see Ch. V, 3) is directly connected with the vari-able feature "number", since uncountable nouns are treated grammatically as either singular or plural. Namely, the singular uncountable nouns are modified by the non-discrete quantifiers much or little, and they take the finite verb in the singular, while the plural uncountable nouns take the finite verb in the plural.
The two subclasses of uncountable nouns are usually re-ferred to, respectively, as singularia tantum (only singular) and pluralia tantum (only plural). In terms of oppositions we may say that in the formation of the two subclasses of uncountable nouns the number opposition is "constantly" (lexically) reduced either to the weak member (singularia tantum) or to the strong member (pluralia tantum).
Since the grammatical form of the uncountable nouns of the singularia tantum subclass is not excluded from the category of number, it stands to reason to speak of it as the "absolute" sin-gular, as different from the "correlative" or "common" singular of the countable nouns. The absolute singular excludes the use of the modifying numeral one, as well as the indefinite article.
The absolute singular is characteristic of the names of ab-stract notions {peace, love, joy, courage, friendship, etc.), the names of the branches of professional activity {chemistry, ar-chitecture, mathematics, linguistics, etc.), the names of mass-materials {water, snow, steel, hair, etc.), the names of collective inanimate objects {foliage, fruit, furniture, machinery, etc.). Some of these words can be used in the form of the common singular with the common plural counterpart, but in this case they come to mean either different sorts of materials, or sepa-rate concrete manifestations of the qualities denoted by abstract nouns, or concrete objects exhibiting the respective qualities. Cf.:
Joy is absolutely necessary for normal human life. It was a joy to see her among us. Helmets for motor-cycling are

nowadays made of plastics instead of steel. Using different modifications of the described method, super-strong steels are produced for various purposes. Etc.
The lexicalising effect of the correlative number forms (both singular and plural) in such cases is evident, since the categorial component of the referential meaning in each of them is changed from uncountability to countability. Thus, the opposi-tional reduction is here nullified in a peculiarly lexicalising way, and the full oppositional force of the category of number is rehabilitated.
Common number with uncountable singular nouns can also be expressed by means of combining them with words showing discreteness, such as bit, piece, item, sort. Cf.:
The last two items of news were quite sensational. Now I'd like to add one more bit of information. You might as well dis-pense with one or two pieces of furniture in the hall.
This kind of rendering the grammatical meaning of common number with uncountable nouns is, in due situational condi-tions, so regular that it can be regarded as special suppletivity in the categorial system of number (see Ch. III, 4).
On the other hand, the absolute singular, by way of func-tional oppositional reduction, can be used with countable nouns. In such cases the nouns are taken to express either the corre-sponding abstract ideas, or else the meaning of some mass-material correlated with its countable referent. Cf.:
Waltz is a lovely dance. There was dead desert all around them. The refugees needed shelter. Have we got chicken for the second course?
Under this heading (namely, the first of the above two sub-points) comes also the generic use of the singular. Cf.:
Man's immortality lies in his deeds. Wild elephant in the Jungle can be very dangerous.
In the sphere of the plural, likewise, we must recognise the common plural form as the regular feature of countability, and the absolute plural form peculiar to the uncountable subclass of pluralia tantum nouns. The absolute plural, as different from the common plural, cannot directly combine with numerals, and only occasionally does it combine with discrete quantifiers (many, few, etc.).
The absolute plural is characteristic of the uncountable

nouns which denote objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors, tongs, spectacles, etc.), the nouns expressing some sort of collective meaning, i.e. rendering the idea of indefinite plu-rality, both concrete and abstract (supplies, outskirts, clothes, parings; tidings, earnings, contents, politics; police, cattle, poultry, etc.), the nouns denoting some diseases as well as some abnormal states of the body and mind (measles, rickets, mumps, creeps, hysterics, etc.). As is seen from the examples, from the point of view of number as such, the absolute plural forms can be divided into set absolute plural (objects of two halves) and non-set absolute plural (the rest).
The set plural can also be distinguished among the common plural forms, namely, with nouns denoting fixed sets of objects, such as eyes of the face, legs of the body, legs of the table, wheels of the vehicle, funnels of the steamboat, windows of the room, etc.
The necessity of expressing definite numbers in cases of un-countable pluralia tantum nouns, as well as in cases of count-able nouns denoting objects in fixed sets, has brought about dif-ferent suppletive combinations specific to the plural form of the noun, which exist alongside of the suppletive combinations spe-cific to the singular form of the noun shown above. Here belong collocations with such words as pair, set, group, bunch and some others. Cf.: a pair of pincers; three pairs of bathing trunks; a few groups of police; two sets of dice; several cases of mea-sles; etc.
The absolute plural, by way of functional oppositional re-duction, can be represented in countable nouns having the form of the singular, in uncountable nouns having the form of the plural, and also in countable nouns having the form of the plu-ral.
The first type of reduction, consisting in the use of the abso-lute plural with countable nouns in the singular form, concerns collective nouns, which are thereby changed into "nouns of multitude". Cf.:
The family were gathered round the table. The government are unanimous in disapproving the move of the opposition.
This form of the absolute plural may be called "multitude plural".
The second type of the described oppositional reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with uncountable nouns in the plural form, concerns cases of stylistic marking
of nouns. Thus, the oppositional reduction results in expressive transposition. Cf.: the sands of the desert; the snows of the Arc-tic; the waters of the ocean; the fruits of the toil; etc,
This variety of the absolute plural may be called "descrip-tive uncountable plural".
The third type of oppositional reduction concerns common countable nouns used in repetition groups. The acquired impli-cation is indefinitely large quantity intensely presented. The nouns in repetition groups may themselves be used either in the plural ("featured" form) or in the singular ("unfeatured" form). Cf.:
There were trees and trees all around us. I lit cigarette after cigarette.
This variety of the absolute plural may be called "repetition plural". It can be considered as a peculiar analytical form in the marginal sphere of the category of number (see Ch. III, 4).
1. Case is the immanent morphological category of the noun manifested in the forms of noun declension and showing the relations of the nounal referent to other objects and phe-nomena. Thus, the case form of the noun, or contractedly its "case" (in the narrow sense of the word), is a morphological-declensional form.
This category is expressed in English by the opposition of the form in -'s [-z, -s, -iz], usually called the "possessive" case, or more traditionally, the "genitive" case (to which term we will stick in the following presentation*), to the unfeatured form of the noun, usually called the "common" case. The apostrophised -s serves to distinguish in writing the singular noun in the geni-tive case from the plural noun in the common case. E.g.: the man's duty, the President's decision, Max's letter; the boy's ball, the clerk's promotion, the Empress's jewels.
* The traditional term "genitive case" seems preferable on the ground that not all the meanings of the genitive case are "possessive".

The genitive of the bulk of plural nouns remains phoneti-cally unexpressed: the few exceptions concern only some of the irregular plurals. Thereby the apostrophe as the graphic sign of the genitive acquires the force of a sort of grammatical hiero-glyph. Cf.: the carpenters' tools, the mates' skates, the actresses' dresses.
Functionally, the forms of the English nouns designated as "case forms" relate to one another in an extremely peculiar way. The peculiarity is, that the common form is absolutely indefinite from the semantic point of view, whereas the genitive form in its productive uses is restricted to the functions which have a parallel expression by prepositional constructions. Thus, the common form, as appears from the presentation, is also capable of rendering the genitive semantics (namely, in contact and prepositional collocation), which makes the whole of the geni-tive case into a kind of subsidiary element in the grammatical system of the English noun. This feature stamps the English noun declension as something utterly different from every con-ceivable declension in principle. In fact, the inflexional oblique case forms as normally and imperatively expressing the imme-diate functional parts of the ordinary sentence in "noun-declensional" languages do not exist in English at all. Suffice it to compare a German sentence taken at random with its English rendering:
Erhebung der Anklage gegen die Witwe Capet scheint wunschenswert aus Rucksicht auf die Stimmung der Stadt Paris (L. Feuchtwanger). Eng.: (The bringing of) the accusation against the Widow Capet appears desirable, taking into consid-eration the mood of the City of Paris.
As we see, the five entries of nounal oblique cases in the German utterance (rendered through article inflexion), of which two are genitives, all correspond to one and the same indis-criminate common case form of nouns in the English version of the text. By way of further comparison, we may also observe the Russian translation of the same sentence with its four geni-tive entries: , -.
Under the described circumstances of fact, there is no won-der that in the course of linguistic investigation the category of case in English has become one of the vexed problems of theo-retical discussion.

2. Four special views advanced at various times by differ-ent scholars should be considered as successive stages in the analysis of this problem.
The first view may be called the "theory of positional cases". This theory is directly connected with the old grammati-cal tradition, and its traces can be seen in many contemporary text-books for school in the English-speaking countries. Lin-guistic formulations of the theory, with various individual varia-tions (the number of cases recognised, the terms used, the rea-soning cited), may be found in the works of J. C. Nesfield, M. Deutschbein, M. Bryant and other scholars.
In accord with the theory of positional cases, the unchange-able forms of the noun are differentiated as different cases by virtue of the functional positions occupied by the noun in the sentence. Thus, the English noun, on the analogy of classical Latin grammar, would distinguish, besides the inflexional geni-tive case, also the non-inflexional, i.e. purely positional cases: nominative, vocative, dative, and accusative. The uninflexional cases of the noun are taken to be supported by the parallel in-flexional cases of the personal pronouns. The would-be cases in question can be exemplified as follows.*
The nominative case (subject to a verb): Rain falls. The vocative case (address): Are you coming, my friend? The da-tive case (indirect object to a verb): I gave John a penny. The accusative case (direct object, and also object to a preposition): The man killed a rat. The earth is moistened by rain.
In the light of all that has been stated in this book in con-nection with the general notions of morphology, the fallacy of the positional case theory is quite obvious. The cardinal blun-der of this view is, that it substitutes the functional characteris-tics of the part of the sentence for the morphological features of the word class, since the case form, by definition, is the vari-able morphological form of the noun. In reality, the case forms as such serve as means of expressing the functions of the noun in the sentence, and not vice versa. Thus, what the described view does do on the positive lines,
* The examples are taken from the book: Nesfield J. Manual of English Grammar and Composition. Lnd., 1942, p. 24.

is that within the confused conceptions of form and meaning, it still rightly illustrates the fact that the functional meanings ren-dered by cases can be expressed in language by other gram-matical means, in particular, by word-order.
The second view may be called the "theory of prepositional cases". Like the theory of positional cases, it is also connected with the old school grammar teaching, and was advanced as a logical supplement to the positional view of the case.
In accord with the prepositional theory, combinations of nouns with prepositions in certain object and attributive collo-cations should be understood as morphological case forms. To these belong first of all the "dative" case (to+Noun, for+Noun) and the "genitive" case (of+Noun). These prepositions, accord-ing to G. Curme, are "inflexional prepositions", i.e. grammati-cal elements equivalent to case-forms. The would-be preposi-tional cases are generally taken (by the scholars who recognise them) as coexisting with positional cases, together with the classical inflexional genitive completing the case system of the English noun.
The prepositional theory, though somewhat better grounded than the positional theory, nevertheless can hardly pass a seri-ous linguistic trial. As is well known from noun-declensional languages, all their prepositions, and not only some of them, do require definite cases of nouns (prepositional case-government); this fact, together with a mere semantic observa-tion of the role of prepositions in the phrase, shows that any preposition by virtue of its functional nature stands in essen-tially the same general grammatical relations to nouns. It should follow from this that not only the of-, to-, and for-phrases, but also all the other prepositional phrases in English must be regarded as "analytical cases". As a result of such an approach illogical redundancy in terminology would arise: each prepositional phrase would bear then another, additional name of "prepositional case", the total number of the said "cases" running into dozens upon dozens without any gain either to theory or practice [Ilyish, 42].
The third view of the English noun case recognises a lim-ited inflexional system of two cases in English, one of them featured and the other one unfeatured. This view may be called the "limited case theory".
The limited case theory is at present most broadly accepted among linguists both in this country and abroad. It was formu-lated by such scholars as H. Sweet, O. Jespersen,
51499 65

and has since been radically developed by the Soviet scholars A. I. Smirnitsky, L. S. Barkhudarov and others.
The limited case theory in its modern presentation is based on the explicit oppositional approach to the recognition of grammatical categories. In the system of the English case the functional mark is defined, which differentiates the two case forms: the possessive or genitive form as the strong member of the categorial opposition and the common, or "non-genitive" form as the weak member of the categorial opposition. The op-position is shown as being effected in full with animate nouns, though a restricted use with inanimate nouns is also taken into account. The detailed functions of the genitive are specified with the help of semantic transformational correlations [-, (2), 89 .].
3. We have considered the three theories which, if at basi-cally different angles, proceed from the assumption that the English noun does distinguish the grammatical case in its func-tional structure. However, another view of the problem of the English noun cases has been put forward which sharply count-ers the theories hitherto observed. This view approaches the English noun as having completely lost the category of case in the course of its historical development. All the nounal cases, including the much spoken of genitive, are considered as ex-tinct, and the lingual unit that is named the "genitive case" by force of tradition, would be in reality a combination of a noun with a postposition (i.e. a relational postpositional word with preposition-like functions). This view, advanced in an explicit form by G. N. Vorontsova [, 168 .], may be called the "theory of the possessive postposition" ("postposi-tional theory"). Cf.: [Ilyish, 44 ff.; , , 42 .].
Of the various reasons substantiating the postpositional the-ory the following two should be considered as the main ones.
First, the postpositional element -'s is but loosely connected with the noun, which finds the clearest expression in its use not only with single nouns, but also with whole word-groups of various status. Compare some examples cited by G. N. Vo-rontsova in her work: somebody else's daughter; another stage-struck girl's stage finish; the man who had hauled him out to dinner's head.
Second, there is an indisputable parallelism of functions be-tween the possessive postpositional constructions and the

prepositional constructions, resulting in the optional use of the former. This can be shown by transformational reshuffles of the above examples: ...> the daughter of somebody else; ...> the stage finish of another stage-struck girl; . ..> the head of the man who had hauled him out to dinner.
One cannot but acknowledge the rational character of the cited reasoning. Its strong point consists in the fact that it is based on a careful observation of the lingual data. For all that, however, the theory of the possessive postposition fails to take into due account the consistent insight into the nature of the noun form in -'s achieved by the limited case theory. The latter has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the noun form in -'s is systemically, i.e. on strictly structural-functional basis, con-trasted against the unfeatured form of the noun, which does make the whole correlation of the nounal forms into a gram-matical category of case-like order, however specific it might be.
As the basic arguments for the recognition of the noun form in -'s in the capacity of grammatical case, besides the opposi-tional nature of the general functional correlation of the featured and unfeatured forms of the noun, we will name the following two.
First, the broader phrasal uses of the postpositional -'s like those shown on the above examples, display a clearly expressed stylistic colouring; they are, as linguists put it, stylistically marked, which fact proves their transpositional nature. In this connection we may formulate the following regularity: the more self-dependent the construction covered by the case-sign -'s, the stronger the stylistic mark (colouring) of the resulting genitive phrase. This functional analysis is corroborated by the statistical observation of the forms in question in the living English texts. According to the data obtained by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya, the -'s sign is attached to individual nouns in as many as 96 per cent of its total textual occurrences [Khai-movich, Rogovskaya, 64]. Thus, the immediate casal relations are realised by individual nouns, the phrasal, as well as some non-nounal uses of the 's sign being on the whole of a secon-dary grammatical order.
Second, the -'s sign from the point of view of its segmental status in language differs from ordinary functional words. It is morpheme-like by its phonetical properties; it is strictly postpo-sitional unlike the prepositions; it is semantically by far a more bound element than a preposition, which, among
5* 67

other things, has hitherto prevented it from being entered into dictionaries as a separate word.
As for the fact that the "possessive postpositional construc-tion" is correlated with a parallel prepositional construction, it only shows the functional peculiarity of the form, but cannot disprove its case-like nature, since cases of nouns in general render much the same functional semantics as prepositional phrases (reflecting a wide range of situational relations of noun referents).
4. The solution of the problem, then, is to be sought on the ground of a critical synthesis of the positive statements of the two theories: the limited case theory and the possessive postpo-sition theory.
A two case declension of nouns should be recognised in English, with its common case as a "direct" case, and its geni-tive case as the only oblique case. But, unlike the case system in ordinary noun-declensional languages based on inflexional word change, the case system in English is founded on a parti-cle expression. The particle nature of -'s is evident from the fact that it is added in post-position both to individual nouns and to nounal word-groups of various status, rendering the same es-sential semantics of appurtenance in the broad sense of the term. Thus, within the expression of the genitive in English, two subtypes are to be recognised: the first (principal) is the word genitive; the second (of a minor order) is the phrase geni-tive. Both of them are not inflexional, but particle case-forms.
The described particle expression of case may to a certain extent be likened to the particle expression of the subjunctive mood in Russian [, 40]. As is known, the Russian subjunctive particle not only can be distanced from the verb it refers to, but it can also relate to a lexical unit of non-verb-like nature without losing its basic subjunctive-functional qual-ity. Cf.: . . .
From the functional point of view the English genitive case, on the whole, may be regarded as subsidiary to the syntactic system of prepositional phrases. However, it still displays some differential points in its functional meaning, which, though neu-tralised in isolated use, are revealed in broader syntagmatic col-locations with prepositional phrases.
One of such differential points may be defined as

"animate appurtenance" against "inanimate appurtenance" ren-dered by a prepositional phrase in contrastive use. Cf.:
The people's voices drowned in the roar of the started en-gines. The tiger's leap proved quicker than the click of the rifle.
Another differential point expressed in cases of textual co-occurrence of the units compared consists in the subjective use of the genitive noun (subject of action) against the objective use of the prepositional noun (object of action). Cf.: My Lord's choice of the butler; the partisans' rescue of the prisoners; the treaty's denunciation of mutual threats.
Furthermore, the genitive is used in combination with the of-phrase on a complementary basis expressing the functional semantics which may roughly be called "appurtenance rank gradation": a difference in construction (i.e. the use of the geni-tive against the use of the of-phrase) signals a difference in cor-related ranks of semantic domination. Cf.: the country's strain of wartime (lower rank: the strain of wartime; higher rank: the country's strain); the sight of Satispy's face (higher rank: the sight of the face; lower rank: Satispy's face).
It is certainly these and other differential points and com-plementary uses that sustain the particle genitive as part of the systemic expression of nounal relations in spite of the disinte-gration of the inflexional case in the course of historical devel-opment of English.
5. Within the general functional semantics of appurte-nance, the English genitive expresses a wide range of relational meanings specified in the regular interaction of the semantics of the subordinating and subordinated elements in the genitive phrase. Summarising the results of extensive investigations in this field, the following basic semantic types of the genitive can be pointed out.
First, the form which can be called the "genitive of posses-sor" (Lat. "genetivus possessori"). Its constructional meaning will be defined as "inorganic" possession, i.e. possessional rela-tion (in the broad sense) of the genitive referent to the object denoted by the head-noun. E.g.: Christine's living-room; the assistant manager's desk; Dad's earnings; Kate and Jerry's grandparents; the Steel Corporation's hired slaves.
The diagnostic test for the genitive of possessor is its trans-formation into a construction that explicitly expresses

the idea of possession (belonging) inherent in the form. Cf.: Christine's living-room > the living-room belongs to Christine; the Steel Corporation's hired slaves > the Steel Corporation possesses hired slaves.*
Second, the form which can be called the "genitive of inte-ger" (Lat. "genetivus integri"). Its constructional meaning will be defined as "organic possession", i.e. a broad possessional relation of a whole to its part. E.g.: Jane's busy hands; Patrick's voice; the patient's health; the hotel's lobby.
Diagnostic test: ...> the busy hands as part of Jane's person; ...> the health as part of the patient's state; ...> the lobby as a component part of the hotel, etc.
A subtype of the integer genitive expresses a qualification received by the genitive referent through the headword. E.g.: Mr. Dodson's vanity; the computer's reliability.
This subtype of the genitive can be called the "genitive of received qualification" (Lat. "genetivus qualificationis recep-tae").
Third, the "genitive of agent" (Lat. "genetivus agentis"). The more traditional name of this genitive is "subjective" (Lat. "ge-netivus subjectivus"). The latter term seems inadequate because of its unjustified narrow application: nearly all the genitive types stand in subjective relation to the referents of the head-nouns. The general meaning of the genitive of agent is ex-plained in its name: this form renders an activity or some broader processual relation with the referent of the genitive as its subject. E.g.: the great man's arrival; Peter's insistence; the councillor's attitude; Campbell Clark's gaze; the hotel's com-petitive position.
Diagnostic test: ...> the great man arrives; ...> Peter in-sists; ...> the hotel occupies a competitive position, etc.
A subtype of the agent genitive expresses the author, or, more broadly considered, the producer of the referent of the head-noun. Hence, it receives the name of the "genitive of au-thor" (Lat. "genetivus auctori"). E.g.: Beethoven's sonatas; John Galsworthy's "A Man of Property"; the committee's progress report.
Diagnostic test: ... Beethoven has composed (is the au-thor of) the sonatas; ...> the committee has compiled (is the compiler of) the progress report, etc.
Fourth, the "genitive of patient" (Lat. "genetivus patientis").
* We avoid the use of the verb have in diagnostic construc-tions, because have itself, due to its polysemantism, wants di-agnostic contextual specifications

This type of genitive, in contrast to the above, expresses the recipient of the action or process denoted by the head-noun. E.g.: the champion's sensational defeat; Erick's final expulsion; the meeting's chairman; the St Gregory's proprietor; the city's business leaders; the Titanic's tragedy.
Diagnostic test: ...> the champion is defeated (i.e. his op-ponent defeated him); ...> Erick is expelled; ...> the meeting is chaired by its chairman; ...> the St Gregory is owned by its proprietor, etc.
Fifth, the "genitive of destination" (Lat. "genetivus destina-tionis"). This form denotes the destination, or function of the referent of the head-noun. E.g.: women's footwear; children's verses; a fishers' tent.
Diagnostic test: ...> footwear for women; ...> a tent for fishers, etc.
Sixth, the "genitive of dispensed qualification" (Lat. "ge-netivus qualificationis dispensatae"). The meaning of this geni-tive type, as different from the subtype "genitive of received qualification", is some characteristic or qualification, not re-ceived, but given by the genitive noun to the referent of the head-noun. E.g.: a girl's voice; a book-keeper's statistics; Curtis O'Keefe's kind (of hotels M.B.).
Diagnostic test: ...> a voice characteristic of a girl; ...> sta-tistics peculiar to a book-keeper's report; ...> the kind (of ho-tels) characteristic of those owned by Curtis O'Keefe.
Under the heading of this general type comes a very impor-tant subtype of the genitive which expresses a comparison. The comparison, as different from a general qualification, is sup-posed to be of a vivid, descriptive nature. The subtype is called the "genitive of comparison" (Lat. "genetivus comparationis"). This term has been used to cover the whole class. E.g.: the cock's self-confidence of the man; his perky sparrow's smile.
Diagnostic test: ...> the self-confidence like that of a cock; ...> the smile making the man resemble a perky sparrow.
Seventh, the "genitive of adverbial" (Lat. "genetivus adver-bii"). The form denotes adverbial factors relating to the referent of the head-noun, mostly the time and place of the event. Strictly speaking, this genitive may be considered as another subtype of the genitive of dispensed qualification. Due to its adverbial meaning, this type of genitive can be used with

adverbialised substantives. E.g.: the evening's newspaper; yes-terday's encounter; Moscow's talks.
Diagnostic test: ...> the newspaper issued in the evening; ...> the encounter which took place yesterday; ...>the talks that were held in Moscow.
Eighth, the "genitive of quantity" (Lat. "genetivus quantita-tis"). This type of genitive denotes the measure or quantity re-lating to the referent of the head-noun. For the most part, the quantitative meaning expressed concerns units of distance measure, time measure, weight measure. E.g.: three miles' dis-tance; an hour's delay; two months' time; a hundred tons' load.
Diagnostic test: ...> a distance the measure of which is three miles; ...> a time lasting for two months; ...> a load weighing a hundred tons.
The given survey of the semantic types of the genitive is by no means exhaustive in any analytical sense. The identified types are open both to subtype specifications, and inter-type generalisations (for instance, on the principle of the differentia-tion between subject-object relations), and the very set of pri-mary types may be expanded.
However, what does emerge out of the survey, is the evi-dence of a wide functional range of the English particle geni-tive, making it into a helpful and flexible, if subsidiary, means of expressing relational semantics in the sphere of the noun.
6. We have considered theoretical aspects of the problem of case of the English noun, and have also observed the relevant lingual data instrumental in substantiating the suggested inter-pretations. As a result of the analysis, we have come to the con-clusion that the inflexional case of nouns in English has ceased to exist. In its place a new, peculiar two case system has devel-oped based on the particle expression of the genitive falling into two segmental types: the word-genitive and the phrase-genitive.
The undertaken study of the case in the domain of the noun, as the next step, calls upon the observer to re-formulate the ac-cepted interpretation of the form-types of the English personal pronouns.
The personal pronouns are commonly interpreted as having a case system of their own, differing in principle from the case system of the noun. The two cases traditionally recognised here are the nominative case (I, you, he, etc.) and the

objective case (me, you, him, etc.). To these forms the two se-ries of forms of the possessive pronouns are added respec-tively, the conjoint series (my, your, his, etc.) and the absolute series (mine, yours, his, etc.). A question now arises, if it is ra-tional at all to recognise the type of case in the words of substi-tutional nature which is absolutely incompatible with the type of case in the correlated notional words? Attempts have been made in linguistics to transfer the accepted view of pronominal cases to the unchangeable forms of the nouns (by way of the logical procedure of back substitution), thereby supporting the positional theory of case (M. Bryant). In the light of the present study, however, it is clear that these attempts lack an adequate linguistic foundation.
As a matter of fact, the categories of the substitute have to reflect the categories of the antecedent, not vice versa. As an example we may refer to the category of gender (see Ch. VI): the English gender is expressed through the correlation of nouns with their pronominal substitutes by no other means than the reflection of the corresponding semantics of the antecedent in the substitute. But the proclaimed correlation between the case forms of the noun and the would-be case forms of the personal pronouns is of quite another nature: the nominative "case" of the pronoun has no antecedent case in the noun; nor has the objective "case" of the pronoun any antecedent case in the noun. On the other hand, the only oblique case of the English noun, the genitive, does have its substitutive reflection in the pronoun, though not in the case form, but in the lexical form of possession (possessive pro-nouns). And this latter relation of the antecedent to its substitute gives us a clue to the whole problem of pronominal "case": the inevitable conclusion is that there is at present no case in the English personal pronouns; the personal pronominal system of cases has completely disintegrated, and in its place the four indi-vidual word-types of pronouns have appeared: the nominative form, the objective form, and the possessive form in its two ver-sions, conjoint and absolute.
An analysis of the pronouns based on more formal consid-erations can only corroborate the suggested approach proceed-ing from the principle of functional evaluation. In fact, what is traditionally accepted as case-forms of the pronouns are not the regular forms of productive morphological change implied by the very idea of case declension, but individual

forms sustained by suppletivity and given to the speaker as a ready-made set. The set is naturally completed by the posses-sive forms of pronouns, so that actually we are faced by a lexi-cal paradigmatic series of four subsets of personal pronouns, to which the relative who is also added: I me my mine, you you your yours,... who whom whose whose. Whichever of the former case correlations are still trace-able in this system (as, for example, in the sub-series hehimhis), they exist as mere relicts, i.e. as a petrified evidence of the old productive system that has long ceased to function in the morphology of English.
Thus, what should finally be meant by the suggested termi-nological name "particle case" in English, is that the former sys-tem of the English inflexional declension has completely and irrevocably disintegrated, both in the sphere of nouns and their substitute pronouns; in its place a new, limited case system has arisen based on a particle oppositional feature and subsidiary to the prepositional expression of the syntactic relations of the noun.
1. Article is a determining unit of specific nature accom-panying the noun in communicative collocation. Its special character is clearly seen against the background of determining words of half-notional semantics. Whereas the function of the determiners such as this, any, some is to explicitly interpret the referent of the noun in relation to other objects or phenomena of a like kind, the semantic purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent, as it were, altogether unostentatiously, to de-fine it in the most general way, without any explicitly expressed contrasts.
This becomes obvious when we take the simplest examples ready at hand. Cf.:
Will you give me this pen, Willy? (I.e. the pen that I am pointing out, not one of your choice.) Will you give me the pen, please? (I.e. simply the pen from the desk, you understand which.) Any blade will do, I only want it for scratching out the wrong word from the type-script. (I.e. any blade of the stock, however blunt it may be.) Have

you got something sharp? I need a penknife or a blade. (I.e. simply a blade, if not a knife, without additional implications.) Some woman called in your absence, she didn't give her name. (I.e. a woman strange to me.) A woman called while you were out, she left a message. (I.e. simply a woman, without a further connotation.)
Another peculiarity of the article, as different from the de-terminers in question, is that, in the absence of a determiner, the use of the article with the noun is quite obligatory, in so far as the cases of non-use of the article are subject to no less definite rules than the use of it.
Taking into consideration these peculiar features of the arti-cle, the linguist is called upon to make a sound statement about its segmental status in the system of morphology. Namely, his task is to decide whether the article is a purely auxiliary ele-ment of a special grammatical form of the noun which func-tions as a component of a definite morphological category, or it is a separate word, i.e. a lexical unit in the determiner word set, if of a more abstract meaning than other determiners.
The problem is a vexed one; it has inspired intensive re-search activity in the field, as well as animated discussion with various pros and cons affirmed, refuted and re-affirmed.* In the course of these investigations, however, many positive facts about articles have been established, which at present enables an observer, proceeding from the systemic principle in its para-digmatic interpretation, to expose the status of the article with an attempt at demonstrative conviction.
To arrive at a definite decision, we propose to consider the properties of the English articles in four successive stages, be-ginning with their semantic evaluation as such, then adding to the obtained data a situational estimation of their uses, thereaf-ter analysing their categorial features in the light of the opposi-tional theory, and finally concluding the investigation by a paradigmatic generalisation.
2. A mere semantic observation of the articles in English, i.e. the definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not two, but three meaningful
* Different aspects of the discussion about the English article are very well shown by B. A. Ilyish in the cited book (p. 49 ff.).

characterisations of the nounal referent achieved by their cor-relative functioning, namely: one rendered by the definite arti-cle, one rendered by the indefinite article, and one rendered by the absence (or non-use) of the article. Let us examine them separately.
The definite article expresses the identification or individu-alisation of the referent of the noun: the use of this article shows that the object denoted is taken in its concrete, individ-ual quality. This meaning can be brought to explicit exposition by a substitution test. The test consists in replacing the article used in a construction by a demonstrative word, e.g. a demon-strative determiner, without causing a principal change in the general implication of the construction. Of course, such an "equivalent" substitution should be understood in fact as noth-ing else but analogy: the difference in meaning between a de-terminer and an article admits of no argument, and we pointed it out in the above passages. Still, the replacements of words as a special diagnostic procedure, which is applied with the neces-sary reservations and according to a planned scheme of re-search, is quite permissible. In our case it undoubtedly shows a direct relationship in the meanings of the determiner and the article, the relationship in which the determiner is semantically the more explicit element of the two. Cf.:
But look at the apple-tree!> But look at this apple-tree! The town lay still in the Indian summer sun. That town lay still in the Indian summer sun. The water is horribly hot.> This water is horribly hot. It's the girls who are to blame. It's those girls who are to blame.
The justification of the applied substitution, as well as its explanatory character, may be proved by a counter-test, namely, by the change of the definite article into the indefinite article, or by omitting the article altogether. The replacement either produces a radical, i.e. "non-equivalent" shift in the meaning of the construction, or else results in a grammatically unacceptable construction. Cf.: ...> Look at an apple-tree!> *Look at apple-tree! ...> *A water is horribly hot.> *Water is horribly hot.
The indefinite article, as different from the definite article, is commonly interpreted as referring the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects; in other words, the indefinite article expresses a classifying generalisation of the nounal referent, or takes it in a relatively

general sense. To prove its relatively generalising functional meaning, we may use the diagnostic insertions of specifying-classifying phrases into the construction in question; we may also employ the transformation of implicit comparative con-structions with the indefinite article into the corresponding ex-plicit comparative constructions. Cf.:
We passed a water-mill. >We passed a certain water-mill. It is a very young country, isn't it? > It is a very young kind of country, isn't it? What an arrangement! >What sort of ar-rangement! This child is a positive nightmare. > This child is positively like a nightmare.
The procedure of a classifying contrast employed in practi-cal text-books exposes the generalising nature of the indefinite article most clearly in many cases of its use. E.g.:
A door opened in the wall. > A door (not a window) opened in the wall. We saw a flower under the bush.> We saw a flower (not a strawberry) under the bush.
As for the various uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic point of view they all should be divided into two types. In the first place, there are uses where the articles are de-liberately omitted out of stylistic considerations. We see such uses, for instance, in telegraphic speech, in titles and headlines, in various notices. E.g.:
Telegram received room reserved for week end. (The text of a telegram.) Conference adjourned until further notice. (The text of an announcement.) Big red bus rushes food to strikers. (The title of a newspaper article.)
The purposeful elliptical omission of the article in cases like that is quite obvious, and the omitted articles may easily be re-stored in the constructions in the simplest "back-directed" refill-ing procedures. Cf.:
...> The telegram is received, a room is reserved for the week-end. ...> The conference is adjourned until further notice. ...> A big red bus rushes food to the strikers.
Alongside of free elliptical constructions, there are cases of the semantically unspecified non-use of the article in various combinations of fixed type, such as prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt, etc.), fixed verbal collocations (take place, make use, cast anchor, etc.), descriptive coordinative groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog and gun, day by day, etc.), and the like. These cases of

traditionally fixed absence of the article are quite similar to the cases of traditionally fixed uses of both indefinite and definite articles (cf.: in a hurry, at a loss, have a look, give a start, etc.; in the main, out of the question, on the look-out, etc.).
Outside the elliptical constructions and fixed uses, however, we know a really semantic absence of the article with the noun. It is this semantic absence of the article that stands in immedi-ate meaningful correlation with the definite and indefinite arti-cles as such.
As is widely acknowledged, the meaningful non-uses of the article are not homogeneous; nevertheless, they admit of a very explicit classification founded on the countability characteristics of the noun. Why countability characteristics? For the two rea-sons. The first reason is inherent in the nature of the noun itself: the abstract generalisation reflected through the meaningful non-use of the article is connected with the suppression of the idea of the number in the noun. The second reason is inherent in the nature of the article: the indefinite article which plays the crucial role in the semantic correlation in question reveals the meaning of oneness within its semantic base, having originated from the indefinite pronoun one, and that is why the abstract use of the noun naturally goes with the absence of the article.
The essential points of the said classification are three in number.
First. The meaningful absence of the article before the countable noun in the singular signifies that the noun is taken in an abstract sense, expressing the most general idea of the object denoted. This meaning, which may be called the meaning of "absolute generalisation", can be demonstrated by inserting in the tested construction a chosen generalising modifier (such as in general, in the abstract, in the broadest sense). Cf.:
Law (in general) begins with the beginning of human soci-ety. Steam-engine (in general) introduced for locomotion a couple of centuries ago has now become obsolete.
Second. The absence of the article before the uncountable noun corresponds to the two kinds of generalisation: both rela-tive and absolute. To decide which of the two meanings is real-ised in any particular case, the described tests should be carried out alternately. Cf.:
John laughed with great bitterness (that sort of bitterness: relative generalisation). The subject of health (in general:

absolute generalisation) was carefully avoided by everybody. Coffee (a kind of beverage served at the table: relative generali-sation) or tea, please? Coffee (in general: absolute generalisa-tion) stimulates the function of the heart.
Third. The absence of the article before the countable noun in the plural, likewise, corresponds to both kinds of generalisa-tion, and the exposition of the meaning in each case can be achieved by the same semantic tests. Cf.:
Stars, planets and comets (these kinds of objects: relative generalisation) are different celestial bodies (not terrestrial bod-ies: relative generalisation). Wars (in general: absolute gener-alisation) should be eliminated as means of deciding interna-tional disputes.
To distinguish the demonstrated semantic functions of the non-uses of the article by definition, we may say that the ab-sence of the article with uncountable nouns, as well as with countable nouns in the plural, renders the meaning of "unchar-acterised generalisation", as different from the meaning of "ab-solute generalisation", achieved by the absence of the article with countable nouns in the singular.
So much for the semantic evaluation of the articles as the first stage of our study.
3. Passing to the situational estimation of the article uses, we must point out that the basic principle of their differentia-tion here is not a direct consideration of their meanings, but disclosing the informational characteristics that the article con-veys to its noun in concrete contextual conditions. Examined from this angle, the definite article serves as an indicator of the type of nounal information which is presented as the "facts al-ready known", i.e. as the starting point of the communication. In contrast to this, the indefinite article or the meaningful ab-sence of the article introduces the central communicative nou-nal part of the sentence, i.e. the part rendering the immediate informative data to be conveyed from the speaker to the lis-tener. In the situational study of syntax (see Ch. XXII) the start-ing point of the communication is called its "theme", while the central informative part is called its "rheme".
In accord with the said situational functions, the typical syn-tactic position of the noun modified by the definite article

is the "thematic" subject, while the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by the indefinite article or by the meaningful absence of the article is the "rhematic" predicative. Cf.:
The day (subject) was drawing to a close, the busy noises of the city (subject) were dying down. How to handle the situation was a big question (predicative). The sky was pure gold (predi-cative) above the setting sun.
It should be noted that in many other cases of syntactic use, i.e. non-subjective or non-predicative, the articles reflect the same situational functions. This can be probed by reducing the constructions in question on re-arrangement lines to the logi-cally "canonised" link-type constructions. Cf.:
If you would care to verify the incident (object), pray do so. > If you would care the incident (subject) to be verified, pray have it verified. I am going to make a rather strange request (object) to you. > What I am going to make is a rather strange request (predicative) to you. You are talking nonsense (object), lad. > What you are talking, lad, is nonsense (predicative).
Another essential contextual-situational characteristic of the articles is their immediate connection with the two types of at-tributes to the noun. The first type is a "limiting" attribute, which requires the definite article before the noun; the second type is a "descriptive" attribute, which requires the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the article before the noun. Cf.:
The events chronicled in this narrative took place some four years ago. (A limiting attribute) She was a person of strong will and iron self-control. (A descriptive attribute) He listened to her story with grave and kindly attention. (A descriptive attrib-ute)
The role of descriptive attributes in the situational aspect of articles is particularly worthy of note in the constructions of syntactic "convergencies", i.e. chained attributive-repetitional phrases modifying the same referent from different angles. Cf.: My longing for a house, a fine and beautiful house, such a house I could never hope to have, flowered into life again.

4. We have now come to the third stage of the undertaken analysis of the English articles, namely, to their consideration in the light of the oppositional theory. The oppositional exami-nation of any grammatically relevant set of lingual objects is of especial importance from the point of view of the systemic con-ception of language, since oppositions constitute the basis of the structure of grammatical paradigms.
Bearing in mind the facts established at the two previous stages of observation, it is easy to see that oppositionally, the article determination of the noun should be divided into two binary correlations connected with each other hierarchically.
The opposition of the higher level operates in the whole sys-tem of articles. It contrasts the definite article with the noun against the two other forms of article determination of the noun, i.e. the indefinite article and the meaningful absence of the arti-cle. In this opposition the definite article should be interpreted as the strong member by virtue of its identifying and individual-ising function, while the other forms of article determination should be interpreted as the weak member, i.e. the member that leaves the feature in question ("identification") unmarked.
The opposition of the lower level operates within the article subsystem that forms the weak member of the upper opposi-tion. This opposition contrasts the two types of generalisation, i.e. the relative generalisation distinguishing its strong member (the indefinite article plus the meaningful absence of the article as its analogue with uncountable nouns and nouns in the plural) and the absolute, or "abstract" generalisation distinguishing the weak member of the opposition (the meaningful absence of the article).
The described oppositional system can be shown on the fol-lowing diagram (see Fig. 2).
It is the oppositional description of the English articles that involves the interpretation of the article non-use as the zero form of the article, since the opposition of the positive exponent of the feature to the negative exponent of the feature (i.e. its absence) realises an important part of the integral article deter-mination semantics. As for the heterogeneity of functions dis-played by the absence of the article, it by no means can be taken as a ground for denying the relevance or expediency of introducing the notion of zero in the article system. As a matter of fact, each of the two essential meanings

Relative Generalisation Absolute Generali-sation
("Classification") ("Abstraction")
Fig. 2
of this dialectically complex form is clearly revealed in its spe-cial oppositional correlation and, consequently, corresponds to the really existing lingual facts irrespective of the name given to the form by the observer.
The best way of demonstrating the actual oppositional value of the articles on the immediate textual material is to contrast them in syntactically equivalent conditions in pairs. Cf. the ex-amples given below.
Identical nounal positions for the pair "the definite arti-cle the indefinite article": The train hooted (that train). A train hooted (some train).
Correlative nounal positions for the pair "the definite arti-cle the absence of the article": I'm afraid the oxygen is out (our supply of oxygen). Oxygen is necessary for life (oxygen in general, life in general).
Correlative nounal positions for the pair "the indefinite arti-cle the absence of the article": Be careful, there is a puddle under your feet (a kind of puddle). Be careful, there is mud on the ground (as different from clean space).
Finally, correlative nounal positions for the easily neutral-ised pair "the zero article of relative generalisation the zero article of absolute generalisation": New information should be gathered on this subject (some information). Scientific in-formation should be gathered systematically in all fields of hu-man knowledge (information in general).
On the basis of the oppositional definition of the article it becomes possible to explicate the semantic function of the arti-cle determination of nouns for cases where the inherent value of the article is contrasted against the contrary semantic value of the noun or the nounal collocation.

In particular, the indefinite article may occasionally be used with a nounal collocation of normally individualising meaning, e.g.:
Rodney Harrington laughed out loud as he caught a last glimpse of Allison Mackenzie and Norman Page in his rear-vision mirror (Gr. Metalious). After all, you've got a best side and a worst side of yourself and it's no good showing the worst side and harping on it (A. Christie).
Conversely, the definite article may occasionally be used with a nounal collocation of normally descriptive meaning, e.g.: Ethel still went in the evenings to bathe in the silent pool (S. Maugham).
The indefinite article may occasionally be used with a unique referent noun, e.g.: Ted Latimer from beyond her murmured: "The sun here isn't a real sun" (A. Christie).
The zero article may occasionally be used with an ordinary concrete noun the semantic nature of which stands, as it were, in sharp contradiction to the idea of uncountable generalisa-tion, e.g.:
The glasses had a habit of slipping down her button nose which did not have enough bridge to hold them up (S. M. Dis-ney). He went up a well-kept drive to a modern house with a square roof and a good deal of window (A. Christie).
In all these and similar cases, by virtue of being correlated with semantic elements of contrary nature, the inherent cate-gorial meanings of the articles appear, as it were, in their origi-nal, pure quality. Having no environmental support, the arti-cles become intensely self-dependent in the expression of their categorial semantics, and, against the alien contextual back-ground, traces of transposition can be seen in their use.
5. Having established the functional value of articles in oppositional estimation, we can now, in broader systemic con-traposition, probe the correlation of the meanings of articles with the meanings of functional determiners. As a result of this observation, within the system of the determiners two separate subsets can be defined, one of which is centred around the defi-nite article with its individualising semantics (this these, that those, my, our, your, his, her, its, their), and the other one around the indefinite article with its generalising semantics (another, some, any,

But unhappily the wife wasn't listening. But unhappily his wife wasn't listening. The whispering voices caught the atten-tion of the guards. Those whispering voices caught their at-tention. What could a woman do in a situation like that? What could any woman do in that sort of situation? At least I saw interest in her eyes. At least I saw some interest in her eyes. Not a word had been pronounced about the terms of the document. No word had been pronounced about those terms.
The demonstration of the organic connection between the articles and semi-notional determiners, in its turn, makes it pos-sible to disclose the true function of the grammatical use of ar-ticles with proper nouns. E.g.:
"This," said Froelich, "is the James Walker who wrote 'The Last of the Old Lords'" (M. Bradbury). Cf.: This is the same James Walker. I came out to Iraq with a Mrs. Kelsey (A. Christie). Cf.: The woman was a certain Mrs. Kelsey. It was like seeing a Vesuvius at the height of its eruption. Cf.: The sight looked to us like another Vesuvius. "I prophesy a wet Au-gust," said Old Moore Abinger (M. Dickens). Cf.: Next August will be a wet month, unlike some other Augusts in retrospect.
In the exemplified grammatical uses transpositional features are revealed similar to those the article acquires when used with a noun characterised by a contrary semantic base. On the other hand, the analysis of these cases clearly stamps the traditional proper name combinations with embedded articles, both of the onomastic set {Alexander the Great, etc.) and the toponymic set {The Hague, etc.) as lexicalised collocations that only come into contact with the periphery of grammar.

6. The essential grammatical features of the articles ex-posed in the above considerations and tests leave no room for misinterpretation at the final, generalising stage of analysis.
The data obtained show that the English noun, besides the variable categories of number and case, distinguishes also the category of determination expressed by the article paradigm of three grammatical forms: the definite, the indefinite, the zero. The paradigm is generalised for the whole system of the com-mon nouns, being transpositionally outstretched also into the system of proper nouns. Various cases of asymmetry in the re-alisation of this paradigm (such as the article determination of certain nouns of the types singularia tantum and pluralia tan-tum), similar to, and in connection with the expression of the category of number, are balanced by suppletive collocations. Cf.: 0 progress a kind of progress, some progress the pro-gress; o news an item of news the news, etc.
The semi-notional determiners used with nouns in the ab-sence of articles, expose the essential article meanings as in-built in their semantic structure.
Thus, the status of the combination of the article with the noun should be defined as basically analytical, the article con-struction as such being localised by its segmental properties between the free syntactic combination of words (the upper bordering level) and the combination of a grammatical affix with a notional stem in the morphological composition of an indivisible word (the lower bordering level). The article itself is a special type of grammatical auxiliary.
1. Grammatically the verb is the most complex part of speech. This is due to the central role it performs in the expres-sion of the predicative functions of the sentence, i.e. the func-tions establishing the connection between the situation (situ-ational event) named in the utterance and reality. The complex-ity of the verb is inherent not only in the intricate structure of its grammatical categories, but also in its various subclass divi-sions, as well as in its falling into two

sets of forms profoundly different from each other: the finite set and the non-finite set. ^'
The complicated character of the grammatical and lexico-grammatical structure of the verb has given rise to much dis-pute and controversy. However, the application of the princi-ples of systemic linguistic analysis to the study of this interest-ing sphere of language helps overcome many essential-difficulties in its theoretical description, and also a number of terminological disagreements among the scholars. This refers in particular to the fundamental relations between the categories of tense and aspect, which have aroused of late very heated dis-putes.
2. The general categorial meaning of the verb is process presented dynamically, i.e. developing in time. This general processual meaning is embedded in the semantics of all the verbs, including those that denote states, forms of existence, types of attitude, evaluations, etc., rather than actions. Cf.:
Edgar's room led out of the wall without a door. She had herself a liking for richness and excess. It was all over the morning papers. That's what I'm afraid of. I do love you, really I do.
And this holds true not only about the finite verb, but also about the non-finite verb. The processual semantic character of the verbal lexeme even in the non-finite form is proved by the fact that in all its forms it is modified by the adverb and, with the transitive verb, it takes a direct object. Cf.:
Mr. Brown received the visitor instantly, which was un-usual. Mr. Brown's receiving the visitor instantly was un-usual. It was unusual for Mr. Brown to receive the visitor instantly. But: An instant reception of the visitor was unusual for Mr. Brown.
The processual categorial meaning of the notional verb de-termines its characteristic combination with a noun expressing both the doer of the action (its subject) and, in cases of the ob-jective verb, the recipient of the action (its object); it also de-termines its combination with an adverb as the modifier of the action.
In the sentence the finite verb invariably performs the func-tion of the verb-predicate, expressing the processual

categorial features of predication, i.e. time, aspect, voice, and mood.
The non-finite verb performs different functions according to its intermediary nature (those of the syntactic subject, object, adverbial modifier, attribute), but its non-processual functions are always actualised in close combination with its processual semantic features. This is especially evident in demonstrative correlations of the "sentence phrase" type. Cf.:
His rejecting the proposal surprised us. That he had re-jected the proposal surprised us. Taking this into consideration, her attitude can be understood. If one takes this into consid-eration, her attitude can be understood.
In other words, the non-finite forms of the verb in self-dependent use (i.e. if they are used not as parts of the analytical verb-forms) perform a potentially predicative function, consti-tuting secondary predicative centres in the sentence. In each case of such use they refer to some subject which is expressed either explicitly or implicitly. Cf.:
Roddy cared enough about his mother to want to make amends for Arabella.> Roddy wanted to make amends...> Roddy will make amends... Changing gear, the taxi turned the sharp corner. > The taxi changed gear and turned the corner. Acting as mate is often more difficult than acting as captain. > One acts as mate; one acts as captain.
3. From the point of view of their outward structure, verbs are characterised by specific forms of word-building, as well as by the formal features expressing the corresponding grammati-cal categories.
The verb stems may be simple, sound-replacive, stress-replacive, expanded, composite, and phrasal.
The original simple verb stems are not numerous. Cf. such verbs as go, take, read, etc. But conversion (zero-suffixation) as means of derivation, especially conversion of the "noun verb" type, greatly enlarges the simple stem set of verbs, since it is one of the most productive ways of forming verb lexemes in modern English. Cf.: a cloud to cloud, a house to house; a man to man; a park to park, etc.
The sound-replacive type of derivation and the stress-replacive type of derivation are unproductive. Cf.: food

to feed, blood to bleed; 'import to im'port, 'transport to trans'port.
The typical suffixes expanding the stem of the verb are: -ate (cultivate), -en (broaden), -if (clarify), -ise(-ize) (normalise). The verb-deriving prefixes of the inter-class type are: be- (belit-tle, befriend, bemoan) and en-/em- (engulf, embed). Some other characteristic verbal prefixes are: re- (remake), under- (un-dergo), over- (overestimate), sub- (submerge), mis-(misunderstand), un- (undo), etc.
The composite (compound) verb stems correspond to the composite non-verb stems from which they are etymologically derived. Here belong the compounds of the conversion type (blackmail n. blackmail v.) and of the reduction type (proof-reader n.proof-read v.).
The phrasal verb stems occupy an intermediary position be-tween analytical forms of the verb and syntactic word combina-tions. Among such stems two specific constructions should be mentioned. The first is a combination of the head-verb have, give, take, and occasionally some others with a noun; the com-bination has as its equivalent an ordinary verb. Cf.: to have a smoke to smoke; to give a smile to smile; to take a stroll to stroll.
The second is a combination of a head-verb with a verbal postposition that has a specificational value. Cf.: stand up, go on, give in, be off, get along, etc.
4. The grammatical categories which find formal expres-sion in the outward structure of the verb and which will be ana-lysed further are, first, the category of finitude dividing the verb into finite and non-finite forms (the corresponding contracted names are "finites" and "verbids"*; this category has a lexico-grammatical force); second, the categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood, whose complete set is revealed in every word-form of the notional finite verb.
Each of the identified categories constitutes a whole system of its own presenting its manifold problems to the scholar. However, the comparative analysis of the categorial properties of all the forms of the verb, including the
* The term "verbids" for the non-finite forms of the verb was introduced by O. Jespersen. Its merit lies in the fact that, unlike the more traditional term "verbals", it is devoid of dubious connotations as well as homonymic correla-tions.

properties of verbids, shows the unquestionable unity of the class, in spite of some inter-class features of verbids.
Among the various forms of the verb the infinitive occupies a unique position. Its status is that of the principal representa-tive of the verb-lexeme as a whole. This head-form status of the infinitive is determined by the two factors. The first factor con-sists in the verbal-nominative nature of the infinitive, i.e. in its function of giving the most general dynamic name to the proc-ess which is denoted by all the other forms of the verb-lexeme in a more specific way, conditioned by their respective seman-tico-grammatical specialisations. The second factor determining the representative status of the infinitive consists in the infini-tive serving as the actual derivative base for all the other regular forms of the verb.
5. The class of verbs falls into a number of subclasses dis-tinguished by different semantic and lexico-grammatical fea-tures.
On the upper level of division two unequal sets are identi-fied: the set of verbs of full nominative value (notional verbs), and the set of verbs of partial nominative value (semi-notional and functional verbs). The first set is derivationally open, it in-cludes the bulk of the verbal lexicon. The second set is deriva-tionally closed, it includes limited subsets of verbs characterised by individual relational properties.
6. Semi-notional and functional verbs serve as markers of predication in the proper sense, since they show the connection between the nominative content of the sentence and reality in a strictly specialised way. These "predicators" include auxiliary verbs, modal verbs, semi-notional verbid introducer verbs, and link-verbs.
Auxiliary verbs constitute grammatical elements of the cate-gorial forms of the verb. These are the verbs be, have, do, shall, will, should, would, may, might.
Modal verbs are used with the infinitive as predicative markers expressing relational meanings of the subject attitude type, i.e. ability, obligation, permission, advisability, etc. By way of extension of meaning, they also express relational prob-ability, serving as probability predicators. These two types of functional semantics can be tested by means of correlating pure modal verb collocations with the corresponding two sets of sta-tive collocations of equivalent functions:

on the one hand, the groups be obliged, be permitted, etc.; on the other hand, the groups be likely, be probable, etc. Cf.:
Tom may stay for the teleview if he will. > Tom is permit-ted to stay. The storm may come any minute, you had better leave the deck. > The storm is likely to come any minute.
The modal verbs can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, used (to), dare are defective in forms, and are suppletively sup-plemented by stative groups similar to those shown above (cf. Ch. III, 4). The supplementation is effected both for the lack-ing finite forms and the lacking non-finite forms. Cf.:
The boys can prepare the play-ground themselves. The boys will be able to prepare the play-ground themselves. The boys' being able to prepare the play-ground themselves.
The verbs be and have in the modal meanings "be planned", "be obliged" and the like are considered by many modern grammarians as modal verbs and by right are included in the general modal verb list.
Semi-notional verbid introducer verbs are distributed among the verbal sets of discriminatory relational semantics (seem, happen, turn out, etc.), of subject-action relational semantics (try, fail, manage, etc.), of phasal semantics (begin, continue, stop, etc.). The predicator verbs should be strictly distinguished from their grammatical homonyms in the subclasses of notional verbs. As a matter of fact, there is a fundamental grammatical difference between the verbal constituents in such sentences as, say, "They began to fight" and "They began the fight". Whereas the verb in the first sentence is a semi-notional predicator, the verb in the second sentence is a notional transitive verb nor-mally related to its direct object. The phasal predicator begin (the first sentence) is grammatically inseparable from the infini-tive of the notional verb fight, the two lexemes making one ver-bal-part unit in the sentence. The transitive verb begin (the sec-ond sentence), on the contrary, is self-dependent in the lexico-grammatical sense, it forms the predicate of the sentence by it-self and as such can be used in the passive voice, the whole construction of the sentence in this case being presented as the regular passive counterpart of its active version. Cf.:

They began the fight. > The fight was begun (by them). They began to fight. >(*)* To fight was begun (by them).
Link-verbs introduce the nominal part of the predicate (the predicative) which is commonly expressed by a noun, an adjec-tive, or a phrase of a similar semantic-grammatical character. It should be noted that link-verbs, although they are named so, are not devoid of meaningful content. Performing their function of connecting ("linking") the subject and the predicative of the sentence, they express the actual semantics of this connection, i.e. expose the relational aspect of the characteristics ascribed by the predicative to the subject.
The linking predicator function in the purest form is effected by the verb be; therefore be as a link-verb can be referred to as the "pure link-verb". It is clear from the above that even this pure link-verb has its own relational semantics, which can be identified as "linking predicative ascription". All the link-verbs other than the pure link be express some specification of this general predicative-linking semantics, so that they should be referred to as "specifying" link-verbs. The common specifying link-verbs fall into two main groups: those that express percep-tions and those that express nonperceptional, or "factual" link-verb connection. The main perceptional link-verbs are seem, appear, look, feel, taste; the main factual link-verbs are become, get, grow, remain, keep.
As is to be seen from the comparison of the specifying link-verbs with the verbid introducer predicators described above, the respective functions of these two verbal subsets are cognate, though not altogether identical. The difference lies in the fact that the specifying link-verbs combine the pure linking function with the predicator function. Furthermore, separate functions of the two types of predicators are evident from the fact that speci-fying link-verbs, the same as the pure link, can be used in the text in combination with verbid introducer predicators. E.g.:
The letter seemed to have remained unnoticed. I began to feel better. You shouldn't try to look cleverer than you are.
* The transformation is unacceptable.

Cf. the use of verbid introducer predicators with the pure link-verb:
The news has proved to be true. The girl's look ceased to be friendly. The address shown to us seemed to be just the one we needed.
Besides the link-verbs proper hitherto presented, there are some notional verbs in language that have the power to perform the function of link-verbs without losing their lexical nomina-tive value. In other words, they perform two functions simulta-neously, combining the role of a full notional verb with that of a link-verb. Cf.:
Fred lay awake all through the night. Robbie ran in out of breath. The moon rose red.
Notional link-verb function is mostly performed by intransi-tive verbs of motion and position. Due to the double syntactic character of the notional link-verb, the whole predicate formed by it is referred to as a "double predicate" (see Ch. XXIX).
7. Notional verbs undergo the three main grammatically relevant categorisations. The first is based on the relation of the subject of the verb to the process denoted by the verb. The sec-ond is based on the aspective characteristics of the process de-noted by the verb, i.e. on the inner properties of the process as reflected in the verbal meaning. The third is based on the com-bining power of the verb in relation to other notional words in the utterance.
8. On the basis of the subject-process relation, all the no-tional verbs can be divided into actional and statal.
Actional verbs express the action performed by the subject, i.e. they present the subject as an active doer (in the broadest sense of the word). To this subclass belong such verbs as do, act, perform, make, go, read, learn, discover, etc. Statal verbs, unlike their subclass counterparts, denote the state of their sub-ject. That is, they either give the subject the characteristic of the inactive recipient of some outward activity, or else express the mode of its existence. To this subclass belong such verbs as be, live, survive, worry, suffer, rejoice, stand, see, know, etc.
Alongside of the two verbal sets, a third one could be

distinguished which is made up of verbs expressing neither ac-tions, nor states, but "processes". As representatives of the "purely processual" subclass one might point out the verbs thaw, ripen, deteriorate, consider, neglect, support, display, and the like. On closer observation, however, it becomes clear that the units of this medial subclass are subject to the same division into actional and statal sets as were established at the primary stage of classification. For instance, the "purely processual" verb thaw referring to an inactive substance should be defined, more precisely, as "processual-statal", whereas the "processual" verb consider relating to an active doer should be looked upon, more precisely, as "processual-actional". This can be shown by transformational tests:
The snow is thawing. > The snow is in the state of thaw-ing. The designer is considering another possibility. > The action of the designer is that he is considering another possibil-ity.
Thus, the primary binary division of the verbs upon the ba-sis of the subject-process relation is sustained.
Similar criteria apply to some more specific subsets of verbs permitting the binary actional-statal distribution. Among these of a special significance are the verbal sets of mental processes and sensual processes. Within the first of them we recognise the correlation between the verbs of mental perception and mental activity. E.g.: know think; understand construe; notice note; admire assess; forget reject; etc.
Within the second set we recognise the correlation between the verbs of physical perception as such and physical percep-tional activity. E.g.: see look; hear listen; feel (inac-tive) feel (active), touch; taste (inactive) taste (active); smell (inactive) smell (active); etc.
The initial member of each correlation pair given above presents a case of a statal verb, while the succeeding member, respectively, of an actional verb. Cf. the corresponding trans-formational tests:
The explorers knew only one answer to the dilemma.> The mental state of the explorers was such that they knew only one answer to the dilemma. I am thinking about the future of the village. > My mental activity consists in thinking about the future of the village. Etc.

The grammatical relevance of the classification in question, apart from its reflecting the syntactically generalised relation of the subject of the verb to the process denoted by it, is disclosed in the difference between the two subclasses in their aspectual behaviour. While the actional verbs take the form of the con-tinuous aspect quite freely, i.e. according to the general rules of its use, the statal verbs, in the same contextual conditions, are mainly used in the indefinite form. -The continuous with the statal verbs, which can be characterised as a more or less occa-sional occurrence, will normally express some sort of intensity or emphasis (see further).
9. Aspective verbal semantics exposes the inner character of the process denoted by the verb. It represents the process as durative (continual), iterative (repeated), terminate (concluded), interminate (not concluded), instantaneous (momentary), in-gressive (starting), supercompleted (developed to the extent of superfluity), undercompleted (not developed to its full extent), and the like.
Some of these aspectual meanings are inherent in the basic semantics of certain subsets of English verbs. Compare, for in-stance, verbs of ingression (begin, start, resume, set out, get down), verbs of instantaneity (burst, click, knock, bang, jump, drop), verbs of termination (terminate, finish, end, conclude, close, solve, resolve, sum up, stop), verbs of duration (continue, prolong, last, linger, live, exist). The aspectual meanings of su-percompletion, undercompletion, repetition, and the like can be rendered by means of lexical derivation, in particular, prefixa-tion (oversimplify, outdo, underestimate, reconsider). Such as-pectual meanings as ingression, duration, termination, and itera-tion are regularly expressed by aspective verbal collocations, in particular, by combinations of aspective predicators with ver-bids (begin, start, continue, finish, used to, would, etc., plus the corresponding verbid component).
In terms of the most general subclass division related to the grammatical structure of language, two aspective subclasses of verbs should be recognised in English. These will comprise numerous minor aspective groups of the types shown above as their microcomponent sets.
The basis of this division is constituted by the relation of the verbal semantics to the idea of a processual limit, i. e. some border point beyond which the process expressed by the verb or implied in its semantics is discontinued or

simply does not exist. For instance, the verb arrive expresses an action which evidently can only develop up to the point of ar-riving; on reaching this limit, the action ceases. The verb start denotes a transition from some preliminary state to some kind of subsequent activity, thereby implying a border point between the two. As different from these cases, the verb move expresses a process that in itself is alien to any idea of a limit, either ter-minal or initial.
The verbs of the first order, presenting a process as poten-tially limited, can be called "limitive". In the published courses of English grammar where they are mentioned, these verbs are called "terminative",* but the latter term seems inadequate. As a matter of fact, the word suggests the idea of a completed ac-tion, i.e. of a limit attained, not only the implication of a poten-tial limit existing as such. To the subclass of limitive belong such verbs as arrive, come, leave, find, start, stop, conclude, aim, drop, catch, etc. Here also belong phrasal verbs with limi-tive postpositions, e.g. stand up, sit down, get out, be off, etc.
The verbs of the second order presenting a process as not limited by any border point, should be called, correspondingly, "unlimitive" (in the existing grammar books they are called ei-ther "non-terminative", or else "durative", or "cursive"). To this subclass belong such verbs as move, continue, live, sleep, work, behave, hope, stand, etc.
Alongside of the two aspective subclasses of verbs, some authors recognise also a third subclass, namely, verbs of double aspective nature (of "double", or "mixed" lexical character). These, according to the said authors, are capable of expressing either a "terminative" or "non-terminative" ("durative") mean-ing depending on the context.
However, applying the principle of oppositions, these cases can be interpreted as natural and easy reductions (mostly neu-tralisations) of the lexical aspective opposition. Cf.:
Mary and Robert walked through the park pausing at varie-gated flower-beds. (Unlimitive use, basic function) In the scorching heat, the party walked the whole way to the ravine bareheaded. (Limitive use, neutralisation) He turned
* See the cited books on English grammar by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Vasilevskaya, B. A. Ilyish, B. S. Khaimovich and B. I. Rogovskaya.

the corner and found himself among a busy crowd of people. (Limitive use, basic function) It took not only endless scientific effort, but also an enormous courage to prove that the earth turns round the sun. (Unlimitive use, neutralisation)
Observing the given examples, we must admit that the de-marcation line between the two aspective verbal subclasses is not rigidly fixed, the actual differentiation between them being in fact rather loose. Still, the opposition between limitive and unlimitive verbal sets does exist in English, however indefi-nitely defined it may be. Moreover, the described subclass divi-sion has an unquestionable grammatical relevance, which is expressed, among other things, in its peculiar correlation with the categorial aspective forms of the verbs (indefinite, continu-ous, perfect); this correlation is to be treated further (see Ch. XV).
10. From the given description of the aspective subclass division of English verbs, it is evident that the English lexical aspect differs radically from the Russian aspect. In terms of se-mantic properties, the English lexical aspect expresses a poten-tially limited or unlimited process, whereas the Russian aspect expresses the actual conclusion (the perfective, or terminative aspect) or non-conclusion (the imperfective, or non-terminative aspect) of the process in question. In terms of systemic proper-ties, the two English lexical aspect varieties, unlike their Rus-sian absolutely rigid counterparts, are but loosely distinguished and easily reducible.
In accord with these characteristics, both the English limi-tive verbs and unlimitive verbs may correspond alternately ei-ther to the Russian perfective verbs or imperfective verbs, de-pending on the contextual uses.
For instance, the limitive verb arrive expressing an instan-taneous action that took place in the past will be translated by its perfective Russian equivalent:
The exploratory party arrived at the foot of the mountain. Russ.: .
But if the same verb expresses a habitual, interminately re-peated action, the imperfective Russian equivalent is to be cho-sen for its translation:
In those years trains seldom arrived on time. Russ.: .

Cf. the two possible versions of the Russian translation of the following sentence:
The liner takes off tomorrow at ten. Russ.: - (the flight in question is looked upon as an individual occurrence). (the flight is considered as part of the traffic schedule, or some other kind of general plan).
Conversely, the English unlimitive verb gaze when express-ing a continual action will be translated into Russian by its im-perfective equivalent:
The children gazed at the animals holding their breaths. Russ.: , .
But when the same verb renders the idea of an aspectually limited, e. g. started action, its perfective Russian equivalent should be used in the translation:
The boy turned his head and gazed at the horseman with wide-open eyes. Russ.: - .
Naturally, the unlimitive English verbs in strictly unlimtive contextual use correspond, by definition, only to the imperfec-tive verbs in Russian.
11. The inner qualities of any signemic lingual unit are manifested not only in its immediate informative significance in an utterance, but also in its combinability with other units, in particular with units of the same segmental order. These syn-tagmatic properties are of especial importance for verbs, which is due to the unique role performed by the verb in the sentence. As a matter of fact, the finite verb, being the centre of predica-tion, organises all the other sentence constituents. Thus, the or-ganisational function of the verb, immediately exposed in its syntagmatic combinability, is inseparable from (and dependent on) its semantic value. The morphological relevance of the combining power of the verb is seen from the fact that directly dependent on this power are the categorial voice distinctions.
The combining power of words in relation to other words in syntactically subordinate positions (the positions of "ad-juncts" see Ch. XX) is called their syntactic "valency". The valency of a word is said to be "realised" when the word in question is actually combined in an utterance with its corre-sponding valency partner, i. e. its valency adjunct. If,
71499 97

on the other hand, the word is used without its valency adjunct, the valency conditioning the position of this adjunct (or "di-rected" to it) is said to be "not realised".
The syntactic valency falls into two cardinal types: obliga-tory and optional.
The obligatory valency is such as must necessarily be real-ised for the sake of the grammatical completion of the syntactic construction. For instance, the subject and the direct object are obligatory parts of the sentence, and, from the point of view of sentence structure, they are obligatory valency partners of the verb. Consequently, we say that the subjective and the direct objective valencies of the verb are obligatory. E.g.: We saw a house in the distance.
This sentence presents a case of a complete English syntac-tic construction. If we eliminate either its subject or object, the remaining part of the construction will be structurally incom-plete, i.e. it will be structurally "gaping". Cf.: * We saw in the distance. * Saw a house in the distance.
The optional valency, as different from the obligatory va-lency, is such as is not necessarily realised in grammatically complete constructions: this type of valency may or may not be realised depending on the concrete information to be conveyed by the utterance. Most of the adverbial modifiers are optional parts of the sentence, so in terms of valency we say that the ad-verbial valency of the verb is mostly optional. For instance, the adverbial part in the above sentence may be freely eliminated without causing the remainder of the sentence to be structurally incomplete: We saw a house (in the distance).
Link-verbs, although their classical representatives are only half-notional, should also be included into the general valency characterisation of verbs. This is due to their syntactically es-sential position in the sentence. The predicative valency of the link-verbs proper is obligatory. Cf.:
The reporters seemed pleased with the results of the press conference. That young scapegrace made a good husband, after all.
The obligatory adjuncts of the verb, with the exception of the subject (whose connection with the verb cannot be likened to the other valency partners), may be called its "complements"; the optional adjuncts of the verb, its "supplements". The dis-tinction between the two valency types of adjuncts is highly essential, since not all the objects or

predicatives are obligatory, while, conversely, not all the ad-verbial modifiers are optional. Thus, we may have both objec-tive complements and objective supplements; both predicative complements and predicative supplements; both adverbial sup-plements and adverbial complements.
Namely, the object of addressee, i. e. a person or thing for whom or which the action is performed, may sometimes be op-tional, as in the following example: We did it for you.
The predicative to a notional link-verb is mostly optional, as in the example: The night came dark and stormy.
The adverbials of place, time, and manner (quality) may sometimes be obligatory, as in the examples below:
Mr. Torrence was staying in the Astoria Hotel. The de-scribed events took place at the beginning of the century. The patient is doing fine.
Thus, according as they have or have not the power to take complements, the notional verbs should be classed as "com-plementive" or "uncomplementive", with further subcategorisa-tions on the semantico-syntagmatic principles.
In connection with this upper division, the notions of verbal transitivity and objectivity should be considered.
Verbal transitivity, as one of the specific qualities of the general "completivity", is the ability of the verb to take a direct object, i.e. an object which is immediately affected by the de-noted process. The direct object is joined to the verb "directly", without a preposition. Verbal objectivity is the ability of the verb to take any object, be it direct, or oblique (prepositional), or that of addressee. Transitive verbs are opposed to intransitive verbs; objective verbs are opposed to non-objective verbs (the latter are commonly called "subjective" verbs, but the term con-tradicts the underlying syntactic notion, since all the English finite verbs refer to their textual subjects).
As is known, the general division of verbs into transitive and intransitive is morphologically more relevant for Russian than English, because the verbal passive form is confined in Russian to transitive verbs only. The general division of verbs into objective and non-objective, being of relatively minor sig-nificance for the morphology of Russian, is highly relevant for English morphology, since in English all the three fundamental types of objects can be made into the subjects of the corre-sponding passive constructions.
On the other hand, the term "transitive" is freely used

in English grammatical treatises in relation to all the objective verbs, not only to those of them that take a direct object. This use is due to the close association of the notion of transitivity not only with the type of verbal object as such, but also with the ability of the verb to be used in the passive voice. We do not propose to call for the terminological corrective in this domain; rather, we wish to draw the attention of the reader to the ac-cepted linguistic usage in order to avoid unfortunate misunder-standings based on the differences in terminology.
Uncomplementive verbs fall into two unequal subclasses of "personal" and "impersonal" verbs.
The personal uncomplementive verbs, i. e. uncomplemen-tive verbs normally referring to the real subject of the denoted process (which subject may be either an actual human being, or a non-human being, or else an inanimate substance or an ab-stract notion), form a large set of lexemes of various semantic properties. Here are some of them: work, start, pause, hesitate, act, function, materialise, laugh, cough, grow, scatter, etc.
The subclass of impersonal verbs is small and strictly lim-ited. Here belong verbs mostly expressing natural phenomena of the self-processual type, i. e. natural processes going on without a reference to a real subject. Cf.: rain, snow, freeze, drizzle, thaw, etc.
Complementive verbs, as follows from the above, are di-vided into the predicative, objective and adverbial sets.
The predicative complementive verbs, i.e. link-verbs, have been discussed as part of the predicator verbs. The main link-verb subsets are, first, the pure link be; second, the specifying links become, grow, seem, appear, look, taste, etc.; third, the notional links.
The objective complementive verbs are divided into several important subclasses, depending on the kinds of complements they combine with. On the upper level of division they fall into monocomplementive verbs (taking one object-complement) and bicomplementive verbs (taking two complements).
The monocomplementive objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The first subclass is the possession objective verb have forming different semantic varieties of constructions. This verb is normally not passivised. The second subclass includes direct objective verbs, e. g. take, grasp, forget, enjoy, like. The third subclass is formed by the prepositional

objective verbs e.g. look at, point to, send for, approve of, think about. The fourth subclass includes non-passivised direct ob-jective verbs, e.g. cost, weigh, fail, become, suit. The fifth sub-class includes non-passivised prepositional objective verbs, e. g. belong to, relate to, merge with, confer with, abound in.
The bicomplementive objective verbs fall into five main subclasses. The first subclass is formed by addressee-direct ob-jective verbs, i.e. verbs taking a direct object and an addressee object, e.g. a) give, bring, pay, hand, show (the addressee object with these verbs may be both non-prepositional and preposi-tional); b) explain, introduce, mention, say, devote (the ad-dressee object with these verbs is only prepositional). The sec-ond subclass includes double direct objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking two direct objects, e.g. teach, ask, excuse, forgive, envy, fine. The third subclass includes double prepositional objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking two prepositional objects, e.g. argue, consult, cooperate, agree. The fourth subclass is formed by ad-dressee prepositional objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking a prepo-sitional object and an addressee object, e.g. remind of, tell about, apologise for, write of, pay for. The fifth subclass in-cludes adverbial objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking an object and an adverbial modifier (of place or of time), e.g. put, place, lay, bring, send, keep.
Adverbial complementive verbs include two main sub-classes. The first is formed by verbs taking an adverbial com-plement of place or of time, e.g. be, live, stay, go, ride, arrive. The second is formed by verbs taking an adverbial complement of manner, e.g. act, do, keep, behave, get on.
12. Observing the syntagmatic subclasses of verbs, we see that the same verb lexeme, or lexic-phonemic unit (phonetical word), can enter more than one of the outlined classification sets. This phenomenon of the "subclass migration" of verbs is not confined to cognate lexemic subsets of the larger sub-classes, but, as is widely known, affects the principal distinc-tions between the English complementive and uncomplemen-tive verbs, between the English objective and non-objective verbs. Suffice it to give a couple of examples taken at random:
Who runs faster, John or Nick?-(run uncomplementive). The man ran after the bus. (run adverbial complementive, non-objective). I ran my eyes over the uneven lines. (run adverbial objective, transitive). And is the fellow

still running the show? (run monocomplementive, transitive).
The railings felt cold. (feel link-verb, predicative complemen-tive). We felt fine after the swim. (feel adverbial complementive, non-objective). You shouldn't feel your own pulse like that. (feel monocomplementive, transitive).
The problem arises, how to interpret these different subclass en-tries as cases of grammatical or lexico-grammatical homonymy, or some kind of functional variation, or merely variation in usage. The problem is vexed, since each of the interpretations has its strong points.
To reach a convincing decision, one should take into consideration the actual differences between various cases of the "subclass migra-tion" in question. Namely, one must carefully analyse the comparative characteristics of the corresponding subclasses as such, as well as the regularity factor for an individual lexeme subclass occurrence.
In the domain of notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-class occurrences of the analysed lexemes, probably the most plausi-ble solution will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of spe-cific syntactic variation, i.e. to consider the different subclass entries of migrating units as syntactic variants of the same lexemes [-, (2), 87 .]. In the light of this interpretation, the very formula of "lexemic subclass migration" will be vindicated and substantiated.
On the other hand, for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, for instance, functional versus notional, the syntactic variation princi-ple is hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should be ana-lysed as lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it underlies the expres-sion of categorially different grammatical functions.
1. Verbids are the forms of the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech. The mixed features of these forms are revealed in the principal spheres of the part-of-speech characterisation, i.e. in their meaning, structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions. The processual meaning is exposed by

them in a substantive or adjectival-adverbial interpretation: they ren-der processes as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They are formed by special morphemic elements which do not express either grammatical time or mood (the most specific finite verb categories). They can be combined with verbs like non-processual lexemes (per-forming non-verbal functions in the sentence), and they can be com-bined with non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence) .
From these characteristics, one might call in question the very jus-tification of including the verbids in the system of the verb. As a mat-ter of fact, one can ask oneself whether it wouldn't stand to reason to consider the verbids as a special lexemic class, a separate part of speech, rather than an inherent component of the class of verbs.
On closer consideration, however, we can't but see that such an approach would be utterly ungrounded. The verbids do betray inter-mediary features. Still, their fundamental grammatical meaning is processual (though modified in accord with the nature of the inter-class reference of each verbid). Their essential syntactic functions, directed by this relational semantics, unquestionably reveal the prop-erty which may be called, in a manner of explanation, "verbality", and the statement of which is corroborated by the peculiar combinability character of verbid collocations, namely, by the ability of verbids to take adjuncts expressing the immediate recipients, attendants, and ad-dressees of the process inherently conveyed by each verbid denota-tion.
One might likewise ask oneself, granted the verbids are part of the system of the verb, whether they do not constitute within this system a special subsystem of purely lexemic nature, i.e. form some sort of a specific verbal subclass. This counter-approach, though, would evi-dently be devoid of any substantiality, since a subclass of a lexemic class, by definition, should share the essential categorial structure, as well as primary syntactic functions with other subclasses, and in case of verbids the situation is altogether different. In fact, it is every verb stem (except a few defective verbs) that by means of morphemic change takes both finite and non-finite forms, the functions of the two sets being strictly differentiated: while the finite forms serve in the sentence only one syntactic function, namely, that of the finite predi-cate, the non-finite forms serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate.

The strict, unintersecting division of functions (the functions them-selves being of a fundamental nature in terms of the grammatical struc-ture of language as a whole) clearly shows that the opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category. The differential feature of the opposition is constituted by the expression of verbal time and mood: while the time-mood grammatical signification characterises the finite verb in a way that it underlies its finite predicative function, the verbid has no immediate means of ex-pressing time-mood categorial semantics and therefore presents the weak member of the opposition. The category expressed by this oppo-sition can be called the category of "finitude" [Strang, 143; -, (2), 106]. The syntactic content of the category of finitude is the expression of predication (more precisely, the expression' of verbal predication).
As is known, the verbids, unable to express the predicative mean-ings of time and mood, still do express the so-called "secondary" or "potential" predication, forming syntactic complexes directly related to certain types of subordinate clauses. Cf.:
Have you ever had anything caught in your head? Have you ever had anything that was caught in your head? He said it half under his breath for the others not to hear it. He said it half under his breath, so that the others couldn't hear it.
The verbid complexes anything caught in your head, or for the others not to hear it, or the like, while expressing secondary predica-tion, are not self-dependent in a predicative sense. They normally exist only as part of sentences built up by genuine, primary predicative con-structions that have a finite verb as their core. And it is through the reference to the finite verb-predicate that these complexes set up the situations denoted by them in the corresponding time and mood per-spective.
In other words, we may say that the opposition of the finite verbs and the verbids is based on the expression of the functions of full predication and semi-predication. While the finite verbs express predication in its genuine and complete form, the function of the ver-bids is to express semi-predication, building up semi-predicative com-plexes within different sentence constructions,
The English verbids include four forms distinctly differing

from one another within the general verbid system: the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle, and the past participle. In compliance with this difference, the verbid semi-predicative complexes are dis-tinguished by the corresponding differential properties both in form and in syntactic-contextual function.
2. The infinitive is the non-finite form of the verb which com-bines the properties of the verb with those of the noun, serving as the verbal name of a process. By virtue of its general process-naming function, the infinitive should be considered as the head-form of the whole paradigm of the verb. In this quality it can be likened to the nominative case of the noun in languages having a normally devel-oped noun declension, as, for instance, Russian. It is not by chance that A. A. Shakhmatov called the infinitive the "verbal nominative". With the English infinitive, its role of the verbal paradigmatic head-form is supported by the fact that, as has been stated before, it repre-sents the actual derivation base for all the forms of regular verbs.
The infinitive is used in three fundamentally different types of functions: first, as a notional, self-positional syntactic part of the sen-tence; second, as the notional constituent of a complex verbal predi-cate built up around a predicator verb; third, as the notional constitu-ent of a finite conjugation form of the verb. The first use is grammati-cally "free", the second is grammatically "half-free", the third is grammatically "bound".
The dual verbal-nominal meaning of the infinitive is expressed in full measure in its free, independent use. It is in this use that the in-finitive denotes the corresponding process in an abstract, substance-like presentation. This can easily be tested by question-transformations. Cf.:
Do you really mean to go away and leave me here alone? > What do you really mean? It made her proud sometimes to toy with the idea. > What made her proud sometimes?
The combinability of the infinitive also reflects its dual semantic nature, in accord with which we distinguish between its verb-type and noun-type connections. The verb-type combinability of the infinitive is displayed in its combining, first, with nouns expressing the object of the action; second, with nouns expressing the subject of the action; third, with modifying adverbs; fourth, with predicator verbs of

semi-functional nature forming a verbal predicate; fifth, with auxiliary finite verbs (word-morphemes) in the analytical forms of the verb. The noun-type combinability of the infinitive is displayed in its combining, first, with finite notional verbs as the object of the action; second, with finite notional verbs as the subject of the action.
The self-positional infinitive, in due syntactic arrangements, per-forms the functions of all types of notional sentence-parts, i. e. the sub-ject, the object, the predicative, the attribute, the adverbial modifier. Cf.:
To meet the head of the administration and not to speak to him about your predicament was unwise, to say the least of it. (Infinitive sub-ject position) The chief arranged to receive the foreign delegation in the afternoon. (Infinitive object position) The parents' wish had always been to see their eldest son the continuator of their joint scientific work. (In-finitive predicative position) Here again we are faced with a plot to over-throw the legitimately elected government of the republic. (Infinitive attributive position) Helen was far too worried to listen to the remon-strances. (Infinitive adverbial position)
If the infinitive in free use has its own subject, different from that of the governing construction, it is introduced by the preposition-particle for. The whole infinitive construction of this type is traditionally called the "for-to infinitive phrase". Cf.: For that shy-looking young man to have stated his purpose so boldly incredible!
The prepositional introduction of the inner subject in the English in-finitive phrase is analogous to the prepositional-casal introduction of the same in the Russian infinitive phrase (i.e. either with the help of the genitive-governing preposition , or with the help of the dative case of the noun). Cf.: -.
With some transitive verbs (of physical perceptions, mental activity, declaration, compulsion, permission, etc.) the infinitive is used in the semi-predicative constructions of the complex object and complex sub-ject, the latter being the passive counterparts of the former. Cf.:
We have never heard Charlie play his violin. > Charlie has never been heard to plan his violin. The members of the committee expected him to speak against the suggested resolution. > He was expected by the members of the committee to speak against the suggested resolution.


Due to the intersecting character of joining with the governing predicative construction, the subject of the infinitive in such complexes, naturally, has no introductory preposition-particle.
The English infinitive exists in two presentation forms. One of them, characteristic of the free uses of the infinitive, is distinguished by the pre-positional marker to. This form is called traditionally the "to-infinitive", or in more recent linguistic works, the "marked infinitive". The other form, characteristic of the bound uses of the infinitive, does not employ the marker to, thereby presenting the infinitive in the shape of the pure verb stem, which in modern interpretation is understood as the zero-suffixed form. This form is called traditionally the "bare infini-tive", or in more recent linguistic works, respectively, the "unmarked infinitive".
The infinitive marker to is a word-morpheme, i.e. a special formal particle analogous, mutatis mutandis, to other auxiliary elements in the English grammatical structure. Its only function is to build up and iden-tify the infinitive form as such. As is the case with the other analytical markers, the particle to can be used in an isolated position to represent the whole corresponding construction syntagmatically zeroed in the text. Cf.: You are welcome to acquaint yourself with any of the docu-ments if you want to.
Like other analytical markers, it can also be separated from its no-tional, i.e. infinitive part by a word or a phrase, usually of adverbial na-ture, forming the so-called "split infinitive". Cf.: My task is not to ac-cuse or acquit; my task it to thoroughly investigate, to clearly define, and to consistently systematise the facts.
Thus, the marked infinitive presents just another case of an analyti-cal grammatical form. The use or non-use of the infinitive marker de-pends on the verbal environment of the infinitive. Namely, the un-marked infinitive is used, besides the various analytical forms, with mo-dal verbs (except the modals ought and used), with verbs of physical perceptions, with the verbs let, bid, make, help (with the latter op-tionally), with the verb know in the sense of "experience", with a few verbal phrases of modal nature (had better, would rather, would have, etc.), with the relative-inducive why. All these uses are detailed in prac-tical grammar books.

The infinitive is a categorially changeable form. It distinguishes the three grammatical categories sharing them with the finite verb, namely, the aspective category of development (continuous in opposition), the aspective category of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), the category of voice (passive in opposition). Consequently, the cate-gorial paradigm of the infinitive of the objective verb includes eight forms: the indefinite active, the continuous active, the perfect active, the perfect continuous active; the indefinite passive, the continuous passive, the perfect passive, the perfect continuous passive. E.g.: to take to be taking
to have taken to have been taking; to be taken to be being taken to have been taken to have been being taken.
The infinitive paradigm of the non-objective verb, correspondingly, includes four forms. E.g.: to go to be going
to have gone to have been going.
The continuous and perfect continuous passive can only be used oc-casionally, with a strong stylistic colouring. But they underlie the corre-sponding finite verb forms. It is the indefinite infinitive that constitues the head-form of the verbal paradigm.
3. The gerund is the non-finite form of the verb which, like the in-finitive, combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun. Similar to the infinitive, the gerund serves as the verbal name of a proc-ess, but its substantive quality is more strongly pronounced than that of the infinitive. Namely, as different from the infinitive, and similar to the noun, the gerund can be modified by a noun in the possessive case or its pronominal equivalents (expressing the subject of the verbal process), and it can be used with prepositions.
Since the gerund, like the infinitive, is an abstract name of the proc-ess denoted by the verbal lexeme, a question might arise, why the infini-tive, and not the gerund is taken as the head-form of the verbal lexeme as a whole, its accepted representative in the lexicon.
As a matter of fact, the gerund cannot perform the function of the paradigmatic verbal head-form for a number of reasons. In the first place, it is more detached from the finite verb than the infinitive seman-tically, tending to be a far more substantival unit categorially. Then, as different from the infinitive, it does not join in the conjugation of the finite verb. Unlike the infinitive, it is a suffixal form, which

makes it less generalised than the infinitive in terms of the formal prop-erties of the verbal lexeme (although it is more abstract in the purely semantic sense). Finally, it is less definite than the infinitive from the lexico-grammatical point of view, being subject to easy neutralisations in its opposition with the verbal noun in -ing, as well as with the present participle. Hence, the gerund is no rival of the infinitive in the paradig-matic head-form function.
The general combinability of the gerund, like that of the infinitive, is dual, sharing some features with the verb, and some features with the noun. The verb-type combinability of the gerund is displayed in its com-bining, first, with nouns expressing the object of the action; second, with modifying adverbs; third, with certain semi-functional predicator verbs, but other than modal. Of the noun-type is the combinability of the ger-und, first, with finite notional verbs as the object of the action; second, with finite notional verbs as the prepositional adjunct of various func-tions; third, with finite notional verbs as the subject of the action; fourth, with nouns as the prepositional adjunct of various functions.
The gerund, in the corresponding positional patterns, performs the functions of all the types of notional sentence-parts, i.e. the subject, the object, the predicative, the attribute, the adverbial modifier. Cf.:
Repeating your accusations over and over again doesn't make them more convincing. (Gerund subject position) No wonder he delayed breaking the news to Uncle Jim. (Gerund direct object position) She could not give her mind to pressing wild flowers in Pauline's botany book. (Gerund addressee object position) Joe felt annoyed at being shied by his roommates. (Gerund prepositional object position) You know what luck is? Luck is believing you're lucky. (Gerund predicative posi-tion) Fancy the pleasant prospect of listening to all the gossip they've in store for you! (Gerund attributive position) He could not push against the furniture without bringing the whole lot down. (Gerund adverbial of manner position)
One of the specific gerund patterns is its combination with the noun in the possessive case or its possessive pronominal equivalent expressing the subject of the action. This gerundial construction is used in cases when the subject of the gerundial process differs from the subject of the governing

sentence-situation, i.e. when the gerundial sentence-part has its own, separate subject. E.g.:
Powell's being rude like that was disgusting. How can she know about the Morions' being connected with this unaccountable affair? Will he ever excuse our having interfered?
The possessive with the gerund displays one of the distinctive cate-gorial properties of the gerund as such, establishing it in the English lex-emic system as the form of the verb with nounal characteristics. As a matter of fact, from the point of view of the inner semantic relations, this combination is of a verbal type, while from the point of view of the for-mal categorial features, this combination is of a nounal type. It can be clearly demonstrated by the appropriate transformations, i.e. verb-related and noun-related re-constructions. Cf.: I can't stand his criticising artistic works that are beyond his competence. (T-verbal >He is criticising artis-tic works. T-nounal> His criticism of artistic works.)
Besides combining with the possessive noun-subject, the verbal ing-form con also combine with the noun-subject in the common case or its objective pronominal equivalent. E.g.: I read in yesterday's paper about the hostages having been released.
This gerundial use as presenting very peculiar features of categorial mediality will be discussed after the treatment of the participle.
The formal sign of the gerund is wholly homonymous with that of the present participle: it is the suffix -ing added to its grammatically (categorially) leading element.
Like the infinitive, the gerund is a categorially changeable (variable, demutative) form; it distinguishes the two grammatical categories, shar-ing them with the finite verb and the present participle, namely, the as-pective category of retrospective coordination (perfect in opposition), and the category of voice (passive in opposition). Consequently, the categorial paradigm of the gerund of the objective verb includes four forms: the simple active, the perfect active; the simple passive, the per-fect passive. E.g.: taking having taken being taken having been taken.
The gerundial paradigm of the non-objective verb, correspondingly, in-cludes two forms. E.g.: going having gone. The perfect forms of the gerund are used, as a rule, only in semantically strong positions, laying special emphasis on the meaningful categorial content of the form.

4. The present participle is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective and ad-verb, serving as the qualifying-processual name. In its outer form the present participle is wholly homonymous with the gerund, ending in the suffix -ing and distinguishing the same grammatical categories of retro-spective coordination and voice.
Like all the verbids, the present participle has no categorial time dis-tinctions, and the attribute "present" in its conventional name is not im-mediately explanatory; it is used in this book from force of tradition. Still, both terms "present participle" and "past participle" are not alto-gether devoid of elucidative signification, if not in the categorial sense, then in the derivational-etymological sense, and are none the worse in their quality than their doublet-substitutes "participle I" and "participle II".
The present participle has its own place in the general paradigm of the verb, different from that of the past participle, being distinguished by the corresponding set of characterisation features.
Since it possesses some traits both of adjective and adverb, the pre-sent participle is not only dual, but triple by its lexico-grammatical prop-erties, which is displayed in its combinability, as well as in its syntactic functions.
The verb-type combinability of the present participle is revealed, first, in its being combined, in various uses, with nouns expressing the object of the action; second, with nouns expressing the subject of the ac-tion (in semi-predicative complexes); third, with modifying adverbs; fourth, with auxiliary finite verbs (word-morphemes) in the analytical forms of the verb. The adjective-type combinability of the present parti-ciple is revealed in its association with the modified nouns, as well as with some modifying adverbs, such as adverbs of degree. The adverb-type combinability of the present participle is revealed in its association with the modified verbs.
The self-positional present participle, in the proper syntactic ar-rangements, performs the functions of the predicative (occasional use, and not with the pure link be), the attribute, the adverbial modifier of various types. Cf.:
The questions became more and more irritating. (Present participle predicative position) She had thrust the crucifix on to the surviving baby. (Present participle attributive

front-position) Norman stood on the pavement like a man watching his loved one go aboard an ocean liner. (Present participle attributive back-position) He was no longer the cocky, pugnacious boy, always squaring up for a fight. (Present participle attributive back-position, detached) She went up the steps, swinging her hips and tossing her fur with bravado. (Present participle manner adverbial back-position) And having read in the papers about truth drugs, of course Gladys would believe it abso-lutely. (Present participle cause adverbial front-position)
The present participle, similar to the infinitive, can build up semi-predicative complexes of objective and subjective types. The two groups of complexes, i.e. infinitival and present participial, may exist in parallel (e.g. when used with some verbs of physical perceptions), the difference between them lying in the aspective presentation of the process. Cf.:
Nobody noticed the scouts approach the enemy trench. Nobody noticed the scouts approaching the enemy trench with slow, cautious, expertly calculated movements. Suddenly a telephone was heard to buzz, breaking the spell. The telephone was heard vainly buzzing in the study.
A peculiar use of the present participle is seen in the absolute parti-cipial constructions of various types, forming complexes of detached semi-predication. Cf.:
The messenger waiting in the hall, we had only a couple of minutes to make a decision. The dean sat at his desk, with an electric fire glowing warmly behind the fender at the opposite wall.
These complexes of descriptive and narrative stylistic nature seem to be gaining ground in present-day English.
5. The past participle is the non-finite form of the verb which com-bines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective, serving as the qualifying-processual name. The past participle is a single form, having no paradigm of its own. By way of the paradigmatic correlation with the present participle, it conveys implicitly the categorial meaning of the per-fect and the passive. As different from the present participle, it has no distinct combinability features or syntactic function features specially characteristic of the adverb. Thus, the main self-positional functions of the past
1 12

participle in the sentence are those of the attribute and the predicative. Cf.:
Moyra's softened look gave him a new hope. (Past participle attribu-tive front-position) The cleverly chosen timing of the attack determined the outcome of the battle. (Past participle attributive front-position) It is a face devastated by passion. (Past participle attributive back-position) His was a victory gained against all rules and predictions. (Past participle at-tributive back-position) Looked upon in this light, the wording of the will didn't appear so odious. (Past participle attributive detached position) The light is bright and inconveniently placed for reading. (Past participle predicative position)
The past participle is included in the structural formation of the pre-sent participle (perfect, passive), which, together with the other differen-tial properties, vindicates the treatment of this form as a separate verbid.
In the attributive use, the past participial meanings of the perfect and the passive are expressed in dynamic correlation with the aspective lexico-grammatical character of the verb. As a result of this correlation, the attributive past participle of limitive verbs in a neutral context ex-presses priority, while the past participle of unlimitive verbs expresses simultaneity. E.g.:
A tree broken by the storm blocked the narrow passage between the cliffs and the water. (Priority in the passive; the implication is "a tree that had been broken by the storm") I saw that the picture admired by the general public hardly had a fair chance with the judges. (Simultaneity in the passive; the implication is "the picture which was being admired by the public")
Like the present participle, the past participle is capable of making up semi-predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as of absolute complex.
The past participial complex object is specifically characteristic with verbs of wish and oblique causality (have, get). Cf.:
I want the document prepared for signing by 4 p.m. Will you have my coat brushed up, please?
Compare the use of the past; participial complex object

and the complex subject as its passive transform with a perception verb:
We could hear a shot or two fired from a field mortar. > shot or two could be heard fired from a field mortar.
The complex subject of this type, whose participle is included in the double predicate of the sentence, is used but occasionally. A more com-mon type of the participial complex subject can be seen with notional links of motion and position. Cf.: We sank down and for a while lay there stretched out and exhausted.
The absolute past participial complex as a rule expresses priority in the correlation of two events. Cf.: The preliminary talks completed, it be-came possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda.
The past participles of non-objective verbs are rarely used in inde-pendent sentence-part positions; they are mostly included in phraseologi-cal or cliche combinations like faded photographs, fallen leaves, a retired officer, a withered flower, dream come true, etc. In these and similar cases the idea of pure quality rather than that of processual quality is ex-pressed, the modifying participles showing the features of adjectivisation.
As is known, the past participle is traditionally interpreted as being capable of adverbial-related use (like the present participle), notably in detached syntactical positions, after the introductory subordinative con-junctions. Cf.:
Called up by the conservative minority, the convention failed to pass a satisfactory resolution. Though welcomed heartily by his host, Freder-ick felt at once that something was wrong.
Approached from the paradigmatic point of view in the construc-tional sense, this interpretation is to be re-considered. As a matter of fact, past participial constructions of the type in question display clear cases of syntactic compression. The true categorial nature of the participial forms employed by them is exposed by the corresponding transformational cor-relations ("back transformations") as being not of adverbial, but of defi-nitely adjectival relation. Cf.:
...> The convention, which was called up by the conservative mi-nority, failed to pass a satisfactory resolution. ...> Though he was wel-comed heartily by his host, Frederick felt at once that something was wrong.

Cf. a more radical diagnostic transformational change of the latter construction: ...> Frederick, who was welcomed heartily by his host, nevertheless felt at once that something was wrong.
As is seen from the analysis, the adjectival relation of the past parti-ciple in the quoted examples is proved by the near-predicative function of the participle in the derived transforms, be it even within the composi-tion of the finite passive verb form. The adverbial uses of the present participle react to similar tests in a different way. Cf.: Passing on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her guests. > As he passed on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her guests.
The adverbial force of the present participle in constructions like that is shown simply as resulting from the absence of obligatory mediation of be between the participle and its subject (in the derivationally underlying units).
As an additional proof of our point, we may take an adjectival con-struction for a similar diagnostic testing. Cf.: Though red in the face, the boy kept denying his guilt. > Though he was red in the face, the boy kept denying his guilt.
As we see, the word red, being used in the diagnostic concessive clause of complete composition, does not change its adjectival quality for an adverbial quality. Being red in the face would again present an-other categorial case. Being, as a present participial form, is in the ob-served syntactic conditions neither solely adjectival-related, nor solely adverbial-related; it is by nature adjectival-adverbial, the whole compos-ite unity in question automatically belonging to the same categorial class, i.e. the class of present participial constructions of different sub-types.
6. The consideration of the English verbids in their mutual com-parison, supported and supplemented by comparing them with their non-verbal counterparts, puts forward some points of structure and function worthy of special notice.
In this connection, the infinitive-gerund correlation should first be brought under observation.
Both forms are substance-processual, and the natural question that one has to ask about them is, whether the two do not repeat each other by their informative destination and employment. This question was partly answered in the

paragraph devoted to the general outline of the gerund. Obser-vations of the actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in texts do show the clear-cut semantic difference between the forms, which consists in the gerund being, on the one hand, of a more substantive nature than the infinitive, i.e. of a nature nearer to the thingness-signification type; on the other hand, of a more abstract nature in the logical sense proper. Hence, the forms do not repeat, but complement each other, being both of them inalienable components of the English verbal system.
The difference between the forms in question may be dem-onstrated by the following examples:
Seeing and talking to people made him tired. (As character-istic of a period of his life; as a general feature of his
disposition) It made him tired to see and talk to so many
people. (All at a time, on that particular occasion); Spending an afternoon in the company of that gentle soul was always a won-derful pleasure. (Repeated action, general characteristic) To spend an afternoon on the grass lovely! (A
response utterance of enthusiastic agreement); Who doesn't
like singing? (In a general reference) Who doesn't like
to sing? (In reference to the subject)
Comparing examples like these, we easily notice the more dynamic, more actional character of the infinitive as well as of the whole collocations built up around it, and the less dynamic character of the corresponding gerundial collocations. Further-more, beyond the boundaries of the verb, but within the bounda-ries of the same inter-class paradigmatic derivation (see above, Ch. IV, 8), we find the cognate verbal noun which is devoid of processual dynamics altogether, though it denotes, from a dif-ferent angle, the same referential process, situation, event. Cf.:
For them to have arrived so early! Such a surprise! Their having arrived so early was indeed a great surprise. Their early arrival was a great surprise, really.
The triple correlation, being of an indisputably systemic na-ture and covering a vast proportion of the lexicon, enables us to interpret it in terms of a special lexico-grammatical category of processual representation. The three stages of this category rep-resent the referential processual entity of the lexemic series, re-spectively, as dynamic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic (the gerund and its phrase), and

static (the verbal noun and its phrase). The category of proces-sual representation underlies the predicative differences be-tween various situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalisation (see further, Ch. XXV).
Another category specifically identified within the frame-work of substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis is the category of modal representation. This category, pointed out by L. S. Barkhudarov [, (2), 151152], marks the infinitive in contrast to the gerund, and it is revealed in the infinitive having a modal force, in particular, in its attributive uses, but also elsewhere. Cf.:
This is a kind of peace to be desired by all. (A kind of peace that should be desired) Is there any hope for us to meet this great violinist in our town? (A hope that we may meet this vio-linist) It was arranged for the mountaineers to have a rest in tents before climbing the peak. (It was arranged so that they could have a rest in tents)
When speaking about the functional difference between lin-gual forms, we must bear in mind that this difference might be-come subject to neutralisation in various systemic or contextual conditions. But however vast the corresponding field of neu-tralisation might be, the rational basis of correlations of the forms in question still lies in their difference, not in neutralising equivalence. Indeed, the difference is linguistically so valuable that one well-established occurrence of a differential correlation of meaningful forms outweighs by its significance dozens of their textual neutralisations. Why so? For the simple reason that language is a means of forming and exchanging ideas that is, ideas differing from one another, not coinciding with one an-other. And this simple truth should thoroughly be taken into consideration when tackling certain cases of infinitive-gerund equivalence in syntactic constructions as, for instance, the freely alternating gerunds and infinitives with some phasal predicators (begin, start, continue, cease, etc.). The functional equivalence of the infinitive and the gerund in the composition of the phasal predicate by no means can be held as testifying to their functional equivalence in other spheres of expression.
As for the preferable or exclusive use of the gerund with a set of transitive verbs (e.g. avoid, delay, deny, forgive, mind, postpone) and especially prepositional-complementive verbs and word-groups (e.g. accuse of, agree to, depend on, prevent from, think of, succeed in, thank for; be aware of,

be busy in, be indignant at, be sure of), we clearly see here the tendency of mutual differentiation and complementation of the substantive verbid forms based on the demonstrated category of processual representation. In fact, it is the gerund, not the infini-tive, that denotes the processual referent of the lexeme not in a dynamic, but in a half-dynamic representation, which is more appropriate to be associated with a substantive-related part of the sentence.
7. Within the gerund-participle correlation, the central point of our analysis will be the very lexico-grammatical identi-fication of the two verbid forms in -ing in their reference to each other. Do they constitute two different verbids, or do they present one and the same form with a somewhat broader range of functions than either of the two taken separately?
The ground for raising this problem is quite substantial, since the outer structure of the two elements of the verbal sys-tem is absolutely identical: they are outwardly the same when viewed in isolation. It is not by chance that in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive Linguistics the two forms are recognised as one integral V-ing.
In treating the ing-forms as constituting one integral verbid entity, opposed, on the one hand, to the infinitive (V-to), on the other hand, to the past participle (V-en), appeal is naturally made to the alternating use of the possessive and the common-objective nounal element in the role of the subject of the ing-form (mostly observed in various object positions of the sen-tence). Cf.:
I felt annoyed at his failing to see my point at once. > I felt annoyed at him failing to see my point at once. He was not, however, averse to Elaine Fortescue's entertaining the hy-pothesis.<>He was not, however, averse to Elaine Fortescue entertaining the hypothesis.
This use presents a case known in linguistics as "half-gerund". So, in terms of the general ing-form problem, we have to choose between the two possible interpretations of the half-gerund: either as an actually intermediary form with double fea-tures, whose linguistic semi-status is truly reflected in its con-ventional name, or as an element of a non-existent categorial specification, i.e. just another variant of the same indiscriminate V-ing.

In this connection, the reasoning of those who support the idea of the integral V-ing form can roughly be presented thus: if the two uses of V-ing are functionally identical, and if the "half-gerund" V-ing occurs with approximately the same frequency as the "full-gerund" V-ing, both forms presenting an ordinary feature of an ordinary English text, then there is no point in dis-criminating the "participle" V-ing and the "gerund" V-ing.
In compliance with the general principle of approach to any set of elements forming a categorial or functional continuum, let us first consider the correlation between the polar elements of the continuum, i.e. the correlation between the pure present participle and the pure gerund, setting aside the half-gerund for a further discussion.
The comparative evaluations of the actually different uses of the ing-forms can't fail to show their distinct categorial differ-entiation: one range of uses is definitely noun-related, definitely of process-substance signification; the other range of uses is definitely adjective-adverb related, definitely of process-quality signification. This differentiation can easily be illustrated by specialised gerund-testing and participle-testing, as well as by careful textual observations of the forms.
The gerund-testing, partly employed while giving a general outline of the gerund, includes the noun-substitution procedure backed by the question-procedure. Cf.:
My chance of getting, or achieving, anything that I long for will always be gravely reduced by the interminable existence of that block. > My chance of what? > My chance of success.
He insisted on giving us some coconuts. > What did he in-sist on? > He insisted on our acceptance of the gift.
All his relatives somehow disapproved of his writing po-etry. > What did all his relatives disapprove of?> His rela-tives disapproved of his poetical work.
The other no less convincing evidence of the nounal featur-ing of the form in question is its natural occurrence in coordi-native connections with the noun. Cf.:
I didn't stop to think of an answer; it came immediately off my tongue without any pause or planning. Your husband isn't ill, no. What he does need is relaxation and simply cheering a bit, if you know what I mean. He carried out rigorously all

the precepts concerning food, bathing, meditation and so on of the orthodox Hindu.
The participle-testing, for its part, includes the adjective-adverb substitution procedure backed by the corresponding question-procedure, as well as some other analogies. Cf.:
He was in a terrifying condition. > In what kind of condi-tion was he?>He was in an awful condition. (Adjective substi-tution procedure) Pursuing this; course of free association, I suddenly remembered a dinner date I once had with a distin-guished colleague > When did I suddenly remember a dinner date? > Then I suddenly remembered a dinner date. (Adverb-substitution procedure) She sits up gasping and staring wild-eyed about her. > How does she sit up? > She sits up so. (Ad-verb-substitution procedure)
The participle also enters into easy coordinative and parallel associations with qualitative and stative adjectives. Cf.:
That was a false, but convincing show of affection. The ears are large, protruding, with the heavy lobes of the sensualist. On the great bed are two figures, a sleeping woman, and a young man awake.
Very important in this respect will be analogies between the present participle qualitative function and the past participle qualitative function, since the separate categorial standing of the past participle remains unchallenged. Cf.: an unmailed let-ter a coming letter; the fallen monarchy the falling mon-archy; thinned hair thinning hair.
Of especial significance for the differential verbid identifi-cation purposes are the two different types of conversion the compared forms are subject to, namely, the nounal conversion of the gerund and, correspondingly, the adjectival conversion of the participle.
Compare the gerund-noun conversional pairs: your airing the room to take an airing before going to bed; his breed-ing his son to the profession - a person of unimpeachable
breeding; their calling him a liar - the youth's choice of
a calling in life.
Compare the participle-adjective conversional pairs: ani-mals living in the jungle living languages; a man never
daring an open argument - a daring inventor; a car passing
by a passing passion.

Having recourse to the evidence of the analogy type, as a counter-thesis against the attempted demonstration, one might point out cases of categorial ambiguity, where the category of the qualifying element remains open to either interpretation, such as the "typing instructor", the "boiling kettle", or the like. However, cases like these present a trivial homonymy which, being resolved, can itself be taken as evidence in favour of, not against, the two ing-forms differing from each other on the categorial lines. Cf.:
the typing instructor > the instructor of typing; the instruc-tor who is typing; the boiling kettle > the kettle for boiling; the kettle that is boiling
At this point, the analysis of the cases presenting the clear-cut gerund versus present participle difference can be consid-ered as fulfilled. The two ing-forms in question are shown as possessing categorially differential properties establishing them as two different verbids in the system of the English verb.
And this casts a light on the categorial nature of the half-gerund, since it is essentially based on the positional verbid neutralisation. As a matter of fact, let us examine the following examples:
You may count on my doing all that is necessary on such occasions. You may count on me doing all that is necessary on such occasions.
The possessive subject of the ing-form in the first of the two sentences is clearly disclosed as a structural adjunct of a nounal collocation. But the objective subject of the ing-form in the second sentence, by virtue of its morphological constitution, cannot be associated with a noun: this would contradict the es-tablished regularities of the categorial compatibility. The casal-type government (direct, or representative-pronominal) in the collocation being lost (or, more precisely, being non-existent), the ing-form of the collocation can only be understood as a par-ticiple. This interpretation is strongly supported by comparing half-gerund constructions with clear-cut participial construc-tions governed by perception verbs:
To think of him turning sides! To see him turning
sides! I don't like Mrs. Thomson complaining of her loneliness. - I can't listen to Mrs. Thomson complaining of her

loneliness. Did you ever hear of a girl playing a trombone? Did you ever hear a girl playing a trombone?
On the other hand, the position of the participle in the collo-cation is syntactically peculiar, since semantic accent in such constructions is made on the fact or event described, i.e. on the situational content of it, with the processual substance as its core. This can be demonstrated by question-tests:
(The first half-gerund construction in the above series) > To think of what in connection with him? (The second half-gerund construction) > What don't you like about Mrs. Thom-son? (The third half-gerund construction) > Which accom-plishment of a girl presents a surprise for the speaker?
Hence, the verbid under examination is rather to be inter-preted as a transferred participle, or a gerundial participle, the latter term seeming to relevantly disclose the essence of the na-ture of this form; though the existing name "half-gerund" is as good as any other, provided the true character of the denoted element of the system is understood.
Our final remark in connection with the undertaken observa-tion will be addressed to linguists who, while recognising the categorial difference between the gerund and the present parti-ciple, will be inclined to analyse the half-gerund (the gerundial participle) on exactly the same basis as the full gerund, refusing to draw a demarcation line between the latter two forms and simply ascribing the occurrence of the common case subject in this construction to the limited use of the possessive case in modern English in general. As regards this interpretation, we should like to say that an appeal to the limited sphere of the English noun possessive in an attempt to prove the wholly ge-rundial character of the intermediary construction in question can hardly be considered of any serious consequence. True, a vast proportion of English nouns do not admit of the possessive case form, or, if they do, their possessive in the construction would create contextual ambiguity, or else some sort of stylistic ineptitude. Cf.:
The headlines bore a flaring announcement of the strike be-ing called off by the Amalgamated Union. (No normal posses-sive with the noun strike); I can't fancy their daughter entering a University college. (Ambiguity in the oral possessive: daugh-ter's daughters'); They were surprised at the head

of the family rejecting the services of the old servant. (Evading the undesirable shift of the possessive particle -'s from the head-noun to its adjunct); The notion of this woman who had had the world at her feet paying a man half a dollar to dance with her filled me with shame. (Semantic and stylistic incon-gruity of the clause possessive with the statement)
However, these facts are but facts in themselves, since they only present instances when a complete gerundial construction for this or that reason either cannot exist at all, or else should be avoided on diverse reasons of usage. So, the quoted instances of gerundial participle phrases are not more demonstrative of the thesis in question than, say, the attributive uses of nouns in the common form (e.g. the inquisitor judgement, the Shakespeare Fund, a Thompson way of refusing, etc.) would be demonstra-tive of the possessive case "tendency" to coincide with the bare stem of the noun: the absence of the possessive nounal form as such can't be taken to testify that the "possessive case" may ex-ist without its feature sign.
1. The finite forms of the verb express the processual rela-tions of substances and phenomena making up the situation re-flected in the sentence. These forms are associated with one another in an extremely complex and intricate system. The pe-culiar aspect of the complexity of this system lies in the fact that, as we have stated before, the finite verb is directly con-nected with the structure of the sentence as a whole. Indeed, the finite verb, through the working of its categories, is immedi-ately related to such sentence-constitutive factors as morpho-logical forms of predication, communication purposes, subjec-tive modality, subject-object relation, gradation of probabilities, and quite a few other factors of no lesser importance..
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the complicated charac-ter of the system in question has given rise to a lot of contro-versies about the structural formation of the finite verb catego-ries, as well as the bases of their functional semantics. It would be not an exaggeration to say that each fundamental

type of grammatical expression capable of being approached in terms of generalised categories in the domain of the finite verb has created a subject for a scholarly dispute. For instance, taking as an example the sphere of the categorial person and number of the verb, we are faced with the argument among grammarians about the existence or non-existence of the ver-bal-pronominal forms of these categories. In connection with the study of the verbal expression of time and aspect, the great controversy is going on as to the temporal or aspective nature of the verbal forms of the indefinite, continuous, perfect, and perfect-continuous series. Grammatical expression of the fu-ture tense in English is stated by some scholars as a matter-of-fact truth, while other linguists are eagerly negating any possi-bility of its existence as an element of grammar. The verbal voice invites its investigators to exchange mutually opposing views regarding both the content and the number of its forms. The problem of the subjunctive mood may justly be called one of the most vexed in the theory of grammar: the exposition of its structural properties, its inner divisions, as well as its corre-lation with the indicative mood vary literally from one linguis-tic author to another.
On the face of it, one might get an impression that the morphological study of the English finite verb has amounted to interminable aimless exchange of arguments, ceaseless ad-vances of opposing "points of view", the actual aim of which has nothing to do with the practical application of linguistic theory to life. However, the fallacy of such an impression should be brought to light immediately and uncompromisingly.
As a matter of fact, it is the verb system that, of all the spheres of morphology, has come under the most intensive and fruitful analysis undertaken by contemporary linguistics. In the course of these studies the oppositional nature of the categorial structure of the verb was disclosed and explicitly formulated; the paradigmatic system of the expression of verbal functional semantics was described competently, though in varying tech-nical terms, and the correlation of form and meaning in the composition of functionally relevant parts of this system was demonstrated explicitly on the copious material gathered.
Theoretical discussions have not ceased, nor subsided. On the contrary, they continue and develop, though on an ever more solid scientific foundation; and the cumulative

descriptions of the English verb provide now an integral picture of its nature which the grammatical theory has never possessed before. Indeed, it is due to this advanced types of study that the structural and semantic patterning of verbal constructions suc-cessfully applied to teaching practices on all the stages of tui-tion has achieved so wide a scope.
2. The following presentation of the categorial system of the English verb is based on oppositional criteria worked out in the course of grammatical studies of language by Soviet and foreign scholars. We do not propose to develop a description in which the many points of discussion would receive an exposi-tion in terms of anything like detailed analysis. Our aim will rather be only to demonstrate some general principles of ap-proach such principles as would stimulate the student's de-sire to see into the inner meaningful workings of any grammati-cal construction which are more often than not hidden under the outer connections of its textual elements; such principles as would develop the student's ability to rely on his own resources when coming across concrete dubious cases of grammatical structure and use; such principles as, finally, would provide the student with a competence enabling him to bring his personal efforts of grammatical understanding to relevant correlation with the recognised theories, steering open-eyed among the dif-ferences of expert opinion.
The categorial spheres to be considered in this book are known from every topical description of English grammar. They include the systems of expressing verbal person, number, time, aspect, voice, and mood. But the identification and the distribution of the actual grammatical categories of the verb recognised in our survey will not necessarily coincide with the given enumeration, which will be exposed and defended with the presentation of each particular category that is to come un-der study.
1. The categories of person and number are closely con-nected with each other. Their immediate connection is condi-tioned by the two factors: first, by their situational semantics, referring the process denoted by the verb to the

subject of the situation, i.e. to its central substance (which exists in inseparable unity of "quality" reflected in the personal deno-tation, and "quantity" reflected in the numerical denotation); second, by their direct and immediate relation to the syntactic unit expressing the subject as the functional part of the sen-tence.
Both categories are different in principle from the other categories of the finite verb, in so far as they do not convey any inherently "verbal" semantics, any constituents of meaning real-ised and confined strictly within the boundaries of the verbal lexeme. The nature of both of them is purely "reflective" (see Ch. III, 5).
Indeed, the process itself, by its inner quality and logical status, cannot be "person-setting" in any consistent sense, the same as it cannot be either "singular" or "plural"; and this stands in contrast with the other properties of the process, such as its development in time, its being momentary or repeated, its being completed or incompleted, etc. Thus, both the personal and numerical semantics, though categorially expressed by the verb, cannot be characterised as process-relational, similar to the other aspects of the verbal categorial semantics. These as-pects of semantics are to be understood only as substance-relational, reflected in the verb from the interpretation and grammatical featuring of the subject.
2. Approached from the strictly morphemic angle, the analysis of the verbal person and number leads the grammarian to the statement of the following converging and diverging fea-tures of their forms.
The expression of the category of person is essentially con-fined to the singular form of the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood and, besides, is very singularly presented in the future tense. As for the past tense, the person is alien to it, except for a trace of personal distinction in the archaic conjuga-tion.
In the present tense the expression of the category of person is divided into three peculiar subsystems.
The first subsystem includes the modal verbs that have no personal inflexions: can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, dare. So, in the formal sense, the category of person is wholly neutralised with these verbs, or, in plainer words, it is left un-expressed.
The second subsystem is made up by the unique verbal

lexeme be. The expression of person by this lexeme is the di-rect opposite to its expression by modal verbs: if the latter do not convey the indication of person in any morphemic sense at all, the verb be has three different suppletive personal forms, namely: am for the first person singular, is for the third person singular, and are as a feature marking the finite form nega-tively: neither the first, nor the third person singular. It can't be taken for the specific positive mark of the second person for the simple reason that it coincides with the plural all-person (equal to none-person) marking.
The third subsystem presents just the regular, normal ex-pression of person with the remaining multitude of the English verbs, with each morphemic variety of them. From the formal point of view, this subsystem occupies the medial position be-tween the first two: if the verb be is at least two-personal, the normal personal type of the verb conjugation is one-personal. Indeed, the personal mark is confined here to the third person singular -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz], the other two persons (the first and the second) remaining unmarked, e.g. comes come, blows blow, slops stop, chooses choose.
As is known, alongside of this universal system of three sets of personal verb forms, modern English possesses another sys-tem of person-conjugation characterising elevated modes of speech (solemn addresses, sermons, poetry, etc.) and stamped with a flavour of archaism. The archaic person-conjugation has one extra feature in comparison with the common conjugation, namely, a special inflexion for the second person singular. The three described subsystems of the personal verb forms receive the following featuring:
The modal person-conjugation is distinguished by one mor-phemic mark, namely, the second person: canst, may(e)st, wilt, shalt, shouldst, wouldst, ought(e)st, need(e)st, durst.
The personal be-conjugation is complete in three explicitly marked forms, having a separate suppletive presentation for each separate person: am, art, is.
The archaic person-conjugation of the rest of the verbs, though richer than the common system of person forms, still occupies the medial position between the modal and be-conjugation. Two of the three of its forms, the third and second persons, are positively marked, while the first person remains unmarked, e.g. comes comestcome, blows blowest blow, stops stoppest stop, chooses choosest choose.
As regards the future tense, the person finds here quite

another mode of expression. The features distinguishing it from the present-tense person conjugation are, first, that it marks not the third, but the first person in distinction to the remaining two; and second, that it includes in its sphere also the plural. The very principle of the person featuring is again very peculiar in the future tense as compared with the present tense, consisting not in morphemic inflexion, nor even in the simple choice of person-identifying auxiliaries, but in the oppositional use of shall will specifically marking the first person (expressing, respectively, voluntary and non-voluntary future), which is con-trasted against the oppositional use of will shall specifically marking the second and third persons together (expressing, re-spectively, mere future and modal future). These distinctions, which will be described at more length further on, are character-istic only of British English.
A trace of person distinction is presented in the past tense with the archaic form of the second person singular. The form is used but very occasionally, still it goes with the pronoun thou, being obligatory with it. Here is an example of its indi-vidualising occurrence taken from E. Hemingway: Thyself and thy horses. Until thou hadst horses thou wert with us. Now thou art another capitalist more.
Thus, the peculiarity of the archaic past tense person-conjugation is that its only marked form is not the third person as in the present tense, nor the first person as in the British fu-ture tense, but the second person. This is what might be called "little whims of grammar"!
3. Passing on to the expression of grammatical number by the English finite verb, we are faced with the interesting fact that, from the formally morphemic point of view, it is hardly featured at all.
As a matter of fact, the more or less distinct morphemic fea-turing of the category of number can be seen only with the ar-chaic forms of the unique be, both in the present tense and in the past tense. But even with this verb the featuring cannot be called quite explicit, since the opposition of the category con-sists in the unmarked plural form for all the persons being con-trasted against the marked singular form for each separate per-son, each singular person thereby being distinguished by its own, specific form. It means that the expressions of person and number by the archaic conjugation of be in terms of the lexeme as a whole are formally not strictly

separated from each other, each singular mark conveying at once a double grammatical sense, both of person and number. Cf.: am are; art are; was (the first and the third persons, i.e. non-second person) were; wast (second person) were.
In the common conjugation of be, the blending of the per-son and number forms is more profound, since the suppletive are, the same as its past tense counterpart were, not being con-fined to the plural sphere, penetrate the singular sphere, namely, the expression of the second person (which actually becomes non-expression because of the formal coincidence).
As for the rest of the verbs, the blending of the morphemic expression of the two categories is complete, for the only ex-plicit morphemic opposition in the integral categorial sphere of person and number is reduced with these verbs to the third per-son singular (present tense, indicative mood) being contrasted against the unmarked finite form of the verb.
4. The treatment of the analysed categories on a formal basis, though fairly consistent in the technical sense, is, how-ever, lacking an explicit functional appraisal. To fill the gap, we must take into due account not only the meaningful aspect of the described verbal forms in terms of their reference to the person-number forms of the subject, but also the functional content of the subject-substantival categories of person and number themselves.
The semantic core of the substantival (or pronominal, for that matter) category of person is understood nowadays in terms of deictic, or indicative signification.
The deictic function of lingual units, which has come under careful linguistic investigation of late, consists not in their ex-pressing self-dependent and self-sufficient elements of mean-ing, but in pointing out entities of reality in their spatial and temporal relation to the participants of speech communication. In this light, the semantic content of the first person is the indi-cation of the person who is speaking, but such an indication as is effected by no other individual than himself. This self-indicative role is performed lexically by the personal pronoun I. The semantic content of the second person is the indication of the individual who is listening to the first person speaking but again such an indication as viewed and effected by the speaker. This listener-indicative function is performed by the personal pronoun you. Now,
91499 129

the semantic content of the third person is quite different from that of either the first or second person. Whereas the latter two express the immediate participants of the communication, the third person indicates all the other entities of reality, i.e. beings, things, and phenomena not immediately included in the com-municative situation, though also as viewed by the speaker, at the moment of speech. This latter kind of indication may be effected in the two alternative ways. The first is a direct one, by using words of a full meaning function, either proper, or com-mon, with the corresponding specifications achieved with the help of indicators-determiners (articles and pronominal words of diverse linguistic standings). The second is an oblique one, by using the personal pronouns he, she, or it, depending on the gender properties of the referents. It is the second way, i.e. the personal pronominal indication of the third person referent, that immediately answers the essence of the grammatical category of person as such, i.e. the three-stage location of the referent in relation to the speaker: first, the speaker himself; second, his listener; third, the non-participant of the communication, be it a human non-participant or otherwise.
As we see, the category of person taken as a whole is, as it were, inherently linguistic, the significative purpose of it being confined to indications centering around the production of speech.
Let us now appraise the category of number represented in the forms of personal pronouns, i.e. the lexemic units of lan-guage specially destined to serve the speaker-listener lingual relation.
One does not have to make great exploratory efforts in order to realise that the grammatical number of the personal pronouns is extremely peculiar, in no wise resembling the number of or-dinary substantive words. As a matter of fact, the number of a substantive normally expresses either the singularity or plural-ity of its referent ("one more than one", or, in oppositional appraisal, "plural non-plural"), the quality of the referents, as a rule, not being re-interpreted with the change of the number (the many exceptions to this rule lie beyond the purpose of our present discussion). For instance, when speaking about a few powder-compacts, I have in mind just several pieces of them of absolutely the same nature. Or when referring to a team of eleven football-players, I mean exactly so many members of this sporting group. With the personal pronouns, though, it is "different,

and the cardinal feature of the difference is the heterogeneity of the plural personal pronominal meaning.
Indeed, the first person plural does not indicate the plurality of the "ego", it can't mean several I's. What it denotes in fact, is the speaker plus some other person or persons belonging, from the point of view of the utterance content, to the same back-ground. The second person plural is essentially different from the first person plural in so far as it does not necessarily ex-press, but is only capable of expressing similar semantics. Thus, it denotes either more than one listener (and this is the ordinary, general meaning of the plural as such, not represented in the first person); or, similar to the first person, one actual listener plus some other person or persons belonging to the same background in the speaker's situational estimation; or, again specifically different from the first person, more than one actual listener plus some other person or persons of the corre-sponding interpretation. Turning to the third person plural, one might feel inclined to think that it would wholly coincide with the plural of an ordinary substantive name. On closer observa-tion, however, we note a fundamental difference here also. In-deed, the plural of the third person is not the substantive plural proper, but the deictic, indicative, pronominal plural; it is ex-pressed through the intermediary reference to the direct name of the denoted entity, and so may either be related to the singu-lar he-pronoun, or the she-rnun, or the it-pronoun, or to any possible combination of them according to the nature of the plural object of denotation.
The only inference that can be made from the given descrip-tion is that in the personal pronouns the expression of the plural is very much blended with the expression of the person, and what is taken to be three persons in the singular and plural, es-sentially presents a set of six different forms of blended person-number nature, each distinguished by its own individuality. Therefore, in the strictly categorial light, we have here a system not of three, but of six persons.
Returning now to the analysed personal and numerical forms of the finite verb, the first conclusion to be drawn on the ground of the undertaken analysis is, that their intermixed char-acter, determined on the formal basis, answers in general the mixed character of the expression of person and number by the pronominal subject name of the predicative construction. The second conclusion to be drawn, however, is that the described formal person-number system of
9* 131

the finite verb is extremely and very singularly deficient. In fact, what in this connection the regular verb-form does express morphemically, is only the oppositional identification of the third person singular (to leave alone the particular British Eng-lish mode of expressing the person in the future).
A question naturally arises: What is the actual relevance of this deficient system in terms of the English language? Can one point out any functional, rational significance of it, if taken by itself?
The answer to this question can evidently be only in the negative: in no wise. There cannot be any functional relevance in such a system, if taken by itself. But in language it does not exist by itself.
5. As soon as we take into consideration the functional side of the analysed forms, we discover at once that these forms exist in unity with the personal-numerical forms of the subject. This unity is of such a nature that the universal and true indica-tor of person and number of the subject of the verb will be the subject itself, however trivial this statement may sound. Essen-tially, though, there is not a trace of triviality in the formula, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the substantive character of the expressed categorial meanings, and on the other, the ana-lytical basis of the English grammatical structure. The combina-tion of the English finite verb with the subject is obligatory not only in the general syntactic sense, but also in the categorial sense of expressing the subject-person of the process.
An objection to this thesis can be made on the ground that in the text the actual occurrence of the subject with the finite verb is not always observed. Moreover, the absence of the subject in constructions of living colloquial English is, in general, not an unusual feature. Observing textual materials, we may come across cases of subject-wanting predicative units used not only singly, as part of curt question-response exchange, but also in a continual chain of speech. Here is an example of a chain of this type taken from E. Hemingway:
"No one shot from cars," said Wilson coldly. "I mean chase them from cars."
"Wouldn't ordinarily," Wilson said. "Seemed sporting enough to me though while we were doing it. Taking more

chance driving that way across the plain full of holes and one thing and another than hunting on foot. Buffalo could have charged us each time we shot if he liked. Gave him every chance. Wouldn't mention it to any one though. It's illegal if that's what you mean."
However, examples like this cannot be taken for a disproof of the obligatory connection between the verb and its subject, because the corresponding subject-nouns, possibly together with some other accompanying words, are zeroed on certain syntactico-stylistical principles (brevity of expression in famil-iar style, concentration on the main informative parts of the communication, individual speech habits, etc.). Thus, the dis-tinct zero-representation of the subject does give expression to the verbal person-number category even in conditions of an outwardly gaping void in place of the subject in this or that concrete syntactic construction used in the text. Due to the said zero-representation, we can easily reconstruct the implied per-son indications in the cited passage: "I wouldn't ordinarily"; "It seemed sporting enough"; "It was taking more chance driving that way"; "We gave him every chance"; "I wouldn't mention it to any one".
Quite naturally, the non-use of the subject in an actual utter-ance may occasionally lead to a referential misunderstanding or lack of understanding, and such situations are reflected in liter-ary works by writers observers of human speech as well as of human nature. A vivid illustration of this type of speech in-formative deficiency can be seen in one of K. Mansfield's sto-ries:
"Fried or boiled?" asked the bold voice.
Fried or boiled? Josephine and Constantia were quite be-wildered for the moment. They could hardly take it in.
"Fried or boiled what, Kate?" asked Josephine, trying to begin to concentrate.
Kate gave a loud sniff. "Fish."
"Well, why didn't you say so immediately?" Josephine re-proached her gently. "How could you expect us to understand, Kate? There are a great many things in this world, you know, which are fried or boiled."
The referential gap in Kate's utterance gave cause to her bewildered listener for a just reproach. But such lack of positive information in an utterance is not to be confused with the non-expression of a grammatical category. In this

connection, the textual zeroing of the subject-pronoun may be likened to the textual zeroing of different constituents of classi-cal analytical verb-forms, such as the continuous, the perfect, and others: no zeroing can deprive these forms of their gram-matical, categorial status.
Now, it would be too strong to state that the combination of the subject-pronoun with the finite verb in English has become an analytical person-number form in the full sense of this no-tion. The English subject-pronoun, unlike the French conjoint subject-pronoun (e.g. Je vous remercie "I thank you"; but: mon mari et moi "my husband and I"), still retains its self-positional syntactic character, and the personal pronominal words, without a change of their nominative form, are used in various notional functions in sentences, building up different positional sentence-parts both in the role of head-word and in the role of adjunct-word. What we do see in this combination is, probably, a very specific semi-analytical expression of a reflective grammatical category through an obligatory syntag-matic relation of the two lexemes: the lexeme-reflector of the category and the lexeme-originator of the category. This mode of grammatical expression can be called "junctional". Its oppo-site, i.e. the expression of the categorial content by means of a normal morphemic or word-morphemic procedure, can be, by way of contrast, tentatively called "native". Thus, from the point of view of the expression of a category either through the actual morphemic composition of a word, or through its being obligatorily referred to another word in a syntagmatic string, the corresponding grammatical forms will be classed into na-tive and junctional. About the person-numerical forms of the finite verb in question we shall say that in the ordinary case of the third person singular present indicative, the person and number of the verb are expressed natively, while in most of the other paradigmatic locations they are expressed junctionally, through the obligatory reference of the verb-form to its subject.
This truth, not incapable of inviting an objection on the part of the learned, noteworthily has been exposed from time im-memorial in practical grammar books, where the actual conju-gation of the verb is commonly given in the form of pronoun-verb combinations: I read, you read, he reads, we read, you read, they read.
In point of fact, the English finite verb presented without its person-subject is grammatically almost meaningless. The

presence of the two you's in practical tables of examples like the one above, in our opinion, is also justified by the inner structure of language. Indeed, since you is part of the person-number system, and not only of the person system, it should be but natural to take it in the two different, though mutually com-plementing interpretations one for each of the two series of pronouns in question, i.e. the singular series and the plural se-ries. In the light of this approach, the archaic form thou plus the verb should be understood as a specific variant of the second person singular with its respective stylistic connotations.
6. The exposition of the verbal categories of person and number presented here helps conveniently explain some special cases of the subject-verb categorial relations. The bulk of these cases have been treated by traditional grammar in terms of "agreement in sense", or "notional concord". We refer to the grammatical agreement of the verb not with the categorial form of the subject expressed morphemically, but with the actual personal-numerical interpretation of the denoted referent.
Here belong, in the first place, combinations of the finite verb with collective nouns. According as they are meant by the speaker either to reflect the plural composition of the subject, or, on the contrary, to render its integral, single-unit quality, the verb is used either in the plural, or in the singular. E.g.:
The government were definitely against the bill introduced
by the opposing liberal party. The newly appointed
government has gathered for its first session.
In the second place, we see here predicative constructions whose subject is made imperatively plural by a numeral attrib-ute. Still, the corresponding verb-form is used to treat it both ways: either as an ordinary plural which fulfils its function in immediate keeping with its factual plural referent, or as an inte-grating name, whose plural grammatical form and constituent composition give only a measure to the subject-matter of deno-tation. Cf.:
Three years have elapsed since we saw him last.
Three years is a long time to wait.'
In the third place, under the considered heading come con-structions whose subject is expressed by a coordinative

group of nouns, the verb being given an option of treating it ei-ther as a plural or as a singular. E.g.:
My heart and soul belongs to this small nation in its desper-ate struggle for survival. My emotional self and ra-tional self have been at variance about the attitude adopted by Jane.
The same rule of "agreement in sense" is operative in rela-tive clauses, where the finite verb directly reflects the categories of the nounal antecedent of the clause-introductory relative pro-noun-subject. Cf.:
I who am practically unacquainted with the formal theory
of games can hardly suggest an alternative solution.- Your
words show the courage and the truth that I have always felt was in your heart.
On the face of it, the cited examples might seem to testify to the analysed verbal categories being altogether self-sufficient, capable, as it were, even of "bossing" the subject as to its refer-ential content. However, the inner regularities underlying the outer arrangement of grammatical connections are necessarily of a contrary nature: it is the subject that induces the verb, through its inflexion, however scanty it may be, to help express the substantival meaning not represented in the immediate sub-stantival form. That this is so and not otherwise, can be seen on examples where the subject seeks the needed formal assistance from other quarters than the verbal, in particular, having re-course to determiners. Cf.: A full thirty miles was covered in less than half an hour; the car could be safely relied on.
Thus, the role of the verb in such and like cases comes at most to that of a grammatical intermediary.
From the functional point of view, the direct opposite to the shown categorial connections is represented by instances of dia-lectal and colloquial person-number neutralisation. Cf.:
"Ah! It's pity you never was trained to use your reason, miss" (B. Shaw). "He's been in his room all day," the landlady said downstairs. "I guess he don't feel well" (E. Hemingway). "What are they going to do to me?" Johnny said. "Nothing," I said. "They ain't going to do nothing to you" (W. Saroyan).
Such and similar oppositional neutralisations of the

surviving verbal person-number indicators, on their part, clearly emphasise the significance of the junctional aspect of the two inter-connected categories reflected in the verbal lexeme from the substantival subject.
1. The immediate expression of grammatical time, or "tense" (Lat. tempus), is one of the typical functions of the finite verb. It is typical because the meaning of process, inherently embedded in the verbal lexeme, finds its complete realisation only if presented in certain time conditions. That is why the ex-pression or non-expression of grammatical time, together with the expression or non-expression of grammatical mood in per-son-form presentation, constitutes the basis of the verbal cate-gory of finitude, i.e. the basis of the division of all the forms of the verb into finite and non-finite.
When speaking of the expression of time by the verb, it is necessary to strictly distinguish between the general notion of time, the lexical denotation of time, and the grammatical time proper, or grammatical temporality.
The dialectical-materialist notion of time exposes it as the universal form of the continual consecutive change of phenom-ena. Time, as well as space are the basic forms of the existence of matter, they both are inalienable properties of reality and as such are absolutely independent of human perception. On the other hand, like other objective factors of the universe, time is reflected by man through his perceptions and intellect, and finds its expression in his language.
It is but natural that time as the universal form of consecu-tive change of things should be appraised by the individual in reference to the moment of his immediate perception of the outward reality. This moment of immediate perception, or "pre-sent moment", which is continually shifting in time, and the lin-guistic content of which is the "moment of speech", serves as the demarcation line between the past and the future. All the lexical expressions of time, according as they refer or do not refer the denoted points or periods of time, directly or obliquely, to this moment, are divided into "present-oriented", or "absolut-ive" expressions of time, and "non-present-oriented", "non-absolutive" expressions of time.


! . - .



2005-2024. ! homeenglish@mail.ru