Verb: General Characteristics PDF

11. Verb: General Characteristics The verb is the most complex grammatical class of words. It is the only part of speech in English that has a morphological system based on the six categories: person, number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood. Besides, there are two sets of verb-forms, essentially diff...

11. Verb: General Characteristics The verb is the most complex grammatical class of words. It is the only part of speech in English that has a morphological system based on the six categories: person, number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood. Besides, there are two sets of verb-forms, essentially different from each other: the finite forms and the non-finite forms (infinitive, gerund, participle I, participle II). The verb performs the central role in the expression of predication, i. e. the connection between the situation described in the sentence and reality. The categorical meaning of the verb is a process presented dynamically, that is, developing in time. It is the semantic characteristic of all verbs both in finite and non-finite forms. The difference in the functional aspect is that the finite verb with its categories of tense, aspect, voice, and mood always performs the function of the verb-predicate in the sentence while the non-finite forms are used in the functions of the syntactic subject, object, adverbial modifier, attribute. Concerning their structure, verbs are characterized by specific word-building patterns. The verb-stems may be simple, soundreplacive, stress-replacive, expanded, compound, and phrasal. The group of simple verb-stems (e. g. come, take, give, etc) has been greatly enlarged by conversion as one of the most productive ways of forming verb lexemes in Modern English (cf. a park — to park). The sound-replacive type and the stress-replacive type are nonproductive (e. g. food — to feed, blood — to bleed, import — to import, export — to export, transport — to transport). The suffixes of expanded verb-stems are: -ate (cultivate), -en (broaden), -ify (clarify), -ise/ize (normalize). The verb-deriving prefixes are: be- (belittle), en-/ em(embed ), re- (remake), under- (undergo), over- (overestimate), sub(submerge), mis- (misunderstand), un- (undo). The compound verb-stems in English are rare enough; they usually result from conversion (blackmail — to blackmail, a benchmark — to benchmark). Phrasal verbs can be of two different types. The first is a combination of a head-verb (have, give, take) with a noun; this combination has an ordinary verb as its equivalent (e. g. to have a smoke — to smoke; 39 to give a smile — to smile). The second type is a combination of a headverb with a postposition (go on, give up, get out, sit down, etc). When taking the formal aspect of the English verbs, we are also to consider two different morphological groups: the regular verbs and the irregular verbs. With the regular verbs, making the bulk of the verb lexicon, the Past Indefinite and the Past Participle are formed by adding the suffix -ed. The other verbs referred to as irregular comprise various paradigmatic patterns (put — put — put; send — sent — sent; come — came — come; begin — began — begun; go — went — gone; be — was/ were — been; etc). The verb in English is unique for its grammatical categories. They are six: person, number, tense, aspect, voice, and mood. Each of them has a specific outer expression through a corresponding morphological form. Person and number are specific substance-relational verbal categories reflected in the verb due to the agreement of the subject with the verb-predicate. The categories of person and number are closely connected with each other, they are jointly expressed. In the system of the present tense the inflection -(e)s is used for the third person singular, with the other persons remaining unmarked. The modal verbs have no personal inflections. The unique verb to be has three suppletive personal forms for the present tense (am, are, is) and two forms for the past tense (was, were). As to the future tense, the differentiation between the analytical forms “shall + infinitive” for the first person singular or plural and “will + infinitive” for the other persons is considered to be classical British, not observed in the present-day grammatical system of English. The category of tense has both synthetic (the inflection -(e) s for the Present, the inflection -ed for the Past) and analytical forms “will/ shall + infinitive” for the Future). With the irregular verbs one can also find various patterns of sound alternation (e. g. write — wrote — written) and two suppletive formations (be — was/were — been; go — went — gone). The category of aspect is expressed by the analytical forms: “be + Present Participle” for the Continuous; “have + Past Participle” 40 for the Perfect. The oppositional differentiation within the category of voice is based on the marking of the Passive with the analytical form “be + Past Participle”. The morphological category of mood has both synthetic (the bare infinitive, the specific form were) and analytical (should/would + infinitive) forms of expressions. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. C. 46–47. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 72–74. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 83–85. 12. Grammatical Classes of Verbs The class of verbs falls into a number of subclasses distinguished by different semantic and lexico-grammatical features as well as their syntactic functions. The first division is between the set of verbs of full nominative value (notional verbs) and the set of verbs of partial nominative value (semi-notional and functional verbs). Notional verbs represent the bulk of the verbal lexicon. This set is derivationally open. It includes such grammatically relevant semantic subclasses as statal verbs, denoting the state of their subject (be, live, suffer, know, see, etc), and actional verbs, expressing the action, performed by the subject (do, act, make, go, take, etc). There are also terminative verbs, semantically related to the idea of a processual limit (e. g. arrive) and durative verbs, which are alien to any idea of a limit (e. g. move). The third categorization of notional verbs is based on their combinability. The finite verb as the centre of predication organizes all the other sentence members. This syntactic function of the verb results from its semantic compatibility with other words. Syntactic valency is the combining power of words in relations to other words in syntactically subordinate positions. The obligatory valency must necessarily be realized for the sake of the grammatical 41 completion of the syntactic construction (e. g. the subject and the direct object are obligatory valency partners of the verb in the sentence). The optional valency is not necessarily realized in grammatically complete constructions (e. g. most of the adverbial modifiers are optional parts of the sentence). In terms of syntactic valency all notional verbs are classified into complementive (taking obligatory adjuncts) and supplementive (taking optional adjuncts). Complementive and supplementive verbs fall into minor groups: complementive verbs are subdivided into predicative, objective, and adverbial verbs; supplementive verbs are subdivided into adverbial and objective. There are also personal and impersonal verbs. Objective verbs take any objects, including prepositional ones. Transitive verbs are able to take direct objects, but there are also ditransitive verbs, taking a direct object and an indirect object as their valency partners, or complex-transitive verbs, taking a direct object and an adverbial as their valency partners. Semi-notional and functional verbs serve as markers of predication as they show the connection between the content of the sentence and reality. These predicators include auxiliary verbs, link-verbs, modal verbs, and semi-notional verbal introducers. Auxiliary verbs (be, have, do, will, would, etc) constitute the grammatical elements of the categorical forms of the verb. Link verbs introduce the nominal part of a compound predicate (a predicative / complement). Their function is to link the subject with its predicated feature of identification or qualification. The class comprises the “pure link-verb” be and the “specifying link-verbs” falling into two main groups: those that express perceptions (seem, appear, look, feel, taste, smell, etc) and those that express factual link-verb connection (become, get, grow, remain, keep, etc). Besides the link verbs proper, there are also “the verbs of double predicate”. These are some notional verbs, which perform two functions simultaneously, combining the role of a full notional verb in a simple verbal predicate with the role of a link verb in a compound nominal predicate, e. g. The moon rose red. Such double function is typical of verbs expressing motion and position. 42 Modal verbs (can, may, must, should, ought to, need, etc) are used with the infinitive as predicative markers expressing the relational meanings of the subject attitude type i. e. ability obligation, permission, advisability, probability, etc. Modal verbs are defective in form, they are supplemented by stative groups, e. g. be able. The verbs be and have in the modal meanings be planned, be obliged are considered as modal verbs and usually included in the list of modal verbs. Semi-notional verbal introducers are distributed among the sets of verbs of discriminatory relational semantics (seem, happen, turn out, come out, etc), of phasal semantics (begin, start, continue, stop, etc), of subject — action relational semantics (try, manage, fail, want, like, love, etc). These predicator verbs should be distinguished from their grammatical homonyms in the class of notional verbs (They began to fight — They began the fight). The verb of the first set are used in order to make up a compound verbal predicate with a modal meaning. The verbs of the second set are traditionally connected with a compound verbal phasal predicate (the synonymous term is a compound verbal aspect predicate). The functional problem arises with the verbs of the third set: according to one interpretation they make up a compound verbal predicate of attitudinal character (Blokh, Kaushanskaya, Kobrina et al), in the other approach they function in the sentence as a simple verbal predicate followed by an object in the form of the infinitive. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 47–48. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 75–78. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 86–90. Quirk R. A University Grammar of English / R. Quirk [et al.]. Moscow, 1982. P. 32. 43 13. Non-Finite Forms of the Verb The English verbals include four forms: the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle (Participle I), and the past participle (Participle II). Verbals or the non-finite forms of the verb are the forms of the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech. They render processes as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They are also different from finite verb-forms in their syntactic functions. While the finite forms perform in the sentence only one syntactic function, namely, that of predicate, the non-finite forms have various syntactic functions except that of the finite predicate. But the verbals, unable to express the predicative meanings of time and mood, still do express the secondary predication (potential predication, semipredication) forming syntactic complexes directly related to certain types of subordinate clauses, e. g.: We expect him to take this offer — We expect that he will take this offer. The infinitive (Base) is the non-finite form of the verb, which combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun, serving as the verbal name of the process. The English infinitive exists in two presentation forms: with the particle to (this form is called “the to-infinitive”) or without the particle to (“the bare infinitive”). The latter is found, for example, in the combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. The particle to can be separated from the infinitive, forming the so-called “split infinitive”, e. g.: Our problem is to quickly reproduce the experiment results. The infinitive is capable of expressing the categorical meanings of aspect and voice. Thus, the categorical paradigm of the objective verb infinitive includes eight forms: the simple active, the continuous active, the perfect active, the perfect continuous active, the simple passive, the continuous passive (a rare form), the perfect passive, the perfect continuous passive (a rare form); e. g. to ask, to be asking, to have asked, to have been asking, to be asked, to be being asked, to have been asked, to have been being asked. The infinitive paradigm of the non-objective verb includes four forms, e. g.: to come, to be coming, to have come, to have been coming. 44 The infinitive is used in three different types of functions: 1) as a notional, self-dependent part of the sentence (subject, object, adverbial modifier, attribute); 2) as the notional constituent of a compound predicate; 3) as the notional constituent of an analytical form. Cf.: 1) To find the solution is of prime importance. 2) I asked him to write about his progress. 3) To show the difference, we have compared the diagrams. 4) The problem to discuss next is our participation in the joint project. 5) Our task is to observe and analyze. 6) Your results can find various applications. 7) The experiment is to show the anticipated effect. 8) They continue to work with this material. 9) She does not speak French. If the infinitive in free use has its own subject introduced by the preposition for, we have the so-called “for-to-infinitive phrase”, e. g.: It is not easy for him to show up in such a society. With some transitive verbs (of perception, mental activity, desire, etc) the infinitive is used in the semi-predicative constructions of the Complex Object and the Complex Subject. Cf.: We have never heard Charlie play his violin — Charlie has never been heard to play his violin. The Problem of the ING-FORMS. As there is no formal difference between the gerund and the present participle (they are formed by one and the same suffix -ing) some scholars (Kruisinga, Murphy, Gordon, Krylova) find no reason to treat them as two different sets of forms. However, the classical approach is to admit of the grammatical homonymy and to distinguish between the gerund and the present participle as two different sets of grammatical forms. The gerund is the non-finite form of the verb, which like the infinitive combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun. Gerund is the verbal name of the process and it is referred to as the verbal noun. Half-gerund, or the participial gerund, is a form having mixed features, both participial and gerundial. Like the infinitive, the gerund is changeable. The paradigm of an objective verb gerund 45 includes four forms: the simple active, the perfect active, the simple passive, the perfect passive; e. g.: asking, having asked, being asked, having been asked. With the non-objective verb gerund there are only two forms: the simple active, the perfect active; e. g.: coming, having come. The gerund performs the functions of all the notional sentence parts (subject, object, attribute, adverbial modifier). It can also make a notional part of a compound predicate. Cf.: 1) My coming was a surprise to her. 2) She was surprised at my coming. 3) I like to work in the reading room. 4) One can learn a lot by reading. 5) I began working at this office last week. 6) My hobby is jogging. Similar to the noun, the gerund can be used with prepositions (e. g. on coming home) and also modified by a noun in the possessive case or by its pronominal equivalents; e. g. Jack’s coming home, his coming home. Such combinability allows the formation of semi-predicative gerundial complexes. Cf.: She was surprised at my coming home so early — She was surprised that I came home so early. The present participle (Participle I) combines the properties of the verb with those of adjective and adverb. In its form the present participle is homonymous with the gerund, ending in the suffix -ing. The categorical paradigm of the present participle is the same with the gerund (e. g. asking, having asked, being asked, having been asked; or coming, having come). Like all the English verbals, the participles have no tense distinctions and the adjectives present and past in their names are conventional and traditional. In the sentence, the present participle performs the functions of the attribute, the adverbial modifier, the predicative of a compound predicate (with the link-verbs other than be), and also of the notional part in the analytical form of the simple verbal predicate. Cf.: 1) The article deals with the events accompanying solar flares. 2) Rearranging the lenses of his telescope, Galileo found that he could magnify close objects. 46 3) The questions became more irritating. 4) They are going to the South. Participle I, similar to the infinitive, can be used in the semipredicative constructions of Complex Object and Complex Subject, e. g.: We’ve never heard him singing before — He’s never been heard singing before. The absolute participial construction is the other type of secondary predication; e. g.: My chief being on a sick leave, I had to make a decision myself. The past participle (Participle II) is the non-finite form of the verb which combines the properties of the verb with those of the adjective, serving as the qualifying-processual name. The past participle is a single form, specific for each of the irregular verbs and ending in the suffix -ed with the regular verbs. It has no paradigm of its own. The past participle performs the functions of the attribute, the predicative of a compound predicate, and also of the notional part in the analytical form of the simple verbal predicate. Cf.: 1) We passed through several deserted villages. 2) You are mistaken in this case. 3) The house has recently been rebuilt. Like the present participle, the past participle is used in the semipredicative constructions of Complex Object, Complex Subject, and Absolute Participial Construction; e. g. I must have my car repaired. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 80–86. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 104–106. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 99–119. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. P. 130–136. 47 14. Verb: Category of Tense Tense is a verbal category which reflects the objective category of time and expresses the relations between the time of the action and the time of the utterance. Tense is an inherent verbal category interrelated with Aspect. It is common practice to teach tense-aspect forms in general English courses. In grammatical theory, this approach is supported by I. P. Ivanova, who distinguishes between pure tense forms and tense-aspect forms, the latter being treated as the complexes expressing both temporal and aspective meaning. Past, present, and future are the objective time divisions. However, it does not mean that tense systems of different languages are identical. Moreover, English grammar admits of two different tense systems. According to one interpretation, there are three tenses in English: present, past and future, represented by the synthetic forms (e. g. write, \writes, wrote) or analytical forms (e. g. will write). This three tense system is supported by many scholars, in particular, B. A. Ilyish. According to the other view, there are two grammatically relevant tenses in English: the present tense and the past tense. Some doubts about the existence of a future tense in English were first expressed by H. Sweet and O. Jespersen. They assumed that in the phrase “shall/ will + infinitive” the verbs shall and will still preserved some of their original modal meaning (obligation and volition, respectively). This approach still prevails with many scholars (e. g. R. Quirk et al); the phrases “shall/will + infinitive” are treated by them as ungrammatical (a sort of free phrases which are used to express future actions). Structural approach to English grammar admits of the binary opposition of the Past (the strong member, marked with the -ed inflection) and the Non-Past (the weak, unmarked member), with the Future being excluded. One of the major proponents of this approach, L. S. Barkhudarov based his reasoning on the analysis of the Future-inthe-Past forms. According to him these combinations express both the future and the past time. However, such double marking is impossible for a grammatical category understood in the framework of the oppositional theory. M. Y. Blokh also distinguishes between the past tense and the present tense, the two making up “the category of primary 48 time”. However, he introduces one more temporal category — “the category of prospect” as the binary opposition of the forms expressing “after-action” (+) and “non-after-action” (−). This innovation has been made in order to include the analytical form “shall/will + infinitive” in the grammatical system of temporal relations. As regards the Future-in-the-Past forms, their position in the system of English tenses is very specific. They do not easily fit in the system of tenses represented by a straight line running out of the past to the future. They are rather a deviation from this line. Their starting point is not a present moment, from which the past and the future are reckoned, but the past itself. With reference to these forms it is said that the past is a new centre of this subsystem. The theory of shifted temporal centers was proposed by I. P. Ivanova, and she also suggested that the term “Future-in-the-Past” should be replaced by the term “dependent future”. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 52–60. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 82–86. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 132–150. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. P. 86–89. 15. Verb: Category of Aspect The category of aspect reflects the inherent mode of the realization of the process. The aspective meaning can be in-built in the semantic structure of the verb. In the English verb system lexical aspective meanings are expressed in the subclasses of terminative verbs (e. g. start, come) and durative or non-terminative verbs (e. g. go, move). These aspective verbal subclasses are grammatically relevant in so far as they are not indifferent to the choice of the aspective grammatical forms of the verb. On the other hand, the aspective meaning can be 49 represented by various grammatical categories with their corresponding forms (e. g. English continuous, perfect, and perfect continuous forms). Aspective grammatical change is not typical of the Russian language. In Russian one can find a system of lexico-grammatical forms actualizing verbal aspective characteristics of the perfective and the imperfective. When considering the English grammatical tradition, we are to deal with two sets of forms: the continuous forms and the perfect forms. There are different interpretations of these forms in linguistic literature. The continuous verbal forms analyzed on the principles of oppositional approach admit of one interpretation and that is aspective. They reflect the inherent character of the process denoted by the verb. The opposition of the corresponding category is between the continuous and the non-continuous (indefinite/simple) verbal forms. It is based, in general, on the use and non-use of the pattern “be + Participle I”: works — is working; worked — was working; will work — will be working; has worked — has been working, etc. The categorical meaning of the continuous discloses the nature of development of the verbal action. And the difference between the two sets of forms is the following: an action going on continuously, developing in time, and an action not thus limited. And again, it is a difference in the way, or the mode of realization of the action or process. However, there are various interpretations of the continuous proposed by different scholars. Otto Jespersen treated the type is working as a means of expressing limited duration, that is, expressing an action which serves as a frame to another action performed within that frame. This temporal interpretation of the continuous was first developed in the works of Henry Sweet. The basic meaning of the form like “is working” is that of simultaneity of an action with another action. Such a situation can be described in a complex sentence, e. g. He was working when I came in. But in clauses such as “What is he doing? — He is working” there is no other action for the continuous one to be simultaneous with or to be “a time frame”. 50 There are also differences in terminology brought about by different views on the category of aspect. B. A. Ilyish differentiates between the forms works and is working by applying to them respectively the terms “common aspect” and “continuous aspect”, the latter being the marked member of the opposition. I. P. Ivanova finds no aspective meaning with indefinite or simple forms, when treating them as purely tense forms in contrast to aspect-tense forms. The continuous form is interpreted by I. P. Ivanova as rendering a blend of temporal and aspective meanings. This interpretation is also typical of practical grammars of English. The semantic difference between indefinite and continuous forms can be reduced or neutralized, which is observed in the functioning of durative and terminative verbs and also of statal and actional verbs. The durative verbs are very easily neutralized in cases where the continuity of the action is expressed by means other than grammatical, e. g.: The night is wonderfully silent. The stars shine with fierce brilliancy. As to the statal verbs, their aspective neutralization is a grammatical rule. Among them are the never-used-in-the-continuous be, have, know, some other verbs of possession, verbs of relation, of physical perceptions, of mental activity. When occasionally used in the continuous, these verbs express some sort of intensity or emphasis e. g.: 1) I had a feeling that she was seeing right through me; 2) You are being damn fools, both of you. On the other hand, the continuous can be used transpositionally, to denote habitual actions in emphatic collocations, e. g. You are always talking as if there is some funny business about me. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 57–60. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 86–88. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 150–160. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. P. 76–85. 51 16. Verb: Problem of the Perfect The position of perfect forms in the grammatical system of English verbs is a problem which has been treated in many different ways. Among various views on the grammatical essence of the perfect forms in Modern English, the following four main trends should be considered in detail. 1) In the first interpretation, the category of perfect is presented as a peculiar tense category, that is, a category which should be treated in the same way as the categories of “present” and “past”. This tense view of the perfect is found in the works of H. Sweet, G. Curme, O. Jespersen, M. Bryant, N. Irtenyeva. According to them, the difference between the perfect and non-perfect forms lies in the fact that the perfect denotes a secondary temporal characteristic of the action. Namely, it shows that the denoted action precedes some other action or situation in the present, past, or future. The focus is on the temporal function of the perfect, its meaning of precedence, but this view fails to expose its aspective function by which the action is shown as connected with a certain time limit. 2) The second grammatical interpretation of the perfect is the “aspect view”. According to this approach the perfect is an aspective form of the verb which expresses the mode of realization of the action. The aspect view is presented in the works of M. Deutschbein, A. S. West, G. N. Vorontsova. The most valuable Vorontsova’s contribution to the theory of the perfect is her interpretation of its categorical meaning. Instead of the resultative meaning ascribed to the perfect by many scholars, she proposed a more general conception of transmissive functional semantics. G. N. Vorontsova put forward the idea of successive connection of two events expressed by the perfect, and the transmission of the accessories of a pre-situation to a postsituation, e. g. She has never been to Paris. 3) The third grammatical interpretation of the perfect is the “tenseaspect blend view”. The perfect is considered as a form with both temporal and aspective meaning similar to the continuous. This view on the perfect is propounded by I. P. Ivanova. She says that the two verbal forms (the continuous and the perfect) express temporal and 52 aspective functions in a blend, in contrast to the indefinite forms which only express tense. 4) And there is also the forth interpretation of the perfect. In this trend the category of perfect is neither tense nor aspect, but a specific category different from both. This interpretation was presented by A. I. Smirnitsky in his article «Перфект и категория временной отнесённости» (Иностр. яз. в шк. 1955. № 1–2). His concept of the perfect is referred to as the “time relation view” or “time correlation view”. The functional content of the new category was defined as priority expressed by the perfect forms in the present, past or future, contrasted with the non-expression of priority by the non-perfect forms. A. I. Smirnitsky made the analysis of the present continuous form (e. g. has been doing) in which the perfect, the form of precedence, coexists with the continuous, the form of simultaneity. His course of reasoning is quite typical of the oppositional approach: since two expressions of the same categorical semantics are impossible in one and the same form, the perfect cannot be either an aspective form, if the marking “be + Participle I” refers to the continuous aspect, or a temporal form, if the marking has refers to the present tense. This view on the perfect as a self-dependent category became rather popular with Russian scholars of English. M. Y. Blokh proposed his own term “the category of retrospective coordination” for the perfect as the marked member of the opposition. This author treats the perfect as a separate verbal category semantically intermediate between aspect and tense but quite self-dependent in the general categorical system of the English verb. The perfect expresses priority and aspective transmission of the action, while the continuous presents the action as progressive. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 60–64. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 88–89. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 160–170. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. P. 90–98. 53 17. Verb: Category of Voice The category of voice expresses the relation between the subject and the action, or, in the other interpretation, this category expresses the relation between the subject and the object of the action. The obvious opposition within the category of voice is that between active and passive, e. g. He invited his friends — He was invited by his friends. The relations between the subject (He) and the action (invite) in the two sentences are different. In the first sentence he performs the action and may be said to be the doer or agent, whereas in the second sentence he does not act and is not the doer but the object of the action. The opposition “active — passive” is represented by a number of forms involving the categories of tense, aspect and mood: asks — is asked; is asking — is being asked; has asked — has been asked; would ask — would be asked. The passive is the marked member of the opposition, its characteristic feature is the pattern “be + Participle II”, whereas the active voice is unmarked. It should be remembered that some forms of the active voice find no parallel in the passive, namely the future continuous, the present perfect continuous, the past perfect continuous, the future perfect continuous. There are also some lexical limitations, as not all the verbs capable of taking an object are actually used in the passive. In particular, the passive form is alien to many verbs of the statal subclass, such as have, belong, cost, resemble, fail. But one cannot draw a hard and fast line between these sets of verbs, because the verbs of one set can migrate into the other in various contextual conditions, e. g. The bed has not been slept in for a long time. Of special interest is the fact that the category of voice has a much broader representation in the system of the English verb than in that of the Russian verb. In English not only transitive but also intransitive objective verbs including prepositional ones can be used in the passive, e. g. The dress has never been tried on. The so called ditransitive verbs 54 capable of taking two objects can feature both of them in the passive subject position, e. g. I’ll tell you the truth — You’ll be told the truth — The truth will be told to you. Differences in the systems of English passive voice and Russian “страдательный залог” account for the fact that English passive forms can be translated into Russian in various ways: by passive voice forms, by middle-reflexive voice forms ending in -ся/-сь, by impersonal sentences, by active voice forms. These are some practical aspects of the categorical opposition between the active voice and the passive voice. However, in theoretical approach the problems of the reflexive voice (He shaved himself), the reciprocal voice (They greeted each other), and the middle voice (The door opened) should also be considered. To put the problems of the reflexive voice or the reciprocal voice into morphological terms is to find out if the self-pronouns or reciprocal pronouns can be auxiliary words serving to drive a voice-form of the verb. In term of syntax it is to wonder if a self-pronoun or a reciprocal pronoun always performs the function of a direct object or makes up a part of predicate. As a result of profound studies it has been shown that self-pronouns or reciprocal pronouns standing after verbs can be treated as denoting the object of the action. Cf.: I am defending myself — an accused person; They kissed each other and the child. Such cases as to find oneself are rare enough and should be referred to lexicology. The problem of the middle voice is connected with the possibility to use some transitive verbs as intransitive. Cf.: I opened the door — The door opened; I boiled the water — The water boiled; We apply this rule to… — This rule applies to… B. A. Ilyish discusses three different interpretations of this phenomenon presented in literature. One interpretation is that in each line we have two different though homonymous verbs: open 1 — transitive and open 2 — intransitive. The whole problem is thus shifted into the sphere of lexicology. Another interpretation is like this. The verb in both columns is the same, and the difference between the two is the difference of voice: in the first column we have an active voice form, while in the second column it is the middle voice which denotes a process going on within the subject without affecting any 55 object. The difference between the voices is not expressed by any morphological signs, but it is revealed in meaning and in syntactic structure. Still another interpretation does not admit of the middle voice in English. The verb in both columns is the same and the voice is the same, namely, the active voice, since there is no morphological difference between the forms under discussion. The third interpretation prevails in English grammars because it allows scholars to accept only two voices: the active and the passive. However, there is a possibility to treat the middle voice as an implicit grammatical category of Modern English. The passive construction “be + Participle” should be distinguished from the identical pattern of the compound nominal predicate. Cf.: You are mistaken (You are wrong) — You are often mistaken for your cousin. The constructions are alike, but their meanings differ. The first sentence expresses a state, while in the second sentence we have an action expressed. It is the context that shows the difference between the “passive of state” and the “passive of action”. Cf.: The door on the right was closed, while the door on the left was open — The door was closed by the girl as softly as possible. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 74–79. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. C. 96–104. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 170–179. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. P. 114–122. 18. Verb: Category of Mood The category of mood is the most controversial category of the verb. The only points in this sphere which have not been disputed are: 1) there is a category of mood in Modern English; 2) there are at least 56 two moods in English verb, one of which is the indicative. As to the number of the other moods, their meanings and names, opinions today are as far apart as ever. What makes the problem even more difficult is that the category of mood differs in principle from the verbal categories of tense and aspect. While the categories of tense and aspect characterize the action from the point of view of its various inherent properties, the category of mood expresses the outer interpretation of the action as a whole, namely, the speaker’s introduction of this action as actual or imaginary. The grammatical category of mood makes up a part of a general linguistic category of modality. Verbal mood is regarded as primary modality, while such lexical groups as modal verbs (e. g. can, must should ) and modal words (e. g. perhaps, probably) as well as the prosodic feature of intonation are considered to be the means of secondary modality. The category of mood has been given various definitions. One of them reads: The category of mood expresses the relation of the action to reality as stated by the speaker. In other words, the category of mood expresses the character of connection between the process denoted by the verb and the actual reality, either presenting the process as a fact that really happened, happens or will happen (the indicative mood), or treating it as an imaginary phenomenon, i. e. the subject of a hypothesis, speculation, desire (the imperative mood, the subjunctive mood). This system of three moods is typical of practical grammar courses. The imperative mood in English is represented by the base form of the verb, or the bare infinitive, e. g. Come! There are also lexicogrammatical forms of the imperative with the verb let, e. g.: Let the children do it; Let’s go and have some coffee. The imperative mood forms are limited in their use to one type of sentences, namely, imperative sentences. Most British and American scholars do not recognize the verbal category of the imperative mood, they prefer to speak about the imperative sentences as a special type of utterances. The subjunctive mood has its own problems. It can be expressed by both synthetic forms (infinitive, were, the past indefinite) and analytical forms (should/would + infinitive). The latter are not recognized by 57 many British and American scholars because they are homonymous to the word-combinations of modal verbs with the infinitive. In the sphere of mood, the main division which is generally accepted is the division into the indicative mood and the other (oblique) moods: the imperative, the subjunctive, the suppositional, the conditional, etc. In linguistic literature one can find the number of English moods ranging from two to sixteen. The binary opposition of two moods is typical of structural approach. L. S. Barkhudarov recognizes the indicative mood and the imperative mood in English, while M. Y. Blokh distinguishes between the indicative mood and the subjunctive mood. The other extreme of the range is the system of sixteen moods, proposed by M. Deutschbein who speaks of every English form expressing unreal action as of a separate mood. Between these two extremes there are several intermediate views such as that of A. I. Smirnitsky who proposed a system of six moods: Indicative, Imperative, Subjunctive I (the forms that do not contradict reality, e. g. if he be, I suggest that he go), Subjunctive II (the forms that contradict reality, e. g. if it were, if he had known), Suppositional (“should + infinitive” for all persons, e. g. Should you meet him…), Conditional (analytical forms of “should/ would + infinitive” in the main clause of conditional sentences, e. g. What would you answer if you were asked…). E. M. Gordon and I. P. Krylova have made a list of forms expressing unreality. These forms are: 1) the plain stem of the verb for all persons, e. g. They propose that he borrow; 2) were for all persons, e. g. I wish I were ten years younger; 3) the past indefinite form, e. g. He looked as if he knew about it; 4) the past perfect form, e. g. He looked as if he had seen a ghost; 5) “should/would + infinitive”, e. g. If I had a garden I should grow tulips in it; 6) “should/would + perfect infinitive”, e. g. If it hadn’t rained we would have gone for a walk; 7) should for all persons, e. g. I insist that he should meet us at the station; 8) would for all persons, e. g. I wish he wouldn’t interrupt me; 9) “Can/could/may/ might + infinitive”, e. g. I’m telling you this so that you can write to your parents about it. The variety of verbal moods is accounted for by the specific situation with this category in English as one and the same form may 58 have two or more different meanings. For example, we should come in the sentence I think we should come here again tomorrow is equivalent to we ought to come, in the sentence If we knew that he wants us we should come to see him denotes a conditional action, in the sentence How queer that we should come at the very moment when you were talking about us denotes a real action. On the other hand, one and the same meaning can be expressed by different forms, e. g. I suggest that we go — I suggest that we should go; I wish they weren’t so noisy — I wish they wouldn’t be so noisy. The described system of English verbal moods has not been completed in the historical development of the language. On the contrary, it is in the state of making and change, which may be illustrated by the fluctuating use of the auxiliaries should and would. Thus, our task is to register these phenomena, to explain their mechanism, to show the tendencies of usage in terms of systematic context and stylistic preferences. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 68–74. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 90–96. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. P. 179–197. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. P. 99–113. Gordon E. M. A Grammar of Present-Day English / E. M. Gordon, I. P. Krylova. Moscow, 1974. P. 109–112/