English Grammar PDF

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...

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/ Section III Syntax 19. Phrase: General Characteristics Syntax is a part of grammar which treats of phrases and sentences. B. A. Ilyish says that the theory of phrase seems to be the least developed element of English grammar whereas the theory of sentence has a long and fruitful history. Phrase is a separate linguistic unit which must be considered on a separate level of linguistic analysis. Phrase is broadly defined as every combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit but not an analytical form of some word (e. g. the perfect forms of verbs). According to this definition the constituent elements of a phrase may belong to any part of speech. But there is another interpretation of phrase, introduced by V. V. Vinogradov, stipulating that a phrase must contain at least two notional words. The inconvenience of this restriction for English grammar is that the group “preposition + noun” remains outside the classification and is neglected in the theory of syntax. The number of constituents in a phrase is usually from two to five, although six or eight are not excluded. Actually, this limit is set by human mind capacities. There may be as many words in a phrase as can be kept in mind and identified as a phrase. Structural identity of a phrase in a sentence can be shown through the methods of substitution and representation developed by V. V. Burlakova. The first method is based on the fact that there are quite a number of words which function as substituting elements, of substitutes, or Pro-Forms. The obvious pro-forms for noun-phrases are the pronouns he, she, it, they, e. g.: John’s father did not know about it. He just thought…Some other items which can be pro-forms for noun-phrases are: that, those, one, none, some, any, both, all, each, either, neither. Some time-relaters can be 60 pro-forms for time adjuncts, e. g.: We saw John on Monday morning. We told him then… Some place relaters (here, there) can be pro-forms for place adjuncts. The auxiliaries do, does, did can be pro-forms for verb-phrases, e. g. He promised to come and so he did. The method of representation is different from substitution in that it does not use an extra word to represent a phrase. A part of the phrase is used in representation leaving the rest of it in implication, e. g. He was not able to save them, though he tried to. Representation by an auxiliary verb or a modal verb is highly typical of the English language. The problem with the methods of substitution and representation is that they are not rigorous enough. Sometimes pro-forms can be used for both phrases and their constituents (student’s book — his book), or else one pro-form can substitute two phrases (We saw John at nine on Monday morning. We told him then…). The difference between a phrase and a sentence is a fundamental one. A phrase is a means of naming some phenomena or process, just as a word is. Each component of a phrase can undergo changes according to its grammatical categories (write letters — wrote a letter — writes letters, etc). The sentence, on the contrary, is a unit with every word having its definite form. Any formal change would produce a new sentence. Sentence is a unit of communication, and intonation is one of the most important features of a sentence, which distinguishes it from a phrase. Theory of phrase has a historical background of its own. Early English syntax of the 17th century concerned itself with the study of word-groups, their structure and the relations between their elements. In the second half of the 18th century the term “phrase” was introduced to denote a word-group in English. This term was accepted by the 19th century grammarians. At first it denoted any combination of two or more words, including that of a noun and a verb. Later the notion of clause was introduced to designate a syntactic unit containing a subject and a predicate. As a result, the term “phrase” was limited in its application to any word-combination except that making up a clause. English scientific grammar of the early 20th century did not elaborate this part of syntax. Henry Sweet rejected the very term “phrase”. In the 61 preface to his grammar book he wrote: “I reject “phrase” altogether as a grammatical term, because of the endless confusions that arise between the various arbitrary meanings given to it by various grammarians and its popular meaning” (H. Sweet. A New English Grammar. Part I, p. viii). The author prefers to speak of word-groups, but defines this notion in the same way as the phrase used to be defined. According to H. Sweet, the relations between the elements of a word-group are based on grammatical and logical subordination. E. Kruisinga developed his own theory of close word-groups (including verb-groups, noungroups, adjective-groups, adverb-groups, preposition-groups with the subordination of their elements) and loose words-groups (without subordination). In the history of phrase, O. Jespersen is known for his theory of three ranks and the differentiation of junction and nexus described in his book “The Philosophy of Grammar”. In any composite denomination he finds one word of supreme importance to which the others are joined as subordinated. The chief word is defined by another word which, in its turn, may be defined by a third word, etc. In the combination extremely hot weather the last word, which is the chief idea, is called primary; hot which defines weather — secondary, and extremely — tertiary. According to O. Jespersen there is no need to distinguish more than three ranks of subordination in the attributive combinations of this kind. The difference between the notions of junction and nexus is the difference between attributive and predicative relations. In particular, O. Jespersen says that in a junction the joining of two elements is so close that they may be considered one composite name, e. g. a silly person — a fool. If we compare the red door (junction) on the one hand, and the door is red (nexus) on the other, we find that the former kind is more rigid and stiff, and the latter more pliable, there is more life in it. Junction is like a picture, nexus is like a drama or a process. The basis of the structural theory of word-groups is the dichotomic division into endocentric (containing a head-word) and exocentric (non-headed) phrases, proposed by L. Bloomfield. Transformational grammar does not discuss word-groups in isolation, but the analysis of 62 sentences is based on the concept of phrase-structure (NP and VP), and some transformations result in word-groups, e. g. the transformation of nominalization. Structural linguists give the following classification of word-groups: Word-groups Headed (subordinative) Tail-head Non-headed (coordinative) Head-tail Noun gr. Verb gr. Modifier gr. Verbal gr. Prepositional gr. Subject-predicate gr. V. V. Burlakova has made some amendments in the classification above. In the left-hand part, she added adverb-groups to the tail-head set. In her opinion, verb-groups as well as prepositional groups belong to the head-tail set; noun-groups and adjective-groups can be found in both tail-head set and head-tail set. In the right-hand part, she has introduced dependent and independent subclasses, distinguishing between coordinative groups, accumulative groups, groups with primary predication, and groups with secondary predication. Working bibliography Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 100–130. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 168 174. Blokh M. Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar / M. Y. Blokh. Moscow, 2004. Р. 222–229. Ilyish B. A. The Structure of Modern English / B. A. Ilyish. Leningrad, 1971. Р. 171–181. Jespersen O. The Philosophy of Grammar / O. Jespersen. N. Y., 1924. Р. 95–97. 63 20. Ways of Expressing Syntactic Relations The major generally recognized syntactic relations between components of a phrase are subordination and coordination. Subordination is the syntactic relation of the constituents of a phrase one of which is principal (a head-word) and the other is subordinate (e. g. a difficult problem). Coordination is the syntactic relation of the constituents of a phrase characterized by their equality (e. g. ladies and gentlemen). It is realized either with the help of conjunctions (syndetically), or without it (asyndentically). The predicative syntactic relation existing between the components of the phrase pattern “noun + verb” is interpreted by M. Y. Blokh as bilateral (reciprocal) domination expressed by agreement, or concord. V. V. Burlakova, in her work of 1984, alongside with subordination and coordination identifies the predicative syntactic relation as a major one under the title of “interdependence” (e. g. they talked). Number four in her classification is the relation of accumulation, which is found between the subordinate elements of multi-component headed groups, e. g. their own (children), (to write) letters to a friend. I. I. Pribytok has added to those discussed the syntactic relation of apposition (приложение), e. g. Uncle Andrew was very tall, the syntactic relation of isolation (обособление), e. g. Last night, everything was closed, and the syntactic relation of parenthesis (вводность), e. g. This is perhaps his first chance. Our task is to consider formal ways of expressing syntactic relations, namely, agreement (concord), government, and adjoinment. Agreement, or concord, is a way of expressing a syntactic relation which consists in forcing the subordinate word to take a form similar to that of the head-word. Linguistic units agree in such matters as number, person, and gender. The two related units should both be singular or plural, feminine or masculine. In Modern English this can be found between a noun and a verb in a predicative phrase and also between the demonstrative pronouns this/these/that/those and their head-words in attributive phrases, such as this book, these books, etc. Government is understood as the use of a certain form of the subordinate word required by its head-word, but not coinciding with the form of the head-word itself. In Modern English this way of expressing 64 subordination is limited to the use of the objective case forms of personal pronouns when they are subordinate to a verb or follow a preposition, e. g. to invite me, to find them, etc. The third way of expressing syntactic relations, which is termed “примыкание” in Russian, has various designations in English: the adjoinment or the word order. In fact, it is the absence of both agreement and government. For example, in the sentence He spoke of his intentions very softly the adverb softly is subordinate to its headword spoke without either agreeing with or being governed by it. The connection between the adverb and the verb is preserved due to their grammatical and semantic compatibility. As a matter of fact, this way of connecting components of a phrase is a predominant one in Modern English. Searching for an adequate designation of this phenomenon, linguistic scholars applied to the theory of syntactic valency based on semantic properties of words, i. e. their semantic compatibility. 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 completion of the syntactic construction; e. g. in the sentence We saw a house in the distance the subject and the direct object are obligatory valency partners of the verb. The optional valency is not necessarily realized in grammatically complete constructions; most of the adverbial modifiers are optional parts of the sentence. According to V. V. Burlakova, syntactic valency is the major factor of syntactic relations in Modern English and within this type we should further differentiate between the inflected forms of agreement or government and non-inflected forms. Working bibliography Бурлакова В. В. Синтаксические структуры современного английского языка / В. В. Бурлакова. М., 1984. С. 7–11. Иванова И. П. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. М., 1981. С. 130–160. Прибыток И. И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка / И. И. Прибыток. М., 2008. С. 159–165. 65