tify">                                      Direct   -    Iindirect         (Oblique Moods)

                            /\                                           /\

                     indicative      imperative      synthetical        analytical

                                                                           /\                           /\

                                   Subjunctive I  Subjunctive II     The Conditional The Suppositional

      Some scholars distinguish 3 Moods:The Indicative, The Imperative and The Subjunctive.  Let us consider each of these moods separately.

The Indicative Mood

   Semantically it is the most objective mood, morphologically it is most developed.

The Imperative Mood

         This mood expresses order, command, a stimulus. It is the least developed mood resembling in form Sujunctive I and the infinitive. Hence, some scholars do not recognize its existence.Though it is undeveloped as compared with Russian,  we encounter very peculiar forms in syntagmatics { Have done it by the time he comes ( the perfect form of the imperative). Be always searching for new sensations (the continuous form of the imperative)}. It can become polysemantic and develop the meanings of condition or concession. Make me do these things and you would destroy me (J.London) can be transformed into If you make me do these things, you will destroy me.

The Subjunctive Mood

     It is  the most confusing mood. In Old English there was a fully inflective Subjunctive comparable with Latin or German. It denoted problematic, hypothetical and purely imaginary actions.

     In English The Subjunctive has long been in a state of decay as compared with other European languages. The simple Subjunctive (Subjunctive I) is being supplanted (вытеснять) by the forms lest he should die or that he may die. Subjunctive II is being supplanted by was (I wish he was in Hell). The present day syntax allows very few formal distinctions: God bless my wife. I wish  he were here.

     The difference between the Indicative mood and the Subjunctive mood has practically come to be blotted out (If I wasn’t your friend, I think I’d blame you). Hence,   many scholars (O. Jespersen, L. Barchudarov) do not recognize  the existence of  this Mood. According to O. Jespersen’s theory of the imaginative use  of tenses, past tenses  indicate,  in certain syntactic conditions, hypothesis, supposition, problemacity. In the sentence He smiles as if he had never heard  about it the underlined form, according to O.Jespersen, is in  before past time expressing unreality. In the contaminated  clause, embracing the properties  of two sub-clauses ( a predicative clause and an adverbial clause of unreal comparison) in the complex sentence It is as if he had never been there  the underlined form of before past time expresses unreal comparison. According to O. Jespersen, the absence of the Subjunctive is made up for by some stereotyped phrases, grammatical idioms (so be it), combinations of modal verbs and infinitives and the imaginative use of past tenses (times) which become modally coloured in some patterns ( I wish he had done it).

     According to Eric Partridge, the Subjunctive is not an extinct (вымирающий) mood. It is a living mood to be found in different patterns of simple sentences, in complex sentences (both  in the principal and subordinate clauses) (God bless you. If he knew, he would come. (a conditional clause). Even if he had come he wouldn’t have understood (a concessive clause). I wish he came (an object clause), etc.The Subjunctive, depending upon syntactical patterns, embraces different forms: might, came,  should, had come, were, be. It is a semantic-syntactic- morphological category.

     M.Y. Bloch distinguishes 3 Subjunctives: The Stipulative (Subjunctive II: I wish he came), The Spective  (Subjunctive I : God bless him), The Consecutive (Subjunctive III: He would have refused).

     Most  convenient for practical  analysis is A. I. Smirnitsky’s classification of moods. He proceeds from formal criteria. Each mood is presented by peculiar models on the level of the simple and complex  sentences ( For example, Subjunctive II on the level of the simple sentence : Oh, that I were a glove upon that hand (W.Shakespeare).Oh, if he were here.  Oh, that he were here. If only he were here. Were he only here! ; Subjunctive II on the level of the complex sentence: It is as if he were here. If he were here, he would understand. Even if he were here he wouldn’t understand.  I wish he came).

     The category of mood is hard to represent in terms of binary oppositions. Prof. Zandvoort represents it in the following opposition: he play:: he plays (non-fact :: fact). One integral form of the Indicative is opposed to one integral form of the Subjunctive.

     The category of Mood in English is not yet stabilized. It is still in the making. 

           The Non-Finites (The Verbals)

     The Verbals (infinitives, participles I, participles II, gerunds) are non-finite forms of the verb.  They have double nature, verbal and nominal.  The Infinitive has the properties of  the noun and of the verb, Participle I and Participle II  have the properties of the verb,  of the adjective and of the adverb. The Gerund has the properties of the verb and of the noun. Is is accounted for by the fact that ,historically, the Infinitive and the Gerund are   connected with the noun, while  Participle I and Participle II  are connected with the adjective and the adverb. So, the verbals treat actions as substances and qualities.

     Points of Similarities with the Finites

     1. The verbals express the idea of action( to write, writing, written, writing: There are a lot of things to marvel at but, first, a lot of questions to ask. A man to see you! S.Plath).

           2.  They  all have the categories of correlation and voice, the infinitive has one more verbal category, that of aspect (to be writing, to have written, to be written, to have been written, to have been writing; being written, having written, having been written). The distinction between the active and the passive, the non-perfect and perfect forms can be neutralized in the non-finites (The house is to let àThe house is to be let;  I am awfully surprised to find you here à I am awfully surprised to have found you here The book isn’t worth buying àThe book isn’t worth being bought. Your stomach wants educating àYour stomach wants being educated. Arriving there he immediately understood everything à Having arrived there he immediately understood everything).

     3.  The non-finites, like the finites, are seldom used singly, without complements (Marriage is not a hopeless affair doomed to failure. He seems to have done it).

     Points of Differences with the Finites

     1. The verbals cannot refer actions to the present, past, or future. They show precedence, simultaneity, or successiveness of some actions as regards those expressed by the finites {I am surprised  at your having done it (precedence). He seems to be standing over there(simultaneity)}.

     2.  The verbals lack the categories of person, number, tense and mood. Still an infinitive can imply, in some contexts, some modality, which is  revealed transformationally (He is the easiest man to do business withà He is the easiest man that you can do business with. Here is a book for you to read. Here is a book that you can( could, may, should) read. To look at his pictures you would have thought that Impressionists had never been. If you had looked at his pictures you would have thought that Impressionists had never been( W.S.Maugham)}.  Lacking the categories of person, number and tense, non-finites  cannot function as predicates in the sentence. But they can acquire some predicative force, they can imply predicativity which can be seen transformationally( A man of eighty to marry a girl of twenty four!? à That a man of eighty five should marry a girl of twenty!). Non-finites become potential predicates ( secondary predicates) in predicative constructions (I saw thee weep. à I saw that you wept. I am surprised at your having done it. à I am surprised that you have done it). 

     Participle II differs from the rest of the verbals. It has no forms (passive and perfect) as the meanings of passivity and completeness are implicit in it( It is a poem translated into many languages). The verbal nature is less prominent here, so it can be easily adjectivized ( an offended look). It is in the periphery of the verbals. It may turn into a structural element, a functional word. Such is the preposition given)(Given the circumstances ( с учётом обстоятельств), America is likely to launch a war here).

     Debated Problems within The Verbals

     1. The existing terms Present Participle and Past Participle are not satisfactory as the finites do not denote time absolutely. On the analogy with the German  Partizip I and Partizip II the terms Participle I and Participle II  were proposed. The term “half-gerund” is unscientific (I insist upon  John doing it in time. I insist upon them doing it in time).

     2. Sometimes a gerund and a participle I are hard to distinguish {(I saw mother reading a book(a participle).  I remember mother reading a book (a gerund)}. It is reasonable to consider them as an ing-form, the difference between the gerund and the participle being neutralized. The difference between a gerund and a verbal noun can also be neutralized (People told me about your smoking).

     The Functions of Non-Finites

     The finites perform the function of a simple verbal predicate. The non-finites can perform different functions in the sentence (predicative, subject,  object, attribute,  adverbial modifier). They can occur isolatedly, in phrases {There are things to marvel at (an infinitive phrase functions as an attribute),  in predicative constructions which function as complex subjects, predicatives, objects, attributes,  adverbial  modifiers ( I made him do it. He was seen to be crossing the street.). Some functions of non-finites can be syncretical and ambiguous {I got places to go and things to do (an attribute and an adverbial modifier of purpose).

     So, all the forms of the verb are divided oppositionally into Finites and Non-finites, which differ structurally, semantically and functionally. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

     Materials for Lecture 4

     SYNTAX

     The domain of morphology is the paradigmatics of words; the domain of syntax is the syntagmatics of words, phrases and sentences, their arrangement, combinability and functioning.

     Syntax studies how words are combined into phrases and simple sentences, how simple sentences are combined into compound and complex sentences and how supraphrasal units and texts are organized and generated.

     Types of Syntax

     There are several varieties of syntax , several syntactic theories  in modern linguistics. Traditional sentential syntax, the  primary concern of which is a sentence  and its grammatical organization. Hypersyntax goes beyond the border of the sentence into discourse (or text). It studies the structure , generation, cohesion of discourse (its structural, semantic and communicative completeness). Presuppositional syntax describes semantic implication which consists in a sentence presupposing another sentence ( Bill is tall but he cannot play basketball. The implication is that all tall guys can play basketball).I rang him but he was out. The implication is that I came up to the phone, picked up the receiver, dialled the number…). Logico-semantic syntax studies the semantic structure of a sentence. The semantic structure of a sentence is described in terms of propositions, predicates, arguments,   deep cases (See Semantic Syntax). Functional-communicative syntax is concerned with the functional sentence perspective (or communicative dynamism), the distribution of information among the elements of a sentence and means of distinguishing the given and the new. Paradigmatic syntax studies the paradigm of a sentence, constituted by all possible transformations of a sentence (He has a car -> She has a car. He had a car. They are having a car, etc.). Structural syntax (the 50-s and the 60-s of the XX th century) studied a bare structure of phrases and sentences, utterly disregarding their content, ambiguity, implicit relations and discourse complexity. It mostly operated with the IC method and the distributional method. Transformational generative syntax studies the relations between surface and deep structures. It operates with the transformational analysis and the method of surface and deep structures (The invitation of the writer surprises me => the writer invited somebody or somebody invited the writer).

     Syntactic theories ignore individual and stylistic differences; they ignore variations of discourse, syntactical variations at any historical period. They ignore that the stilted style of  scientific discourse differs greatly from  complicated syntax of artistic discourse, written syntax differs from loosely organised oral syntax with greater redundancy,  artistic authorial syntax (Hemingway’s  parataxis;  Joyce’s   parcellation and headless clauses without connectives (God becomes man becomes fish becomes barnacle goose becomes featherbed mountain); Galsworthy’s one-member nominal and infinitival sentences, Lawrence’s  detachment and double predicates).

THE THEORY OF THE PHRASE

     To know how a sentence is constructed we are to see how its constituents are built and classified. Theoretical syntax describes free word-combinations of the type ( a beautiful girl, ladies and gentlemen, run quickly, on account of etc.). Here the elements are separable, whereas in a phraseological unit, especially in an idiom (to smell a rat ) the globality of nomination reigns supreme over the formal separability of units.

     There exist various terms to name a group of words (a word group, a word combination, a cluster of words, a syntagmatic grouping,   a phrase, etc.). Russian   linguists prefer to use the term “word combination”, Western linguists resort to the term “phrase”. The constituents of a phrase are the head element, the modified one, the  governing element; an adjunct, a modifier, the  governed element ( in the phrase  “a beautiful  girl” a girl is the head, while “beautiful” is an adjunct).

Devices of Connecting Words in a Phrase

     Main grammatical devices of connecting words within a phrase are   agreement, government,  adjoinment (примыкание),   incorporation, enclosure  (включение).

     Agreement consists in combining a head and its adjunct by means of morphological categories they both share. The adjunct assumes the grammatical form of the head (in synthetical languages : Над седой равниной моря , etc. In these languages nouns and adjectives agree in number, gender and case; nouns and verbs agree in gender, person and number).

     In English agreement is practically non-existent, we find it only in this book – these books,  that book – those books.

     On the level of a simple sentence we find formal agreement (he goes).

     In government an adjunct assumes a certain grammatical form under the influence of its head word. Government is insignificant in English, observed mostly between nouns and verbs ( help her, help him).  Inflectional government occurs between a head noun and a noun in the possessive case ( the student’s answer). Government in English is expressed primarily by prepositions (to arrive at, to rely upon, to result in, to refer to, etc.).

     In adjoinment an adjunct is placed before or after the head word without changing its form (cf. isolation). It’s characteristic of analytical and isolated languages (N+N  Algebra problem, A+N a wise teacher, D+V run quickly, Adv+Adv very quickly, etc.).

     Incorporation consists in enclosing a syntactic structure between parts of a phrase (a life-and-death question). The incorporated formations are studied by morphology, syntax and word-building. It’s an example of overlapping between syntax and morphology. These formations are termed differently: a word syntagm, a word – sentence, a composite word, etc.

     Adjoinment is prevalent in English. Agreement and government are insignificant, as to incorporation it is progressing, but remains to be exotic. It’s more frequently used in newspapers( while-you-wait shoe repairs).

Debated Problems within the Theory of the Phrase

     There are several debated problems within the theory of the phrase. Most essential are the predicative character of the phrase, the problem of criteria of classifying phrases, the number of elements within a phrase.

     Most scholars hold that every combination of two or more words which is a grammatical unit constitutes a phrase: hot weather, very hot, at least, on account of.

     We can distinguish phrases comprising notional and functional words (N+N Algebra problem, A+N wise teacher, V+ D run quickly, A+ D very quickly, etc.). They are grammatical units; each constituent of a phrase can undergo different grammatical changes. The grammatical variation of a phrase constitutes its paradigm ( to read a book, to be reading a book, to have been reading a book, etc.).

     There are phrases equivalent to prepositions, these are prepositional phrases( instead of).  There are also conjunctional phrases (as long as, as soon as). We are to discriminate between  analytical forms of words and phrases. To write a letter  is a phrase , while would have been writing is the  analytical form of the word write).

     Home scholars hold that a phrase is a non-predicative unit, it’s more like a word, as it names actions, things, qualities (very beautiful), it names also qualities of qualities (very quickly); they believe that predication is the prerogative of a sentence.