CHAPTER IX NOUN: ARTICLE DETERMINATION 3 страница

Thus, according as they have or have not the power to take complements, the notional verbs should be classed as "complementive" or "uncomplementive", with further subcategorisations 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 denoted 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 contradicts 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 significance 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 corresponding 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 accepted linguistic usage in order to avoid unfortunate misunderstandings based on the differences in terminology.

Uncomplementive verbs fall into two unequal subclasses of "personal" and "impersonal" verbs.

The personal uncomplementive verbs, i. e. uncomplementive 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 abstract 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 limited. 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 divided 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 objective verbs, e.g. cost, weigh, fail, become, suit. The fifth subclass 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 objective 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 prepositional); b) explain, introduce, mention, say, devote (the addressee object with these verbs is only prepositional). The second 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 addressee prepositional objective verbs, i.e. verbs taking a prepositional object and an addressee object, e.g. remind of, tell about, apologise for, write of, pay for. The fifth subclass includes 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 subclasses. The first is formed by verbs taking an adverbial complement 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 subclasses, but, as is widely known, affects the principal distinctions between the English complementive and uncomplementive 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 complementive). 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 entries — 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 migration" 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 plausible solution will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of specific syntactic variation, i.e. to consider the different subclass entries of migrating units as syntactic variants of the same lexemes [Почепцов, (2), 87 и сл.]. 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 principle is hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should be analysed as lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it underlies the expression of categorially different grammatical functions.

CHAPTER XI

NON-FINITE VERBS (VERBIDS)

§ 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 render 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 (performing non-verbal functions in the sentence), and they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence).

From these characteristics, one might call in question the very justification of including the verbids in the system of the verb. As a matter 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 intermediary 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 property 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 addressees of the process inherently conveyed by each verbid denotation.

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 evidently 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 predicate, the non-finite forms serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate.

The strict, unintersecting division of functions (the functions themselves being of a fundamental nature in terms of the grammatical structure 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 expressing time-mood categorial semantics and therefore presents the weak member of the opposition. The category expressed by this opposition can be called the category of "finitude" [Strang, 143; Бархударов, (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 meanings 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 predication, are not self-dependent in a predicative sense. They normally exist only as part of sentences built up by genuine, primary predicative constructions 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 perspective.

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 verbids is to express semi-predication, building up semi-predicative complexes 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 distinguished 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 combines 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 developed 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 represents 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 sentence; second, as the notional constituent of a complex verbal predicate built up around a predicator verb; third, as the notional constituent of a finite conjugation form of the verb. The first use is grammatically "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 infinitive 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, performs the functions of all types of notional sentence-parts, i. e. the subject, 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 subject 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. (Infinitive predicative position) Here again we are faced with a plot to overthrow the legitimately elected government of the republic. (Infinitive attributive position) Helen was far too worried to listen to the remonstrances. (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 infinitive 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 для, or with the help of the dative case of the noun). Cf.: Для нас очень важно понять природу подобных соответствий.

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 subject, 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.

106

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 infinitive", 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 identify 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 documents if you want to.

Like other analytical markers, it can also be separated from its notional, i.e. infinitive part by a word or a phrase, usually of adverbial nature, forming the so-called "split infinitive". Cf.: My task is not to accuse 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 analytical grammatical form. The use or non-use of the infinitive marker depends on the verbal environment of the infinitive. Namely, the unmarked infinitive is used, besides the various analytical forms, with modal verbs (except the modals ought and used), with verbs of physical perceptions, with the verbs let, bid, make, help (with the latter — optionally), 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 practical 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 categorial 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 occasionally, with a strong stylistic colouring. But they underlie the corresponding 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 infinitive, combines the properties of the verb with those of the noun. Similar to the infinitive, the gerund serves as the verbal name of a process, 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 process denoted by the verbal lexeme, a question might arise, why the infinitive, 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 semantically, 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 properties 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 paradigmatic 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 combining, 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 gerund, first, with finite notional verbs as the object of the action; second, with finite notional verbs as the prepositional adjunct of various functions; 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 position) 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 categorial properties of the gerund as such, establishing it in the English lexemic 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 formal 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 artistic 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, sharing them with the finite verb and the present participle, namely, the aspective 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 perfect passive. E.g.: taking — having taken — being taken — having been taken.

The gerundial paradigm of the non-objective verb, correspondingly, includes 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 adverb, 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 retrospective coordination and voice.