Modern English Grammar

It's a kind of queer peace, and I often wonder how I could have been so torn and tortured. (Galsworthy)

It is important to remember that could + Infinitive II may imply two diametrically opposite meanings: a) a real action in the past and b) a non-fact with reference to the past. And here the implied context is all that can be considered relevant.

It is indeed true that languages seem to offer fairly "naturally" a large measure of polarisation, but it is usual to find the antonymous polarity restricted to certain contexts. Observations in this domain will serve to remind us that the history of grammar displays a peculiar unity of opposites -- manifestation of the dialectic nature of language.

The meaning of each necessary grammatical abstraction makes itself clear only in the course of its usage.

Compare also the following patterns with the verb should:

Had I known about it, I should have come yesterday. (should + Infinitive II used with reference to a non-fact).

That science in the USSR should have attained so high a level of development is but natural (should + Infinitive II expressing a real action in the past with special emphasis laid upon its realisation).

We may say with little fear of exaggeration that whatever may be the other problems of grammar learning the potential polysemy of grammatical forms is always primary in importance. The variety of meaning as potentially implicit in a grammatical form, which we naturally associate with the development of synonymy in grammar, may be illustrated by numerous examples.

Take, for instance, the multifarious use of the inflected genitive which in Modern English may be of possession, origin, source, consisting of, extent of, association with or direction towards. There is no formal differentiation between different patterns and this may lead to ambiguity but generally the context or lexical probability makes clear which is meant.

Compare the following:

his brother's room (possession)

his brother's information (source)

his brother's invention (authorship)

his brother's arrival (subjective

duty's call genitive)

joy's recollection (objective

the criminal's arrest genitive)

wife's duty (qualitative

lawyer's life meaning)

It is interesting to note that the qualitative genitive may be synonymous with adjectives of kindred meaning, but they are not always interchangeable: wife's = wifely, wifelike; mother's = motherly, father's = = fatherly, etc.

Compare the following: Soames was silent for some minutes; at last he said: "I don't know what your idea of a wife's duty is. I never have known!" (Galsworthy)

(wife's duty = the duty of a wife)

Irene, whose opinion he secretly respected and perhaps for that reason never solicitated, had only been into the room on rare occasions, in discharge of some wifely duty. (Galsworthy)

(wifely = befitting, like, or pertaining to a wife)

SYNONYMY IN GRAMMAR

We next turn our attention to synonymy in grammar as immediately relevant to the study of potential polysemy of grammatical forms discussed above.

There is a system behind the development of grammatical synonyms in any language. This is a universal linguistic feature and may be traced in language after language. English shares these feature with a number of tongues, but its structural development has led to such distinctive traits as merit attention. Observations in this area are most useful for insight into the nature and functioning of the language.

The very concept of synonymy implies variation. It does not mean however that we must include under grammatical synonyms absolute parallelisms which are presented by different kind of grammatical doublets such as, for instance, variant forms of degrees of comparison of adjectives: clever -- cleverer -- the cleverest and clever -- more clever -- the most clever; capable -- capabler -- the capablest and capable -- more capable -- the most capable, etc., or, say, variation in forms observed in the plural of nouns e. g.: hoofs -- hooves; wharfs -- wharves, etc.

There are no absolute synonyms in grammar. And this is to illustrate the fact that a language does not for any length of time retain side by side two means of expressing exactly the same thing. This would burden the language.

Synonymic forms in grammar are not exactly alike, they commonly have fine shares of difference in style and purpose, and students need to be alive to these differences. There is always selection in the distribution of grammatical forms in actual speech. They must harmonise with the context as appropriate to a given situation.

The change in synonymous grammatical forms is often a change in style, and the effect on the reader is quite different. Even a slight alteration in the grammatical device can subtly shift the meaning of the utterance. Examine the following sentence:

"... Have you been wounding him?"

"It is my misfortune to be obliged to wound him", said Clara.

"Quite needlessly, my child, for marry him you must". (Dreiser)

Ellen had wrung her hands and counseled delay, in order that Scarlett might think the matter over at greater length. But to her pleadings, Scarlett turned a sullen face and a deaf ear. Marry she would! And quickly, too. Within two weeks. (Mitchell)

Cf.: Marry she would! and She would marry.

We cannot fail to see that there is a marked difference in style between the two verb forms: the former is neutral, the latter is highly expressive.

Similarly:

"But, no matter -- when her foot healed she would walk to Jonesboro. It would be the longest walk she had ever taken in her life, but walk it she would". (Mitchell)

Cf.: walk it she would > she would walk it

As synonyms in grammar express different shades of the grammatical meaning, one should be careful in the choice of the right forms, the best to convey the subtler nuances of that meaning.

Knowledge of synonymic differentiation between the grammatical forms permits a systematic, objective investigation and description of style. Many of the most characteristic stylistic traits of diverse writers are, indeed, in the field of grammar. A study of grammatical synonyms can also supply a descriptive foundation for the aesthetic interpretation and comparison of diverse styles. Synonyms lend variety to language. There are different manners of writing, and these differ among themselves not only by virtue of the content or the subject matter treated but also by virtue of a host of "stylistic" elements which are present in varying degree in samples of communication.

It is most important to observe that grammatical forms may differ in connotative power; they grow in connotation in accordance with the nature of the meanings connected with them. In the power of their connotation lies the reserve force of expressive language. To acquire a sense of their right use students of English should study them in context in the light of their relations with other grammatical devices. With this approach to the study of the distributional value of word-forms grammar takes on new life.

The problem of synonymy in grammar has received due attention in linguistic investigations of recent years.

There is much truth in what V. N. Yartseva says about the necessity of a consistent linguistic approach to the problem of synonymy in grammar, in general. The first to be mentioned here is a conscious understanding of the organic relation between different aspects of language. The merging of morphology, syntax and vocabulary into one brings little scientific order to language learning and is always responsible for the distortion of linguistic facts.

With regard to the methodology employed in our description of synonymy in grammar there are certain observations which are pertinent tо a summary statement. It will be helpful to distinguish between

a) paradigmatic synonyms and

b) contextual synonyms or synonyms by function in speech.

In English morphology synonyms of the first group are very few in number. Such are, for instance, synthetical and analytical forms in the Subjunctive and Suppositional Mood, e. g.:

...'I now move, that the report and accounts for the year 1886 be received and adopted". (Galsworthy)

(be received and adopted = should be received and adopted)

Paradigmatic synonyms with similarity in function and structural features may also be exemplified by the following:

Non-emphatic Emphatic
	Present Indefinite
I know	I do know
He knows	He does know
	Past indefinite
I knew	I did know
	Imperative Mood
Come	Do come

Analytical verbal forms with the intensive do can express a whole variety of subjective modal meanings: pleasure, admiration, affection, surprise, anger, mild reproach, encouragement, admonition, etc., e. g.

Oh! darling, don't ache! I do so hate it for you. (Galsworthy) There was so much coming and going round the doors that they did not like to enter. Where does he live? I did see him coming out of the hotel. (Galsworthy)

Eagerly her eyes searched the darkness. The roof seemed to be intact. Could it be -- could it be -- ? No, it wasn't possible. War stopped for no-thing, not even Tara, built to last five hundred years. It could not have passed over Tara. Then the shadowy outline did take form. The white walls did show there through the darkness. Tara had escaped. Home! (Mitchell)

But Swithin, hearing the name Irene, looked severely at Euphemia, who, it is true, never did look well in a dress, whatever she may have done on other occasions. (Galsworthy)

For the sake of stronger emphasis the principal verb may be given first and the emphatic do placed at the end. This is often the case in clauses of contrast or concession, e. g.:

When he looked up, her face wore again that strange expression.

I can't tell, he thought as he went out, but I mustn't think -- I mustn't worry. But worry he did, walking toward Pall Mall. (Galsworthy)

And follow her he did, though bothered by unfamiliar words that fell glibly from her lips. (London)

Strong emphasis is also produced by using pleonastic patterns with segmentations, e. g.: He never did care for the river, did Montmorency. (Jerome)

As we have already said, there are no absolute synonyms in grammar. Synonymic forms will generally differ either in various shades of the common grammatical meaning, expressive connotation or in stylistic value. The former may be referred to as relative synonyms, the latter as stylistic ones.

Further examples of paradigmatic synonyms will be found among the so-called periphrastic forms of the English verb.

Relatively synonymous are, for instance, the Future Indefinite tense-forms and the periphrastic "to be going to" future. A simple affirmative statement of intention with no external circumstances mentioned (time, condition, reason, etc.) is generally expressed by the periphrastic form. When a future action depends on the external circumstances the "to be going to" is rare. Cf.:

1. a) He will sell his house, (rare)

b) He's going to sell his house. (normal)

2. a) He'll sell it if you ask him. (normal)

b) He is going to sell it if you ask him. (rare) ¹

To be going to with a personal subject implies a much stronger intention than the Future Tense with shall/will does. Here is an excellent example of its emotional use in expressive language:

... "I'm going to have money some day, lots of it, so I can have anything I want to eat. And then there'll never be any hominy or dried peas on my table. And I'm going to have pretty clothes and all of them are going to be silk..." I'm going to have money enough so the Yankees can never take Таrа away from me. And I'm going to have a new roof for Таrа and a new barn and fine mules for plowing and more cotton that you ever saw. And Wade isn't ever going to know what it means to do without the thing he needs. Never! He's going to have everything in the world. And all my family, they aren't ever going to be hungry again. I mean it. (Mitchell)

Further examples are:

"I never thought about what it meant to Wade", said Rhett slowly. "I never thought how he's suffered. And it's not going to be that way for Bonnie." (Mitchell)

He ought to understand! "He piles up his money for me", she thought; but what's the use, if I'm not going to be happy? Money, and all it 'ought, did not bring happiness". (Galsworthy)

Darling, said Dinny, I do hope things are going to be all right. (Gals-worthy)

Dinny put her hand on his sleeve. "You are not going to lose your job. I've seen Jack Muskham". (Galsworthy)

Quivering at the thought of this long dark night with her, he yet knew

it was going to be torture. (Galsworthy)

Patterns with the passive auxiliaries be and get will also illustrate grammatical synonyms of the first type.

The passive forms in Modern English are represented by analytic combinations of the auxiliary verb to be with the past participle of the conjugated verb. The verb to get can also function as an auxiliary of the passive, e. g.: (1) My dress got caught on a nail. (2) He got struck by a stone. these are not new usages, but ones which are spreading.

To get seems closer to the true passive auxiliary be in patterns like the following: She got blamed for everything. She gets teased by the other children.

The stabilisation of lexico-grammatical devices to indicate the aspective character of the action has also contributed to the development of synonymy in Modern English.

A special interest attaches to contextual synonyms on the grammatica1 level created through transposition of related grammatical forms, Neutralisation of the distinctive features of the opposed grammatical forms leads to situational synonymy.

Here are a few examples to illustrate the statement:

(1) Are you coming to the PPRS Board on Tuesday? (Galsworthy) (The Supposition Present -- Future is neutralised; Are you coming? is synonymus with Will you come?)

Similarly:

(2) Whom do you think I travelled with? Fleur Mont. We ran up against each other at Victoria. She's taking her boy to boring next week to convalesce him. (Galsworthy) (She's taking = she will take)

Present Continuous and Present Indefinite may function as situational synonyms in cases like the following:

Dicky! said James. You are always wasting money on something. (Galsworthy) (You are always wasting is synonymous with You always waste).

She is continually imagining dangers when they do not exist. (She is imagining = she imagines).

June read: Lake Okanagen. British Columbia, I'm not coming back to England. Bless you always.-- John. (Galsworthy) (I'm not coming = = I shall not come).

Fleur huddled her chin in her fur. It was easterly and cold. A voice behind her said: Well, Fleur, am I going East? (Galsworthy) Cf. Am I going East? = Shall I go East?

And here is a good example to illustrate how the situational context can neutralise the opposition "Indicative -- Imperative":

"Let me get in there". He tried to brush Anthony aside. But Anthony firmly stood his ground.

"I'm sorry", he said, his teeth together, "You're not going in there". (Gordon) (Cf. syn. You are not going there = Don't go = You shall not go there).

GRAMMATICAL DOUBLETS

Observations on the structural peculiarities of English furnish numerous examples of variations in some language forms expressing one and the same linguistic notion. Such parallel forms or doublets may be traced at different levels of the language.

There are different doublets functioning in the vocabulary of present-day English such as, for instance, infantile -- infantine; lorry -- lurry; felloe -- felly; idiogram -- ideograph, mediatory -- mediatorial, or graphic variants: draught -- draft, gray -- grey; nosey -- nosy, fogey -- fogy, endue -- indue, koumiss -- kumiss.

Variation in form may be traced in such phonetic variants as:



Doublets will also be observed in grammar. The paradigm of the Modern English verb will furnish such familiar examples as: crow -- crew (crowed) -- crowed; clothe -- clothed -- clothed = clothe -- clad -- clad; get -- got (gotten -- Amer.); knit -- knit -- knit = knit -- knitted -- knitted; lean -- leaned -- leaned = lean -- leant -- leant; quit -- quit -- quit = quit -- quitted -- quitted; spit -- spit (or spat) -- spit; slide -- slid -- slidden (or slid); wed -- wed -- wed = wed -- wedded -- wedded; work -- worked -- worked = work -- wrought -- wrought.

Some variant forms have fallen out of the conjugation and are now chiefly used as verbal adjectives, not as parts of tense-forms, e. g., bounden, cloven, drunken, graven, knitten, molten, proven, rotten, shrunken, shorn, stricken, sunken, washen, e. g. a cloven hoof, a proven fact, sunken cheeks, a swollen lip, the stricken field.

Instances are not few when archaic variant forms are used for stylistic purposes to create the atmosphere of elevated speech in pictorial language, in poetry, or in proverbial sayings, e. g.: the forms in -th for the third person singular, present tense indicative, like doth, hath, endeth, saith, knoweth, etc., or, say, such forms as spake for spoke (past (tense of the verb speak); throve for thrived (past tense of the verb thrive); bare for bore (past tense of the verb bear), knowed for knew (past tense of the verb to know), as in: Measure the cloth ten times; thou canst cut it but twice (prov.) (canst -- can).

Further examples are: The silence in my room, when I got up here at last, was stunning and the moonlight almost yellow. The moon's hiding, now behind one of the elms, and the evening star shining above a dead branch. A few other stars are out, but very dim. It's a night far our time, far even from our world. Not an owl hooting but the honeysuckle still sweet. And so my most dear, here endeth the tale. Good night. Your ever loving Adrian." (Galsworthy) (endeth = ends).

.. .the Captain felt, as sensibly as the most eloquent of men could have done, that there was something in the tranquil time and in its softened beauty that would make the wounded heart of Florence overflow; and that it was better that such tears should have their way. So not a word spake Captain Cuttle. He knowed Toodle, he said, well. Belonged to the Railroad, didn't he? (Dickens) (spake = spoke; knowed = knew)

The use of archaic variants for stylistic purposes may be traced in other languages. Take the paradigm of the verb бути in Ukrainian for illustration.

Єсть там дивний-предивний край. (Леся Українка) Єсть плоди червонощокі, що к зимі достоять. (Тичина)

Дніпре, Дніпре, мій Славуто, широк і славен ти єси.

(Малишко)

Not less characteristic is the stylistic use of other archaic forms in Ukrainian:

«Слава тобі, Шафарику. Bo віки і віки, що звів єси в одно море слов'янськії ріки». (Шевченко). Compare also such variant forms as: питає -- пита; знає -- зна; слухає -- слуха; виглядає -- вигляда, etc.

«У художній прозі та поезії, особливо в творах класиків художньої літератури, часто використовуються: а) дієслова 3-ої особи однини неповного оформлення (зна, гуля, ходе, просе) і б) інфінітиви на -ть. З погляду норм сучасної літературної мови це являє собою поступку перед діалектичними формами -- з метою створення колориту розмовності або для регулювання ритмічності в будові віршованої мови»¹.

Галя собі заспокоюється, ще часом і пісеньку заспіва про журавля. (Вовчок)

Уявляли вони собі хазяйку -- вони знали, що хазяйка молоденька й усе сидить біля віконця та вишива собі очіпки шовками та золотом. (Вовчок)

Його відерце перше пробива лід у криниці, що уночі замерзала, і таскав він сповнені відра під гору. (Вовчок)

Людина обертає в сад пустині

І в стоколосся колос оберта... Людина йде, ясна її мета --

Хвала ж землі, підкореній людині! (Рильський)

Familiar examples of grammatical archaisms still in use for stylistic purposes will be found among pronominal forms, such as, for instance, thee or the poetical possessives thy and thine which do not occur in everyday speech, e. g.:

Tell me then, star, whose wings of light

Speed thee in thy fiery flight,

In what cavern of the night

Will thy pinious close now? (Shelley)

Grammatical doublets will be found in the formation of the plural, e. g.:

cows -- kine (arch.)

fies -- fone (arch.) shoes -- shoen (arch.) scarfs -- scarves

wharfs -- wharves

There is also morphological variation in the plural of nouns foreign in origin. Through natural process of assimilation some borrowed nouns have developed parallel forms, e. g.: formulae -- formulas; antennae -- antennas; foci -- focuses; termini -- terminuses; strata -- stratums. Foreign plural forms are decidedly more formal than their native doublets.

We also find such grammatical forms as ain't or ain of the verb to be corresponding to the forms am not, is not and are not. The combination of a verb-form with the negative particle not differs from the same form without the particle. There is no distinction here between am not, is not, and are not. These variant forms are low colloquial, if not vulgar, and are incompatible with serious literary style. A few examples of their use are given below:

"You're right again", returned the Captain, giving his hand another squeeze. "Nothing it is. So! Steady! There's a son gone: pretty little creetur. Ain't there?

...Thank'ее. My berth a'nt very roomy», said the Captain. (Dickens)

An't you a thief?" said Mr. Carker, with his hands behind him in pockets.

"No, Sir", pleaded Rob.

"You are!" said Mr. Carker.

"I an't indeed, Sir", whimpered Rob. (Dickens)

Observations on current linguistic change in present-day English furnish examples of grammatical variants developed in recent times.

The first to be mentioned here are linguistic changes in the paradigmatic sets of adjectives, resulting from the continued loss of inflections and their active replacement by syntactic devices in the comparative and superlative where forms with -er and -est are being replaced by forms with more and most. In point of fact, this is the continuation of a trend of long standing. Adjectives with three or more syllables are normally compared with more and most; monosyllabic adjectives, on the other hand, are normally compared with -er and -est (large, larger, largest). Adjectives with two syllables are divided, some usually being compared one way, the others the other; and it is in this dissyllabic group of adjectives that the change is most noticeable. Adjectives formerly taking -er and -est tend to go over to more and most, e. g. common -- commoner -- the commonest and common -- more common -- most common. To-day weather forecasts frequently say that it will be more cloudy instead of cloudier. The same is true of such adjectives as cruel, clever, fussy, profound, pleasant, simple, subtle. Recently there have been many cases of more and most spreading even to monosyllabic adjectives, e. g. more crude, more keen, more plain, etc. Forms like more well-informed and more well-dressed functioning parallel with the former better-informed and best-dressed are also frequent.

That the process of loss of inflections is still going on in present-day English is especially clear in the parallel use of such pronouns who and whom, I and me. The inflected form whom seems to be disappearing only from the spoken language and being replaced by who, though it still persists strongly in the written language. It is quite natural, for instance, to say I don't know who to suggest, and I don't know whom to suggest. There is one position where whom is always used still, and that is immediately after a preposition which governs it: we cannot replace whom by who in the sentences: To whom shall I give it? and I don't know for whom it is intended? But these sentences really belong to the written language, and sound extremely stilted in speech; in point of fact, most people would say Who shall I give it to? and I don't know who it's intended for.

It is also to be noted that me is now formally accepted as the form to use after the verb to be (Cf. French moi). Nowadays it sounds rather pedantic to say It is I instead of the normal pattern It's me. And in present-day use there is a good deal of confusion about the case to be used after but, as and like, e. g., nobody but me, or nobody but I; there may be the first signs of an ultimate erosion of the nominative-accusative contrast in the personal pronouns, like that now taking place with who.

A word should also be said about the negative and interrogative forms of the verb to have. When have is a full verb (meaning "possess", "hold", "experience", etc.), not an auxiliary, it has two ways of forming its negative and interrogative: (1) with parts of the auxiliary do (do you have?, he didn't have, etc.); and (2) without using do (have you?, he hadn't, or in British usage very often have you got?, he hadn't got). The distribution of these doublets in English is rather complicated, and depends partly on the meaning of have, e. g., He hadn't got any money, but He didn't have any difficulty. In some cases, however, it also depends on whether or not the verb denotes habitual action: thus we say Do you have dances in your village hall? (habitual), but Have you got a dance on tonight? (not habitual). This habitual/non-habitual criterion is not typical of American usage, which often employs do-forms for non-habitual have, where in England they employ got-forms; thus Americans often say Do you have the time?, where Englishmen say Have you got the time? Patterns of the type Do you have the time? are coming (though slowly) into general use.

Revision Material

1. 1. Be ready to discuss the linguistic schools in the theory of English grammar.

Give comments on the early prescriptive grammars of English.

Characterise the principal design of classical scientific grammars upheld by 20th century scholars.

Give brief comments on various types of grammar in terms of their linguistic approach and methods of analysis (traditional grammar, philosophical grammar, comparative grammar, historical grammar, structural grammar, transformational grammar, generative grammar).

2. Give the general characteristics of the grammatical structure of English as an analytic language.

Give comments on the distinctions between synchronic and diachronic aspects in grammatical studies. Be ready to illustrate the statement that the two aspects are organically related and as such cannot be always absolutely isolated.