Modern English Grammar

Comment on the structural methods that have now widely developed in language learning.

5. Be ready to discuss the contribution to the development of the grammatical theory made by Soviet scholars.

II. 1. Make comments on the constant reciprocal action between vocabulary and grammar.

2. Comment on the methods of modern structural analysis that have in recent times widely developed in grammatical studies.

3. Give comments on the following linguistic terminology: paradigmatics, syntagmatics; denotation; connotation; grammeme; morpheme; tagmemes; allomorph; accidence; lexical valency; syntactic valency; opposeme; binary opposition; trinomic opposition; polynomic opposition; potential polysemy; suspension of oppositions.

Be ready to discuss the theory of oppositions as being applied in linguistic studies at different levels.

Comment on transposition of grammatical forms and their functional re-evaluation.

Give comments on homonymie forms in English grammar. Distinguish between inflectional and constructional homonymy. Give examples of grammatical ambiguity.

What do we mean by lexical incongruity (= improbability)?

Give comments on variant paradigmatic forms (doublets) in grammar.

Get ready to discuss the sources of synonyms in grammar and the problem of their classification.

Discuss the statement that the asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign is a fairly common development in the structure of language.

The paradigmatic meaning of one grammatical form can coincide with the syntagmatic meaning of another. Can you give examples to illustrate it?

What does neutralisation of opposition presuppose?

Comment on neutralisation (suspension) of oppositions signalled by: a) lexical incongruity of sentence elements, b) special syntactic structures and c) extra linguistic situation.

PART I. MORPHOLOGY

Chapter I. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF MORPHOLOGY

In books devoted to teaching grammar it is usual to establish two main divisions, these being variously termed:

Morphology (Greek: tnorphe -- form, logos -- learning).

Syntax -- The Grammar of Sentences (Greek: syn -- with, tasso -- arrange).

The subject matter of morphology is the grammatical classes and groups of words, their grammatical categories and systems of forms (paradigms) in which these categories actually exist.

The word as a grammatical unit has its meaning and form.

Syntax examines the ways in which words may be combined and the relationships that exist between the words in combination.

Keeping this traditional classification of linguistic studies, we must naturally recognise the affinities between the two parts of grammar. Syntax bears an intimate relation to morphology because morphological devices are greatly conditioned by syntactical arrangements. It is of great importance to our subject to understand the constant reciprocal action of form and function. These two should be studied in their relationships but none should be brought to the front at the expense of the other.

Morphology is inadequate alone, because relatively few kinds of English words are subject to morphological variation. Syntax alone will not do either partly because there are borderline word-forms and phrases not indisputably assigned to any class.

It seems practical to distinguish between paradigmatic and syntagmatic study of morphology. Thus, for instance, if we consider the word-form itself as part of a given paradigm we remain in the sphere of morphology. Analysing the word in its surrounding in the sentence, we discuss the syntagmatic connections of a given word. The statement that an adjective is used to modify a noun, or that an adverb is used to modify a verb, is a statement of syntagmatic or functional morphology.

In importance morphology is far inferior to syntax in Modern English. Of words in Modern English not over one fourth possess any distinctive morphological form, the others being of a common neutral morphological character, and their syntax or context alone can determine their number, case or tense: sheep, deer, set, cost, put. The structure of a language is to a large extent conditioned by its system of formal oppositions proceeding from which we generally identify the morphological classes of words.

In English the formal oppositions may be well illustrated by such pairs as girl:: girls, girl:: girl's; I:: we, and I:: me, and the set of three he:: she:: it. It is around such oppositions (also called "opposemes") that the grammatical system of the language is to a large extent built up.

Similar formal oppositions among the verbs are: play:: plays and play:: played; Cf. also the set of three am:: is:: are.

The pair play:: plays will represent the opposition between the third person singular present tense, on the one hand, and the other persons of the singular plus those of the plural, on the other. In literary English, however, it also represents an opposition on a different plane: the third person singular of a verb may occur either with or without -s; the form without -s is known as the Subjunctive, the one with -s as the Indicative, and the difference is said to be one of Mood. The meaning of each necessary grammatical abstraction makes itself clear in the course of actual usage.

The grammar of any natural language is a bilateral unity of form and content. The content of grammar appears to be generalised in its categorial expression. Organically related to vocabulary, grammar always retains its underlying categories.

A morphological category is an organised set of grammatical forms -- grammemes.

The general notions of grammar which determine the structure of language and find their expression in inflection and other devices are generally called grammatical categories. As is known, a grammatical category is generally represented by at least two grammatical forms, otherwise it cannot exist. A simple case of oppositions in pairs of grammatical forms will be found, for instance, between the Singular and the Plural in nouns, or, say, between Active and Passive in verbs.

In dealing with grammar it is often useful to observe such contrasts in terms of "marked" and "unmarked" members.

In binary oppositions between pairs of categories one member (the "marked" member) signals the presence of a general or overall meaning, while the unmarked member may either signal "absence of the marked meaning" or else be noncommittal as to its absence or presence. Thus love and loved are in contrast as "present" and "past" but only the latter is actually "marked" as such; love is "unmarked" and as such may be much more widely used than merely as a present in contrast with loved. It is fairly common that of two members of an opposition one has a definite meaning, whereas the meaning of the other is less definite, or vague. In Penguins live in the Antarctic, live. is, so to say, "tenseless". Since the statement is true not only for the present but for the past and (presumably) the future.

A polynomic opposition falls into binary ones and each of its members enters several binary oppositions. Thus, for instance, in the trinomic oppositions of Moods each member is contrasted to the two others taken together and to each of the two others taken apart, e. g., the Indicative Mood stands in contrast with the Subjunctive and the Imperative; similarly the Imperative Mood is contrasted with the Subjunctive and the Indicative, the Subjunctive Mood is contrasted with the Imperative and the Indicative.

The problem of oppositions on the morphological level has not been completely solved as yet and remains a source of constant interest in modem language learning ¹.

Words may express a semantic conception and one or more conceptions of a grammatical order. One and the same form of the word may express different grammatical meanings (e. g. person, number, etc.) The following analysis will be very helpful to illustrate the statement. In the sentence The horses ran faster the word horses not only evokes in our mind the idea of a certain animal but the idea of the doer of the action; it also evokes the conception of plurality. The word ran corresponds to the idea of motion, but it also evokes the idea of the character of that motion and the idea of "pastness" (past time). The word faster suggests not only the manner of action, its speed, but a relative speed (relative quality). In the sentence He takes French lessons, for instance, take conveys the idea of an action; the ending -s expresses the relation of this action to the subject as well as the idea of time, person, number, mood, voice, aspect.

It must be emphasised that the difference between notional words and "grammatical" or "function-words" is often not so much a matter of form as of content². In terms of meaning, function words are known to be semantically depleted and very general. As such they may be referred to as semi-notional. Considered in form, they sometimes coincide with notional parts of speech. Compare, for instance, the verbs get, go and grow in the following patterns: to get dry and to get a letter, to go home and to go bad, to grow potatoes and to grow dark.

Take the sentence The boy says that the guests did arrive. Grammar has done important things here: it has arranged the words in a particular order, making clear subject-predicate relations; it has contributed tense by the change of say into says, and number by the addition of -s; grammar has added the intensifier did to emphasise the verbal idea and has given such additional words as the and that.

Grammatical words which play so large a part in English grammar are for the most part sharply and оbviоиslу different from the lexical words, as one can see by comparing the given units in our example: the, that, did and boy, says, guests, arrive. A ready difference which may seem most obvious is that grammatical words have "less meaning" and may bе opposed to fully lexical words.

But this should be taken with some point of reservation. Although a word like the is not the name of something as boy is, it is far from being altogether meaningless, for there is, of course, a difference in meaning between a bog and the boy. Moreover, grammatical words differ considerably among themselves as to the amount of meaning they have, even in the lexical sense. Thus, for instance, the definite article m our example differs considerably from the article used with demonstrative force in patterns like the following:

This is the book I showed him yesterday (the = that). He is the man who brought the letter (the = that).

In Modern English grammatical forms can be made synthetically and analytically.

Synthetical system will include: 1) inflection, e. g.:He works, he worked; 2) suppletivity (go -- went -- gone). Suppletive forms are made by combining different roots; such is the paradigm of the verb to be: a) am; b) is; c) are; d) was, were; e) be, been, being. Formations of this type will be found in adjectives: good -- better -- the best; bad -- worse -- the worst; in pronouns; I -- me, my, mine; we -- us, our, ours.

Inflection is one of distinguishing characteristics of the family of Indo-European languages. The extent to which these various languages make use of inflection differs greatly, and there is often considerable variation, as in English, even in the periods of one and the same language.

Broadly defined, inflection as a structural device of language is the change or variation in the forms of a word for the purpose of indicating corresponding variations in its meaning and use.

In point of fact, inflections are morphemic changes -- the addition of suffixes and concomitant morphophonemic adjustments -- which adapt words to perform certain structural functions without changing their lexical meaning.

The definition implies that there is a certain root element which remains constant, but which is given specific application and meaning by additions to this element. As commonly applied, the term refers to such distinctions as those of gender, number, case, mood, tense, voice and so forth.

So few are the inflections of Modern English as compared with synthetic languages that it is sometimes characterised as "a grammarless tongue". This point of view is altogether erroneous and may seem correct only to those who think of grammar as meaning the same thing as inflection.

In synthetical languages where the grammatical function of a word is implicit in the form of the word, inflection or accidence, as it is sometimes called, does play a large part. But still we can hardly say that through the loss of inflection English has become "a grammarless tongue" in the true sense of the word "gramma".

English inflection has been gradually simplified in the course of time but the language has developed other devices to perform the same function and its structure and its rules of right and wrong, and it is as necessary to observe them, as other languages observe their inflectional system and rules of concord.

Modern English is not unique in developing analytical tendencies. Other European languages have done the same, but the idiosyncratic aspect of analytical forms in any language should not escape our notice. The distinctive features characterising English as a mainly analytical language are known to be the following:

comparatively few grammatical inflections;

scarcity of grammatical forms with sound alternations;

a wide use of prepositions to denote relations between objects and connect words in the sentence;

a more or less "fixed" or "grammatical" word order to denote grammatical relations.

An analytical form consists of at least two words but actually constitutes one sense-unit. Only one of the two elements has lexical meaning, the second has none, and being an auxiliary word possesses only grammatical meaning, e. g.: I have come, I had come; I am writing, I have been writing, I should write, I should have written, it is written, it was written, etc. Degrees of comparison formed by more and most are also analytic in structure: interesting -- more interesting -- the most interesting; difficult -- more difficult -- the most difficult.

All the analytical verbal forms go back to free syntactical groups.

As is known, modern Perfect Tenses are formed by means of the auxiliary verb to have followed by the past participle of the notional verb. In Old English the past participle was not an intrinsic part of the tense but was regarded as an adjective in apposition to the object governed by the verb have; the participle agreed in case (accusative) with the object: I have written my letter meant I have my letter written. It was quite natural that these forms were at first used with transitive verbs; the corresponding forms of intransitive verbs were generally formed with the verb be. In such constructions the participle always agreed with the subject. He is come meant He is in the state of being come.

But when the origin of the have-forms had been forgotten, they were gradually extended to intransitive verbs as well: He has gone; He has come; He had gone; He had come.

In Modern English to be is still used in some cases to imply a state rather than an action, e. g.: Good-bye, Mr. M. M.! she called and was gone among the rose-trees! (Galsworthy)

The passive forms, analytic in their structure, have likewise originated from free syntactical groups. In Modern English they are presented by the association of the auxiliary verb to be with a past participle; to be written, to be done, etc. There is also a more expressive form of the passive made up with the auxiliary verb to get, most frequent in colloquial English, e.g.: The animal got struck by a stone. The two passive formations will often differentiate in their aspective character. Cf. He was tired:: He got tired.

When new devices had become well established, they came to express grammatical categories which had not been expressed in this way, or at all, in Old English period.

Modern English grammatical relations expressed by the devices that did not exist at earlier stages of language development are:

future, perfect and continuous tenses expressed with auxiliaries;

case-relationships expressed by means of prepositions;

passive voice (in embryo in Old English);

case-relationships, modification, agreement indicated by word- order.

Analytical verbal forms are most specific analytical formations. To understand their nature we should examine both their structure and their function. Considered in their outer aspect, they are free combinations of at least two words, which stand to each other in the same syntactical relation as words in a phrase. Considered in function, they go parallel with synthetical forms as belonging to a certain grammatical category and doing the duty of the form of the word.

The general criteria of defining the linguistic nature of analytical forms seem to be equally applicable to all languages but in certain concrete phenomena of every language we may easily trace their specific peculiarities associated in each case with concrete conditions of language development. Their very nature in any modern language gives every reason to exclude them from the realm of syntax as belonging to morphology. They now represent a special type of form-making, different from that of ordinary word-changing, and, as already remarked, historically connected with syntax. In fact, there seems no small justification for adopting V. V. Vinogradov's term «синтаксическое формообразование» which he aptly uses to characterise all the double-sidedness of these specific indivisible unities: their participation in morphology and their structural resemblance to word-combination.

On the whole, analytical forms are characterised by:

semantic indivisibility,

idiomatic character,

generalisation and abstraction from the concrete,

belonging in the paradigm of the word as one of its structural elements.

It comes quite natural that there are no grammatical categories in language represented only by analytical forms, for the very distinction of the latter from other word-combinations is based upon their parallelism and relationship with synthetical forms.

As we have already said, analytical forms in different languages may have their specific peculiarities associated with concrete conditions of language development. A few examples for illustration: English analytical forms in the Perfect Tenses are, no doubt, more free and "mobile" than, say, in Modern German: Have you ever been to Paris? Yes, I have. No, 1 haven't. Short answers of the given type are quite impossible in German.

A noticeable feature of English analytical forms is the use of the auxiliary verb to do: Do you speak French? Yes, I do. No, I don't. Did you see him yesterday? Yes, I did. No, I didn't.

Deep-rooted in English idiom is the use of the emphatic auxiliaries do and did functioning as expedients to produce intensity and emphasis in such emphatic forms of the Present Indefinite, Past Indefinite and the Imperative Mood, as: (1) I do so wonder what Jolyon's boy is like. (Galsworthy) (2) Irene's visit to the house -- but there was nothing in that except that she might have told him; but then, again, she never did tell him anything. (Galsworthy) (3) Oh! Do be serious, Michael! -- you never give me any help in arranging. (Galsworthy)

The idiosyncratic aspect of analytical form in any language should not escape our notice. We find here those additional structural potentialities of grammatical forms which contribute significantly to the specific development of the grammatical system of a given language.

Chapter II. PARTS OF SPEECH

PROBLEM OF CLASSIFICATION

Parts of speech are the great taxonomic classes into which all the words of a language fall.

An adequate definition of parts of speech must naturally proceed from a set of criteria that can be consistently applied to all lexical units of a given language. We cannot, for instance, use only "lexical meaning" as the basis for the definition of some word-classes, "function in the sentence" for others, and "formal characteristics" for still others.

As the basis for the definition of word-classes we naturally must use not only their morphological and word-making characteristics but semantic and syntactical features as well. The latter are particularly important for such parts of speech as have no morphological distinctions ai all ¹

It will be more in accord with the nature of language to say that parts of speech -- must be identified proceeding from:

a common categorial meaning of a given class of words abstracted from the lexical meaning of all the words belonging to this class;

a common paradigm and

identity of syntactic functions.

To find out what particular class a given English word belongs to we cannot look at one isolated word. Nor is there any inflexional ending that is the exclusive property of any single part of speech. The ending -ed (-d), for instance, is generally found in verbs (opened, smoked, etc.), but it may be also added to nouns to form adjectives (kind-hearted, talented, blue-eyed, etc.); the inflexion -s changes the noun into a plural and -s is also used to indicate the third person singular in verbs, etc.

The attitude of grammarians with regard to parts of speech and the basis of their classification has varied a good deal at different times. Some modern grammarians maintain that the only criterion of their classification should be the form of words.

Taking "form" in rather a wide sense, they characterise nouns, for instance, as possessing certain formal characteristics which attach to no other class of words. These are the prefixing of an article or demonstrative, the use of an inflexional sign to denote possession and plurality, and union with prepositions to mark relations originally indicated by inflexional endings. This does not seem justified however because the absence of all the features enumerated should not exclude a word from being a noun, and this should be described as a word which has, or in any given usage may have those formal signs.

Grammatical categories identifying the parts of speech are known to be expressed in paradigms. We generally distinguish inflectional and analytical types of the paradigm. In the former the invariable part is the stem, in the latter the lexical element of the paradigm. The so-called interparadigmatic homonymy resulting from the fact that the root, the stem and the grammatical form of the word may be identical in sound, is most frequent.

Some type of structural ambiguity always results in English whenever the form-classes of the words are not clearly marked.

Vivid examples of such kind of ambiguity are given by Ch. Fries ¹ with reference to the use of the article in Modern English:

"The utterance ship sails today (which might appear in a telegram) is ambiguous as it stands because of the absence of clear part-of-speech markers. If a clear part-of-speech marker the is put before the first word as in 'The ship sails today', there is no ambiguity; we have a statement. If, however, the same marker is put before the second word as in 'Ship the sails today', there is also no ambiguity, but the utterance is different; we have a request. Other clear part-of-speech markers would also resolve the ambiguity, as with the addition of such a marker as the ending -ed: 'Shipped sail today'; 'Ship sailed today'."

Newspaper headlines very frequently are structurally ambiguous because of the lack of definite part-of-speech or form-class markers. Some typical examples out of many are the following:

(1) "Vandenberg Reports Open Forum". The ambiguity of this heading could be cleared by the use of such markers as the or an, as: 'Vandenberg Reports Open the Forum', 'Vandenberg Reports an Open Forum'.

(2) "Unfavourable Surveyor Reports delayed Michigan Settlement". The ambiguity of this heading would be cleared by the use of such markers as have or a 'Unfavourable Surveyor Reports Have delayed Michigan Settlement'; 'Unfavourable Surveyor Reports a Delayed Michigan Settlement' .

We cannot fail to see that in such cases the article as a clear part-of-speech marker serves to contrast the paradigmatic forms. This is closely related to the development of conversion which is one of the most peculiar features of English and presents a special point of interest in its structure. By conversion we mean a non-affix word-making device where the paradigm of the word and its syntactical function signal the lexico-grammatical nature of the word. The newly formed word differs both lexically and grammatically from the source word and the latter becomes its homonym.

It is to be noted that some modern linguists have abandoned many of the commonly held views of grammar. With regard to the methodology employed their linguistic approach differs from former treatments in language learning. Structural grammatical studies deal primarily with the "grammar of structure", and offer an approach to the problems of "sentence analysis" that differs in point of view and in emphasis from the usual treatment of syntax ^l.

Some linguists prefer to avoid the traditional terminology and establish a classification of words based only on the distributive analysis, i. e., their аbility to combine with other words of different types. Thus, for instance, the words and and but will fall under one group, while because and whether are referred to as belonging to another group.

The four major parts of speech (noun, verb, adjective, adverb) set up by the process of substitution in С h. Fries' recorded material are given no names except numbers: class 1, class 2, class 3, class 4. Assumptions have been made by Ch. Fries that all words which can occupy the same "set of positions" in the patterns of English single free utterances must belong to the same part of speech ². These four classes make up the "bulk"of functioning units in structural patterns of English. Then come fifteen groups of so-called function words, which have certain characteristic in common. In the mere matter of number of items the fifteen groups differ sharply from the four classes. In the four large classes, Ch. Fries points out, the lexical meanings of the words depend on the arrangement in which these words appear. In function-words it is usually difficult if not impossible to indicate a lexical meaning apart from the structural meaning which these words signal.

Ch. Fries made an attempt to establish the form-classes of English purely syntactically. His work presents a methodical analysis of a corpus of recorded fifty hours of diverse conversation by some three hundred different speakers. This material, in his words, covers the basic matters of English structure. The book presents a major linguistic interest as an experiment rather than for its achievements.

The new approach -- the application of two of the methods of structural linguistics, distributional analysis and substitution -- makes it possible for Ch. Fries to dispense with the usual eight parts of speech. He classifies words, as may be seen from the extracts into four "form-classes", designated by numbers, and fifteen groups of "function words", designated by letters. The form-classes correspond roughly to what most grammarians call nouns and pronouns, verbs, adjective and adverbs, though Ch. Fries especially warns the reader against the attempt to translate the statements which the latter finds in the book into the old grammatical terms. The group of function words contains not only prepositions and conjunctions, but also certain specific words that most traditional grammarians would class as a particular kind of pronouns, adverbs and verbs.

Other modern grammarians retain the traditional names of parts of speech, though the methods they use to identify the various parts of speech, the number of them and the distribution of words among them are all different from what is found in traditional grammar. They also exclude function words from the classification of parts of speech and give them entirely separate treatment ¹.

Setting aside function words and observing the remaining words as they are combined into utterances with clear and unambiguous structural meaning, W. Francis finds it necessary to identify four different parts of speech: noun, verb, adjective and adverb. In his analysis nouns are identified, for instance, by five formal criteria, some more important than others. The most common noun-marking signal is a group of function words called noun-determiners. These precede the nouns they mark, either immediately or with certain types of words between; nouns have inflections; many nouns may be identified as such by various noun-marking derivational suffixes; nouns fill certain characteristic positions in relation to other identified parts of speech in phrases and utterances, etc. Verb-marking criteria as given by W.Francis are the following: inflections, function words, derivational affixes, positions and "superfixes", і. e. "morphological" stress in cases like import -- to import; contract -- to contract; perfect -- to perfect, etc.

It must be recognised that recent studies and practical suggestions made by structural linguists in this field, though not yet quite successful at all points, still new and experimental, are becoming increasingly interesting and important for language learning and practical training in linguistic skills. The subject matter of structural grammar has already supplied much material in the field of descriptive techniques. Some new methods of linguistic analysis promise to be rather efficient and are now being tried out.

English school grammars deal extensively with the parts of speech, usually given as eight in number and explained in definitions that have become traditional. It had long been considered that these eight parts of speech -- noun, pronoun, adjective, verb, adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection -- are basic classifications that can be applied to the words of any language and that the traditional definition furnishes an adequate set of criteria by which the classification can be made.

We cannot however admit without question that the eight parts of speech inherited from the past will be the most satisfactory for present-day English.

The linguistic evidence drawn from our grammatical study gives every reason to subdivide the whole of the English vocabulary into eleven parts of speech; in point of fact, eight of them are notional words which make up the largest part of the vocabulary and five are "function words", comparatively few in actual number of items, but used very frequently.

Notional or fully-lexical parts of speech are: nouns, adjectives, verbs., adverbs, pronouns, numerals, modal words and interjections. Prepositions, conjunctions and particles are parts of speech largely devoid of lexical meaning and used to indicate various functional relationship among the notional words of an utterance.

Generally speaking we can say that all nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs are capable of making direct reference and are the main units which carry the burden of referential information, and that all other words provide functional information.

Oppositional relations between different parts of speech may be thus shown as follows:

Autosemantic		Synsemantic
noun, verb, adjective, adverb, pronoun, numeral		preposition, conjunction, particle, auxiliary verb, copula
Function Words
Syntactic Functions		Morphological Functions
preposition, conjunction, particle, copula		article, auxiliary verb

Chapter III The Noun

The lexico-grammatical meaning of the noun is denoting "substance"

In Modern English the marked formal characteristics of nouns are as follows: nouns have inflections for number and case, they may be associated with the definite or indefinite article.

There is no grammatical gender in Modern English ¹. The noun does not possess any special gender forms, neither does the accompanying adjective, pronoun or article indicate any gender agreement with the head noun. Unlike many languages that have gender, English has very few clear formal markers that indicate the gender of nouns; the situation in English is much less rigid and clear-cut since many words (dog, for instance) may have he, she or it as substitutes. It thus seems justified to restrict the term "gender" to those languages that have precise and mutually exclusive noun-classes marked by clear formal markers.

Not every noun possesses such grammatical categories as number and case.

NUMBER

Modern English like most other languages distinguishes two numbers: singular and plural. The meaning of singular and plural seems to be self-explanatory, that is the opposition: one -- more than one. With all this, expression of number in different classes of English nouns presents certain ! difficulties for a foreigner to master.

As already mentioned, plural and singular nouns stand in contrast as diametrically opposite. Instances are not few, however, when their opposition comes to be neutralised. And this is to say that there are cases when the numeric differentiation appears to be of no importance at all. Here belong many collective abstract and material nouns. If, for instance, we look at the meaning of collective nouns, we cannot fail to see that they denote at the same time a plurality and a unit. They may be said to be doubly countables and thus from a logical point of view form the exact contrast to mass nouns: they are, in fact, at the same time singular and plural, while mass words are logically neither. The double-sidedness of collective nouns weakens the opposition and leads to the development of either Pluralia tantum, as in: weeds (in a garden), ashes, embers, etc., or Singularia tantum, as in: wildfowl, clergy, foliage, etc.

Compare the Ukrainian: кучері, гроші, дріжджі, сходи, зелень, листя, дичина. Similarly in Russian: дрожжи, деньги, кудри, всходы, листва, дичь, зелень. German: Eltern, Geschwister, Zwillinge -- Pluralia tantum; das Geflugel, das Wild, das Obst -- Singularia tantum. Similar developments may be traced in French: les pois, les epinards, les asperges.

In some cases usage fluctuates, and the two forms are interchangeable, e. g. brain or brains: he has no brains or little brains; victuals is more common than victual; oats than oat; similarly: His wages were high. How much wages does he get? That is a fair wage. They could not take too much pains.

The dual nature of collective nouns is shown linguistically in various ways: by the number of the verb or by the pronoun referring to it, as for instance, My family are early risers, they are already here. Cf. My family is not large.

It is important to observe that the choice between singular and plural depends on the meaning attached to the noun. Compare also: We have much fruit this year and The rich fruits of the heroic labour of Soviet people are visible from all the corners of the earth.

Similarly: The football team is playing very well. Cf. The football team are having bath and are coming back here for tea.

A word should be said about stylistic transpositions of singular nouns in cases like the following: trees in leaf, to have a keen eye, blue of eye, strong of muscle. Patterns of this kind will exemplify synecdoche -- the simplest case of metonymy in grammar ("pars pro toto").

The Germans won the victories. By God they were soldiers. The Old Hun was a soldier. But they were cooked too. They were all cooked... The Hun would come down through the Trentino, and cut the railway at the Vicenza and then where would the Italians be? (Hemingway)

The chap was so big now that he was there nearly all his time, like some immovable, sardonic, humorous eye nothing to decline of men and things. (Galsworthy)

Cf. Держи вухо востро. Держи ухо остро. У него наметанный глаз. И слышно было до рассвета, как ликовал француз. (Лермонтов)

Other "universals" in expressing plurality will be found in what may be called "augmentative" plurals, i. e. when the plural forms of material nouns are used to denote large amounts of substance, or a high degree of something. This is often the case when we see the matter as it exists in nature. Such plural forms are often used for stylistic purposes in literary prose and poetry, e. g.: the blue waters of the Mediterranean, the sands of the Sahara Desert, the snows of Kilimanjaro.

Similarly in Russian: синие воды Средиземного моря, пески Сахары, снега Арктики.

Еще в полях белеет снег,

А воды уж весной шумят. (Тютчев)

Люблю ее степей алмазные снега. (Фет)

Ukrainian: Сині води Середземного моря, піски Сахари, сніги Арктики.

Cf. French: les eaux, les sables;

German: die Sande, die Wasser.

Attention must also be drawn to the emotive use of plural forms of abstract verbal nouns in pictorial language:

...it was a thousand pities he had run off with that foreign girl -- a governess too! (Galsworthy)

The look on her face, such as he had never seen there before, such as she had always hidden from him was full of secret resentments, and longings, and fears. (Mitchell)

The peculiar look came into Bosinney's face which marked all his enthusiasms. (Galsworthy)

Her face was white and strained but her eyes were steady and sweet and full of pity and unbelief. There was a luminous serenity in them and the innocence in the soft brown depths struck him like a blow in the face, clearing some of the alcohol out of his brain, halting his mad, careering words in mod-flight. (Mitchell)

He stood for a moment looking down at the plain, heart-shaped face with its long window's peak and serious dark eyes. Such an unwordly face, a face with no defenses against life. (Mitchell)