Theoretical English grammar

The past participle is included in the structural formation of the present participle (perfect, passive), which, together with the other differential properties, vindicates the treatment of this form as a separate verbid.

In the attributive use, the past participial meanings of the perfect and the passive are expressed in dynamic correlation with the aspective lexico-grammatical character of the verb. As a result of this correlation, the attributive past participle of limitive verbs in a neutral context expresses priority, while the past participle of unlimitive verbs expresses simultaneity. E.g.:

A tree broken by the storm blocked the narrow passage between the cliffs and the water. (Priority in the passive; the implication is "a tree that had been broken by the storm") I saw that the picture admired by the general public hardly had a fair chance with the judges. (Simultaneity in the passive; the implication is "the picture which was being admired by the public")

Like the present participle, the past participle is capable of making up semi-predicative constructions of complex object, complex subject, as well as of absolute complex.

The past participial complex object is specifically characteristic with verbs of wish and oblique causality (have, get). Cf.:

I want the document prepared for signing by 4 p.m. Will you have my coat brushed up, please?

Compare the use of the past; participial complex object and the complex subject as its passive transform with a perception verb:

We could hear a shot or two fired from a field mortar. > Л shot or two could be heard fired from a field mortar.

The complex subject of this type, whose participle is included in the double predicate of the sentence, is used but occasionally. A more common type of the participial complex subject can be seen with notional links of motion and position. Cf.: We sank down and for a while lay there stretched out and exhausted.

The absolute past participial complex as a rule expresses priority in the correlation of two events. Cf.: The preliminary talks completed, it became possible to concentrate on the central point of the agenda.

The past participles of non-objective verbs are rarely used in independent sentence-part positions; they are mostly included in phraseological or cliche combinations like faded photographs, fallen leaves, a retired officer, a withered flower, dream come true, etc. In these and similar cases the idea of pure quality rather than that of processual quality is expressed, the modifying participles showing the features of adjectivisation.

As is known, the past participle is traditionally interpreted as being capable of adverbial-related use (like the present participle), notably in detached syntactical positions, after the introductory subordinative conjunctions. Cf.:

Called up by the conservative minority, the convention failed to pass a satisfactory resolution. Though welcomed heartily by his host, Frederick felt at once that something was wrong.

Approached from the paradigmatic point of view in the constructional sense, this interpretation is to be re-considered. As a matter of fact, past participial constructions of the type in question display clear cases of syntactic compression. The true categorial nature of the participial forms employed by them is exposed by the corresponding transformational correlations ("back transformations") as being not of adverbial, but of definitely adjectival relation. Cf.:

...> The convention, which was called up by the conservative minority, failed to pass a satisfactory resolution. ...> Though he was welcomed heartily by his host, Frederick felt at once that something was wrong.

Cf. a more radical diagnostic transformational change of the latter construction: ...> Frederick, who was welcomed heartily by his host, nevertheless felt at once that something was wrong.

As is seen from the analysis, the adjectival relation of the past participle in the quoted examples is proved by the near-predicative function of the participle in the derived transforms, be it even within the composition of the finite passive verb form. The adverbial uses of the present participle react to similar tests in a different way. Cf.: Passing on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her guests. > As he passed on to the library, he found Mabel entertaining her guests.

The adverbial force of the present participle in constructions like that is shown simply as resulting from the absence of obligatory mediation of be between the participle and its subject (in the derivationally underlying units).

As an additional proof of our point, we may take an adjectival construction for a similar diagnostic testing. Cf.: Though red in the face, the boy kept denying his guilt. > Though he was red in the face, the boy kept denying his guilt.

As we see, the word red, being used in the diagnostic concessive clause of complete composition, does not change its adjectival quality for an adverbial quality. Being red in the face would again present another categorial case. Being, as a present participial form, is in the observed syntactic conditions neither solely adjectival-related, nor solely adverbial-related; it is by nature adjectival-adverbial, the whole composite unity in question automatically belonging to the same categorial class, i.e. the class of present participial constructions of different subtypes.

The consideration of the English verbids in their mutual comparison, supported and supplemented by comparing them with their non-verbal counterparts, puts forward some points of structure and function worthy of special notice.

In this connection, the infinitive-gerund correlation should first be brought under observation.

Both forms are substance-processual, and the natural question that one has to ask about them is, whether the two do not repeat each other by their informative destination and employment. This question was partly answered in the paragraph devoted to the general outline of the gerund. Observations of the actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in texts do show the clear-cut semantic difference between the forms, which consists in the gerund being, on the one hand, of a more substantive nature than the infinitive, i.e. of a nature nearer to the thingness-signification type; on the other hand, of a more abstract nature in the logical sense proper. Hence, the forms do not repeat, but complement each other, being both of them inalienable components of the English verbal system.

The difference between the forms in question may be demonstrated by the following examples:

Seeing and talking to people made him tired. (As characteristic of a period of his life; as a general feature of his

disposition) It made him tired to see and talk to so many

people. (All at a time, on that particular occasion); Spending an afternoon in the company of that gentle soul was always a wonderful pleasure. (Repeated action, general characteristic)

To spend an afternoon on the grass -- lovely! (A

response utterance of enthusiastic agreement); Who doesn't

like singing? (In a general reference) Who doesn't like

to sing? (In reference to the subject)

Comparing examples like these, we easily notice the more dynamic, more actional character of the infinitive as well as of the whole collocations built up around it, and the less dynamic character of the corresponding gerundial collocations. Furthermore, beyond the boundaries of the verb, but within the boundaries of the same inter-class paradigmatic derivation (see above, Ch. IV, § 8), we find the cognate verbal noun which is devoid of processual dynamics altogether, though it denotes, from a different angle, the same referential process, situation, event. Cf.:

For them to have arrived so early! Such a surprise!---- Their having arrived so early was indeed a great surprise. Their early arrival was a great surprise, really.

The triple correlation, being of an indisputably systemic nature and covering a vast proportion of the lexicon, enables us to interpret it in terms of a special lexico-grammatical category of processual representation. The three stages of this category represent the referential processual entity of the lexemic series, respectively, as dynamic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic (the gerund and its phrase), and static (the verbal noun and its phrase). The category of processual representation underlies the predicative differences between various situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalisation (see further, Ch. XXV).

Another category specifically identified within the framework of substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis is the category of modal representation. This category, pointed out by L. S. Barkhudarov [Бархударов, (2), 151--152], marks the infinitive in contrast to the gerund, and it is revealed in the infinitive having a modal force, in particular, in its attributive uses, but also elsewhere. Cf.:

This is a kind of peace to be desired by all. (A kind of peace that should be desired) Is there any hope for us to meet this great violinist in our town? (A hope that we may meet this violinist) It was arranged for the mountaineers to have a rest in tents before climbing the peak. (It was arranged so that they could have a rest in tents)

When speaking about the functional difference between lingual forms, we must bear in mind that this difference might become subject to neutralisation in various systemic or contextual conditions. But however vast the corresponding field of neutralisation might be, the rational basis of correlations of the forms in question still lies in their difference, not in neutralising equivalence. Indeed, the difference is linguistically so valuable that one well-established occurrence of a differential correlation of meaningful forms outweighs by its significance dozens of their textual neutralisations. Why so? For the simple reason that language is a means of forming and exchanging ideas -- that is, ideas differing from one another, not coinciding with one another. And this simple truth should thoroughly be taken into consideration when tackling certain cases of infinitive-gerund equivalence in syntactic constructions -- as, for instance, the freely alternating gerunds and infinitives with some phasal predicators (begin, start, continue, cease, etc.). The functional equivalence of the infinitive and the gerund in the composition of the phasal predicate by no means can be held as testifying to their functional equivalence in other spheres of expression.

As for the preferable or exclusive use of the gerund with a set of transitive verbs (e.g. avoid, delay, deny, forgive, mind, postpone) and especially prepositional-complementive verbs and word-groups (e.g. accuse of, agree to, depend on, prevent from, think of, succeed in, thank for; be aware of, be busy in, be indignant at, be sure of), we clearly see here the tendency of mutual differentiation and complementation of the substantive verbid forms based on the demonstrated category of processual representation. In fact, it is the gerund, not the infinitive, that denotes the processual referent of the lexeme not in a dynamic, but in a half-dynamic representation, which is more appropriate to be associated with a substantive-related part of the sentence.

Within the gerund-participle correlation, the central point of our analysis will be the very lexico-grammatical identification of the two verbid forms in -ing in their reference to each other. Do they constitute two different verbids, or do they present one and the same form with a somewhat broader range of functions than either of the two taken separately?

The ground for raising this problem is quite substantial, since the outer structure of the two elements of the verbal system is absolutely identical: they are outwardly the same when viewed in isolation. It is not by chance that in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive Linguistics the two forms are recognised as one integral V-ing.

In treating the ing-forms as constituting one integral verbid entity, opposed, on the one hand, to the infinitive (V-to), on the other hand, to the past participle (V-en), appeal is naturally made to the alternating use of the possessive and the common-objective nounal element in the role of the subject of the ing-form (mostly observed in various object positions of the sentence). Cf.:

I felt annoyed at his failing to see my point at once. «> I felt annoyed at him failing to see my point at once. He was not, however, averse to Elaine Fortescue's entertaining the hypothesis.<>He was not, however, averse to Elaine Fortescue entertaining the hypothesis.

This use presents a case known in linguistics as "half-gerund". So, in terms of the general ing-form problem, we have to choose between the two possible interpretations of the half-gerund: either as an actually intermediary form with double features, whose linguistic semi-status is truly reflected in its conventional name, or as an element of a non-existent categorial specification, i.e. just another variant of the same indiscriminate V-ing.

In this connection, the reasoning of those who support the idea of the integral V-ing form can roughly be presented thus: if the two uses of V-ing are functionally identical, and if the "half-gerund" V-ing occurs with approximately the same frequency as the "full-gerund" V-ing, both forms presenting an ordinary feature of an ordinary English text, then there is no point in discriminating the "participle" V-ing and the "gerund" V-ing.

In compliance with the general principle of approach to any set of elements forming a categorial or functional continuum, let us first consider the correlation between the polar elements of the continuum, i.e. the correlation between the pure present participle and the pure gerund, setting aside the half-gerund for a further discussion.

The comparative evaluations of the actually different uses of the ing-forms can't fail to show their distinct categorial differentiation: one range of uses is definitely noun-related, definitely of process-substance signification; the other range of uses is definitely adjective-adverb related, definitely of process-quality signification. This differentiation can easily be illustrated by specialised gerund-testing and participle-testing, as well as by careful textual observations of the forms.

The gerund-testing, partly employed while giving a general outline of the gerund, includes the noun-substitution procedure backed by the question-procedure. Cf.:

My chance of getting, or achieving, anything that I long for will always be gravely reduced by the interminable existence of that block. > My chance of what? > My chance of success.

He insisted on giving us some coconuts. > What did he insist on? > He insisted on our acceptance of the gift.

All his relatives somehow disapproved of his writing poetry. > What did all his relatives disapprove of?> His relatives disapproved of his poetical work.

The other no less convincing evidence of the nounal featuring of the form in question is its natural occurrence in coordinative connections with the noun. Cf.:

I didn't stop to think of an answer; it came immediately off my tongue without any pause or planning. Your husband isn't ill, no. What he does need is relaxation and simply cheering a bit, if you know what I mean. He carried out rigorously all the precepts concerning food, bathing, meditation and so on of the orthodox Hindu.

The participle-testing, for its part, includes the adjective-adverb substitution procedure backed by the corresponding question-procedure, as well as some other analogies. Cf.:

He was in a terrifying condition. > In what kind of condition was he?>He was in an awful condition. (Adjective substitution procedure) Pursuing this; course of free association, I suddenly remembered a dinner date I once had with a distinguished colleague > When did I suddenly remember a dinner date? > Then I suddenly remembered a dinner date. (Adverb-substitution procedure) She sits up gasping and staring wild-eyed about her. > How does she sit up? > She sits up so. (Adverb-substitution procedure)

The participle also enters into easy coordinative and parallel associations with qualitative and stative adjectives. Cf.:

That was a false, but convincing show of affection. The ears are large, protruding, with the heavy lobes of the sensualist. On the great bed are two figures, a sleeping woman, and a young man awake.

Very important in this respect will be analogies between the present participle qualitative function and the past participle qualitative function, since the separate categorial standing of the past participle remains unchallenged. Cf.: an unmailed letter -- a coming letter; the fallen monarchy -- the falling monarchy; thinned hair -- thinning hair.

Of especial significance for the differential verbid identification purposes are the two different types of conversion the compared forms are subject to, namely, the nounal conversion of the gerund and, correspondingly, the adjectival conversion of the participle.

Compare the gerund-noun conversional pairs: your airing the room to take an airing before going to bed; his breeding his son to the profession - a person of unimpeachable

breeding; their calling him a liar - the youth's choice of

a calling in life.

Compare the participle-adjective conversional pairs: animals living in the jungle living languages; a man never

daring an open argument - a daring inventor; a car passing

by a passing passion.

Having recourse to the evidence of the analogy type, as a counter-thesis against the attempted demonstration, one might point out cases of categorial ambiguity, where the category of the qualifying element remains open to either interpretation, such as the "typing instructor", the "boiling kettle", or the like. However, cases like these present a trivial homonymy which, being resolved, can itself be taken as evidence in favour of, not against, the two ing-forms differing from each other on the categorial lines. Cf.:

the typing instructor > the instructor of typing; the instructor who is typing; the boiling kettle > the kettle for boiling; the kettle that is boiling

At this point, the analysis of the cases presenting the clear-cut gerund versus present participle difference can be considered as fulfilled. The two ing-forms in question are shown as possessing categorially differential properties establishing them as two different verbids in the system of the English verb.

And this casts a light on the categorial nature of the half-gerund, since it is essentially based on the positional verbid neutralisation. As a matter of fact, let us examine the following examples:

You may count on my doing all that is necessary on such occasions.

You may count on me doing all that is necessary on such occasions.

The possessive subject of the ing-form in the first of the two sentences is clearly disclosed as a structural adjunct of a nounal collocation. But the objective subject of the ing-form in the second sentence, by virtue of its morphological constitution, cannot be associated with a noun: this would contradict the established regularities of the categorial compatibility. The casal-type government (direct, or representative-pronominal) in the collocation being lost (or, more precisely, being non-existent), the ing-form of the collocation can only be understood as a participle. This interpretation is strongly supported by comparing half-gerund constructions with clear-cut participial constructions governed by perception verbs:

To think of him turning sides! To see him turning

sides! I don't like Mrs. Thomson complaining of her loneliness. - I can't listen to Mrs. Thomson complaining of her loneliness. Did you ever hear of a girl playing a trombone? --Did you ever hear a girl playing a trombone?

On the other hand, the position of the participle in the collocation is syntactically peculiar, since semantic accent in such constructions is made on the fact or event described, i.e. on the situational content of it, with the processual substance as its core. This can be demonstrated by question-tests:

(The first half-gerund construction in the above series) > To think of what in connection with him? (The second half-gerund construction) > What don't you like about Mrs. Thomson? (The third half-gerund construction) > Which accomplishment of a girl presents a surprise for the speaker?

Hence, the verbid under examination is rather to be interpreted as a transferred participle, or a gerundial participle, the latter term seeming to relevantly disclose the essence of the nature of this form; though the existing name "half-gerund" is as good as any other, provided the true character of the denoted element of the system is understood.

Our final remark in connection with the undertaken observation will be addressed to linguists who, while recognising the categorial difference between the gerund and the present participle, will be inclined to analyse the half-gerund (the gerundial participle) on exactly the same basis as the full gerund, refusing to draw a demarcation line between the latter two forms and simply ascribing the occurrence of the common case subject in this construction to the limited use of the possessive case in modern English in general. As regards this interpretation, we should like to say that an appeal to the limited sphere of the English noun possessive in an attempt to prove the wholly gerundial character of the intermediary construction in question can hardly be considered of any serious consequence. True, a vast proportion of English nouns do not admit of the possessive case form, or, if they do, their possessive in the construction would create contextual ambiguity, or else some sort of stylistic ineptitude. Cf.:

The headlines bore a flaring announcement of the strike being called off by the Amalgamated Union. (No normal possessive with the noun strike); I can't fancy their daughter entering a University college. (Ambiguity in the oral possessive: daughter's -- daughters'); They were surprised at the head of the family rejecting the services of the old servant. (Evading the undesirable shift of the possessive particle -'s from the head-noun to its adjunct); The notion of this woman who had had the world at her feet paying a man half a dollar to dance with her filled me with shame. (Semantic and stylistic incongruity of the clause possessive with the statement)

However, these facts are but facts in themselves, since they only present instances when a complete gerundial construction for this or that reason either cannot exist at all, or else should be avoided on diverse reasons of usage. So, the quoted instances of gerundial participle phrases are not more demonstrative of the thesis in question than, say, the attributive uses of nouns in the common form (e.g. the inquisitor judgement, the Shakespeare Fund, a Thompson way of refusing, etc.) would be demonstrative of the possessive case "tendency" to coincide with the bare stem of the noun: the absence of the possessive nounal form as such can't be taken to testify that the "possessive case" may exist without its feature sign.

CHAPTER XII. FINITE VERB: INTRODUCTION

The finite forms of the verb express the processual relations of substances and phenomena making up the situation reflected in the sentence. These forms are associated with one another in an extremely complex and intricate system. The peculiar aspect of the complexity of this system lies in the fact that, as we have stated before, the finite verb is directly connected with the structure of the sentence as a whole. Indeed, the finite verb, through the working of its categories, is immediately related to such sentence-constitutive factors as morphological forms of predication, communication purposes, subjective modality, subject-object relation, gradation of probabilities, and quite a few other factors of no lesser importance..

As has been mentioned elsewhere, the complicated character of the system in question has given rise to a lot of controversies about the structural formation of the finite verb categories, as well as the bases of their functional semantics. It would be not an exaggeration to say that each fundamental type of grammatical expression capable of being approached in terms of generalised categories in the domain of the finite verb has created a subject for a scholarly dispute. For instance, taking as an example the sphere of the categorial person and number of the verb, we are faced with the argument among grammarians about the existence or non-existence of the verbal-pronominal forms of these categories. In connection with the study of the verbal expression of time and aspect, the great controversy is going on as to the temporal or aspective nature of the verbal forms of the indefinite, continuous, perfect, and perfect-continuous series. Grammatical expression of the future tense in English is stated by some scholars as a matter-of-fact truth, while other linguists are eagerly negating any possibility of its existence as an element of grammar. The verbal voice invites its investigators to exchange mutually opposing views regarding both the content and the number of its forms. The problem of the subjunctive mood may justly be called one of the most vexed in the theory of grammar: the exposition of its structural properties, its inner divisions, as well as its correlation with the indicative mood vary literally from one linguistic author to another.

On the face of it, one might get an impression that the morphological study of the English finite verb has amounted to interminable aimless exchange of arguments, ceaseless advances of opposing "points of view", the actual aim of which has nothing to do with the practical application of linguistic theory to life. However, the fallacy of such an impression should be brought to light immediately and uncompromisingly.

As a matter of fact, it is the verb system that, of all the spheres of morphology, has come under the most intensive and fruitful analysis undertaken by contemporary linguistics. In the course of these studies the oppositional nature of the categorial structure of the verb was disclosed and explicitly formulated; the paradigmatic system of the expression of verbal functional semantics was described competently, though in varying technical terms, and the correlation of form and meaning in the composition of functionally relevant parts of this system was demonstrated explicitly on the copious material gathered.

Theoretical discussions have not ceased, nor subsided. On the contrary, they continue and develop, though on an ever more solid scientific foundation; and the cumulative descriptions of the English verb provide now an integral picture of its nature which the grammatical theory has never possessed before. Indeed, it is due to this advanced types of study that the structural and semantic patterning of verbal constructions successfully applied to teaching practices on all the stages of tuition has achieved so wide a scope.

The following presentation of the categorial system of the English verb is based on oppositional criteria worked out in the course of grammatical studies of language by Soviet and foreign scholars. We do not propose to develop a description in which the many points of discussion would receive an exposition in terms of anything like detailed analysis. Our aim will rather be only to demonstrate some general principles of approach -- such principles as would stimulate the student's desire to see into the inner meaningful workings of any grammatical construction which are more often than not hidden under the outer connections of its textual elements; such principles as would develop the student's ability to rely on his own resources when coming across concrete dubious cases of grammatical structure and use; such principles as, finally, would provide the student with a competence enabling him to bring his personal efforts of grammatical understanding to relevant correlation with the recognised theories, steering open-eyed among the differences of expert opinion.

The categorial spheres to be considered in this book are known from every topical description of English grammar. They include the systems of expressing verbal person, number, time, aspect, voice, and mood. But the identification and the distribution of the actual grammatical categories of the verb recognised in our survey will not necessarily coincide with the given enumeration, which will be exposed and defended with the presentation of each particular category that is to come under study.

CHAPTER XIII. VERB: PERSON AND NUMBER

The categories of person and number are closely connected with each other. Their immediate connection is conditioned by the two factors: first, by their situational semantics, referring the process denoted by the verb to the

subject of the situation, i.e. to its central substance (which exists in inseparable unity of "quality" reflected in the personal denotation, and "quantity" reflected in the numerical denotation); second, by their direct and immediate relation to the syntactic unit expressing the subject as the functional part of the sentence.

Both categories are different in principle from the other categories of the finite verb, in so far as they do not convey any inherently "verbal" semantics, any constituents of meaning realised and confined strictly within the boundaries of the verbal lexeme. The nature of both of them is purely "reflective" (see Ch. III, §5).

Indeed, the process itself, by its inner quality and logical status, cannot be "person-setting" in any consistent sense, the same as it cannot be either "singular" or "plural"; and this stands in contrast with the other properties of the process, such as its development in time, its being momentary or repeated, its being completed or incompleted, etc. Thus, both the personal and numerical semantics, though categorially expressed by the verb, cannot be characterised as process-relational, similar to the other aspects of the verbal categorial semantics. These aspects of semantics are to be understood only as substance-relational, reflected in the verb from the interpretation and grammatical featuring of the subject.

§ 2. Approached from the strictly morphemic angle, the analysis of the verbal person and number leads the grammarian to the statement of the following converging and diverging features of their forms.

The expression of the category of person is essentially confined to the singular form of the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood and, besides, is very singularly presented in the future tense. As for the past tense, the person is alien to it, except for a trace of personal distinction in the archaic conjugation.

In the present tense the expression of the category of person is divided into three peculiar subsystems.

The first subsystem includes the modal verbs that have no personal inflexions: can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, dare. So, in the formal sense, the category of person is wholly neutralised with these verbs, or, in plainer words, it is left unexpressed.

The second subsystem is made up by the unique verbal lexeme be. The expression of person by this lexeme is the direct opposite to its expression by modal verbs: if the latter do not convey the indication of person in any morphemic sense at all, the verb be has three different suppletive personal forms, namely: am for the first person singular, is for the third person singular, and are as a feature marking the finite form negatively: neither the first, nor the third person singular. It can't be taken for the specific positive mark of the second person for the simple reason that it coincides with the plural all-person (equal to none-person) marking.

The third subsystem presents just the regular, normal expression of person with the remaining multitude of the English verbs, with each morphemic variety of them. From the formal point of view, this subsystem occupies the medial position between the first two: if the verb be is at least two-personal, the normal personal type of the verb conjugation is one-personal. Indeed, the personal mark is confined here to the third person singular -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz], the other two persons (the first and the second) remaining unmarked, e.g. comes -- come, blows -- blow, slops -- stop, chooses -- choose.

As is known, alongside of this universal system of three sets of personal verb forms, modern English possesses another system of person-conjugation characterising elevated modes of speech (solemn addresses, sermons, poetry, etc.) and stamped with a flavour of archaism. The archaic person-conjugation has one extra feature in comparison with the common conjugation, namely, a special inflexion for the second person singular. The three described subsystems of the personal verb forms receive the following featuring:

The modal person-conjugation is distinguished by one morphemic mark, namely, the second person: canst, may(e)st, wilt, shalt, shouldst, wouldst, ought(e)st, need(e)st, durst.

The personal be-conjugation is complete in three explicitly marked forms, having a separate suppletive presentation for each separate person: am, art, is.

The archaic person-conjugation of the rest of the verbs, though richer than the common system of person forms, still occupies the medial position between the modal and be-conjugation. Two of the three of its forms, the third and second persons, are positively marked, while the first person remains unmarked, e.g. comes -- comest--come, blows -- blowest -- blow, stops -- stoppest --stop, chooses -- choosest -- choose.

As regards the future tense, the person finds here quite another mode of expression. The features distinguishing it from the present-tense person conjugation are, first, that it marks not the third, but the first person in distinction to the remaining two; and second, that it includes in its sphere also the plural. The very principle of the person featuring is again very peculiar in the future tense as compared with the present tense, consisting not in morphemic inflexion, nor even in the simple choice of person-identifying auxiliaries, but in the oppositional use of shall -- will specifically marking the first person (expressing, respectively, voluntary and non-voluntary future), which is contrasted against the oppositional use of will -- shall specifically marking the second and third persons together (expressing, respectively, mere future and modal future). These distinctions, which will be described at more length further on, are characteristic only of British English.

A trace of person distinction is presented in the past tense with the archaic form of the second person singular. The form is used but very occasionally, still it goes with the pronoun thou, being obligatory with it. Here is an example of its individualising occurrence taken from E. Hemingway: Thyself and thy horses. Until thou hadst horses thou wert with us. Now thou art another capitalist more.

Thus, the peculiarity of the archaic past tense person-conjugation is that its only marked form is not the third person as in the present tense, nor the first person as in the British future tense, but the second person. This is what might be called "little whims of grammar"!

Passing on to the expression of grammatical number by the English finite verb, we are faced with the interesting fact that, from the formally morphemic point of view, it is hardly featured at all.

As a matter of fact, the more or less distinct morphemic featuring of the category of number can be seen only with the archaic forms of the unique be, both in the present tense and in the past tense. But even with this verb the featuring cannot be called quite explicit, since the opposition of the category consists in the unmarked plural form for all the persons being contrasted against the marked singular form for each separate person, each singular person thereby being distinguished by its own, specific form. It means that the expressions of person and number by the archaic conjugation of be in terms of the lexeme as a whole are formally not strictly separated from each other, each singular mark conveying at once a double grammatical sense, both of person and number. Cf.: am -- are; art -- are; was (the first and the third persons, i.e. non-second person) -- were; wast (second person) -- were.

In the common conjugation of be, the blending of the person and number forms is more profound, since the suppletive are, the same as its past tense counterpart were, not being confined to the plural sphere, penetrate the singular sphere, namely, the expression of the second person (which actually becomes non-expression because of the formal coincidence).

As for the rest of the verbs, the blending of the morphemic expression of the two categories is complete, for the only explicit morphemic opposition in the integral categorial sphere of person and number is reduced with these verbs to the third person singular (present tense, indicative mood) being contrasted against the unmarked finite form of the verb.

The treatment of the analysed categories on a formal basis, though fairly consistent in the technical sense, is, however, lacking an explicit functional appraisal. To fill the gap, we must take into due account not only the meaningful aspect of the described verbal forms in terms of their reference to the person-number forms of the subject, but also the functional content of the subject-substantival categories of person and number themselves.

The semantic core of the substantival (or pronominal, for that matter) category of person is understood nowadays in terms of deictic, or indicative signification.

The deictic function of lingual units, which has come under careful linguistic investigation of late, consists not in their expressing self-dependent and self-sufficient elements of meaning, but in pointing out entities of reality in their spatial and temporal relation to the participants of speech communication. In this light, the semantic content of the first person is the indication of the person who is speaking, but such an indication as is effected by no other individual than himself. This self-indicative role is performed lexically by the personal pronoun I. The semantic content of the second person is the indication of the individual who is listening to the first person speaking -- but again such an indication as viewed and effected by the speaker. This listener-indicative function is performed by the personal pronoun you. Now, the semantic content of the third person is quite different from that of either the first or second person. Whereas the latter two express the immediate participants of the communication, the third person indicates all the other entities of reality, i.e. beings, things, and phenomena not immediately included in the communicative situation, though also as viewed by the speaker, at the moment of speech. This latter kind of indication may be effected in the two alternative ways. The first is a direct one, by using words of a full meaning function, either proper, or common, with the corresponding specifications achieved with the help of indicators-determiners (articles and pronominal words of diverse linguistic standings). The second is an oblique one, by using the personal pronouns he, she, or it, depending on the gender properties of the referents. It is the second way, i.e. the personal pronominal indication of the third person referent, that immediately answers the essence of the grammatical category of person as such, i.e. the three-stage location of the referent in relation to the speaker: first, the speaker himself; second, his listener; third, the non-participant of the communication, be it a human non-participant or otherwise.

As we see, the category of person taken as a whole is, as it were, inherently linguistic, the significative purpose of it being confined to indications centering around the production of speech.

Let us now appraise the category of number represented in the forms of personal pronouns, i.e. the lexemic units of language specially destined to serve the speaker-listener lingual relation.

One does not have to make great exploratory efforts in order to realise that the grammatical number of the personal pronouns is extremely peculiar, in no wise resembling the number of ordinary substantive words. As a matter of fact, the number of a substantive normally expresses either the singularity or plurality of its referent ("one -- more than one", or, in oppositional appraisal, "plural -- non-plural"), the quality of the referents, as a rule, not being re-interpreted with the change of the number (the many exceptions to this rule lie beyond the purpose of our present discussion). For instance, when speaking about a few powder-compacts, I have in mind just several pieces of them of absolutely the same nature. Or when referring to a team of eleven football-players, I mean exactly so many members of this sporting group. With the personal pronouns, though, it is "different, and the cardinal feature of the difference is the heterogeneity of the plural personal pronominal meaning.

Indeed, the first person plural does not indicate the plurality of the "ego", it can't mean several I's. What it denotes in fact, is the speaker plus some other person or persons belonging, from the point of view of the utterance content, to the same background. The second person plural is essentially different from the first person plural in so far as it does not necessarily express, but is only capable of expressing similar semantics. Thus, it denotes either more than one listener (and this is the ordinary, general meaning of the plural as such, not represented in the first person); or, similar to the first person, one actual listener plus some other person or persons belonging to the same background in the speaker's situational estimation; or, again specifically different from the first person, more than one actual listener plus some other person or persons of the corresponding interpretation. Turning to the third person plural, one might feel inclined to think that it would wholly coincide with the plural of an ordinary substantive name. On closer observation, however, we note a fundamental difference here also. Indeed, the plural of the third person is not the substantive plural proper, but the deictic, indicative, pronominal plural; it is expressed through the intermediary reference to the direct name of the denoted entity, and so may either be related to the singular he-pronoun, or the she-рrоnоun, or the it-pronoun, or to any possible combination of them according to the nature of the plural object of denotation.

The only inference that can be made from the given description is that in the personal pronouns the expression of the plural is very much blended with the expression of the person, and what is taken to be three persons in the singular and plural, essentially presents a set of six different forms of blended person-number nature, each distinguished by its own individuality. Therefore, in the strictly categorial light, we have here a system not of three, but of six persons.

Returning now to the analysed personal and numerical forms of the finite verb, the first conclusion to be drawn on the ground of the undertaken analysis is, that their intermixed character, determined on the formal basis, answers in general the mixed character of the expression of person and number by the pronominal subject name of the predicative construction. The second conclusion to be drawn, however, is that the described formal person-number system of the finite verb is extremely and very singularly deficient. In fact, what in this connection the regular verb-form does express morphemically, is only the oppositional identification of the third person singular (to leave alone the particular British English mode of expressing the person in the future).

A question naturally arises: What is the actual relevance of this deficient system in terms of the English language? Can one point out any functional, rational significance of it, if taken by itself?

The answer to this question can evidently be only in the negative: in no wise. There cannot be any functional relevance in such a system, if taken by itself. But in language it does not exist by itself.

As soon as we take into consideration the functional side of the analysed forms, we discover at once that these forms exist in unity with the personal-numerical forms of the subject. This unity is of such a nature that the universal and true indicator of person and number of the subject of the verb will be the subject itself, however trivial this statement may sound. Essentially, though, there is not a trace of triviality in the formula, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the substantive character of the expressed categorial meanings, and on the other, the analytical basis of the English grammatical structure. The combination of the English finite verb with the subject is obligatory not only in the general syntactic sense, but also in the categorial sense of expressing the subject-person of the process.

An objection to this thesis can be made on the ground that in the text the actual occurrence of the subject with the finite verb is not always observed. Moreover, the absence of the subject in constructions of living colloquial English is, in general, not an unusual feature. Observing textual materials, we may come across cases of subject-wanting predicative units used not only singly, as part of curt question-response exchange, but also in a continual chain of speech. Here is an example of a chain of this type taken from E. Hemingway:

"No one shot from cars," said Wilson coldly. "I mean chase them from cars."

"Wouldn't ordinarily," Wilson said. "Seemed sporting enough to me though while we were doing it. Taking more chance driving that way across the plain full of holes and one thing and another than hunting on foot. Buffalo could have charged us each time we shot if he liked. Gave him every chance. Wouldn't mention it to any one though. It's illegal if that's what you mean."

However, examples like this cannot be taken for a disproof of the obligatory connection between the verb and its subject, because the corresponding subject-nouns, possibly together with some other accompanying words, are zeroed on certain syntactico-stylistical principles (brevity of expression in familiar style, concentration on the main informative parts of the communication, individual speech habits, etc.). Thus, the distinct zero-representation of the subject does give expression to the verbal person-number category even in conditions of an outwardly gaping void in place of the subject in this or that concrete syntactic construction used in the text. Due to the said zero-representation, we can easily reconstruct the implied person indications in the cited passage: "I wouldn't ordinarily"; "It seemed sporting enough"; "It was taking more chance driving that way"; "We gave him every chance"; "I wouldn't mention it to any one".

Quite naturally, the non-use of the subject in an actual utterance may occasionally lead to a referential misunderstanding or lack of understanding, and such situations are reflected in literary works by writers -- observers of human speech as well as of human nature. A vivid illustration of this type of speech informative deficiency can be seen in one of K. Mansfield's stories:

"Fried or boiled?" asked the bold voice.

Fried or boiled? Josephine and Constantia were quite bewildered for the moment. They could hardly take it in.

"Fried or boiled what, Kate?" asked Josephine, trying to begin to concentrate.

Kate gave a loud sniff. "Fish."

"Well, why didn't you say so immediately?" Josephine reproached her gently. "How could you expect us to understand, Kate? There are a great many things in this world, you know, which are fried or boiled."

The referential gap in Kate's utterance gave cause to her bewildered listener for a just reproach. But such lack of positive information in an utterance is not to be confused with the non-expression of a grammatical category. In this connection, the textual zeroing of the subject-pronoun may be likened to the textual zeroing of different constituents of classical analytical verb-forms, such as the continuous, the perfect, and others: no zeroing can deprive these forms of their grammatical, categorial status.

Now, it would be too strong to state that the combination of the subject-pronoun with the finite verb in English has become an analytical person-number form in the full sense of this notion. The English subject-pronoun, unlike the French conjoint subject-pronoun (e.g. Je vous remercie -- "I thank you"; but: mon mari et moi -- "my husband and I"), still retains its self-positional syntactic character, and the personal pronominal words, without a change of their nominative form, are used in various notional functions in sentences, building up different positional sentence-parts both in the role of head-word and in the role of adjunct-word. What we do see in this combination is, probably, a very specific semi-analytical expression of a reflective grammatical category through an obligatory syntagmatic relation of the two lexemes: the lexeme-reflector of the category and the lexeme-originator of the category. This mode of grammatical expression can be called "junctional". Its opposite, i.e. the expression of the categorial content by means of a normal morphemic or word-morphemic procedure, can be, by way of contrast, tentatively called "native". Thus, from the point of view of the expression of a category either through the actual morphemic composition of a word, or through its being obligatorily referred to another word in a syntagmatic string, the corresponding grammatical forms will be classed into native and junctional. About the person-numerical forms of the finite verb in question we shall say that in the ordinary case of the third person singular present indicative, the person and number of the verb are expressed natively, while in most of the other paradigmatic locations they are expressed junctionally, through the obligatory reference of the verb-form to its subject.