LECTURE 1

1. THE SCOPE OF THEORETICAL GRAMMAR.

2. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF GRAMMAR.
2.1. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of language units.
2.2 The Notions of Form, Function and Meaning
2.3. The notion of ‘grammatical meaning’.
2.4. Grammatical oppositions.
2.5. Plane of content - plane of expression.
2.6 Linguistic processes in grammar.
3. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH
1. THE SCOPE OF THEORETICAL GRAMMAR.
Language incorporates the three constituent parts ("sides"). These parts are the phonological
system, the lexical system, the grammatical system. Only the unity of these three elements forms a
language; without any of them there is no human language.
The phonological system is the subfoundation of language; it determines the material (phonetical)
appearance of its significative units. The lexical system is the whole set of naming means of
language, that is, words and stable word-groups. The grammatical system is the whole set of
regularities determining the combination of naming means in the formation of utterances as the
embodiment of thinking process (Blokh).
Grammar as a Set of Rules
The idea that grammar is a set of rules, often seen as arbitrary or unrealistic, is only one narrow
view of grammar. Such a view is based on the belief that:
- grammar must be explicitly taught;
- grammar is absolute and fixed, a target or goal that speakers need attain in order to be “good”
speakers or writers of the language;
- grammar is inherently difficult and confusing, its mysteries only apparent to teachers, language
mavens, or linguists.
There is the differences between how people actually express themselves and how language
experts say they should. Moreover, even among so-called language experts there is not uniform
agreement as to what is “correct” or acceptable. One reason for such controversy is the nature of
language: It is a living, fluid entity that changes in response to changes in society. Societal changes
are reflected in language. For example, the change in women’s status is reflected in changes in
acceptable pronoun reference.
Linguists and Grammar
Linguists have a very different approach to the notion of grammar. From the linguist’s point of
view, grammar is not a collection of rules, often obscure, arcane, and often illogical, that must be
taught, but rather a set of blueprints (schemes, plans) that guide speakers in producing
comprehensible and predictable language.
Every language, including its dialects or variants, is systematic and orderly. Languages and their
variations are rule-governed structures, and are therefore “grammatical.”
In other words, all languages consist of patterns, or “grammars,” that make sense of the features
of a given language that include the arbitrary symbols, sounds, and words that make up that
language.
Consider the following string of words. How many sentences can you come up with using these
words and only these words?
the, came, girl, baskets, home, with
Most native speakers, using only their intuitive knowledge of grammar, will come up with this
sentence: The girl came home with baskets. Some native speakers may come up with this
variation:
The girl with baskets came home.
What they do is use grammar to put this seemingly random string of words into a comprehensible
sentence. Any other combination of words would produce sentences that would sound strange to
English speakers because they would not be grammatical.
While this is true for native speakers, ESL/EFL learners need to learn explicitly which words fit
together in a string according to the rules or patterns of English. For them, their intuitive
knowledge is valid for their own native language, which uses patterns different from, and often
contrary to, English.

Language is Rule-Governed
What does “rule-governed”mean?
This interpretation or definition of grammar is what is meant when linguists say languages are
rule-governed, systematic, and organized or grammatical.
Children, as part of the process of acquiring their native language, learn without formal instruction
what belongs with what in order to form coherent, intelligible, and meaningful sentences.
They learn the grammar of their language and with this grammar they can create an unlimited
number of new and original sentences. Even when the sentence elements are new and unique,
ones that native speakers have never before seen, they can use and adapt them according to the
patterns of their language. Consider this excerpt from Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll:
Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!
The poem is famous for consisting of nonsense words mixed in with normal English words. What
makes the poem so vivid and effective in many respects is the ability of the author to evoke
images based on the grammatical knowledge of the native or highly proficient non-native speaker.
Jabberwock for instance, is preceded by the, a word, called a definite article, that in English
precedes a noun. Both that clue and the fact that Jabberwock is capitalized, tell us that this
nonsense word is a noun, specifically a proper noun or a name noun similar to Chicago or Italy.
Now let’s look at the word Jubjub. Like Jabberwock, this word is capitalized and preceded by the.
However, we know intuitively that Jubjub does not have the same sentence function as
Jabberwock. Why is this so? After Jubjub we see the word bird. This is a word that we call a noun,
specifically a noun that names a thing; in this case a thing that flies, has wings, and a beak. From
the position of the word Jubjub before this noun bird, we know that Jubjub is describing something
about bird. Since Jubjub is written with a capital J, we can guess that it is telling us specifically what
kind of bird is being referred to. In other words, Jubjub is functioning as an adjective before the
noun bird. Because of its sentence position, Jubjub has a function similar to Siberian as in Siberian
tiger. Similarly, we can guess that frumious is another descriptive word, describing something
about the proper noun Bandersnatch. The sentence position of frumious before Bandersnatch is
one clue. A different type of clue telling us something about frumious is the ending –ous. This is an
ending that is found in other words that describe nouns, such as famous, gorgeous, voluptuous,
egregious, and pretentious. Native and highly proficient non-native speakers of English can
understand and appreciate this poem without ever before having seen such words as
Jabberwocky or frumious, and without necessarily knowing what the terms noun or adjective
mean because they know the grammar of English.
The rules they are using to understand this poem are below their level of awareness. Few
speakers, whether native or highly proficient non-native speakers, are conscious of which
“grammar” rules they are applying or using to understand this poem.
Since languages differ in the types and applications of rules, however, ESL/EFL learners need to
learn the new patterns of the language they are studying. They need to begin by becoming aware
that there are differences in how languages are patterned, and then work toward the goal of being
able to subconsciously produce the new language without explicit reference to rules.

Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A practical linguistic
description is aimed at providing the student with a manual of practical mastery of the
corresponding part of language (within the limits determined by various factors of educational
destination and scientific possibilities). Since the practice of lingual intercourse, however, can only
be realised by employing language as a unity of all its constituent parts, practical linguistic manuals
more often than not comprise the three types of description presented in a complex. As for
theoretical linguistic descriptions, they pursue analytical aims and therefore present the studied
parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain insights into their inner structure and expose the
intrinsic mechanisms of their functioning. Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a language is
to present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to scientifically analyse and
define its grammatical categories and study the mechanisms of grammatical formation of utterances
out of words in the process of speech making.
A key distinction between how linguists view grammar and how others do is the distinction
between prescriptive and descriptive grammar. Prescriptive grammar is the grammar taught in
school, discussed in newspaper and magazine columns on language, or mandated by language
academies such as those found in Spain or France. Prescriptive grammar attempts to tell people
how they should say something, what words they should use, when they need to make a specific
choice, and why they should do so — even if the rule itself goes against speakers’ natural
inclinations.
Descriptive grammar rules, in contrast to prescriptive rules, describe how adult native speakers
actually use their language. From this perspective, grammar is what organizes language into
meaningful, systematic patterns. These rules are inherent to each language and are generally not
conscious rules. However, they are readily observable for those interested in looking. Descriptive
grammar, unlike prescriptive grammar, does not say, “this is right” or “this is wrong.”
Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A practical linguistic
description is aimed at providing the student with a manual of practical mastery of the
corresponding part of language (within the limits determined by various factors of educational
destination and scientific possibilities). Since the practice of lingual intercourse, however, can only
be realised by employing language as a unity of all its constituent parts, practical linguistic manuals
more often than not comprise the three types of description presented in a complex. As for
theoretical linguistic descriptions, they pursue analytical aims and therefore present the studied
parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain insights into their inner structure and expose
the intrinsic mechanisms of their functioning. Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a
language is to present a theoretical description of its grammatical system, i.e. to scientifically
analyse and define its grammatical categories and study the mechanisms of grammatical
formation of utterances out of words in the process of speech making.

2. FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF GRAMMAR.

Furthermore, understanding that paragraph from Carroll means understanding (at least at some
level) and using all the fundamental concepts of grammar: categories, constituency, and
metafunctions. The concept of category allows us to recognize that several of the unfamiliar words
belong to the word category 'noun.' Another concept, constituency, allows us to recognize that
several unusual sequences of words in the first paragraph must be single units, despite the fact that
they are odd sequences of words. Finally, through a concept of metafunction, we are able to
recognize several additional facts about that paragraph: even though the words are unusual for
English, the sentences are statements (rather than question or commands).
While speaking about such fundamental concepts of grammar as categories and constituency, one
have to distinguish between syntagmatic and paradigmatic types of relations of all lingual units.
Units of language are divided into segmental and supra-segmental. Segmental units consist of
phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status (syllables, morphemes, words, etc.).
Suprasegmental units do not exist by themselves, but are realized together with segmental units and
express different modificational meanings (functions) which are reflected on the strings of
segmental units. To the supra-segmental units belong intonations, accents, pauses, patterns of word-
order. Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence
(string). Morpemes, words, phrases, clauses, and sentences constitute what is called the
grammatical hierarchy. We can represent this schematically as follows:
sentences
consist of one or more...
clauses
consist of one or more...
phrases
consist of one or more...
words
consist of one or more...
morphemes
Sentences are at the top of the hierarchy, so they are the largest unit which we will be considering
(though some grammars do look beyond the sentence). At the other end of the hierarchy,
morphemes are at the lowest level.
My brother won the lottery
The words and word groups in the sentence are syntagmatically related. Morphemes within the
words are also connected syntagmatically. This is a simple sentence (S), consisting of a matrix
clause (MC):
[S/MC My brother won the lottery]
We can subdivide the clause into an NP and a VP:
[S/MC [NP My brother] [VP won the lottery]]
The VP contains a further NP within it:
[S/MC [NP My brother] [VP won [NP the lottery]]]
So we have a total of three phrases. Each phrase consists of individual words:
[S/MC [NP [Det My] [N brother]] [VP [V won] [NP [Det the] [N lottery]]]]
Each of the bracketed units here is a word, a phrase, or a clause. We refer to these as constituents.
A constituent is defined as a word or a group of words, which acts syntactically as a unit.
Linguists prefer to employ a visual method, the TREE DIAGRAM.
A tree diagram is a visual representation of syntactic structure, in which the grammatical hierarchy
is graphically displayed. Here's the tree diagram for our sentence, My brother won the lottery:

A tree diagram contains exactly the same information as its corresponding labelled
bracketing, but it is much easier to interpret.
At the clause level and at the phrase level, two points should be noted:
1. Although clauses are higher than phrases in the hierarchy, clauses can occur within phrases:
The [man [who lives beside us]] is ill
Here we have a relative clause who lives beside us within the NP the man who lives beside us.
2. Clauses can occur within clauses, and phrases can occur within phrases.

The other types of relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called “paradigmatic” are such as
exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co-occur. These intra-systemic
relations and dependencies find their expression in the fact that each lingual unit is included in a set
or series of connections based on different formal and functional properties. Unlike syntagmatic
relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly observed in utterances, that is why they are
referred to as relations "in absentia"" ("in the absence"). Grammatical paradigms express various
grammatical categories.
The grammatical category is the system of expressing a generalized grammatical meaning by
means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms.
The Notions of Form, Function and Meaning
Form The notion of form refers to the essential observable components that make an object
what it is. In the study of parts of speech, the form of a word comprises its observable properties. Its
formal features include the following:
1. Actual and potential inflectional elements
2. Actually occurring derivational elements
3. Stress
4. Potential position in grammatical structures
5. Potential for grammatical operations such as movement, deletion, or substitution.
These features will serve as fundamental means for the identification of parts of speech.
Function The functional view of language, in contrast to the formal, doesn't ask the question
"What is it?" but "How is it used?" In grammar, function designates the way in which a word or
larger unit is used in a sentence; i.e., function expresses the relationship of the unit in question to
other parts of the sentence. Also, most linguistic forms have a variety of functions, some of them
primary, some secondary.
The third perspective on grammar is that of semantics, or meaning. In this context, we include
the meaning of words, phrases, and whole sentences. The lexical items of a grammar, which are
often equivalent to words, have specific meanings. By meaning we do not mean the individual
meaning of each separate word (its lexical meaning) but the meaning common to all the words of
the given class and constituting its essence. Sentence patterns and sentence categories have also
meaning. In English, for example, there is considerable difference in meaning between the syntactic
patterns NP Aux V and Aux Np V, as in the utterances I may go and May I Go?

The notion of ‘grammatical meaning’.

The word combines in its semantic structure two meanings – lexical and grammatical. Lexical
meaning is the individual meaning of the word (e.g. table). Grammatical meaning is the meaning
of the whole class or a subclass. For example, the class of nouns has the grammatical meaning of
thingness. If we take a noun (table) we may say that it possesses its individual lexical meaning (it
corresponds to a definite piece of furniture) and the grammatical meaning of thingness (this is the
meaning of the whole class). Besides, the noun ‘table’ has the grammatical meaning of a subclass –
countableness. Any verb combines its individual lexical meaning with the grammatical meaning of
verbiality – the ability to denote actions or states. An adjective combines its individual lexical
meaning with the grammatical meaning of the whole class of adjectives – qualitativeness – the
ability to denote qualities. Adverbs possess the grammatical meaning of adverbiality – the ability to
denote quality of qualities.
There are some classes of words that are devoid of any lexical meaning and possess the
grammatical meaning only. This can be explained by the fact that they have no referents in the
objective reality. All function words belong to this group – articles, particles, prepositions, etc.
Types of grammatical meaning.
The grammatical meaning may be explicit and implicit. The implicit grammatical meaning is
not expressed formally (e.g. the word table does not contain any hints in its form as to it being
inanimate). The explicit grammatical meaning is always marked morphologically – it has its
marker. In the word cats the grammatical meaning of plurality is shown in the form of the noun;
cat’s – here the grammatical meaning of possessiveness is shown by the form ‘s; is asked – shows
the explicit grammatical meaning of passiveness.
 The implicit grammatical meaning may be of two types – general and dependent. The
general grammatical meaning is the meaning of the whole word-class, of a part of speech (e.g.
nouns – the general grammatical meaning of thingness). The dependent grammatical meaning is
the meaning of a subclass within the same part of speech. For instance, any verb possesses the
dependent grammatical meaning of transitivity/intransitivity, terminativeness/non-terminativeness,
stativeness/non-stativeness; nouns have the dependent grammatical meaning of
contableness/uncountableness and animateness/inanimateness. The most important thing about the
dependent grammatical meaning is that it influences the realization of grammatical categories
restricting them to a subclass. Thus the dependent grammatical meaning of
countableness/uncountableness influences the realization of the grammatical category of number as
the number category is realized only within the subclass of countable nouns, the grammatical
meaning of animateness/inanimateness influences the realization of the grammatical category of
case, teminativeness/non-terminativeness - the category of tense, transitivity/intransitivity – the
category of voice.

GRAMMATICAL MEANING

EXPLICIT IMPLICIT

GENERAL DEPENDENT
The grammatical category is the system of expressing a generalized grammatical meaning by
means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms. The ordered set of grammatical forms
expressing a categorical function constitutes a paradigm. The minimal paradigm consists of two
form-stages. This kind of paradigm we see, for instance, in the expression of the category of
number: boy — boys. The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category are
exposed by the so-called “grammatical oppositions”.
The opposition may be defined as a generalized correlation of lingual forms by means of
which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements (members) of the opposition must
possess two types of features: common features and differential features. Common features serve as
the basis of contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in question. The
oppositional theory was originally formulated as a phonological theory. Three main qualitative
types of oppositions were established in phonology: “privative”, “gradual”, “equipollent”. By the
number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary (2) and more than binary
(ternary, quaternary). The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition; the
other types are reducible to the binary privative opposition. The binary privative opposition is
formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterizes by the presence of a
certain differential feature (“mark”), while the other member is characterized by the absence of this
feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the “marked”, or “strong”, or
“positive” member in which the feature is commonly designated by the symbol +; the member in
which the feature is absent is called the “unmarked”, or “weak”, or “negative” member, and is
commonly designated by the symbol - .:[b, d, g – p, t, k] – the differential feature – “voice”. The
gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the
presence or absence of a feature, but the degree of it. [i: - I – e - ee] - a quarternary gradual
opposition since they are differentiated by the degree of their length. The equipollent opposition is
formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive
features: [m] and [b] both bilabial consonants form an equipollent oppositions, [m] being sonorous
nasalized, [b] being plosive.
Unlike phonemes which are monolateral lingual elements, words as units of morphology are
bilateral; therefore morphological oppositions must reflect both the plane of expression (form) and
the plane of content (meaning). The most important type of opposition in morphology, the same as
in phonology, is the binary privative opposition (the expression of the verbal present and past tenses
is based on a privative opposition the differential feature of which is the dental suffix –(e)d.). the
meanings differentiated by the oppositions of signemtic units are referred to as “semantic features”,
or “semes”: cats – cat (plurality).
Equipollent oppositions in the system of English morphology constitute a minor type and are
mostly confined to formal relations only: am – are – is.
Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognized – sometimes only on the
semantic level: strong – stronger – strongest.
A grammatical category must be expressed by at least one opposition of forms.
The means employed for building up member-forms of categorical oppositions are traditionally
divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forma themselves are classed
into synthetical and analytical too (look at the previous lecture).
The grammatical categories which are realized by the described types of forms organized in
functional paradigmatic oppositions, can either be innate for a given class of words, or only be
expressed on the surface of it, serving as the sign of correlation with some other class: the category
of number is organically connected with the functional nature of the noun: it directly exposes the
number of the referent substance - one ship / several ships. The category of number in the verb,
however, by no means gives a natural meaningful characteristic to the denoted process, so it is the
numeric featuring of the subject-referent. Thus, from the point of view of referent relation,
grammatical categories should be divided into “immanent” categories and “reflective” categories.
Another essential division of grammatical categories is based on the changeability factor of
the exposed feature. Namely, the feature of the referent expressed by the category can be either
constant (category of gender) or variable (number (news – is intermediary), degrees of comparison).

The nature of grammar as a constituent part of language is better understood in the light of
explicitly discriminating the two planes of language, namely, the plane of content and the plane of
expression.
The plane of content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in language, while the
plane of expression comprises the material (formal) units of language taken by themselves, apart
from the meanings rendered by them. The two planes are inseparably connected, so that no
meaning can be realised without some material means of expression. Grammatical elements of
language present a unity of content and expression (or, in somewhat more familiar terms, a unity of
form and meaning). In this the grammatical elements are similar to the lingual lexical elements,
though the quality of grammatical meanings, as we have stated above, is different in principle from
the quality of lexical meanings.
On the other hand, the correspondence between the planes of content and expression is very
complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This complexity is clearly illustrated by the
phenomena of polysemy, homonymy, and synonymy.
In cases of polysemy and homonymy, two or more units of the plane of content correspond to
one unit of the plane of expression. For instance, the verbal form of the present indefinite (one unit
in the plane of expression) polysemantically renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action,
action at the present moment, action taken as a general truth (several units in the plane of content).
The morphemic material element -s/-es (in pronunciation [-s, -z, -iz]), i.e. one unit in the plane of
expression (in so far as the functional semantics of the elements is common to all of them
indiscriminately), homonymically renders the grammatical meanings of the third person singular of
the verbal present tense, the plural of the noun, the possessive form of the noun, i.e. several units of
the plane of content.
In cases of synonymy, conversely, two or more units of the plane of expression correspond to one
unit of the plane of content. For instance, the forms of the verbal future indefinite, future
continuous, and present continuous (several units in the plane of expression) can in certain contexts
synonymically render the meaning of a future action (one unit in the plane of content).
Taking into consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may say that the purpose
of grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the long run, to disclose and formulate the regularities of
the correspondence between the plane of content and the plane of expression in the formation of
utterances out of the stocks of words as part of the process of speech production.

Linguistic processes in grammar.

In morphological study, the same linguistic processes must be noted as in the study of
sentences, notably the processes called selection, arrangement and modification. In framing any
sentence we select from a number of possibly entities. If we produce sentences in an SVO language
like English, we select a noun or a nounlike element for the S and O. Similarly, in producing forms,
such as mailbag, we select from a set of possibilities, such as –man to make the form mailman or –
box to make mailbox. Selection, or determination of the entities to be used in any syntactic or
morphological construction, is one of the basic syntactic processes. Because the possibilities are
taken from sets known as paradigms, the process of selection is often referred to as one carried out
on the paradigmatic plane.
Besides selecting the proper entities, we must arrange them in accordance with the specific
relationships maintained in a language. In an English statement the subject precedes the verb. And
in noun phrases, articles and other modifiers precede nouns. Similarly, in English compounds like
mailbag, the modifier precedes the element modified. We refer to the sequencing in syntactic
constructions as arrangement or order. The process of arrangement is often referred to as one
carried out on the syntagmatic plane.
In arriving at sequences, we may modify the entries selected. The syntactic process of
changing items in accordance with their surroundings is known as modification.

3. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STRUCTURE OF ENGLISH

The grammatical structure of language is a system of means used to turn linguistic units into
communicative ones, in other words – the units of language into the units of speech. Such means
are inflexions, affixation, word order, function words and phonological means.
Generally speaking, Indo-European languages are classified into two structural types – synthetic
and analytic. Synthetic languages are defined as ones of ‘internal’ grammar of the word – most of
grammatical meanings and grammatical relations of words are expressed with the help of inflexions
(Ukrainian - зроблю, Russian, Latin, etc). Analytical languages are those of ‘external’ grammar
because most grammatical meanings and grammatical forms are expressed with the help of words
(will do). However, we cannot speak of languages as purely synthetic or analytic – the English
language (Modern English) possesses analytical forms as prevailing, while in the Ukrainian
language synthetic devices are dominant. In the process of time English has become more analytical
as compared to Old English. Analytical changes in Modern English (especially American) are still
under way.
It is very common statement that Modern English is mainly analytical language, as distinct from
Modern Ukrainian, which is mainly synthetical. The chief features characterizing an analytical
language would seem to be these: 1) Comparatively few grammatical inflections; 2) A sparing use
of sound alternations to denote grammatical forms; 3) A wide use of prepositions to denote relations
between objects and to connect words in the sentence; 4) Prominent use or word order to denote
grammatical relations: a more or less fixed word order.
The total number of for example, morphemes used to derive forms of words is 11 or 12, which is
much less than the number found in languages of a mainly synthetical forms:
1) There is the ending –s (-es), with three variants of pronunciation, used to form the plural of
almost all nouns, and the endings –en and –ren, used for the same purpose in one or two words
each: oxen, children.;
2) There is the ending –’s, with the same three variants of pronunciation as for the plural ending,
used to form what is generally termed the genitive case of nouns.;
3) For adjectives, there are the endings –er and –est for the degrees of comparison.
4) For verbs, the number of morphemes used to derive their forms is only slightly greater. There is
the ending –s (-es) for the third person singular present indicative, with the same three variations of
pronunciation noted for nouns, the ending –d (-ed) for the past tence of certain verbs (with three
variants of pronunciation again), the ending –d (-ed) for the second participle of certain verbs, the
ending –n (-en) for the second participle of certain other words, and the ending –ing for the first
participle and also for the gerund.
It should also be noted that most of these endings are monosemantic, in the sense that they denote
only one grammatical category and not 2 or 3 at a time, as in the case in synthetic languages (-s, -es
are exeptions).
Analytical characteristics of English morphemes: these consist in using a word to express some
grammatical category of another word. There can be no doubt in Modern English about the
analytical character of such formations as has invited, is invited or is inviting. The verbs have, be,
do have no lexical meaning of their own in these cases. There is a tendency, however, with some
linguists to recognize as analytical not all such grammatically significant combinations, but only
those of them that are “grammatically idiomatic”, i.e. more vivid, the most vivid.. Moreover,
alongside the standards analytical forms, as a marginal analytical form-type grammatical repetition
should be recognized, which is used to express specific categorical semantics of processual intensity
with the verb, of indefinitely high degree of quality with the adjective and the adverb, of
indefinitely large quantity with the noun: He knocked and knocked and knocked without reply. Oh, I
feel I’ve got such boundless, boundless love to give to somebody. Two white-haired severe women
were in charge of shelves and shelves of knitting materials of every description.
The scientific achievement of the study of “idiomatic” analytism in different languages is essential
and indisputable. On the other hand, the demand that “grammatical idiomatism” should be regarded
as the basis of “grammatical analytism” seems, logically, too strong. The analytical means
underlying the forms in question consist in the discontinuity of the corresponding lexemic
constituents. Proceeding from this fundamental principle, it can hardly stand to reason to exclude
“unideomatic” grammatical combinations from the system of analytical expression as such. Rather,
they should be regarded as an integral part of this system, in which, the provision is granted, a
graduation of idiomatism is to be recognized. In this case, alongside the classical analytical forms of
verbal prefect or continuous, such analytical forms should also be discriminated as the analytical
infinitive (go – to go), the analytical verbal person (verb plus personal pronoun)? The analytical
degrees of comparison of both positive and negative varieties (more independent – less important)?
As well as some other, still more unconventional form-types.

See. Seminar 1