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 – syntheticand 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