Basic approaches to language (functions) which are reflected on the strings of segmental units.
ich are reflected on the strings of segmental units. To the supra-segmental units belong intonations
There are two basic approaches to language as a complicated social phenomenon:
1) the internal approach;
2) the external approach.
Internally language is analyzed as a global macrosystem consisting of three micro systems: the
phonological system, the lexical system, the grammatical system.
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 [2, p. 6].
Language is also regarded as a structure of interrelated and interdependent language units.
Externally language represents a functional system, which makes up language as a social phenomenon.
The basic functions of language are:
1) the communicative;
2) the cognitive (thought-forming);
3) the emotive.
From the point of view of the communicative function language is a means of forming and storing ideas
as reflections of reality and exchanging them in the process of human intercourse. Language is social by nature; it
is inseparably connected with the people who are its creators and users; it grows and develops together with the
development of society [2, p. 6].
The cognitive function is predetermined by the organic connection between language and thought. In
this respect language is characterised as the immediate actuality of thought. Hence, comes that language is a means
of forming, expressing and storing thoughts.
The emotional sphere of life also finds its reflection in language. An utterance comprises not only logical
information (informative content) but also emotional aspect, which indicates emotions, attitudes, assessments of
speakers. Hence, comes the emotive function of language.
As a functional system language may be studied not only by linguistics but by some other branches of
sciences: systematology (a science of any system), semiotics (a science of sign systems), sociology, psychology,
the theory of information. Due to this interdisciplinary cooperation new branches of linguistics have appeared of
late: sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, cognitive linguistics etc.
Language as system and structure
From the internal point of view language is qualified as system and structure. Modern linguistics lays a
special stress on the systemic character of language and all its constituent parts. It accentuates the idea that language
is a system of signs (meaningful units) which are closely interconnected and interdependent. Units of immediate
interdependencies (such as classes and subclasses of words, various subtypes of syntactic constructions, etc.) form
different microsystems (subsystems) within the framework of the global macrosystem (supersystem) of the whole
of language.
Each system is a structured set of elements related to one another by a common function. The common
function of all the lingual signs is to give expression to human thoughts [2, p. 11].
Language units are characterized by systemic value. It means that language units may be viewed and
valued within a certain system. Let us take the word [kit] to illustrate how its meaning differs depending on the
language: in English it means a set of equipment; in Russian a big mammal living in the sea; in Ukrainian a
domestic animal fond of mice. Thus, we cannot state the meaning of the word until we know the language system
to which it refers.
Language units are divided into segmental and supra-segmental. Segmental units consist of phonemes,
they form phonemic strings of various status (syllables, morphemes, words, etc.). Supra-segmental units do not exist
by themselves, but are realised together with segmental units and express different modificational meanings
1
(intonation contours), accents, pauses, patterns of word-order.
The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy [hark] is of a kind that
units of any higher level are analysable into (i.e. are formed of) units of the immediately lower level. Thus,
morphemes are decomposed into phonemes, words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into
words, etc.
But this hierarchical relation is by no means reduced to the mechanical composition of larger units from
smaller ones; units of each level are characterised by their own, specific functional features which provide for the
very recognition of the corresponding levels of language.
The lowest level of lingual segments is phonemic: it is formed by phonemes as the material elements of
the higher -level segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential: it differentiates
morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no meaning, it is not a sign.
Phonemes are combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental group of phonemes, is not a
sign, either; it has a purely formal significance. Due to this fact, it could hardly stand to reason to recognise in
language a separate syllabic level; rather, the syllables should be considered in the light of the intra-level
combinability properties of phonemes.
Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative status, it is a sign,
though different in principle from the level-forming signs of language.
Units of all the higher levels of language are meaningful; they may be called "signemes" as opposed to
phonemes (and letters as phoneme-representatives).
The level located above the phonemic one is the morphemic level. The morpheme is the elementary
meaningful part of the word.
It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one phoneme. E.g.: ros-y [-1];
a-fire [-]; come-s [-z].
The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative" meanings which are used as constituents for the
formation of more concrete, "nominative" meanings of words.
The third level in the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words, or lexemic level. The word, as
different from the morpheme, is a directly naming (nominative) unit of language: it names things and their relations.
Since words are built up by morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit morpheme only. Cf.: man; will;
but; I; etc.
The next higher level is the level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic level. To level-forming phrase
types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These combinations, like separate words, have a
nominative function, but they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a concrete
thing, an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf., respectively: a picturesque village; to start with a jerk; extremely
difficult; the unexpected arrival of the chief.
Above the phrasemic level lies the level of sentences, or "proposemic" level. The peculiar character of
the sentence ("proposeme") as a signemic unit of language consists in the fact that, naming a certain situation, or
situational event, it expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event to reality.
Namely, it shows whether this event is real or unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a truth or asked
about, etc. In this sense, as different from the word and the phrase, the sentence is a predicative unit. Cf.: to receive
to receive a letter Early in June I received a letter from Peter Melrose.
But the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of levels. Above the proposemic
level there is still another one, namely, the level of sentence-groups, "supra-sentential constructions". For the sake
of unified terminology, this level can be called "supra-proposemic".
The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences forming a textual unity. Such
combinations are subject to regular lingual patterning making them into syntactic elements. The syntactic process
by which sentences are connected into textual unities is analysed under the heading of "cumulation". Cumulation,
the same as formation of composite sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic [2, p. 13-16].
 It should be noted that one and the same language unit may have different status, e.g. [o:] may be a
phoneme in more[mo:], a morpheme in awful [o:], a word awe [o:] and a sentence Oh! The systemic nature adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier).
of grammar is probably more evident than that of any other sphere of language, since grammar is responsible for
the very organisation of the informative content of utterances [2, p. 11]. Due to this fact, even the earliest
grammatical treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times, disclosed some systemic features of the described
material. But the scientifically sustained and consistent principles of systemic approach to language and its grammar
were essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely, after the publication of the works by
the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay and the Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men
demonstrated the difference between lingual synchrony (coexistence of lingual elements) and diachrony (different
time-periods in the development of lingual elements, as well as language as a whole) and defined language as a
synchronic system of meaningful elements at any stage of its historical evolution.
On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between language proper and
speech proper can be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the identification of the object of linguistic
science.
Language and Speech
Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech in the same
narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units sounds, morphemes,
words, word-groups; on the other hand, the regularities or "rules" of the use of these units. Speech comprises both
the act of producing utterances, and the utterances themselves, i.e. the text. Language and speech are inseparable,
they form together an organic unity. As for grammar (the grammatical system), being an integral part of the lingual
macrosystem it dynamically connects language with speech, because it categorially determines the lingual process
of utterance production.
Thus, we have the broad philosophical concept of language which is analysed by linguistics in two
different aspects the system of signs (language proper) and the use of signs (speech proper). The generalising term
"language" is also preserved in linguistics, showing the unity of these two aspects.
The sign (meaningful unit) in the system of language has only a potential meaning. In speech, the
potential meaning of the lingual sign is "actualised", i.e. made situationally significant as part of the grammatically
organised text [2, p. 11-12].
The comparison of language and speech will not be complete without emphasizing that language is
general, social, and potential while speech is concrete, individual, and actual.
Thus, language and speech are two correlative planes of one dialectical unity. It goes from this that there
is nothing in language, which is not actualized in speech and there is nothing in speech, which does not exist
potentially in language.
Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic relations between language units
Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic.
Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence (string); they
are predetermined by the valency (potential combinability) of language units; they are based on logical relations of
independence, dependence and interdependance (e.g.: The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster
rocket). In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the spaceship", "was launched",
"the spaceship was launched", "was launched without the help", "the help of a rocket", "a booster rocket".
Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically.
E.g.: space/ship; with/out; boost/er. Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and
words, as well as at various juncture points (cf. the processes of assimilation and dissimilation).
The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit which
is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma". There are four main types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the
combination of a subject and a predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its object), attributive (the
2
combination of a noun and its attribute), adverbial (the combination of a modified notional word, such as a verb,
Since syntagmatic relations are actually observed in utterances, they are described by the Latin formula
as relations "in praesentia" ("in the presence"). There are three types of syntagmatic relations:
1st type based on coordination, logical connection of independence, found at 3 levels (morphemic
e.g. hop-hop; lexemic e.g. men and women; proposemic e.g. He is a brilliant singer and she is good at dancing).
Such relations are equal in rank, homogeneous in nature and structurally independent.
2nd type based on subordination, logical connection of dependence, found at 3 levels (morphemic
e.g. driv-er; lexemic e.g. lovely weather; proposemic e.g. I like summer because I can lie in the sun). Such
relations are not equal in rank, not homogeneous in nature and are structurally dependent.
3rd type based on predication, logical connection of interdependence, found at 1 level (lexemic e.g.
I like sweets). Such relations are mutually dependent and are found between subject and predicate.
In real speech in one and the same utterance different types of syntagmatic relations are realized,
depending on the speakers intention and communicative purpose.
The other type 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."
In the sphere of phonology such series are built up by the correlations of phonemes on the basis of
vocality or consonantism, voicedness or devoicedness, the factor of nazalisation, the factor of length, etc. In the
sphere of the vocabulary these series are founded on the correlations of synonymy and antonymy, on various topical
connections, on different word-building dependencies. In the domain of grammar series of related forms realise
grammatical numbers and cases, persons and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence-patterns of various
functional destination, etc.
Paradigmatic relations are interclass relations that are found between language units, which occur in the
same context. These are associative relations, because they are based on a certain kind of similarity according to
which 4 types of paradigmatic relations are distinguished:
1st type based on semantic similarity, found between synonyms (e.g. terrible-horrible-awful), antonyms
(e.g. kind-cruel), semantically organized groups (e.g. school-teacher-lesson).
2nd type based on formal similarity and can be of two types: categorial paradigmatic relations and
word-building paradigmatic relations. Correspondingly each of these types are divided into two groups. 1)
Categorial paradigmatic relations represented by the grammatical paradigm a set of grammatical forms of one and
the same word, which express the grammatical categories of it (e.g. boy-boys-boys-boys). 2) Categorial
paradigmatic relations based on similarity of categorial form and are found between lexical units having the same
grammatical (categorial) meaning (e.g. boys-girls- oxen-feet). 1) Word-building paradigmatic relations based on
similarity of word-building pattern and represent a morphological opposition (e.g. teacher-swimmer-driver). 2)
Word-building paradigmatic relations are found between words within the same word-family or group (e.g heart-
hearty-heartless-heartiness).
3rd type based on functional similarity, i.e. perform the same function, and are found between, e.g.
noun determiners (a/the/some/his/Johns girl).
4th type based on functional-semantic similarity, i.e. occupy the same set of positions in free utterances
and are found between parenthesis (e.g. The concert/He/Swimming/To swim/This is good).
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").
Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of syntagmatic
connection is necessary for the realisation of any paradigmatic series. This is especially evident in a classical
grammatical paradigm which presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a syntagmatic connection of
two elements: one common for the whole of the series (stem), the other specific for every individual form in the
series (grammatical feature inflexion, suffix, auxiliary word). Grammatical paradigms express various
grammatical categories.
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. A more complex paradigm can be divided into component
paradigmatic series, i.e. into the corresponding sub- paradigms (cf. numerous paradigmatic series constituting the
system of the finite verb). In other words, with paradigms, the same as with any other systemically organised
material, macro- and micro-series are to be discriminated [2, p. 11-14].
Theoretical Grammar and its relation to other branches of linguistics
Theoretical grammar is related to other branches of linguistics.
First of all each of the three constituent parts of language is studied by a particular linguistic discipline.
These disciplines, presenting a series of approaches to their particular objects of analysis, give the corresponding
"descriptions" of language consisting in ordered expositions of the constituent parts in question. Thus, the
phonological description of language is effected by the science of phonology; the lexical description of language is
effected by the science of lexicology; the grammatical description of language is effected by the science of grammar
[2, p. 6].
The connection of theoretical grammar to phonology can be proved by the fact that a word stress may
change a part of speech. Cf: to import (v) import (n); to export (v) export (n), etc. A change of intonation may
change the communicative type of a sentence: We surrender (a declarative sentence) We surrender?! (an
interrogative- negative emotional sentence).
Grammar is related to lexicology, as it is not indifferent to the meaning of words: the meaning of a word
may change the type of the predicate in a sentence. Cf.: a) He made a good report, b) He made a good reporter. In
the first sentence we observe a simple verbal predicate while in the second sentence we see a compound nominal
predicate.
Theoretical grammar is definitely related to practical grammar, but their purposes are different: the
purpose of practical (or prescriptive) grammar is to prescribe the rules of how to correctly build sentences, or the
Past Indefinite forms, or the plural number forms, etc., while the main purpose of theoretical (scientific, descriptive)
grammar is to give a scientific description and analysis of the structure of Modern English and its grammatical
categories along with the purpose of giving students a deeper insight into the mechanism, processes and tendencies
in the grammatical structure of English.
Grammar has at its disposal different methods of analysis: the traditional method of analysis, the
immediate constituents (1C) method, the transformational method (T-method), etc.
CHAPTER I. GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE
1. Language is a means of forming and storing ideas as reflections of reality and exchanging them in
the process of human intercourse. Language is social by nature; it is inseparably connected with the people who are
its creators and users; it grows and develops together with the development of society.*
Language incorporates the three constituent parts ("sides"), each being inherent in it by virtue of its social
nature. These parts are the phonological system, the lexical system, the grammatical system. Only the unity of these
three elements forms a language; without any one of them there is no human language in the above sense.
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.
Each of the three constituent parts of language is studied by a particular linguistic discipline. These
disciplines, presenting a series of approaches to their particular objects of analysis, give the corresponding
"descriptions" of language consisting in ordered expositions of the constituent parts in question. Thus, the
phonological description of language is effected by the science of phonology; the lexical description of language is
effected by the science of lexicology; the grammatical description of language is effected by the science of grammar.
3
Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A practical 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. In earlier periods of the development of linguistic knowledge, grammatical scholars believed that
the only purpose of grammar was to give strict rules of writing and speaking correctly. The rigid regulations for the
correct ways of expression, for want of the profound understanding of the social nature of language, were often
based on purely subjective and arbitrary judgements of individual grammar compilers. The result of this
"prescriptive" approach was, that alongside of quite essential and useful information, non-existent "rules" were
formulated that stood in sheer contradiction with the existing language usage, i.e. lingual reality. Traces of this
arbitrary prescriptive approach to the grammatical teaching may easily be found even in to-date's school practice.
To refer to some of the numerous examples of this kind, let us consider the well-known rule of the
English article stating that the noun which denotes an object "already known" by the listener should be used with
the definite article. Observe, however, English sentences taken from me works of distinguished authors directly
contradicting "I've just read a book of yours about Spain and I wanted to ask you about it." "It's not a very good
book, I'm afraid" (S. Maugham). I feel a good deal of hesitation about telling you this story of my own. You see it
is not a story like other stories I have been telling you: it is a true story (J. K. Jerome).
Or let us take the rule forbidding the use of the continuous tense-forms with the verb be as a link, as well
as with verbs of perceptions. Here are examples to the contrary:
My holiday at Crome isn't being a disappointment (A. Huxley). For the first time, Bobby felt, he was
really seeing the man (A. Christie).
The given examples of English articles and tenses, though not agreeing with the above "prescriptions",
contain no grammar mistakes in them.
The said traditional view of the purpose of grammar has lately been re-stated by some modern trends in
linguistics. In particular, scholars belonging to these trends pay much attention to artificially constructing and
analysing incorrect utterances with the aim of a better formulation of the rules for" the construction of correct ones.
But their examples and deductions, too, are often at variance with real facts of lingual usage.
Worthy of note are the following two artificial utterances suggested as far back as 1956:
Colourless green ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.
According to the idea of their creator, the American scholar N. Chomsky, the first of the utterances,
although nonsensical logically, was to be classed as grammatically correct, while the second one, consisting of the
same words placed in the reverse order, had to be analysed as a disconnected, "ungrammatical" enumeration, a "non-
sentence". Thus, the examples, by way of contrast, were intensely demonstrative (so believed the scholar) of the
fact that grammar as a whole amounted to a set of non-semantic rules of sentence formation.
However, a couple of years later this assessment of the lingual value of the given utterances was disputed
in an experimental investigation with informants natural speakers of English, who could not come to a unanimous
conclusion about the correctness or incorrectness of both of them. In particular, some of the informants classed the
second utterance as "sounding like poetry".
To understand the contradictions between the bluntly formulated "rules" and reality, as well as to
evaluate properly the results of informant tests like the one mentioned above, we must bear in mind that the true
grammatical rules or regularities cannot be separated from the expression of meanings; on the contrary, they are
themselves meaningful. Namely, they are connected with the most general and abstract parts of content inherent in
the elements of language. These parts of content, together with the formal means through which they are expressed,
are treated by grammarians in terms of "grammatical categories". Such are, for instance, the categories of number
or mood in morphology, the categories of communicative purpose or emphasis in syntax, etc. Since the grammatical
forms and regularities are meaningful, it becomes clear that the rules of grammar must be stated semantically, or,
more specifically, they must be worded functionally. For example, it would be fallacious to state without any further
comment that the inverted word order in the English declarative sentence is grammatically incorrect. Word order as
an element of grammatical form is laden with its own meaningful functions. It can express, in particular, the
difference between the central idea of the utterance and the marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive modes
of speech, between different types of style. Thus, if the inverted word order in a given sentence does express these
functions, then its use should be considered as quite correct. E.g.: In the centre of the room, under the chandelier,
as became a host, stood the head of (he family, old Jolyon himself (J. Galsworthy).
The word arrangement in the utterance expresses a narrative description, with the central informative
element placed in the strongest semantic position in narration, i.e. at the end. Compare the same sort of arrangement
accompanying a plainer presentation of subject matter: Inside on a wooden bunk lay a young Indian woman (E.
Hemingway).
Compare, further, the following:
And ever did his Soul tempt him with evil, and whisper of terrible things. Yet did it not prevail against
him, so great was the power of his love (O. Wilde). (Here the inverted word order is employed to render intense
emphasis in a legend-stylised narration.) One thing and one thing only could she do for him (R. Kipling). (Inversion
in this case is used to express emotional intensification of the central idea.)
Examples of this and similar kinds will be found in plenty in Modern English literary texts of good style
repute.
3. 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
4
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.
4. Modern linguistics lays a special stress on the systemic character of language and all its constituent
parts. It accentuates the idea that language is a system of signs (meaningful units) which are closely interconnected
and interdependent. Units of immediate interdependencies (such as classes and subclasses of words, various
subtypes of syntactic constructions, etc.) form different microsystems (subsystems) within the framework of the
global macrosystem (supersystem) of the whole of language.
Each system is a structured set of elements related to one another by a common function. The common
function of all the lingual signs is to give expression to human thoughts.
The systemic nature of grammar is probably more evident than that of any other sphere of language,
since grammar is responsible for the very organisation of the informative content of utterances [, 4, 11 .].
Due to this fact, even the earliest grammatical treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times, disclosed some
systemic features of the described material. But the scientifically sustained and consistent principles of systemic
approach to language and its grammar were essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely,
after the publication of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay and the Swiss scholar Ferdinand
de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated the difference between lingual synchrony (coexistence of lingual
elements) and diachrony (different time-periods in the development of lingual elements, as well as language as a
whole) and defined language as a synchronic system of meaningful elements at any stage of its historical evolution.
On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between language proper and
speech proper can be strictly defined, which is of crucial importance for the identification of the object of linguistic
science.
Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression, while speech in the same
narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation of the system of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units sounds, morphemes,
words, word-groups; on the other hand, the regularities or "rules" of the use of these units. Speech comprises both
the act of producing utterances, and the utterances themselves, i.e. the text. Language and speech are inseparable,
they form together an organic unity. As for grammar (the grammatical system), being an integral part of the lingual
macrosystem it dynamically connects language with speech, because it categorially determines the lingual process
of utterance production.
Thus, we have the broad philosophical concept of language which is analysed by linguistics into two
different aspects the system of signs (language proper) and the use of signs (speech proper). The generalising
term "language" is also preserved in linguistics, showing the unity of these two aspects [, 16].
The sign (meaningful unit) in the system of language has only a potential meaning. In speech, the
potential meaning of the lingual sign is "actualised", i.e. made situationally significant as part of the grammatically
organised text.
Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations: syntagmatic and paradigmatic.
Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a segmental sequence (string). E.g.:
The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster rocket.
In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the spaceship", "was
launched", "the spaceship was launched", "was launched without the help", "the help of a rocket", "a booster rocket".
Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically. E.g.: space/ship; launch/ed; with/out;
boost/er.
Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as well as at various juncture
points (cf. the processes of assimilation and dissimilation).
The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the other forms a unit which
is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma". There are four main types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the
combination of a subject and a predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its object), attributive (the
combination of a noun and its attribute), adverbial (the combination of a modified notional word, such as a verb,
adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier).
Since syntagmatic relations are actually observed in utterances, they are described by the Latin formula
as relations "in praesentia" ("in the presence").
The other type 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."
In the sphere of phonology such series are built up by the correlations of phonemes on the basis of
vocality or consonantism, voicedness or devoicedness, the factor of nazalisation, the factor of length, etc. In the
sphere of the vocabulary these series are founded on the correlations of synonymy and antonymy, on various topical
connections, on different word-building dependencies. In the domain of grammar series of related forms realise
grammatical numbers and cases, persons and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence-patterns of various
functional destination, etc.
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").
Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that some sort of syntagmatic
connection is necessary for the realisation of any paradigmatic series. This is especially evident -in a classical
grammatical paradigm which presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a syntagmatic connection of
two elements: one common for the whole of the series (stem), the other specific for every individual form in the
series (grammatical feature inflexion, suffix, auxiliary word). Grammatical paradigms express various
grammatical categories.
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. A more complex paradigm can be divided into component
paradigmatic series, i.e. into the corresponding sub-paradigms (cf. numerous paradigmatic series constituting the
system of the finite verb). In other words, with paradigms, the same as with any other systemically organised
material, macro- and micro-series are to be discriminated.
5. Units of language are divided into segmental and suprasegmental. Segmental units consist of
phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status (syllables, morphemes, words, etc.). Supra-segmental units
do not exist by themselves, but are realised 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 (intonation contours), accents, pauses, patterns of word-order.
The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of a kind that units of any
higher level are analysable into (i.e. are formed of) units of the immediately lower level. Thus, morphemes are
decomposed into phonemes, words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc.
But this hierarchical relation is by no means reduced to the mechanical composition of larger units from
smaller ones; units of each level are characterised by their own, specific functional features which provide for the
very recognition of the corresponding levels of language.
The lowest level of lingual segments is phonemic: it is formed by phonemes as the material elements of
the higher -level segments. The phoneme has no meaning, its function is purely differential: it differentiates
morphemes and words as material bodies. Since the phoneme has no meaning, it is not a sign.
Phonemes are combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental group of phonemes, is not a
sign, either; it has a purely formal significance. Due to this fact, it could hardly stand to reason to recognise in
language a separate syllabic level; rather, the syllables should be considered in the light of the intra-level
combinability properties of phonemes.
Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a representative status, it is a sign,
though different in principle from the level-forming signs of language.
5
Units of all the higher levels of language are meaningful; they may be called "signemes" as opposed to
phonemes (and letters as phoneme-representatives).
The level located above the phonemic one is the morphemic level. The morpheme is the elementary
meaningful part of the word. It is built up by phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one phoneme.
E.g.: ros-y [-1]; a-fire [-]; come-s [-z].
The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative" meanings which are used as constituents for the
formation of more concrete, "nominative" meanings of words.
The third level in the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words, or lexemic level.
The word, as different from the morpheme, is a directly naming (nominative) unit of language: it names
things and their relations. Since words are built up by morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit
morpheme only. Cf.: man; will; but; I; etc.
The next higher level is the level of phrases (word-groups), or phrasemic level.
To level-forming phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional words. These combinations,
like separate words, have a nominative function, but they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated
phenomenon, be it a concrete thing, an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf., respectively: a picturesque village;
to start with a jerk; extremely difficult; the unexpected arrival of the chief.
This kind of nomination can be called "polynomination", as different from "mononomination" effected
by separate words.
Notional phrases may be of a stable type and of a free type. The stable phrases (phraseological units)
form the phraseological part of the lexicon, and are studied by the phraseological division of lexicology. Free phrases
are built up in the process of speech on the existing productive models, and are studied in the lower division of
syntax. The grammatical description of phrases is sometimes called "smaller syntax", in distinction to "larger
syntax" studying the sentence and its textual connections.
Above the phrasemic level lies the level of sentences, or "proposemic" level.
The peculiar character of the sentence ("proposeme") as a signemic unit of language consists in the fact
that, naming a certain situation, or situational event, it expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted
event to reality. Namely. it shows whether this event is real or unreal, desirable or obligatory, stated as a truth or
asked about, etc. In this sense, as different from the word and the phrase, the sentence is a predicative unit. Cf.: to
receive to receive a letter Early in June I received a letter from Peter Mel rose.
The sentence is produced by the speaker in the process of speech as a concrete, situationally bound
utterance. At the same time it enters the system of language by its syntactic pattern which, as all the other lingual
unit-types, has both syntagmatic and paradigmatic characteristics.
But the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of levels. Above the proposemic
level there is still another one, namely, the level of sentence-groups, "supra-sentential constructions". For the sake
of unified terminology, this level can be called "supra-proposemic".
The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences forming a textual unity. Such
combinations are subject to regular lingual patterning making them into syntactic elements. The syntactic process
by which sentences are connected into textual unities is analysed under the heading of "cumulation". Cumulation,
the same as formation of composite sentences, can be both syndetic and asyndetic. Cf.:
He went on with his interrupted breakfast. Lisette did not speak and there was silence between them. But
his appetite satisfied, his mood changed; he began to feel sorry for himself rather than angry with her, and with a
strange ignorance of woman's heart he thought to arouse Lisette's remorse by exhibiting himself as an object of pity
(S. Maugham).
In the typed text, the supra-sentential construction commonly coincides with the paragraph (as in the
example above). However, unlike the paragraph, this type of lingual signeme is realised not only in a written text,
but also in all the varieties of oral speech, since separate sentences, as a rule, are included in a discourse not singly,
but in combinations, revealing the corresponding connections of thoughts in communicative progress.
We have surveyed six levels of language, each identified by its own functional type of segmental units.
If now we carefully observe the functional status of the level-forming segments, we can distinguish between them
more self-sufficient and less self-sufficient types, the latter being defined only in relation to the functions of other
level units. Indeed, the phonemic, lexemic and proposemic levels are most strictly and exhaustively identified from
the functional point of view: the function of the phoneme is differential, the function of the word is nominative, the
function of the sentence is predicative. As different from these, morphemes are identified only as significative
components of words, phrases present polynominative combinations of words, and supra-sentential constructions
mark the transition from the sentence to the text.
Furthermore, bearing in mind that the phonemic level forms the subfoundation of language, i.e. the non-
meaningful matter of meaningful expressive means, the two notions of grammatical description shall be pointed out
as central even within the framework of the structural hierarchy of language: these are, first, the notion of the word
and, second, the notion of the sentence. The first is analysed by morphology, which is the grammatical teaching of
the word; the second is analysed by syntax, which is the grammatical teaching of the sentence.
LECTURE 1(2): THE SCOPE OF THEORETICAL GRAMMAR.
BASIC LINGUISTIC NOTIONS.
1.Theoretical grammar and its subject.
Man is not well defined as Homo sapiens (man with wisdom). For what do we mean by wisdom? It
has not been proved so far that animals do not possess it. Those of you who have pets can easily prove the contrary.
Most recently anthropologists have started defining human beings as man the toolmaker. However, apes can also
make primitive tools. What sets man apart fr om the rest of animal kingdom is his ability to speak: he is can easily
object by saying that animals can also speak Homo loquens man the speaking animal. And again, you, naturally,
in their own way. But their sounds are meaningless, and there is no link between sound and meaning (or if there is,
it is of a very primitive kind) and the link for man is grammar. Only with the help of grammar we can combine
words to form sentences and texts. Man is not merely Homo loquens, he is Homo Grammaticus.
The term grammar goes back to a Greek word that may be translated as the art of writing. But later
this word acquired a much wider sense and came to embrace the whole study of language. Now it is often used as
the synonym of linguistics. A question comes immediately to mind: what does this study involve?
Grammar may be practical and theoretical. The aim of practical grammar is the description of grammar
rules that are necessary to understand and formulate sentences. The aim of theoretical grammar is to offer
explanation for these rules. Generally speaking, theoretical grammar deals with the language as a functional system.
2. General principles of grammatical analysis.
According to the Bible: In the beginning was the Word. In fact, the word is considered to be the central
(but not the only) linguistic unit () of language. Linguistic units (or in other words signs) can go into
three types of relations:
a) The relation between a unit and an object in the world around us (objective reality). E.g. the word
table refers to a definite piece of furniture. It may be not only an object but a process, state, quality, etc.
This type of meaning is called referential meaning of a unit. It is semantics that studies the referential
meaning of units.
b) The relation between a unit and other units (inner relations between units). No unit can be used
independently; it serves as an element in the system of other units. This kind of meaning is called syntactic. Formal
relation of units to one another is studied by syntactics (or syntax).
c) The relation between a unit and a person who uses it. As we know too well, when we are saying
something, we usually have some purpose in mind. We use the language as an instrument for our purpose (e.g.).
One and the same word or sentence may acquire different meanings in communication. This type of meaning is
called pragmatic. The study of the relationship between linguistic units and the users of those units is done
by pragmatics.
Thus there are three models of linguistic description: semantic, syntactic and pragmatic. To illustrate the
difference between these different ways of linguistic analysis, let us consider the following sentence: Students are
students.
The first part of the XXth century can be characterized by a formal approach to the language study. Only
inner (syntactic) relations between linguistic units served the basis for linguistic analysis while the reference of
words to the objective reality and language users were actually not considered. Later, semantic language analysis
came into use. However, it was surely not enough for a detailed language study. Language certainly figures centrally
in our lives. We discover our identity as individuals and social beings when we acquire it during childhood. It serves
as a means of cognition and communication: it enables us to think for ourselves and to cooperate with other people
in our community. Therefore, the pragmatic side of the language should not be ignored either. Functional approach
in language analysis deals with the language in action. Naturally, in order to get a broad description of the language,
all the three approaches must be combined.
3. General characteristics of language as a functional system.
Any human language has two main functions: the communicative function and the expressive or
representative function human language is the living form of thought. These two functions are closely interrelated
as the expressive function of language is realized in the process of speech communication.
The expressive function of language is performed by means of linguistic signs and that is why we say
that language is a semiotic system. It means that linguistic signs are of semiotic nature: they
are informative and meaningful. There are other examples of semiotic systems but all of them are no doubt much
simpler. For instance, traffic lights use a system of colours to instruct drivers and people to go or to stop. Some
more examples: Code Morse, Brighton Alphabet, computer languages, etc. What is the difference between language
as a semiotic system and other semiotic systems? Language is universal, natural, it is used by all members of society
while any other sign systems are artificial and depend on the sphere of usage.
4. Notions of system and structure. General characteristics of linguistic units.
Language is regarded as a system of elements (or: signs, units) such as sounds, words, etc. These
elements have no value without each other, they depend on each other, they exist only in a system, and they are
nothing without a system. System implies the characterization of a complex object as made up of separate parts (e.g.
the system of sounds). Language is a structural system. Structure means hierarchical layering of parts in
`constituting the whole. In the structure of language there are four main structural levels: phonological,
morphological, syntactical and supersyntatical. The levels are represented by the corresponding level units:
The phonological level is the lowest level. The phonological level unit is the`phoneme. It is a distinctive
unit (bag back).
The morphological level has two level units:
1. the `morpheme the lowest meaningful unit (teach teacher);
2. the word - the main naming (`nominative) unit of language.
The syntactical level has two level units as well:
1. the word-group the dependent syntactic unit;
2. the sentence the main communicative unit.
The supersyntactical level has the text as its level unit.
All structural levels are subject matters of different levels of linguistic analysis. At different levels of
analysis we focus attention on different features of language. Generally speaking, the larger the units we deal with,
the closer we get to the actuality of peoples experience of language.
To sum it up, each level has its own system. Therefore, language is regarded as a system of systems. The
level units are built up in the same way and that is why the units of a lower level serve the building material for the
units of a higher level. This similarity and likeness of organization of linguistic units is called isomorphism. This
is how language works a small number of elements at one level can enter into thousands of different combinations
to form units at the other level.
We have arrived at the conclusion that the notions of system and structure are not synonyms any system
has its own structure (compare: the system of Ukrainian education vs. the structure of Ukrainian education; army
organization).
Any linguistic unit is a double entity. It unites a concept and a sound image. The two elements are
intimately united and each recalls the other. Accordingly, we distinguish the content side and the expression side.
6
The forms of linguistic units bear no natural resemblance to their meaning. The link between them is a matter of
convention, and conventions differ radically across languages. Thus, the English word dog happens to denote a
particular four-footed domesticated creature, the same creature that is denoted in Ukrainian by the completely
different form. Neither form looks like a dog, or sounds like one.
LECTURE 2: BASIC LINGUISTIC NOTIONS.
5. Language and speech.
The distinction between language and speech was made by Ferdinand de Saussure, the Swiss scholar
usually credited with establishing principles of modern linguistics. Language is a collective body of knowledge, it
is a set of basic elements, but these elements can form a great variety of combinations. In fact the number of these
combinations is endless. Speech is closely connected with language, as it is the result of using the language, the
result of a definite act of speaking. Speech is individual, personal while language is common for all individuals. To
illustrate the difference between language and speech let us compare a definite game of chess and a set of rules how
to play chess.
Language is opposed to speech and accordingly language units are opposed to speech units. The language
unit phoneme is opposed to the speech unit sound: phoneme /s/ can sound differently in speech - /s/ and /z/).
The sentence is opposed to the utterance; the text is opposed to the discourse.
6. Systemic relations in language. Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic relations.
A linguistic unit can enter into relations of two different kinds. It enters into paradigmatic relationswith
all the units that can also occur in the same environment. PR are relations based on the principles of similarity. They
exist between the units that can substitute one another. For instance, in the word-group A PINT OF MILK the
word PINT is in paradigmatic relations with the words bottle, cup, etc. The article A can enter into PR with the
units the, this, one, same, etc. According to different principles of similarity PR can be of three types: semantic,
formal and functional.
1. Semantic PR are based on the similarity of meaning: a book to read = a book for reading. He used
to practice English every day He would practice English every day.
2. Formal PR are based on the similarity of forms. Such relations exist between the members of
a paradigm: man men; play played will play is playing.
3. Functional PR are based on the similarity of function. They are established between the elements that
can occur in the same position. For instance, noun determiners: a, the, this, his, Anns, some, each, etc.
PR are associated with the sphere of language.
A linguistic unit enters into syntagmatic relations with other units of the same level it occurs with. SR
exist at every language level. E.g. in the word-group A PINT OF MILK the word PINT contrasts SR with A, OF,
MILK; within the word PINT P, I, N and T are in syntagmatic relations. SR are linear relations, that is why they
are manifested in speech. They can be of three different types: coordinate, subordinate and predicative.
1. Coordinate SR exist between the homogeneous linguistic units that are equal in rank, that is, they are the
relations of independence: you and me; They were tired but happy.
2. Subordinate SR are the relations of dependence when one linguistic unit depends on the other: teach +
er morphological level; a smart student word-group level; predicative and subordinate clauses
sentence level.
3. Predicative SR are the relations of interdependence: primary and secondary predication.
As mentioned above, SR may be observed in utterances, which is impossible when we deal with PR.
Therefore, PR are identified with language while SR are identified with speech.
7. General characteristics of the grammatical structure of language.
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
- , 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.
8. Morphology and syntax as two parts of linguistic description.
As the word is the main unit of traditional grammatical theory, it serves the basis of the distinction which
is frequently drawn between morphology and syntax. Morphology deals with the internal structure of words,
peculiarities of their grammatical categories and their semantics while traditional syntax deals with the rules
governing combination of words in sentences (and texts in modern linguistics). We can therefore say that the word
is the main unit of morphology.
It is difficult to arrive at a one-sentence definition of such a complex linguistic unit as the word. First of
all, it is the main expressive unit of human language which ensures the thought-forming function of the language.
It is also the basic nominative unit of language with the help of which the naming function of language is realized.
As any linguistic sign the word is a level unit. In the structure of language it belongs to the upper stage of the
morphological level. It is a unit of the sphere of language and it exists only through its speech actualization. One
of the most characteristic features of the word is its indivisibility. As any other linguistic unit the word is a bilateral
entity. It unites a concept (, ) and a sound image and thus has two sides the content and expression
sides ( ): concept and sound form.
LECTURE 3: GRAMMATICAL MEANING.
GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES.
1. 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.
2. 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; cats 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 generalgrammatical 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
7
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.
Taking all the above mentioned into consideration, we may define the grammatical category as the
opposition between two mutually exclusive form-classes (a form-class is a set of words with the same explicit
grammatical meaning).
Means of realization of grammatical categories may be synthetic (near nearer) and analytic (beautiful
more beautiful).
5. Transposition and neutralization of morphological forms.
In the process of communication grammatical categories may undergo the processes of transposition and
neutralization.
Transposition is the use of a linguistic unit in an unusual environment or in the function that is not
characteristic of it (He is a lion). In the sentence He is coming tomorrow the paradigmatic meaning of the continuous
form is reduced and a new meaning appears that of a future action. Transposition always results in the
neutralization of a paradigmatic meaning. Neutralization is the reduction of the opposition to one of its members :
custom :: customs x :: customs; x :: spectacles.

3. Grammatical categories.
Grammatical categories are made up by the unity of identical grammatical meanings that have the same
form (e.g. singular::plural). Due to dialectal unity of language and thought, grammatical categories correlate, on the
one hand, with the conceptual categories and, on the other hand, with the objective reality. It may be shown with
the help of a triangle model:

It follows that we may define grammatical categories as references of the corresponding objective
categories. For example, the objective category of time finds its representation in the grammatical category of tense,
the objective category of quantity finds its representation in the grammatical category of number. Those
grammatical categories that have references in the objective reality are called referential grammatical categories.
However, not all of the grammatical categories have references in the objective reality, just a few of them do not
correspond to anything in the objective reality. Such categories correlate only with conceptual matters:

They are called significational categories. To this type belong the categories of mood and degree.
Speaking about the grammatical category of mood we can say that it has modality as its conceptual correlate. It can
be explained by the fact that it does not refer to anything in the objective reality it expresses the speakers attitude
to what he says.
4. The notion of opposition.
Any grammatical category must be represented by at least two grammatical forms (e.g. the grammatical
category of number singular and plural forms). The relation between two grammatical forms differing in meaning
and external signs is called opposition book::books (unmarked member/marked member). All grammatical
categories find their realization through oppositions, e.g. the grammatical category of number is realized through
the opposition singular::plural.