Functional classifications

Functional / syntactic characteristics of the verb as a part of speech are closely connected with its semantic & morphological properties, which makes them difficult to separate. Many of the proposed functional divisions of verbs are subject to criticism as they are based on mixed principles. E.g. the division of verbs into notional & functional (Иванова, Блох) has the semantic base for notional verbs & syntactic for functional ones.

Regarding the functional approach, the division of verbs into finite, which perform the function of the predicate in the sentence, & non-finite, which do not perform this function (infinitives, gerunds, participles) seem more reasonable.

Finite verbs may be further subdivided into verbs of complete predication & verbs of incomplete predication (auxiliary verbs, link verbs, modal verbs, etc.) (Иванова, Блох). E.g.: She works – She is working. She is a worker. She can work.

The problem of syntactic functions of non-finite verbs & verb combinability has been already dealt with in section 1.

To summarize, different classifications of the verb are as a rule based on a combination of principles (semantic-syntactic or morphological-syntactic). This proves the fact that the functional plane of the verb as the center of the sentence is crucial for understanding this complex phenomenon.

Let us go on to see how morphological, or rather morphosyntactic categories of the verb are treated in Modern English.

Morphosyntactic categories of the Verb

In accordance with our definition the verb has seven morphological categories. They are number, person, tense, aspect, phase, mood, & voice, expressed syntactically & analytically.

Verbal categories of Person & Number

Introduction

Most linguists agree that the categories of person & number in verbs should be considered in close connection with other, because in English they are expressed simultaneously (Смирницкий, Ильиш, Блох).

Indeed the formal sign of both categories is the morpheme –s. It expresses the meaning of person (3rd) & number (singular) syncretically, e.g. the bird flies, the telephone rings. Pr. Bloch calls it ‘a complete blending’ of formal means expressing the two separate categories of number & person (Блох).

On these grounds B.A. Ilish makes a supposition that in Modern English there is one ‘combined’ number-person category, and not two separate categories of number & person.

However, as he himself admits later, this interpretation would not give a clearer view of the verbal system. The notion of ‘number’, on the one hand, and that of ‘person’ on the other hand, seem too far apart, to be united under a common heading.

The grammatical meaning of number is revealed in the opposition of ‘oneness’ & ‘more-than-oneness’, or singular & plural (see ‘The Noun’). To put it another way, it shows the difference between one & more-than-one subject of the sentence. E.g.: This dog costs a fortune (singular) – Bigger dogs cost more (plural).

The grammatical meaning of person is manifested in the distinction between the participants & non-participants in the process of communication. The participants in the process of communication are represented by the speaker & the one spoken to, or addresser & addressee (1^st & 2^nd persons respectively; I, we say – you say). Non-participants are those which are neither speakers, nor spoken to (3^rd person: he, she, it plays; they play).

Moreover, the same morpheme –s expresses not only the categories of number (singular) & person (3^rd) in a blend, but also the categories of tense (non-past) & mood (indicative) . However, it would be ungrammatical to view the four categories as one combined number-person-tense-mood-category.

Thus, the majority of linguists recognize number & person as separate, though closely connected, categories in Modern English: the category of number & that of person.

It is essential to note that these categories are different from all the other verbal categories. The main difference is that they are not inherent in the verbal semantics (Bloch). Indeed, the process, which is the categorical meaning of the verb as a part of speech, cannot be ‘personalized’, singular, or ‘plural, but it can be time-related; it can be real & unreal, it can have different information structure.

Thus, both the personal & numerical semantics of the verb cannot be characterized as process-related. It can be understood only in relation to the subject of the sentence, because it is reflected in the verb only through grammatical features & semantics of the subject. E.g.:

• I, we, you, they (girls, boys, cats, dogs, books, etc) exist – he, she, it (the boy, the girl, the cat, the dog, the book, etc) exists (both the semantic & the grammatical features on the nouns & pronouns induce the verb to take the form corresponding to them in person & number, i.e. to take or not to take an inflection);

• The wheat is ripe – The oats are ripe (only grammatical features of the noun induce the verb to take a corresponding form, either singular & plural 3^rd person, as the ‘uncountable’ semantics is the same in both cases);

• My family is small – My family are early risers (only the semantics of the noun in either case induces the verb to take the form, corresponding to it in person & number.

As we can see, the verbal categories of person & number are realized only in the sentence, which means that they are morphosyntactic. On top of that, they are more morphosyntactic than the other verbal categories, as they are induced by the same categories in nouns & pronouns, which perform the function of the subject. They are dependent or ‘relational’ (Bloch) subject-related categories. Let’s consider the categories in detail.