UNIVERSITY OF MOLDOVA ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIO-HUMANIST SCIENCES

CHAIR OF LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES

Comparative Study of Grammatical, Lexical and Lexical-Grammatical Categories.

(Practical aid for the course of Contrastive Grammar)

CHIŞINĂU 2012

CZU.:

Dumitru Melenciuc. Comparative Study of Grammatical, Lexical and Lexical-Grammatical Categories. – University of Moldova Academy of Sciences, 2012.(Practical aid for the course of “Contrastive Grammar”)

Suport de curs ”Studiu comparativ al categoriilor gramaticale, lexicale şi lexical-gramaticale” pentru cursul “Gramatica contrastivă”. – Chişinău: ASM, 2012. 73 p., 6 c.a.Lucrarea este destinată studenţilor ca supliment la cursul teoretic de gramatică contrastivă şi poate fi folosită în predarea categoriilor gramaticale din limba engleză vorbitorilor de limbă română.

2

CONTENTSIntroduction……………………………………………………………………………. .41.Confrontational Linguistics……………………………………………………………42.Comparative Analysis on the Emic and Etic Levels…………………………………..52.1.Lexical, Lexical-Grammatical and Grammatical Categories………………………..52.3.Morphological-Grammatical Categories……………………………………………63.The Lexical-Grammatical Categories and Tertium Comparationis…………………...64.Metalanguage and Linguistic Confrontation of Verbal Categories…..……………….75.Polysemy, Homonymy, Synonymy, Redundancy and Transposition of Verbal Categorial and Grammatical Forms..............................................................................96.The English Verbal Categories……………………………………………………….137.The Category of Mood ………………………….……………………………………138.The Category of Aspect………………………………………………………………169.Aspectual Categorization in Cognate Languages…………………………………….2010.Category of Anteriority or Taxis……………………………………………………2410.1.The Category of Taxis and the Semantic Evolution of the Term “Perfect”……...2410.2. The English Present Indefinite and its equivalents in Romanian and French…….3010.3.The English Future Indefinite and its Equivalents in French and Romanian……..3110.4.The English Present Perfect and its Equivalents in French and Romanian……….3110.5.The Categorial Meaning of Past Perfect in the Confronted Languages…………..3210.6.Hypercorrectness or Hypergrammaticality……………………………………….3410.7.Category of Anteriority as seen by A.I.Smirnitsky and E.Benveniste……………3510.8.A Contrastive Analysis of Non-finite Forms of Taxis……………………………3610.9.The Category of Taxis in Oblique Moods………………………………………...3811.The Semiotic and Metasemiotic Use of the Category of Voice……………………3912.The Category of Comparison in English and Romanian……………………………4413.The Category of Grammatical Deixis in English and Romanian…………………...4714.The Conceptual Category of Deixis...........................................................................5015.The Category of Representation…………………………………………………….5416.Word Order and Its Metasemiosis…………………………………………………..62Conclusions……………………………………………………………………………..68Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………….71

Introduction The present work is intended as a theoretical course for undergraduate students in their scientific research and to supplement the theoretical course of Contrastive Grammar, which forms part of the

3

curriculum of the University of Moldova Academy of Sciences. The present textbook can be successfully used in scientific research and teaching English grammar applyng the comparative method. Morphological grammatical verbal categories of aspect, taxis, tense, voice, mood, representation, deixis and comparison are confronted with their equivalents in Romanian. Occasional examples are taken from other languages. Syntax is represented here with the Word Order and Its Metasemiosis Most of the materials are taken from the author’s publications: O.Akhmanova and D.Melenciuc “The Principles of Linguistic Confrontation”, Moscow, 1977, D. Melenciuc “Confrontational Linguistics”, Chişinău, USM, 2000; D. Melenciuc “Comparativistics”, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2003, D. Melenciuc “Practical Modern English Grammar”, Chişinău, CEP USM, 2003. A number of articles written and published by D.Melenciuc have also been used in the present work.

1.Confrontational Linguistics The metalanguage used in the field is described differently. There are quite a number of terms used in linguistics depending on what kind of comparison the linguist wants to undertake. Some linguists speak of contrastive analysis as part of a wider field denoted by the term linguistic confrontation. The word contrast comes from the Latin contrastare and implies difference, opposition. Before we turn to differences we should compare systematically and synchronically objects which may be quite similar, or even the same in some respects. Sameness and similarity have always been the cornerstone of linguistic confrontation. The comparative-historical (diachronic) study of languages for many years was considered to be the only scientific method in linguistics. Gradually it gave way to other methods and approaches like linguistic synchrony and in the study of natural human languages as a special kind of semiotic system. Nevertheless, the idea of comparing different languages remained as a guiding principle. The synchronic comparison implies a quest for new sets of features and peculiarities. For comparative philology these were always thought of as something that was genetically common, something that gradually diverged under the pressure of a variety of structural and extra-linguistic factors. Analytical comparison was, and is still, looking for something to serve for the comparison of languages of totally different families, for some kind of abstract features and peculiarities. To serve as tertium comparationis they must be regarded as similar or even identical in spite of the fact that the languages, which are assumed to share these properties, have no genetic ties at present, and have never had in the past. The confrontational comparison (or typology) has the advantage over comparative philology of being able to suggest a method, which would be applicable to all languages, irrespective of their history or possible genetic relationship. We start with the analysis of the importance of confronting certain grammatical categories on both the emic and etic levels. Confrontation should not be restricted to just forms, words or texts. The categorial approach is very important but one should not neglect the concrete historical changes and those functional peculiarities of the natural human languages, which are being realized at a particular period. This means that the categorial approach should not be allowed to degenerate into abstract typological theoretization as applied to a particular branch of linguistics. The system of categories, which is established to serve as the starting point must always be complemented by scrupulous analysis of their etic functioning as categorial forms. These are mutually opposed and make categorization possible. Comparison, in the widest sense of the word, is ruled out unless those carrying it out are convinced that there exists a certain fundamental similarity between the two or more objects under investigation. If there were no underlying assumptions that all languages have something in common, the problem of confrontation simply would not exist. The importance of translations and bilingual dictionaries, most important and well-grounded forms of linguistic confrontation and the existing problems, are discussed here as well. Analyzing grammatical categories in English and Romanian on the emic and etic levels, we have come to the conclusion that linguistic confrontation cannot be performed purely on one of the morphological categories. Universal or conceptual categories should be used in comparative studies. Thus, in the case of the category of taxis, we have observed, that in English and Romanian contextual, lexical and grammatical means, or usually a combination of both lexical and grammatical means, are used to express anteriority. The latter dominate in both languages, while in Russian, the lexical element is on the first plane, and the grammatical means are scarcely represented. A transitional process has been detected in the confronted languages, like in all the European languages. A description of grammatical forms of categorial forms in the confronted languages is supplemented by an analysis of other means of expression. The synchronic and diachronic approaches should be used in order to observe that gender, aspect, mood, voice, anteriority, etc. are historical categories: they appeared, developed up to a system and now have already given away (gender) or have begun to give away (perfect forms) their positions as grammatical categories, or are in a state of metasemiotic transposition (aspect).

4

Though contrastive analysis in the field of grammatical morphology has been considered as part of confrontational linguistics for a long time, there is no clear cut distinction between the confrontation of related and unrelated languages, using the results of comparative philology of cognate languages in their confrontation with unrelated languages. The confrontation of languages can be carried out by comparing: a) unrelated languages; b) closely related languages; c) distantly related languages, and d) also by simultaneous confrontation of related and unrelated languages.

2.Comparative Analysis on the Emic and Etic Levels Confrontation of Forms. Objective reality does not depend on language or speakers. We reflect it in our consciousness. Reality is biunique: 1) the reality of the world and 2) the reality of the native language, the joint impression of the things around us and of our mother tongue. It is quite natural for us to apprehend reality in a way, which is somehow affected by the categories and categorization of our language. Categorization in grammar is much more complex than in lexicology: 1) it is compulsory or obligatory, 2) it is much more abstract. The difference between lexicology and grammar then is as follows: the speaker is free to choose words, to take them or leave them. Grammatical forms are imposed on the speakers. These are laws, which the speaker is bound to obey. For confrontation of forms in different languages to get under way, the first step is to try and understand the specific grammatical categorizations of the languages under consideration. Thus, the purely grammatical side of the English aspect has been investigated and it has been clear that confusion of grammar and usage should be avoided. All English verbs including the putandi and sentiendi ones can quite properly be used in the continuous aspect. On the other hand the lexical element in expressing aspectual meaning prevails in Romanian. [39, 71-72] Hyper-grammaticality (hypercorrectness). Abuse of grammar may be of two kinds: 1) The speaker turns to some very complex and artificial structures, because he thinks that they are more literary and will enable him to appear as a highly educated man. This is a kind of hyper-grammaticality or hypercorrectness, which we meet especially frequently in documents and in some varieties of journalese, etc. 2) The formation of complex artificial grammatical forms and structures may depend on metasemiotic factors, on a desire to achieve a specific stylistic effect. The phenomenon of hyper-grammaticality first attracted linguists’ attention in connection with the extremely interesting paper written by Marcel Cohen. [39, 72] This outstanding linguist had spent very much time and effort on the normalization of Modern French Grammar. Among the recommendations he was particularly interested in, the normalization of the forms of the subjunctive mood stands out. M.Cohen had not only succeeded in formulating those recommendations, but in also realizing his principles of selection of forms in his famous book “Histoire d’un langue: le français.” A good example of hyper-grammatical teaching of grammar is the case of future perfect forms, which are used very seldom in British English in colloquial speech and practically not used at all in the American English in everyday speech. The same phenomenon is observed in Romanian and other languages. Translators and speakers in general should always pay attention to the changes in the given language and always check all possible “rules” in practice. Categories are only the first stage in language learning. The results of scientific abstraction must be verified by the actual functioning of the system, the researcher always bearing in mind that language is in a state of constant change. The study of grammar, the attempts to normalize grammatical usage, the study of the new tendencies and systematic confrontation of these with those falling into disuse, requires a much more serious scientific generalization on the subject than has been done so far. This is also important because research of this kind will help in doing away with groundless abstractions of grammar. It follows then, that the two basic principles are to understand the basic underlying system, and on this basis to go on with a profound analysis of English authentic texts and their equivalents in the native language. The only way really to learn grammar, to find out the real state of affairs concerning this or that morphological category, is to observe how the different basic theoretical grammatical premises are realized in different languages and different registers (styles).

2.1.Lexical, Lexical-Grammatical and Grammatical Categories.Categories are reverberations in the human consciousness of objective reality, a step to the cognition

of the world. The categories of particular sciences are reverberations of certain specific aspects of objective reality, which belong to the branch of science in question. They are the broadest and the most general concepts within the scope, arrived at by rational scientific methods. It is extremely important to understand that categories are secondary, that they are derived from the facts of language. A theoretical course should not be separated from the normative one. Sometimes theoretical courses are delivered to students in no way connected with what they are doing at their lessons when they are studying the language. As a result categories come first as primary entities. When we talk about categories, we always have to take into

5

consideration the fact that the reality of human communication is primary, the most important element. We can speak of a lexical category only if we find identity of stem and the utter impossibility of a simultaneous realization of all categorial forms of the given opposition. Otherwise stated, in actual enunciations, or utterances, only one of the two or more categorial forms can be realized. We should also mention the fact that morphological studies should be initiated with the marked member of any opposition. [39, 73] 2.3.Morphological-Grammatical Categories

The main rules or methods to apply in discovering and describing such categories: 1. A morphological grammatical category is constituted by the opposition of no less than two categorial forms. Thus, the category of taxis in English is constituted by the opposition of perfect and non-perfect forms, and the category of aspect is constituted by the opposition of continuous and non-continuous forms, etc. 2.The opposition of no less than two categorial forms is the only possible realization of a morphological-grammatical category, the only form of its existence. A grammatical category exists in its categorial forms. 3.The morphological-grammatical categories are historical: their number and characteristics change in the course of time. Thus, if the Saxon genitive ceased to exist as an inflectional form, this would destroy not only the categorial form of the possessive case, but also the grammatical category of case in Modern English as a whole. This would not be an unexpected outcome of a devolution: the category of case in English has been steadily loosing ground for about a thousand years. In contrast with the noun, the verb in English tends to become categorially overdetermined, owing to the steady increase in the number and variety of its categories. In the course of time it developed the category of aspect (the opposition of continuous/ non-continuous forms), the category of taxis (the opposition of perfect / non-perfect forms), etc. 4.A morphological grammatical category is confined to the categorial forms by which it is constituted, i.e. it cannot cover or include all the inflectional forms of a word. When certain properties are manifested by all the inflectional forms of a word, they constitute a lexical-grammatical category. This is the case of gender of nouns in Russian, as against gender of adjectives, which is a grammatical category, constituted by the opposition of the categorial forms of masculine, feminine, and neuter genders. 5. Every inflectional form expresses at least one categorial form, but it can also comprise several and thus cater, on the expression plane, for several morphological-grammatical categories. Morphological grammatical forms can be studied on two levels: 1) the semantic level, where, for example, the present tense forms express actions which include the moment of speaking, and 2) the metasemiotic level, where present tense forms are used to denote an action which clearly does not include the moment of speaking. [39, 73-74]

3.The Lexical-Grammatical Categories and Tertium ComparationisThe concept of lexical-grammatical categories is closely connected with the parts-of-speech classification, because as parts of speech, words are organized or divided into classes (parts of speech), each of which combines in it certain lexical and grammatical characteristics. Thus, if we take the verb, then it is a verb, because it functions syntactically in a certain way, it has a system of morphological inflections, but it also has got a certain general categorial lexical meaning. A verb is not only something that has got a set of grammatical categories, but it is also something that expresses or denotes a certain object of extra-linguistic reality, as a phenomenon, as an action or state in general. The parts of speech are determined to a greater or less degree. Thus the verb in English is very well determined by a large number of grammatical categories The noun in its turn is not so well determined, because the category of case in it depends on the existence of the possessive case. [39, 75-78]

It was taken for granted that confrontation of two or more languages is always based on something that is not actually given in the researcher’s immediate experience. In case of genetically related languages we simply begin with the common stock of grammatical categories, which can be regarded as the common heritage of all the languages under consideration. This is the natural outcome of comparative historical studies (comparative philology) - which has assembled a very large number of facts and has worked out a system of elaborate and reliable methods. As time went on, comparative philology, and more widely comparative-historical study of languages, which was distinct for many decades as the unique and absolute scientific method in linguistics, had gradually to give way to other methods and approaches. A powerful factor was the growing interest in linguistic synchrony and the study of natural human languages as a special kind of semiotic system. The idea of comparing different languages remained as a guiding principle, but since the comparison was now to be synchronic it implied a quest for altogether new sets of features and peculiarities. For comparative philology these were always thought of as something that was genetically common, something that gradually diverged under the pressure of a variety of structural and extra-linguistic factors. Analytical comparison (typology) was, and is still looking for something to serve for the comparison

6

of languages of totally different families for some kind of abstract features and peculiarities. To serve as tertium comparationis they must be regarded as similar, or even identical, in spite of the fact that the languages, which are assumed to share these properties, have no genetic ties at present and have never had them in the past. The confrontational comparison has the advantage over comparative philology of being able to suggest a method which would be applicable to all languages, irrespective of their history or of there being any genetic relation between them. But analytical comparison, when the languages under consideration are genetically related, can enable the researcher to understand them very deeply. The analytical comparison in its original form takes up different component facts, synchronically, without thinking of genetic community of its total absence. If we compare the category of taxis in English, Romanian and an unrelated language, the common basis for comparison is the category of taxis (anteriority). Gradually analytical comparison was performed not only on the etic level as observed in arbitrarily selected texts, but by using the categorial approach. The categorial approach should not be allowed to degenerate into abstract typological theoretization as applied to a particular branch of linguistics. The system of categories, which is established to serve as the starting point must always be complemented by a scrupulous analysis of their “etic” functioning as categorial forms. These are mutually opposed and make categorization possible. [39, 75-78] A very important factor in analytical comparison is the choice of an etalon language. Comparing the category of anteriority in English and Romanian we prefer English as an etalon language, because this category has been widely scientifically described and it can serve as an excellent starting point for a contrastive analysis of the mentioned categories in both languages. When we take a global view of linguistic confrontation we see what a variety of different aspects of language are encompassed in it. It has already been stated that analytical comparison, and more widely, linguistic confrontation is often assumed to disregard the factor of genetic community or lack of it. This general principle should now be reconsidered at any rate contrastive studies should be divided into two parts: on the one hand we have cognate languages (closely and distantly related languages) and, on the other hand, languages which belong to completely different systems. [39, 78]

4.Metalanguage and Linguistic Confrontation of Verbal CategoriesBefore comparing grammatical categories, we should give an introduction to the metalanguage used

by different schools and scholars in English. The comparison in this case is double: first we confront different terminological systems of the existing linguistic schools with an etalon system in English (the same could be done in the other confronted languages taken separately). This makes it easier for students to better understand the material on the subject given by different schools and scholars. Then we should confront the terminological systems of the analyzed languages. One of the main stumbling blocks in rational grammatical categorization is the lack of a firmly established relationship between the actual phenomena and their names. The metalanguage of morphological grammatical categories cannot be taken for granted and metalinguistic work cannot be regarded as merely taking an inventory of terms. It is a question of discovering whether there is any real difference in the various approaches and theories, or whether it is purely metalinguistic difference, mere conventions on the metalinguistic level. Often the researcher fails to keep clearly apart the object of analysis and the metalanguage - the words and expressions used when people talk about the object language. We very often find a large number of different metalinguistic expressions and are faced with a peculiar situation: we must compare those different systems and try to understand why the different metalinguistic expressions were introduced. Very often there is a discrepancy not only in the metalinguistic expressions used to denote certain more specific or particular categories, but also in the naming or description of the most general concepts themselves. If we compare A.I.Smirnitsky’s metalanguage, which was further developed by O.Akhmanova in her Dictionary of Linguistic Terms, with the well known metalinguistic system proposed by Martin Joos, we find that what Smirnitsky call “morphological grammatical category”, Joos refers to as “dimensions of categorization” reserving the name “category” for what Smirnitsky calls “categorial form”. [39, 80-81] Interesting results from the point of view of metalanguage can also be obtained by looking at the existing inventories of metalinguistic expressions used to denote the same actual or objective facts. When we take the categories of tense, aspect and anteriority, we find out that the same idea, or the same content, is expressed by different metalinguistic means. A case in point is the term continuous aspect named by some authors as durative, progressive, imperfective, imperfect, dynamic, etc. (11 other terms have been registered). The terms continuous, durative, progressive aspect are so close to each other in meaning that they may be regarded simply as triplets. Here are some more groups of doublets, triplets, n-plets within the category of taxis or anteriority (more terms exist here as well): past perfect: anterior past, antepreterite, antepreterit, before past tense, pluperfect, prepast tense; present perfect: anterior present, before present tense, perfect, pre-present tense; future perfect: ante-future tense, anterior future, before future(tense), pre-future tense.

7

Every one of the accumulation of terms is used to denote exactly the same thing. Very often it is not merely a question of choosing between this or that particular term, but the question of approach or attitude to categorization. Let us take the category of tense, which is constituted by the opposition of three categorial forms: present, past and future. These terms are sometimes described by much longer and much more ponderous terms. Thus, the term present (past and future) indefinite is sometimes substituted by: simple present (past and future, ordinary present (past and future), static present (past, future), present (past and future) of the common aspect, present (past and future) progressive or non-perfect, etc. Each of the grammatical forms, which are in English used to denote or express the respective categorial forms of tense, may also be viewed as “negative” or “zero” expressions of categorial forms which constitute different grammatical categories. Thus, if the categorial forms of present, past and future tense, expressed by the particular set of grammatical forms, are contrasted with the grammatical forms, functioning in English as grammatical expression for aspect and anteriority. There can be no objection, in principle, to stating every time that what we are dealing with in the case of grammatical form like I work, I worked, I shall work are simple or ordinary forms. They express the non-continuous or non-progressive aspect and are, besides, non-perfect (in the sense that they express simultaneity, and not anteriority). [39, 81-82] No categorization is attainable and no consistent metalanguage can be worked out, unless a very clear distinction is made between grammatical forms and categorial forms as distinct form categories. One and the same grammatical form may serve as an expression plane for different categorial forms, the opposition of which constitutes the respective categories. Analyzing the great mass of different metalinguistic expressions, such as: generic aspect, inclusive aspect, indefinite aspect, non-durative aspect, non-progressive aspect or anterior present, anterior past, anterior future, or before present tense, before past tense, before future tense, etc., we must find an answer to the following question. Is this accumulation of terms used to denote the same object, or are all kinds of names and words used to indicate the fact that one and the same grammatical form may carry more than one or possibly even several categorial forms? Thus, the form of the word works is present tense, non-continuous aspect, indicative mood, third person, non-perfect; or worked, which again is a grammatical form which like all forms of the verb expresses the past or preterit tense, the non-perfect or non-anteriority, the indicative mood and so on. The over complex metalinguistic systems lead to an accumulation of terms and not to a clear and non-contradictory description of all the categorial forms, carried by the given grammatical form. These terms are particularly reprehensible when they seek to denote certain grammatical meanings, such as the notional category of perfective, indefinite, generic, general, etc. aspect. At first sight there is no harm in replacing the term continuous/non continuous aspect in English by perfective vs. imperfective. But perfective is not so easy to distinguish from the lexeme perfect. It follows that if the term perfective is used to indicate a categorial form of aspect, while perfect is retained to denote the categorial form of anteriority, then obviously the system is much less convincing than the opposition of continuous/non-continuous, which so clearly explains what is actually opposed. There is a difference between the aspectual system of Russian and other Slavic languages, on the one hand, and the aspectual system of English, on the other. The problem of plurality of names cannot be simply dismissed as something that is purely conventional. It is important to decide whether we deal with a purely metalinguistic fact, or whether the difference resides in deeper systemic relationships. Thus, if we compare the terms continuous and durative aspect, we could regard this as a purely metalinguistic question, because both terms are synonymous. We could assume that if the word aspect is retained in both cases, then what we describe as the categorial form of the continuous aspect is called the continuous tense. Here we shall have to explain that calling it a continuous tense would involve an altogether different acceptation of the term tense. It would no longer be a question of what is meant by the term continuous tense, it would be a matter of specifying what is understood by tense. Let's take the opposition of perfect aspect vs. progressive aspect as used by some linguists, based on the categorial meaning of finished vs. unfinished action. As soon as we come to examples like He had been reading his book for two hours before I came back. We cannot have two aspectual forms expressed simultaneously by the same form (had been reading - to express a finished and an unfinished action simultaneously). Perfect here expresses grammatical anteriority supported and intensified by the lexical anteriority marker before. Anteriority is the main meaning of all the perfect forms. A finished action can be expressed both by some perfect and non-perfect forms: I have written a letter and I wrote a letter to him. In both these cases we have the same result. Confronting terminological systems of languages we come across unusual discrepancies. We discover that the Romanian gerunziul does not correspond to the English gerund. It regularly corresponds to the English present participle. The present participle in Romanian got out of usage and its function was taken over by gerunziul. After analyzing different categorial systems and interpretations in English and Romanian we choose the most widely used ones for confrontation. When confronting the category of mood we usually choose a system of 6 categorial

8

forms in English to compare with an identical number of moods in Romanian: Indicative, Imperative, Subjunctive I, Subjunctive II and Suppositional and in Romanian: Indicativul, Imperativul, Conditionalual, Optativul (Subjunctivul II), conjunctivul, Prezumptivul (or Suppositional). A closer inspection of these modal systems display considerable discrepancies. Thus, in Romanian Conditionalul and Optativul (Subjuncitve II) are expressed by completely homonymous forms and in the majority of grammar books and manuals they are given as one categorial form: condiţionalul or condiţional-optative. În "Gramatica limbii române" the conditional and optative are analysed but still as part of one categorial form, the terms are used differently from those in English: condţionalul in this system corresponds to the English Subjunctive II and optativul to the English Conditional. Most surprising is the fact that condiţionalul and optativul may be expressed in Romanian by several grammatical forms, which are polyfunctional and formally belong to different moods. Thus for example, the sentence "If I had had time I would have come to help you yesterday" - Dacă aveam timp, veneam să te ajut ieri; (imperfectul modal in both cases); Dacă aş fi avut timp aş fi venit să te ajut ieri; (optative, conditional); Să fi avut timp aş fi venit (or veneam) să te ajut ieri (conjunctivul in the secondary clause). We think the category of mood in modern Romanian needs to be reinterpreted, because the present classifications are somewhat confusing. Thus, for example, if we take conjunctivul - the criterion in singling it out as a separate mood serves the verbal form with the particle "să". A plurality of meanings, registered by us, demonstrate that this grammatical form is polyfunctional. Here are some meanings it can express: 1) Subjunctive I (also named Old Subjunctive) - Long live democracy! Să traiască democraţia! I insist that he come. Eu insist ca el să vină. It is necessary that he be (come) here in time. E necesar ca el să vină aici la timp. 2) Subjunctive II -If I were you. Să fiu în locul dumitale... If I had had time yesterday... Să fi avut timp ieri... 3) Regularly substituting the infinitive in Romanian: They promised to take him home. Ei au promis să-l ducă acasă. 4) Used in different combinations like: Let's sit and talk. Sa şedem şi să vorbim. He will come in time. El are să vină la timp (future tense indicative mood); To believe me capable of something like that! Să mă creadă capabil de aşa ceva! 5) After modal verbs: Even a child could understand. Şi un copil putea să înţeleagă. 6) Future tense - What shall I do? Ce să fac? 7) To express supposition, including the meanings of suppositional mood: (supposition, necessity, order, command, insistence ). Might he have been here? Să fi fost el aici? Could I have lost it on my way home? Să-l fi pierdut în drum spre casă? I insist (order) that he should be present. Eu insist (ordon) ca el să fie prezent. It is necessary that he should be here. E necesar ca el să fie aici. [39, 82-85]

5. Polysemy, Synonymy, Homonymy, Redundancyand Transposition of Verbal Categorial and Grammatical Forms

Grammatical and categorical forms can be polysemantic, synonymous, homonymous and even antonymous. The categories of mood in modern Romanian and English could be reinterpreted, because their present classifications are somewhat confusing. In the case of Romanian prezumtivul we have almost a complete transposition of future continuous and future perfect (both forms are extremely rarely used to express future actions in the indicative) into a relatively new mood "prezumtivul". Thus for example: 1) Vei fi din oraş! You should come from the city! Probably you come from the city! 2) Vei fi venit cu trenul. You must have come by train. I suppose you have come by train. 3) Ar fi fiind asta dorinţa prinţesei? Could this be the wish (desire) of the princess? Partially transposed are the forms of simple future, conjunctive continuous and non-continuous, conditional, optative continuous and non-continuous forms.[6, 85-91] In case of the Romanian conjunctive the criterion in singling it out, as a separate mood, serves the verbal form with the particle "să". A multitude of contextual sub-meanings demonstrate that this grammatical form is polyfunctional and can be used in the meanings of the English indicative, subjunctive 1, subjunctive II, suppositional, infinitive in both perfect and non-perfect forms. Subjunctive I (Old Subjunctive) in the first and second meanings usually corresponds to forms of conjunctivul in Romanian: Long live democracy! Să traiască democraţia! I insist that he come. Eu insist ca el să vină. It is necessary that he be (come) here in time. E necesar ca el să fie (vină) aici la timp. Subjunctive I in the second meaning has a stylistic synonym - Suppositional mood: I insist that everybody should come in time! Insist ca toţi să vină la timp! It is necessary that he should be (come) here in time. E necesar ca el să fie (vină) aici la timp. In both cases the use of the corresponding categorical forms is lexically conditioned by modal words accompanying the verbs. Thus, we can speak here of lexical-grammatical categorial meanings of mood. Subjunctive II has three synonymous equivalents in Romanian: If I had had time yesterday I should have come to help you yesterday. Să fi avut (=dacă aş fi avut/dacă aveam) timp ieri aş fi venit (veneam) să te ajut ieri. Thus, there are three forms in Romanian corresponding to the English Subjunctive II or Optative Mood: optativul, conjunctivul and

9

imperfectul modal, which in this case are perfect synonyms. In the main clause the Conditional mood corresponds in the confronted language to Condiţionalul and imperfectul modal. [39, 92-100] Here we should also mention the fact that in some grammar books the Romanian Condiţionalul and Optative are considered to form one categorical form of mood, probably because their forms coincide. In reality here we have two different homonymous categorical forms with their specific meanings.

Conjunctivul regularly substitutes the infinitive in the Romanian colloquial language: They promised to take him home. Ei au promis să-l ducă acasă. He must have come in time. El trebuie sâ fi venit la timp. Even a child could understand, Şi un copil putea să înţeleagă. To believe me capable of something like that! Să mă creadă capabil de aşa ceva! An interesting phenomenon has been observed in this case. During the last 18 years most people improved their native literary language and now we can observe the infinitive being used more often, to a certain extent, replacing conjunctivul not only in the literary publications, official speeches, but also in everyday activity conversations. Conjunctivul is used to express the future tense in colloquial speech: What shall I do? Ce să fac? He will come in time. El are să vină la timp. In the second example we have a future form used in colloquial speech, synonymous to “El va veni la timp”, corresponding to the literary style. Conjunctivul is also used to express lexical and grammatical supposition, necessity, order, command, insistence: Might he have been here? Să fi fost el aici? He might have been there. El ar fi putut să fi fost acolo. Have I lost it on my way home? Să-l fi pierdut în drum spre casă? I insist (order) that he should be present. Eu insist (ordon) ca el să fie prezent. It is necessary that he should be here. E necesar ca el să fie aici. Conjunctivul can also be used to express the imperative and present indefinite indicative forms: Leave the town immediately! Să pleci (pleacă) din oraş imediat! Don’t you worry, mother! Să nu te nelinişteşti, mamă! Do not doubt! Să nu te îndoieşti! Let's sit and talk. Să şedem şi să vorbim. There is no doubt that conjunctivul should not be considered to be a grammatical form expressing one categorial mood form. It is just a grammatical form used to express quite a number of categorial forms.

Most surprising is the fact we have mentioned above, that condiţionalul and optativul can be expressed in Romanian by several synonymous grammatical forms, which are polyfunctional and formally belong to different moods: If I had had time I (should) would have come to help you yesterday - Dacă aveam timp, veneam să te ajut ieri; (imperfectul modal in both cases); Dacă aş fi avut timp aş fi venit să te ajut ieri; (optative, conditional); Să fi avut timp aş fi venit (or veneam) să te ajut ieri (conjunctivul in the secondary clause). “Had had time” here expresses an anterior unreal action in the future, past and to a present moment, and in most cases is homonymous to a similar form in the indicative mood, used to express anteriority in the past and future in the past (in clauses of time and condition). [6, 92-100] Past conditional (perfect form) has several homonymous forms: suppositional mood (in the first person), future perfect in the past indicative mood, the modals “should” and “would” plus perfect infinitive. Thus, for example: He would have come, but he had no time; I should have read the book but I could not find it; I should have come earlier; He promised that he would have come before the beginning of the meeting.

Analyzing the perfect forms of the oblique mood forms we find out that in some cases they do not really express an anterior action. Thus, if we take the example: He said he would have come earlier yesterday if he had known; El a spus că ar fi venit (venea) mai devreme ieri, dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut, dacă ştia). In order to check this we transform the example into the indicative mood changing the category of affirmation/negation; He did not come yesterday because he did not know. Here we have an action in the past not connected with the present moment. As soon as the action is related to the present moment it acquires an anteriority meaning: If she had worked hard at her lessons this month she would have no problems at the exam. Dacă ea ar fi lucrat (lucra, să fi lucrat) la lecţii pe parcursul lunii acestea n-ar avea probleme la examen. The perfect form in the secondary clause expresses an anterior action to the present moment and corresponds to a present perfect form in the indicative mood: She has not worked hard at her lessons this month and now she has problems at the exams. In case of actions corresponding to future perfect, past perfect the oblique moods forms express an anteriority meaning. The past perfect form in the indicative mood is already polysemantic as it is used to express an anterior action to another action or moment on the axis of time, and it also can express an anterior action in the future from a moment in the past in clauses of time and condition. In the oblique mood forms the past perfect form can express anteriority to moments in the past, present and future, including the future in the past. It becomes homonymous in the case when it expresses and action in the past not connected with the present moment and not anterior to any moment or action in a given context.

The forms of prezumtiv in Romanian represent an interesting case like that of conjunctivul. At a closer inspection we discover that by the forms of present prezumtiv Continuous forms are practically used,

10

forms which were actively used in the indicative mood in earlier Romanian. Some examples taken from the History of Moldovan Grammar, published by prof. V.Marin (Chisinau, 1970), quoting sources of XVII-XIX centuries [23] could prove the fact that in reality we have various categorial forms of mood in the continuous aspect. Here are some examples in the indicative continuous forms: Era ca oile rătăcindu Au fost avându prieteşug mare cu Pătru Vodă. [23,36,123] Ştefan Vodă… Tocmai când părerea de rău îl ajunsese... erau trecând printr-o pădure mare şi deasă.; Au fost dormind la bisearica lui svetin Benedict. [23, 83] Şi era mergându şi apropiindu-mă către Damascu, întru ameadză... [23,90] …martorului tău însumi era stăndu…[39,91] Analyzing these examples we have no hesitation in stating the fact that the constructions of the auxiliary verb a fi + gerunziul express the grammatical continuous aspect meaning like in English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. The durative action here produces a stronger metasemiotic effect on the reader or listener than the imperfect. In Modern Romanian extended or periphrastic forms are used only in the oblique moods in colloquial speech: – Unde-i Petru? – Va (o) fi lucrând în livadă. -Să fie el lucrând în livadă? De ar fi el lucrând în livadă! [39, 112] Metasemiotic transposition is found in both English and Romanian. Thus, the category of aspect can be metasemiotically used not in its usual way, but in a way that will provide additional overtones: expressive, evaluative, emotional, modal, etc. For example: "He is leaving tomorrow". "Are you coming on Sunday?" In these two forms the aspectual and tense categorial meanings are used to express a stylistic connotation, the future action being expressed purely lexically (tomorrow, on Sunday). In Romance languages aspectual meanings are most often expressed by the perfective and imperfective opposition. But for metasemiotic purposes, for categorial intensification, most often they use durative forms. The continuous forms and various constructions in Romanian, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are subservient to the lexical and lexical-grammatical aspectual means and are usually used in emotional speech for expressivity and emphasis in an action developing in time, intensified by the interaction with lexical and prosodic means. Thus, in the Spanish expressive discourse the continuous forms are often preferred: Estoy hablando. Juan está comiendo. María está escribiendo una carta. Los pasajeros estar á n llegando a su destino. Ayer estuve repasando la gramática. Las gotas de agua estaban cayendo pausadamente. Hemos estado nadando tres horas. Mañana estar é trabajando todo el día en la biblioteca. [54] Identical constructions exist in Italian: Marcovaldo stava portando a spasso la famiglia. Pietro sta leggendo un libro. [20] The continuous forms are usually accompanied by lexical supporters or intensifiers like “todo el dia the whole day through, toată ziua” and interacting with the lexical durative meanings of the verbs. In Romanian these examples are usually rendered by means of imperfectul, constructions with gerunziu or contextual and lexical durative means. The Portuguese construction estar + gerundio is also the equivalent of the English continuous form: Eu estou estudando na Universidade. Ele estava lendo quando ela me chamou. Amanha estaremos preparando toda a documentacao. [68] In Spanish, Italian and Portuguese there exist several constructions with gerundio expressing aspectual duration. Thus, the Portuguese construction ficar + gerundio expresses a progressive action and is translated into English by means of continuous aspect forms: Fico olhando para о retrato. The construction andar a + infinitive: A Teresa anda falando da mudanca de casa. [68] What is important to mention is the fact that in Portugal the construction estar + gerundio can be substituted by the construction estar a +infinitive preserving the durative meaning: О Pedro esta a ler о novo livro. The same happens with the construction ficar + gerundio, where gerundio is substituted by the infinitive: Fico а estudar 3 horas. The construction continuar (seguir, prosseguir) + gerundio express a continuous action as well: Ele continua lendo o jornal. The construction continuar a + infinitive practically expresses the same type of continuous action: Ele continua a ler о jornal. [68] Exactly the same we have in English: He continues reading the journal can be easily changed into He continues to read . The construction with the non-continuous infinitive has a weaker aspectual grammatical meaning, the lexical durative meaning of “continue” taking over the categorial function.

The imperfect forms may be also used stylistically in case suprasyntactic metasemiotic means are used. The continuous/non-continuous binary opposition in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian (and partially in Romanian) are in a process of transposition from a pure grammatical aspectual category into a stylistic one. In English this grammatical opposition is well represented in all the functional styles of the language and is regularly used for stylistic purposes in emotionally coloured expressive and emphatic speech.

The categorial forms of present tense continuous or non-continuous aspect could also serve as an example of metasemiotic transposition. In some text books we usually find an explanation that the present tense can be used to express past and future actions. What we really have is a metasemiotic use of present

11

tense forms to describe a past or future action, for certain emotional-expressive or evaluative purposes, to express vivacity and dynamism of an action, as if deployed in the speaker's mind or in front of his eyes. In this case the categorial forms of past and future are expressed purely lexically or contextually. Thus, for example: Yesterday I was reading in the lounge. Suddenly Ann comes in, sits on the sofa and starts to cry. Next week I am leaving (leave) for Paris. The verbs expressing mental perception and feeling can be metasemiotically used in the continuous aspect; the same is true in the case of the usage of progressive forms with adverbs like always, often, seldom, generally, constantly, permanently, etc. Another case of metasemiotic transposition can serve the use of conditional mood forms to express: additionally to its main meaning of an unreal action the fulfillment of which depends on an unreal condition, this categorial is regularly used to express an action, which is not contrary to reality and expresses politeness, interest, etc. For example: I should eat an apple if I had any. Aş mânca un măr, dacă aş avea. (unreal condition); Look! You have apples! I should like to eat one! Priveşte! Aveţi mere! Eu aş mânca unul! (indirect polite request); Could I help You? Could you help me? Aş putea să vă ajut? (polite offer of help) Aţi putea să mă ajutaţi? (polite request).

One more interesting phenomenon is the gradual transition of some grammatical categories into lexical-grammatical or purely lexical ones. The category of gender in English and the category of anteriority (taxis) in Russian can serve as an example of a complete transition. Taxis in English, Romanian and other European languages are in the process of a similar transition. Perfect forms in modern English and Romanian are variously interpreted, as expressing anteriority, a complete action, a result, as a tense form, time relation. But lately more and more linguists consider anteriority to be the main categorlal meaning of finite and non-finite perfect forms (E.Benveniste, A.Smirnitsky, R.Allen, H.Palmer, etc.). Thus, according to Smirnitsky, "perfectivity" is the realization of a certain process before a certain moment or action in the movement of time, while the meaning of the past is merely the realization of the process before the moment of speaking.[6, 145-161] This difference is most clearly observed when we compare the perfect future with the usual past indefinite, as in the examples: He will have finished reading the book by 10 o'clock. El va fi terminat (va termina) de citit cartea pe la ora zece and He finished to read the book. El a terminat de citit cartea. The meaning of past is clearly expressed in both cases, but in the former the past is referred to a certain moment, which is conceived with respect to future, while with past indefinite it is simply the relationship between the action and the moment of speaking. Thus, anteriority or perfectivity is the meaning of an action, which precedes another action or moment on the time axis. The category of anteriority historically appeared in the result of transposition, when it was necessary to intensify the existing lexical and contextual means by grammatical ones. Now we have a reverse process but on a different level. At the moment the means of expressing future anteriority in both languages slightly differ. English has preserved the Latin system of expressing future actions as seen from a moment in the past. In Romanian it is very rarely used. Now let's take some examples: 1.Future from the present moment: I shall have read the text by six o'clock (by the time you come home. Eu voi fi citit textul către ora şase (pâna când te vei întoarce acasă) . In both languages future anteriority is expressed here both grammatically and lexically. The usual tendency in a language is to simplify redundant forms. Thus, the examples, given above, are naturally simplified in both languages, and anteriority can be expressed only lexically or contextually: I shall (will) finish reading the text by six o'clock (by the time you come home). Eu voi termina de citit textul către ora şase (până când te vei întoarce acasă). Present perfect is used to express future anteriority in clauses of time and condition (substituting future perfect), while perfectul compus in Romanian can be used to express future anteriority only in case of stylistic (metasemiotic) transposition. Past perfect is used in clauses of time and condition to express future anteriority from a moment in the past. In past perfect the category of taxis is not as clearly manifested as in future perfect. But here, too, although past indefinite (or simple past) and past perfect are both past tense forms, the difference between them is very clearly expressed. The past tense of the perfect form, although refers to the past, differs clearly enough from past indefinite in having a second and different meaning of past anteriority. In the American spoken English there is a tendency of rapprochment of present perfect in the second meaning and past indefinite and the former is often substituted by the latter: Did you ever go to Paris? Did he arrive yet? He never read this book. In the British Standard English present perfect continues to differ regularly from past indefinite in all the meanings. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is not enough to state the existence of the category of anteriority or any other categorial system in English and Romanian. Language is permanently changing and all abstract linguistic systems should be checked in practice (texts, speech), otherwise we could find ourselves "abusing grammar". Confrontation of metalanguistic systems and grammatical forms disclosed phenomena of polysemy, homonymy and

12

synonymy. Categorial transposition (stylistic and modal, etc.) is found in both languages. There is a tendency of regulation and simplification of categorial and redundant grammatical forms. Thus, grammatical anteriority can be regarded as a pedanticism, for in situations of ordinary everyday speech it is very easy to do without it, and express the same categorial meaning lexically or contextually. There is a clear-cut tendency of transition of some grammatical categories to lexico-grammatical or lexical categorial means of expression.

6.The English Verbal CategoriesThe verb is a part of speech expresses actions or states. The verb forms can fall under two main

divisions: finite and non-finite. The finite forms of the verb express a number of categorial forms: tense, anteriority taxis, aspect, mood, number, person, voice, etc. These categories are expressed both by analytically (I have written, I shall write) and synthetically (I write, I wrote). The non-finite forms (infinitive, gerund, present participle and past participle) as part of the category of representation express the categorial forms of anteriority, aspect and voice. The conjugation of the English verb is based on the following forms: the infinitive (or the present tense stem), the past indefinite form, past participle and present participle. The verbs can be divided into notional, semi-auxiliary and auxiliary. A notional verb possesses an independent meaning and is used as a verbal predicate, expresses an action or state of the doer of the action denoted by the subject: I have written a letter. Ann is reading a book. A semi-auxiliary verb has no independent function in a given sentence and is used as part of the verbal or nominal predicate. Its lexical element is expressed by the second element of the predicate (verb, noun, adjective), the grammatical categorial meaning of tense, mood, person, number is expressed by the semi-auxiliary in a finite form. It may be used as a link verb in compound nominal predicates (He was a very good teacher); as part of a compound verbal predicate expressing modality (supposition, assurance, ability, obligation, necessity, etc.) and aspectual meanings (the beginning, the end, duration, repetition of an action). I can type very well. You should come in time. You must have lost the key on the way home. He began to work early in the morning. He continued to think for a while. An auxiliary verb has only a purely grammatical meaning and is used to form analytical structures. The following auxiliaries are singled out: Shall, will (should, would) to form future (and future-in-the past) forms. I shall come later. He will arrive later. He said he would do the work on Sunday. To have as an auxiliary is used in forms both finite and non-finite: How nice of you to have come! Having read the book he returned it to me. He had lived in a village before moving to London. To be is used in continuous and passive voice forms: He is writing a dictation. The dictation is being written by him. The dictation has been written by him. The letter will be written by Ann. Should, would. As an auxiliary should is used to form the suppositional (I insist that he should come in time) and conditional in the first person (I should go to the country if the weather were fine). Would is traditionally used in the second and third persons of conditional mood, but it is not unusual to be found in the first person as well (He would have come if he had finished his work earlier. I would have come if I had not been so busy. You would have met Bill yesterday if you had come to see us.). To do is used in the negative and interrogative forms of present and past indefinite, imperative and also in the emphatic forms with do (He does not work at the office. He did not know where she was. Don’t come too late! Do come in time!) I shall have done my work by next Monday, I’ll go away on holiday on Tuesday. [39, 101-102]

7.The Category of Mood The category of mood is a grammatical morphological category, which expresses the relationship between what is being said and reality. While confronting the category of mood in English and Romanian we come across certain differences in its interpretation. A.I.Smirnitsky56 explains this phenomenon by the fact that different linguists do not mean the same when they speak of mood or modality. When they classify the forms of this category they often pay attention either to the form or to content. They do not always take into consideration such phenomena as polysemy, homonymy, synonymy; grammatical, lexical-grammatical , lexical, prosodic means of expressing the corresponding categorial form of mood. That is why in various publications we come across a multitude of terms to name the category of mood: mood, assertion, actual assertion, relative assertion, aspect of mood, factual- theoretical-hypothetical mood, fact mood (indicative), the mood of fact, declarative mood, thought-mood, imaginative mood, contrary-to-fact mood, inflectional mood, etc. The number of categorial forms in different grammar books is from 2 to 16. As far as the grammatical category of mood is concerned the most acceptable system is the one put forward by

13

A.Smirnitsky and his school and accepted by the majority of linguists: indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive II, conditional and suppositional. More complicated systems usually include grammatical, lexical and lexical-grammatical modality. As a good example of the case could serve Barbara Strang’s system: mood of determination (will), mood of resolution (shall), permissive (may), concessive (might), potential (can), compulsive (must), conditional (would), determinative-conditional (could). Sometimes in the mood system such form as the infinitive, the participle, the gerund, etc. are included. More “compact” systems of two or three categorial forms (indicative, imperative, subjunctive) usually combine under one term several categorial and grammatical meanings. Thus the term subjunctive in some grammar books embrace the forms of subjunctive I (Long live the queen!), subjunctive II (If I were you; If I had had time yesterday I would have come), suppositional (I insist that he should be present at the conference), which express completely different modal meanings. In the majority of Romanian grammar books we find a system of five categorial forms of mood: indicative, potential, imperative, conjunctive, condiţional-optative. In some manuals the infinitive, the gerunziul, the participle and supinul are added. Difficulties appear when we analyze the forms of potential, conjunctive and condiţional-optative. Here grammatical polysemy grows into homonymy. Thus, the forms of present potential (voi fi cântând, să fi cântând, ar fi cântând, aş fi cântând, etc..) practically can express modal meanings of subjunctive II, conditional, indicative, etc. Examples: 1) Se spune, că el ar fi având multe lucruri interesante (They say that he is having /may have/ a lot of interesting things); 2) Dacă el ar fi având această carte, l-aş ruga să mi-o dea (If he were having this book I should ask him to give it to me); 3) Unde-i Petru? - Va (O) fi lucrând în grădină. –Să fie el lucrând? De ar fi el lucrând! (Where is Peter? He might be working in the garden. - Could he be working? If he were working! Only the forms of present conjunctive turned out to express about 17 meanings: the infinitive, indicative, imperative, subjunctive I, subjunctive II, etc. Let’s take some examples and compare them with their translations in English: The form with “se + the verb form” is actively replacing the infinitive in Romanian (especially in the spoken language): Furtuna se năpustise cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să sfărâme insula în ţăndări, să o mistuie în flăcări, să inunde copacii, să o măture de pe faţa pământului (The storm culminated in one matchless effort that seemed likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the treetops, blow it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at on and the same moment). (M.Twain) The “conjunctive -infinitive” can be used without the particle “să” like the English infinitive without the particle “to”. “Să” + verb form can be used to express a number of categorial form meanings: 1) Indicative and imperative meanings: Să nu ai nici o grijă, mamă! (Don’t you worry, mother!) Să nu te îndoieşti! (Don’t doubt it!) O să-l întrebăm. (We shall ask him.) Să-l întrebăm. (Let’s ask him.) 2) Subjunctive I: Să trăiască pacea în toată lumea! (Long live peace all over the world!); El a ordonat ca el să plece. (He ordered that he go.) Subjunctive II: Noi am fi fost bucuroşi să ne fi întrebat. (We should have been glad if you had asked us.) Să ne fi spus am fi venit. (If you had told us we would have come.)

When we compare the English conditional and subjunctive II with the Romanian forms of condiţional-optative or better to say, with conditional and optative we find a complete categorial coincidence. The two grammatical forms of the above mentioned categorial forms in Romanian are homonymous, that’s why in grammar books they are usually treated as one categorial form, in spite of the fact that they really express different meanings. Let’s give some examples: 1) If you had been here you would had helped us. Dacă ai fi fost aici ne-ai fi ajutat. 2) If you were here you would help us. Dacă ai fi aici ne-ai ajuta. 3. If I had started last week I sould have got there in time. Dacă aş fi plecat săptămâna trecută aş fi ajuns acolo la timp. Comparing the systems of moods in English and Romanian we come to the conclusion that there is much in common between the two. The same conceptual categorial forms of mood in English are expressed in Romanian by corresponding forms. Parallel forms sometimes are used to express the same modal meaning, like in the case of conditional and subjunctive II, which correspond to the Romanian condiţional and optative, and may also correspond to imperfectul modal, conjunctive and potential. Thus, the following English example can be rendered by means of different forms, which possess in the given context the same categorial meaning: I should have gone to the meeting if you had told me. Eu m-aş fi dus la adunare dacă mi-ai fi spus. Eu mă duceam la adunare dacă mi-aţi fi spus. Eu m-aş fi dus la adunare dacă î-mi spuneaţi. Eu mă duceam la adunare dacă î-mi spuneaţi. Eu mă duceam la adunare să-mi fi spus. Changing the category of affirmation-negation we express the above given by means of indicative mood but some metasemiotic content is lost: I did not go to the meeting because you did (had not told) not tell me, Eu nu m-am dus la adunare pentru că nu mi-ai spus. The modal imperfect in Romanian is naturally used to express aspectual and modal meanings because of the rare use of the periphrastic aspectual forms in the language. The conditional mood forms both in English and Romanian are used to express politeness (the utterance in this case is emotionally coloured): Would you like to help me? N-aţi vrea să mă ajutaţi? I should like to ask you

14

something. Aş vrea să vă întreb (rog) ceva. The above- mentioned modal meanings are very rarely expressed purely grammatically. Lexical and lexical-grammatical means of expressing modality are further discussed. A number of modal forms considered to be purely grammatical, in fact are lexical or lexical-grammatical. Thus in such examples like: I wish I were a student. I insist that he (should) be present. I demand that he (should) come in time. I could do the work if I could come earlier - the grammatical meaning of oblique mood is depending on modal words like wish, insist, demand, could in the above given example expresses parallel modal meanings: 1) lexical, and 2) grammatical (conditional and subjunctive). Modal verbs and modal words in general can express modal meanings purely lexically (see the examples given above) or in combination with grammatical forms (lexical-grammatically). Thus in the example “I wish I were a student” the modally colored word “wish” helps to intensify the general grammatical modal meaning by using the form in the secondary clause in the subjunctive II mood. Subjunctive II can express unreal condition, wish, supposition, desire, unreal preference or comparison, etc. and is usually used after such lexical units: wish, suppose, if, as if, as though, though, that, so that, lest, for fear, before, ere, however, whatever, till, until, save, saving, in case, unless, even if, even though, whichever, whoever, it is time, it is high time, supposing, whether, etc. For example: If I were you I should stay here; Oh, that the storm were over! He treats me as if (as though) I were a little child. Here he lives happier than if he lived in the country. Even though he had come in time he would not have managed to talk to him. Even if he were here you would not be allowed to see him. It is (high) time you read this book. Supposing you had had enough time yesterday would you have managed to finish the job? Most of the above mentioned modal words influence the modality of verbs used in conditional as well as subjunctive II in complex sentences (I should help you if I had time; I should have helped you if I had had time). Subjunctive I and Suppositional are usually used after modal words and the modality meaning corresponds to the given modal word. Subjunctive I (also named Old Subjunctive) is falling in disuse. To a certain extent it is still used in American English. In British English Subjunctive I is used in the formal written language in various types of official documents (law, press, parliamentary activity, science and technology, etc,), in poetry and literary prose, in stable expressions (be it so, so be it, if need be, be that as it may, be it said, etc. ), in protests, swearing, cursing, etc. Subjunctive I has 2 meanings. In the first meaning it expresses an optative meaning (a wish, a desire) which is not contrary to reality (May he live a hundred years! Let success attend you! Long live the queen!) May, let express modality here and in combination with the main verb they express an optative meaning. Prosodic elements are also important in intensifying the modal meaning, in the last example it is prevailing. The second general meaning of Subjunctive I is synonymous with Suppositional mood and is expressing a variety of submeanings in dependence of de modal word accompanying the main verb (let, may, wish, to request, to be /im/possible, to be agreed, to order, to suppose, to command, to be necessary, to fear, to be feared, to suggest, to insist, to propose, to arrange, to demand, to pass a resolution, to give orders, request, suggestion, to grow terrified, to be afraid, adverbial clauses of purpose introduced by “lest”, though, although, whatever, whoever, however, etc.). For example: Should you care for a full explanation of the action, you may call any day. Though he (should) make every effort, he cannot succeed. However hard it (should) rain, we shall have to go. Whatever he (should) say, I will not change my mind. We shall start early lest we (should) be late. They grew terrified lest some evil should have befallen on him. A resolution was passed that everybody (should) take part in the work. Orders were given that we (should) start work. We arranged that we (should) meet on Sunday. He proposed that they (should) start. I demand that he (should) come at once. We insisted that he (should be present. It is requested that all (should) be ready by tomorrow. The modal verbs can express modality purely lexically. In grammar books in the group of modal or defective verbs are usually included: must, can, could, may, might, to be, to have, should, would, shall, will, dare, need, used to, ought to, (they have also the function of auxiliary verbs and in speech or used in texts they acquire a grammatical meaning as well. In reality the number of modal verbs is much larger. Thus, verbs like: to insist, to demand, to order, to request, to suppose, to command, to necessitate, etc. express lexical modality. Alongside their lexical modality most of them could be used to express an additional grammatical modality. The lexical modality is important in using the main verb in a given grammatical mood form (see conditional, subjunctive I, suppositional, subjunctive II and imperative). The prosodic element is also very important in expressing or intensifying a modal meaning. Examples of categorial meanings, expressed by grammatical, lexical-grammatical, lexical and phonological means is practically found in the majority of grammatical verbal categories. Thus, futurity in expressive speech may be expressed lexically, the grammatical form is used stylistically: He comes tomorrow (later, next week). I am leaving on Sunday. The category of aspect in English is considered to be a purely grammatical one, the marked member of the opposition being expressed by continuous forms. A closer inspection shows that the grammatical marked form, in many cases, is intensified by lexical aspectual

15

means, or only the lexical means are used. Thus in case of putandi and sentiendi verbs or when we use words like always, often, seldom, occasionally, continuously, permanently, usually, etc. the continuous forms are not used, because the meaning of these verbs, adverbs expresses an extended action lexically and there is no need to use a continuous form in a neutral situation. Only in case of intensification of the categorial meaning, for the sake of expressivity a continuous form could be used in such cases. The prosodic element is changing here too to intensify the aspectual-metasemiotic meaning. Thus, the following verbs can be used in the continuous form only in case of intensification, expressive use: see, feel, taste, observe, agree, disagree, bear, know, mean, notice, recall, recognize, believe, disbelieve, differ, doubt, find, foresee, recollect, remember, suppose, think, trust, distrust, understand, smell, detest, forgive, hate, like, dislike, love, mind, please, displease, prefer, want, wish, desire, hear, look, appear, consider, expect, hope, loathe, refuse, regret, be, belong to, contain, consist of, cost, depend on, deserve, have, hold, matter, own, resemble, etc. Here are some examples where both lexical and grammatical aspectual means are used for expressivity or intensification of aspectual meaning. You are seeing this place for the last time. I am hearing it better now. The dog was smelling the lamp post. She was feeling the sun extremely. She must be a stranger whom I was observing. He is always doing things like this. She was all the time smelling at him. They were occasionally visiting them. Analyzing all the verbal categories we have observed a phenomenon of transition from grammatical to lexical-grammatical and lexical means of expressing this or that categorial meaning. A good example could serve the category of taxis (anteriority), which undergoes a process of lexicalization in many languages: in Russian the perfect anteriority has practically disappeared and the lexical anteriority has taken its place. The same is happening in English and Romanian, where some perfect forms are not used any more or are used very rarely (future perfect, non-finite perfect forms). The sentence I shall have finished my work by six o’clock / before you come back is usually substituted by I shall finish my work by six o’clock/before you come back. Thus grammatical anteriority is becoming redundant and native speakers are regularly omitting it. By six o’clock, before you come back – express anteriority lexically or contextually and this is quite enough to omit the redundant future perfect form. [39, 103-109]

8.The Category of AspectThe category of aspect in various languages is expressed differently: grammatically, lexico-grammatically, lexically and prosodically. Aspect is the way an action is viewed. In English, aspect is an extremely reliable and grammatically impeccable way of expressing the opposition in question. In Romanian the category of aspect is expressed mainly lexically and in Russian lexico-grammatically, the purely lexical and phonological elements are used as alternative means or as aspectual intensifiers. The Russian perfective underlines the fact that the action is finished and the imperfective expresses an action that is not finished and developing in time, the term itself (imperfective) stresses the fact that the action is not finished. In English the aspectual opposition has very much in common with the Russian one. But there is no one to one correspondence.59 The same event can be described by using either continuous or non-continuous forms. It much depends on the speaker’s intention, whether he wants to describe the action in development, extended or just to express an action as very short or habitual, without paying attention to the aspectual marked categorial meaning. Thus, for example, the sentences Yesterday at five o’clock I met my friends/Yesterday at five o’clock I was meeting my friends. In the first sentence the speaker just mentions the fact of meeting his friends, in the second sentence this fact is intensified by underlying the fact that the action developed during a certain period of time. The verbs possessing a durative lexical meaning (interminative) can express continuous aspect both lexically and lexico-grammatically, the latter being emphatic or intensified aspectually. Thus, He sat at the table / He was sitting at the table; He looked out of the window. A man stood at the door / I looked out of the window. A man was standing at the door are confronted with imperfect forms both in Russian and Romanian: Он сидел за столом; El şedea la masă; Человек стоял у двери; Un bărbat stătea la uşă (Am văzut un bărbat stând la uşă). In the case of He sat at the table and A man stood at the door the lexical aspectual meaning of “sat” and “stood” is durative, and it is intensified by superimposing a grammatical aspectual meaning on the lexical one in was sitting and was standing. The Romanian and Russian equivalents belong to the imperfective aspect and express an unfinished and extended action, the grammatical duration here is supplemented by the lexical one. Even terminative or point-action verbs can be used in the continuous aspect if the action is repeated or the speaker wants to show the action in development, or to stress the fact that the action lasted during a certain period of time. For example: The boy jumped over the fence / The boy was jumping round the tree. I began to read, but the teacher interrupted me / I was beginning to read when he came in. In Romanian we have practically the same situation: Băiatul a sărit peste gard / Băiatul sărea în jurul copacului; Eu am început să citesc, dar profesorul m-a întrerupt / Eu

16

începeam să citesc, când el a intrat. There are various points of view concerning the category of aspect in English. One of them is that aspect in English is formed by means of the opposition of perfect and continuous forms, which is similar to the perfective and imperfective aspect in the Slavic languages. In this case the sentence I had been working at my article for three hours before he came back would express both forms: perfect and continuous (had been working). According to the rules of categorization a grammatical form of the verb can not express both forms of the categorial opposition simultaneously. This confusion may be connected with the fact that the term “perfect” or “perfective” is practically ambivalent and may be used to express either a finished action or anteriority. For example: I wrote a letter yesterday and I had written a letter yesterday by five o’clock. In both sentences the action is perfect(ive) in the sense that they are finished, but had written expresses a different perfect meaning, that of anteriority. In Romanian there are no clear-cut grammatical flexions (with the exception of imperfectul) to indicate the given categorial meaning. In fact, there existed, and still partially exists, a system of forms similar to the English continuous ones (and can be found in some other Romance languages), which consist of the auxiliary verb a fi (to be) and gerunziul (coinciding in meaning with the English present participle). Now these forms are rarely used in the indicative mood and are not very often confronted with the English continuous aspectual forms. Here are some examples: 1) Indicative mood (found in old texts): will be writing - va fi scriind, will have been writing - va fi fost scriind, is writing- este scriind, was writing - era scriind, has been writing - a fost scriind , etc. The oblique moods: (are still being used and in most grammar books are given as one mood under the name of prezumptivul or potenţialul): conditional: he would be writing - El ar fi scriind; subjunctive II (optativul): If he were writing – dacă el ar fi scriind; conditional and subjunctive II anterior forms: El ar fi fost scriind - (if) he had been writing, he would have been writing; conjunctivul (corresponding to the English subjunctive1, subjunctive II; used in constructions where the infinitive used: with suppositional, modal verbs, etc.): să fi scriind, să fi fost scriind - to be writing, to have been writing; had been writing, etc. Potential mood: va fi scriind - might be writing, etc. The aspectual meaning of the above given forms is combined with a metasemiotic one. Here are some examples taken from A History of Romanian Grammar, published by V.Marin (Chisinau, 1970), quoting sources from XVII-XIX centuries: Şi cînd va fi avînd vre-o treabă... (When he will be having something to do...), Tocmai cînd părerea de rău îl ajunsese... erau trecând printr-o pădure mare şi deasă (Just when he felt sorry for it, they were passing through a large thick forest); Era ca oile rătăcindu (Was wandering like sheep); Şi că era mergîndu şi apropiindu-mă către Damascu, întru ameadză... (And I was walking and approaching Damascus at noon...); Şi din zi în zi mulţi s-au fost adăugînd (And every day many have been adding...); A fost plătind şi el cînd a fost de faţă; (He had been paying when the had been present). In Modern Romanian such indicative forms are used very rarely. Thus, here is an example heard on the radio: El s-a accidentat şi acum este suferind (,,,he is suffering now) . In the oblique moods these grammatical forms are still used, especially in the colloquial speech. All the constructions of participle I in English usually have identical equivalents in Romanian. These constructions in English and Romanian are used both aspectually and metasemiotically. This could be seen in the following examples: I saw Andrew (him) crossing the street - Eu l-am văzut pe Andrei trecând strada; He heard someone coming along the path - El a auzit pe cineva venind dealungul cărării; He said looking around - El a spus uitându-se înjur, He came running - El venea fugind; Walking in the park he met Helen – Plimbându-se prin parc, el a întâlnit-o pe Elena; He walked singing - El mergea cântând. The constructions, regularly used and confronted in both languages, are: Accusative with participle I in English and Accusative with gerunziul in Romanian. Thus, for example: Young Francis was seeing the darkies working in the cotton fields - Tânărul Francis îi vedea pe negri muncind pe plantaţiile de bumbac (J.Galsworthy); Dupin was moving quickly to the door, when we again heard him coming up - Dupin se mişca repede spre uşa, când peste o clipă îl auzirăm pe necunoscut urcând din nou (E.Po). The next construction is Nominative with Participle I and Nominative with gerunziul: He was seen running to the river - El a fost văzut fugind spre râu. Nominative absolute: The dinner being ready, he dished and served it up – Prânzul fiind gata, el a servit masa. The house door being open, she went in before Tom, requesting him to follow her (M.Twain) - Uşa casei fiind deschisă, ea a intrat înaintea lui Tom, cerându-i s-o urmeze. Absolute Participle construction and Absolute gerunziul construction: A lake with children swimming in it, appeared and disappeared - Un lac, cu copii scăldându-se în el, apăru şi dispăru. Double predicate: The little maid came running down - Fetiţa venea fugind în jos. He walked singing - El mergea cântând. He looked smiling - El se uita zâmbind. Such sentences could be easily be transformed: He walked singing = He walked; He was singing - El mergea cântând = El mergea şi cânta; El cânta (El era cântând). Thus, in the case of the English Participle I and the Romanian gerunziul we have practically a difference of terms and there is a complete coincidence in their grammatical meanings. An aspectual form, which is common to Romance languages, is the imperfect. Imperfectul in Romanian is regularly confronted with the English continuous

17

aspect: They were waiting for the judge and Mariette was thinking of all the money Don Cesare had spent (Ei aşteptau judecătorul, Mariet se gândea la toţi banii, pe care Don Cezare îi cheltuise). More than that, imperfectul possesses a wider meaning than the continuous form. It has already been mentioned, that the latter has become so specifically continuous, and is very often used to express a metasemiotic connotation. Simple past in English is often used to express not only point actions, but also extended ones. In such cases imperfectly is also used as an equivalent of past indefinite in English: He represented for her the reality of things (El reprezenta pentru ea ralitatea vietii); Plainer people were in the ascendant (Oamenii mai simpli erau în ascensiune). Thus, it is important to notice that some words in English lexically express an extended action (durative or interminative verbs) and in neutral situations they substitute the grammatical continuous aspect. We have already mentioned that in some grammar books one may find the statement that putandi and sentiendi verbs are not and should not be used in the continuous aspect. A closer inspection of this phenomenon shows that practically all the verbs in English, including the putandi and sentiendi ones can be used in the continuous aspect. Verbs like “believe, see”, etc. express aspect lexically and they are rarely used in the grammatical continuous form, usually when there is a necessity to intensify the aspectual meaning, to make it more emphatic, more expressive: But I am seeing you, you are there behind the tree! Am I really hearing what you are saying? Here follows a list of verbs, which possess lexical aspectuality and are rarely used in the continuous form in neutral situations: see, feel, taste, observe, agree, disagree, believe, disbelieve, differ, doubt, find, foresee, forget, imagine, hear, know, mean, notice, recall, recognize, recollect, remember, suppose, think, trust, distrust, understand, smell, detest, forgive, hate, like, dislike, love, mind, please, displease, prefer, want, wish, desire, hear, sound, look, appear, consider, expect, hope, loathe, refuse, regret, be, belong to, contain, consist of, cost, depend on, deserve, have, hold, matter, own, resemble, etc. Let’s give some examples taken from English authentic literature: God was witness to all their calamities. He was seeing them robbed. He was seeing them famish hour by hour. He was seeing them die. I am seeing a brown colour. You are seeing this place for the last time. I am hearing it better now. Am I really hearing a voice at last! The dog was smelling the lamp post. She was smelling the fish to find out whether it was fit to eat. She was tasting the sauce to find out whether it was salt or sugar she had put into it. She was feeling the sun extremely. She was nothing like me, so she must be a stranger whom I was observing, though in a most bewildering way, etc. The same could be said about the habitual and repeated actions, usually accompanied by words possessing a certain durative lexical and aspectual meaning: always, often, constantly, permanently, occasionally, seldom, usually, etc. It has been observed that English people regularly use the grammatical continuous aspect in their speech, to make it more expressive: He is always doing things like this. They were always worrying. She was all the time smelling at him. He was always promising to come. They were occasionally visiting them.Thus, the choice of the continuous aspect depends only on the action being viewed as a process. This is the universal grammatical meaning of the continuous aspect and this is the only criterion that matters when this or that aspectual form is being chosen. In case of emphasis, when there is a necessity to increase the categorial aspectual meaning English people can ignore the above mentioned rule: Father, you don't see me. -Oh, I see you. -No, you don’t. -But I am seeing you! You are behind that bush! (seeing is used emphatically here). Let’s take another example. He is always doing things like that (emphatic usage). It is important to mention the fact that in the confronted languages, and first of all in English, there is a process of metasemiotic transposition of continuous (progressive, durative, imperfect) aspect into a metasemiotic category. These forms are often used not only to express aspect, but also for stylistic purposes. The emphatic use of seeing and always is accompanied by emphatic prosodic means: wide range, high fall, slow tempo, etc. In Romanian (and in Russian in the present tense) the lexical means of expressing aspectual meanings, as we mentioned above, prevail over the grammatical ones, i.e. the lexical aspectual category is much more prominent than the grammatical one. Thus, the English sentences The farmer works in his field, The farmer is working in his field now are confronted in Romanian and Russian with identical grammatical forms of the verbs (simple present) in both cases: Fermierul lucrează pe câmp. Fermierul lucrează pe câmp acum; “Фермер работает на поле, Фермер работает на поле сейчас. Now in English intensifies the grammatical aspectual meaning, while in Romanian and Russian acum, сейчас are the only aspectual (lexical) means and they can be intensified only contextually and prosodically. We have already mentioned above the observation concerning the translation of the English continuous passive forms into Romanian and Russian. Regular confrontation of examples allows us to conclude that English continuous forms are regularly translated by means of verbs with the particle “se” in Romanian and flexion “-ся” in Russian. In both languages it is usually used to express lexical-grammatical reflexivity. But in this case they are used purely grammatically to express a different meaning, that of a durative action in the passive voice: The house is being built now, The house was being built when we arrived there, The house will be built this time next

18

year – Casa se construieşte acum (Casa este construită acum), Casa se construia (era construită) cînd am sosit acolo, Casa se va construi (va fi construită) pe timpul acesta anul viitor - Дом строится сейчас. Дом строился, когда мы приезжали туда, Дом будет строится в это время в следующем году. The reflexive particle and flexion here get completely homonymous meanings of passive voice of imperfective (durative) actions. In English there is no continuous aspect in the passive voice in the future, because both categorial forms are used with the verb “to be” and it is not acceptable in the literary English to say: The house will be being built. Both in Romanian and Russian continuity is expressed: se va construi, будет строится. Va fi construită usually represents a perfective action. The same opposition of finished (perfective) and imperfective in the passive voice past indefinite is found in both Romanian and Russian: Casa se construia – Casa era construită – Casa a fost construită (Casa era construită may have the meaning of imperfectul pasiv and pluscvamperfectul activ). The Russian: Дом строился - Дом был построен represent the above- mentioned aspectual opposition. The category of negation usually influences the realization of a categorial form. Thus, the continuous aspect used in the negative forms may be considered as a failure to realize the marked aspectual meaning. Let’s take some examples: I am working in the garden/I am not working in the garden; I am reading a book/I am not reading a book. The positive forms indicate that the actions (I am working; I am reading) are being carried out at the moment. The negative forms, on the other hand, stress the fact that the given actions are not being carried out. In fact the continuous aspect is realized in both cases. In the negative forms we stress the fact, that we are not working in the garden or reading a book, but we are doing something else. For example: I am not working in the garden, I am walking in the garden, I am not reading a book, I am writing a letter. In both cases there is an aspectual meaning of actions developing in time at the given moment. Analyzing the categories of aspect in the confronted languages we can conclude that the English language possesses a clear-cut grammatical aspectual system, prevailing over the lexical and prosodic aspectual means used as a rule to intensify the general aspectual meaning. In Romanian the grammatical aspect is subservient, the lexical and prosodic aspectual categorial means being prominent. In the contrasted languages one could observe the tendency of metasemiotic (stylistic) transposition. If we compare a number of related languages with an unrelated one we find that coincidences and differences vary in each case. Thus, in Romanian and Arabic (and in Russian in the present tense) the lexical means of expressing aspectual meanings, as we mentioned above, prevail over the grammatical ones, i.e. the lexical aspectual category is much more prominent than the grammatical one. Thus, the English sentences The farmer works in his field, The farmer is working in his field now are confronted in Arabic, Romanian and Russian with identical grammatical form of the verbs in both cases: Yehmil el mudaraha fi hak lihi, El mudara yehmil fi hak lihi elan; Fermierul lucrează pe câmp. Fermierul lucrează pe câmp acum.; Фермер работает на поле, Фермер работает на поле сейчас. Now in English intensifies the grammatical aspectual meaning, while in Arabic, Romanian and Russian the lexical means elan, acum, сейчас are the only aspectual means and they may be intensified only contextually and prosodically. In Arabic the imperfect is wider in meaning than in Romanian. The non-finite forms are denoting an imperfective action taken at any time: Ayu kameisin la yaslahu lehrianny. The present-future tense expresses an action that may simultaneously represent the present and the future planes: Ini nazer ilamata faalahu - I am watching what you are going to do (what you are doing). The present and the future planes are distinguished contextually or phonetically. Thus the above given example may have two meanings depending on the context: two simultaneous actions in the present and a correlation of a continuous action in the present and future. The imperfect denotes an incomplete or durative action in the past, developing in time simultaneously with other actions in the past: Inni naziron illamata faalabu. Seala an hum wa einie yeshtamauun (He asked them where they were going to congregate). The interminative verbs, compared with those terminative, express an unfinished or imperfect action and they are used in Arabic with other verbs like, for instance, the verbs of existence and formation: kana (to be), sara (to get, to grow), asmaha, amsa, atha, zala... (to become, to get)...: asbaha yafalu (he started doing); amsa maridon (he became sick). The verb kan in the imperfect form with the particle ma (durative) express a meaning of durative or continuous action: Ma minti haye (In the meantime as he is still living); Madama yakumu or ma dama kaye man (In the meantime as he was still standing). The combination of the imperfect of the main verb with the preceding verb kana creates the meaning of past continuous: Kana yukullu (He was often speaking); Kana fi allahujuzu tahdemany (The old woman was serving this). The imperfect expresses the future tense if the sentence a lexical future marker or the particle sa: Lasafiru ghadan; Sa anfahu ileihi haza. Futurity is more pronounced in the imperfect mood. The verb kana helps to express a continuous action (imperfect) in the past: Lamma jeihtu ileihi kana yaktubu alrisaluta (When I came to him, he was writing a letter). In this case the continuous action is simultaneous with the action in the secondary clause. Without the verb kana the

19

same sentence may express a simple sequence of actions: Lama jeihtu e lechi katabu alrisulata (When I came to him/after I had come to him he wrote a letter.). Analyzing the categories of aspect in the confronted languages we can conclude that the English language possesses a clear-cut grammatical aspectual system, prevailing over the lexical aspectual means used as a rule to intensify the general aspectual meaning. Besides the continuous – non-continuous aspectual opposition in English we can also single out a grammatical aspectual opposition of finished – unfinished (perfective-imperfective). The former is predominant and the latter is subsidiary and is not usually singled out in grammar books. In Romanian and Arabic the grammatical aspect is subservient, the lexical aspectual category being prominent. In all the contrasted languages one could observe the tendency of metasemiotic (stylistic) transposition of aspectual forms. Thus, in English the grammatical means prevail, supported by the lexical and phonological ones, In Russian the category of aspect is expressed mainly lexico-grammatically, the purely lexical and phonological elements are used as alternative means or as aspectual intensifiers. Let us take the categories of aspect in English and Russian expressed correspondingly by the oppositions of Continuous - non-Continuous and Perfective-Imperfective. The Russian perfective underlines the fact that the action is finished and the Imperfective expresses an action that is not finished and developing in time, the term itself (imperfective) stresses the fact that the action is not finished. Though the English aspectual opposition is practically identical with the Russian one, there is no one to one correspondence. Thus, for example, the sentences He sat at the table and He was sitting at the table are confronted with only one equivalent in Russian Он сидел за столом. In the case of He sat at the table the action itself is prominent, while in He was sitting at the table - the process, the fact that the action is extended, developing in time is most important. Their Russian equivalent belongs to the Imperfective aspect and expresses an unfinished and extended action. Discrepancies of this case are observed in the verbs, possessing an interminative meaning. The verb forms in the sentences He sat at the table and He was sitting at the table in English belong to imperfective forms. There is a certain difference between the two forms. They are both, durative or progressive in meaning, but sat expresses lexical duration, while in the was sitting the given lexical duration is intensified by the grammatical one. But from the point of view of grammatical aspect the two verb forms in He sat at the table and He was sitting at the table represent an aspectual opposition of continuous – non-continuous aspect. There have been attempts in English to create an aspectual system like in the Slavonic languages. An opposition like Perfect - Continuous aspect was put forward by some linguists. Terms like “imperfective, imperfect” could be found in grammar books. Now when we turn to Arabic we can see practically the same problems: of systemic approach and terminology. Thus, it is considered that the imperfect (also called non-finite) forms are opposed to the finite forms and denote an action as not completed. From the point of view of taxis these forms do not differ here. The aspectual meaning of the imperfect is considered as if divorced from the temporal meaning, the action can take place at any time, the given action or state is not referred to any specific moment, because it is extended. [39, 110-122]

9.Aspectual Categorization in Cognate LanguagesAnalyzing various aspectual examples we can conclude that in different languages there exist various

aspectual forms: continuous, non-continuous, perfect(ive) and imperfect(ive). In English the continuous forms dominate over other aspectual means (lexical, lexical-grammatical). There is a metalinguistic confusion in case of the terms perfect/perfective, which are treated from different points of view by linguists. The original meaning of the term perfect was “finished action” and was in opposition to imperfect (unfinished). Gradually it acquired the meaning of anteriority. This metalinguistic ambiguity contributed to the appearance in the English text-books of several aspectual categorial oppositions: continuous/non-continuous, perfect/continuous, perfect/imperfect(ive). In the third case “imperfective” embraces both the continuous and non-continuous grammatical and lexical durative forms. In English the grammatical category of continuous/non-continuous aspect prevails. All the verbal forms can be subdivided into two large groups of perfective and imperfect(ive) forms, which imply both lexical and grammatical meanings. The perfect /continuous opposition is not acceptable because perfect forms can express a durative action: I have lived here for many years (and I am not intending to move to any place). This example is in aspectual opposition of perfect(ive)/imperfective to I have lived here for many years (and now I move to a new place). At the same time both examples are part of the unmarked member of the continuous/non-continuous aspectual opposition. The lexical durative meaning of the verb “to live” contributes to the intensification of the general aspectual meaning, especially if it is used in the continuous form, where its expressivity is strongly enhanced: I have been living here for many years. A finished action can be expressed both by perfect and non-perfect forms: I have written a letter and I wrote a letter to him. Both actions are finished or perfective. Imperfective actions can also be expressed by both continuous and indefinite non-perfect forms: Yesterday I worked in the garden. Yesterday I was working in the garden when Peter came to visit us. Worked and was

20

working express durative actions, but the latter form also means an action developing at a given moment parallel to another action (when Peter came to visit us).

The perfective-imperfective opposition prevails in many European languages. It may be expressed lexico-grammatically like in the Slavonic languages, while in some other languages the imperfect forms express a durative unfinished meaning grammatically, combined in durative verbs with the corresponding lexical aspectual meaning. Imperfective aspect has a wider meaning than the continuous aspect, which expresses an action in development parallel to another action or moment. In the English language the imperfective actions can be rendered both by non-continuous and continuous forms. In the former ones the lexical duration of the given word permits to express an unfinished or progressive action. Lexical durative elements may be found in both members of the opposition. The same event can be described by using either continuous or non-continuous forms. It much depends on the speaker’s intention, whether he wants to describe the action in development, extended or just to express an action as very short or habitual, without paying attention to the aspectually marked categorial meaning. Let’s take the examples: Yesterday at five o’clock I met my friends. Yesterday at five o’clock I was meeting my friends. In the first sentence the speaker just mentions the fact of meeting his friends, the duration of the action is not so important here. In the second variant the action is viewed as developing in time and is more expressive. A number of lexemes, expressing durative actions lexically, are not used in the continuous forms in habitual situations: see, feel, taste, observe, agree, disagree, believe, hear, know, mean, notice, think, etc. In emphatic expressive speech all the putandi and sentiendi verbs can be used in the continuous form: God was witnessing to all their calamities. He was seeing them robbed. He was seeing them die. I am seeing a brown colour. I am hearing it better now. The dog was smelling the lamp post. Another example: He looked out of the window. A man stood at the door/ I looked out of the window. A man was standing at the door. Lexical duration interacts with the grammatical continuous meaning. The general aspectual meaning increases and the utterance becomes more expressive.

Inchoative, terminative and point-action verbs can also be used in the continuous form if the actions are repeated or seen by the speaker as developing in time: The boy jumped over the fence/The boy was jumping round the tree. I began to read, but the teacher interrupted me / I was beginning to read when he came in. In case of durative adverbs like always, constantly, permanently, occasionally, seldom, usually, etc. in emphatic emotional speech the continuous forms combined with emphatic prosody are used: He is always doing things like this. They were always worrying. He was always helping me. Prosodic means are used for metasemiotic transposition: He is \always doing things like this”. Here the lexical and grammatical durative means are enhanced by a high fall, lento tempo, wide range, increased loudness and paralinguistic means. [39, 110-115] Continuous forms were actively used in the indicative mood in earlier Romanian. Here are some examples taken from the History of Moldovan Grammar, published by prof. V.Marin (Chisinau, 1970), quoting sources of XVII-XIX centuries [24]: Era ca oile rătăcindu, Au fost avându prieteşug mare cu Pătru Vodă. [24,36,123] Ştefan Vodă… au fost şezând odată în divan cu toiagul în gură. Cât au fost învăţând mai de multă vreame… [24,37] Fostau prins doi nemţi turcii şi i-au fost ţiind aproape de cortul vizirului legaţi. [24,39] Dece o seamă de boieri s-au fost apucându să facă zapis. [24,53] Tocmai când părerea de rău îl ajunsese... erau trecând printr-o pădure mare şi deasă.; Au fost dormind la bisearica lui svetin Benedict. [24, 83] Şi era mergându şi apropiindu-mă către Damascu, întru ameadză... [24,90] …martorului tău însumi era stăndu…[24,91] …Am audzit pre mulţi mărturisind să hie fost covârşind pre Vasilie Vodă. [24, 132] Şi din zi în zi mulţi s-au fost adăugând… şi-au mai fost viind şi un general al lui…[24,139] A fost plătind şi el când a fost de faţă. Şi arcul l-au fost trăgând cu vârtej. [24,155]

Analyzing these examples we have no hesitation in stating the fact that the constructions of the auxiliary verb a fi + gerunziul express the grammatical continuous aspect like in English, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian. The durative action here produces a stronger effect on the reader or listener than the imperfect. In Modern Romanian extended forms are used only in the oblique moods in colloquial speech : – Unde-i Petru? - O fi lucrând în livadă. -Să fie el lucrând în livadă? De ar fi el lucrând în livadă! [39, 112]

Constructions with participle I in English usually have identical equivalents in Romanian and other Romance languages and express continuous actions. 1.Accusative with Participle I: Young Francis was seeing the darkies working in the cotton fields - Tânărul Francis îi vedea pe negri muncind pe plantaţiile de bumbac (J.Galsworthy); 2.Nominative with Participle I and Nominative with gerunziul: He was seen running to the river - El a fost văzut fugind spre râu. 3.Nominative absolute: The house door being open, she went in before Tom, requesting him to follow her (M.Twain) - Uşa casei fiind deschisă, ea a intrat înaintea lui Tom, cerându-i s-o urmeze. 4.Absolute Participle construction: A lake with children swimming in it, appeared and disappeared - Un lac, cu copii scăldându-se în el, apăru şi dispăru. Walking in the park he met Helen. 5.Double predicate: He walked singing - El mergea cântând. In this case we have two

21

actions as if blended together in a shorter unit: (El mergea. El cânta). All these constructions express a clear cut grammatical continuous aspect combined with the lexical durative meaning of the verbs. [39, 112-113]

The continuous forms in Romanian, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are subservient to the lexical and lexical-grammatical aspectual means and are usually used in emotional speech for expressivity and emphasis in an action developing in time, intensified by the interaction with lexical means and prosody. Thus, in the Spanish expressive discourse the continuous forms are often preferred: Estoy hablando . Juan está comiendo. María está escribiendo una carta. Los pasajeros estar á n llegando a su destino. Ayer estuve repasando la gramática. Las gotas de agua estaban cayendo pausadamente. Hemos estado nadando tres horas. Mañana estar é trabajando todo el día en la biblioteca. [54] Identical constructions exist in Italian: Marcovaldo stava portando a spasso la famiglia. Pietro sta leggendo un libro. [20] The continuous forms are usually accompanied by lexical supporters like “todo el dia the whole day through, toată ziua” and interacting with the lexical durative meanings of the verbs. In Romanian these examples are usually rendered by means of imperfectul, constructions with gerunziu or contextual and lexical durative means. The Portuguese construction estar + gerundio is also the equivalent of the English continuous form: Eu estou estudando na Universidade. Ele estava lendo quando ela me chamou. Amanha estaremos preparando toda a documentacao. [68] In Spanish, Italian and Portuguese there exist several constructions with gerundio expressing aspectual duration. Thus, the Portuguese construction ficar + gerundio expresses a progressive action and is translated into English by means of continuous aspect form s: Fico olhando para о retrato. The construction andar a + infinitive: A Teresa anda falando da mudanca de casa. [20] What is important to mention is the fact that in Portugal the construction estar + gerundio can be substituted by the construction estar a +infinitive preserving the durative meaning: О Pedro esta a ler о novo livro. The same happens with the construction ficar + gerundio, where gerundio is substituted by the infinitive: Fico а estudar 3 horas. The construction continuar (seguir, prosseguir) + gerundio express a continuous action as well: Ele continua lendo o jornal. The construction continuar a + infinitive practically expresses the same type of continuous action: Ele continua a ler о jornal. [68] Exactly the same we have in English: He continues reading the journal can be easily changed into He continues to read . The construction with the non-continuous infinitive has a weaker aspectual grammatical meaning, the lexical durative meaning of “continue” taking over the categorial function.

In Spanish like in Portuguese, besides estar, there exist durative constructions with verbs like: ir, andar, venir, seguir, continuar, quedar(se), permanecer with gerundio having a pronounced durative aspectual meaning: Los conferenciantes iban discutiendo algunos problemas de los vuelos cósmicos. Las muchachas continuan char lando . In all these examples the grammatical continuous aspectual meaning is interacting with the lexical duration of the verbs, intensifying the categorial meaning and making it more expressive. The most often used is the construction with ir + gerundio, which expresses a consecutive action in development: El bote iba hacienda agua... La humedad у sol iban abriendo las maderas у derritiendo la brea. Ya voy comprendiendo que mi vecino tenía razón, etc. [6]. The combination of seguir +gerundio express continuous actions in present past and future: Seguimos trabajando en la Universidad. Seguiremos tomando parte en los debates.[3] In most examples the grammatical continuous meaning interact with the lexical duration of the verbs and adverbs, intensifying the final aspectual expressivity. In Spanish, Italian and Portuguese there are some other verbs to form durative combinations. Thus, the Spanish combinations of ir, andar, venir, seguir, continuar, quedar(se), permanecer with gerundio have a pronounced durative aspectual meaning: Los conferenciantes iban discutiendo (The speakers were discussing) algunos problemas de los vuelos cósmicos. Las muchachas continuan charlando (went on chattering). Un hombre extraño se quedo registrándome (A stranger went on inspecting me) con la vista de arriba abajo. Ellos, los chicos, habian ido creciendo у saliendo (the children were growing and starting in life) a la vida. In all these examples the grammatical continuous aspectual meaning can interact with the lexical duration of the verbs, intensifying the categorial meaning and making it more expressive. [54; 53] The most often used is the construction with ir + gerundio, which expresses a consecutive action in development: El bote iba hacienda agua... La humedad у sol iban abriendo las maderas у derritiendo la brea. Ya voy comprendiendo que mi vecino tenía razón, etc. [53]. Seguir+gerundio expresses continuous actions in present past and future: Seguimos trabajando en la Universidad. We are still working at the university. Seguiremos tomando parte en los debates. We shall be taking part in the debates [54] In most examples the grammatical continuous meaning interact with the lexical duration of the verbs and adverbs, intensifying the final aspectual expressivity. Many words lexically express an extended action and in neutral situations they substitute the grammatical continuous aspect. In Portuguese we find identical durative constructions: F icar+gerundio expresses a progressive action and is translated into English by means of continuous forms: Fico olhando para о retrato, I have been

22

looking at the picture for a long time. [68] Andar a + infinitivo: A Teresa anda falando da mudanca de casa. [68] In Portugal the construction estar + gerundio can be substituted by estar a +infinitive preserving a certain aspectual durative meaning: О Pedro esta a ler о novo livro. The same happens with the construction ficar + gerundio, where gerundio is substituted by the infinitive: Fico а estudar 3 horas. Continuar (seguir, prosseguir) + gerundio express a continuous action: Ele continua lendo o jornal. The combination continuar a + infinitive practically expresses the same type of continuous action: Ele continua a leer о jornal. [68] Exactly the same we have in English: He continues reading the journal can be easily changed into He continues to read, where the lexical aspectual durative meaning will prevail. Similar forms are found in Italian as well: Egli andava dicendo delle bugie. He was telling a lie. [20]

Finite and non-finite continuous forms in Romanian, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese are mostly used in emotional speech, for expressivity and emphasis in actions developing in time, intensified by lexical and prosodic means. In these languages they are usually considered as constructions with some verbs. Analyzing Spanish conversational emotionally coloured examples, taken from “The Lingaphone Institute. Curso Español” [74] we find a multitude of finite continuous forms metasemiotially used: Ahora estoy en la estación de Atocha. Estoy esperando (I am waiting). No me gusta esperar. Mi hijo Ramón esta sacando los billetes en la taquilla (is buying tickets at the booking-office). Hoy hace mal tiempo: hace frío y esta lloviendo (is raining). In these examples a negative connotation is expressed by the speaker, who is displeased to be waiting there for a long time. All the durative forms clearly express actions in development parallel to a moment or another action. -¿Qué estáis hacienda, Marisol? (What are you doing?). - Un momento, abuelita. Estoy mirando estas revistas. (I am looking at these magazines). Como es cameraman siempre esta viajando (He is always driving). The adverb siempre lexically intensifies the gramatical continuous meaning. The specific prosodic and paralinguistic means should be analyzed in order to find out their contribution to the metasemiotic intensification of aspectual duration. Vamos, abuelita. Todos están esperando. (Everybody is waiting) ¿Qué estas haciendo? (What are you doing?). ¿Os habéis bañado ya? -Si, hemos estado nadando tres horas (We have been swimming for three hours). Acabo de romperé una muela y ahora estoy sangrando (I am bleeding). Vuestro desinterés por mis desventuras es increíble. -Mamá, estas exagerando. Abuelita, ¿perqué estas llorando? (Why are you crying?) Ya debemos estar llegando. (We should be arriving already). Vamos pronto, tío Felipe, Estoy deseando (I am wishing) ver un poco de Barcelona. ¿Porque' estoy aprendiendo (Why am I learning) los verbos reflexivos espanoles? Every example, depending on the extralinguistic context, possesses a specific suprasyntactic prosodic structure. Some statements a characterized by overstatement reinforced by means of tones and tempo, the effect of non-formality and a pleasant emotional colouring or displeasure, inquietude are created by the corresponding paralinguistic means: voice quality, smile, laugh, merriment, cry, groaning, sighing, etc. The immediate linguistic context is also very important: Acabo de romperé una muela y ahora estoy sangrando. Vuestro desinterés por mis desventuras es increíble. -Mamá, estas exagerando. Abuelita, ¿perqué estas llorando? Real or deliberately exaggerated emotions like in the example above are expessed by suprasyntactic and paralinguistic means the speaker uses emphatic tones, increased loudness, slowed down tempo, crying, plaintive voice, in order to get sympathy and warmth from her relatives. In Spanish like in English the finite continuous forms are used in the present past and future perfect and non-perfect forms: Present: Juan esta comiendo (John is eating). Maria esta escribiendo una carta (is writing). Los pasajeros estarán llegando (are arriving) a su destino. Estoy escribiendo (I am writing) los ejercicios'. El tal escrito esta siendo muy comentado (is being the most spoken on) en toda España. Present perfect inclusive: Hoy esta nevando todo el día. Today it has been snowing the whole day. Estoy mecanografiando (I am typewriting) un artículo para el periodista nuevo. Past continuous: El consejo de la familia estaba siendo tumultuoso (was being tumultuous). Las gotas de agua estaban cayendo (were falling) pausadamente. Cuando vino, yo estaba escribiendo una carta a mi hermano. When he came I was writing a letter to my brother. ¿Cuantas horas seguidas estuvimos durmiendo (were sleeping)? Ayer estuve repasando la gramática de las últimas lecciones. Yesterday I was revising the grammar of the last lessons. Future continuous: Mañana estaré trabajando todo el día en la biblioteca. Tomorrow I shall be working in the library the whole day through. [54]. Having analyzed examples with finite and non-finite durative forms in some Romance languages we can state the fact that they are excellent equivalents of what we consider in English as the marked member of the prevailing grammatical category of continuous aspect. Comparing the forms in the confronted we can come to the conclusion that they have a common origin. In Middle English there were cases of continuous aspect forms, consisting of the verb be(n) + participle I. In Chaucer's works only six examples have been found. Here is one of them: singynge he was, or floytige, al the day 'he was singing, or playing the flute, all day long'. In Old

23

English there were phrases consisting of the verb beon and participle I. There were more than one possible original ending of the participle I, in -inge and -ende, and they are close to the present participle forms in Romance languages. There is a possibility that the Middle English continuous forms resulted from a merger of the Old English -ende - phrases and Old English -inge phrases. [39, 250] One more point to be mentioned is that in some grammar books we find the rule that putandi and sentiendi verbs should not be used in the continuous aspect. In fact all the verbs in English, including the putandi and sentiendi ones can be used in the continuous aspect. Verbs like “believe, see”, etc. express the durative aspect lexically and they are used in the grammatical continuous form only in case of emphatic use of the given categorical meaning, which is more expressive: But I am seeing you, you are there behind the tree! Am I really hearing what you are saying? God was witness to all their calamities. He was seeing them robbed. He was seeing them famish hour by hour. He was seeing them die. I am seeing a brown colour. You are seeing this place for the last time. The same could be said about the habitual and repeated actions, usually accompanied by words possessing a certain durative lexical and aspectual meaning: always, often, constantly, permanently, occasionally, seldom, usually, etc: He is always doing things like this. They were always worrying. She was all the time smelling at him. He was always promising to come. They were occasionally visiting them. [39, 110-115] Inchoative, terminative and point-action verbs can also be used in the continuous form if the actions are repeated or seen by the speaker as developing in time: The boy jumped over the fence/The boy was jumping round the tree. I began to read, but the teacher interrupted me / I was beginning to read when he came in. In case of durative adverbs like always, constantly, permanently, occasionally, seldom, usually, etc. in emphatic emotional speech the continuous forms combined with emphatic prosody are used: He is always doing things like this. They were always worrying. He was always helping me. Prosodic means are used in case of metasemiotic transposition: He is \always doing things like this. Here the lexical and grammatical durative means are enhanced by a high fall, lento tempo, wide range, increased loudness and paralinguistic means.[39, 110-115]. It has been observed that English people regularly use the grammatical continuous aspect in their speech to create expressive, emotional evaluative overtones. The same phenomenon has been observed in case of durative of continuous forms in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian. Lexical and grammatical duration in French and German is expressed by imperfect forms, constructions with present participle, gérondif and lexical means: He represented (imperfect meaning) for her the reality of things. Ils représentaient pour elle la réalité de la vie. El reprezenta pentru ea realitatea vieţii. His conscious was echoing Fleur’s comment on Anna Bergfeld’s letter. Sa conscience répétait l’écho des commentaires de Fleur à la lettre de Annie Bergfeld. Conştiinţa îi repeta ecoul comentariilor lui Fleur la scrisoarea Anei Bergfeld. Galsworthy J. The French imparfait is rendered regularly into English by continuous forms and by past indefinite with lexical duration, though the former are more expressive than the latter. Er kam lachend die Treppe herunter. He came laughing down the staircase. El venea râzând înjos pe scară. Sie trat lächelnd ins Zimmer. He entered the room laughing. Ich höre ihn kommen. I hear him coming. II aud venind. Ich hörte ihn kommen. I heard him coming. L-am auzit venind. Wir sahen den spielenden Kindern zu. We looked at the children who were playing. Ne uitam la copiii care se jucau. Das Kind kam weinend nach Haus. The child came home crying. Copilul a venit plângând acasă. Er erreichte schwimmend das andere Ufer. He reached the other bank swimming. A ajuns inotând la celălalt mal. [52] In German, like in French, the absence of the continuous forms is compensated by Imperfect and constructions with Partizip Präsens (Partizip I), which normally express a durative aspectual meaning. The imperfect forms may be also used stylistically in case suprasyntactic metasemiotic means are used. Thus, the continuous/non-continuous binary opposition in English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian (and partially in Romanian) are in a process of transition from a pure grammatical aspectual category into a stylistic one. In English this grammatical opposition is well represented in all the functional styles of the language and is regularly used for stylistic purposes in emotionally coloured expressive and emphatic speech.

10.Category of Anteriority or Taxis

10.1.The Category of Taxis and the Semantic Evolution of the Term “Perfect” Taxis as a historical linguistic category developed various means of expressing anteriority in the Indo-European languages. In English, beginning with the Old Period, the grammatical categorical forms started to develop to support the already existing lexical and contextual means. At present the English category of taxis is one of the basic grammatical morphological categories which comprise the whole system of the finite and non-finite verb forms. Thus, the opposition of anteriority - simultaneity can be expressed in English in a purely grammatically. At the same time, it can be also expressed lexically, by contextual markers, like

24

adverbial modifiers, etc. We should carefully keep apart the conceptual category of anteriority and the grammatical one as constituted by the oppositions of the relevant categorial forms. Thus, the function of anteriority is universal in the sense that in all languages we are supposed to be able to express the anteriority of an action to another action or moment on the axis of time. The fact that the category of taxis is interconnected with other grammatical categories (aspect, voice, mood, etc.) and expressed by certain grammatical forms results in different interpretations and various metalinguistic term systems (as aspect, tense, etc.). In the previous publications we have analyzed mainly the finite perfect and partially the non-finite ones. In the present article we make an attempt to speak on taxis and the evolution of the term “perfect”. The simplification of the system of perfect forms is compensated by lexical and contextual means getting a more important function in expressing anteriority within the universal category of taxis. Different meanings can be expressed by one and the same form in different contexts or by changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic relationship studies linguistic categories which are state of permanent change. Change is the main category of natural human languages, for they are historical categories, they develop or die out. By so doing, they follow the fate of the speaking community, which has created them as the principal means of communication. [39,122-143]. Anteriority or taxis is grammatically expressed by perfect forms, which are variously interpreted as expressing anteriority, a complete action, result, tense categorical meaning, time correlation. But more and more linguists (E.Benveniste, A.Smirnitsky, R.Allen, H.Palmer, O.Akhmanova) consider anteriority to be the main categorial meaning of finite and non-finite perfect grammatical forms. [39,122-143]. Anteriority in the purest way is expressed by lexical means and by finite forms of the verb. The anteriority expressed by the marked grammatical forms has much in common in many European languages, as their systems go back to the same source. The grammatical taxis forms appeared in the old times, developed into a system, and then at present they are in a process of weakening their position and ceding it to lexical and contextual means, which up till now played a secondary part in the conceptual category of anteriority. That does not mean that the category of anteriority is not present in languages where most grammatical forms of anteriority have practically disappeared or they do not exist at all. In such cases, the grammatical forms lose their weight and are substituted by much simpler forms of the verbs, anteriority being expressed by non-grammatical means. Any linguistic category should never be studied in isolation only as facts of a single language. A diachronic investigation should be undertaken, in order to find out everything concerning the evolution of the perfect forms, the tendency in their historical development. If we confront related languages, we expect fewer differences and more coinci-dences in the result of confrontation of various categorial forms. [39,122-143]. Having analyzed the category of anteriority in English and Romanian, we can state that it can be expressed grammatically and lexically, contextually, and it may be prosodically intensified. In the majority of cases taxis is expressed by at least two of the existing categorial means (lexical and grammatical means occur more frequently). Lexical means are now in the process of gaining more ground than the grammatical ones. In case of the category of taxis (simultaneity-anteriority, correlation, anteriority, perfectivity, time relationship, perfect aspect, etc.) we observe a process of transition from pure grammatical categories in both languages to lexical and grammatical ones, and, finally, to pure lexical means. In the English and Romanian languages, lexical, contextual and grammatical means, or the combination of grammatical and lexical means are used to express anteriority. At present the category of taxis is studied in different functional styles. It has been observed that the non-finite perfect forms are practically not used in journalese, either in British or American newspapers. As far as finite perfect forms are concerned, preference is given to present perfect, because this is the form that is best suited to establishing a correlation between past and present, on the one hand, and the connection between the performer and the undergoer of the speech event, on the other. There is a metalinguistic confusion in case of the terms perfect and perfective, which are treated differently by various linguists and this leads to confusion in the process of categorization. The original meaning of the Latin term perfect was a finished action and formed an aspectual opposition with imperfect forms (unfinished actions). This aspectual category still exists in most European languages and is expressed grammatically, lexico-grammatically and lexically. In the English language it is expressed lexically and lexico-grammatically. Gradually the metalinguistic unit perfect acquired an additional homonymous meaning of anteriority. That is why now it would be more convenient to use the term perfective in the meaning of finished action and the term perfect to express the meaning of anteriority. A perfect form English, depending on the context, may express either a finished or an unfinished action and, thus, it may be realized in both members of the aspectual opposition of perfective/imperfective (or finished/unfinished). The approach to categorization may be untenable in the sense that the researcher fails to keep clearly apart the object of analysis (the facts of the language in question) and the metalanguage - the words and expressions used when people talk about the object language. But even if this is not the case, we very often

25

find a large number of different metalinguistic expressions and we have a peculiar situation: we must compare those different systems and try to understand why the different metalinguistic units were introduced. Very often there is a discrepancy not only in the terms used to denote certain more specific or particular categories, but also in the naming or description of the most general concepts themselves [39, 104-114]. The inclusive perfect forms usually express an imperfective (unfinished) anterior action, which includes the present moment and continues in the future: I have lived here for many years and I am not intending to move to any other place. This example would be in aspectual opposition of perfective/imperfective to I have lived here for many years and now I move to a new place (finished anterior action). At the same time both examples could be part of the marked member of the opposition of Continuous/non-continuous aspect (found in English and some Romance languages). Here we should take into consideration the lexical durative aspectual lexical meaning of the verb 'to live", which will contribute to the intensification of the general aspectual durative meaning combined with the continuous form, where its expressivity is considerably enhanced: I have been living here for many years. In the examples like "He had been reading his book for two hours before I came back" we observe that the prevailing aspectual meaning is that of a continuous action (unfinished action) in development during a certain period of time before another action in the past (past anteriority).

The secondary aspectual lexical/contextual meaning may be a finished or unfinished action depending on the given context. The term “perfect" here is not used in the meaning of "finished" (perfective or perfect), here it expresses grammatical anteriority supported and intensified by the lexical anteriority marker "before". A finished action can be expressed both by perfect and non-perfect forms: "I have written a letter", “I had written the letter before he returned to the office”, “I will have written the letter before they return to the office” and "Yesterday I wrote a letter to my friend". In all these cases we have the same result. On the other hand, as we have seen from the examples given above, all the perfect forms in English, like in other languages, can easily be divided into several groups, expressing the grammatical, lexical and lexical-grammatical oppositions of continuous/non-continuous, perfective/imperfective or finished/unfinished, expressing various lexical aspectual meanings (durative, inceptive, terminative, point action, etc.). That means that there are many possibilities to express various aspectual meanings even in the English language.

One of the most important elements of all the perfect grammatical forms of the verbs in English is past participle or participle II (Romanian - participiul trecut), expressing anteriority in the purest way. It may be used separately and can synthetically express anteriority and voice, serve to form a number of perfect and passive voice analytical forms. Thus, we can form oppositions of participle I and participle II forms like in the following examples: reading – read, citind – citit; writing — written, scriind - scris; seeing – seen, văzând ‚ văzut; creating - created, creând – creat - we observe three distinct categorical oppositions, that of simultaneity vs. anteriority (category of taxis), active vs. passive (category of voice) and continuous vs. non-continuous (category of aspect). Not all the participles possess all the three categorial forms. Thus, the intransitive verbs do not possess the passive meaning: going – gone, plecând – plecat. Thus, the category of transitivity-intransitivity should also be taken into consideration in the analysis of participles. Some intransitive verbs gradually acquire submeanings, which are transitive in character: Running a factory is not easy. The factory is run well. Не was laughed at – El a fost luat în râs. Past participles can be used independently. They are usually found in analytical combinations of perfect and passive voice forms. The intransitive verbs are used in perfect forms, but are not found in passive analytical structures, with the exception of the verbs go and come found in some word combinations: he is come, he is gone.

The verbs can also be classified according to their lexical meanings: terminative, inceptive, iterative, durative, etc. The expression of both anteriority and passive voice is usually found in terminative verbs, while in the durative ones only the passive meaning is clearly seen. Thus, A.Smirnitsky thinks that “loved” as a past participle loses its “perfectivity”, which is clearly seen in participles like “broken”. But sometimes this division is not clear-cut. Thus, in case of repeated actions of terminative verbs “perfectivity” may weaken or get lost and a durative meaning is taking over. The categorial function of a given past participle depends on the contextual meaning and on its semantic feature. There is a multitude of combinations of the verb “to be” with the past participle. There are cases of homonymy in this case. Combinations of the verb “to be + past participle” like in “The letter is written by Peter. Soon he will finish writing it”, or “The door is closed by Peter” (as a process) should be distinguished from “The door is closed” as a state, where “is closed” is not a passive construction, but just defines the state of the door, that it is not open, there is no meaning of perfectivity in the latter case [70, 268-278]. It is known that the perfect non-finite forms of the verb express anteriority in a much more pure way in comparison with the finite forms. The past participle expresses anteriority in the purest way. Let’s take some examples of participle II used in the function of an attribute: The house built a hundred years ago is still in a very good state. Casa construită o sută de ani în

26

urmă s-a păstrat în condiţii foarte bune. Unfortunately it is not possible to present in this book all the information obtained. Din păcate nu este posibil de a prezentaîn cartea aceasta toată informaţia obţinută. In both languages a complete coincidence has been attested of past participles in attributive functions. But in many cases this coincidence is not always possible because of some structural and semantic differences, and also because of certain linguistic and sociolinguistic traditions in the confronted languages, combinability of words, homonymy, etc. A.Smirnitsky takes as an example the past participle “gone”. “Is gone” may be identical to the combination “have gone” in a transferred meaning “he died” like in the sentence Poor Mr. Brown is (has) gone. He has left us. He has joined the great majority. Sărmanul dl.Brown a murit (a plecat). El a murit (ne-a părăsit). El a plecat (e dus) în lumea străbunilor. “Is gone” can also be used in the direct sense of the word to express anterioriity in colloquial speech as in “Where is Mr. Brown? He is gone (=has gone). He will be back in an hour. Unde e dl Brown? El e plecat (=a plecat). Se va întoarce peste o oră. In case of transitive verbs the past participle has a passive meaning closely connected with “perfectivity” (finished action) (The letter written yesterday was sent in time.). But when used in analytical non-perfect fiorms the past participle gets devoid of anteriority meaning and preserves only the passive categorial function (The letter was written and sent in time). [70, 278-288] The past participle is regularly confronted the Romanian with participiul trecut: The methodology tested in the Indo-European field set the pattern. Metoda experimentată în domeniul indo-european a devenit exemplară. All these observations bring out the essential difference between the method of communication discovered among bees and our human language. Toate observaţiile acestea scot la iveală diferenţa esenţială dintre metoda de comunicare descoperită la albini şi limba umană. (E.Benveniste) The English participle II can sometimes correspond to the Romanian mai mult ca perfectul: On the staircase Charny met only some officers, friends of his, informed beforehand. Pe scări, Charny întâlni numai câţiva ofiţeri, prieteni de ai săi, care fusese anunţaţi (= anunţaţi) din timp. The anteriority meaning in English is expressed only lexically, while in Romanian both lexical and grammatical anteriority means are used for the sake of expressivity. Let’s consider some of the syntactic functions fulfilled by past participle: a) attributive - The data obtained are being carefully analyzed and studied. Datele obţinute sunt analizate şi studiate atent; In both languages the participles have the function of attributes; b) adverbial modifier of time - Asked (being asked) to comment about the U.N. resolution tabled by the Afro-Asian countries, the Prime Minister replied... Întrebat (find întrebat, când a fost întrebat ) să comenteze rezoluţia ONU propusă de ţările Afro-Asiatice, Primul Ministru a răspuns...; (J.Galsworthy) In this case the English participle „asked” has the function of adverbial modifier of time and could be substituted by the passive voice form of the present participle „being asked”. The form „tabled” has the function an attribute; c) adverbial modifier of condition - If given the opportunity, this industry will rapidly develop. Această industrie se va dezvolta rapid, dacă vor vi create posibilităţi favorabile (=Posibilităţi fiind date, această industrie se va dezvolta rapid ); (J.Galsworthy) The past participle in the function of an adverbial modifier corresponds in Romanian to future indefinite passive voice and this shows the fact that the forms are different in the main variant, though it is possible to render it into Romanian using gerunziul pasiv, the grammatical categorial voice meaning is the same – passive voice; d) adverbial modifier of concession- But the Right-wing Labour leaders, though forced to give way on some questions, will stick to their policies. Liderii laburişti de dreapta, deşi forţaţi să cedeze în unele probleme, vor susţine politica lor; (J.Galsworthy); e) complex object with past participle - We hope to see this issue raised in all trades councils, in every union. Noi sperăm să vedem această problemă ridicată în fiecare sindicat. The construction of complex object with past participle in English corresponds to a construction of complex object with subjunctive in the meaning of future and in the second complex object with past participle. [39, 152-164]. Thus, we can state that past participle express anteriority when the action is precedeing the moment of speech. There are quite a number of cases where the forms under research express both anteriority and passive voice (in case of transitive verbs) meanings, or only the latter one. As to the term “perfect” – it is still considered by different linguists as part of various categorical oppositions: of anteriority, aspect, tense, result. In Romanian “perfect” in the grammatical form of perfectul simplu is now expressing an action finished in the past, and thus, it has preserved the old meaning going back to Latin. The term “perfect” in the European linguistics is used in several meanings: of finished action (perfective), expressing result, time correlation, but more and more linguists state the fact that the main meaning expressed by perfect forms is that of anteriority. Anteriority in the purest way is expressed by lexical means and by predicative verbal forms. As it was expected the anteriority marked grammatical forms have much in common in English, French and Romanian, as their systems go back to the same source. That does not mean that the category of anteriority is not present in languages where the grammatical forms of anteriority have practically disappeared. Thus, in Russian the grammatical elements of anteriority are scarcely used. The lexical and lexical-grammatical means are used to express the marked categorial taxis meaning. The

27

grammatical forms analyzed by us express two or more grammatical categorial meanings, interconnected with those of taxis. Tense and aspect are especially closely connected with them and in this case they are confronted as a system. Cases of sameness and differences are analyzed and furnished with examples taken from translations. An interesting difference is observed between present perfect in English and perfectul compus and “passé composé” in Romanian and French (formally coincide: to have + past participle). In connection with the absence of a simple past form in Romanian and French, perfectul compus and “passé composé” here are taking an additional function and thus, express, depending on the context, the marked categorial form in one case (the action is connected with the present moment) and the unmarked one (the action is separated from the present moment) in another. Thus, the English past indefinite can correspond to the Romanian perfectul compus and French and “passé composé” in the spoken language, perfectul simplu and “passé simple” in fiction, “imparfait” and imperfectul, when the lexical meanings of the verbs lexically express an extended action, and thus it becomes aspectually marked. As we have mentioned above, when we confront two distantly related languages (English and Romanian) synchronically we shall use, where possible, the results of comparative-historical analysis. What is the difference between comparative-historical philology and confrontational linguistics (analytical comparison)? For comparative-historical philology the starting point is the form, the morphological structure of the grammatical phenomena in question. In the case of analytical confrontation the starting point is the grammatical content (when we confront grammatical categories of different languages), the semantics, the underlying concepts of the grammatical categories under investigation. The concepts are expressed by means of a system of grammatical forms through the intermediary of categorial forms. It is well known that in the natural human languages content and form are actually inseparable. We cannot abstract ourselves from form in analytical comparison and from content in comparative philology. What is the actual connection between confrontational linguistics and comparative philology? In what way are we supposed to avail ourselves of the results of comparative-historical investigation when confronting cognate and even unrelated languages? In order that this problem may be presented as clearly as possible, we shall turn to the category of anteriority in English and Romanian (sometimes accompanied by French translation of the given examples). Confronting the category of taxis in English and Romanian we came to the conclusion that there is a common tendency in both languages: the perfect forms in both languages tend to be replaced by simple non-perfect forms and the categorial meaning of anteriority is expressed lexically or contextually. This process is more advanced in Romanian, where some analytical perfect forms are now very rarely used. Our view is that the researcher should not shut his eyes and ignore the historical associations. There is no doubt that diachrony must be taken into consideration: confronting languages, which have no genetic connections whatsoever is something which, generally speaking, belongs to typology, while confrontation of cognate languages should never be willfully and artificially be reduced to the stricter forms of abstract typological confrontation and contrast. As we mentioned above the confronted languages belong to the same (Indo-European) family of languages. They are genetically related, but different in the sense that Romanian is part of the Romance languages, while English belongs to the Germanic languages. In contrasting languages we usually begin with the etic level, then we go on to the emic level (categories) and then return to the texts to make sure that this or that category actually exists in speech at a given period of time. In this case we will begin by examining the category of anteriority in English and Romanian (in some cases French is included in the confrontation) on the systemic level and then try to adduce some examples of their realization on the etic level. On the systemic level English and Romanian have a fully developed system of grammatical forms expressing the categorial meaning of anteriority. The category of anteriority embraces the entire system of verb including both finite and non-finite forms. There is now a general tendency for the perfect forms to be replaced by non-perfect ones, especially in the spoken language. Thus, in English, we can also observe a rapprochement of present perfect and past indefinite, especially in the American English, where the process is more advanced. E.Benveniste, 64 too, is fully aware of the instability of the system. (See below an extended explanation on the theme). In this connection we can observe, that the perfect - non-perfect opposition (especially present perfect - past indefinite in English, passé composé - passé simple in French and perfectul compus - perfectul simplu in Romanian) is developing in a direction where there is a transition of a grammatical category in a stylistic one, i.e. a new category is raising its head, the category of stylistics. In Romanian perfectul simplu is very rarely used in the spoken language, where it is completely replaced by perfectul compus. Perfectul simplu is used in fiction literature and is never used in scientific literature. Thus, this grammatical opposition is gradually coming to express something different, a metasemiotic or stylistic opposition. Another important point should be mentioned here, the simplification of a system does not imply loss of ability of expressing different meanings. In an involved morphological system various meanings are expressed by the opposition of different forms, while

28

in a system with a small number of forms, various meanings can be expressed by one and the same form in different contexts or by changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic relationship must be regarded as something that is in a state of flux. Change is the main category of natural human languages, for they are historical categories, they develop or die out. By so doing, they follow the fate of the speaking community, which has created them as the principal means of communication. In order to verify the tendency in Modern English to substitute perfect forms in the spoken language by simple ones, a number of examples were taken and given to students to be translated from Romanian into English. The majority of examples had lexical or contextual markers of anteriority. Those students, who were not familiar with the fact that future perfect is rarely used in Modern English, regularly used grammatical perfect forms in nearly all the given examples. In a second test the students were asked to translate a number of sentences with future perfect into Romanian. Here we had two groups. In the first group the teacher stressed the fact that similar forms exist in Romanian as well (viitorul anterior). A number of students did not hesitate to use grammatical future anteriority in Romanian (in spite of the fact that it is very rarely used). In the second group nothing was said about viitorul anterior. Here the students in the majority of cases used simple grammatical forms, substituting grammatical anteriority with the lexical one. As far as past perfect is concerned, it is still often used in both languages under consideration. But there is an interesting observation to be made in this connection. In English, past perfect is an analytical form, while in Romanian past anteriority is expressed by synthetic forms. In Romanian there are some analytical forms used in colloquial speech to express past anterioity, but they are used very rarely. For example: Mai mult ca perfectul analitic/perifrastic (aveam scris, era plecat), perfectul compus perifrastic (am fost plecat, am fost zis). It goes without saying that if the confrontation of cognate languages had been reduced to statements of complete formal identity, there would be no need in working out a separate methodology, for contrastive linguistics, comparative-historical linguistics would be adequate. Even confrontation of cognate languages becomes necessary because in a very large number of cases they diverge widely for no synchronically obvious reason. When we confront unrelated languages, we regard the complete non-coincidence of forms as quite natural and regular. More than that, the complete coincidence even on the expression plane would be regarded as a curious case, as a peculiar phenomenon. But when we are dealing with cognate languages we cannot help asking: why is perfectul simplu not used regularly, is it so functionally limited as to be replaced in speech and non-fiction texts by a stylistically more natural form - perfectul compus? It is not always easy to explain this difference only by stylistic factors. It follows naturally that when we compare English original texts with their translations into French and Romanian we always find great similarity. Thus, for example: He entered the shop below; Il entra dans le magazine qui se trouvait au rez-de-chaussée; Intră în prăvălia de la parter. Soames followed another method;  Soames adopta une autre méthode; Soames adoptă o altă metodă. (J.Galsworthy) Tom hailed the romantic outcast. Tom appela le vagabond romantique. Tom îl strigă pe vagabondul romantic. (M.Twain) The examples adduced here show the positive result of this confrontation: past indefinite – passé simple – perfectul simplu are practically identical, both from the point of view of synchronic functional confrontation and the historical community of morphological systems. When confronting English, French and Romanian, we begin by concentrating on the original identity and approach confrontation with preconceived ideas of potential correspondences already formed in advance. We have an altogether different picture when we confront completely different languages like English and Arabic or Chinese. In this case all the background knowledge we possess is a certain abstract supposition. All we have as a background knowledge is that Arabic and Chinese typologically are able to express actions coinciding with the moment of speech, preceding it, or following it. We cannot have any previous assumptions what forms these oppositions may have, because there is no comparative-historical basis whatsoever for us to go by. But when we are dealing with cognate languages we cannot help asking: why not perfectul simplu, but perfectul compus? Probably we should apply to Romanian what some specialists is the reason of a comparatively low frequency of passé simple in French, the ousting of it by the form of passé composé. Perfectul simplu is also functionally limited and is replaced in speech by perfectul compus. There is every reason to believe that to try and explain this difference only by stylistic factors would not be easy. This will be possible only if the non-coincidences were confined to colloquial style: When did they go over? Când au emigrat? Quand ont-ils émigré?; You were absolutely right; Ai avut perfectă dreptate; Tu a eu raison. For this register passé composé and perfectul compus are better suited, because these forms here do not express an anterior action to the present moment and the actions are not connected with the present moment of speech and, thus, here they express actions completely identical with those expressed by past indefinite. In Romanian and French there do not exist forms similar to the English past indefinite, that is why passé composé and perfectul compus become polyfunctional. The context would help us find out whether the action expressed is anterior or not anterior to the present moment. Past indefinite may correspond to the form of imperfectul in Romanian. The past continuous has become so specifically

29

continuous, it is very often found to have a net semiotic connotation and past indefinite is increasingly used in cse of lexical durative units to denote not merely point actions, but also those which require serious attention to the way it progressed - hence the tendency to equate past indefinite with imparfait and imperfectul: He represented for her the reality of things; El reprezenta pentru ea realitatea vieţii; Il représentait pour elle la réalité de la vie. It reminded me too much; Dar ea mi-l reamintea; Mais elles me le rappelait. Every time the lexical meaning of the verb is not punctual past indefinite and imperfect are quite comparable and can readily take each other’s place. It is essential that this question should always be considered from the point of view of dual meaning of the English past indefinite. The fact that the imperfect has a wider meaning in Romanian than the English continuous aspect forms may be explained by the fact that the latter appeared much later and its meaning is based not on aspectual opposition proper, but on a specific continuous aspect as a form which in most cases is emphatically loaded. Of particular interest are those cases when past indefinite is confronted with past anteriority forms in the confronted languages. Only a study of the collocational situations can account for this: All through the house it was a wakeful night; Casa întreagă petrecuse o noapte de veghe; Toute la maison avait passé un nuit blanche. He was an actor on the English stage; Fusese actor pe scena engleză; Il avait été un comédien sur la scène anglaise. If we base our conclusions on the context, then what has been said here in the past indefinite form is in the relationship of anteriority with the preceding and the subsequent situations. The category of anteriority and the content of precedence in the case of two events, following one another, are in a very complex relationship. The fact is that real anteriority may both, find expression, or remain unexpressed, in the way the appropriate forms are used. Everything depends on the purport of the utterance. It is interesting to note that anteriority is closely connected, in the above given examples, with different predications of being. There are different ways of saying or expressing it but the less natural ones would be metasemiotically colored. One and the same actual situation may be categorially interpreted in completely different ways. The choice of this or that interpretation will depend on the idiomatic character of this or that language as well as the intention of the speaker. The real anteriority meaning may be grammatically expressed or it may be not. Other anteriority means (lexical, contextual or both) take over the function. Besides it also depends on the intention of the speaker. Thus, if we take the example: 1.There were no mushrooms; Les champignons n’avaient pas poussé; Ciuperci nu se făcuseră. It is very important to take into consideration the fact that the category of anteriority is in close connection with various sociolinguistic situations. Thus, we can say in Russian: Грибов не было or Грибов не выросло. Let us consider the sentence There were no mushrooms, which was translated into French and Romanian as: Ciuperci nu se făcuseră; and Les champignons n’avaient pas poussé. If we approach this translation from the point of extra-linguistic reality, then all the variants are identical. More than that, it would be much more natural to translate There were no mushrooms into Russian as Не было грибов. or Грибов не выросло. Or; for example: Грибы есть в лесу? - Нет. - А в воскресенье были грибы? - Не было грибов. There are various ways of expressing this idea, but, of course, less natural of them gets a metasemiotic coloring. What has been said above is confirmed by examples, where the English past indefinite is confronted with present in Romanian and French: Linguistics was worked out within the framework of comparative grammar; Lingvistica se elaborează în cadrul gramaticii comparative; La linguistique s’élabore dans le cadres de la grammaire comparée. (E.Benveniste) Why is it that the English version does not say Linguistics is worked out within the framework of comparative grammar? In this case probably the English translator is not using present tense because simply he would not consider this as an idiomatically acceptable way of saying it or because he considers the action as being true in al the times; present, future and past. It is also probable that in Romanian and French in such a case historical present may be used without expressing any connotation. In English historical present would invariably carry different semiotic overtones. Thus, for example, It is not always to be recognized in the different stages, sometimes tentative, in which Saussure’s thought was engaged, Il n’est pas toujours facile de la reconnaître dans les démarches diverses, parfois tâtonnantes, ou s’engage la réflexion de Saussure, Nu este întotdeauna uşor de a recunoaşte la diferite etape, uneori tentative, unde se angajează gândirea lui Saussure. (E.Benveniste) In contrast with French and Romanian, in English present tense would be unacceptable, probably because it is fraught with emotional coloring and vivacity, which in the present context would be out of place. In Russian, in such cases, present tense is also used: A new phase developed at the beginning of nineteen century with the discovery of Sanskrit, One phase nouvelle s’ouvre au début du XIXe siècle avec la découverte du sanscrit, O fază nouă se începe la începutul secolului XIX odată cu descoperirea limbii sanscrit, Новая фаза открывается в XIX веке в связи с открытием санскрита. (E.Benveniste) [39, 122-152]

10.2. The English Present Indefinite and its equivalents in Romanian and French

30

The English present indefinite should correspond to the French present and Romanian prezentul. This is really confirmed by numerous examples: Tell me all about your sister and Jon. Parlez-moi de votre soeur et Jon. Povesteşte-mi despre sora dumitale şi despre Jon. Tell him that I’m awfully glad, and that I wish him luck, Dis-lui que je n’en réjouis et que je lui souhaite beaucoup de chance. Spune-i că mă bucur foarte mult şi că-i doresc noroc. I never bet, said Soames, and I don’t smoke. Je ne parie jamais, dit Soames, et je ne fume pas. Eu nu fac pariuri, zise Soames, şi nu fumez. (J.Galsworthy) Cases when present indefinite are confronted with passé composé and perfectul compus have been described above. The differences are usually explained by the fact whether the action is inclusive or exclusive. [39, 131]

10.3.The English Future Indefinite and its Equivalents in French and Romanian.First of all we should mention the fact that the Romanian simple future possesses two synonymous grammatical forms: a) the auxiliary “a voi, a vrea” ( Cf. Latin voleo/volere) plus the infinitive; b) “a avea plus the form of conjunctivul” ( used here in the function of infinitive). The first form is considered to be more formal, the second belongs to the colloquial style. Let us start with cases of coincidence: Four rooms will be ready when you come back. You’ll have a bathroom to yourself, of course. Quand vous rentrerez, votre chambre sera prête. Vous aurez bien sur, votre sale de bain. Când te întorci, camera dumitale va fi gata. Vei avea, fireşte, baia dumitale. I will sell it at my bazaar, Soames. It will do for some good man who can read English. Je le vendrai au marché de notre société, Soames. Ca sera utile à un homme qui sait lire en anglaise. Am s-o vând la bazarul societăţii noastre de binefacere, Soames. O să fie (are să fie) de folos vreunui om cumsecade, care ştie să citească englezeşte. (J.Galsworthy)

There are examples where the English future indefinite is confronted in French and Romanian with present tense: We shall give below the total number of usable Persian examples. Nous donnons ci-dessous la totalité des exemples perses utilisables. Noi dăm mai jos totalitatea exemplelor utilizabile în limba persană. We shall attempt to restore the facts to their true light. Nous tentons de remettre les faits dans leur véritable lumière. Noi încercăm (vom încerca) să reconstituim faptele în lumina lor adevărată. (E.Benveniste) Suppose we use future tense in in French and Romanian sentences. Present tense probably in this context has a wider meaning, than in English. While translating E.Benveniste’s book from French into English the translator chose future indefinite, probably, he had reasons to choose this grammatical tense, taking into consideration the characteristic features of the scientific information in both languages. The use of present tense in English in the above given examples would make them stylistically colored. In French and Romanian the use of present tense here corresponds to the style of such registers. [39, 132]

10.4.The English Present Perfect and its Equivalents in French and RomanianAs far as present perfect is concerned it is included in the category of taxis but in this case we do not find a clear-cut opposition as in the case of future perfect and past perfect. Comparing past indefinite and present perfect we see that in both cases the actions are in the past. The main difference between them is that past indefinite is an action separated by the speaker from the present moment: (I visited London in January; Am vizitat Londra în ianuarie; I saw him ten seconds ago; L-am văzut zece secunde în urmă), and present perfect expresses an anterior action connected with the present moment: 1) directly connected: (I have lived in London for 10 years; Am locuit în Londra de zece ani/Locuiesc în Londra de zece ani; I have been waiting you for an hour; Te aştept de o oră) and 2) indirectly by means of a period of time connected with the present moment: (I have visited London this year; Am vizitat Londra anul acesta; I have seen him this week; L-am văzut anul acesta). If there is no time marker and no context we usually use present perfect (I have read all the books written by this author; Am citit toate cărţile scrise de acest autor). What I mean is that I began to read them somewhere in the past and continued to read them during my life up till now. In case I want to tell you exactly when I finished reading them I could say: I read all these books written by this author last year. Present perfect may also be used to express future anteriority in clauses of time and condition (As soon as I have read the book I shall return it to you. And if I have read it by five o’clock, I’ll give it to you today). At first sight it seems that there is complete coincidence between present perfect in English and perfectul compus in Romanian. But the actual functioning is quite different. Perfectul compus has one more function, that of expressing actions not connected with the present moment and in this case it is regularly confronted with past indefinite in English: 1) Anteriority directly connected with the present moment equivalent to present perfect exclusive actions (I have read the book up till now/ I have been reading the book up till now; Am citit cartea pînă acum). In case of present perfect inclusive, it is regularly rendered into Romanian by means of present (I have lived in this town for 20 years; I have been living in this town for 20 years; Locuiesc în acest orăşel de 20 de ani); 2) Anteriority indirectly connected with the present moment by means of a period of time (I have seen him this year; L-am văzut anul acesta; I have vizited London three times this century; Am vizitat Londra de trei ori în secolul acesta); 3) An action not

31

connected with the present moment (Am citit o carte ieri; I read a book yesterday); 4) Future anteriority used stylistically in colloquial speech (Cum numai am citit cartea ţi-o intorc; As soon as I have read the book I shall return it to you; Cum am ajuns acasă mă apuc de lucru; As soon as I have got home I shall start working). It should be mentioned here that in English present perfect is used to express future anteriority only in clauses of time and condition expressing an anterior action in the future, while in Romanian perfectul compus is used stilistically and is limited to the colloquial language. If we compare the examples adduced below it would appear that present perfect, passé compose and perfectul compus could be regarded as identical (when they express an anterior action connected with the present moment), and taking into consideration the complete formal correspondence we arrive at a tripartite identity. Thus, for example: It was rather funny - there’s never been a Forsyte, you know, anywhere near Parliament, C’était une conversation assez drôle car tu sais qu’aucun Forsyte ne s’est même pas approché du parlement, A fost o convorbire destul de caraghioasă, doar ştii că nici un Forsyte nu s-a apropiat măcar de parlament. (J.Galsworthy) At first sight it seems that there is complete coincidence between present perfect in English, on the one side, and passé composé in French and perfectul compus in Romanian, on the other hand. In the actual functioning there is a great difference. Thus, if we say in English So, Jon’s married your sister? and in Romanian Jon s-a căsătorit cu sora dumitale? Then we shall find that in English we can refer to the fact of Jon marrying somebody’s sister by using both present perfect and past indefinite: both Jon has married your sister and Jon married your sister or Jon married your sister, didn’t he? are grammatically faultless and would fully correspond to the English grammar rules. The difference between “has married” (expressing an anterior action connected with the present moment) and “married” (an action not connected with the present moment) will consist in connotations connected with the idea of expression and non-expression of the grammatical meaning of anteriority. Now if we were to translate exactly Jon married your sister into French and Romanian Jon maria votre soeur and Jon se căsători cu sora dumitale, then we would be faced with a stylistic difference.[39, 133-142

10.5.The Categorial Meaning of Past Perfect in the Confronted LanguagesPast perfect is used to express anteriority to an action or moment in the past. Coincidence: past perfect – plus-que-parfait – pluscvamperfectul: He had bought the meadows on the far side of the river. Il avait acheté les pâturages de l’autre bord de la rivière. Cumpărase păşunile de pe celălalt mal al Tamisei. (J.Galsworthy) It should be mentioned the fact that pluscvamperfectul in Romanian has practically lost its analytical forms gradually substituted by a synthetic form (going back to an analytical form of past participle plus the verb „a fi”). Let us adduce some example of analytical perfect forms still found in literature. Examples:.Şi cum ajunge la fântână, scoate mai întâi furca, de unde o avea strânsă, ăi apoi se pune jos să se odihnească. And when he reached the well, first of all he took the fork out of the place he had put it, and then he sat down to rest. Un om, suindu-se pe o şură, unde avea aruncat nişte fân, trăgea din răsputeri de funie. A man climbing on a shed, who he had piled some hay, was pulling the rope up with might and main. The perfect forms in the sentences given above are formed by means of the auxiliary “a avea” plus past participle. In what follows we shall give examples of analytical past perfect forms with the auxiliary a fi plus participleII: Nu l-am auzit revenind şi dimineaţa am constatat că tot plecat era. I did not hear him return and in the morning I found that he had been away. Pe când eram ajuns aici cu scrisul fusei întrerupt de fetiţa mea. My daughter interrupted me when I had reached this point of my writing. Era o căsuţă singuratică, pe care era crescut nişte muşchi pletos. It was a lonely house, on which some shaggy moss had grown. In Romanian we could find forms identical to the French passé surcomposé usually translated by means of past perfect: Şi mai ales că i-au fost închis din urmă. And especially that they had locked them inside. Noi am fost zis că sînt mulţi… We had said that there were many. N-a dus lipsă de nimic cât timp ai fost plecat. He had everything he needed during the time you had been away. Non-coincidence: we find past perfect confronted with French passé simple, passé composé and even imparfait; and Romanian perfectul simplu, perfectul compus and imperfectul (used instead of plus-que-parfait and pluscvamperfectul). For example: 1) Past perfect – passé compose – perfectul compus:.I replied unwittingly, and not at first observing the extraordinary manner in which the speaker had chimed in with my meditation; Comme j’étais plongé dans mes pansées, je n’ai pas même remarqué des le commencement que les paroles de Dupin ont coïncidé avec mes pansées; Îngândurat cum eram, la început nici nu mi-am dat seama că vorbele lui Dupin au coincis întocmai cu gândurile mele. The grammatical anteriority used in the French and Romanian sentences are expressed contextually. There is a tendency in Romanian and American English for present anteriority forms to be substituted by past anteriority units in colloquial speech. 2) Past perfect – passé simple – perfectul simplu: On the evening of twenty second birthday Michael had come home; Le soir de 22-éme anniversaire de Fleur Michel vint à la maison; În seara celei de-a douăzeci şi

32

două aniversări a lui Fleur, Mihail veni acasă. (J.Galsworthy) In French and Romanian a stylistically charged form is used, anteriority being expressed contextually.3) Past perfect – imparfait – imperfectul: For one hour at least we had maintained a profound silence; Il avait déjà un heur que nous gardions le plus complet silence; De o oră noi păstram amândoi cea mai deplină tăcere. In this case the French and Romanian imperfect forms express anteriority lexically and contextually and the main grammatical meaning is that of durative aspect, which in its turn is lexically expressed in the English variant. 4) Past perfect – passé antérieur – perfectul compus: When the king had disappeared the princes and princesses grouped themselves around the queen. Aussitôt que le roi eut disparu, tout ce qu’il y avait dans la sale de princes et de princesses vint se grouper autour de la reine. Îndată ce regele dispăru prinţii şi prinţesele din sală se grupară în jurul reginei.(A.Dumas) Past perfect in English and passé antérieur in French are very close in meaning, both expressing past anteriority. Perfectul compus in its turn expresses here a simple past action, anteriority here being expressed contextually. The anteriority forms are becoming now peripheral and even facultative. In situations of ordinary, everyday speech it is very easy to do without them as in Romanian colloquial speech, where pluscuamperfectul is regularly substituted by perfectul compus and sometimes by imperfect (for a durative anterior action). The category of taxis does not need to be expressed by elaborate morphological means. It would be faultlessly correct to say: First I went to the University and then (later) I went to the library . The confrontation of the English present perfect and the French présent and prezentul in Romanian is comparatively simple because of the very close affinity between present perfect and what is actually happening at the moment of speaking. A direct confrontation of present perfect with présent and prezentul must be justified in general, for the action which is denoted by this form immediately affects the state of things which are found at the moment of speaking. Thus, for example: It has been been observed, indeed, that these are not equaly subject to change; On observe, en effet, que ceux-ci ne sont pa également soumis au changement; Într-adevăr, se observă, că acestea nu sunt supuse unor schimbări. Thus, any inclusive anterior action to the present moment is usually expressed in Romanian and French by means of present tense forms. The form of past perfect is used to express unreal anteriority actions in the past, present and future in clauses of unreal condition (subjunctive II), Past perfect form can express the following meanings in English: 1) In the indicative mood: a) past anteriority (an action anterior to another action or moment in the past): When I came home he had (already) gone; Când am venit acasă el (deja) plecase; b) future anteriority in the past: He promised to return the book as soon as he had read it; El a promis să întoarcâ cartea cum numai va citi-o (va fi citit-o); It is used to express an unreal optative meaning or condition, or both in the past subjunctive II. In this case the form of past perfect is not limited to anterior actions in the past, or anterior actions in the future from a moment in the past (in clauses of time and condition). It is used to express any anterior action to the moment of speech in the past, present or future. Let’s adduce some examples: a) past perfect indicative mood: He said she had come in time; El a zis că ea venise la timp; b) subjunctive II, anteriority to a past action: He said he would have come earlier if he had known; El a spus că ar fi venit (venea) mai devreme dacă ar fi avut (să fi avut, dacă avea) timp; c) subjunctive II, a past action, non-anterior: If she had come in time yesterday you would have seen her; Dacă ea ar fi venit (să fi venit, dacă venea) la timp ieri ai fi văzut-o (o vedeai); d) subjunctive II, future anteriority in the past: I knew he would say that he would have come if he had known; Eu ştiam că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut); e) subjunctive II, anteriority to a moment or action in the future: She thinks he will say that he would have come if he had known; Ea crede că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut, dacă ştia). There is a tendency in English (especially in the American variant) sometimes to use a present perfect form instead of past perfect in colloquial speech, anteriority in such cases is expressed lexically or contextually. This tendency is much more advanced in the Romanian language. In the spoken non-literary language people would regularly substitute pluscvamperfectul with perfectul compus (in the meaning of past indefinite), anteriority again is supported lexically and phonetically: Când am venit ea deja a plecat instead of Când am venit ea deja plecase. Comparing English and Romainian texts very often we find non-coincidences like: 1) Past perfect - perfectul compus: I replied unwittingly, and not at first observing the extraordinary manner in which the speaker had chimed in with my meditation. Îngândurat cum eram, la inceput nici nu mi-am dat seama ca vorbele lui au coincis întocmai cu gândurile mele. This discrepancy may be also explained with the tendency in Romanian to substitute pluscvamperfectul by perfectul compus.2) Past perfect - perfectul simplu: On the evening of her twenty-second (Fleur’s) birthday Michael had come home. In seara celei de-a douazeci si doua aniversari a lui Fleur, Mihai veni acasa. Again, simple perfect is used here. Simple perfect is used only in fiction in the written form, with the exception of some dialects. Here it may have been used by the translator to express an anterior action in combination with

33

contextual means) and this may be considered as a tendency of pluscvamperfectul in Romanian to gradually get out of usage. As we have already mentioned the anteriority plane can now be regarded as a supercilious pedanticism. The anteriority form is becoming peripheral and even facultative, for in situations of ordinary, everyday dialogue it is very easy to do without it. Thus, the simultaneity-anteriority category (taxis) need not necessarily be expressed by elaborate morphological means. It would be faultlessly correct to say, for example, He first went to London, and then he came to Paris or He was in London and came to Paris much later. We would like to conclude by mentioning some important points of linguistic confrontation to be taken into consideration. First of all, we have to stress the fact, that one could not compare two or more languages, unless one had a very clear idea of a certain underlying tertium comparationis. In our case it is English and its category of taxis, which is well developed and has been linguistically well investigated), some third member on the basis of which the confrontation is effected. Our previous knowledge of the confronted languages also helps us to secure a firm stand, a reliable basis for our analysis and there is no doubt that synchronic confrontation of any two systems cannot be really scientific unless account is carefully taken of their previous development. The perfect forms in both languages tend to be replaced by simple non-perfect forms and the categorial meaning of anteriority is expressed lexically or contextually. This process is more advanced in Romanian, where some analytical perfect forms are now very rarely used. Our view is that the researcher should not shut his eyes and ignore the historical associations. Another important point should be mentioned here, the simplification of a system does not imply loss of ability of expressing different meanings. In an involved morphological system various meanings are expressed by the opposition of different forms, while in a system with a small number of different forms, various meanings can be expressed by one and the same form in different contexts or by changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic relationship must be regarded as something that is in a state of flux. [39, 122-164] Grammatical “false cognates”. While learning the native and foreign languages we find out that many grammatical forms present difficulties as to properly understanding their meanings. There are quite a number of cases when we are confronted with grammatical forms which display characteristic features of “false friends” or “false cognates”. The ing-forms or gerund and participle one can find various interpretations in grammar books. Thus, analyzing the material we can conclude that there are polysemantic grammatical perfect forms, and some of them which do not express anteriority. The past perfect form in the indicative can be used to express an anterior action to a moment or action in the past: When I came home he had already left. In clauses of time and condition it expresses a future anterior action: He said that he would return the book as soon as he had read it/ The same form is used in subjunctive II to express anterior actions in the past and future and non-anterior meaning (devoid of anteriority) in the simple past actions: 1.Anteriority in the past: He said he would have come earlier if he had known; El a spus că ar fi venit (venea) mai devreme dacă ar fi avut (să fi avut, dacă avea) timp; 2.Subjunctive II, anteriority to the present moment of speech: If she had come in time yesterday you would have seen her; Dacă ea ar fi venit (să fi venit, dacă venea) la timp ieri ai fi văzut-o (o vedeai); In this case in both languages there is no grammatical anteriority expressed. 3 Subjunctive II, future anteriority in the past: I knew he would say that he would have come if he had known; Eu ştiam că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut). 4. Subjunctive II, anteriority to a moment or action in the future: She thinks he will say that he would have come if he had known; Ea crede că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut, dacă ştia). This phenomenon is not clearly expressed for the learner of the language. Another example of polyfunctionality polysemy and homonymy is should. 1. Should+infinitive in the secondary clause of the type (it) is recommended (suggested, etc.) that..., in object clauses after verbs like to recommend, to suggest, to demand, etc.; in subject clauses,etc. Should in this case is used in the suppositional mood (which is synonymous to subjunctive I in the second meaning).: The best thing the commission can do is to recommend that the Geneva conference should begin again with renewed energy. 2. The conditional clause with should + infinitive: Should the U.N. fail (If the U.N. should fail) to produce an early settlement, are we then to wash our hands of the whole matter. 3.The modal should in various meanings. Obligation: Не said that she should be there in time. Emotional emphatic function; attitude towards the event, etc.: It is strange that he should be there at this time. It is good that the Government should have recognized the opportunity and the obligations. As to grammatical “false friends” there is a lot to be explained to the learners of the native and foreign languages in order to have a better understanding of the corresponding systems. In grammatical contexts it is the syntactic structure context serving to determine the meanings of a polysemantic word: the verb make in the meaning of 'to force, to enduce', is found in the context of the structure to make somebody do something or if make is followed by a noun and the infinitive of a verb, adjective (to make smb. laugh, go, work; to make a good wife, a good teacher, etc.). Examples like she will make a good teacher are syntactically bound meanings.

34

10.6.Hypercorrectness or Hypergrammaticality As a good example here we can take future perfect forms in English, French and Romanian. When we investigate the material under investigation we still come across examples of Future perfect in all the confronted languages. Thus, for example: future perfect – future antérieur – viitorul anterior: You’ll arrive next day after we shall have prepared the way. Vous arriverez le lendemain, quand nous aurons déjà préparé les voies. Voi veţi ajunge a doua zi, după ce noi vom fi pregătit calea. You will have refused once again. Vous aurez encore une fois refusé. Veţi fi refuzat încă o dată. In these examples we have complete coincidence. In order to verify the tendency in Modern English to substitute perfect forms in the spoken language by using simple forms a number of examples were taken and given to students to be translated from Russian into Romanian. The majority of examples had lexical or contextual markers of anteriority. Most of the students translated the examples using simple non-perfect future forms: К концу семестра мы выучим много новых слов и выражений; Spre sfârşitul anului noi vom studia multe cuvinte şi expresii noi; Мы закончим эту работу к концу недели; Noi vom termina lucrul acesta spre sfârşit de săptămână; The Romanian equivalents were given to a different group of students to translate them into English. Those students, who were not familiar with the fact that future perfect is rarely used in Modern English, regularly used grammatical perfect forms in nearly all the given examples: We shall have learned many new words and expressions by the end of the year; We shall have finished this work by the end of the week; She will have forgotten everything by that time; We shall have finished this text-book by the end of the year; He will have written this article before he leaves. In a third group the students were asked to translate the above given English examples with future perfect into Romanian. Here we had two subgroups. In the first subgroup the teacher stressed the fact that similar forms existed in Romanian as well (viitorul anterior). A number of students did not hesitate to use grammatical future anteriority in Romanian (in spite of the fact that it is very rarely used): Spre sfârşitul anului noi vom fi studiat multe cuvinte şi expresii noi. Noi vom fi terminat lucrul acesta spre sfârşit de săptămână. Ea va fi uitat totul până atunci. Noi vom fi terminat acest manual spre sfârşit de an. El va fi scris articolul acesta înainte de a pleca. In the second subgroup nothing was said about viitorul anterior. Here the students in the majority of cases used simple grammatical future forms, substituting grammatical anteriority with the lexical one. [39, 72]

10.7. The Category of Anteriority as seen by A.I.Smirnitsky and E.Benveniste. Historical linguistics in general, comparative philology in particular, has accumulated a great body of material, especially for the Romance languages. But as a rule, manuals on the history of these languages are mainly oriented towards the development of different fоrms the change of which has taken place in Morphology and Morphonology. This does not mean that the meanings of these forms and the peculiarities of their function, as well as the change in their content, which accompany the formal overhauling of the systems, did not attract any attention at all. Attention has been attracted to them all. Until comparatively recently the content and even the existence itself of the category of taxis could not be regarded as sufficiently clarified. More than that, however paradoxical it may seem, the discovery of this category and its development in detail were independently undertaken, completed and put into effect by two great linguists of our time. In what follows we would like to underline the importance of two well known scientists that separately came to the conclusion that the opposition of perfect/non I perfect forms constitutes the category of anteriority: A.Smirnitsky for English and E.Benveniste for French. According to Smirnitsky “perfectivity” is “anteriority”, it is the meaning of an action which precedes another action or moment of speech. [39, 145]

E.Benveniste is fully aware of the instability of the system. He takes into consideration the fact that, for example, the relationship between the forms il fit and il a fait is always in a state of flux. Benveniste comes to the conclusion that j’ai fait, may either function as an aorist or express anteriority (being a perfect form) and as a grammatical form it carries two different categorial forms (in different contexts) of the same category. Benveniste in his book Problèmes de linguistique [39, 145]succeeds in giving a convincing explanation of the reason why in French there gradually evolved the so-called temps surcomposées. Thus, j’ai eu fait, for example, becomes a new perfect, for j’ai fait, which in its turn becomes functionally indistinguishable from an aorist. The system is thus reconstituted, and the, opposition becomes symmetric again: To the present ‘je mange’ is opposed a perfect ‘j’ai mangé’, which furnishes discourse with (1) a present perfective (e.g. ‘j’ai mange, je n’ai plus faim’); (2) a present anterior (e.g. “quand j’ai mangé ; je sors , me promener’). When ‘j’ai mangé’ becomes the aorist, it recreates for itself a new perfect, ‘j’ai eu mangé’. Which similarly gives (1) an aorist perfective (e.g. ‘j’ai eu mangé mon repas en dix minutes’); (2) an aorist anterior (e.g. ‘quand ‘j’ai eu mange, je suis sorti’). Moreover, the temporal parallelism is reestablished between the two planes of utterance: the pair ‘il mangea’ (aorist): ‘il eut mangé’ (perfect) of historical narration now corresponds to ‘ il a mangé’ (the new aorist): ‘il a eu mangé’ (the new perfect) in discourse.

35

The systematic comparison of the two morphological studies is necessary because of the importance attached to relationship between synchronic states, and diachronic drifts and tendencies. It has also helped to clarify some methodological aspects of linguistic research. As far as the theory of morphological relationships is concerned, the concept of anteriority versus simultaneity or taxis has been vindicated independently by A.Smirnitsky and E.Benveniste for both English and French. In this connection we can conclude that the perfect/non-perfect opposition (especially present perfect/past indefinite in English, passé composé/ passé simple in French and perfectul compus/ perfectul simplu in Romanian) is developing in a direction where there is a transition of a grammatical category in a stylistic one, i.e. a new category is raising its head, the category of stylistics. Thus, this grammatical opposition is gradually coming to express something different, a met semiotic or stylistic opposition. Another important point should be mentioned here, the simplification of a system does not imply loss of ability of expressing different meanings. In an involved morphological system different meanings are expressed by the opposition of different forms while in a system with a small number of different forms, different meanings can be expressed by one and the same form in different contexts or by changing the lexical character of the verb. Synchronic relationship must be regarded as something that is in a state of flux. Change is the main category of natural human languages, for they are historical categories, they develop or die out. By so doing, they follow the fate of the speech community; which has created them as the principal means of communication. [39, 145-151]

10.8. A Contrastive Analysis of Non-finite Forms of TaxisIf we take the category of taxis in the predicative forms, we observe that the categorial forms of anteriority are mixed with those of tense, voice and aspect. In the nominal forms taxis is usually expressed in a “pure” way. The non-predicative forms in English are: past participle, present participle, the gerund and the infinitive.Non-perfect infinitive (the unmarked form of taxis). When we compare related languages we always expect to find more coincidences than differences. Let’s take some examples from English and Romanian and confront them and in some cases do the same with examples taken from English and Arabic [39, 240-254]: Smaller boys than himself flocked at his heels proud to be seen with him. (M.Twain) Les petits garçons couraient après lui, fiers d’etre vu avec lui. Băieţii mici alergau buluc în urma lui, mândri de a fi văzţ]i împreună cu el. We find many examples of complete coincidence. But there is a great number of them classified as non-coincidences. Very often the English and French infinitive forms are translated into Romanian by conjunctivul, a polysemantic form which has been gradually taking over the functions of the infinitive especially in colloquial style: The storm culminated in one matchless effort that seemed likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the treetops, blow it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at one and the same moment. (M.Twain) L’orage se jeta avec une telle fureur qu’il semblait qu’elle voulait mettre l’ile en pièces, la brûler avec ses flames, inonder les arbres, la réduire a néant et exterminer toute creature vivante. Furtuna se năpusti cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să sfărâme insula în ţăndări, s-o mistue în flăcări, să inunde copacii, s-o mistuie depe faţa pământului şi să stârpească orice fiinîă vie. (M.Twain) Al asifa Ratabat Al akes Haiso Bada masmuhan fi Al gazera , yatawazali, yaratab yakser, yaheb, yadfah kulshaif fi Al hal. The non-perfect infinitive in Arabic (Al Hader Basit -present infinitive) is corresponding to the English simple infinitive. In Romanian the English infinitive is very often confronted with conjunctivul. In the example above we find two infinitives that have been translated into Arabic by means of past indefinite (Al Madi Basit): Al asifa, Bada, Al hal and stresses on “t” and “n” in “Ratabat” and “masmuhan”. Here is an example where the infinitive is translated into Arabic by means of the present indefinite without a stress (Al hader Basit): To take from a civilian to give to a civilian. An Yahuz min Al Madania. Next we are going to give examples with perfect infinitive forms in English, French, Arabic and Romanian: Yes, and fortunately enough to have found the carriage,- answered the queen (A.Dumas). Oui, et trop heureuse encore d’avoir trouvé ce fiacre. Da, şi prea fericit chiar de a fi găsit (să fi găsit) trăsura - replica regina. (A.Dumas) Naham La sah Al haz gedan an naged Al Araba. In Romanian the form of perfect infinitive is found in formal speech, while in the colloquial speech “conjunctivul perfect” is preferred. Now let’s take some examples of non-coincidence: Oh, isn’t that so? cried Oliva, delighted to have been caught in the fact of putting up resistance. Oh! N’est-ce pas? s’écria Oliva enchantée de avoir été prise en flagrant délit de résistance. Ah, nu-i aşa? strigă Oliva, încântată că fusese prinsă (de a fi fost prinsă) în flagrant delict de rezistenţă. (A.Dumas). In the official translation we find complete coincidence in English and French. In Romanian in all the examples past perfect (pluscvamperfectul) was used ihn case of anteriority in the past. Past perfect here can be easily substituted in formal language by perfect infinitive in Romanian. There are examples where the French plus-que-parfait is also confronted with perfect infinitive in English: A

36

sun, that he did not seem to have seen since he came over here. Un soleil, comme il lui semblait, qu’il n’avait pas vu depuis le jour quand il avait traversé l’océan. Un soare pe care, după câte i se părea, nu-l mai zărise de când trecuse oceanul. But in both cases the anteriority meaning is the same. Perfect infinitive in English and infintif passé can be confronted in Romanian with perfectul compus, expressing anteriority to the present moment: I am sure only to have heard what I have heard, to have seen what my eyes have seen! Suis-je bien sur de avoir entendu ce que j’ai entendu, d’avoir vu ce que mes yeux ont vu ! Sânt sigur numai că am auzit (de a vi auzit) ceea ce am auzit, că am văzut (de a fi văzut) ceea ce am văzut! This fact is easily explained by the fact that in different languages in certain situations various types of taxis means are used to express anteriority. The French passé composé can also be confronted with the English perfect infinitive: Sorry to have bothered you. C’est dommage que je vous ai ennuyé. Îmi pare rău că v-am plictisit. In Arabic in the examples below we have “Al hader tam” regularly used, accompanied by some lexical forms with a logical stress on them to identify the given form (an+ stress; Bahda + wa + stress; Ahiran + an +wa + stress). After having looked at the rat again they separated horrified to have said so many things misterious and delicate. (M.Twain) Privind la şobolan din nou ei s-au despărţit îngroziţi de a fi spus atât de multe lucruri misterioase şi delicate. Bahda Al nazar alaiha saniatan’ ham tafaraku Li yakulu Ashiah kasira wa wagiha. At last I’ll obtain the favour from you not to leave behind the regret to have seen the poor queen perish and to have not fought for her. (A.Dumas) Voi obţine însfârşit de la Dumneavoastră favoarea de a nu lăsa în urma mea regretul de a fi văzut cum piere biata regină şi de a nu mă fi luptat pentru ea. Ahiran ‘anna saufa Atahis minka an Agader halfa Al malik Al fakir wa an Aharibaha. Confronting the material we come to the conclusion that the perfect infinitive forms are widely used in English and French, and relatively not so often in Romanian, especially in the spoken language. Cases of perfectul infinitiv in translations can be easily replaced by the “conjunctivul perfect”, which are preferable in usual less bookish speech. [39, 240-254] There are cases where the English Perfect infinitive is translated into Romanian by past perfect and present perfect. While analyzing the non-finite forms we shall sometimes name participle I and gerund as -ing forms. The difference between them is that the gerund is closer to the noun in its functions, and the participle is closer to the adjective. In their perfect forms they have some common functions (of adverbial modifier) and both forms express anteriority. Thus, for example: Having registered all the letters, the secretary sent them down to be posted. Having won the first match by only one point, the players realized that they must train much harder to win the championship. If the actions follow one after the other, a simple form (non-perfect) is used, anteriority being expressed simply lexically or contextually, there is no need to intensify it by grammatical anteriority: Not finding my friend at home, I left a note for him. On entering the room he introduced himself to all those present. After looking through the morning mail the manager, called in his secretary and dictated a few letters. The perfect -ing forms are usually used in the formal bookish language. Their passive voice forms are used much more rarely even in the literary language. The perfect infinitive in English is still regularly used both in the literary and colloquial styles (in the former it is much more often used). For example: Yes, and fortunately enough to have found the carriage. At last I’ll obtain the favour from you not to leave behind the regret to have seen the poor queen perish, and to not have fought for her. Confronting the nominal perfect forms it was observed that they are relatively more often used in English and French than in Romanian, where predicative forms are preferred.

Participle I non-perfect form: a) Participle I – participe présent – gerunziul: Tom lay… watching the two intently. Tom était couché… les fixant des yeux tous le deux. Tom stătea culcat, scurtându-i lung pe amândoi. The boys went off grieving that there were no outlaws any more, and wondering... Les garçons se plaignant qu’il n’y avait plus des voleurs dans le monde et s’efforçant… Băieţii pornită spre casă, căinându-se că pe lume nu mai sunt vestiţi tâlhari, frământându-şi mintea...(M.Twain) The Romanian gerunziul is naturally confronted with the English participle I; b) Participle I – gérondif – gerunziul: So he got into the shoes snarling. Tom, en marmottant, mit ses souliers. Tom, bodogănind, încălţă pantofii. I went to sleep reading. Hier soir je me suis endormi en lisant. Asară am adormit citind. (M.Twain); c) Participle I – imparfait – imperfectul (or gerunziul): Tom lay thinking. Tom était couché et pensait. Tom sta culcat şi se gândea (gândindu-se). (M.Twain) A durative action expressed by participle I in a context in the past can easily be rendered into French and Romanian by means of imperfect forms, which express a durative and unfinished action in the past.

Gerund non-perfect form: a) Gerund – gérondif – gerunziul: In getting out, he looked back. En sortant, le jeune homme tourna la tête. Ieşind, tânărul întoarse capul. Upon leaving the hut I rapped as was my custom, and getting no reply, sought for the key. Arrivant a la hute j’ai frappé à la porte comme d’habitude et ne recevant aucune réponse, j’ai cherché la clé. Ajungând la colibă, am bătut la uşă ca de obicei şi, neprimind răspuns, am dibuit cheia.The English gerund and the French gérondif in the function of adverbial modifier of time are regularly confronted with gerunziul. b) Gerund – plus-que-parfait – mai mult

37

ca perfectul. After destroying some further portions of his lawn, he joined the nearest Golf Club. Quand il avait détruit quelques autres portions de son pâturage, il s’inscrivit dans le club de golf le plus proche. După ce distrusese (distrugând) alte câteva porţiuni de pe pajiştea sa, se înscrise în cel mai apropiat club de golf. (J.Galsworthy) French and Romanian prefer past perfect forms when the English gerund is accompanied by lexical anteriority means. c) Gerund – passé composé – perfectul compus (or gerunziul): Upon reaching the wharf, I noticed a scythe and three spades,,, Quand nous sommes arrives sur la quai, j’ai remarqué une faux et bêches. Când am ajuns (ajungând) la chei, am observat... o coasă şi două hârleţe. In all the confronted sentences here we have consecutive actions. Thus, anteriority grammatical forms are not used here. The French passé composé and the Romanian perfectul compus in the given context express an action separated from the present moment, and, thus, they do not express grammatical anteriority in this case and we have simultaneity in the confronted examples. d) Gerund – infinitif – infinitivul: Instead of considering each element by itself and seeking for the “cause”… Au lieu de considérer chaque élément en soi et d’en chercher la « cause »… În loc de a considera fiecare element în sine şi de a căuta “cauza”.... (E.Benveniste) In the French and Romanian examples in the given context the infinitive is possible, taking into consideration the fact that the verb equivalents of the verb „to consider” lexically preserve the durative meaning expressed by the English gerund. c) Gerund – imparfait – imperfectul: Soames made a point of eating one every year. Soames goutait une fraise chaque année. Soames gusta în fiecare an câte o mură. The grammatical duration expressed by the English gerund is expressed by imperfect forms in the confronted sentences (see the same in the case of participle I and imperfect forms).

Participle I perfect forms. a) Perfect participle – participe passé composé – gerunziul perfect: Having arrived the first, you have the primarity. Vous avez le pas, étant arrivé le premier. Aveţi întâietate fiind venit primul. Here we have complete coincidence in all the three languages, though gerunziul perfect in Romanian is rarely used and is usually substituted by forms given below. The only difference that the auxiliaries in the target languages are the verbs “étant, fiind”. b) Perfect participle – infinitif passé – perfectul compus : The courtiers, having entered, brought furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. Les courtesans ont apporté des forges et après avoir entré, il ont cloué la porte de l’intérieur. Curtenii aduseseră cu ei forje şi ilăie grele şi, după ce au intrat, au ţintuit poarta pe dinăuntru. In spite of the fact that there are different forms in the confronted languages the grammatical meaning of anteriority is preserved in all of them. c) Perfect participle – plus-que-parfait – mai mult ca perfectul: Soames, having prolonged his week-end visit had been spending the afternoon at the Zoological Gardens. Soames avait continué son week-end à Londres et avait passé l’après-midi dans le jardin zoologique. Soames îşi prelungise week-endul la Londra şi îşi petrecuse după ameaza în grădina zoologică. (J.Galsworthy) Perfect participle is readily translated into French and Romanian by means of past perfect forms, expressing the grammatical meaning of past anteriority. It could be substituted by a past perfect form in English as well. Past Participle. The past participle is regularly confronted with the French participe passé and the Romanian participial trecut: The methodology tested in the Indo-European field set the pattern. La méthode éprouvée sur le domaine indo-européen est devenue exemplaire. Metoda experimentată în domeniul indo-european a devenit exemplară. The English participle II can sometimes correspond to the Romanian mai mult ca perfectul: On the staircase Charny met only some officers, friends of his, informed beforehand. Charny ne rencontra sur les degrées que plusieurs officiers, ses amis, prévenus assez à temps. Pe scări, Charny întâlni numai câţiva ofiţeri, prieteni de ai săi, care fusese anunţaţi (anunţaţi) din timp. The anteriority meaning in the confronted languages is practically the same. The category of taxis expressed by the category of representation is expressed in a “most pure” way.

10.9. The Category of Taxis in Oblique Moods Anteriority is expressed in the purest way by lexical means and by non-finite forms of the verb. The taxis marked grammatical forms have much in common in many European languages, as their systems go back to the same source. The grammatical perfect forms historically appeared in the ancient times, developed into a complex system, and they started to lose their position to some other linguistic means, like lexical and contextual ones, which up till now played a secondary part in the conceptual category of anteriority. The grammatical forms gradually lose their weight and are substituted by much simpler forms of the verbs, anteriority being expressed by non-grammatical means. Thus, the category of taxis can be expressed grammatically, lexically, lexico-grammatically, contextually, and it may be prosodically intensified. In the majority of cases taxis is expressed by at least two of the existing categorial linguistic means (lexical and grammatical means occur much more frequently). Even in the English language the lexical means are nowadays in the process of gaining more ground than the grammatical ones. In many European languages the category of taxis (simultaneity-anteriority, correlation, anteriority, perfectivity, time relationship, perfect

38

aspect, etc.) is in constant process of transition from pure grammatical categories to lexical and grammatical ones, or just to pure lexical means. It has been observed that the non-finite perfect forms are practically not used in journalese, either in British or American newspapers. As far as finite perfect forms are concerned, preference is given to present perfect, because this is the form that is best suited to establishing a correlation between past and present, on the one hand, and the connection between the performer and the undergoer of the speech event, on the other.

Oblique Moods and the Category of Anteriority.b) subjunctive II and conditional mood, anteriority to a past action: He said he would have come earlier if he had known; El a spus că ar fi venit (venea) mai devreme dacă ar fi avut (să fi avut, dacă avea) timp; c) subjunctive II, anteriority to the present moment of speech: If she had come in time yesterday you would have seen her; Dacă ea ar fi venit (să fi venit, dacă venea) la timp ieri ai fi văzut-o (o vedeai); d) subjunctive II, future anteriority in the past: I knew he would say that he would have come if he had known; Eu ştiam că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut); e) subjunctive II, anteriority to a moment or action in the future: She thinks he will say that he would have come if he had known; Ea crede că el va spune că ar fi venit (venea) dacă ar fi ştiut (să fi ştiut, dacă ştia).

It is well known that in the natural human languages content and form are actually inseparable. We cannot abstract ourselves from form in analytical comparison and from content in comparative philology. What is the actual connection between confrontational linguistics and comparative philology? In what way are we supposed to avail ourselves of the results of comparative-historical investigation when confronting cognate and unrelated languages? In order that this problem may be presented as clearly as possible, we shall turn to the category of anteriority in English and Romanian. By confronting, for example, the category of taxis in English and Romanian, we came to the conclusion, that there is a common tendency in both languages. The perfect forms in both languages tend to be replaced by simple non-perfect forms and the categorical meaning of anteriority is expressed lexically or contextually. This process is more advanced in Romanian, where some analytical perfect forms are now very rarely used.

11.The Semiotic and Metasemiotic Use of the Category of Voice The morphological-grammatical forms can be studied on two levels 1) the semantic level, where, for

example, the present tense forms express actions which include the moment of speaking, and 2) the metasemiotic level, where present tense forms are used to denote an action which clearly does not include the moment of speaking. The process of transition of some grammatical categories into lexical ones is being observed in many languages. It has been observed that the marked members of the opposition are metasemiotically charged and are often used for expressivity and emphasis. In the grammatical category of voice the marked form is the passive voice categorical form. N. Raievscaia considers that the analysis of the category of voice is not limited only to the definition of verbal relations of the subject and object. The relation of more levels are involved in the development of various means of expressing voice, the characteristic feature of which cannot be demonstrated without taking into consideration the correlation between the grammatical and lexical (both the denotational and connotational) meanings. That is why it is important that the analysis of the category of voice should include all the linguistic and extra-linguistic phenomena. At a closer inspection we observe that the passive voice, for instance, is preferred in specific functional styles, where the message is more impersonal, the doer of the action is not made prominent. Thus, J. Stanley writes that the passive categorial form is regularly used in governmental documents, in scientific registers and fiction. He thinks that the passive voice permits to abstract ourselves from the author and concentrate our attention on other elements of the utterance. Some authors think that the passive voice is mostly used in extreme situation, especially to express notions of violence, misfortune, etc. For instance L. Payne considers that in the sentence She was hit by a car (ea a fost lovită de o maşină) the passive voice expresses an atmosphere of misfortune and the author wants to make it prominent to influence the reader, this task would be impossible in case of active voice. Positive information may also be expressed in the passive voice: The famous scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize. The hard working student was always highly appreciated. In these two examples the emphatic use of the categorical form of the passive voice is further intensified by lexical means. To increase the evaluative, expressive and emotional overtones in oral speech people use elements of suprasyntactic prosody. If the utterances given above are said by persons being in a strong emotional state, the most important part of the message would be characterized by specific metasemiotic prosody: slowed down tempo, increased loudness/ or decreased loudness (with the same effect), high fall on the most important lexical unit, the range of the voice is widened. Also here the corresponding to the given situation body language, voice qualifications and voce qualifiers are used to make a stronger impact on the listener. Thus, in the examples: She was \hit by a car – the whole utterance may be

39

pronounced with an emphatic emotional prosody, and “was hit” can be further singled out by a high fall on it. Medvedeva L. mentions the fact that quite a number of proverbs are used in the passive voice for the sake of expressivity and emphatic use: No sooner said than done; Soon learnt, soon forgotten; Rome was not built in a day, etc. The omission of the auxiliaries and the use only of the past participles in the first two examples intensify the metasemiotic connotation.

In texts the authors would usually use various means of passive forms and alternating them with active voice forms in order to avoid monotony. Turner G. says that sometimes we forget that the utterance „Caesar conquered Gaul” varies not only with „Gaul was conquered by Caesar”, but also with „Caesar’s conquest of Gaul”, „The Conquest of Gaul by Caesar” and „The Conquest of Gaul”, „Caesar’s Conquest”. In all these examples we have difference of emphasis and various connotations to be expressed by this or that utterance. The metasemiotic use of passive voice and other categorical forms like aspect, mood and taxis are usually combined in the same utterance to produce a stronger stylistic effect not only in English. Thus, translating passive continuous forms from English into continuous Romanian and Russian we observe that they are regularly rendered by means of verbs with the particle “se” in Romanian and flexion “-ся” in Russian. “Se” and“-ся” (cf. the English “self”) in both languages are usually used to express lexical-grammatical reflexivity. But in the examples bellow they are used purely grammatically to express a different meaning, that of a durative action in the passive voice: The house is being built now, The house was being built when we arrived there, The house will be built this time next year – Casa se construieşte acum (Casa este construită acum), Casa se construia (era construită) cînd am sosit acolo, Casa se va construi (va fi construită) pe timpul acesta anul viitor - Дом строится сейчас. Дом строиля, когда мы приежали туда, Дом будет строится в это время в следующем году. The reflexive particle and flexion here have the meanings of passive voice of imperfective (durative) actions with metasemiotic connotations, expressed by both the aspectual and voice categorical means. In English there is no continuous aspect in the passive voice in the future, while in Romanian and Russian continuity is expressed by forms like se va construi, будет строится. Va fi construită”. Будет построено usually represent perfective actions. The same opposition of finished (perfective) and imperfective in the passive voice past indefinite is found in both Romanian and Russian: Casa se construia – Casa era construită – Casa a fost construită (Casa era construită may have the meaning of imperfectul pasiv and pluscvamperfectul activ). The Russian: Дом строился - Дом был построен represent the above-mentioned aspectual opposition. The Romanian examples in this case are different from the Russian ones because they belong to the colloquial style. The grammatical categorial forms of passive both in English and Romanian mean an action or process directed towards the subject from outside and is usually expressed by the grammatical form of the verb “to be + past participle”. In Romanian the difference between the following two types of sentences is a stylistic one. A lexical shift in the meaning is observed both in English and Romanian, there is a contradiction between the lexical and grammatical meanings of passive and pseudo-active voice: They sell the book – The book sells well (The book is sold/bing sold well) – Ei vând cartea – Cartea se vinde bine; The shop opens now ( The shop is being opened now) - Magazinul se deschide acum – Magazinul este deschis acum (este deschis may be used in the meanings of „in the process of being opened” and „is open”); The book reads well – The book is read well (The book is being read well) – Cartea se citeşte bine – Cartea este citită bine. In the second example the passive meaning is combined with the durative one enhancing the metasemiotic connotation. The following sentences The house is built by this firm; The house is being built by this firm; The house has been built by this firm; The house was built by this firm; The house was being built by this firm; The house had been built by this this firm; The house will be built by this firm can be rendered into Romanian by the following equivalents: Casa este construită de către firma aceasta; Casa se construieşte de către firma aceasta; Casa a fost construită de către firma aceasta; Casa s-a construit de către firma aceasta; Casa era construită de către firma aceasta; Casa se construia de către firma aceasta; Casa fu construită de către firma aceasta; Casa se construi de către firma aceasta; Casa fusese construită de către firma aceasta; Casa se construise de către firma aceasta. As we see in Romanian each example there are two forms of the passive voice. The difference between the two variants of utterances in the passive voice is one of aspect – in the second variant we have two marked categorical forms: passive voice and durative or imperfective aspect and that means that the stylistic connotation is much stronger than in the first variant, where we have only one marked categorical form, that of the passive voice.

Aanalysing a great number of examples we observe that the passive construction of the auxiliary “to be + past participle is prevailing in English and relatively less often used in Romanian and especially in Russian. The passive forms in the following sentences We were told to come at five, The soldiers were ordered to guard the airport are preferrable in English to the active forms They told us to come at five, They ordered the soldiers to guard the airport. Passive constructions like in the examples given above are usually

40

rendered into Romanian by means of pronominal verb constructions expressing passive voice, characteristic of coloquial speech: (Nouă) ni s-a spus să venim la ora cinci, Soldaţilor li s-a ordonat să vină la ora cinci. In some cases it is unacceptable in Romanian to use the construction with the verb “to be” plus past participle. Soldaţii au fost ordonaţi să vină la ora cinci would express a completely different connotational meaning. In Russian the sentence Нам было приказано прийти в пять часов, sounds to be too strict, official and pedantic. What we usually find in translations is: “(Они) нам приказали прийти в пять часов, i.e. the active voice is preferred here and it is metasemiotically less charged, it is a milder and more polite form of expressing an order or emphatic request.

Prof. A.Smirnitsky put forward the idea that there are lexical units expressing pure lexical passive or active meanings and they form a pure lexical opposition. Thus, the relation between the verbs „to act” („a acţiona”) and „to suffer” („a suferi”) resembles the relation between the active and passive voices: Tom’s bosom friend sat next to him, suffering, just as Tom had been from the same mortal boring… Alături de Tom şedea prietenul lui la cataramă, care suferea de aceeaşi ucigătoare plictiseală, de care suferise nu demult Tom (M.Twain). The verb „to suffer” („a suferi”) in the above given example expresses a logical passive meaning and comes into contradiction with their active form. According to A.Smirnitsky the word “noise” (“zgomot”) in the sentence A noise was heard (Un zgomot a fost auzit or Un zgomot s-a auzit) is grammatically influenced by the subject, but lexically it is really directed to the object. The two variants in Romanian express the same categorial form of passive voice and are only stylistically different. In translations often we have non-coincidences while comparing the source and the target language variants, because of cases when the passive is preferable in the source language or vice versa: But they discovered the danger in time- Însă primejdia fu observată la timp” (M.Twain). In this example the translator used the passive voice by changing the place of the subject and object and achieving an additional expressivity and putting the stress on the danger while in the source language they is made prominent. Besides, the speaker can pronounce fu observată with suprasyntactic prosodic means mentioned above: slowed down tempo, increased loudness, high fall on the most important lexical unit observată, the range of the voice is widened. By this we will have quite a different interpretation of they discovered in Romanian, absolutely different form the point of view of stylistics connotations. The active form could be quite acceptable in Romanian as well: Dar ei au observat primejdia la timp.

Non-finite passive forms of the verb are also regularly used metasemiotically. Thus, past participle of transitive verbs may be used instead of finite perfect forms to express both anteriority and passive categorical meanings. Let’s take two examples with past participle in English, participe passé in French and participial trecut in Romanian: The methodology tested in the Indo-European field set the pattern. La méthode éprouvée sur le domaine indo-européen est devenue exemplaire. Metoda experimentată în domeniul indo-european a devenit exemplară. All these observations bring out the essential difference between the method of communication discovered among bees and our human language. L’ensemble de ces observations fait apparaitre la différence essentielle entre les procédées de communication découverts chez les abeilles et notre langage. Toate observaţiile acestea scot la iveală diferenţa esenţială dintre metoda de comunicare descoperită la albini şi limba umană. The anteriority and passive categorical meanings of the past participles in the confronted languages are clearly expressive. Structurally the sentences are shorter, the past participle usually substituting a whole secondary clause. The use of past participle in the function of attributes expresses a stronger metasemiotic connotation: Hydrogen is the lightest substance known. Hidrogenul este cea mai uşoară substanţă cunoscută. Unfortunately it is not possible to present in this book all the information obtained. Din păcate nu este posibil de a prezentaîn cartea aceasta toată informaţia obţinută. In both languages a complete coincidence is attested as to the semiotic and metasemiotic meanings of past participles in attributive functions. Past participle as an adverbial modifier of concession: But the Right-wing Labour leaders, though forced to give way on some questions, will stick to their policies. Liderii laburişti de dreapta, deşi forţaţi să cedeze în unele probleme, vor susţine politica lor. Complex object with past participle: We hope to see this issue raised in all trades councils, in every union. Noi sperăm vedem această problemă ridicată în fiecare sindicat. Thus, the past participle in some constructions is also used to express anteriority and passive categorical meanings.[39, 165-172]

Let’s take an example given by A.Smirnitsky where the past participle “gone” in the combination “is gone”, is used in a transferred meaning of “he died”: “Poor Mr. Brown is (has) gone. He was taken from us. He has left us. He has joined the great majority” Sărmanul dl.Brown a murit (a plecat). El a murit (ne-a părăsit). El a plecat/a fost dus în lumea străbunilor. “Is gone” in this example possess a strong inherent stylistic connotation with a sociolinguistic motivation. The same combination can be used in the direct sense of the word in colloquial speech as in Where is Mr. Brown? He is gone. He will be back in an hour. Unde e dl Brown? El e plecat. Se va întoarce peste o oră. “Is gone” in this example is used in the colloquial style.

41

Having analysed a considerable number of examples we can state that past participle of transitive verbs can be used to express anteriority and passive categorical meanings not only in constructions to be+participle II. It may be used independently to express the same categorical meanings. Both anteriority and passive voice marked categorial meanings possess a certain metasemiotic connotation which is usually intensified by lexical an suprasyntactic prosodic means depending on the context. Various points of view concerning the category of voice could be explained by the fact that there is not a clear-cut distinction of lexical and grammatical means of expressing the categorial forms of voice. The lexical and grammatical voice means are often very close and they both interact. The number of categorial forms in various linguistic interpretations ranges from two up to six in most grammar books: active voice, passive voice, mediopassive, reflexive voice, reciprocal voice, dynamic voice, etc. Most linguists consider that as pure grammatical categorial forms we could single out only the active and passive voice. The rest of the above stated categorial forms express the given meanings of voice lexically or lexically-grammatically. In Romanian the system of categorial forms of voice resembles the one in English, but in most grammar books a system of three forms is usually put forward: active, passive and reflexive. The reflexive voice in English is considered to be a purely lexical categorial form. But even here we have a combination of lexical and grammatical meanings. The reflexive pronouns express lexical reflexivity. The verb combined with such a pronoun usually expresses an active grammatical voice action reflected back on the subject. Thus, for example: I see somebody there in the mirror structurally is the same as I see myself there in the mirror, i.e. subject + predicate + object, with the only difference that “myself” lexically expresses the reflection of the given action on the subject. In Romanian the reflexive is also a lexical-grammatical categorial form (the lexical meaning still prevailing over the grammatical one). Depending on different meanings of the verbs with the pronouns “se” and “îşi”, in Romanian there are six pronominal voices: reciprocal, passive, dynamic, impersonal, objective and inventive. The pronouns “se” and “îşi”, in the first and second person singular and plural, have the forms of personal pronoun objects. The Romanian reciprocal and reflexive pronouns form stable combinations with verbs and are the markers of the corresponding lexical-grammatical categorial forms of voice. The English reflexive pronouns are more independent but they also form similar stable combinations with verbs to express reflexivity. The same can be said of the reciprocal pronouns (each other, one another). In some clear-cut contexts the reflexive pronoun may be omitted in English because of redundant information: “In the morning I wash and shave at six o’clock”. The reflexive pronoun “myself” is dropped because reflexivity here is expressed contextually. It is quite clear from the context that I wash and shave myself not something or somebody else. Let us confront some categorial forms of voice in English and Romanian. The active voice in the confronted languages express an action carried out by the subject and not reflected back on the doer of the action: The widow’s servant kept him clean and neat, combed and brushed, and they bedded him nightly. – Servitoarea văduvei îl spăla, îl îmbrăca, îl pieptăna şi îl culca în fiecare seară (M.Twain). Sometimes the original text does not coincide with the translation, because in such cases the passive is preferrable in the target language (or vice versa): But they discovered the danger in time- Însă primejdia fu observată la timp (M.Twain). In this example the translator used the passive voice by changing the place of the subject and object and achieving an additional expressivity. The active form could be quite acceptable here: Dar ei au observat primejdia la timp. After a detailed analysis of the material we can conclude, that pronominal verbs in Romanian form a large lexico-grammatical system, and they are very often used in speech. Thus, the English active voice forms are regularly rendered into Romanian by means of pronominal verbs in the reflexive or reciprocal voices: I’ll never marry anybody but you – and you ain’t to ever marry anybody but me –N-am să mă mărit cu altul, dar şi tu să nu te însori cu nimeni afară de mine (M.Twain). But Sid snatched his clothes and gone – Dar Sid îşi înşfăcă hainele şi dispăru (M.Twain). Dar Sid a înşfăcat hainele sale şi a dispărut is stylistically different from the official translation. The English reciprocal voice is usually translated into Romanian by means of reciprocal pronouns and a reflexive pronoun plus the given verb: They loved each other – Ei se iubeau unul pe altul. Now we shall adduce examples in which the English reflexive and reciprocal pronouns in the function of objects and verbs in the active voice correspond in Romanian to pronominal verbs. To intensify the meanings of reflexivity and reciprocality we sometimes use synonymous pronouns: unul pe altul, unii pe alţii, una pe alta, unele pe altele, pe sine, etc.: A deep peel of thunder went rolling and tumbling down the heavens and lost itself in sullen rumblings in the distance” – Un tunet surd răsună, rostogolindu-se pe bolta cerului şi se pierdu undeva în depărtare, bodogănind supărat; The boys dressed themselves, hid their accoutrements, and went off, grieving that there were no outlaws any more, and wondering what civilization could claim to have to compensate their loss (M.Twain) – Băieţii se îmbrăcară, ascunseră armele şi porniră spre casă, căinându-se că pe lume nu mai sunt tălhari vestiţi, frământându-şi minţile cu ce ar putea înlocui astăzi această pierdere (M.Twain). As we see “se” and its variants in Romanian form analytical forms with the corresponding verbs, and sometimes it may be added

42

to a word in colloquial speech: “rostogolindu-se, căinându-se, frământându-şi, ducă-se”. In Russian the reflexive “-ся” has become a flexion and is used only as a flexion, which still preserves its original lexical meaning of reflexivity. Thus, compare: Он моется = Он моет себя. “Cя” in моется has become part of the given word and is much stronger connected with the corresponding verb than “himself” in English. The grammatical categorial form of passive both in English and Romanian means an action or process directed towards the subject from outside and is usually expressed by the grammatical form of the verb “to be + past participle”. Let us compare some examples of passive categorial form in both languages on the etic level and see which forms are preferable in official translations: Smaller boys than himself flocked at his heels, as proud to be seen with him, and tolerated by him – Băieţii mai mici alergau buluc în urma lui, mândri de a fi văzuţi împreună cu el, şi că el nu-i alungă Tom was therefore elevated to a place with the judge and the other elect, and the great news was announced. - Tom fu poftit să se sue în strană, unde şedea judecătorul şi celelalte persoane simandicoase, iar marea noutate fu adusă la cunoştinţă. The passive voice forms here structurally coincide in both languages. Of interest is the case when the English passive voice is translated into colloquial Romanian by means of pronominal verbs, which are reflexive in their structure and meaning: Oh! Michael! You will be bored to death! – O, Mihail! Ai să te plictiseşti de moarte! The translation in the target language may be interpreted in two ways: 1.Michael will be bored by what will be taking place there, i.e, the effect will come from outside, there will be nothing interesting there, and in this case this sentence could be easily translated by means of passive form expressed by ‘to be” + past participle’ as well : O, Mihail! Ai să fii plictisit de moarte! (the action is coming from the object not from the subject and between the two varaiants there is a stylistic and aspectual difference). The latter example belongs to the literary style, while the former belongs to the coloquial one. After a closer investigation of similar examples we have come to the conclusion that examples like O, Mihail! Ai să te plictiseşti de moarte! can also be treated as forms expressing a durative passive voice action. 2.The second situational interpretation of the sentence O, Mihail! Ai să te plictiseşti de moarte! is that Michael will do something boring, i.e. he will be the doer of the action reflected on him and in this case the translation can be interpreted as a form of the reflexive voice. This observation concerning the multifunctional status of the Romanian particle “se” turned out to coincide with that of the Russian flexion “-ся”. In both Russian and Romanian the given reflexive pronouns have developed homonymous meanings, which like in the case of the English “myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves” have turned out to express not only reflexive meanings. They are also used to express passive continuous actions. Regular confrontation of examples allows us to conclude, that the English continuous forms are regularly translated by means of verbs with the particle “se” into Romanian and flexion “-ся” in Russian, The reflexive particle and flexion are usually used to express a reflexive action but in this case they are homonyms and express unfinished (continuous or durative) actions in the passive voice. For example: The problem is being discussed at the meeting now, The problem was being discussed at the meeting this time last week, The problem will be discussed (dialectal: The problem will be being discussed) this time next week – Problema se discută (este discutată) la adunare acum, Problema se discuta (era discutată, a fost discutată) pe timpul acesta săptămâna trecută, Problema se va discuta (va fi discutată) pe timpul acesta săptămâna viitoare – Проблема обсуждается на собрании сейчас, Проблема обсуждалась в это время на прошлой недели, Проблема будет обсуждаться в это время на следующей недели. We should note the fact that in Romanian we have two forms to render imperfective actions in the past: „se discuta” (colloquial) and „era discutat„ (imperfectul). The reflexive particle and flexion are completely synonymous with the meanings of passive voice of imperfective (durative) action. In English there is no continuous aspect in the passive voice in the future, because both categorial forms are used with the verb “to be” and it is not acceptable in the literary English to say:“ The house will be being built”, which can be found only in dialects. Both in Romanian and Russian future continuity is expressed: “se va construi”, “будет строится». “Va fi construită” usually represents a perfective action, but in combination with lexical aspectual durative means it expresses a continuous action: Casa va fi construită în curs de un an. The same opposition of finished (perfective) and imperfective in the passive voice past indefinite is found in both Romanian and Russian: Casa se construia – Casa era construită – Casa a fost construită (Casa era construită) may have the meaning of imperfectul pasiv and pluscvamperfectul activ). The Russian: Дом строился - Дом был построен also represent the abovementioned aspectual opposition. We should mention here that the particle «-se» and the flexion “-ся” in the reflexive meaning combined with a verb are used lexico-grammatically, while in the passive continuous (imperfective) they become purely grammatical forms. In the result of the analysis we can also conclude that the traditional passive construction of the auxiliary “to be + past participle is prevailing in English and less often used in Romanian and especially in Russian. The passive forms in the following sentences We were told to come at five, We are told to come at five, We will be told to come at five; The

43

soldiers were ordered to guard the airport, The soldiers are ordered to come at five, The soldiers will be ordered to come at five are preferrable to the active forms used in They told us to come at five, They ordered the soldiers to guard the airport. The passive constructions are usually rendered into Romanian by means of pronominal verb constructions expressing passive voice, characteristic of coloquial speech: (Nouă) ni s-a spus să venim la ora cinci, (Nouă) ni se spune să venim la ora cinci, (Nouă) ni se va spune să venim la ora cinci; Soldaţilor li s-a ordonat să vină la ora cinci, Soldaţilor li se ordonă să vină la ora cinci, Soldaţilor li se va ordona să vină la ora cinci. In some cases it is unacceptable to use in Romanian the construction with the verb “to be” plus past participle. Soldaţii au fost ordonaţi să vină la ora cinci would express a completely different connotational meaning. In the Russian the sentences Нам было приказано прийти в пять часов, Нам будет приказано прийти в пять часов sound to be too official and pedantic and what we usually find in translations is: (Они) нам приказали прийти в пять часов, (Они) нам приказывают прийти в пять часов, (Они) нам прикажут прийти в пять часов, i.e. the active voice is preferred here and it is metasemiotically less charged. A lexical shift in the meaning can be observed both in English and Romanian. A well known feature is the contradiction between the lexical and grammatical meanings of passive and active voice: They sell the book – The book sells well – Ei vând cartea – Cartea se vinde bine; The shop is being opened now – The shop opens now- Magazinul se deschide acum –Magazinul este deschis acum. Este deschis may be used in the meanings of in the process of being opened and is open; The book reads well – The book is read well – Cartea se citeşte bine – Cartea este citită bine . Both in English and Romanian there are verbs, the lexical meanings of which can be either passive or active and they form a pure lexical opposition. Thus, A.I.Smirnitsky writes that the relation between the verbs „to act” (a acţiona) and „to suffer” (a suferi) resembles the relation between the active and passive voices: Tom’s bosom friend sat next to him, suffering, just as Tom had been (suffering) from the same mortal boring…– Alături de Tom şedea prietenul lui la cataramă, care suferea (suferind) de aceeaşi ucigătoare plictiseală, de care suferise nu demult Tom (M.Twain). The verb „to suffer” („a suferi”) in the above given example has in both languages a logical passive meaning, in spite of the active form of the verbs. There are many lexical passive verbs, which come into contradiction with their active form in the sentence: to hear – a auzi, to observe – a observa, to see – a vedea, etc.: I have heard about this – Eu am auzit de aceasta; I heard her cry - Am auzit-o plângând. Thus, in thesxe examples the verbs are used in the active voice forms, but the action is really directed towards the subject from outside, like in the case of passive voice actions. According to A.Smirnitsky the word “noise” (zgomot) in the sentence A noise was heard (Un zgomot a fost auzit or Un zgomot s-a auzit) is grammatically influenced by the subject, but lexically it is really directed to the object. The two variants in Romanian express the same categorial form of passive voice and are only stylistically different. We can conclude that English and Romanian possess well developed systems of grammatical categorial forms of passive and active voice. In Romanian the lexico-grammatical categorial form of reflexive voice is represented by the stable combination of a verb and pronouns “se” and “îşi”(and their variants). In English the reflexive voice is not purely lexical as it is usually stated: the reflexive pronouns express reflexivity lexically but in speech they can not be separated from the grammatical meanings of the verbs, that is, here we have the same combination of grammatical and lexical voice meanings and the given categorial form should be considered to be lexical-grammatical. Both in English and Romanian the reflexive pronouns have developed non-reflexive homonymous meanings: in Romanian they may be used to express the categorial form of passive voice and in English they may be used as emphatic pronouns. [39, 165-172]

12.The Category of Comparsion in English and RomanianThe category of comparison has historically changed in both languages. The reduction of the morphological paradigm in English led to the obliteration of the grammatical categories of gender, number and case. In Romanian grammatical gender and number have been preserved. The marked and unmarked categorial forms of positive, comparative and superlative degrees are expressed in English synthetically, analytically and suppletively. Historically the synthetic forms were used in Old English and the analytical ones appeared as a system in the Middle English, when the periphrastic comparative forms, only occasionally used in Old English, began to be substituted (under French influence) by analytical forms with ma, mo. mare, more, mast, most, which were used both with English and French adjectives, with monosyllables and disyllables, as well as with polysyllables. The preference of these over synthetic forms may in some cases be stylistic. The absolute superlative (most + positive form) may have appeared under the influence of Latin (You are most kind). It is known that in Latin the degrees of comparison were formed synthetically. But even in the classic Latin a number of adjectives existed which formed the degrees of comparisons analytically. In the V and VI centuries the analytical forms started to substitute the synthetic ones. Magis and plus were used to form the comparative degrees, and maxime, super, valde, bene were used to form the superlative. In Old

44

Latin the comparison of the adjective by means of magis became a grammatical way in Iberia, the South of Galia and the Danube basin. The adverb plus was also used in forming the comparative degree, but it was not widely spread being used only in the Northern part of Galia. The superlative was formed by means of maxime and multum. In the Oriental Romance languages the forms magis dulce turned into mai dulce – cel mai dulce. Besides that other comparative constructions appeared: tot atît de bun, mai puţin bun, prea bun, foarte bun, extrem de bun, etc.. Some linguists affirm that the positive degree should not be considered as part of the category of comparison. Here we should say that there exists an opposition of marked (superlative and comparative degrees) and the unmarked (the positive degree) categorial forms. Even within the positive degree we can compare lexically and contextually: This apple is sweet and that one is sour (Compare: This apple is sweeter than that one. That apple is less sweet than this one. That apple is not as sweet as this one. That apple is sourer than this one.) That means that we taste the two apples and compare them on the same level. While when we say that the apple is sweater/sourer or the sweetest we compare in the limits of the same adjective and quality. Some linguists affirm that the positive degree should not be considered as part of the category of comparison, but it is one of the three categorial forms of comparison, the unmarked one.The degrees of comparisons of adjectives and adverbs are usually considered to be part of the corresponding grammatical categories. The synthetic forms express comparison purely grammatically. When we turn to the analytical forms the picture is different. “More” and “most” which regularly are used to form the analytical degrees of comparison, being elements of the given analytical forms, have partially preserved their original lexical meaning. The same can be seen in Romanian: “mai”,” cel mai” practically express the same meanings. Besides there are a number of words used as lexical intensifiers in both languages, which are used with both analytical and synthetic forms. Degrees of comparison express equality and difference of degree within the same quality. Only those adjectives, which denote properties, can have degrees of comparison. Usually grammar books say that qualitative adjectives can form the degrees of comparison and the relative ones do not. This is not always the case. Thus: adjectives with the suffix –ish (reddish), with a negative meaning (like impossible), a number of adjectives, which mainly belong to a superlative meaning (exclusive, absolute, extreme, principal, chief, unique, superior, inferior, complete, etc.) But even these adjective can be used with intensifiers to express a certain inequality: far superior, much more superior, very much superior, less superior, much less superior, least superior. Even those adjectives that do not form the degrees of comparison, belong to the positive degree and can in some cases be used for stylistic purposes to form a comparative degree: You cannot be deader than dead. He was the deadest of them all. You are not less dead than he is. (E.Hemingway) Relative adjectives do not form degrees of comparison (woolen, wooden, economic, etc. and some of them can express relative quality of objects or phenomena (wooden door, glass door, a monthly magazine, daily program, European country, political life, capitalist society, socialist ideology). In some cases relative adjectives acquire an additional meaning and can form the degrees of comparison: The life there had been more English than in England. (Aldridge) John is more English than the English. John is very English. (Swan) He is English to the backbone. He has very little English in him and you have even less. A grammatical topic – a less (least) grammatical topic – a purely grammatical topic – a more grammatical topic - the most grammatical of the suggested topics. In all these examples we really detect a difference or variation of quality within the same adjective. Qualitative adjectives express various qualities within the same adjective defining a certain object or phenomenon. Thus, varying and static quality could be considered as an opposition. In this respect we should mention Blokh’s division of adjectives into “evaluative” and “specific”. One and the same adjective can be used either in the evaluative or in the specificative function. As an example he gives the adjective good, which is basically qualitative (good-better-the best), but when used as part of a marking scale together with the grading terms bad, satisfactory, excellent it acquires a static or “specificative” function. On the other hand, the whole grading system here (bad-satisfactory-good-excellent) could be considered as a paradigm of lexical degrees of comparison. All the adjectives, which can form degrees of comparison either lexically or grammatically (the synthetic forms) can vary their quality or be “evaluative”. The comparative degree in English and Romanian help to establish a correlation of superiority, inferiority and equality of a variable quality or property, possessed by objects or phenomena, which are compared or contrasted. The comparative degree of equality compares objects or phenomena on the same level, i.e. expresses equality or an equivalence of qualities or properties of two or more objects: This mountain is as high as that one. = This mountain is not less high than that one. This mountain is not higher than that one. Acest munte este tot atât de înalt ca şi celălalt = Acest munte nu este mai puţin înalt decât celălalt. Acest munte nu este mai înalt decît celălalt. In this example we practically have different forms (comparative of equality and inequality) expressing the same meaning. Thus, if negation is added here then inequality comparison is used: This flower is beautiful. This flower is as beautiful as that one. This flower is not so beautiful as that one = This flower is less beautiful than that one = That

45

flower is more beautiful than this one. Această floare este frumoasă. Această floare e tot atât de frumoasă ca şi aceea. Această floare nu este tot atât de frumoasă ca aceea. = Această floare este mai puţin frumoasă ca aceea = Floarea aceea este mai frumoasă decât aceasta. Here the comparison of equality is followed by that of inferiority and superiority inequality. In Romanian the degree of comparison of equality and inequality is formed by the help of the following constructions: tot aşa de, tot atît de, la fel de, deopotrivă de, întocmai ca, la fel ca, mai puţin, mult mai puţin, etc. Examples: …O foame tot aşa de tristă ca şi acele gînduri. Un ostaş tot aşa de viteaz ca Ion. Această greşeală nu este tot atît de gravă ca aceea (This mistake is not as grave as that one). There are quite a number of idioms, where the comparative of equality is used (though in many cases the meaning of superlative is implied): as busy as a bee (very busy) – harnic ca albina (foarte harnic). The comparative degree of superiority shows that the object or phenomenon has a higher degree of quality in comparison with those, which are compared. In English the comparative of superiority is expressed by the comparative degree (synthetic, analytical or suppletive forms) of the adjective and is followed by the conjunction “than”: You are more interested in my dresses than my dressmaker. He looked younger than his friend. Intensifiers are often used to increase the variation on the comparative degree level: This is much better (Aceasta e mult mai bine); This is much more better (Aceasta e cu mult mai bine); This is far better; This is better by far; This is considerably better. The performance became more and more thrilling; The water was deieper and deieper (repetitions). Ever greater success have been achieved (Apa era/devenea tot mai adâncă şi mai adâncă). The more leasure he has, the happier hie is. Cu cât mai mult se odihneşte, cu atât mai fericit el este). Nimic pe lume nu e mai scump şi mai slăvit decât libertatea. Very often the usual intensifiers are further intensified by other contextual lexical means: nimic în lume = nothing in the world. Very often the second element of the comparison of superiority or inferiority is omitted because of contextual redundancy: Rămânea o sarcină mai grea şi mai primejdioasă. A more difficult and dangerous task remained. You won’t find better examples. Nu vei găsi exemple mai bune. Fata se făcea din ce în ce mai frumoasă. The girl was getting more and more beautiful. Thus comparing English and Romanian here we could say that we observe a very close coincidence on the semantic level, on the formal level the synthetic forms are not used in Romanian. The comparative degree of inferiority both in English and Romanian shows that objects or phenomena have a lower degree of quality in comparison with other ones: The number of people is less numerous than it was last time. Numărul de oameni este mai puţin numeros decât data trecută. John is less happy than his brother. John este mai puţin fericit decât fratele său. If we combine “less” and “mai puţin” with ”not” (nu) we get an equivalent of comparative of equality: The number of people is not less numerous than it was last time. Numărul de oameni nu e mai puţin numeros decât data trecută. It is not less important = It is not more important = It is as important. Nu este mai piţin important = nu este mai important = E tot atât de important. We can see from the last example that the three variants practically express an equal quality of the compared objects. By using intensifiers of various degree, we can have a gradual transition on the level of the same categorial form: Tom was taller than Peter – Tom was far taller than Peter – Tom was much taller than Peter – Tom was much more taller than Peter – Tom was considerably taller than Peter – Tom was by all means taller than Peter – Tom was undoubtfully taller than Peter, etc. Tom era mai înalt decât Peter – Tom era cu mult mai înalt decât Peter – Tom era mult mai înalt decât Peter – Tom era incomparabil, considerabil, infinit, incomensurabil mai înalt decât Peter, etc. The superlative degree establishes that an object or phenomenon possesses a quality or a property in the highest or in the lowest degree The English relative superlative has two forms (analytical and synthetic) while in Romanian only the analytical forms are used. The superlative degree may be absolute and relative, the latter also being divided into superlative of superiority and superlative of inferiority. The absolute superlative shows a quality in its highest degree without a comparison with other objects in the given context. Intensifiers are often used here: You are a very good child – You are an extremely good child – You are a very good child indeed – You look too good. Addy and Ellie look beautiful enough to please the most fastidious man. (Shaw) He said of him that he was too serious. (Dreiser) Be quick or it may be too late. (Dickens) He is awfully nice. She is extraordinarily (extremely, terribly, etc.) clever. We should mention here that most of the intensifiers are not only used to intensify the degree of variation of the equality but they are also used metasemiotically, to produce a stylistic effect. In this case grammatical and especially the lexical means are widely supported by prosodic means: Oh, she is glorious! In addition to the lexical superlative expressed by “glorious” the prosodic elements that should be used here considerably intensify the degree of absolute superlative both semiotically and metasemiotically: the adjective “glorious” is pronounced in a loud voice (increased loudness), slowed down tempo, wide range, high falling tone – all these prosodic elements are characteristic of highly emotional, emphatic speech.There are quite a number of adjectives which become absolute superlatives by using such lexical means like: a) affixes: -“less”, “ultra-, super-, over-, etc. matchless, peerless, oversensitive, over-greedy, overgenerous,

46

over-busy, overambitious, overactive, superfine, supereminent, superabundant, ultrashort, ultramodern, etc.; b) analytical genitives: A mountain of a man – a very tall man. A devil of a child – a very naughty child. A monster of a dog – a monstruous dog. A mountain of happiness – extremely happy, etc. c) Some other combinations: beyond belief, without compare (equal) -too good (great) to be compared to anybody else). d) repetitions: A red, red rose! e) hyperboles: scared to death = very frightened; immensely obliged = very much obliged; full to the brim – quite full; g) Simile: (as) black as coal = quite black; (as) dry as a bone = very dry; h) metaphor: blowing hot and cold = very hesitating; he is a fox = he is very sly; i) litotes: no coward = very brave. Practically all these means, which help express an absolute superlative are metasemiotically charged and posses inherent stylistic connotations. It should also be mentioned here that the absolute superlative is not used with a definite article, while the relative superlative is regularly used with a definite article or other deictic means: The girl put on the best clothes to go to the theatre = The girl put on her best clothes to go to the theatre. Sometimes the article may be omitted for the sake of expressivity and is emotionally coloured, intensified here by prosody: Oh, most faithful of friends! When a noun is defined by a number of superlatives the definite noun may be repeated only in case of emphasis: He is the cleverest, sweetest and most affectionate of children. He is the cleverest, the sweetest and the most affectionate of children (emphasized). Sometimes the use of superlative degree with an indefinite article is explained by stating that it is just an adjective used to express a high degree of the quality possessed by the noun. This probably is not the case in the following examples: Yesterday I have read a most interesting book, I have seen a most interesting film. In this case it is not just an absolute superlative (“a very interesting book or film”), in each example we have an adjective defining a noun belonging to a class of object possessing a superlative quality, one of the class (“a most interesting book”, belonging to the class of “the most interesting books”). When a noun is preceded by “most”, the zero articles usually used, the meaning of “most” in many cases is “most, but not all of them”, “the majority of”: Most leaves are green. He finds most pleasure in reading. Most of his mistakes are made through carelessness. In case the second element of comparison is omitted the definite article may be dropped: The book is most interesting; He is happiest when everybody is at home. Most intensifiers, including double superlative, are used for the sake of intensification or to produce a stylistic effect, or both, belong to colloquial or dialectal style. Thus, such forms as “most noblest” was accepted in Shakespeare’s times, but now it is not acceptable in the literary language. But other intensifying elements are found quite often: I hope you will have the finest weather possible. (Sper că veţi avea cel mai minunat timp posibil.) I have read the worst novel imaginable. It is by far the most interesting play I have ever seen. They are the very best friends. In Romanian we have the same division of the superlative degree as in English: relative-superlative of superiority and that of inferiority, and absolute superlative: El este cel mai sârguincios dintre toţi studenţii. El este cel mai puţin activ dintre toţi studenţii. De câte ori am trecut de la treptele cele mai înalte la cele de mai jos. A number of lexical units are used in this case: foarte, tare, prea, adânc, profund, amarnic de, mult, mult prea, grozav de, nemaipomenit de, straşnic de, minunat de, îngrozitor de, teribil de, dureros de, negrăit de, neobişnuit de, nespus de, peste seamă de, infinit de, peste măsură de, etc.: “,,,O prea frumoasă fată” (A most beautiful girl). (M.Eminescu) “Mă nelinişteşte gândul prea puţin modest că s-ar fi putut să nu fie nimeni. Generaţia lui e mult prea scutită de grijile zilnice… Here we should stress the fact again that the superlative forms, especially those used with intensifiers, are emphatic and, thus, belong to a stylistic category as well. [39, 173-180]

13.The Category of Grammatical Deixis in English and Romanian The category of deixis in English and Romanian is expressed grammatically, lexically and lexico-grammatically. The linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts and prosodic means are also important in the realisation of this category. The deictic means identify the objects to both the speakers and the listeners and they have the function of differentiation, defining, singling out, of a special type of identification by correlating persons and objects, being in this or that relation to the speaker. The main deictic means are: articles, pronouns, numerals, prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, particles, etc. Deixis is a category consisting of three categorial forms: definite, indefinite and general identification, and is expressed best of all by the definite, indefinite and zero articles.

The Definite Deictic Identification (Indication). In the case of the definite article “the object is viewed upon as known and concrete, and singled out from a class of similar objects”81; the indefinite article is used when the noun belongs to a certain class of objects, and the zero article (meaningful absence of the article) represents the given object in a general meaning denoting all the members of the given class. Both in English and Romanian the definite and indefinite articles correspondingly go back to demonstrative and indefinite

47

pronouns (the latter in their turn were formed from the numeral), which gradually lost their original meaning. But in some contexts they have still preserved the original meaning: (At the time he was engaged = At that time he was engaged; A man entered the room, not two). Now we are going to confront the categorial form of the definite deictic identification (DDI) on the etic level. The definite article is mostly used in this case to single out an object or a group of objects from a class: The lads came gaily back.. .(M.Twain) - Băeţii se întorseseră pe insulă veseli..; The young man felt suddenly quite homesick. (J.Galsworthy) - Deodată tânărului i s-a făcut dor de casă. .Upon leaving him on the night of our adventure, he solicitated me, in what I thought an urgent manner, to call upon him very early the next morning. - În noaptea aceea luându-şi rămas bun de la mine, m-a rugat, şi pe cât mi s-a părut, foarte stăruitor, să vin la el a soua zi dimineaţa cât mai devreme. But as we see from the above given examples the definite article is not the only means to distinguish an object. Thus, if in the first and second examples the DDI is expressed by articles and context, then in the third sentence it is intensified by other identifiers - limiting attributes of the nouns ( of our adventure). In Romanian in “a doua zi dimineaţa” three identifiers are being used: the possessive article “a” (which loses its meaning of possessiveness before a numeral), a synthetic article “a”, and the numeral in an attributive function. In the phrase “în noaptea aceea” we have: the synthetic definite article, the demonstrative (adjectival pronoun and the preposition “în”. The limiting attribute may be expressed by a noun with a preposition (the of phrase is often used ins such cases), by a subordinate attributive clause, a participle phrase, an adjective, when contrast and choice is implied: I became used to seeing the gentleman with the whiskers - M-am deprins să văd gentlemenul cu bachenbarzi. The room where we sat was small - Camera, unde şedeam, era mică; It was the very thing he liked - Era chiar acel (lucru) ce îi placea. Some prepositions, especially in Romanian, contribute to the realisation of the categorial form of DDI. Thus, for example: Peter sprang a couple of yards in the air, and then delivered a war-whoop and set off round and round the room, banging against furniture... - Peter sări în aer, scoase un urlet sălbatic şi începu o goană turbată prin odaie, izbindu-se cu capul de mobilă... A deiep peel of thunder went rolling and thumbling down the heavens and lost itself in sullen rumblings in the distance. - Un tunet surd răsună rostogolindu-se pe bolta cerului şi se pierdu undeva în depărtare, bodogănind supărat. He was near the river. - El era lângă râu. From these examples we can see that the prepositions (with articles and without them), combined with the linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts can intensify the deictic function till its possible realisation as a definite deictic form. There are examples where in Romanian only the preposition is used to express the definite deixis: (in the distance - in depărtare; near the river – lânga râu, etc.). The demonstrative article in Romanian has, to a certain extent, preserved the meaning of a demonstrative pronoun. In its purest meaning it expresses the definite deixis in the grammatical form of the superlative degree, where it is regularly confronted with the English definite article: He is the best student in our class. - El e cel mai bun student în clasa noastră. She was the most beautiful girl in the village. - Ea era cea mai frumoasă fată în sat. Demonstrative and possessive pronouns, the possessive case (in English) and the possessive article (in Romanian) are used to regularly express definite deixis: A frightened look in Becky’s face brought Tom to his senses and he saw that he made a blunder. - Faţa speriată a Bechei îi arătă că a dat greş. But Tom’s energy did not last. - Dar zelul lui Tom nu ţinu mult. I’ll tell my big brother on you, and he can trash you with his little finger. - Am să te spun fratelui meu mai mare, care numai cu degetul cel mic ţi-a trage o mamă de bătaie! Tom was suffering in reality now, so handsomely was his imagination working, and his groans had gathered quite a genuine tone. - Tom suferea acum cu adevărat, atât de viu lucra puterea sa de imaginaţie, iar vaietele lui sunau firesc. This boy was well dressed. Băiatul acesta era bine îmbrăcat. This functionary grasped it in a perfect agony of joy. - Poliţistul o înhăţă în culmea fericirii. (M.Twain) Analyzing these examples we can conclude that possessiveness (both grammatical and lexical) is an effective means of expressing definite deictic identification. In the first sentence The English possessive case corresponds to the Romanian genitive and in “faţa speriată a Bechei” we have two deictic means: the efinite “a” and the possessive “a”. Two definite articles are used in “zelul lui Tom”. The synthetic article is dropped, when the attribute is in preposition (A Bechei faţă speriată), and in this case the possessive article is used before the noun. In the fifth example the demonstrative pronoun in postposition requires the use of a noun with a definite article. In preposition “acesta” (like other attributes) is used emphatically, intensifying the deictic identification. There are many cases, when the demonstrative pronoun is not translated into Romanian, but its deictic meaning is rendered by a definite article. Such examples could be easily translated by using a demonstrative pronoun like in the sentence six: Poliţistul acesta o înhăţă or Acest poliţist a înhăţat-o.. Depending on the degree of identification of the noun by the attribute and by macro- and microcontexts, the category of the definite deixis could be realized without articles and pronouns: Poor Huck stood abashed and uncomfortable not knowing exactly what to do or where to hide from so many unwelcoming eyes. - Sărmanul Huck, fâstâcit, nu se simţea în apele lui, neştiind ce să facă şi unde să se

48

ascundă de privirile dusmănoase. In Romanian the synthetic article is shifted within the substantival group depending on the position of the attribute. Thus, the sentence Tom hailed the romantic outcast could be translated as Tom îl strigă pe vagabondul romantic, and Tom îl strigă pe romanticul vagabond, the latter example being stylistically coloured. Extra-linguistic reality also plays an important role in realizing de definite deixis: Peter switched off the TV set, went to the kitchen and opened the refrigerator looking for something to eat. - Peter a deconectat televizorul, s-a dus la bucătărie, a deschis frigiderul, căutând ceva de mâncare. The dining room was large enough. Sufrageria era îndeajuns de încăpătoare. Anything that is considered typical, something that should, for example, be expected to be found in our flats, is used with a definite deixis. The number of such objects is constantly growing with the progress of civilization.

The Indefinite Deictic Identification (IDI). In the singular the indefinite article is one of the main means of expressing IDI. A closer analysis of examples helps us to conclude that in both languages we have a developed system of means to express IDI in both singular and plural: pronouns, numerals, adjectives, and other markers. Let’s take some examples where the indefinite article is used: I had written a letter by five o’clock. - Eu scrisesem o scrisoare către ora cinci. He took a letter out of his pocket to read a second time. - El scoase o scrisoare din buzunar, pentru a o citi a doua oară. The villagers began to gather, loitering a moment in the vestibule. (M.Twain). Orăşenii începură să se adune în biserică, oprindu-se pe o clipă în vestibul (M.Twain). In these examples we have complete coincidence in the use of indefinite article. The indefinite article is used here in the singular. In the plural in English there is no indefinite article. In this case other means are used. In Romanian grammar books the indefinite pronoun nişte (corresponding to the English some) is considered to be an indefinite article: Give me books - Give me some books; Dă-mi carţi. Dă-mi nişte cărţi. In both sentences indefiniteness is expressed in both languages, but in the first sentences the indefinite meaning is more general, in the latter case a certain limited indefinite number of books is meant. The categorial meaning of deixis is different in dependence of a number of factors: context, intensifiers, defining identifiers, etc. The decrease of the categorial meaning of IDI as a result of using defining elements. There are cases when the definite deixis “the” is used very closely to an indefinite meaning, especially in idiomatic expressions, stable combinations, used metaphorically, etc.: They went to hunt the fox. Ei s-au dus să vâneze vulpi. We shall show him the door. Noi îi vom arăta uşa. It is still in the egg. E încă în ou. He saw him with the naked eye. El l-a văzut cu ochiul neînarmat. In the first sentence the noun (fox) is used in the singular, though many indefinite objects are meant. This sentence is translated into Romanian by a free word combination and the noun is used in the plural with a zero article. Examples 2-3 in both languages are used metaphorically. The definite deictic identification is preserved in Romanian as well: the definite article in number 2 (uşa) and the identifying preposition in the third sentence. The general deictic meaning here is really indefinite. The same can be observed in examples where musical instruments are used: He plays the violin. El cânta la vioara, the English definite deixis is translated into Romanian by means of a zero article. The same is seen in such expressions like: to go to the theatre, to go to the cinema - a se duce la teatru, a merge la cinema. It is quite possible that in English the definite article goes back to those times, when in a town or city there used to be only a theatre or only a cinema, and the definite article is traditionally used now, when there are many theatres or cinemas in large cities or even in towns. We have also observed that in all the metaphorically used idiomatic or stable English expressions the definite deixis is preserved if in Romanian a similar metaphorical usage is realized, like in We shall show him the door - Noi îi vom arăta uşa. In the confronted languages there are many other indefinite deictic means. The indefinite article expresses the given categorial form in the purest way. The indefinite pronouns, numerals, adjectives, negative pronouns, etc. function as indefinite markers alongside their main lexico-grammatical functions: some, somebody, someone, something, any, anyone, anybody, anything, many, more, most, few, several, a little, lots, hundreds, any of them, certain, indefinite, one, etc; unul, unii, altul, cineva, ceva, careva, altcineva, fiecare, puţin, oleacă, orişicare, orişicine, orişicât, oricare, cutare, atât, vreunul, câţiva, toţi, mulţi, niscaiva, niscai, alde, nimeni. nici unul, nici un, nici o, pe nimic, pentru nimic, intru nimic, de nimic, vre-o, unu-doi, trei-patru, cu sutele, etc. Thus, for example: I cannot identify anyone. Pe nimeni nu pot să-l identific. But I could testify that a woman came out of the shop. Dar eu pot să fiu martor, că o oricare femeie a ieşit din magazin. Several people went out. Câţiva (nişte) oameni au ieşit. One of them was ready to help us. Unul din ei era gata să ne ajute. Some people knew it. Unii oameni ştiau aceasta. Hundreds of people were on the square. Sute de oameni erau pe piaţă. The indefinite deictic markers under consideration can be used with both singular and plural nouns. They can be used even with pronouns or eliptically: Have you got any books? I have got some. Give me a book. Take one. Aveţi ceva cărţi? Da, am câteva. Daţi-mi o carte. Luaţi una. Numerals can often be used to express indefinite deixis with a meaning of approximation.

49

The General Deictic Identification (Indication) The zero deixis , traditionally named “zero article”, represents an object as a general denotation of all the objects of the given class, when there is no classification, no singling out of a class. What is meant is the essential, the content of the object abstracted from its volume, number and boarder of the form. The zero deixis is used, first of all, with nouns denoting matter and abstract categories and in this case it has the widest generalizing meaning. Class objects can also be used in a generalised meaning, and in such cases they are used without definite or indefinite deixis. Here we prefer the term “zero deixis” to “zero article”, because besides articles there are many other deictic means to express the deictic categorial forms of definite and indefinite identification. Thus, the zero deixis expresses a meaningful absence of definite and indefinite deictic means, when there is no classification and individualization, when the nouns have a generalizing meaning. Thus, quite a number of deictic means limit the categorial form of general deictic identification (GDI): I’ll make it my business. O să-ţi arăt eu că-i treaba mea; Because I heard you call your hostess a snob. Pentru că v-am auzit spunând despre gazda dumneavoastră că este o snoabă. After destroying some further portions of his lawn, he joined the nearest Golf Club.. După ce distrusese alte câteva porţiuni de pe pajiştea sa, se înscrise în cel mai apropiat club de golf. Analyzing examples we come to the conclusion that the absence of marked articles does not mean that we have a zero generalizing marker. Various markers are used: possessive case, possessive pronouns, demonstrative pronouns, limiting prepositions. The fact that all these means belong to the marked categorial forms is evident when we compare the translation with the original. Thus, in Romanian in most cases a definite article is used (treaba mea, gazda dumneavoastră), and other deictic means are usually used to intensify the categorial meaning. In English as well it is observed, that the function of the definite article before some nouns is taken over by other deixis, which are used with nouns like “parliament, Senate, Congress, market, college, school, breakfast, dinner, supper”, etc, which are rarely used or not used at all with a definite article (legislative bodies, names of seasons, days, months, holidays and so on). We can also conclude that some objects and phenomena are interpreted differently in the confronted languages from the point of view of the category of deixis. Thus, some nouns like “man”, “Time”, “eternity” can be used in a broad general meaning, while in Romanian they are viewed as words representing the class as a whole, in comparison with other classes. Here are some examples: When man was still abed and the land lived its own life, how full and sweet and wild that life seemed. Când omul era în durerile naşterii şi pământul î-şi trăia propria sa viaţă, cât de plină şi dulce şi sălbatică acea viaţă era! (omul - used with a definite article); At last he was satisfied that time had ceased and eternity began; he began to doze, in spite of himself. Era adânc încredinţat că timpul se oprise şi începuse veşnicia şi fără a-şi da seama începu să moţăie (timpul, veşnicia).

The category of general deictic identification is regularly realized in both languages with countable, uncountable and abstract nouns: He put up a good deal of glass too, and was laying down melons. Î-şi făcuse destul de multe sere şi cultiva pepeni (zămoşi). Tell him that I’m awfully glad, and hat I wish him luck.) Spune-i că mă bucur foarte mult şi că-i doresc noroc. The names of diseases, as a rule, are used with a zero deixis: He has influenza (but: He has the flu). El are gripă. The geographical names are used differently in the confronted languages. Some geographical names are used with a definite article in English as a result of French influence (names of rivers, seas, mountain chains, etc.). In Romanian the majority of geographic names are used with an article. For example: I have visited Paris this year. Am vizitat Parisul anul acesta. In addressing someone, in exclamation and commands the definite article is usually used in Romanian, and in English we have a zero deixis: Uncle, come here quickly! Unchiule, vino aici repede! In Romanian the article can be expressed by or added to an attribute: Domnule preşedinte! (It can change places depending on the metasemiotic usage: Cerul albastru - Albastrul cer). Some more examples: Hands up! Hand off! - Mînile sus! Mînile jos! Daddy comes! - Tăticul vine! The absence of definite and indefinite deictic means does not mean that the category of general deictic identification is being realised. In some cases the markers are dropped for the sake of economy of space, for brevity (newspaper headlines, dictionary articles, etc.), in metasemiotic usage, especially in colloquial speech, where the speaker can drop the articles to attract attention, to make it more expressive. [39, 181-190]

14. The Conceptual Category of Deixis

The category of deixis in English is expressed by grammatical (morphological, syntactic), lexical, stylistic, lexical-grammatical, phonological (supra-segmental, supra-syntactic), contextual and extra-linguistic means. The prosodic means are very important in the realization of the given category on both semiotic and metasemiotic levels. The deictic means identify the objects to both the speakers and the listeners and they have the function of differentiation, defining, singling out, of a special type of identification by correlating persons and objects

50

being in relation to the speaker. The main grammatical and lexical-grammatical deictic means are: tense, mood, aspect, anteriority, voice, articles, pronouns, numerals, prepositions, adjectives, adverbs, particles, syntactic structures, etc. Traditionally, linguists would mention the articles as a good example of deixis. In the case of the definite article the object is viewed upon as known and concrete, and singled out from a class of similar objects; the indefinite article is used when the noun belongs to a certain class of objects, and the zero article (meaningful absence of the article) represents the given object in a general meaning denoting all the members of the given class. Both in English and Romanian the definite and indefinite articles correspondingly go back to demonstrative and indefinite pronouns (the latter in their turn were formed from the numeral), which gradually lost their original meaning. The definite article is mostly used in this case to single out an object or a group of objects from a class: The young man felt suddenly quite homesick. (J.Galsworthy) - Deodată tânărului i s-a făcut dor de casă. Upon leaving him on the night of our adventure, he solicitated me, in what I thought an urgent manner, to call upon him very early the next morning. - În noaptea aceea luându-şi rămas bun de la mine, m-a rugat, şi pe cât mi s-a părut, foarte stăruitor, să vin la el a doua zi dimineaţa cât mai devreme. (M.Twain) But as we see from the above given examples the definite article is not the only means of reference. Besides context and articles there are other identifiers - of our adventure, very early the next morning. In Romanian in “a doua zi dimineaţa” three identifiers are being used: the possessive article “a” (which loses its meaning of possessiveness before a numeral), a synthetic article “a”, and the numeral in an attributive function. In the phrase “în noaptea aceea” we have: the synthetic definite article, the demonstrative (adjectival pronoun and the preposition “în”. The limiting attribute may be expressed by a noun with a preposition (the of phrase is often used in such cases), by a subordinate attributive clause, a participle phrase, and an adjective, when contrast and choice is implied: I became used to seeing the gentleman with the whiskers – M-am deprins să văd gentlemanul cu bachenbarzi. The room where we sat was small – Camera, unde şedeam, era mică; It was the very thing he liked – Era chiar acel (lucru) ce îi placea. The articles can be used with a different deictic meaning, a metasemiotic one: Не was engaged to be married to a Miss Hubbard (S. Maugham). In this example the indefinite article in combination with Miss Hubbard create a specific pejorative deictic connotation, expressed by the speaker, quite displeased with the fact that the young man is engaged with an unworthy unknown young lady! "Have you a Rosetti?" I asked (Have you a picture painted by Rosetti?). (S. Maugham) I do not claim to be a Caruso (I do not think I sing very wel [56,144].

Some prepositions, especially in Romanian, contribute to the realization of the categorial deictic meanings: Peter sprang a couple of yards in the air, and then delivered a war-whoop and set off round and round the room, banging against furniture... – Peter sări în aer, scoase un urlet sălbatic şi începu o goană turbată prin odaie, izbindu-se cu capul de mobilă... A deep peel of thunder went rolling and tumbling down the heavens and lost itself in sullen rumblings in the distance. – Un tunet surd răsună rostogolindu-se pe bolta cerului şi se pierdu undeva în depărtare, bodogănind supărat.[Mark Twain] He was near the river. – El era lângă râu. From these examples we can see that the prepositions intensify the deictic function of a definite deictic form. In Romanian only the preposition is used to express the definite deixis: (in the distance – în depărtare; near the river – lângă râu etc.). The demonstrative article in Romanian has preserved the meaning of a demonstrative pronoun and expresses the definite deixis in the grammatical form of the superlative degree, where it is regularly confronted with the English definite article: He is the best student in our class. – El e cel mai bun student în clasa noastră. She was the most beautiful girl in the village. – Ea era cea mai frumoasă fată în sat. Demonstrative and possessive pronouns, the possessive case (in English) and the possessive article (in Romanian) are used to regularly express definite deictic meanings: But Tom’s energy did not last. – Dar zelul lui Tom nu ţinu mult. I’ll tell my big brother on you, and he can trash you with his little finger. – Am să te spun fratelui meu mai mare, care numai cu degetul cel mic ţi-a trage o mamă de bătaie! This boy was well dressed. Băiatul era bine îmbrăcat. This functionary grasped it in a perfect agony of joy. – Poliţistul o înhăţă în culmea fericirii (M.Twain). Analyzing these examples we can conclude that possessiveness (both grammatical and lexical) is an effective means of expressing definite deictic meanings. Extra-linguistic reality plays an important role in realizing deicticity: Peter switched off the TV set, went to the kitchen and opened the refrigerator looking for something to eat. – Peter a deconectat televizorul, s-a dus la bucătărie, a deschis frigiderul, căutând ceva de mâncare. The dining room was large enough. Sufrageria era îndeajuns de încăpătoare. Anything that is considered typical, something that should be expected to be found in modern flats, is used with a definite deixis. The number of such objects is constantly growing with the progress of civilization. The indefinite article and pronouns, numerals, adjectives, and other markers can be used to express the corresponding deictic meanings: The villagers began to gather, loitering a moment in the vestibule. Orăşenii începură să se adune în biserică, oprindu-se pe o clipă în vestibul.(M.Twain) In these examples we have complete coincidence in the use of indefinite article. In the plural in English there is no indefinite article. In Romanian grammar books

51

the indefinite pronoun nişte (in reality it is an indefinite pronoun) is considered to be an indefinite article : Give me books. Give me some books; Dă-mi cărţi. Dă-mi nişte cărţi. In both sentences indefiniteness is expressed in both languages, but in the first sentences the indefinite meaning is more general, in the latter case a certain limited indefinite number of books is meant. The categorial meaning of deixis is different in dependence of a number of factors: context, intensifiers, defining identifiers etc. There are cases when the definite deixis “the” is used very closely to an indefinite meaning, especially in idiomatic expressions, stable combinations, used metaphorically etc.: They went to hunt the fox. Ei s-au dus să vâneze vulpi. We shall show him the door. Noi îi vom arăta uşa. It is still in the egg. E încă în ou. He saw him with the naked eye. El l-a văzut cu ochiul neînarmat. In the first sentence the noun (fox) is used in the singular as part of a stable combination and translated into Romanian by a free word combination and the noun is used in the plural with a zero article. Examples 2-3 in both languages are used metasemiotically (metaphorically). The definite deictic identification is preserved in Romanian as well: the definite article in number 2 (uşa) and the identifying preposition in the third sentence. The general deictic meaning here is really indefinite. The same can be observed in examples where musical instruments are used: He plays the violin. El cântă la vioară, the English definite deixis is translated into Romanian by means of a zero article. The same is seen in such expressions like : to go to the theatre, to go to the cinema – a se duce la teatru, a merge la cinema. The deictic meaning in the English example is not quite definite. It is due to the rule of using the definite article with musical instruments in the given context. It is quite possible that in English the definite article goes back to those times, when in a town or city there used to be only a theatre or only a cinema, and the definite article is traditionally used now, when there are many theatres or cinemas in large cities or even in towns. We have also observed that in all the metaphorically used idiomatic or stable English expressions the definite deixis is preserved if in Romanian a similar metaphorical usage is realized: like in We shall show him the door – Noi îi vom arăta uşa. In the confronted languages there are many other indefinite deictic means. The indefinite article expresses the given categorial form in the purest way. The indefinite pronouns, numerals, adjectives, negative pronouns, etc. function as indefinite markers alongside their main lexico-grammatical functions: some, somebody, someone, something, any, anyone, anybody, anything, many, more, most, few, several, a little, lots, etc; unul, unii, altul, cineva, ceva, careva, altcineva, fiecare, puţin, oleacă, orişicare, orişicine, orişicât, oricare, cutare, atât, vreunul, câţiva, toţi, mulţi, niscaiva, niscai, alde, nimeni. nici unul, nici un, nici o, pe nimic etc. Thus, for example: I cannot identify anyone. Pe nimeni nu pot să-l identific. Several people went out. Câţiva (nişte) oameni au ieşit. One of them was ready to help us. Unul din ei era gata să ne ajute. Some people knew it. Unii oameni ştiau aceasta. The indefinite deictic markers under consideration can be used with both singular and plural nouns. They can be used even with pronouns or elliptically: Have you got any books? I have got some. Give me a book. Take one. Aveţi ceva cărţi? Da, am câteva. Daţi-mi o carte. Luaţi una. Numerals can often be used to express indefinite deixis with a meaning of approximation. The category of general deictic meaning is regularly realized in both languages with countable, uncountable and abstract nouns: He put up a good deal of glass too, and was laying down melons. Î-şi făcuse destul de multe sere şi cultiva pepeni (zămoşi). Tell him that I’m awfully glad, and hat I wish him luck. Spune-i că mă bucur foarte mult şi că-i doresc noroc [J.Galsworthy]. The names of diseases, as a rule, are used with a zero deixis: He has influenza (but: He has the flu). El are gripă. The geographical names are used differently in the confronted languages. Some geographical names are used with a definite article in English as a result of French influence (names of rivers, seas, mountain chains etc.). In Romanian the majority of geographic names are used with an article. For example: I have visited Paris this year. Am vizitat Parisul anul acesta. In addressing someone, in exclamation and commands the definite article is usually used in Romanian, and in English we have a zero deixis: Uncle, come here quickly! Unchiule, vino aici repede! In Romanian the article can be expressed by or added to an attribute: Domnule preşedinte! (It can change places depending on the metasemiotic usage: Cerul albastru - Albastrul cer). Some more examples: Hand off! – Mâinile jos! Daddy comes !– Tăticul vine! The absence of definite and indefinite deictic means does not mean that the category of general deictic identification is being realised. In some cases the markers are dropped for the sake of economy of space, for brevity (newspaper headlines, dictionary articles etc.), in metasemiotic usage, especially in colloquial speech, where the speaker can drop the articles to attract attention, to make it more expressive [39, 181-190].

In order to persuade and motivate people we have to use a system of linguistic and extra-linguistic deictic means. The most important ones are the supra-segmental categories: stress, pause, tone, range, tempo, rhythm, and loudness. Grammatical relations within a sentence cannot be completely intelligible without the corresponding prosody. A simple lexical unit can often function as a one-word sentence and supplied with various prosodic structures it can express different meanings. Let’s take the word "pretty". In discourse we can realize several meanings using different prosodic patterns: “\pretty” used with a simple falling tone is a simple statement stating the fact that “She is \pretty”; "\Pretty" – here the speaker is greatly impressed and it corresponds

52

to the exclamation “She is quite \pretty!”, used with an emphatic high fall, wide range, increased loudness and slowed down tempo to really express once enthusiasm and admiration. In case of “/pretty” like in “Is she really /pretty?” used with a low rise it may be a simple question or even express some doubt of her being pretty. In case of “\/pretty” a fall rise with specific voice qualifications like in “She is quite \/pretty” we have a pejorative enantiosemic deictic meaning created by means of suprasyntactic prosody – She might be pretty but I don’t like her! The particular prosodic pattern with which the utterance is pronounced affects the meaning and understanding of an utterance. The variation of stress-patterns can change the meaning: ‘'dancing 'girl (fata dansândă) and 'dancing girl' (dansatoarea). A simple pause in an utterance can create confusion. Different tone patterns also change the meaning: || He 'doesn’t 'lend his "books to \anybody|| and || He 'doesn’t 'lend his 'books to \/anybody||. In the first case nobody will get the books, in the second, only some people will get them [39, 163-164]. Another prosodic element that should be taken into consideration especially in public speaking is the rhythm.

In the example bellow the listener’s choice speaker combines prosodic and paralinguistic means to achieve a favourable effect on the listeners:

|| U'nique "voice there of • Johnny /Mathis with ''Chances \are| and | rather a u.nique\ letter here +'comes from [smile, giggle].Mary • Porter who .writes from /Canberra in Aus\tralia. 'Mary', [high note] "unique" because actually [whisper] I found your writing just a little bit difficult to read. [whisper] I'm \sorry .love but I've 'tried /\awfully |hard. I 'hope I've got 'everything \right. | You 'say that you'd 'like me to • send .greetings to your .sister /Jane,[lento]| your friends 'Annie and /Angeline and your 'uncle \Peter. I 'think it's /Peter, I 'hope it \is. [allegro, smile]. 'Anyway, "here is the \song| 'comes from 'The\ Gallery'. ||

The text is characterized by overstatement reinforced by means of tones and tempo, the effect of non-formality and a pleasant emotional colouring are created by means of a husky voice, giggle and 'phonetic smile'. The lexical units 'sorry' and 'awfully' are deliberately exaggerated. Whisper accompanies the words that may not be very pleasant to the hearer; the speaker sounds apologetic in “unique because actually I found your writing just a little bit difficult to read” [whisper]. Cases of hesitation phenomena are important for an effect of spontaneity as if she is talking and not reading a prepared text. In using the above mentioned suprasyntactic and paralinguistic means the speaker establishes contact with unseen listeners through sympathy and warmth [40, 69-72]. In order to make the audience listen, the speaker should also show a lively interest in what is being said. A person may also speak with modesty and deliberate understatement by using a kind of soft and gentle voice without using any means of emphasis, speaking within the same narrow range and diminished loudness. This meta-metalevel is used for the public to identify themselves with the speaker. Any public appearance is a chance for a public speaker to show that he or she is just the same as everyone else. A discourse is a success when a contact is established between the speaker and the listeners. One must sound interested, even enthusiastic about what he says, but he must not forget about the attention and interest of the audience. The manner of performance should correspond to the content [40, 74-79].

Phraseological units, including sayings, are subject to change. They may be intentionally changed to produce a stylistic impact on the reader, listener or TV viewer: A bird in hand is worth two in the bush – Time was passing his bird in the bush no nearer the hand [J Galsworthy] – He was to be approached with a sizable bird in hand [Dreiser]. This idiomatic expression in different European languages has developed different forms: Romanian – Nu da pasărea (vrabia) din mână pe cea de pe gard; Russian – Лучше синица в руке, чем журавль на небе. There are many examples of deformations of idioms in Russian and Romanian. An example of advertising beer on Russian TV: Лучше бутылка пива в руке, чем прекрасная девица на песке. Criticizing active buyers for not checking the necessary documents before purchasing some bad quality foods, a TV announcer used: Pară mălăiaţă în cavitatea bucală a consumatorului (deformation of: Pară mălăiaţă în gura lui Nătăfleaţă). Examples of this kind are numerous: To be born with a silver spoon in one's mouth (They had sucked their silver spoon so long… now she is threatened with a spoon of bone ) [J.Galsworthy]. It is the last straw that breaks the camel's back... (He said public patience was a camel, on whose back the last atom that could be borne had already been laid. To cry over the spilt milk... (Try to make him feel that we admire him for spilling the milk… There is no help for spilt milk) [Trollope]. One may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb (If he was to be hung by the law, by all means let it be for a sheep) [J Galsworthy]. Idioms belong to the periphery of the language and mostly they are used for stylistic purposes, making speech more expressive and produce a stronger impact on the reader/listener [40, 77-80]. Stylistic periphrasis and euphemisms are also important means used by people in political activity and polite discourse in general. People efficiently and intentionally substitute pejorative utterances with relatively more euphemistic and polite ones. Instead of saying "High pay and less work" one can use "Improved financial support and less onerous work loads." Instead of “He has died” people would use such euphemisms to produce a milder effect: “to pass away, to expire, to be no more, to depart, to join the majority”, while such stylistic synonyms

53

like “to kick the bucket, to give up the ghost, /to go west” are used with a pejorative connotation. Avoiding the word combination “is lying” people may tell a person to “possess a vivid imagination”, or “telling stories”. Euphemisms are often used in the speech connected with religious, moral, medical, parliamentary and diplomatic activities. Many euphemisms gradually acquire a pejorative meaning of the lexical unit it has substituted and people have to create a new euphemism. For example: “madhouse” became “lunatic asylum”, substituted by “mental hospital”. There are plenty of political euphemisms. Thus, instead of declaring that workers “have been sacked”, they may be “dismissed, fired, discharged” and lately they are “made redundant”. Cf. with the Romanian “a fi concediat”, which has turned into „a fi disponibilizat”, „undernourishment of children in the third world” usually substitutes „starvation of children in the third world” [41, 160-166].

We would like to conclude with the fact that analyzing the theme of semiotic and metasemiotic usage of deictic means in linguistic and extra-linguistic contexts we we observe that very important functions in the realization of deictic categorical meanings play the lexical, stylistic, sociolinguistic, extra-linguistic syntactic, suprasegmental, suprasyntactic and paralinguistic means, which should be be analyzed taking in consideration. In the present paper we have just made a little contribution to the vast material still to be investigated and analyzed.

15.The Category of Representation

The category of representation (CR) is based on the opposition of predicative and non-predicative forms. A.Smirnitsky in his book “The Morphology of the English Language” put forward the idea that the finite and non-finite forms have much in common as categorial forms of representation, characterizing the verb as a whole. The main difference between the members of the given opposition is in the degree of representation of the verbal process. In some cases the verbal form is represented as a pure process in time, in some other cases additional meanings are imposed on the process (nominal forms). [70] A. Smirnitsky suggested that the category of representation should consist of three categorial forms: verbal predicative representation (VPR), substantival representation (SR) (gerund and infinitive) and adjectival representation (AR) (participle). The substantival representation is further subdivided into: maximum SR (the gerund, which combines features of both noun and verb), and minimum SR (the infinitive, which combines features of both noun and verb). The difference consists in the degree of substantival representation. In SR and AR the verbal signification of a process is primary and the substantival and adjectival representation of a process as an object is secondary. Identical representation relations can be observed in cases of other lexico-grammatical categories. A.Smirnitsky thinks that the difference between various pronouns, like for example, my and mine, your and yours, is like the one between the SR and AR. A similar point of view was put forward by M. Blokh: “Non- finite forms of the verb are intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features between the verb and the non-processual parts of speech. Their mixed features are revealed in the principal spheres of the part-of-speech characterization, i.e. in their meaning, structural marking, combinability, and syntactic functions. The processual meaning is exposed by them in a substantive or adjectival-adverbial interpretation: they render processes as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They do not express either grammatical time or mood as in the case of finite verb categories). They can be combined with verbs like non-processual lexemes (performing non-verbal functions in the sentence), and they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sentence)”.[6] M.Blokh, like A.Smirnisky thinks that the non-finite forms possess features of nouns, adjectives and adverbial modifiers, but their fundamental grammatical meaning is that of expressing process. M.Blokh has come to the conclusion that the non-finites are part of the verb system and form a specific verbal subclass (a category, constituted by the opposition of both finite and non-finite forms). The functions of the two members of the opposition are strictly differentiated: while the finite forms serve in the sentence only one syntactic function, namely, that of the finite predicate, the non-finite forms serve various syntactic functions other than that of the finite predicate and “the opposition between the finite and non-finite forms of the verb creates a special grammatical category”. The opposition expresses “verbal time and mood: while the time-mood grammatical signification characterizes the finite verb in a way that it underlies its finite predicative function, the verbid has no immediate means of expressing time-mood categorial semantics and therefore presents the weak member of the opposition”. Blokh agrees with B. Strang and other linguists in the fact that the category, expressed by this opposition, can be called the category of "finitude", the syntactic content of which is “the expression of predication” Also like A. Smirnitsky, M. Blokh expresses practically the same point of view as to the difference between the gerund and the infinitive: “Observations of the actual uses of the gerund and the infinitive in texts do show the clear-cut semantic difference between the forms, which consists in the gerund being, on the one hand, of a more substantive nature than the infinitive, i.e. of a nature

54

nearer to the thingness-signification type; on the other hand, of a more abstract nature in the logical sense proper. Hence, the forms do not repeat, but complement each other, being both of them inalienable components of the English verbal system.” Blokh also singles out a special lexico-grammatical category of processual representation: “The three stages of this category represent the referential processual entity of the lexemic series, respectively, as dynamic (the infinitive and its phrase), semi-dynamic (the gerund and its phrase), and static (the verbal noun and its phrase). The category of processual representation underlies the predicative differences between various situation-naming constructions in the sphere of syntactic nominalization.” He also identifies another category within the framework of substantival verbids and relevant for syntactic analysis - the category of modal representation, quoting L. S. Barkhudarov, who marks the infinitive in contrast to the gerund, the infinitive having a modal force, in particular, in its attributive. [6] Concerning the gerund and participle categorial forms, they are differently interpreted by various linguists: some linguistic schools think that all the verbal forms ending in –ing should belong to –ing forms. Thus, Blokh mentions the fact that “in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive Linguistics the two forms are recognized as one integral V-ing”. To this point of view many other linguists have adhered. Other scholars think that present participle and gerund represent different homonymous non-finite categorial, each of which is fulfilling quite specific functions. Among the second group of linguists discrepancies have appeared as to how to differentiate between the functions of the gerund and participle and their depending on their formal combination with certain syncategorematic lexical units. The first subgroup of scholars think that the formal factor is very important in case of gerund: the use of preposition in any function (even in the function of adverbial modifiers), also the functions of subject and predicate. Let’s take some examples: Reading (subject) is to the mind what exercise is to the body. In spite of myself I could not help smiling (object). On hearing (adverbial modifier) the tragic news, she fell at once into an alarming state of agitation. The independent particle model has the advantage of having (attribute) a high degree of physical visuality. Modelul particulei independente are avantajul de a poseda un grad înalt de visualitate fizică. In the third example the adverbial modifier “on hearing” and the attribute “of having” are classified as gerunds, because of the prepositions used in font of them. The second group of scholars think that any ing-form in the function of an adverbial modifier or attribute, with a preposition or without, should be considered as a present participle. Thus, for example: Turning round, he stared at me, but I perceived he did not see me. I kept silence for a little while, think ing of what Stroeve had told me. He looked... like a man, who has fallen into the water with all his clothes on, and, being rescued from death, frightened still, feels that he only looks a fool. When Ashendon, having warm ly shaken their hands, closed the door behind the pair he heaved a great sigh of relief. . ...having tried various topics of conversation... I asked her to tell me who all the people at table were. Ganshina, M A., Vasileskaya N. M. also consider that the characteristic traits of the non-finite forms consist in the fact that they have a double nature, nominal and verbal. Their tense distinctions “are not absolute, but relative”; “the form of a verbal does not show whether the action it denotes refers to the present, past or future; it shows only whether the action expressed by the verbal' is simultaneous with the action expressed by the finite verb or prior to it”. All the non-finite forms can form predicative constructions, “i.e. constructions consisting of two elements, a nominal (noun or pronoun) and a verbal (participle, gerund or infinitive); the verbal element stands in predicate relation to the nominal element, i. e. in a relation similar to that between the subject and the predicate of the sentence. In most cases, predicative constructions form syntactic units, serving as one part of the sentence”. [39, 191-197]

Analyzing the non-finite forms in Romanian we have come to the conclusion that the category of representation exists here as well and it is represented by infinitivul, participiul, gerunziul and supinul, and in some cases “conjunctivul”, when it is taking over the functions of the infinitive. In Russian there are three non-finite forms of the verb, but they do not fully coincide with those in the English language (причастие, деепричастие, инфинитив). Infinitivul as a verb in the corresponding functions in a sentence is connected with a doer of an action, the subject being common with that of the regent verb or it may when it it is not related to the subject of the sentence and have a separate subject. The short infinitive has some substantival functions, and can be used after verbs (modal, inceptive, terminative verbs) nouns, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions. Infinitivul is considered to be used in several meanings: of the indicative (combined with the main verb) (el începu a cânta); that of imperative (A nu cânta aici!). Very often the infinitive is substituted by conjunctivul and vice versa, depending on the language style used in the text or speech. The extended infinitive in Modern Romanian has practically been substantivized and can get an article or an attribute and may corresponds to the English gerund, half-gerund or gerundial participle in translations. This means that the Romanian extended or „long” infinitive has still preserved a considerable processual or verbal meaning: She stopped reading the text. Ea a încetat citirea textului (să citească textul). My entering the room surprised him. Întrarea mea în odaie l-a surprins. He was suspected of keeping (possessing) a large sum of mone. El

55

a fost suspectat de păstrarea (posedarea) a unei sume mari de bani. I felt surprised at his falling into the water. M-am simţit surprins la căderea lui în apă. We need more time for learning (to learn) the material. Avem nevoie de mai mult timp pentru (a studia) studierea materialului. As we see the Romanian long or extended infinitive, which is considered to have undergone complete substantivization, in many cases has preserved its verbal function and may correspond to the English verbal forms of gerund and infinitive (in same cases to present participle or half gerund), and, in some cases to the Romanian short infinitive like in the sentence „Avem nevoie de mai mult timp pentru (a studia) studierea materialului.” Some linguists both in English and Romanian consider that all the categorial forms of the category of representation (the infinitive, the gerund, the participle in English, and infinitivul, participial, gerunziul and supinul (partially conjunctivul ) in Romanian) are part of the category of mood. Practically the infinitive in both languages, conjunctivul and supinul in Romanian may be used to express modal meanings. Examples: I have a letter to write. Am o scrisoare de scris, De pedepsit el nu l-a pedepsit, pentru că era un om bun. We have enough food to eat. Avem îndeajuns hrană de mâncat. You are not good even for fishing. Nici de pescuit nu eşti bun. I could not finish writing the essay in time. N-am putut termina de scris eseul la timp. What else is there to be done? Ce mai este de făcut? They discussed what they had to discuss. Ei au discutate ceea ce au avut de discutat. The Romanian supinul possesses a meaning close to a long infinitive, having various functions like those of an attribute, indirect object, adverbial modifier. The kind of modality, expressed by the above mentioned verbal forms, is closer to that of some modal verbs. [39, 191-221]The Infinitive. The category of representation in Romanian is represented by infinitivul, participiul, gerunziul and supinul, while in English we have the infinitive, the gerund, the present participle and the past participle. In some cases the Romanian “conjunctivul” is taking over the functions of the infinitive. The infinitive as a verb functioning in the sentence is connected with a doer of an action, the subject being common with that of the main verb or it may have a separate subject. The short Romanian infinitive has some substantival functions like the English equivalent, and can be used after all kinds of verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbes and prepositions. The infinitive can contextually express the meanings of indicative and imperative. Very often the infinitive is substituted by conjunctivul and vice versa. The extended infinitive in Modern Romanian has practically been substantivized and can get an article or an atribute. But in some cases the long infinitive has still preserved the verbal meaning: Dupâ terminarea lucrului am plecat acasă. After having finished (after finishing) work he went home. The extended or substantivized infinitive in Romanian in the function of an adverbial modifier may be substituted by the gerunziu: Terminând lucrul am plecat acasă. Both sentences correspond to the English sentence: (After) having finished work I went home (the English present participle). It may also correspond to forms of simple infinitive: We need more time for leraning (to learn) the material. Avem nevoie de mai mult timp pentru (a studia) studierea materialului. The extended infinitive in other functions (subject, object) usually correspond in English translations to substantivized participles: citirea cărţii – the reading of the book; scrierea scrisorii – the writing of the letter, lansarea navei spaciale – the launching of the spaceship. The English infinitive has much in common with the gerund, but the latter possess a more distinct substantival character than the former. The English gerund can be used with a preposition, and this is not possible with the infinitive. When we compare English, French and Romanian we always expect great similarity, because they are related languages. If we take closely related languages the degree of similarity should increase. In case of English, French and Romanian, we begin concentrating on the original identity and approach confrontation with preconceived ideas of potential correspondences already formed in advance. Non-perfect infinitive. When we analyze the material on the categorial level, we have to take into consideration the specific system of nominal (non-predicative forms). If we take the category of taxis in the predicative forms, we observe that the categorial forms of anteriority are mixed with those of tense and aspect, etc. In the nominal forms taxis is usually expressed in a “pure” way. The non-predicative forms in English are: the present participle and the gerund with their perfect and non-perfect forms, past participle and the infinitive (both perfect and non-perfect forms). Comparing related languages we always expect to find more coincidences than differences. In what follows we are going to analyse a number of examples with infinitive forms in English, taken from fiction, with their translations in Romanian and French. Let’s start with sentences, where non perfect forms, active and passive voice of the infinitive, are used: Smaller boys than himself flocked at his heels proud to be seen with him. (M.Twain) Les petits garçons couraient après lui, fiers d’etre vu avec lui. Băieţii mici alergau buluc în urma lui, mândri de a fi văzuţi (să fie văzuţi) împreună cu el. In the example given above we have complete coincidence. In spite of the coincidence, the Romanian infinitive here belongs to the formal literary style and can be easily substituted in some contexts by conjunctivul in a less formal style. Analyzing a larger number of examples we come to the conclusion that the great majority of them are classified as non-coincidences, because the translator often preferred the

56

Romanian “conjunctivul” instead of infinitive, depending on the style used by the author: The storm culminated in one matchless effort that seemed likely to tear the island to pieces, burn it up, drown it to the treetops, blow it away, and deafen every creature in it, all at one and the same moment. (M.Twain) L’orage se jeta avec une telle fureur qu’il semblait qu’elle voulait mettre l’ile en pieces, la bruler avec ses flames, inonder les arbres, la réduire a neant et exterminer toute creature vivante. Furtuna se năpusti cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să sfărâme insula în ţăndări, s-o mistue în flăcări, să inunde copacii, s-o mistue depe faţa pământului şi să stârpească orice fiinîă vie. (M.Twain) The English non-perfect infinitive can be translated into Romanian and French by means of present tense form: But what has Cahrlie Ferar done not to be spoken to for six years! Mais qu’est-ce qu’il a fait ce Charlie Ferrar qu’ils ne se parlent pas depuis 6 ans? Dar ce a făcut Charlie Ferar de nu-şi vorbesc de şase ani! In Romanian after some verbs the conjunctive is preferable in both the formal literary language and in the colloquial informal language. Thus, in the sentence Furtuna se năpustise cu atâta furie, încât părea că vrea să sfărâme insula în ţăndări, s-o mistuie în flăcări, să inunde copacii, s-o măture de pe faţa pământului şi să stârpească orice fiinţă vie , if we change or substitute the verb like “vrea” with “a avea/are intenţia de” (with the preposition “de”) then the infinitive is readily used: Furtuna se năpustise cu atâta furie, încât părea că a avea/are intenţia de a sfărâma insula în ţăndări, de a o mistui în flăcări, de a o inunda copacii, de a o mătura de pe faţa pământului şi de a stârpi orice fiinţă vie. Thus, the preposition “de” is repeated in front of each infinitive used after the dominant modal word. Here we should add an interesting observation concerning the use of the infinitive in Romanian. In Republic of Moldova the use of the infinitive has gradually increased since the beginning of the 1990th. More people learn the literary formal and literary colloquial language, and they now prefer in many cases the form of the infinitive to the form of conjunctivul. Another form to be found in Romanian informal language, corresponding to the English infinitive, is supinul: It is necessary to do the job today. E necesar de făcut (de a face, să se facă) lucrul astăzi. I have to write three letters. Am de scris trei scrisori. I have a difficult exercise to do. Am un exerciţiu dificil de făcut. The underlined forms in the three sentences in both languages are modally charged and these forms are stylistically expressive. Supinul is formed by means of particle «de» plus past participle of the main verb and it is usually used after a modal word, especially in informal language, and expresses an action with a goal to be fulfilled. In such cases it is regularly corresponding to the English infinitive having the same semantic function. In brackets the alternative forms are given, which can be used depending on the style.

Next come examples with perfect infinitive forms in English, French, and Romanian in both active and passive forms: He seemed to have forgotten that he had talked with the king. Il semblait avoir oublié qu’il eut un roi auquel il avait parlé. El părea a fi uitat (să fi uitat) că îi vorbise un rege. What a joy not to have been discovered. Quelle chose est un bonheur? N’avoir été découvert. Ce bucurie de a nu fi fost descoperiţi. (A.Dumas) In Romanian the form of perfect infinitive is found in formal speech, while in the colocquial speech pluscvamperfectul or conjunctivul perfect may be often used. After the preposition “de” infinitivul perfect should be used. In all the confronted languages we have the same categorial form of taxis, the marked form of anteriority. An example of non-coincidence: She pretended to have never seen or known this monsieur Rétau de Villette. Elle prétendit n’avoir jamais vu, ni connu, ce monsieur Rétau de Villette. Pretinse că nu-l văzuse, şi nu-l cunoscuse (de a nu-l fi văzut, şi de a nu-l fi cunoscut) nici o dată pe acest domn Rétau de Villette. (A.Dumas). In the official translation we find out that in English and French we have a complete coincidence. In Romanian in all the examples past perfect (pluscvamperfectul) was used when we have anteriority in the past, which in this case belongs to colloquial non-formal register. Past perfect here can be easily substituted in the formal language by perfect infinitive, which is less often used in Romanian and, thus, the difference between the two forms will be one of style. The English perfect gerund may sometimes correspond in French and Romanian to perfect infinitives: I don believe in having given (to have given) you the opportunity to Your Majesty to suspect my frankness. Je crois n’avoir jamais donné lieu à Votre Majesté de suspecter ma frqnchise. Nu cred să fi dat (de a fi dat) vreodată prilej maiestăţii voastre ca să se îndoiască de sinceritatea mea.. The English perfect gerund is often found to correspond to the Frencch perfect infinitive and Romanian conjunctivul and infintivul perfect in cases when the action is aspectually extended. There are examples where the French plus-que-parfait is also confronted with perfect infinitive in English: A sun, that he did not seem to have seen since he came over here. Un soleil, comme il lui semblait, qu’il n’avait pas vu depuis le jour quand il avait traversé l’océan. Un soare pe care, după câte i se părea (să nu-l fi văzut, de a nu-l fi văzut), că nu-l mai zărise de când trecuse oceanul. The perfect infinitive forms in English are rendered into both Romanian and French by means of past perfect (preferable in colloquial informal speech), but they could be easily translated by means of perfect infinitive into both languages, besides in Romanian the form of perfect conjunctive is possible. All these forms coincide in their categorial meaning anteriority.

57

The perfect infinitive in English and infintif passé can be confronted with the Romanian perfectul compus, expressing anteriority to the present moment: I am sure only to have heard what I have heard, to have seen what my eyes have seen! Suis-je bien sur de avoir entendu ce que j’ai entendu, d’avoir vu ce que mes yeux ont vu ! Sânt sigur numai că am auzit (de a fi auzit) ceea ce am auzit, că am văzut (de a fi văzut) ceea ce am văzut. This fact is easily explained by the fact that in different languages in certain situations various types of taxis means are used to express anteriority. Perfectul compus in Romanian belongs here to the informal style; in the formal language the infinitive would be acceptable. There are cases where French passé composé is also confronted with the English perfect infinitive: Sorry to have bothered you. C’est dommage que je vous ai ennuyé. Îmi pare rău că v-am plictisit. Confronting the material we come to the conclusion that the perfect infinitive forms are widely used in English and French, and relatively not so often used in Romanian informal style of the language. Even in those cases where we do have perfect infinitive forms in translations, they can be easily replaced by the “conjunctivul perfect”, which is preferable in less bookish speech. Perfect Infinitive in English after modal auxiliaries and after modal verbs in general is regularly corresponding to the Romanian conjunctivul: Some mistakes must have been made in assembling the parts of the machine. Nişte erori trebuie să fi fost făcute la asamblarea pieselor maşinii. The structures proposed may not have been established with complete certainty. Structurile propuse puteau să nu fi fost stabilite cu o certitudine completă. Coal was formed millions of years ago from the enormous quantities of vegetation and trees. The process of their decay must have been very gradual but constant. Cărbunele s-a format milioane de ani în urmă din cantităţi enorme de vegetaţie şi copaci. Procesul de descompunere trebuie să fi fost treptat dar constant. In the Romanian examples here conjunctivul is used in both formal and informal styles. In such structures, like in the above given examples, infinitivul perfect cannot be used. Having analyzed the material on the categorial level we have taken into consideration the specific system of nominal (non-predicativce forms). The category of taxis expressed by the category of representation expressed in a “ most pure” way. In spite of the fact that there are quite a number of formal discrepancies, we still can state that on the categorial meaning of anteriority we have complete coincidence in most cases. [39, 197-221]

The Present Participle. The categorial forms of gerund and participle are differently interpreted in various grammar books: some linguistic schools think that all the verbal forms ending in –ing should be named as –ing forms. Blokh mentions the fact that “in the American linguistic tradition which can be traced back to the school of Descriptive Linguistics the two forms are recognized as one integral V-ing. Other grammar text books consider present participle and gerund represent as different homonymous non-finite categorial forms, each of which is fulfilling specific functions. Among linguists there are discrepancies as to how to differentiate between the functions of the gerund and participle, and their dependence on their formal combination with certain syncategorematic lexemes. There are two main points of view. The first group of scholars think, that the formal factor is very important in case of gerund: the use of preposition in any function (even in the function of adverbial modifiers), also the functions of subject and predicate. Let’s take some examples: After having finished (adverbial modifier of time) the work he went home. Terminând (după ce terminase, după ce a terminat, după terminarea lucrului) lucrul el a plecat acasă. Without being subjected to a special treatment, raw rubber cannot be used for manufacturing things... Fără a fi supus unui tratament special, cauciucul neprelucrat nu poate fi folosit pentru a produce obiecte…The independent particle model has the advantage of having (attribute) a high degree of physical visuality. Modelul particulei independente are avantajul de a poseda un grad înalt de visualitate fizică. The second group of grammarians thinks that any ing-form in the function of an adverbial modifier or attribute, with a preposition or without, should be considered to be a present participle. The –ing forms have the function of adverbial modifier of time, usually carriead out by present participle forms. Besides, here they can be translated into Romanian by means of gerunziul, which regularly corresponds to the English present participle (some othe grammatical forms are possible to be used in Romanian: mai mult ca perfectul, long infinitive, perfectul compus).The categorial meaning of anteriority is expressed both grammatically, lexico-grammatically and lexically. Gerunziul historically took over the meanings and functions of participiul present, when it got out of usage. Thus, the difference between gerund and participle is that the gerund is closer to the noun in its functions (subject and object), and the participle is closer to the adjective, and may have the functions of an attribute or adverbial modifier. In their perfect forms they both express anteriority. If the actions follow one after the other, a simple form (non-perfect) is used, anteriority being expressed simply lexically or contextually, because there is no need to intensify it by grammatical anteriority. Thus for example: Having registered (grammatical anteriority) all the letters, the secretary sent them down to be posted. On entering (contextual anteriority) the room he introduced himself to all those present. After looking through (lexical anteriority) the morning mail the manager, called in his secretary and dictated a few letters. The perfect -ing

58

forms are usually used in the formal bookish language and their passive voice forms are used much more rarely. Confronting the participle and gerund, perfect forms in English and Romanian it was observed that they are relatively more often used in English and French than in Romanian, where predicative forms are preferred. Non-perfect form: a) participle I – participe présent – gerunziul: Tom lay… watching the two intently. Tom était couché… les fixant des yeux tous le deux. Tom stătea culcat, scurtându-i lung pe amândoi. The Romanian gerunziul is naturally confronted with the English participle I and does not correspond to the English gerund. b) Participle I – gérondif – gerunziul: So he got into the shoes snarling. Tom, en mormotant, mit ses souliers. Tom, bodogănind, încălţă pantofii. c) Participle I – imparfait – imperfectul (or gerunziul): Tom lay thinking. Tom était couché et pensait. Tom sta culcat şi se gândea (gândindu-se). A durative action expressed by participle I in a context in the past can easily be rendered into French and Romanian by means of imperfect forms, which express a continuous and unfinished action in the past. The translator preferred in the Romanian variant the expressive forms of imperfectul, but the form of gerunziul would be much more expressive if used here. The regular equivalents or the English present participle in French and Romanian translation are gérondif and gerunziul, which are regularly confronted: In getting out, he looked back. En sortant, le jeune homme tourna la tête. Ieşind, tânărul întoarse capul. Upon leaving him on the night of our adventure, he solicitated me... Cette nuit-la en faisant ses adieux il m’a prie... În noaptea aceea, luându-şi rămas bun de la mine, m’a rugat... Similar English perfect forms are confronted in French and Romanian with plus-que-parfait and mai mult ca perfectul: After destroying some further portions of his lawn, he joined the nearest Golg Club. Quand il avait détruit quelques autres portions de son paturage, il s’inscrivit dans le club de golf le plus proche. După ce distrusese (distrugând, după destrugerea) alte câteva porţiuni de pe pajiştea sa, se înscrise în cel mai apropiat club de golf. French and Romanian prefer past perfect forms when the English gerund is accompanied by lexical anteriority means (after). In Romanian the forms of gerunziul or long infinitive and contextual anteriority may be used the above given examples. Passé composé – perfectul compus (or gerunziul) can also be used to correspond to the English present participle with lexical anteriority: Upon reaching the wharf, I noticed a scythe and three spades,,, Quand nous sommes arrives sur la quai, j’ai remarqué une faux et bêches. Când am ajuns (ajungând) la chei, am observat... o coasă şi două hârleţe. In all the confronted sentences here we have consecutive actions. Thus anteriority grammatical forms are not used here. The French passé composé and the Romanian perfectul compus in the given context express an action separated from the present moment, and, thus, they do not express grammatical anteriority in this case and we have simultaneity in the confronted examples. [39, 204-209]

Perfect participle – participe passé composé – gerunziul perfect: Having arrived the first, you have the primarity. Vous avez le pas, étant arrivé le premier. Aveţi întâietate fiind venit (venind) primul. In thish case we have complete coincidence in all the three languages, though gerunziul perfect in Romanian is rarely used and is usually substituted by forms given below.

Perfect participle – infinitif passé – perfectul compus: The courtiers, having entered, brought furnaces and massy hammers and welded the bolts. Les courtesans ont apporté des forges et après avoir entré, il ont cloué la porte de l’intérieur. Curtenii aduseseră cu ei forje şi ilăie grele şi, după ce au intrat, au ţintuit poarta pe dinăuntru. In spite of the fact that there are different forms in the confronted languages the grammatical meaning of anteriority is preserved in all of them.

Perfect participle – plus-que-parfait – mai mult ca perfectul: Soames, having prolonged his week-end visit had been spending the afternoon at the Zoological Gardens. Soames avait continué son week-end à Londres et avait passé l’après-midi dans le jardin zoologique. Soames îşi prelungise week-endul la Londra şi îşi petrecuse după ameaza în grădina zoologică. Perfect participle is readily translated into French and Romanian by means of past perfect forms, expressing the same grammatical meaning of past anteriority. It could be substituted by a past perfect form in English as well. Thus, for example: He had never been outside Europe, and had a somewhat sketchy idea of places like South Africa, Australia, Canada and New Zealand . The difference we find in the given examples is one of stylistics. Thus, both in English and Romanian the adjectival and adverbial features of Participle I and gerunziul are manifested in their syntactic functions as attributes and and adverbial modifier’s. [39, 204-209]Aspect Expressed by the Present Participle. The category of aspect in various languages is expressed differently: grammatically, lexico-grammatically, lexically and prosodically. In English, aspect is an extremely reliable and grammatically impeccable way of expressing the opposition in question. In Romanian the category of aspect is expressed mainly lexically and partially grammatically. Both the participle I and gerunziul (and also the English ing-

59

forms) express a durative action grammatically. The verbs possessing a durative lexical meaning can express continuous aspect both lexically and lexico-grammatically, the latter being emphatic or intensified aspectually. Thus, He sat at the table/ He was sitting at the table are confronted with imperfect forms both in Russian and Romanian: Он сидел за столом; El şedea la masă; (L-am văzut şezând la masă. In the case of He sat at the table the lexical aspectual meaning of “sat” is durative, and it is intensified by superimposing a grammatical aspectual meaning on the lexical one in “was sitting”. The Romanian and Russian equivalents belong to the imperfective aspect and express an imperfect action; the grammatical duration here is supplemented by the lexical one. Even terminative or point-action verbs can be used in the continuous aspect if the action is repeated or the speaker wants to show the action in development, or to stress the fact that the action lasted during a certain period of time. For example: The boy jumped over the fence/The boy was jumping round the tree. I began to read, but the teacher interrupted me /I was beginning to read when he came in. In Romanian we have practically the same situation: Băiatul a sărit peste gard/ Băiatul sărea în jurul copacului; Eu am început să citesc, dar profesorul m-a întrerupt/ Eu începeam să citesc, cînd el a intrat. In Romanian there are no clear-cut grammatical flexions (with the exception of imperfectul) to indicate the given categorial meaning. As to the constructions with ing+forms we have already mentioned them above in discussing the category of aspect. We should just mention some examples: - Accusative with participle I in English and Accusative with gerunziul in Romanian: Dupin was moving quickly to the door, when we again heard him coming up - Dupin se mişca repede spre uşa, cînd peste o clipă îl auzirăm pe necunoscut urcând din nou (E.Po). - Nominative with Participle I and Nominative with gerunziul: He was seen running to the river - El a fost văzut fugind spre rîu. - Nominative absolute: The dinner being ready, he dished and served it up – Prânzul fiind gata, el a servit masa. The house door being open, she went in before Tom, requesting him to follow her (M.Twain) - Uşa casei fiind deschisă, ea a intrat înaintea lui Tom, cerându-i s-o urmeze. - Absolute Participle construction and Absolute gerunziul construction: A lake with children swimming in it, appeared and disappeared - Un lac, cu copii scăldându-se în el, apăru şi dispăru. Double predicate: The little maid came running down - Fetiţa venea fugind în jos. He walked singing - El mergea cântând. - Independent participle constructions: The northern shores of the Caspian Sea are frozen every winter, ice remaining for some hundred days in the colder parts. Ţărmurile de nord ale Mării Caspice sunt îngeţate în fiecare iarnă, ghiaţa rămânând pentru vre-o sută de zile în părţile mai reci. The independent participle constructions with present participles include in their structure a secondary subject and a secondary predicate (ice remaining- ghiaţa rămânând; the motion be coming- mişcarea devenind). The present participle here has a distinct marked aspectual connotation, expressing an equivalent durative meaning like that of the continuous forms: ice remaining - the ice is remaining for some hundred days in the colder parts. [39, 2011-2016]

Anteriority and Voice Expressed by the Past Participle. Past participle and participiul (trecut) in English and Romanian can synthetically express anteriority and voice and they also serve to form a number of perfect and passive voice analytical forms. Thus, if we take several examples of verbal forms like: reading – read, citind – citit; writing — written, scriind - scris; seeing – seen, văzând ‚ văzut; creating - created, creând – creat - we observe three distinct categorial oppositions, that of simultaneity vs. anteriority (category of taxis), active vs. passive (category of voice) and continuous vs. non-continuous (category of aspect). Not all the participles posses all the three categorial forms. The intransitive verbs do not posses the passive meaning: going – gone, plecând – plecat. The category of transitivity-intransitivity should also be taken into consideration in the analysis participles. Some intransitive verbs gradually acquire submeanings, which are transitive in character. For example: Running a factory is not easy. The factory is run well. Не was laughed at – El a fost luat în râs. Past participles are practically rarely used independently, they are usually found in analytical combinations of perfect and passive voice forms. The intransitive verbs are used in perfect forms, but are not found in passive analytical structures, with the exception of the verbs go and come found in some word combinations: he is come, he is gone. The verbs can also be classified according to their lexical meanings: terminative, inceptive, iterative, durative, etc. The expression of both anteriority and passive voice is usually found in terminative verbs, while in the durative ones only the passive meaning is clearly seen. Thus, A.Smirnitsky thinks that “loved” as a past participle loses its “perfectivity”, which is clearly seen in participles like “broken”. But sometimes this division is not clear-cut. Thus, in case of repeated actions of terminative verbs “perfectivity” may weaken or get lost a durative meaning is taking over. The categorial function of a given past participle depends considerably on the contextual meaning it is used in the given text, and on its semantic feature.

60

There is a multitude of combinations of the verb “to be” the past participle. We should pay attention to cases of homonymy. Combinations of the verb “to be + past participle” like in The letter is written by Peter. Soon he will finish writing it, or The door is closed by Peter (as a process) should be distinguished from The door is closed as state, where is closed is not a passive construction, but just defines the state of the door, that it is not open, there is no meaning of “perfectivity in the latter case”. It is known that the perfect non-finite forms of the verb express anteriority in a much more pure way in comparison with the finite forms. The past participle expresses anteriority in the most pure way. Let’s take some examples of participle used in the function of attributes: Hydrogen is the lightest substance known. Hidrogenul este cea mai uşoară substanţă cunoscută. Unfortunately it is not possible to present in this book all the information obtained. Din păcate nu este posibil de a prezentaîn cartea aceasta toată informaţia obţinută. In both languages a complete coincidence has been attested in the result of confrontational analysis of past participles in attributive functions in English with their correspondents in the Romanian language. But in many cases this coincidence is not always possible because of some structural and semantic differences, and also because of certain linguistic and sociolinguistic traditions in the confronted languages, combinability of words, homonymy, etc. A.Smirnitsky takes as an example the past participle “gone”. “Is gone” may be identical to the combination “have gone” in a transferred meaning “he died” like in the sentence Poor Mr. Brown is (has) gone. He has left us. He has joined the great majority Sărmanul dl.Brown a murit (a plecat). El a murit (ne-a părăsit). El a plecat în lumea străbunilor. Is gone can also be used in the direct sense of the word to express perfectivity in colloquial speech as in Where is Mr. Brown? He is gone. He will be back in an hour Unde e dl Brown? El e plecat. Se va întoarce peste o oră. In case of transitive verbs the past participle has a passive meaning closely connected with “perfectivity” (The letter written yesterday was sent in time). But when used in analytical non-perfect fiorms the past participle gets devoid of anteriority meaning and preserves only the passive categorial function (The letter was written and sent in time). The same thing is observed in Romanian: Scrisoarea scrisă ieri a fost trimisă la timp./ Scrisoarea a fost scrisă şi trimisă la timp. The past participle is regularly confronted with the French participe passé and the Romanian participial trecut: The methodology tested in the Indo-European field set the pattern. La méthode éprouvée sur le domaine indo-européen est devenue exemplaire. Metoda experimentată în domeniul indo-european a devenit exemplară. The paradigms in grammars lead one to believe that all the verbal forms taken from the name stem belong to the same conjugation. Les paradigmes des grammaires donnent à croire que toutes les formes verbales tirées d’un même theme appartiennent à la même conjugaison. Paradigmele date în cărţile de gramatică ne fac să credem, că toate formele verbale luate din aceeaş temă aparţin la aceeaş conjugare. All these observations bring out the essential difference between the method of communication discovered among bees and our human language. L’ensemble de ces observations fait apparaître la différence essentielle entre les procédées de communication découverts chez les abeilles et notre langage. Toate observaţiile acestea scot la iveală diferenţa esenţială dintre metoda de comunicare descoperită la albini şi limba umană. The English participle II can sometimes correspond to the Romanian mai mult ca perfectul: On the staircase Charny met only some officers, friends of his, informed beforehand. Charny ne rencontra sur les degrés que plusieurs officiers, ses amis, prévenus assez à temps. Pe scări, Charny întâlni numai câţiva ofiţeri, prieteni de ai săi, care fusese anunţaţi (or anunţaţi) din timp. The anteriority meaning in English and French is expressed only lexically, while in Romanian both lexical and grammatical anteriority means are used for the sake of expressivity. Let’s some of the syntactic functions fulfilled by past participle :

a) attributive - The data obtained are being carefully analyzed and studied. Datele obţinute sunt analizate şi studiate atent; In both languages the participles have the function of atributes. b) adverbial modifier of time Asked (being asked) to comment about the U.N. resolution tabled by the Afro-Asian countries, the Prime Minister replied... Întrebat (find întrebat, când a fost întrebat ) să comenteze rezoluţia ONU propusă de ţările Afro-Asiatice, Primul Ministru a răspuns... ; In this case the English participle „asked” has the function of adverbial modifier of time and ir could be substituted by the passive voice form of the present participle „being asked”. The form „tabled” has the function an attribute;

c) adverbial modifier of condition - If given the opportunity, this industry will rapidly develop. Această industrie se va dezvolta rapid, dacă vor vi create (condiţii) posibilităţi favorabile; The past participle in the function of an adverbial modifier corresponds in Romanian to future indefinite passive voice and this shows the fact that the forms are different, but the grammatical categorial voice meaning is the same – passive voice;

d) adverbial modifier of concession- But the Right-wing Labour leaders, though forced to give way on some questions, will stick to their policies. Liderii laburişti de dreapta, deşi forţaţi să cedeze în unele probleme, vor susţine politica lor; e) complex object with past participle - The British people want hydrogen and atomic weapons outlawed. Poporul britanic vrea ca armele nucleare şi cu hidrogen să fie puse în afara

61

legii. We hope to see this issue raised in all trades councils, in every union. Noi sperăm vedem această problemă ridicată în fiecare sindicat. The construction of complex object with past participle in English corresponds to a construction of complex object with subjunctivul with meaning of future and in the second complex object with participiul trecut. Thus, having analyzed a considerable number of examples we can state that past participle express anteriority in cases when the action is preceding to the moment of speech. There are quite a number of cases where the forms under research express both anteriority and passive voice (in case of transitive verbs) meanings, or only the latter one. [39, 216-221]

16.Word Order and Its Metasemiosis.Much work has been done by language typologists on diachronic change, following up the work of J. Greenberg's set of implicational universals, R. Hawkins' extensive investigation of universals.[39, 255] Translating these universals into claims about diachrony, analysts have sought to develop hierarchies of change specifying that if a certain change takes place, something else will follow, which in turn will cause a further change, and, so on. This turns out to be related to Sapir's notion of drift. Sapir E.[39, 255] explains certain past and present morphological, syntactic, and lexical changes of English by revealing that they are consequences of certain major psychological tendencies of speakers of this language - which he calls drifts. Since such tendencies remain alive over long periods of time, he predicts certain further, similar changes for the future of English and points out that these predictions are already in part becoming true in the English of lower-class speakers. He shows, furthermore, that the three major drifts - loss of case marking, stabilization of word order, and the drift toward the invariable -word - are, at least to a large extent, related to each other and are, ultimately, consequences of yet another drift of English, the phonetic drift of the Germanic languages toward reduction and loss of final syllables, itself a consequence of the word-initial stress accent of these languages. This seems to us a considerable achievement in the development of a theory of grammar change because it is generally stated that every morphological system is destroyed by phonological change. In our case, as a substantive Subject-Object marking system is eroded by phonological change, English word order syntax must react to compensate for the ambiguities and perceptual complexities. In spite of these explanations, one should also note how much Sapir has either not seen or kept for himself. From our present viewpoint more than half a century later, the omissions look large and surprising. Sapir limits his discussion to English. Yet similar changes occur in many other languages. He also does not note that the stabilized word is a particular one, the SVO (subject-verb predicate-object) order, while the dominant word order of older period of the language, some five thousand years ago, had been SOV, as Sapir must have known from the writings of earlier authors. What is more important is the fact that English has been subject to another major drift, the gradual change from an SOV to an SVO language and the question arises whether this drift is language specific or somehow universal. So that Sapir's picture of the major tendencies in the development of English syntax remains incomplete in a rather conspicuous way. Lakoff R. continues the investigation of drift by relating it to comparative and typological linguistic studies. Lakoff begins by presenting "a list of some changes... that occur in many or all of the Indo-European languages, clearly not as a result of one being influenced by another".[39, 256] The common feature of Lakoff's six drifts is that they "go from synthetic to analytic".[39, 256] This trend is also called by Lakoff a "meta-condition on the way the grammar of a language as a whole can change" (idem). Lakoff's paper is valuable and goes beyond Sapir's discussion in that it points out that certain drifts may be shared by several languages at least of a given family. This is a great step towards the development of word order change from a universal point of view. In recent years J. Greenberg's word order typologies have achieved certain popularity. Greenberg does not employ the term drift or make reference to Sapir. Yet the phenomena he investigates are closely related to drift, and the work he has done has contributed so much to the explanation of drift as a universal phenomenon. In his work Greenberg developing ideas of R. Jakobson [39, 256] postulated a set of implicational universals based on predominant surface word order patterns. On the basis of his implications, there emerged a notion of a typologically consistent language. Thus a consistent SOV language would have post-positions, the orders V-Aux, Adj-N, Genitive-N, Det-N, IO-DO and it will tend to be heavily inflected. A consistent SVO language would have prepositions and the reverse order, namely Aux-V, N-Adj, N-Gen, N-Det, DO-IO, and it will tend not to be heavily inflected. Therefore, if a consistent SOV language were to develop into a consistent SVO type, it would undergo a large number of harmonic changes. In a powerful critique, Hawkins R. [39, 255] has identified further problems with the "typological approach" and the diachronic theory based on it. Hawkins identifies three shortcomings in the thirty implicational universals of J. Greenberg [39, 255]: first, the correlations across syntactic domains are not very good and the order of verb and object seems to bear no relation to the order of noun and adjective; second, some language types have no exemplifications; and third, no distinction is drawn between language types which have very many exponents and those which have a

62

mere handful. Being taken as theories, Hawkins calls them trigger-chain theories: some property changes and sets off a chain reaction, which is defined by Greenberg as type implications. Hawkins R. considers that this trigger may be grammatical, pragmatic or perceptual. Theo Vennemann [39, 255] offers a grammatical trigger: phonological changes reduce morphological distinctions and the order shifts from SOV to SVO to prevent widespread ambiguity whereby NP NPV might be interpreted as SOV or OSV. Hyman's after - thought is an example of a pragmatic trigger, provoking various elements to occur post-verbally by analogy to the after-thought constructions and thereby getting the chain started. Antinucci, Duranti and Gebart .

provide a perceptual trigger: they claim that in a SOV language the first relation to change is that of a noun and its relative clause. The prenominal relatives of SOV languages are alleged to pose perceptual problems and therefore shift to postnominal position and this triggers off a chain reaction. Hawkins goes on to show that trigger-chain theories as proposed make false predictions about the hierarchy of changes in a general typological shift. In order to shed light on the correct theory of grammar the simultaneous changes should be related where possible. Koch W. [39, 257] took a similar approach to parallel changes in several Indo-European languages, claiming that they can be viewed as the symptoms of a more general SOV to SVO typological change. He argued that it is the rising predominance of SVO order in OE that makes the breakdown of the inflectional system possible; this was based on the assumption, derived from Greenberg's work, that SVO languages characteristically do not have rich post-positional inflectional systems. Koch views the Germanic, Romance and Slavic languages, Greek and Lithuanian as evolving gradually from SOV to typologically consistent SVO languages. Koch argues that they are evolving at different rates, but they are all on the same slope, steadily acquiring more and more properties, which are characteristic of the SVO type. She also states, for example, that Proto-Germanic was in transition from SOV to SVO and that its daughter languages have steadily acquired more SVO properties. One should therefore be attentive about attempts to develop theories of change on the basis of such "generalisations". There is no reason to suppose that in this respect the changes affecting Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Chinese, and the few other languages with a long documented history, represent the total range of possibilities. However, if the claims are to be made about the underlying order of elements in the initial structure in a language, the order of these changes is often difficult to establish. Linguists have tried to establish the order of some basic changes for English but without much success. Furthermore, this is done for a wide range of languages and there are no grounds to suppose that there is a universally determined hierarchy of changes, a prescribed rule, which all languages must slide down at varying rates. From the stated explanations in the study of diachronic change the essential problem is that languages vary in their structure to a great extent and this variation makes it difficult if not impossible to use structural criteria, to identify grammatical categories across languages. It seems to us that in this respect word order has a privilege over other grammatical categories. Word order changes appear to be one of the easiest for cross-linguistic comparability, since they are clearly based on a physical property of the clause, the sequence of units, which can be directly observed. Having dealt with such considerations about changes in general, it has been seen that in developing from SOV to SVO syntax, languages seem to follow similar pathways. For instance, Modern German, which developed from the same Germanic SOV source as English, shares two of Old English's distinguishing characteristics. First, the verb is typically placed in the second position of the sentence in main clauses, preceded by the subject or some other element (such as an adverb). Secondly the SOV order is employed for embedded clauses. Since linguists are still not sure why languages change from one syntactic type to another, the causes of word order change will undoubtedly remain an important area of investigation, especially since the relative order of Verb and Object has been closely linked with other word order patterns. A second kind of extra-grammatical cause of syntactic change is what one might term expressivity. This would include the introduction of novel forms for stylistic effect, such as the «topicalized» clauses, which are common in certain English dialects, where a NP occurs in a marked position and with heavy stress: Pete, she heard, but not Mike. Pete, 1 heard him and he played football, Mike. These forms are still regarded as novel in English and as having distinct stylistic force; they are met and considered common in Yorkshire dialects and with British football commentators. In spite of the fact that English is a subject-prominent language, in which all clauses must have a subject even if there is nothing to refer to as in It is raining, it accepted such novel clauses. This process, in which instead of the subject you may make another element more important, by moving it to the front of the sentence, gives the element a kind of psychological prominence. The speaker says the most important thing in his mind first: Rîch, I may be, but this doesn't mean I'm happy. J.London

Let us take some examples of cases of stylistic inversion after conjunction, adverbs, etc. in English and Romanian: Never before have I been in this forest. Nici odată până acum n-am fost eu în această pădure. Not only does water function as a catalyst, but it also may be a significant rock-building constituent. Nu numai că apa are funcţia de catalizator, ci ea poate fi un constituent important în formarea stâncelor.

63

Nowhere can we see such rapid progress as in computing technique. Nicăieri nu putem noi vedea aşa un progres rapid ca în domeniul tehnologiilor informaţionale. So bright is Venus that even in the daytime it is sometimes visible. Aşa de luminoasă este planeta Venus că chiar în timpul zilei ea este uneori vizibilă. Not only do the tides advance and retreat in their eternal rhythms, but the level of the sea itself is never at rest. If we take the first sentence and compare it with its direct order variant we find out a considerable metasemiotic difference between them: I have never been in this forest before. Eu nici odată până acum n-am fost în această pădure. Eu n-am fost în această pădure nici odată până acum. The stylistically inverted variants in both languages make stylistically prominent the adverbs, the auxiliary in English, and even the whole predicate in Romanian. The prominence of the inverted words can be further intensified by means of prosody: slowed down tempo, widened range of the voice, increased loudness, high note, etc. The traditional word order developed a specific intonation pattern and Galperin I. mentions the fact that there is a clash between semantically less important syntactic elements and the prominent ones and prosody can considerably intensify or diminish the metasemiotic connotation of the sentence. Thus, in the sentence: Talent Mr. Micawber has; capital Mr. Micawber has not. Here the first and the last positions being prominent, the verb has and the negative not get a fuller volume of stress than they would in direct word order. In this example, the effect of the inverted word order is backed up by two other stylistic devices: antithesis and parallel construction. Unlike grammatical inversion stylistic inversion does not change the structural meaning of the sentence, that is, the change in the juxtaposition of the members of the sentence does not indicate structural meaning but has some superstructural function. Stylistic inversion aims at attaching logical stress or additional emotional colouring to the surface meaning of the utterance. Having analysed a large number of examples we can conclude that in a topicalized structure, the fronted element often evokes a presuppositional set recoverable from the earlier portion of the text. The final element is strongly rhematic, carrying new information and often linking up with something coming later in the text, and, thus, in syntax, new constructions are introduced, which by their unusual shape have a novelty value and are used for metasemiotic purposes. The special stylistic effect slowly becomes bleached out and the constructions lose their marked force becoming hackneyed, speakers regularly reproduce such ready made metasemiotic structures to achieve a certain stylistic effect. At the same time other metasemiotic structures are regularly being produced in speech to produce a genuine metasemiotic effect. We consider this process an important kind of historical change in syntax, which has been given very little attention in the literature, perhaps as a consequence of the lack of a real analogue in phonological change.

Intensified Stylistic Syntactic Structures. Another kind of extra-grammatical cause of syntactic change, considered as a special case of expressivity, is called by Hyman after-thought. We could name it by using the term intensified stylistic inversion. This plays a role in the development of SOV word order to SVO. This means that in addition to the usual SOV patterns one would get intensified stylistic structures SOVO, for instance: Ann biscuits liked ... and chocolate. (Would you like biscuits or chocolate? – Biscuits I like, … and chocolate, …and cake, too.) Thus in a OV language, intensified stylistic inversion permits certain surface occurrences of VO. Stockwell and McKnight G. sustain this position and develop such an account of the word order change in English. McKnight had attributed the rise of post-verbal complementation in large measure intensified stylistic structures, where to the apparently finished sentence a number of explanatory details are added, afterthoughts; or some element by reason of close connection with the following clause, may be put after the verb. To motives like these the analytic order probably owes its origin». Stockwell is less concerned with such psychological motivation, but notes that «there are a number of structural motivations within the syntax of OE that considerably strengthen the tendency «to exbraciate», where «exbraciation» is the rightward movement eliminating nominal and adverbial elements. Stockwell proceeds to identify various processes which gave rise to surface sequences SV(O), so that eventually a language learner had sufficient basis to generalize that sentences end with complements, not with verbs. Nowadays this psychological motivation causes some problems. [39, 260] Since consistent OV languages such as Japanese make very sparing use of intensified stylistic syntactic structures, how may it be explained that in some OV languages intensified stylistic syntactic structures become so important that it changes the type of the language to VO? Some linguists, among them Sapir, attribute this change to the familiar tendency to level the distinction between case marking. Sapir had in my opinion the correct view of such a situation when he said that throughout the history of English «the case system... has been steadily weakening in psychological respects [39, 260]. Surely learners and speakers of a language do not wait until the last trace of a case marking is lost before they realize that something is going wrong in their language. Perhaps they will avoid constructions most or all of the time if they run them into difficulties some of the time, and rely on constructions that guarantee success. Therefore, insofar as the intensified stylistic syntactic structure phenomenon is a psychological motivation for VO sequences, it contributes to the opacity of the

64

underlying OV order and therefore may be said to play a causal role in the development of a new VO order. Much work has been done by language typologists on diachronic change, following up the work of Greenberg's set of implicational universals, Hawkins' extensive investigation of universals [39, 261]. Translating these universals into claims about diachrony, analysts have sought to develop hierarchies of change specifying that if a certain change takes place, something else will follow, which in turn will cause a further change, and, so on. This turns out to be related to Sapir's notion of drift. Sapir explains certain past and present morphological, syntactic, and lexical changes of English by revealing that they are consequences of certain major psychological tendencies of speakers of this language - which he calls drifts. Since such tendencies remain alive over long periods of time, he predicts certain further, similar changes for the future of English and points out that these predictions are already in part becoming true in the English of lower-class speakers. He shows, furthermore, that the three major drifts - cases of marking, stabilization of word order, and the drift toward the invariable word - are, at least to a large extent, related to each other and are, ultimately, consequences of yet another drift of English, the phonetic drift of the Germanic languages toward reduction and loss of final syllables, itself a consequence of the word-initial stress accent of these languages. This seems to us a considerable achievement in the development of a theory of grammar change because it is generally stated that every morphological system is destroyed by phonological change. In our case, as a substantive Subject-Object marking system is eroded by phonological change, English word order syntax must react to compensate for the ambiguities and perceptual complexities. [39, 261] In spite of these explanations, one should also note how much Sapir has either not seen or kept for himself. From our present viewpoint more than half a century later, the omissions look large and surprising. Sapir limits his discussion to English. Yet similar changes occur in many other languages. He also does not note that the stabilized word is a particular one, the SVO order, while the dominant word order of older period of the language, some five thousand years ago, had been SOV, as Sapir must have known from the writings of earlier authors. What is more important is the fact that English has been subject to another major drift, the gradual change from an SOV to an SVO language and the question arises whether this drift is language specific or somehow universal. So that Sapir's picture of the major tendencies in the development of English syntax remains incomplete in a rather conspicuous way, Lakoff continues the investigation of drift by relating it to comparative and typological linguistic studies. Lakoff begins by presenting "a list of some changes... that occur in many or all of the Indo-European languages, clearly not as a result of one being influenced by another. [39, 262] The common feature of Lakoff's six drifts is that they "go from synthetic to analytic". This trend is also called by Lakoff a "meta-condition on the way the grammar of a language as a whole can change" (idem). Lakoff's paper is valuable and goes beyond Sapir's discussion in that it points out that certain drifts may be shared by several languages at least of a given family. This is a great step towards the development of word order change from a universalist point of view. In recent years Greenberg's word order typologies have achieved a certain popularity. Greenberg does not employ the term drift or make reference to Sapir. Yet the phenomena he investigates are closely related to drift, and the work he has done has contributed so much to the explanation of drift as a universal phenomenon. In his work Greenberg developing ideas of R. Jakobson postulated a set of implicational universals based on predominant surface word order patterns. On the basis of his implications, there emerged a notion of a typologically consistent language. Thus a consistent SOV language would have post-positions, the orders V-Aux, Adj-N, Genitive-N, Det-N, IO-DO and it will tend to be heavily inflected. A consistent SVO language would have prepositions and the reverse order, namely Aux-V, N-Adj, N-Gen, N-Det, DO-IO, and it will tend not to be heavily inflected. Therefore, if a consistent SOV language were to develop into a consistent SVO type, it would undergo a large number of harmonic changes. [39, 262] In a powerful critique, Hawkins has identified further problems with the "typological approach" and the diachronic theory based on it . Hawkins identifies three shortcomings in the thirty implicational universals of Greenberg [39, 262]: first, the correlations across syntactic domains are not very good and the order of verb and object seems to bear no relation to the order of noun and adjective; second, some language types have no exemplifications; and third, no distinction is drawn between language types which have very many exponents and those which have a mere handful. Being taken as theories, Hawkins calls them trigger-chain theories: some property changes and sets off a chain reaction, which is defined by Greenberg as type implications. Hawkins considers that this trigger may be grammatical, pragmatic or perceptual. Theo Vennemann [39, 263] offers a grammatical trigger: phonological changes reduce morphological distinctions and the order shifts from SOV to SVO to prevent widespread ambiguity whereby NP NPV might be interpreted as SOV or OSV. Hyman's after - thought is an example of a pragmatic trigger, provoking various elements to occur post-verbally by analogy to the after-thought constructions and thereby getting the chain started. Antinucci, Duranti and Gebart [39, 263] provide a perceptual trigger: they claim that in a SOV language the first relation to change is that of a noun and its

65

relative clause. The prenominal relatives of SOV languages are alleged to pose perceptual problems and therefore shift to post-nominal position and this triggers off a chain reaction. Hawkins goes on to show that trigger-chain theories as proposed make false predictions about the hierarchy of changes in a general typological shift. In order to shed light on the correct theory of grammar the simultaneous changes should be related where possible. Koch [39, 262] took a similar approach to parallel changes in several Indo-European languages, claiming that they can be viewed as the symptoms of a more general SOV to SVO typological change. He argued that it is the rising predominance of SVO order in OE that makes the breakdown of the inflectional system possible; this was based on the assumption, derived from Greenberg's work, that SVO languages characteristically do not have rich post-positional inflectional systems. Koch views the Germanic, Romance and Slavic languages, Greek and Lithuanian as evolving gradually from SOV to typologically consistent SVO languages. Koch argues that they are evolving at different rates, but they are all on the same slope, steadily acquiring more and more properties, which are characteristic of the SVO type. She also states, for example, that Proto-Germanic was in transition from SOV to SVO and that its daughter languages have steadily acquired more SVO properties. I think that one should therefore be attentive about attempts to develop theories of change on the basis of such "generalisations". There is no reason to suppose that in this respect the changes affecting Romance, Germanic, Slavic, Greek, Chinese, and the few other languages with a long documented history, represent the total range of possibilities. However, if the claims are to be made about the underlying order of elements in the initial structure in a language, the order of these changes is often difficult to establish. Linguists have tried to establish the order of some basic changes for English but without much success. Furthermore, this is done for a wide range of languages and there are no grounds to suppose that there is a universally determined hierarchy of changes, a prescribed rule, which all languages must slide down at varying rates. From the stated explanations in the study of diachronic change the essential problem is that languages vary in their structure to a great extent and this variation makes it difficult if not impossible to use structural criteria, to identify grammatical categories across languages. It seems to us that in this respect word order has a privilege over other grammatical categories. Word order changes appear to be one of the easiest for cross-linguistic comparability, since they are clearly based on a physical property ofthe clause, the sequence of units, which can be directly observed. Having dealt with such considerations about changes in general, it has been seen that in developing from SOV to SVO syntax, languages seem to follow similar pathways. For instance, Modern German, which developed from the same Germanic SOV source as English, shares two of Old English's distinguishing characteristics. First, the verb is typically placed in the second position of the sentence in main clauses, preceded by the subject or some other element (such as an adverb). Secondly the SOV order is employed for embedded clauses. Since linguists are still not sure why languages change from one syntactic type to another, the causes of word order change will undoubtedly remain an important area of investigation, especially since the relative order of Verb and Object has been closely linked with other word order patterns. [39, 255-264]

Word Order and Other Metasemiotic Syntactic Means and Devices. In order to prove the fact that syntactic units are in constant state of flux prof. Galperin I. quotes prof. G. Vinokur who maintains that in syntax it is no new material that is coined, but new relations, because the syntactical aspect of speech is nothing more than a definite combination of grammatical forms, and in this sense the actual words used are essentially immaterial. Therefore syntactical relations, particularly in poetic language, are that aspect of speech in which everything presents itself as actualization of the potential and not merely the repetition of the ready-made. It follows therefore, that in order to establish the permissible fluctuations of the syntactical norm, it is necessary to ascertain what is meant by the syntactical norm itself. In English syntax the concept of norm is rather loose. In fact any change in the relative positions of the members of the sentence may be regarded as a variant of the received standard, provided that the relation between them will not hinder the understanding of the utterance. [39, 264] According to Galperin I. word order is a crucial syntactical problem in many languages and in English it has peculiarities caused by the concrete and specific sociolinguistic feature of the language developed by the given speaking community. He quotes O.Jespersen who said that the English language "...has developed tolerably fixed word orders which in the great majority of cases shows without fail what is the Subject of the sentence."This "tolerably fixed word order" is Subject-Verb (Predicate) - Object (S - P - O). Jespersen also mentions a statistical investigation of word order made on the basis of a series of representative 19th century writers demonstrating that 82%-97% of all the analyzed sentences contained all three members (S - P - O), while the percentage for Beowulf was only 16 and for King Alfred's prose 40. [39, 265] Any change of the word order structure of the sentence changes the prosodic pattern and metasemiotic structure of the given syntactic unit. If the syntactic unit is brought forward in the sentence, it is made prominent both by the changed structure and by the specific prosody. The

66

one moved to the end of the sentence may be intensified most of all prosodically. There are several kinds of stylistic inversion, most frequently used in both English prose and English poetry: the object is placed at the beginning of the sentence; the attribute is placed in postposition, especially when there is more than one attribute. [39, 265] A good man he was. Un om bun el era (un om bun el a fost; un om bun era el); With his face beaming he came up to me. Cu faţa radiindă el s-a apropiat de mine. The nominal part of the predicate may be used in front of the subject: A hard working student she was. O foarte sârguincioasă studentă a fost ea. The predicative stands before the link verb and both are placed before the subject as in Rude am I in my speech... Grosolan sunt eu în vorbirea mea…[39, 265] The adverbial modifier (in some cases combined with the auxiliary verb of the predicate) is placed before the subject group, creating a strong metasemiotic connotation: Hardly ever is light observed directly from its source. Puţin probabil ca lumina să fie vre-o dată observată direct din sursa ei. Never before has there been any device so efficient. Nici odată până acum n-a existat un aparat atât de efficient. Not only does water function as a catalyst, but it also may be a significant rock-building constituent. Nu numai că apa funcţionează ca un catalizator, dar ea poate de asemeni fi o parte componentă importantă în formarea stâncilor. Only gradually, in recent years, has the chemistry of polymers become separated and become an independent branch of science. Numai treptat, în anii recenţi, a devenit industria polimerilor o ramură independentă a ştiinţei. Nowhere can we see such rapid progress as in computing technique. Nicăieri nu putem vedea noi aşa un progres rapid ca în tehnologiile informaţionale. Unfortunately records of evaporation are not very numerous. Din nefericire, cazuri înregistrate de evaporare nu sunt numeroase. In most of the examples given above the adverbial modifier is made prominent its expressivity is considerably intensified by the change of usual word order. At the same time, in each case, a prosodic pattern specific to emotionally charged text is detected even in scientific technical texts. In some examples, the metasemiotic connotation is further increased by the use of the auxiliary verbs before the subject of the sentence: Hardly ever is; Puţin probabil - in the Romanian translation the auxiliary is used after the subject, because traditionally in such cases it is not accepted in this position. But in the next example there is a complete coincidence in both languages: Never before has there been - Nici odată până acum n-a existat. Of course, there are many other cases of syntactic stylistic change. Thus, both modifier and predicate stand before the subject, as in "In went Mr. Pickwick." (În odaie a intrat dl Pickwick); Down dropped the breeze... S-a atenuat vântul lin…);[39, 266] Out went the customer… (Afară a ieşit clientul…). As we see from the examples given above the same degree of stylistic inversion is used in both languages. In the following examples the nominal part of the predicate is used in front of the subject making it stylistically prominent, intensifying the expressivity of the dislocated lexeme. Important as his discoveries were in themselves their significance is further magnified by the impetus they gave to the development of the comparative and evolutionary trend in physiology. Importante fiind descoperirile lui în sine, semnificaţia lor creşte mai departe prin imboldul , care l-au dat ele dezvoltării tendinţei comparative şi evoluţioniste în fiziologie. Strange as it may seem, the theory of numbers, being the purest kind of mathematics, can be called, from a certain aspect, an empirical or even an experimental science. Straniu cum se pare, teoria numerelor, fiind cea mai pură matematică, poate fi numită, dintr-un anumit aspect, o ştiinţă empirică sau chiar experimentală. However useful the ore may be, it cannot be employed to advantage unless it can be obtained in adequate quantities and at an acceptable price. Oricât de folositor poate fi minereul, el nu poate fi folosit cu avantaj dacă nu poate fi obţinut în cantităţi adecvate şi la un preţ acceptabil. It is important to observe the fact that in both languages we a complete affinity concerning the structures and their metasemiotic charge, Besides, we should add that the grammatical metasemiosis here gets a powerful support by being combined with the lexical inherent stylistic connotation (in sentences 1 and 2: “strange” and “important” – “importante”, “straniu”) and the prosodic emotional pattern imposed on them, too. In sentence three the lexeme “however” – “oricât” intensifies the general stylistic connotation.

As prof. Galperin I. says, practically any change in the direct order results in a change or intensification of metasemiosis: “, the English affirmative sentence is regarded as neutral if it maintains the regular word order, i.e., subject - predicate - object (or other secondary members of the sentence, as they are called). Any other order of the parts of the sentence may also carry the necessary information, but the impact on the reader will be different. Even a slight change in the word order of a sentence or in the order of the sentences in a more complicated syntactical unit will inevitably cause a definite modification of the meaning of the whole. An almost imperceptible rhythmical design introduced into a prose sentence, or a sudden break in the sequence of the parts of the sentence, or any other change will add something to the volume of information contained in the original sentence. It follows that the very concept of inversion has appeared as a counterpart to the regular word order, the latter being a relatively unemotional, unemphatic, neutral mode of expression.” [39, 267] Thus, in the following examples the constructions themselves possess a strong degree of expressivity and by placing them in front of the sentence we get it further intensified. It goes

67

without saying that if a spark should fall into containers with inflammable liquids, quick and dangerous fires would result. Should there be no rain crops will be spoiled. Nici nu poate fi vorbă, că dacă o scânteie ar cădea într-un container cu lichid inflamabil, un incendiu momentan şi primejdios ar urma. Should the lubricant supply stop, even momentarily, serious damage might result. Să se oprească furnizarea lubrifiantului, chiar pentru un moment, pagube serioase ar putea rezulta. It is but natural that collisions between atoms should be frequent. E şi natural că coliziunea dintre atomi trebuie să fie frecventă. Since water contains hydrogen and is too abundant and inexpensive, it is but natural that we should try to ob tain an element from this source. Aşa cum apa conţine hidrogen şi el este foarte abundent şi ieftin, e şi natural ca noi să încercăm de a obţine un element din această sursă. The constructions “ It goes without saying”- “Nici nu poate fi vorbă” get here an additional expressive-emotional overtone being placed first in the sentence. The next construction it is but natural is combined with the syntactic structure that we should try to ob tain, in which the emotional should is used and it contributes to the intensification of the metasemiotic content. The emphatic constructions with It is (was)...that (which, who) are also actively ised in the stylistic syntactic change, where an emphatic pronoun is used, the auxiliary is usually brought in front of the subject like in the examples: It is the gravitation that makes the satellites move round the earth. Anume gravitaţia (este aceea care) face ca sateliţii să se mişte în jurul pământului. It is among the naturally occuring minerals that we find the most beautiful examples of crystals. It was from the detection of otherwise unexplained lines in the solar spectrum that helium was discovered. It was not until the industrial revolution that metals began to assume the importance they now possess. Only recently has a theory which accounts reasonably well for all the experimental evidence been proposed. Constructions like “no sooner… than”, “not only does… but (than)”, etc., usually used in an emphatic position can also be included in the class of syntactic stylistic intensifiers. Thus, for example: No sooner had electronic computers become available for non-military uses, after the end of world war II, than astronomers began to use this new tool. Cum numai (încurând după) calculatoarele electronice au devenit disponibile pentru scopuri militare, după al doilea război mondial, atunci astronomii îndată au început să folosească acest aparat nou. Not only do men fly in the upper layers of the atmosphere, but the time is not too far off when they will leave the Earth and explore other planets. Nu numai că oamenii zboară în straturile de mare altitudine ale atmosferei, dar timpul se apropie când ei vor părăsi Pământul şi vor explora alte planete. In spite of the fact that the English emphatic constructions do not exactly correspond to the ones available in the Romanian Language, the metasemiotic syntactic connotation created is practically identical. The initial part of the structure is made prominent by position, by prosodic and lexico-grammatical means. The second part of the structure, used at beginning of the next clause creates a sustained stylistic connotation.The models given above comprise the well-known patterns of stylistic syntactic change. Prof. Galperin I. Writes that the position of a word in the sentence may be changed within the recognized variants and the above models are the materialization of these variants. Inversion as a stylistic device is always sense-motivated, and there is a tendency to account for inversion in poetry by rhythmical considerations. In the majority of cases inversion in poetry is called forth by considerations of metasemiotic content rather than rhythm. Inversion is one of the forms of what are known as emphatic constructions. The traditional word order is a non-emphatic construction. Emphatic constructions are usually considered as violations of the regular word order in the sentence. In practice these structures are as common as the fixed word order structures. Therefore inversion must be regarded as a strong syntactic stylistic means of the language. [39, 268] All the variants of stylistic syntactic change structures are used to create metasemiotic expressive-evaluative overtones, which are further intensified by morphological, lexical, lexico-grammatical, and especially by prosodic emphatic patterns.

C O N C L U S I O N SIn the present work we have undertaken a confrontation of some morphological grammatical

categories, both on the emic and etic levels. Our previous knowledge of the confronted languages helps us to secure a firm stand, a reliable basis for our investigation not only in case of comparing related languages, but also in case of comparing one or two cognate languages with unrelated languages. In case of synchrony in contrastive linguistics the object of our research is usually different. We no longer think of the genetic identities. We concentrate on the differences and try to understand why it is that the functions of the forms should have diverged so widely? What we have been trying to explain all along is scientific confrontation. In our case we are bound to discuss the possibility of applying methods of scientific research, which imply explaining the difference between synchronic systems and their diachronic development, the systems at work in living texts - the different methods of analysis, the confrontation both on the level of text and on the level of system. Subsequent research has shown that confrontation must involve a profound study of the systems.

68

Synchronic confrontation of any two language systems cannot be really scientific, unless account is carefully taken of their previous development. Linguistic systems are not uniform. The hierarchy of different elements in the systems, the relation between centre and periphery, has also to be taken into account. The last stage is returning to the etic level. We should always start with identities and similarities and gradually work our way to contrasts and non-coincidences. In case of unrelated languages we would have to join the quest for universals, which are supposed to be easy to be discovered. As a result of systematic confrontational analysis of the categorial forms of taxis, tense, aspect, mood, deixis, comparison, etc. we have come to the some general conclusions: The category of taxis in English, French and Romanian, related languages, is embracing the entire grammatical system of the verb. The English system is relatively “young” (created on the basis of the Latin model), while in Romanian and French it is an old system going back to Latin. But in all the confronted languages we observe a similar trend: categorial transition from purely grammatical categories into lexical-grammatical and even purely lexical. The analysis demonstrated that this process is found in other languages, both related and unrelated, where in spoken languages simpler forms are used and grammatical forms being substituted by purely lexical ones. The term perfect denotes not only anteriority, it also may be used to express a perfective or finished action. That is the meaning used by some linguists to put forward a category of aspect in English (the opposition of Perfect vs. Continuous forms), which is characteristic to some European languages. Compare for example with the Russian perfective and imperfective aspect (совершенный и несовершенный вид). It is quite natural for a number of languages to have the oppositions of Continuous vs. Non-continuous and Perfective vs. Imperfective (in the meaning of Finished vs. Unfinished). In English most of the verbal forms can be subdivided into an opposition of perfective-imperfective aspect, but the existing Continuous vs. non-continuous aspect is prevailing. The category of aspect in English is in a state of transition from a purely grammatical category into a grammatical-stylistic and sometimes even purely stylistic one. Confronting the non-finite forms in English and Romanian we discover identical systems on the emic level, with some slight differences, especially in the formal expression: The English forms to have written, to have been written, having written correspond in Romanian to structures formed by means of the auxiliary to be and not to have . That results in homonymy of grammatical forms. There is also a difference in usage: the perfect nominal forms in Romanian are rarely used and are usually substituted by finite perfect forms: mai mult ca perfectul, perfectul simplu and especially perfectul compus. The English present participle is regularly translated into Romanian by means of gerunziul, which historically took over the meaning of participiul prezent, which was ousted from the language. The English perfect nominal forms have also been displaying a tendency to gradually get out of usage. Thus, perfect gerund, perfect participle and, to a certain extent perfect infinitive, are practically used in formal bookish language. In the colloquial speech the finite perfect forms are usually preferred. At the first sight we can conclude that the finite system in English is much richer in forms than in Romanian. Thus, when we compare the English, French and Romanian systems we find very much in common with occasional natural differences connected with the development of the language in different speaking communities of the given related languages. It occurs that in Romanian and French there are no corresponding forms to the English past indefinite, its function being carried out by perfectul compus and passé composé, both coinciding in form and partially in function with the English present perfect. In the confronted languages under consideration we find cases of grammatical homonymy. Examples of homonymy in English could be exemplified by the forms of gerund and participle I (in case of nominal forms), should plus infinitive (as modal verb plus infinitive, conditional mood, suppositional mood, future in the past), would plus infinitive (as modal verb plus infinitive, conditional, future in the past), the form of past perfect ( as expressing an anteriority in the past, anteriority in the future from a moment in the past in sentences of time and condition expressing future from a moment in the past, and expressing an unreal condition, desire or wish in the past in the Subjunctive II (in this case it does not always express anteriority), present perfect (anteriority expressed to an action or moment in the present by an action or a period of time including an action; anteriority in the future, where it substitutes the future perfect in the clauses of time and condition expressing a future action from a present moment. In spite of the fact that the systems of categorial, grammatical and lexical-grammatical forms are different in the given language, the categorial meaning of the category of taxis, as well as those of tense and aspect, could be easily expressed in each of the confronted languages using all possible linguistic means: grammatical, lexical-grammatical, lexical, contextual. A common tendency has been observed in all the confronted languages that the category of taxis is gradually undergoing a change. It is in a process of transition from a mainly grammatical category into a lexical-grammatical or even lexical one. In Russian, a similar process of transition is practically over. Examples of finite perfect forms can be found only in dialectal speech. Examples of nominal perfect forms

69

are still in usage: past gerund and past participle. The lexical category of taxis is dominant now in this language. In English (as in many other European languages) the same process is rapidly advancing. The grammatical categorial form of the future anteriority is practically not used in the spoken language and is successfully substituted by simple forms, anteriority being expressed in such cases by lexical means and context. Past perfect is practically in the same position, especially in the American variant of English where it is often substituted by simple forms in the spoken language. As far as Romanian is concerned, the future perfect here (viitorul anterior) is rarely used even in the bookish and formal language. The analytical past perfect is out of usage and the synthetic one is also in a process of change (in the informal spoken language very often it is substituted by perfectul compus in its second simple past meaning, past anteriority being expressed lexically or contextually).

Hypergrammaticality or abuse of grammar should be paid attention to while confronting grammatical systems of different languages. Abuse of grammar may be of two kinds:

a) The speaker turns to some very complex and artificial complex structures, because he thinks that they are more literary and will enable him to appear as a highly educated man. This is a kind of hypergrammaticality, which we meet especially frequently in documents and in some varieties of journalese, etc.

b) The formation of complex artificial grammatical forms and structures may depend on metasemiotic factors, on a desire to achieve a specific stylistic effect. The results of scientific abstraction must be verified by the actual functioning of the system, the researcher always bearing in mind that language is in a state of constant change. This is especially important when we confront related and unrelated languages. The study of grammar, the attempts to normalize grammatical usage, the study of the new tendencies and systematic confrontation of these with those falling into disuse, requires a much more serious scientific generalization on the subject than has been done so far. We should keep in mind that categories come first as primary entities. Talking about categories we always have to take into consideration the fact that the reality of human communication is primary, the most important element. We can speak of a lexical category only if we find identity of stem and the utter impossibility of a simultaneous realization of all categorial forms of the given opposition. In actual enunciations or utterances only one of the two or more categorial forms can be realized. Morphological studies should be initiated with the marked member of any opposition. In case of the category of taxis we should start with the perfect forms. The morphological-grammatical forms can be studied on two levels 1) the semantic level, where, for example, the present tense forms express actions which include the moment of speaking, and 2) the metasemiotic level, where present tense forms are used to denote an action which clearly does not include the moment of speaking. The process of transition of some grammatical categories into lexical ones is being observed in the confronted languages. Thus, the grammatical category of gender has practically become a lexical category in Modern English. The same phenomenon could be seen in the case of other grammatical categories. Thus, the category of taxis in Russian has practically become a lexical category. The same categories in English, Romanian and French (and other languages) are in a process of transition, where the lexical element is gaining ground. A very important factor in analytical comparison is the choice of an etalon language. Thus, comparing the category of anteriority in English and Romanian we can choose English or French as an etalon language, because this category has been widely scientifically described in these languages and it can serve as an excellent starting point for a contrastive analysis. The general principle of linguistic confrontation should be reconsidered, as any contrastive studies should be divided into two parts: we have cognate languages (closely and distantly related languages) and unrelated ones. In Romanian there are not clear-cut affixes to indicate the grammatical category of aspect. We have mentioned above that there existed and still exist some forms similar to the English aspectual ones (and such forms exist in Italian, Spanish, Portuguese.), but they are rarely used. Analyzing the categories of aspect in English, and Romanian we can conclude that in English the grammatical aspect is prevailing, while in Romanian the lexical means are prominent.

It has been found out that one of the main difficulties in grammatical categorization is the lack of a firmly established relationship between the actual phenomenon and their names. The metalanguage of morphological grammatical categories cannot be taken for granted and metalinguistic work cannot be regarded as merely taking an inventory of terms. It is mainly a question of discovering whether it is a purely metalinguistic difference, mere convention on the metalinguistic level. Often the approach to categorization may be untenable in the sense that the researcher fails to keep clearly apart the object of analysis, the facts of the language in question, and the metalanguage - the words and expressions used when people talk about the object language. Very often there is a discrepancy not only in the metalinguistic expression used to denote

70

certain more specific or particular categories, but also in the naming or description of the most general concepts themselves or it is a question of approach or attitude to categorization.

Bbiliography

1.Akhmanova O. Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. M., 1966. 2. Akhmanova O., L.Delieva, R.Nepesova, N.Slonimskaya. Approaches to Contrastive Linguistics, Moscow, MSU, 1972.3. Akhmanova O and Melenciuc D. The Principles of Linguistic Confrontation. Moscow, MSU, 1977.4.Benveniste E. Problèmes de linguistique générale: Paris, 1966. 5. Benveniste E. Problems in General Linguistics. University of Miami Press, Florida, 1971.6.Blokh M. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. M., 1983.7.Carrol J.B Contrastive Linguistics and Interference Theory. Georgetown Monograph, No 21, 1968.8.Chiţoran D. Contrastive Studies in the Syntax and Semantics of English and Romanian. Bucharest University Press, 1974.9. Chiţoran D. Further Developments in Contrastive Studies. Bucharest University Press, 1974.10.Cohen M. Histoire d’une langue: le français. Paris, 1967.11.Coseriu E. Uber Leistung und Grenzen der kontrastiven Grammatik. Düsseldorf, 1970.12.Delinschi (Şaganean) G. Word Order in English and Romanian (Doctorate thesis), Iaşi, 1998. 13.Graur Al.Gramatica limbii române, V.i-II. Bucureşti, 1966.14.Hadlich R. Lexical Contrastive Analysis. Modern Language. Journal XLIX,7., 1965.15.Halle M. Morphology in a Contrastive Grammar. Bologna, 1972.16.Jakobson R. Shifters, Verbal Categories and the Russian Verb. Harvard University, 1957.17.James C. Deieper Contrastive Study. IRAL VII, 2., 1969.18.Jespersen O. A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles. Hedelberg, 1927.19.Jespersen O. Essentials of English Grammar. London, 1933. 20. Karulin Iu., Cerdantseva T.A Course of the Italian Language. - Moscow, 1981.20. Lado R. Contrastive Linguistics in a Mentalistic Theory of Language Learning // Georgetown Monograph. - No21. -1968.21.Lado R. Meine Perspective der kontrastiven Linguistik (in “Reader zur kontrastiven Linguistik”, Gerald Nickel, Herausgegeben von; Frankfurt am Main, 1972.22.Lee W. Thoughts on Contrastive Linguistics in the Context of Language Teaching. Georgetown Monograph, No 21.,1968. 23.Marin V.Z. Gramatica istorică a limbii moldoveneşti. Lumina. Chişinău, 1970.24.Melenciuc D. Comparative Grammar. CEP USM, Chisinau, 2008.);25. Melenciuc D.The Metalanguage of Morphological Categorization (in: “The Morphology of the English Verb”, edited by O.Akhmanova and V.Belenkaya, MSU, Moscow,1975);26. Melenciuc D. Principles of Linguistic Confrontation. CEP USM, Chisinau, 2008. );27. Melenciuc D. A Contrastive Study of Tense and Taxis in English, French and Romanian (in: “The Morphology of the English Verb”, edited by O.Akhmanova and V.Belenkaya, MSU, Moscow,1975);28.Melenciuc D. The Contrastive Analysis of Languages in its Relation with Comparative Philology (in: “The Morphology of the English Verb”, MSU, Moscow,1975);29. Melenciuc D. and O.Akhmanova The Comparative-Historic Background of Linguistic Confrontation (II-th International Conference on English Polish Contrastive Linguistics. Bialoveza. Dec.16-18. 1976).30. Melenciuc D. Linguistic Confrontation of Distantly Related Languages (in: The Collected papers of the Niagara Colloquium on Linguistics and Language Teaching”, New York SU at Buffalo, 1979).31. Melenciuc D. A Contrastive Study of Distantly Related Languages. Part 1. Chişinău State University, 1984.32. Melenciuc D. A Contrastive Study of Distantly Related languages. Part II, Chişinău State University, 1984.33. Melenciuc D. A Confrontation of Some Verbal Categories in English and Romanian (in: The 9th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature, and Folklore. Indiana University. Bloomington. 1994).34. Melenciuc and R. Feldstein. The Category of Taxis in English and Romanian. (in: The 9th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature, and Folklore. Indiana University. Bloomington. 1994).

71

35.M Melenciuc D. and R.Feldstein The State of Transition of some Verbal Categorial forms in English and Romanian. (in: The 9th Biennial Conference on Balkan and South Slavic Linguistics, Literature, and Folklore. Indiana University. Bloomington. 1994).36. Melenciuc D., E.Onofreiciuc and R.Sulaiman. The Category of Anteriority in English, Romanian and Arabic. East West Nr3, 1996. 37. Melenciuc D., E.Onofreiciuc and R.Sulaiman. A Confrontational Analysis of Taxis in English, Romanian and Arabic on the Etic Level. East West, Nr 3. Chişinău, 1996. 38. Melenciuc D., R.Sulaiman. Aspectual Means in English and Arabic. East West, Nr 1, 1997. 39.Melenciuc D. Comparativistics. CE USM. - Chişinău, 2003.40. Melenciuc Dumitru. A Reader in English Theoretical Phonetics. Chişinău: CEP USM, 2005.41. Minaieva Ludmila, Davydov Mihail, Egorov Grigorii, Jakovleva Evghenia, Magidova Irina, Mindrul Olga, Nifontova Evdokia, Shishkina Tatiana, Vardanean Svetlana. An Autline of English Phonetics. Moscow: MSU, 1973, p.163-166.42.Nickel G. and Wagner K. Contrastive Linguistics and Language Learning. IRAL VI, No 3, 6, 18., 1968.43.Nida E. Analysis of Meaning and Dictionary Making. IJAL, vol.42., No 4., 1958. 44.Nida E. Language Structure and Translation. Essays. Stanford University Press, 1975.45.Rodriges Danilevscaia E., Patrushev A., Stepanina I. The Spanish Language. - Moscow, 1988.46.Rossetti AL. Istoria limbii române. Vol. I. Bucureşsti,1965.47.Rossetti AL. Istoria limbii române. Vol II. Bucureşti, 1969.48.Saussure F. Course de linguistique générale. Lausanne-Paris, 1916.49.Smirnisky A. Essentials of Russian Grammar. Moscow, 1970. 50.Snook R. A Stratificational Approach to Contrastive Analysis (in “Papers in Contrastive Linguistics”, edited by Nickel Gerald). Cambridge University Press, 1971. 51. Sapir.E. Language. London: Harcourt, Brace and Wald, Inc. 1921.52. Savin E. Gramatica limbii germane. Editura Maşina de scris. – Bucureşti, 1996.53.Velicopoliscaia N., Rodriges Danilevscaia E. The Spanish Language. - Moscow, 196354.Vinogradov V.S. A Practical Course of the Spanish Grammar. - Moscow 1990. * * *55. Ахманова О. Словарь лингвистических терминов. M., 1966.56. Арнольд И.В. Стилистика современного английского языка. Москва: ”Просвещение”, 1990.57. Балин А. К методике сопоставительного изучения двух языков.. Ученые записки Ивановского государственного педагогического института, т. ХХУШ. 1961.58..Баскаков H. К теоретическим основам разработки сравнительно-сопоставительного метода.." Русский язык в национальной школе." No 6, 1962.59.Бенвенист Э. Общая лингвистика.. M., 1974.60.Будагов P. Некоторые проблемы сравнительно-иcторического синтаксиса романских языков. ВЯ, No 3, 1565. 61. Будагов P. Система языка в связи с разграничением его истории и современного состояния. ВЯ. No. 4,1958.62. Будагов P. Сравнительно-семасиологические исследования. M., MSU, 1963.63. Будагов P. Язык, история и современность. M., MSU, 1971.64. Будагов P. Человек и его язык. M., MSU, 1976.65.Гурычева М. К вопросу о сравнительно-сопоставительном изучении романских языков, (в кн."Методы сравнительно-сопоставительного изучения современных романских языков") . М., 1966.66.Гурычева М. Сравнительно-сопоставительная грамматика романских языков. Румынский язык. М. 1970. Сравнительно-сопоставительная грамматика романских языков. Проблема структурной общности. М. 1972. 67.Гранеде Б. Курс Арабской грамматики в сравнительно-историческом освещении. М., 1963.68.Жебит А., Кузнецова Г. Португальский язык. - Москва: Высшая школа, 1984.15.Макаев Э. Сравнительно-сопоставительная и типологическая грамматика. М., ВЯ, Nr 1, 1972. 69. Смирницкий А. Морфология английского языка. М., 1959. 70.Щерба Л. Языковые универсалии и лингвистическая психология. М., 1969.71.Якобсон Р. Типологические исследования и их вклад в сравнительно-историческое языкознание. (В сборнике "Новое в лингвистике” вып. 3, М., 1969. 72.Ярцева В. О сопоставительном методе изучения языков. Филологические науки, 1, 1960.

72

73.Ярцева В. Принципы типологического исследования родственных и неродственных языков. Проблемы языкознания. "Наука" , М., 1969.

* * *Additional Sources:74. Lingaphone Course "Curso de Español”. (Materialele laboratorului fonetic USM). Fiction Sources:Aldington R. Death of a Hero. M., 1958.Aldridge J. The Hunter. M.,1958. Austen J. Pride and Prejudice. M.,1961 Bronte, Ch. Jane Eyre. M., 1952. Bronte, Ch. Jane Eyre. Bucureşti, 1970.Bronte E. Wuthering Heights. M., 1963.Bronte E. La răscruce de vânturi. Bucureşti., 1969. Dumas, A. Le collier de la reine, v.I-III, Gallimard, Paris, 1969.Dumas A. Colierul reginei. (Bucureşti). 1974Galsworthy J. A Modern Comedy, v.I-III. M., 1956.Galsworthy J. End of the Chapter, v.1-111. M., 1960.Galsworthy J. Comedia modernă. v.I-III. Bucureşti, 1971.Galsworthy J. Sfârşit de capitol, v. I-III. Bucureşti,1972.Galsworthy J.The Forsyte Saga. v. I-III. M.,1975.Twain M. The Adventures of Tom Sawyer. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. M.,1956.

73