The ordered set of grammatical forms expressing a categorical function constitutes a paradigm. The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category are exposed by grammatical oppositions which are generalized correlation of lingual forms by means of which certain functions are expressed.

    There exist three main types of qualitatively different oppositions: “privative”, “gradual”, “equipollent”. By the number of members contrasted, oppositions are divided into binary and more than binary. The privative binary opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterized by the presence of a certain feature called the “mark”, while the other member is characterized by the absence of this differential feature. The gradual opposition is formed by the degree of the presentation of one and the same feature of the opposition members. The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or absence of a certain feature, but by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different (differential) features.

    The most important type of opposition in morphology is the binary privative opposition. The privative morphological opposition is based on a morphological differential feature which is present in its strong (marked) member and is absent in its weak (unmarked) member. This featuring serves as the immediate means of expressing a grammatical meaning, e.g. we distinguish the verbal present and past tenses with the help of the privative opposition whose differential feature is the dental suffix “-(e)d”: “work/worked”.

    Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognized; they can be identified as a minor type at the semantic level only, e.g. the category of comparison is expressed through the gradual morphological opposition: “clean – cleaner - cleanest”.

    Equipollent oppositions in English morphology constitute a minor type and are mostly confined to formal relations. In context of a broader morphological interpretation one can say that  the basis of morphological equipollent oppositions is suppletivity, i.e. the expression of the grammatical meaning by means of different roots united in one and the same paradigm, e.g. the correlation of the case forms of personal pronouns (she/her, he/him), the tense forms of the irregular verbs (go/went).

    As morphological gradual and equipollent oppositions can be reduced to privative oppositions, a word-form can be characterized by a bundle of differential features (strong features) exposing its categorical properties.

    Oppositional reduction, or oppositional substitution, is the usage of one member of an opposition of the counter-member. From the functional point of view there exist two types of oppositional reduction: neutralization of the categorical opposition and its transposition. In case of neutralization one member of the opposition becomes fully identified with its counterpart. As the position of neutralization is usually filled in by the weak member of the opposition due to its more general semantics, this kind of oppositional reduction is stylistically colourless, e.g.: “Man is sinful.” It is an example of neutralization of the opposition in the category of number because in the sentence the noun “man” used in the singular (the weak member of the opposition) fulfils the function of the plural counterpart (the strong member of the opposition), for it denotes the class of referents as a whole.

    Transposition takes place when on member of the opposition placed in the contextual conditions uncommon for it begins to simultaneously fulfils two functions – its own and the function of its counterpart. As a result, transposition is always accompanied by different stylistic effects, e.g.: “Jake had that same desperate look his father had, and he was always getting sore at himself and wanting other people to be happy. Jake was always asking him to smile” (W.Saroyan).

    In the cited example the transposed character of the continuous form of the verb is revealed in its fulfilling two functions – one of them is primary, the other is secondary; the primary function of the said verb form is to denote a habitual action, while its secondary function consists in denoting an action presented in the process of development. Due to the transpositional use of the aspect verbal form, the analyzed context becomes stylistically marked.

    The study of the oppositional reduction has shown that it is effected by means of a very complex and subtle lingual mechanism which involves the inherent properties of lexemes, lexical and grammatical distribution of the replaced word-form and numerous situational factors, such as the aim of communication, the speaker’s wish either to identify or to characterize the denoted object, to reveal some facts or to conceal them, to sound either flat or expressive, the speaker’s intention to evaluate the discussed objects, the interlocutors’ sharing or non-sharing of the needed information, etc. All these factors turn oppositional reduction into a very powerful means of texts stylization.

Grammatical means

    The means employed for building up member-forms of categorical oppositions are traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms themselves are claused into synthetical and analytical, too.

    Synthetical grammatical forms are realized by the inner morphemic composition of the word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of “substantial” meaning.

    Synthetical grammatical forms are based on the inner inflexion, outer inflexion and suppletivity; hence, the forms are referred to as inner-inflexional, outer-inflexional, suppletive and accent.

    Thus, to the analytical grammatical means the following means belong:

1. auxiliary verbs (has done, has been waiting, was taken).

2. word order (paper wall, wall paper)

3. outer categorization (All my family are early risers. My family is big)

4. reduplication (He was very, very sad. Глаза у него были грустные - грустные, еле –еле, чуть- чуть, едва-едва)  

All the analytical verbal forms go back to free syntactical groups.

References

1.Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - M., 2000. – p.6-26

2.Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики – М., 2000

3. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М., 1981. – с.9-13

4. Хлебникова И.Б. Оппозиции в морфологии. – М., 1969