f speech is far from being solved. Some words cannot find their proper place. The most striking example here is the class of adverbs. Some language analysts call it a ragbag, a dustbin (Frank Palmer), Russian academician VVVinogradov defined the class of adverbs in the Russian language as сміттєва купа. It can be explained by the fact that to the class of adverbs belong those words that cannot find their place anywhere else. At the same time, there are no grounds for grouping them together either. Compare: perfectly (She speaks English perfectly) and again (He is here again). Examples are numerous (all temporals). There are some words that do not belong anywhere - eg after all. Speaking about after all it should be mentioned that this unit is quite often used by native speakers, and practically never by our students. Some more striking examples: anyway, actually, in fact. The problem is that if these words belong nowhere, there is no place for them in the system of words, then how can we use them correctly? What makes things worse is the fact that these words are devoid of nominative power, and they have no direct equivalents in the Ukrainian or Russian languages. Meanwhile, native speakers use these words subconsciously, without realizing how they work.
3. The problems of the parts of speech
words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided into grammatically relevant classes. The traditional grammatical classes of words are called "parts of speech." Problem of parts of speech caused much difficulty both in general linguistics and in the analysis of separate languages. Though it has been studied for more than 200 years, the criteria for defining parts of speech have not been worked out yet. Traditionally grammar gave a semantic definition of parts of speech, taking into account only meaning. However, only meaning cannot be a reliable criterion for defining parts of speech because different parts of speech may have the same meaning and vice versa. E.g. the nouns "books", "tables", "students", denote objects and there are nouns as flight "," movement "," arrival ", which do not denote objects but belong to nouns. We see that meaning cannot be the only criterion for defining parts of speech. The structural school of linguistics does not take into account meaning only but only form. Form alone cannot be a reliable criterion either because many parts of speech especially in English may have the same form, eg water-to water, silk (adj.) - to silk. Moreover, if we take into account only form, then such unchangeable words as article, particle should be referred to only part of speech.see that the criterion of form is not sufficient. The grammatical criterion should be taken into account to give an adequate definition of any part of speech. By grammatical features we mean :) morphological)
