Английского

§ 12. Observing the syntagmatic subclasses of verbs, we see that 
the same verb lexeme, or lexic-phonemic unit (phonetical word), 
can enter more than one of the outlined classification sets. This 
phenomenon of the "subclass migration" of verbs is not confined to 
cognate lexemic subsets of the larger subclasses, but, as is widely 
known, affects the principal distinctions between the English com-
plementive and uncomplementive verbs, between the English ob-
jective and non-objective verbs. Suffice it to give a couple of ex-
amples taken at random: 
Who runs faster, John or Nick?-(run — uncomplementive). The 
man ran after the bus. (run — adverbial complementive, non-
objective). I ran my eyes over the uneven lines. (run — adverbial 
objective, transitive). And is the fellow 

---

102
still running the show? (run — monocomplementive, transitive). 
The railings felt cold. (feel — link-verb, predicative complemen-
tive). We felt fine after the swim. (feel — adverbial complemen-
tive, non-objective). You shouldn't feel your own pulse like that. 
(feel — monocomplementive, transitive). 
The problem arises, how to interpret these different subclass entries 
— as cases of grammatical or lexico-grammatical homonymy, or 
some kind of functional variation, or merely variation in usage. 
The problem is vexed, since each of the interpretations has its 
strong points. 
To reach a convincing decision, one should take into consideration 
the actual differences between various cases of the "subclass mi-
gration" in question. Namely, one must carefully analyse the com-
parative characteristics of the corresponding subclasses as such, as 
well as the regularity factor for an individual lexeme subclass oc-
currence. 
In the domain of notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-
class occurrences of the analysed lexemes, probably the most plau-
sible solution will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of 
specific syntactic variation, i.e. to consider the different subclass 
entries of migrating units as syntactic variants of the same lexemes 
[Почепцов, (2), 87 и сл.]. In the light of this interpretation, the 
very formula of "lexemic subclass migration" will be vindicated 
and substantiated. 
On the other hand, for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, 
for instance, functional versus notional, the syntactic variation 
principle is hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should 
be analysed as lexico-grammatical homonymy, since it underlies 
the expression of categorially different grammatical functions.