The Theory of Oppositions.

The theory of grammatical opposition is very popular in grammar studies, because it lies at the base of all established grammatical categories.

The opposition is a generalized correlation of language units, forms, by means of which a certain category or function is expressed.

The members of the opposition must possess two types of features: common and differential. Common features serve as the basis for contrast, while the differential features express the function in question.

Let’s take the opposition “table - tables”. The common feature of this opposition is the expression of the category of number. The differential features are oneness or singularity in the first member and more-than-oneness or plurality in the second member.

The theory of oppositions was established by the Czech linguist S. Trubetskoy in phonology. He established 3 types of oppositions:

- privative;

- gradual;

- equipollent.

Taking into consideration the number of members of the oppositions we can speak of binary and more-than-binary oppositions.

1) In a binary privative opposition one member is characterized by the presence of a certain differential feature, while the other member is characterized by the absence of this very feature. The member in which the differential feature is present is called “the marked” (strong, positive) member of the opposition. The other member of the opposition is called unmarked (weak, negative).

Let’s take the opposition /d/: /t/. The common feature of this opposition is the fact that both members are plosive, alveolar-apical consonants. The differential feature is the presence of voice in articulation. So /d/ is treated as the marked member of the opposition as it is voiced, while /t/ is unmarked because it is voiceless.

2) A gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or absence of some feature but by the degree of the same feature.

Taking into consideration the degree of openness of the phoneme, we can speak of a gradual opposition when comparing vowels: /i:, i, e, эe/.

3) An equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group of members which are differentiated by different positive features.

e.g. the phonemes <p> and <k> form an equipollent opposition in which the voiceless consonant <k> is velar while the voiceless consonant <t> is alveolar-apical.

All these three types of oppositions are identified in morphology and help to establish grammatical categories.

e.g. the binary privative opposition book: books expresses the category of number. The marked member is “books”. On the plane of expression it is marked by the inflexion /s/ and on the plane of content it expresses plurality. The other member of the opposition is unmarked on the plane of expression and on the plane of content it denotes singularity.

Thus we can say that the semantic differential feature in this opposition is plurality and the member of the opposition “books” is marked by this seme, while the other member lacks this seme.

Gradual oppositions are rare in morphology. A vivid example of them is the case of the morphological category of degrees of comparison. The common feature at the base of this opposition is the meaning of quality, which is represented as different in degree in each member.

Equipollent oppositions are also occasional in English morphology. The typical example of them is the paradigm of the verb to be (am, is, are). The first member expresses the 1^st person singular, the 2^nd member – the 3^rd person singular and the 3^rd member – the 2^nd person singular and all the three persons plural.

The reduction of oppositions.

A grammatical category must be expressed by at least 1 opposition of forms. No category can be recognized without an opposition.

However in various contexts one member of the established opposition can be used instead of the other. This phenomenon is called the reduction of the oppositions.

We differentiate 2 types of reductions – neutralization and transposition.

Neutralization is that type of the reduction of the oppositions when the unmarked member of the opposition is used as the marked one. Neutralization is stylistically neutral. For example, in the opposition cat: cats, “cats” is the marked member of the opposition denoting plurality. But in the sentence The cat is a domestic animal the word-form “cat” names a class of animals and that implies plurality or the meaning of the marked member of the opposition.

Transposition is that type of reduction of oppositions when the marked member is used instead of the unmarked one. Transposition usually brings about a certain stylistic effect.

e.g. Helen is always complaining of headaches.

In this sentence a repeated action is expressed. So we should have employed a non-continuous verb-form to express it, and that is the unmarked member of the opposition. However the marked member is actually used and that adds emphasis to the utterance, informing of the personal attitude of the speaker to the situation: indignation, displeasure or care.

Lecture 2.

Lexico-Grammatical Classes of Words.

Outline

1) The Problem of Classifying Words.

2) 2) The Traditional Classification of Words.

3) Notional and Functional Parts of Speech.

4) The Field Structure of Parts of Speech.

The Problem of Classifying Words.

It’s well-recognized in linguistics that all words are classified into lexico-grammatical classes which are called parts of speech in traditional grammar. The problem of classifying words has always been in the centre of attention of linguistics because it presents a number of difficulties. Linguists have always tried to work out such a classification which should be based on one principle as logics requires.

It is necessary to say that none of these classifications has happened to be satisfactory so far. Most linguists had to resort to some other principles to make the classification more or less clear.

First of all, we should speak about the classification of words worked out by Henry Sweet. He took as the basic principle the morphological properties of words and on this principle he classified all the words into declinable and indeclinable. However this classification failed to be better than the traditional one, because the group of the declinable words included nouns, adjectives and verbs. All the other words were referred to indeclinable words. Having realized that his classification happened to be rather vague, Henry Sweet resorted to some other principles.

1) the principle of syntactic functioning. This principle made it possible for him to distinguish the following groups of words:

(a) noun-words which can function like nouns (nouns, pronouns, infinitive, gerund);

(b) adjective-words (adjectives, pronouns, participle, infinitive, gerund);

(c) verb-words (verbs and verbals).

We can see that the words of the same traditional parts of speech happen to be included into different groups of words at once.

Sweet’s classification is not accepted but it proves that the traditional classification is more rigid and adequate.

Another theory was put forward in American linguistics by Charles Fries. He rejects the traditional classification of words into parts of speech and works out his own. His classification is based on the positional principle. He classifies all the words according to the position they can take in the sentence.

Thus, he takes such sentences as “the clerk remembered the tax”, “the concert was good”, “a good concert was there yesterday”. Fries states that words which can be found in the position of “clerk”, “tax”, “concert” should be included into Class I. Their peculiarity is that in the sentence such words can take the position before words of CLASS II, which correspond to “remembered”, “was”. Words taking the position of “good” belong to CLASS III, and finally words in the position of “there” and “yesterday” make up CLASS IV.

It is not difficult to see that these 4 classes of words in general correspond to the traditional parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs.

However, not only nouns are included into CLASS I because Fries refers to this class any words in the position before the words of CLASS II, and we can find there such words as “man”, “he”, “the others”, “to live”, “writing” and that does not correspond to the traditional classification of words.

Besides these four classes Fries distinguishes 15 more groups of words. They are also differentiated by the positional principle.

Mostly these groups of words which he marks with letters are much wider than the traditional formal or functional parts of speech.

For ex., group A includes words which can be found in the position of the definite article. It means words which can be used as determiners or attributive elements. So in this group we can find such words as “the”, “my”, “both”, “much”, “Tom’s”, “no”.

But we can see that many of such words can be included into CLASS I or III. Charles Fries says that it mustn’t embarrass us as the main thing that they can take the position of the definite article. Ch. Fries ignores morphological features of words and their syntactic functioning.

His classification failed to achieve the goal, because we can never be sure what class or group we should refer this or that word to without a context and hence this classification is not rigid. However, Ch. Fries’s classification of words is interesting because it illustrates the combining power or syntactic valency of words.

2) The Traditional Classification of Words.

In traditional grammar words are classified into parts of speech on the basis of 3 main principles: meaning, form and function.

Meaning implies not the concrete lexical meaning of the word but a general one, typical of all the words included into this or that part of speech.

Form implies morphological properties of words, the presence of some formal language means, signifying the particular grammar categories.

Function is understood either as a syntactic valency of words or as a syntactic positional role of the word in the sentence.

Proceeding from these principles, all the words in English are classified into 12 classes: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns, numerals, articles, particles, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections and modal words.

NOUNS.

The general meaning of nouns is thingness or substance.

Due to their form nouns can distinguish the morphological category of number. Some scholars speak of the morphological category of case but this opinion is doubtful.

Commenting on the functions of nouns we should say that syntactically they can function as any member of the sentence but the predicate. As to their syntactic valency they can combine with adjectives, nouns (picture gallery), verbs (the child grows), numerals, verbals (a book to read), pronouns (my book).

Occasionally nouns can combine with adverbs but in such cases adverbs become adjectivized and perform the attributive function representing a compressed subordinate attributive clause, e.g. the then president, the room downstairs.

Adjectives.

The general meaning of adjectives is property or quality. In their form most adjectives are unchangeable, only some adjectives distinguish the morphological category of degrees of comparison, which is marked by the inflexions - er or - est or by suppletive forms like good – better – the best.

Commenting on the functions of adjectives we should say that they can perform the functions of o an attribute and predicative. As for their syntactic valency, adjectives can combine with nouns (a true friend), adverbs (very beautiful), link-verbs or notional verbs in nominal or double predicates (married young), pronouns (sth new).

3) Notional and Functional Parts of Speech.

All the parts of speech are divided into notional and functional.

Notional parts of speech have an independent lexical meaning and can function as self-dependent members of the sentence. There are 6 of them in English: nouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, pronouns and numerals. Some scholars treat numerals and pronouns as functional parts of speech.

Functional parts of speech may have a dependent meaning. They mark various types of syntactic relations or modify notional parts of speech. Functional parts of speech have no self-dependent syntactic functions in the sentence. There are 6 functional parts of speech in English: articles, particles, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections and modal words (certainly, of course, maybe).

4) The Field Structure of Parts of Speech.

The difficulties of classifying words into parts of speech in many cases are explained by the fact that words which are traditionally included into a definite part of speech are not homogeneous in all their properties. This fact prompted that parts of speech should be treated as a system of units having a field structure.

The theory of the field structure of parts of speech was started in the works of the American linguists Glisson and Sledd. This theory helps us to understand why words of traditionally one part of speech happen to be classified into different groups or classes like in the theory of Ch. Fries.

The complicated character of correlation between words or groups of words within one part of speech was well investigated by the Russian linguists Admony and Shchur. The theory they have worked out is known as the theory of grammatical or lexico-grammatical fields.

Grammatical and first of all morphological characteristics are taken into consideration when describing the field structure of this or that part of speech.

The theory of the morphological fields of parts of speech runs that each part of speech includes words, which possess all its characteristic features. These words make up the nucleus of the morphological field of the part of speech. Besides these words the part of speech may include words which possess not all but only some characteristic features of this part of speech. These words make up the periphery of the morphological field of this part of speech. The periphery in its turn can also be subdivided into some groups of words which differ in their characteristic features.

e.g. words like “table”, “boy”, “street” make up the nucleus of the noun, while words like “clothes”, “news”, “air”, “sugar” make up the periphery of the noun, because they lack such feature of nouns as the category of number.

Besides private peculiarities of the noun, which make up the periphery, make it possible to single out such groups of nouns as “Singularia Tantum”, “Pluralia Tantum”, “Collective nouns”, “Substantivized adjectives” and so on.

But the most important fact is that words making up the periphery of one part of speech can overlap the boundaries of this part of speech and get into the periphery of some other part of speech, getting some of its characteristics.

So morphological fields of parts of speech can overlap each other and that explains the difficulties defining the status of such words and their classification.

For example, Substantivized adjectives like “the poor”, “the young” function like nouns but do not differentiate the category of number on the one hand, and on the other hand they may have degrees of comparison like adjectives (the poorest).

Verbals which make up the periphery of the morphological field of the verb also share the characteristics of the verb and some other part of speech (noun, adjective, adverb).

When referring a word to a definite part of speech, the most significant part of speech characteristics of this word, which are revealed in the actual context, should be taken into consideration.

Lecture 3: The Noun and its Morphological Categories.

Outline

1) The Category of Number.

2) The Problem of the Category of Case

The Category of Number.

English nouns distinguish 2 number forms: Singular and Plural if they are countable. The basic categorial meaning of number is expressed in the opposition one/ more than one. The singular form of the noun shows that only one object is meant, and the plural form shows that more than one objects are meant.

The form expressing plurality is the marked member of the opposition. It is marked both on the plane of expression and on the plane of content. On the plane of content it is characterized by the presence of the seme “plurality”, while the unmarked member lacks this seme. On the plane of expression the strong member of the opposition is marked by an inflexion or by some other formal means which can’t be found in the form expressing singularity.

The most typical and productive inflexion of the plural is /s/ or /es/. Alongside with the productive means of forming Plural, there are some unproductive formal means, indicating plurality in English. Most of them are closed groups or models. They are:

- the suffix /en/ as a survival of Old English (oxen, children, brethren);

- suffixes borrowed together with nouns from other languages (phenomena, nuclei, valenki);

- sound-alternation or replace of morphemes as a survival of Old English (teeth, feet, mice).

In some cases the opposition between Singular and Plural is formally reduced as there is no difference on the plane of expression between Singular and Plural forms. Such cases are also rare and can be treated as survivals of Old English (sheep, swine, deer).

In the descriptive linguistics all the inflexions making plurality are treated as allomorphs, or variants of one and the same morpheme. This opinion is based on the identity in the function and meaning of these morphemes. However, allomorphs should possess not only ideal identity in meaning, they should also make it possible to correlate them on the plane of expression (materially).

Thus, inflexions /d/ and /t/ in the verbs “decided”, “asked” can be treated as allomorphs. But the inflexions /s/ (dogs), /i/ (nuclei), /a/ (phenomena) can’t be materially correlated, so it seems better to treat them not as allomorphs but as functional synonyms or as functional-semantic synonyms.

Countable nouns distinguishing the category of number make up the nucleus of the morphological field of the noun. Nouns which do not distinguish the category of number make up the periphery of the morphological field of the noun. They are mostly uncountable nouns.

So all the nouns can be subdivided into 2 major lexico-grammatical classes: countable and uncountable.

However, uncountable nouns can also be subdivided into several subgroups: names of materials, abstract notions etc. But such nouns may also have lexico-semantic variants which recognize the category of number.

For example, names of materials or abstract notions may be treated as a peculiar type of the given one and then they can be used in the plural. It means they become countable.

For ex., the notion “joy”. “She expressed a great joy, but joys of this kind were rare in her life”. So the border between countable and uncountable nouns or between the nucleus and the periphery of the morphological field of the noun, may be traced between lexico-semantic variants of the same noun.

Analyzing the periphery of the morphological field of the noun, we can identify some specific groups of nouns there. First of all we should comment on collective nouns. Such nouns name a multitude of objects. Like countable nouns, they may have the form of the plural when they express discrete multitude (раздельная собирательность): crowd – crowds, army – armies.

But they can also express a collecting multitude (объединительная собирательность), and then they have only the form of the Singular: the poor, the cavalry.

But the predicate verb with them is used in the Plural:

e.g. The poor were victims of the new reform.

But there are also collective nouns, which can express both collecting and discrete multitude, influencing the form of the predicate verb. The predicate verb is used in the plural if each object of the group is meant, and it is used in the singular if the group is treated as one unit.

e.g. The family is in the garden.

The family are farmers.

Besides, the periphery of the morphological field of the nouns includes Singularia Tantum nouns and Pluralia Tantum nouns. These groups of nouns do not recognize the category of number. Singularia Tantum nouns are always used in the Singular and have no form of the Plural (money, advice, information). Pluralia Tantum nouns usually name objects, consisting of at least two similar parts (shorts, spectacles, clothes, scissors).

Care should be taken not to mix up the grammatical suffix /s/ with the lexical suffix /s/. The lexical suffix /s/ is either a form-building morpheme, implying no plurality like in the words “phonetics”, “politics”, “colours” (флаг) or it may denote a great amount of material named by the noun without any idea of discreteness, like in the expression “the waters of the Atlantic”.

Today when speaking about the category of number of nouns, some scholars put forward the idea that the basic meaning of the category of number is not the quantity of objects but their discreteness. First, the noun is treated as naming a discrete or indiscrete object and then if the object is discrete, arises the notion of number. It means that the category of number is a secondary one to the category of discreteness/ indiscreteness.

2) The Problem of the Category of Case.

The problem of the category of case is one of the most disputable ones in English grammar. All the existing theories concerning this problem can be subdivided into 3 principal groups:

1) the traditional view that there are 2 cases within English nouns: common or possessive (or genitive);

2) the number of cases is more than two;

3) English nouns have no morphological category of case.

The difference of opinions can be explained by different approaches to treating this category. Case is a morphological category of the noun which expresses relations between the object named by this noun and some other objects or characteristics named by some other nouns or gerunds. These relations should be expressed by the form of the noun if it is a morphological category.

Hence, when treating this category, the opposition of inflected and non-inflected forms of the noun is employed.

The inflected form is the marked member of the opposition and in English it is called the possessive, or genitive, case. The non-inflected form is the unmarked member of the opposition and it is called the common case: boy/ boy’s. That is the traditional treatment of the category of case with English nouns.

The authors of the 2^nd opinion proceed mainly from the plane of content ignoring the peculiarities of the plane of expression and speak of more than 2 cases, beginning with four cases (Deutschbein’s opinion) up to the indefinite number of cases (Meshchaninov).

Today many scholars really speak of different cases but they are semantic but not morphological and can be identified mostly on the syntactic level, that is the structure of phrases or sentences. If we take the theories of “more-than-two cases” we can see that on the plane of expression they are prepositional phrases or they are expresses by word-order.

e.g. to the boy – the dative case;

the pen of the boy = the boy’s pen – the genitive case;

with the pen – the instrumental case;

in the garden – the locative case.

Such language units are not morphological but syntactic and hence the cases, mentioned above, are not morphological but semantico-syntactic.

Moreover, the present-day investigations of the so-called possessive, or genitive, case show that this “case” can render various meanings:

b) meanings of possession (the brother’s room);

c) integral relations (the hotel’s hall);

d) agent-action relations: it means that the noun names the doer of the action (Peter’s arrival);

e) patient-action relations: the noun names the action acted upon (the champion’s defeat – the champion was defeated);

f) destination relations (children’s book (for children));

g) temporal relations (today’s newspaper);

h) quantitative relations (an hour’s walk);

i) interpersonal relations (Tom’s friend).

So the opposition like boy/ boy’s does not necessarily express the meaning of possession and so it can hardly be employed to justify the existence of the morphological category of case with English nouns.

The 3^rd opinion is expressed in the works of professors Vorontsova, Mukhin, Ilyish, Boris Alex and others.

The essence of these theories lies in the fact that they deny the existence of the morphological category of case with English nouns.

First the existence of this category of English nouns was doubted in the works of Vorontsova and Mukhin. They put forward the idea that /’s/ is not a regular morphological inflexion, because it can modify not only single nouns but also whole syntactic word groups.

It is necessary to say that this peculiarity was noticed even earlier by Henry Sweet, though it did not received a required attention there.

A thorough investigation of the formant /’s/ was carried out by professors Ivanova and Ilyish. Their theory seems to be most argumented and objective when presenting the language reality of modern English. The formant /’s/ has got a special term – “the possessive”.

The following arguments can be given in favour of rejecting the morphological category of case with English nouns:

1) the formant /’s/ functions within rather a limited sphere, what is not characteristic of case forms of nouns in any language. These limitations can be formulated thus:

a) the usage of the possessive is limited lexically. It means that it is used mostly with nouns, denoting living beings and nouns denoting time, measure, weight (an hour’s walk). Occasionally it can be used with nouns naming inanimate objects to stress some individual characteristic of this object (the car’s wheel meaning “the wheel of this very car”, when we say “a car wheel” we mean a wheel of any car).

b) the possessive is restricted positionally as it is always used with nouns in the attributive prepositional function, unless it represents a noun-phrase.

Tom’s friend

A friend of Tom’s.

The noun modified by the possessive can be placed in postposition to the head noun, if the latter is used with a determiner, expressed by an article or a demonstrative pronoun.

A book of Tom’s

This book of Tom’s.

c) due to the homonymy of forms like boys, boy’s, boys’. The possessive is practically not distinguished in the plural or the difference between the plural and the possessive happens to be reduced. We can’t deny that in most cases it is really so, but in a number of cases due to the context the possessive and the plural can be differentiated.

His mother’s voice – singular with the possessive;

The boys’ heads – plural with the possessive;

The boys are out – plural.

2) The possessive can be used with language unit larger than a word. Besides, it can modify not only nouns.

Sb else’s (a pronoun) mistake.

Tom and Mary’s (phrase)parents.

Today’s (adverb) newspaper.

The man I saw yesterday’s (phrase) son.

If /’s/ were a morphological inflexion of case, then it couldn’t be separated from the noun and could hardly be joined to some other part of speech.

Thus /’s/ is hardly a morphological inflexion.

3) As we have already said, the only syntactic function of the noun modified by the possessive is that of an attribute and so the functioning of the possessive is limited to an attributive noun-phrase but in this position and function we can also find a noun not modified by the possessive: a school garden, a metro station.

The difference between the phrases with the possessive and without it is of semantic mature: the noun modified by the possessive names some individual characteristic of the object named by the head noun, while the noun without the possessive names some generalized characteristic of the object named by the head noun.

Hence, proper names used in the position without the possessive require a general meaning.

Maugham’s novel = belongs to Maugham;

The Maugham manner = a generalized characteristic;

Moscow’s street = located in Moscow;

Moscow street = a generalized characteristic;

Trade-union’s action = of a particular one;

A trade union action = of any trade union.

Taking into consideration this difference, we can make a conclusion that a noun modified by the possessive and a bare noun can be opposed only within the narrow frames of an attributive noun-phrase. Beyond such phrases they are no longer opposed on the basis of the meaning in question. So it seems that these contextually opposed units express not the category of case, but a much narrower category which professor Ivanova suggests calling the category of nominal characteristic. This category belongs not to morphology, but to syntax because it can be distinguished only on the syntactic phrase level.

Yet, there still exists the problem where to refer /’s/ to. If /’s/ can modify units larger than a word, then it has undergone the process of syntaxation and has become a syntactic element, not morphological one, something like a preposition. Should we traditionally treat it as a morphological case inflexion, then we’ll have to admit that morphology includes units larger than a word what we don’t do with the exception of analytical verb-forms.

Thus, we can make a conclusion that modern English nouns have no morphological category of case and units like “the boy’s” should be treated as a noun modified by the possessive.

Lecture 5: The Article as a Noun Determiner.

Outline

1) The Problem of the article in contemporary grammar

2) The functions of the article

Дата добавления: 2015-07-20