The Theory of Grammatical Classes of Words

Читайте также:

All words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided into grammatically relevant sets or classes, which are traditionally called “parts of speech”. It should be mentioned that this term is neither defining nor explanatory, but purely conventional (it was introduced in the grammatical teaching of Ancient Greek by Aristotle). In modem linguistics scholars refer to these sets of words as ‘Mexico-grammatical” series of words, or as “lexico- grammatical categories” [the term was suggested by Smimitsky].

Lexico-grammatical series of words are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria:

the semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalized meaning, which is characteristic of all words within the given set; this meaning is understood as the “categorial meaning of the part of speech”;

the formal criterion presupposes specific inflectional and derivational features common to all words within the given set;

the functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of words in the sentence typical of all words within the given set.

The said three factors of categorial characterization of words are conventionally referred to as, respectively, “meaning”, “form”, and “function”.

In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided into notional and functional, which reflects their division in the earlier grammatical tradition into changeable and unchangeable.

To the notional parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb. Within the formula “nieaning-form-function” they have the following characteristics:

	Meaning	Form	Function
The Noun	Substance or thinness	Changeable forms of the number and case, specific derivational characteristics (-cr. -ist, -ness)	Substantive functions in the sentence: the subject, the object, the predicative
The Adjective	Property (qualitative and relative)	Forms of the degrees of comparison, specific derivational characteristics (-ful. -able. -ant. -less)	Attribute, predicative Attribute and all the all substantive functions
The Numeral	Number (cardinal and ordinal)	Specific forms of composition (-teen, -ty), derivation of ordinal numeral (-th)
The Pronoun	Indication (deixis)	Specific forms of the absolute Genitive pronouns (yours, ours)	Attribute and all the substantive functions
The Adverb	Secondary property (i.e., a property of another property or a property of a proces&^/action/state)	Forms of the degrees of comparison, specific derivational characteristics (-ly, -wise)	Adverbial modifier
The Verb	Process/action/ state	forms of the person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood, specific derivational characteristics (un-, dis-, -ize, -ate. -fy)	Predicate (the finite verb); attribute, adverbial modifier, all substantive functions (the non-fmite forms of the verb)

Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech. To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection.

The meaning of all functional words is considered to be purely grammatical (i.e. they help to express meaning which is understood from the syntactic arrangement of words). Thus, the article expresses the identification or non-identification, the preposition expresses the dependencies of substantive referents, the conjunction expresses connections of phenomena, the particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning, the modal words express the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation, the intetjection is a signal of emotions.

Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with various semantico-functional and formal features. This subdivision is sometimes called “sub-categorization” of parts of speech. Thus, nouns are subcategorized into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract; verbs are subcategorized into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional and statal, factive and evaluative, etc.

We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by modern linguists on the lines of traditional morphology. It is known that the distribution of words between different parts of speech may to a certain extent differ with different authors, and the number of parts of speech differs with different grammarians - most textbooks differentiate from 8 to 13 parts of speech.

The main points of controversy between the classifications concern the status of several traditional parts of speech. Thus, the pronoun can, according to some theories, be recognized as a separate part of speech. According to other theories, all the units, traditionally termed “pronouns” should be distributed among two categories: the adjective (such pronouns as which, whose, both, all are proposed to be included here) and the determiner (the category used in the generative grammatical theories: the category encompasses all lexical units, which have indexical function and includes, apart from the articles, such pronouns as this, that, my his, her, etc). Likewise, the particle has been treated as a separate part of speech and also as a special type of the adverb. The article has been recognized as a separate part of speech by some scholars and as a kind of the pronouns by others.

Another, closely related group of problems in discriminating parts of speech is the lack of uniformity in either meaning, form, or function among words making up a given part of speech. Thus, some prepositions have been shown to possess lexical meaning (i.e., they designate entities in the extra linguistic world). For example, the preposition on designates a specific type of spatial relation between the book and the table in the sentence The book is on the table. However, other prepositions, like of and to in the sentences 1 met a friend of mine and I gave a book to him, do not have any lexical meaning - they do not designate any entities in the outside world and are used only to grammatically relate words within the sentence. In a similar manner, in the category of the adverb one distinguishes the so called postpositions, some of which have clearly lexical meaning (e.g.. He turned over the page, We thought it over) and some of which seem to have lost their lexical content (e.g., 1 have to look after my children. Look out!). There is also formal diversity within a given part of speech (which very often results from semantic differences). Some adjectives and adverbs do have the changing forms of the degrees of comparison (e.g., good/better/the best; to run fast/faster/fastest), while others - don't (e.g., wooden; tonight, tomorrow). There is much diversity among different items of a given part of speech in terms of function. F'or example, some verbal forms may be used in a wide range of syntactic functions thus becoming difficult to be discriminated from other parts of speech. Thus, the infinitive and the gerund may be used as subjects, objects, attributes, adverbial modifiers, as well as nominal and verbal parts of compound predicates, which are functions typical of the noun.

Alongside of the three-criteria principle of dividing the words into grammatical (lexico-granimatical) classes the syntactico-distributional classification of words was developed in the works of A.M.Peshkovsky, L.Bloomfield. Z.Harris and especially Ch.Fries. This kind of classification is based on the study of words’ combinability by means of substitution testing. The testing results in developing the standard model of four main “positions” of notional words in the English sentence: those of the noun (N), verb (V), adjective (A), adverb (D). Pronouns are included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes words standing outside the “positions” in the sentence are treated as functional words of various syntactic values.

Here is how Ch. Fries presents his scheme of English word-classes. For his materials he chooses tape-recorded spontaneous conversations comprising about 250.000 word entries which were tested on the three typical sentences:

Frame A: The concert was good (always).

Frame B: The clerk remembered the fax (suddenly).

Frame C: The team went there.

As a result of successive substitution tests on the cited “frames” the following lists of positional classes of words were established:

Class 1. (A) concert, coffee, taste...

(B) clerk, husband, supervisor... fax, food, coffee...

Class 2. (A) was, seemed, became...

(B) remembered, wanted, suggested...

Class 3. (A) good, large, necessary, foreign, new, empty...

Class 4. (A) there, here, always...

(B) clearly, sufficiently, especially...

These lists were formed on the principle that words from them can fill in the positions of the frames without affecting their general structural meaning, such as:

Frame A: thing and its quality at a given time

Frame B: actor-action-thing acted upon-characteristic of the action

Frame C: actor-action-direction of the action

Functional words are exposed in the cited process of testing as being unable to fill in the positions of the frames without destroying their structural meaning. These words form a limited group of 154 units.

The identified group of functional words can be distributed among the three main sets:

specifiers of notional words: determiners nouns, modal verbs as specifiers of notional verbs, functional modifiers and intensifiers of adjectives and adverbs;

interpositional elements, determining the relations of notional words: prepositions, conjunctions;

words referring to the sentence as a whole: question-words (what, how...), inducement-words (lets, please...), attention-words, words of affirmation and negation, sentence introducers it, there).

Comparing the syntactico-distributional classification of words with the traditional part of speech division of words, one can see the similarity of the general schemes of the two:

the opposition of notional and functional words, the four cardinal classes of notional words (pronouns being pro- nounal and pro-adjectival elements),

the presentation of notional words as open sets, the interpretation of functional words as syntactic mediators and their formal representation by the list.

The unity of notional lexemes finds its essential demonstration in an interclass system of derivation. For example: strength - to strengthen - strong - strongly; nation - to nationalize - national - nationally.

This derivational series that unites the notional word-classes can be named the “lexica! paradigm of nomination”. The general order of classes in the series evidently corresponds to the logic of mental perception of reality: first objects and their actions, then the properties of the former and the latter. Still, the actual initial form of a particular nomination paradigm can be represented by a lexeme of any word-class. For example:

a nounal paradigm (N—»): power-to empower- powerful-powerfully; a verbal paradigm (V—>): to suppose-supposition-supposed-supposedly; an adjectival paradigm (A—*): clear - clarity - to clarify - clearly; an adverbial paradigm (D—►): out - outing - to out - outer.

On the other hand, the universal character of the nomination paradigm is sustained by suppletive completion, both lexemic and phrasemic. For example: an end - to end - final - finally; wise - wisely - wisdom - to grow wise.

In conclusion, it is necessary to stress the idea that the whole of the lexicon on the upper level of classification can be divided intathree unequal parts.

1. The first part of the lexicon forming an open set includes an unlimited number of notional words which have a complete nominative function. It is represented by nouns as substance names, verbs as process names, adjectives as primary property names and adverbs as secondary property names. The whole notional set is represented by the four-stage derivational paradigm of nomination.

2. The second part of the lexicon forming a closed set includes substitutes of names (pro-names). Here belong pronouns and broad-meaning notional words,

3. The third part of the lexicon also forming a closed set includes specifiers of names. These are functional words of different status.

Lecture 5 Noun: General Characteristics

The noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of “substance” or “thinness”. It follows from this that the noun is the main nominative part of speech. The noun has a power, by way of nomination, to isolate different properties of substances and present them as self-dependent substances:

e.g. Her words were unexpectedly bitter —> We were struck by the unexpected bitterness of her words.

This natural and practically unlimited substantivization force establishes the noun as the central nominative lexemic unit of language.

The functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties. The most characteristic substantive function of the noun is that of the subject and that of the object. Other syntactic functions, i.e. attributive, adverbial, predicative, although performed by the noun with equal ease, are not immediately characteristic of its substantive quality as such. But performing these nonsubstantive functions, the noun essentially differs from the other parts of speech used in similar sentence positions. This may be shown by the following transformation test shifting the noun from non-subject syntactic positions into subject syntactic position of the same general semantic value (which is impossible with other parts of speech). E.g.:

Mary is a flower-girl —► The flower-girl is Mary.

He lives in Glasgow —* Glasgow is his place of residence.

This happened three years ago —♦ Three years have elapsed since it happened.

Apart from the cited sentence-part functions, the noun is characterized by some special types of combinability. In particular, typical of the noun is the prepositional combinability with another noun, a verb, an adjective, an adverb. E.g.: an entrance to the house, to turn round the comer, red in the face, far from its destination.

English nouns can also easily combine with one another by sheer contact. In the contact group the noun in preposition plays the role of a semantic qualifier to the noun in post-position. E.g.: a cannon ball, a log cabin, a sports even, a film festival. The lexico-grammatical status of such combinations has presented a big problem for scholars. The question is how to treat them either as one separate word or as a word-group. In the history of linguistics this controversial question is know as “The cannon ball problem”.

Taking into consideration the results of the comprehensive analysis undertaken in this field by Russian linguists, we may define the combination as a specific word-group with intermediary features. Crucial for this decision is the isolation test which is performed by a productive type of transformation. E.g.: the court regulation —> the regulation of the court, the progress report —* the report about progress, the funds distribution —*• the distribution of the funds.

The corresponding compound nouns, as a rule, cannot undergo the isolation test with an equal ease. The transformations of such kind are in fact reduced to sheer explanations of their etymological motivation. For example: starlight —» light coming from stars, fire-place —> place where fire is made. On the other hand, the comparatively closer connection between the stems in compound nouns is reflected by the spelling (contact or hyphenated presentation).

Contact noun attributes forming a string of several words are very characteristic of professional language:

A number of Space Shuttle optimization problems were raised in the development of the algorithm...

As a part of speech, the noun is also characterized by a set of formal features determining its specific status in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its word-building distinctions, including typical suffixes, compound stem models. It discriminates the grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination.

The cited formal features taken together are relevant for the division of nouns into several subclasses. The first nounal subclass opposition differentiates proper and common nouns. The foundation of this division is “type of nomination”. The second subclass opposition differentiates animate and inanimate nouns on the basis of “form of existence”. The third subclass opposition differentiates human and non-human nouns on the basis of “personal quality”. The fourth subclass opposition differentiates countable and uncountable nouns on the basis of “quantitative structure”. Somewhat less explicitly and rigorously realized is the division of English nouns into concrete and abstract.

The subclass differentiation of nouns constitutes a foundation for their selectional syntagmatic combinability both among themselves and with other parts of speech. For example:

The sandstone vras crumbling.

The horse was crumbling.

The poor creature was laming.

The tree was laming.

The phenomenon of subclass selection is intensely analyzed as part of current linguistic research work.

Lecture 6 The Noun. The Grammatical Category of Number

The category of number is expressed by the opposition of the plural form of the noun to the singular form of the noun. The strong member of this binary opposition is the plural, its productive formal mark being the suffix - (e) s. For example:

dog-dogs +

The other, non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are

- vowel interchange (man - men, woman - women, tooth - teeth, etc.);

- the archaic suffix - (e) n (ox - oxen, child - children, brother - brethren);

- the correlation of individual singular and plural suffixes in a limited number of borrowed nouns (formula - formulae, phenomenon - phenomena, etc.);

- homonymous forms for singular and plural (sheep, deer, fish, etc.).

On the surface of semantic relations, the meaning of the singular will be understood as simply “one”, as opposed to the meaning “more than one”. This is apparently obvious for such correlations as book - books, lake - lakes, etc. But there are some nouns the singular and plural of which present some problem. For example: potato (one item of the vegetables) and potatoes (food), paper (material) and papers (notes or documents), etc. As a results of the comparison the categorial meaning of plurality in the grammatical sense should be described as the potentially dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent, while the categorial meaning of singularity should be understood as the non-dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent.

On the other hand, here are semantic varieties of the plural forms that differ from one another in their plural quality. Here belong, for example, cases where the plural form expresses

- a definite set of object (eyes of the face, wheels of the vehicle, etc.);

- various types of the referent (wines, steels, etc.);

- intensity of the presentation (years and years, thousands and thousands, etc.);

- picturesqueness (sands, waters, snows, etc.).

The extreme point of this semantic scale is mark by the lexicalization of the plural form: colors (flag), attentions (wooing), pains (effort), etc. But, despite all these discrepancies the grammatical category of number is considered to be valid within the whole class of nouns.

Alongside with the regular countable nouns there exist the so-called uncountable nouns which are grammatically treated either singular (modified by non-discrete quantifiers much, little; take the verb in the singular) and plural.

The two subclasses of uncountable nouns are usually referred, to respectively, as singularia tantum (weak member) and pluralia tantum (strong member).

The absolute singular is characteristic of the names of abstract notions (peace, love, joy, etc.), names of branches of professional activity (chemistry, architecture, linguistics, etc.), the names of mass-materials (water, snow, steel, etc.), the names of collective inanimate objects (foliage, furniture, machinery, etc.). Some of these words can be used in the form of the common singular with the common plural counterpart, but in this case they come to mean either different sorts of materials, or separate concrete manifestations of the qualities denoted by abstract nouns. For example; Joy is absolutely necessary for normal human life. It was a joy to see her among us. These holidays were her little joys for her.ln the cited example the opposition between countable and uncountable nouns is nullified but the oppositional force of the category of number is still rehabilitated.

Common number with uncountable singular nouns can also be expressed by means of combining them with words showing discreteness, such as bit, piece, item, sort. For example: The last two items of news were quite sensational. This kind of rendering the grammatical meaning of common number with uncountable nouns is so regular that it can be regarded as special suppletivity in the categorial system of number.

On the other hand countable nouns in the singular can express the categorial meaning of absolute singular by way of oppositional reduction. In such cases nouns express either the corresponding abstract ideas or mass-material correlated with its countable referent. For example: Waltz is a lovely dance Have we got chicken for the second course? Under this heading comes also the generic use of the singular.

The absolute plural is characteristic of the uncountable nouns which denotes objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors specs, etc.), rendering the idea of indefinite plurality, both concrete and abstract (supplies, clothes, earnings, politics, poultry, cattle, police, etc.), denoting some diseases (measles, mumps, hysterics, etc.).

The necessity of expressing definite numbers in cases of uncountable pluralia tantum nouns has brought about different suppletive combinations specific to the plural form of the noun. Here belong collocations with such words as pair, set, group, bunch and some others.

Within the framework of the grammatical category of number the following types of oppositional reduction may take place.

1. The first type of reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with countable nouns in the singular form, concerns collective nouns, which are changed into “nouns of multitude”.

The family were gathered round the table.

The government are unanimous in disapproving the move of the opposition.

This form of the absolute plural may be called “multitude plural”.

2. The second type of reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with uncountable nouns in the plural form, concerns cases of stylistical marking of nouns. Thus, here we deals with transposition.

The sands of the desert; the snows of the Arctic; the waters of the Atlantic.

This variety of the absolute plural may be called “descriptive uncountable plural”.

3. The third type of oppositional reduction concerns common countable nouns used in repetition groups. The acquired implication is indefinitely large quantity. The nouns in repetition groups may themselves be used either in the plural or in the singular.

There were trees and trees all around us. I lit cigarette after cigarette.

This variety of the absolute plural may be called “repetition plural”.

Lecture 7 The Noun. The Grammatical Category of Case

Case is the immanent morphological category of the noun manifested in the forms of noun declension and showing the relations of the nounal referent to other objects and phenomena. This category is expressed in English by the opposition of the form in ~'s |/, s, lz], usually called the possessive case, or more traditionally, the genitive case, to the featured form of the noun, usually called the common case. The apostrophized 41 serves to distinguish in writing the singular noun in the genitive case from the plural noun in the common case. E.g.: the man’s duty, the President's decision, Max’s letter. The genitive of the bulk of plural nouns remains phonetically unexpressed: the few exceptions concern only some of the irregular plurals: men’s duties, women’s dresses.

From the theoretical point of view the grammatical category of case presents some problem in connection with which the following four special views were advanced at various times.

1. The first view may be called the “theory of positional cases”. This theory is directly connected with the old grammatical tradition and its traces can be seen in many contemporary text-books for school in the English-speaking countries. This view was developed in the works of J.C.Nesfield, M.Deutschbein, M.Bryant and other scholar.

In accord with the theory of positional cases,The unchangeable forms of the noun are differentiated as different cases by virtue of the functional positions

occupicd by the noun in the sentence. Thus, the English noun, on the analogy of classical Latin grammar, would distinguish, besides the inflexional genitive case, also the non-inflexional, purely positional cases: nominative, vocative, dative, and accusative. For example:

The nominative case (subject to a verb): Rain falls.

The vocative case (address): Are you coming, my friend?

The dative case (indirect object): I gave John a penny.

The accusative case (direct object, and also prepositional object): The man killed a ra[. The earth is moistened by rain.

The drawback of this theory is quite obvious. It substitutes the functional characteristics of the part of the sentence for the morphological features of the word class. Moreover, the case form, by definition, is the variable morphological form of the noun which is characterized by presence or absence of a particular categorial feature. As for as the functional meanings rendered by cases they can be expressed in language by other grammatical means, in particular, by word- order.

2. The second view may be called “the theory of prepositional cases”. Like the theory of positional cases, it is also connected with the old school grammar teaching and was advanced as a logical supplement to the positional view of the case. In accord with the prepositional theory combinations of nouns with prepositions should be understood as morphological case forms. To these belong first of all the dative case (to + Noun, for + Noun) and the genitive case (of + Noun). These prepositions, according to G.Curme, are “inflexional prepositions”, i.e. grammatical elements equivalent to case-forms.

The prepositional theory, though somewhat better grounded, nevertheless was strictly criticized by scholars, for example, professor llish. First of all, the categorial status of the preposition as a structural independent part of speech is completely neglected within this theory. Second, in accord with the cited theory, all the other prepositional phrases must be regarded as “analytical cases”. And as a result of such an illogical redundancy in terminology this approach would be fruitful neither to the linguistic theory nor to the practical usage.

3. The third view of the English noun case recognizes a limited inflexional system of two cases in English, one of them featured and the other one unfeatured. This view may be called the “limited case theory”.

The limited case theory is at present most broadly accepted among linguists both in this country and abroad. It was formulated by such scholars as

H. Sweet, O.Jespersen and has since been radically developed by the Soviet scholars A.l.Smimitsky, L.S.Barkhudarov and others. The limited case theory in its modem representation is based on the oppositional approach. The functional mark -'s differentiates the two case forms: the possessive or genitive form as the strong member of the categorial opposition and the common or “non-genitive” form as the weak member of the categorial opposition.

The first type of reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with countable nouns in the singular form, concerns collective nouns, which are changed into “nouns of multitude”.

The family were gathered round the table.

The government are unanimous in disapproving the move of the opposition.

This form of the absolute plural may be called “multitude plural”.

1. The second type of reduction, consisting in the use of the absolute plural with uncountable nouns in the plural form, concerns cases of stylistical marking of nouns. Thus, here we deals with transposition.

The sands of the desert, the snows of the Arctic, the waters of the Atlantic.

This variety of the absolute plural may be called “descriptive uncountable plural”.

2. The third type of oppositional reduction concerns common countable nouns used in repetition groups. The acquired implication is indefinitely large quantity. The nouns in repetition groups may themselves be used either in the plural or in the singular.

There were trees and trees all around us. I lit cigarette after cigarette.

This variety of the absolute plural may be called “repetition plural”.

Lecture 7 The Noun. The Grammatical Category of Case

Case is the immanent morphological category of the noun manifested in the forms of noun declension and showing the relations of the nounal referent to other objects and phenomena. This category is expressed in English by the opposition of the form in - s [z, s, Iz], usually called the possessive case, or more traditionally, the genitive case, to the featured form of the noun, usually called the common case. The apostrophized -s serves to distinguish in writing the singular noun in the genitive case from the plural noun in the common case. E.g.: the man’s duty, the President’s decision, Max’s letter. The genitive of the bulk of plural nouns remains phonetically unexpressed: the few exceptions concern only some of the irregular plurals: men’s duties, women’s dresses.

From the theoretical point of view the grammatical category of case presents some problem in connection with which the following four special views were advanced at various times.

t. The first view may be called the “theory of positional cases”. This theory is directly connected with the old grammatical tradition and its traces can be seen in many contemporary text-books for school in the English-speaking countries. This view was developed in the works of J.C.Nesfield, M.Deutschbein, M.Bryant and other scholar.

In accord with the theory of positional cases,The unchangeable forms of the noun are differentiated as different cases by virtue of the functional positions

occupied by the noun in the sentence. Thus, the English noun, on the analogy of classical Latin grammar, would distinguish, besides the inflexional genitive case, also the non-inflexional, purely positional cases: nominative, vocative, dative, and accusative. For example:

The nominative case (subject to a verb): Rain falls.

The vocative case (address): Are you coming, mv friend?

The dative case (indirect object): / gave John a penny.

The accusative case (direct object, and also prepositional object): The man killed a rat. The earth is moistened by rain.

The drawback of this theory is quite obvious. It substitutes the functional characteristics of the part of the sentence for the morphological features of the word class. iVloreover, the case form, by definition, is the variable morphological form of the noun which is characterized by presence or absence of a particular categorial feature. As for as the functional meanings rendered by cases they can be expressed in language by other grammatical means, in particular, by word- order.

2. The sccond view may be called "the theory of prepositional cases”. Like the theory of positional cases, it is also connected with the old school grammar teaching and was advanced as a logical supplement to the positional view of the case. In accord with the prepositional theory combinations of nouns with prepositions should be understood as morphological case forms. To these belong first of all the dative case (to + Noun, for + Noun) and the genitive case (of + Noun). These prepositions, according to G.Curme, are “inflexional prepositions”, i.e. grammatical elements equivalent to case-forms.

The limited case theory is at present most broadly accepted among linguists both in this country and abroad. It was formulated by such scholars as

H. Sweet, O.Jespersen and has since been radically developed by the Soviet scholars A.I.Smimitsky, L.S.Barkhudarov and others. The limited case theory in its modem representation is based on the oppositional approach. The functional mark -'s differentiates the two case forms: the possessive or genitive form as the strong member of the categorial opposition and the common or “non-genitive” form as the weak member of the categorial opposition.

4, We have considered the three theories which, if at basically different angles, proceed from the assumption that the English noun does distinguish the grammatical category of case. However, there exists another view of the problems of the English noun cases, which states that the English noun has completely lost the category of case in the course of its historical development. The form of the so-called genitive case is treated within this approach as a combination of a noun with a postposition. This view, advanced in an explicit form by G.N.Vorontsova, may be called the “theory of the possessive postposition".

This theory also has some grounds. First, the postpositional element - s is but loosely connected with the noun, which finds the clearest expression in its use not only with single nouns, but also with whole word-groups of various status. For example, somebody else’s daughter, the man who addressed to me a minute ago’s head. Second, there is an indisputable parallelism of functions between the possessive postpositional constructions and the prepositional constructions. For example,... —> the daughter of somebody else,......-Ht the head of the man who

addressed to me a minute ago. The cited reasonings are by all means of a rational character being based on a careful observation of the lingual data. But we can't but admit the systematic character of - 's which is in favor of the limited case theory. On the other hand, the broader phrasal uses of the postpositional -'s (that amount to not more than only 4% of its total textual occurrences) display a clearly expressed stylistic coloring which proves their transpositional nature. That's why it is logical to recognize two structural variants of the genitive: the word-genitive and the phrase-genitive.

The -'s sign from the point of view of its segmental status differs from ordinary functional words. It is morpheme-like by its phonetical properties; it is strictly postpositional unlike the prepositions; it is semantically by far a more bound element than a preposition.

Within the genera) functional semantics, the English genitive expresses a wide range of relational meanings which may be summarize into the following basic semantic types of the genitive:

L The “genitive of possessor” denotes an “inorganic” possession:

Christine’s living-room; the assistant manager’s desk. The diagnostic test for the genitive of possessor is its transformation into a construction that explicitly expresses the idea of belonging. E.g.: Christine’s living-room —*■ the living-room belongs to Christin.

2. The “genitive of integer” denotes an “organic” possession: Jane’s

busy hands, Patrick’s voice. The diagnostic test for the genitive of integer exposes the relations of a whole to a part. E.g.:... —> the busy hands as part of Jane.

A subtype of the integer genitive expresses a particular qualification received by the referent: Mr. Dodson’s vanity, the computer’s reliability. This subtype may be called the “genitive of received qualification”.

3. The "genitive of agent” renders an activity or some broader processual relation: the man’s arrival, Peter's insistence, Campbell’s gaze. Diagnostic test for the genitive of agent is a sentence with the referent of the genitive as its subject. E.g.:... —* the man arrives,... -^ Peter insists, Campbell gazes.

A subtype of the agent genitive expresses the author, or the producer of the referent of the head-noun. It receives the name of the ‘‘genitive of author”: John Galsworthy’s “A Man of Property”.

4. The “genitive of patient” expresses the recipient of the action denoted by the head-noun: the champion’s sensational defeat, Erick’s final expulsion, the Titanic’s tragedy. Diagnostic test for the genitive of patient is a passive construction with the referent of the genitive as its subject. E.g.:... —> the champion is defeated;... —> Erick is expelled.

5. The “genitive of destination” denotes the destination or function of the referent of the head-noun: women’s footwear, children’s verses, a fishers' tent. Diagnostic test provides for destination. E.g.:... —» footwear for women,... -** verses for children.

6. The “genitive of adverbial” denotes adverbial factors relating to the referent of the head-noun: the evening’s newspaper, yesterday’s encounter, Moscow’s talks. Diagnostic test is a transformation with a referent of the genitive in the function of adverbial. E.g.:... —* the newspaper issued in the evening,... —* talks that were held in Moscow.

7. The “genitive of quantity ” denotes the measure or quantity relating

to the referent of the head-noun: three miles’ distance, an hour’s delay, a hundred tons’ load. Diagnostic test is a transformation with such key-words as distance, time, weight. E.g.:» a distance the measure of which is three miles,... - * a

time lasting for an hour.

The given survey of the semantic types of the genitive is by no means exhaustive and is open both to subtype specifications and intertype generalizations.

Lecture 8

The Noun. The Grammatical Category of Gender

The problem of gender in English is being vigorously disputed. Linguistic scholars as a rule deny the existence of gender in English as a grammatical category and stress its purely semantic character. The actual gender distinctions of nouns are not denied by anyone; what is disputable is the character of the gender classification: whether it is purely semantic or semantico-grammatical.

In fact, the category of gender in English is expressed with the help of the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal pronouns of the third

person. The third person pronouns being specific and obligatory classifiers of nouns, English gender distinctions display their grammatical nature.

The category of gender is based on two hierarchically arranged oppositions: the upper opposition is general, it functions in the whole set of nouns; the lower opposition is partial, it functions in the subset of person nouns only. As a result of the double oppositional correlation, in Modern English a specific system of three genders arises: the neuter, the masculine, and the feminine genders.

In English there are many person nouns capable of expressing both feminine and masculine genders by way of the pronominal correlation. These nouns comprise a group of the so-called “common gender" nouns, e.g.: “person", “friend”, etc.

In the plural all the gender distinctions are neutralized but they are rendered obliquely through the correlation with the singular.

Alongside of the grammatical (or lexico-grammatical) gender distinctions, English nouns can show the sex of their referents also lexically with the help of special lexical markers, e.g.: bull-calf / cow-calf cock-sparrow / hen- sparrow, he-bear / she-bear. etc. or through suffixal derivation: sultan / sultana, lion / lioness, etc.

The category of gender can undergo the process of oppositional reduction. It can be easily neutralized (with the group of “common gender” nouns) and transponized (the process of “personification”).

The English gender differs much from the Russian gender: the English gender has a semantic character (oppositionally, i.e. grammatically expressed), while the gender in Russian is partially semantic (Russian animate nouns have semantic gender distinctions), and partially formal.

Lecture 9 The Noun. The Category of Article Determination

Article is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in communicative collocations. Where as the function of the determiners such as this, any, some, etc. Is to explicitly interpret the referent of the noun in relation to other objects or phenomena, the semantic purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent, to denote it in the most general way.

The peculiarity of the article is that the use of the article with the noun is quite obligatory. And this peculiar feature of the article arises a problem as far as its segmental status in the system of morphology. Namely, the problem is whether the article is a purely auxiliary element of a special grammatical form of the noun which functions as a component of a definite morphological category, or it is a separate word, i.e. a lexical unit in the determiner word set. The following arguments were put forward to support the theory of the article as a separate unit.

Semantic observation discloses three meaningful characterizations of the nounal referent rendered by the definite, the indefinite and the meaningful absence of the article.

1. The definite article expresses the identification or individualization of the referent of the noun. The use of this article shows that the object denoted is taken in its concrete, individual quality. This meaning is exposed by a substitution test which consists in replacing the article by a demonstrative word. Look at the apple-tree! —♦ Look at this apple-tree!

2. The indefinite article is commonly interpreted as referring the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects. The indefinite article expresses a classifying generalization of the nounal referent. This meaning is exposed by a substitution test which consists in insertions of classifying phrases. We passed a water-null. —* We passed a certain (a kind of) water-mill

3. Various uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic point of view, should be divided, into two types: meaningful and not meaningful. Not meaningful absence of article takes place in the following cases. First, there are uses where the articles are deliberately omitted out of stylistic considerations. For instance, in telegraphic speech, in titles and headlines, in various notices. Telegram received room reserved for weekend (the telegram text).

In such kind of cases the omitted articles can be easily restored: The

telegram is received, a room is reserved for the weekend.

Second, there are cases of the semantically unspecified non-use of the article in various combinations of fixed type:

- prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt, etc.);

- fixed verbal collocations (take place, make use, etc.);

- descriptive coordinate groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog and

gun, day by day, etc.).

The meaningful non-uses of the article are not homogeneous.

First, the meaningful absence of the article before the countable noun in the singular signifies that the noun is taken in an abstract sense. This meaning is called “absolute generalization” and may be demonstrated by inserting the following generalizing modifiers, such as in general, in the abstract, in the broadest sense.

Law (in general) begins with the beginning of human society.

Second, the absence of the article before the uncountable noun corresponds to the two kinds of generalization: both relative and absolute. To decide which of the two meanings is realized in any particular case, the described tests should be carried out alternately:

John laughed with great bitterness (that sort of bitterness: relative generalization).

Ritter ness (in general: absolute generalization) is always harmful for your health.

Third, the absence of the article before the countable noun in the plural, likewise, corresponds to both kinds of generalization.

Stars, planets, comets (these kinds of objects: relative generalization) are different celestial bodies.

Wars (in general: absolute generalization) should be eliminated as means of deciding international disputes.

Passing to the situational estimation of the article uses, we must point out that the basic principle of their differentiation is not a direct consideration of their meanings, but concrete contextual conditions of their usage. From this angle, the definite article serves as an indicator of the nounal information which is presented as the “facts already known”, or starting point of the communication (the theme). In contrast to this, the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the article introduces the part rendering the immediate informational data to be conveyed from the speaker to the listener (the rheme).

In accord with the said situational functions, the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by the definite article is that of the subject, while the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by the indefinite article or by the meaningful absence of the article is that of the predicative.

How to handle the situation was a big question.

It should be noted that in many other cases of syntactic use, i.e. non- subjective or non-predicative, the articles reflect the same situational functions.

1 am going to make a rather strange request (object) to you. —* What I am going to make is a rather strange request (predicative) to you.

Another essential contextual-situational characteristic of the articles is their immediate connection with the two types of attributes to the noun. The limiting attribute requires the definite article, while the descriptive attribute requires the indefinite one.

She was the person I have been looking for all my life. (A limiting attribute)

She was a person of strong will and iron self-control (A descriptive attribute)

From the point of view of the oppositional approach the category of article determination may be represented by two levels. The opposition of the higher level operates in the whole system of articles. It contrasts the definite article against the indefinite article and the meaningful absence of the article. In this opposition the definite article should be interpreted as the strong member by virtue of its identifying and individualising function, while the other forms of article determination should be interpreted as the weak member leaving the feature in question unspecified.

The opposition of the lower level operates within the article subsystem that forms the weak member of the upper opposition. This opposition contrasts the two types of generalisation, namely the relative generalisation distinguishing its strong member (the indefinite article plus meaningful absence of article) and the absolute generalisation distinguishing the weak member of the opposition (the meaningful absence of the article).

The best way of demonstrating the actual oppositional value of the articles on the immediate textual material is to contrast them in syntactically equivalent conditions in pairs.

The train stopped (that train). - A train stopped (some train).

I m afraid the oxygen is out (our supply of oxygen). Oxygen is necessary for life (oxygen in general).

Be careful, there is a puddle under your feet (a kind of puddle). - Be careful, ihere is mud on the ground (as different from clean space).

New information should be gathered on this subject (some information). - Scientific information should be gathered systematically in all fields of human knowledge (information in general).

Summarising the data obtained we can state that the English noun distinguishes also the category of determination expressed by the article paradigm of three grammatical forms: the definite, the indefinite, the zero (the meaningful absence of article). The paradigm is generalised for the whole system of the common nouns, being transpositionaliy outstretched into the system of proper nouns. The status of the combination of the article with the noun should be defined as basically analytical, being localised between the free syntactic combination of words (bearing in mind the possibility of insertion) and the combination of a grammatical affix with a notional stem.

Lecture 10 Peculiarities of the Adjective as a Part of Speech

The adjective expresses the categorial semantics of property of a substance. It means that each adjective used in the text presupposes relation to some noun the property of whose referent it denotes, such as its material, colour, dimensions, position, state, and other characteristics both permanent and temporary. It follows from this that, unlike nouns, adjectives do not possess a full nominative value.

Adjectives are distinguished by a specific combinability with nouns, which they modify, if not accompanied by adjuncts, usually in pre-position, and occasionally in post-position; by a combinability with link-verbs, both functional and notional; by a combinability with modifying adverbs.

In the sentence the adjective performs the functions of an attribute and a predicative. Of the two, the more specific function of the adjective is that of an attribute, since the function of a predicative can be performed by the noun as well.

To the derivational features of adjectives belong a number of suffixes and prefixes of which the most important are: -fu! (hopeful), -less (flawless), -ish (bluish), -ous (famous), -ive (decorative). -ic (basic); un- (unprecedented), in- (inaccurate), pre- (premature). Among the adjectival affixes should also be named the prefix a-, constitutive for the stative subclass.

The English adjective is distinguished by the hybrid category of comparison. The ability of an adjective to form degrees of comparison is usually taken as a formal sign of its qualitative character, in opposition to a relative adjective which is understood as incapable of forming degrees of comparison by definition. However, in actual speech the described principle of distinction is not at all strictly observed.

On the one hand, adjectives can denote such qualities of substances which are incompatible with the idea of degrees of comparison. Here refer adjectives like extinct, immobile, deaf, final, fixed, etc.

On the other hand, many adjectives considered under the heading of relative still can form degrees of comparison, thereby, as it were, transforming the denoted relative property of a substance into such as can be graded quantitatively, e.g.: of a military’ design - of a less military design - of a more military design.

In order to overcome the demonstrated lack of rigour in the differentiation of qualitative and relative adjectives, we may introduce an additional linguistic distinction which is more adaptable to the chances of usage. The suggested distinction is based on the evaluative function of adjectives. According as they actually give some qualitative evaluation to the substance referent or only point out its corresponding native property, all the adjective functions may be grammatically divided into “evaluative” and “specificative”. In particular, one and the same adjective, irrespective of its being basically “relative” or “qualitative”, can be used either in the evaluative function or in the specificative function.

The introduced distinction between the evaluative and specificative uses of adjectives, in the long run, emphasizes the fact that the morphological category of comparison (comparison degrees) is potentially represented in the whole class of adjectives and is constitutive for it.

Fhe category of adjectival comparison expresses the quantitative characteristic of the quality of a nounal referent. The category is constituted by the opposition of the three forms known under the heading of degrees of comparison; the basic form (positive degree), having no features of comparison; the comparative degree form, having the feature of restricted superiority (which limits the comparison to two elements only); the superlative degree form, having the feature of unrestricted superiority.

Both formally and semantically, the oppositional basis of the category of comparison displays a binary nature. In terms of the three degrees of comparison, at the upper level of presentation the superiority degrees as the marked member of the opposition are contrasted against the positive degree as its unmarked member. The superiority degrees, in their turn, form the opposition of the lower level of presentation, where the comparative degree features the functionally weak member, and the superlative degree, respectively, the strong member. The whole of the double oppositional unity, considered from the semantic angle,^constitutes a gradual ternary opposition.

The analytical forms of comparison, as different from the synthetic forms, are used to express emphasis, thus complementing the synthetic forms in the sphere of this important stylistic connotation. Analytical degrees of comparison are devoid of the feature of "semantic idiomatism” characteristic of some other categorial analytical forms, such as, e.g., the forms of the verbal perfect. For this reason the analytical degrees of comparison invite some linguists to call in question their claim to a categorial status in English grammar.

Lecture 11

Pecuiiarities of the Adverb as a Part of Speech

The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing either property of an action, or property of another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs. This definition, though certainly informative and instructive, fails to directly point out the relation between the adverb and the adjective as the primary qualifying part of speech.

To overcome this drawback, we should define the adverb as a notional word expressing a non-substantive property, that is, a property of a non-substantive referent. This formula immediately shows the actual correlation between the adverb and the adjective, since the adjective is a word expressing a substantive property.

In accord with their categorial semantics adverbs are characterized by a combinabiiity with verbs, adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The functions of adverbs in these combinations consist in expressing different adverbial modifiers. Adverbs can also refer to whole situations; in this function they are considered under the heading of “situation-determinants”. In accord with their word-building structure adverbs may be simple and derived.

The typical adverbial affixes in affixal derivation are, first and foremost, the basic and only productive adverbial suffix -ly (slowly), and then a couple of others of limited distribution, such as -ways (sideways), -wise (clockwise), -ward(s) (homewards). The characteristic adverbial prefix is a- (away). Among the adverbs there are also peculiar composite formations and phrasal formations of prepositional, conjunctional and other types: some limes, at least, to andfro, etc.

Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitative and circumstantial. Qualitative adverbs express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly. E.g.: bitterly, plainly. The adverbs interpreted as "quantitative" include words of degree. These are specific lexical units of semifunctional nature expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities, e.g.: of high degree: very, quite; of excessive degree: too, awfully, of unexpected degree: surprisingly; of moderate degree: relatively; of low degree: a little; of approximate degree: almost; of optimal degree: adequately; of inadequate degree: unbearably; of under-degree: hardly Circumstantial adverbs are divided into functional and notional.

The functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. Besides quantitative (numerical) adverbs they include adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of these words are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming functionals. Here belong such words as now, here, when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc. As for circumstantial notional adverbs, they include adverbs of time (today, never, shortly) and adverbs of place (homeward(s), near, ashore). The two varieties express a general idea of temporal and spa-cial orientation and essentially perform deictic (indicative) functions in the broader sense. On this ground they may be united under the general heading of “orientative” adverbs.

Thus, the whole class of adverbs will be divided, first, into nominal and pronominal, and the nominal adverbs will be subdivided into qualitative and orientative, the former including genuine qualitative adverbs and degree adverbs, the latter falling into temporal and local adverbs, with further possible subdivisions of more detailed specifications.

As is the case with adjectives, this lexemic subcategorization of adverbs should be accompanied by a more functional and flexible division into evaluative and specificative, connected with the catego-rial expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to evaluational grading by degree words expresses the category of comparison, much in the same way as adjectives do. Thus, not only qualitative, but also orientative adverbs, proving they come under the heading of evaluative, arc included into the categorial system of comparison, e.g.: ashore - more ashore - most ashore - less ashore - least ashore.

Lecture 12 The Verb: General Overview

The verb performs the central role in expressing predication in the sentence. The two major subclasses of the verb are: finite verbs and the non-finite verbs (sometimes also referred to as verbals and verbids).

The categorial meaning of the verb is process or state. The semantic feature of the verb finds its reflection in formal and functional features of this part of speech. The morphological categories of the verb are: the tense, the voice, the aspect, the mood, the person, and number. With the exception of the last two morphological categories, the nature of their semantics is processual, i.e. they express different aspects of actions and states. The functional characteristics of the verb are realized in its typical syntactic functions - the predicate or a part of the predicate of the sentence.

There are different classifications of verbs: those based on their morphology and semantics. From the point of view of their morphological structure, verbs are classified into 5 groups:

- simple verb stems (go, stay, take, read);

- sound-replacive and stress-replacive (to feed (from food), to bleed (from blood), to im'port (from 'import), to trans'port (from 'transport);

- expanded verbal stems (formation of verb stems by adding affixes, i.e., suffixes (-en: broaden, deafen; -ate: cultivate, compensate) and prefixes (en-: engulf, enlarge; over-: overestimate, overdo);

- composite verbal stems (to blackmail, to proofread);

- phrasal verbal stems (to have a smoke, to give a sigh, to give in, to be off).

From the point of view of their semantics, verbs may be classified into (1) notional and (2) semi-notional or functional. Semi-functional verbs comprise the following groups of verbs:

1. Auxiliaries (be, have, do. shall, will, should, would). These are used to build analytical forms of notional verbs;

2. Modal verbs (can, may, must, should, ought, etc.). They can be found only in combination with the infinitive. The modal verbs express modality, i.e., the speaker’s attitude to the action expressed by the verb, such as ability, obligation, permission, advisability, probability, etc.

3. Verbal-introducer verbs. These are verbs that are always combined with non-finite verbs or verbals (e.g., to happen, to appear, to do smth, to turn out, to be smth, to begin, to continue, to finish doing smth.). Together with a verbal, they constitute the compound verbal predicate. Some verbal-introducer verbs have their notional counter parts and should be distinguished from them (the latter do not have to combine with verbals): to begin to fight vs. to begin a fight.

4. Link verbs. They are combined with predicatives in a sentence to form the compound nominal predicate. These are verbs of the following types:

- verbs of‘'being” (to be, to stay, to remain);

- verbs of'‘becoming” (to become, to get, to grow);

- verbs of “perception” (to seem, to look, to smell).

Notional verbs undergo three main subcategorizations. On the basis of the relationship between the subject of the process and the process itself verbs are divided into:

1. Actional verbs (the subject is an active doer of the action expressed by the verb): to do, to act, to go, to read, to learn, to discover;

2. Statal verbs (the subject is not active, but is in some state or subjected to some action): to be, to live, to worry, to know, to suffer.

On the basis of the aspective characteristics notional verbs are divided into:

- durative (verbs denoting continuing actions or state): to live, to sleep, to behave;

- iterative (verbs denoting repeated actions): to smoke, to jog, to go (to school);

Дата добавления: 2015-08-13; просмотров: 331 | Нарушение авторских прав

<== предыдущая страница	\|	следующая страница ==>
The Grammatical Category and the Meaning. The Theory of Oppositions in Grammar	\|	ПЕРЕДМОВА

mybiblioteka.su - 2015-2024 год. (0.094 сек.)