Английский язык - Учебники на русском языке - Скачать бесплатно
individualising properties, but these factors do not spoil the gradual
opposition as such).
The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in
which the members are distinguished by different positive features.
For instance, the phonemes [m] and [b], both bilabial consonants, form an
equipollent opposition, [m] being sonorous nazalised, [b ] being plosive.
We have noted above that any opposition can be reformulated in privative
terms. Indeed, any positive feature distinguishing an oppositionally
characterised lingual element is absent in the oppositionally correlated
element, so that considered from the point of view of this feature alone,
the opposition, by definition, becomes privative. This reformulation is
especially helpful on an advanced stage of oppositional study of a given
microsystem, because it enables us to characterise the elements of the
system by the corresponding strings ("bundles") of values of their
oppositional featuring ("bundles of differential features"), each feature
being represented by the values + or —.
For instance, [p] is distinguished from [b] as voiceless (voice —), from
[t ] as bilabial (labialisation +), from [m] as non-nazalised (nazalisation
—), etc. The descriptive advantages of this kind of characterisation are
self-evident.
Unlike phonemes which are monolateral lingual elements, words as units of
morphology are bilateral; therefore morphological oppositions must reflect
both the plane of expression (form) and the plane of content (meaning).
The most important type of opposition in morphology, the same as in
phonology, is the binary privative opposition.
The privative morphological opposition is based on a morphological
differential feature which is present in its strong parked) member and
absent in its weak (unmarked) member. In another kind of wording, this
differential feature may be
29
said to mark one of the members of the opposition positively (the strong
member), and the other one negatively (the weak member). The featuring in
question serves as the immediate means of expressing a grammatical meaning.
For instance, the expression of the verbal present and past tenses is
based on a privative opposition the differential feature of which is the
dental suffix -(e)d. This suffix, rendering the meaning of the past tense,
marks the past form of the verb positively (we worked), and the present
form negatively (we work).
The meanings differentiated by the oppositions of signemic units
(signemic oppositions) are referred to as "semantic features", or "semes".
For instance, the nounal form cats expresses the seme of plurality, as
opposed to the form cat which expresses, by contrast, the seme of
singularity. The two forms constitute a privative opposition in which the
plural is the marked member. In order to stress the negative marking of the
singular, it can be referred to as "non-plural".
It should be noted that the designation of the weak members of privative
morphological oppositions by the "non-" terms is significant not only from
the point of view of the plane of expression, but also from the point of
view of the plane of content. It is connected with the fact that the
meaning of the weak member of the privative opposition is more general and
abstract as compared with the meaning of the strong member, which is,
respectively, more particular and concrete. Due to this difference in
meaning, the weak member is used in a wider range of contexts than the
strong member. For instance, the present tense form of the verb, as
different from the past tense, is used to render meanings much broader than
those directly implied by the corresponding time-plane as such. Cf.:
The sun rises in the East. To err is human. They don\'t speak French in
this part of the country. Etc.
Equipollent oppositions in the system of English morphology constitute a
minor type and are mostly confined to formal relations only. An example of
such an opposition can be seen in the correlation of the person forms of
the verb be: am — are — is.
Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognised; in
principle, they can be identified as a minor type on the semantic level
only. An example of the gradual
30
morphological opposition can be seen in the category of comparison: strong
— stronger — strongest.
A grammatical category must be expressed by at least one opposition of
forms. These forms are ordered in a paradigm in grammatical descriptions.
Both equipollent and gradual oppositions in morphology, the same as in
phonology, can be reduced to privative oppositions within the framework of
an oppositional presentation of some categorial system as a whole. Thus, a
word-form, like a phoneme, can be represented by a bundle of values of
differential features, graphically exposing its categorial structure. For
instance, the verb-form listens is marked negatively as the present tense
(tense —), negatively as the indicative mood (mood —), negatively as the
passive voice (voice—), positively as the third person (person +), etc.
This principle of presentation, making a morphological description more
compact, at the same time has the advantage of precision and helps
penetrate deeper into the inner mechanisms of grammatical categories.
§ 3. In various contextual conditions, one member of an opposition can be
used in the position of the other, counter-member. This phenomenon should
be treated under the heading of "oppositional reduction" or "oppositional
substitution". The first version of the term ("reduction") points out the
fact that the opposition in this case is contracted, losing its formal
distinctive force. The second version of the term ("substitution") shows
the very process by which the opposition is reduced, namely, the use of one
member instead of the other.
By way of example, let us consider the following case of the singular
noun-subject: Man conquers nature.
The noun man in the quoted sentence is used in the singular, but it is
quite clear that it stands not for an individual person, but for people in
general, for the idea of "mankind". In other words, the noun is used
generically, it implies the class of denoted objects as a whole. Thus, in
the oppositional light, here the weak member of the categorial opposition
of number has replaced the strong member.
Consider another example: Tonight we start for London.
The verb in this sentence takes the form of the present, while its
meaning in the context is the future. It means that the opposition "present
— future" has been reduced, the weak member (present) replacing the strong
one (future).
31
The oppositional reduction shown in the two cited cases is stylistically
indifferent, the demonstrated use of the forms does not transgress the
expressive conventions of ordinary speech. This kind of oppositional
reduction is referred to as "neutralisation" of oppositions. The position
of neutralisation is, as a rule, filled in by the weak member of the
opposition due to its more general semantics.
Alongside of the neutralising reduction of oppositions there exists
another kind of reduction, by which one of the members of the opposition is
placed in contextual conditions uncommon for it; in other words, the said
reductional use of the form is stylistically marked. E.g.: That man is
constantly complaining of something.
The form of the verbal present continuous in the cited sentence stands in
sharp contradiction with its regular grammatical meaning "action in
progress at the present time". The contradiction is, of course, purposeful:
by exaggeration, it intensifies the implied disapproval of the man\'s
behaviour.
This kind of oppositional reduction should be considered under the
heading of "transposition". Transposition is based on the contrast between
the members of the opposition, it may be defined as a contrastive use of
the counter-member of the opposition. As a rule (but not exclusively)
transpositionally employed is the strong member of the opposition, which is
explained by its comparatively limited regular functions.
§ 4. The means employed for building up member-forms of categorial
oppositions are traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical;
accordingly, the grammatical forms themselves are classed into synthetical
and analytical, too.
Synthetical grammatical forms are realised by the inner morphemic
composition of the word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by
a combination of at least two words, one of which is a grammatical
auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of "substantial" meaning.
Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer
inflexion, and suppletivity; hence, the forms are referred to as inner-
inflexional, outer-inflexional, and suppletive.
Inner inflexion, or phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in
modern Indo-European languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of
their basic, most ancient
32
lexemic elements. By this feature, the whole family of Indo-European
languages is identified in linguistics as typologically "inflexional".
Inner inflexion (grammatical "infixation", see above) is used in English
in irregular verbs (the bulk of them belong to the Germanic strong verbs)
for the formation of the past indefinite and past participle; besides, it
is used in a few nouns for the formation of the plural. Since the
corresponding oppositions of forms are based on phonemic interchange, the
initial paradigmatic form of each lexeme should also be considered as
inflexional. Cf.: take — took — taken, drive — drove — driven, keep — kept
— kept, etc.; man — men, brother — brethren, etc.
Suppletivity, like inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely
morphological type of form. It is based on the correlation of different
roots as a means of paradigmatic differentiation. In other words, it
consists in the grammatical interchange of word roots, and this, as we
pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in principle with inner
inflexion (or, rather, makes the latter into a specific variety of the
former).
Suppletivity is used in the forms of the verbs be and go, in the
irregular forms of the degrees of comparison, in some forms of personal
pronouns. Cf.: be — am — are — is — was — were; go — went; good — better;
bad — worse; much — more; little — less; I — me; we — us; she — her.
In a broader morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognised
in paradigmatic correlations of some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns,
as well as certain nouns of peculiar categorial properties (lexemic
suppletivity — see Ch. IV, § 8). Cf.: can — be able; must — have (to), be
obliged (to); may — be allowed (to); one — some; man — people; news — items
of news; information — pieces of information; etc.
The shown unproductive synthetical means of English morphology are
outbalanced by the productive means of affixation (outer inflexion), which
amount to grammatical suffixation (grammatical prefixation could only be
observed in the Old English verbal system).
In the previous chapter we enumerated the few grammatical suffixes
possessed by the English language. These are used to build up the number
and case forms of the noun; the Person-number, tense, participial and
gerundial forms of the verb; the comparison forms of the adjective and
adverb. In the oppositional correlations of all these forms, the initial
3-1499 33
paradigmatic form of each opposition is distinguished by a zero suffix.
Cf.: boy + ш — boys; go + ш — goes; work + ш — worked; small + ш —smaller;
etc.
Taking this into account, and considering also the fact that each
grammatical form paradigmatically correlates with at least one other
grammatical form on the basis of the category expressed (e.g. the form of
the singular with the form of the plural), we come to the conclusion that
the total number of synthetical forms in English morphology, though
certainly not very large, at the same time is not so small as it is
commonly believed. Scarce in English are not the synthetical forms as such,
but the actual affixal segments on which the paradigmatic differentiation
of forms is based.
As for analytical forms which are so typical of modern English that they
have long made this language into the "canonised" representative of lingual
analytism, they deserve some special comment on their substance.
The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognises two
lexemic parts in it, stating that it presents a combination of an auxiliary
word with a basic word. However, there is a tendency with some linguists to
recognise as analytical not all such grammatically significant
combinations, but only those of them that are "grammatically idiomatic",
i.e. whose relevant grammatical meaning is not immediately dependent on the
meanings of their component elements taken apart. Considered in this light,
the form of the verbal perfect where the auxiliary "have" has utterly lost
its original meaning of possession, is interpreted as the most standard and
indisputable analytical form \'in English morphology. Its opposite is seen
in the analytical degrees of comparison which, according to the cited
interpretation, come very near to free combinations of words by their lack
of "idiomatism" in the above sense [Смирницкий, (2), 68 и сл.; Бархударов,
(2), 67 и сл.].*
The scientific achievement of the study of "idiomatic" analytism in
different languages is essential and indisputable. On the other hand, the
demand that "grammatical idiomatism" should be regarded as the basis of
"grammatical analytism" seems, logically, too strong. The analytical means
underlying the forms in question consist in the discontinuity of the
corresponding lexemic constituents. Proceeding from
* Cf. Аналитические конструкции в языках различных типов: Сб. ст./Отв.
ред. Жирмунский В. М. и Суник О. П. М.—Л., 1965.
34
this fundamental principle, it can hardly stand to reason to exclude
"unidiomatic" grammatical combinations (i.e. combinations of oppositional-
categorial significance) from the system of analytical expression as such.
Rather, they should be regarded as an integral part of this system, in
which, the provision granted, a gradation of idiomatism is to be
recognised. In this case, alongside of the classical analytical forms of
verbal perfect or continuous, such analytical forms should also be
discriminated as the analytical infinitive (go — to go), the analytical
verbal person (verb plus personal pronoun), the analytical degrees of
comparison of both positive and negative varieties (more important — less
important), as well as some other, still more unconventional form-types.
Moreover, alongside of the standard analytical forms characterised by the
unequal ranks of their components (auxiliary element—basic element), as a
marginal analytical form-type grammatical repetition should be recognised,
which is used to express specific categorial semantics of processual
intensity with the verb, of indefinitely high degree of quality with the
adjective and the adverb, of indefinitely large quantity with the noun.
Cf.:
He knocked and knocked and knocked without reply (Gr. Greene). Oh, I feel
I\'ve got such boundless, boundless love to give to somebody (K. Mansfield).
Two white-haired severe women were in charge of shelves and shelves of
knitting materials of every description (A. Christie).
§ 5. The grammatical categories which are realised by the described types
of forms organised in functional paradigmatic oppositions, can either be
innate for a given class of words, or only be expressed on the surface of
it, serving as a sign of correlation with some other class.
For instance, the category of number is organically connected with the
functional nature of the noun; it directly exposes the number of the
referent substance, e.g. one ship — several ships. The category of number
in the verb, however, by no means gives a natural meaningful characteristic
to the denoted process: the process is devoid of numerical features such as
are expressed by the grammatical number. Indeed, what is rendered by the
verbal number is not a quantitative characterisation of the process, but a
numerical featuring of the subject-referent. Cf.:
35
The girl is smiling. — The girls are smiling. The ship is in the harbour.
— The ships are in the harbour.
Thus, from the point of view of referent relation, grammatical categories
should be divided into "immanent" categories, i.e. categories innate for a
given lexemic class, and "reflective" categories, i.e. categories of a
secondary, derivative semantic value. Categorial forms based on
subordinative grammatical agreement (such as the verbal person, the verbal
number) are reflective, while categorial forms stipulating grammatical
agreement in lexemes of a contiguous word-class (such as the substantive-
pronominal person, the substantive number) are immanent. Immanent are also
such categories and their forms as are closed within a word-class, i.e. do
not transgress its borders; to these belong the tense of the verb, the
comparison of the adjective and adverb, etc.
Another essential division of grammatical categories is based on the
changeability factor of the exposed feature. Namely, the feature of the
referent expressed by the category can be either constant (unchangeable,
"derivational"), or variable (changeable, "demutative").
An example of constant feature category can be seen in the category of
gender, which divides the class of English nouns into non-human names,
human male names, human female names, and human common gender names. This
division is represented by the system of the third person pronouns serving
as gender-indices (see further). Cf.:
It (non-human): mountain, city, forest, cat, bee, etc. He (male human):
man, father, husband, uncle, etc. She (female human): woman, lady, mother,
girl, etc. He or she (common human): person, parent, child, cousin, etc.
Variable feature categories can be exemplified by the substantive number
(singular — plural) or the degrees of comparison (positive — comparative —
superlative).
Constant feature categories reflect the static classifications of
phenomena, while variable feature categories expose various connections
between phenomena. Some marginal categorial forms may acquire intermediary
status, being located in-between the corresponding categorial poles. For
instance, the nouns singularia tantum and pluralia tantum present a case of
hybrid variable-constant formations, since their variable feature of number
has become "rigid",
36
or "lexicalised". Cf.: news, advice, progress; people, police; bellows,
tongs; colours, letters; etc.
In distinction to these, the gender word-building pairs should be
considered as a clear example of hybrid constant-variable formations, since
their constant feature of gender has acquired some changeability
properties, i.e. has become to a certain extent "grammaticalised". Cf.:
actor — actress, author — authoress, lion — lioness, etc.
§ 6. In the light of the exposed characteristics of the categories, we
may specify the status of grammatical paradigms of changeable forms.
Grammatical change has been interpreted in traditional terms of
declension and conjugation. By declension the nominal change is implied
(first of all, the case system), while by conjugation the verbal change is
implied (the verbal forms of person, number, tense, etc.). However, the
division of categories into immanent and reflective invites a division of
forms on a somewhat more consistent basis.
Since the immanent feature is expressed by essentially independent
grammatical forms, and the reflective feature, correspondingly, by
essentially dependent grammatical forms, all the forms of the first order
(immanent) should be classed as "declensional", while all the forms of the
second order (reflective) should be classed as "conjugational".
In accord with this principle, the noun in such synthetical languages as
Russian or Latin is declined by the forms of gender, number, and case,
while the adjective is conjugated by the same forms. As for the English
verb, it is conjugated by the reflective forms of person and number, but
declined by the immanent forms of tense, aspect, voice, and mood.
CHAPTER IV GRAMMATICAL CLASSES OF WORDS
§ 1. The words of language, depending on various formal and semantic
features, are divided into grammatically relevant sets or classes. The
traditional grammatical classes of words are called "parts of speech".
Since the word is distinguished not only by grammatical, but also by
semantico-lexemic properties, some scholars refer to parts of speech
37
as "lexico-grammatical" series of words, or as "lexico-grammatical
categories" [Смирницкий, (1), 33; (2), 100].
It should be noted that the term "part of speech" is purely traditional
and conventional, it can\'t be taken as in any way defining or explanatory.
This name was introduced in the grammatical teaching of Ancient Greece,
where the concept of the sentence was not yet explicitly identified in
distinction to the general idea of speech, and where, consequently, no
strict differentiation was drawn between the word as a vocabulary unit and
the word as a functional element of the sentence.
In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of
the three criteria: "semantic", "formal", and "functional". The semantic
criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalised meaning, which is
characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given part of
speech. This meaning is understood as the "categorial meaning of the part
of speech". The formal criterion provides for the exposition of the
specific inflexional and derivational (word-building) features of all the
lexemic subsets of a part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the
syntactic role of words in the sentence typical of a part of speech. The
said three factors of categorial characterisation of words are
conventionally referred to as, respectively, "meaning", "form", and
"function".
§ 2. 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.
The features of the noun within the identificational triad "meaning —
form — function" are, correspondingly, the following: 1) the categorial
meaning of substance ("thingness"); 2) the changeable forms of number and
case; the specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes in English do not
discriminate parts of speech as such); 3) the substantive functions in the
sentence (subject, object, substantival predicative); prepositional
connections; modification by an adjective.
The features of the adjective: 1) the categorial meaning of property
(qualitative and relative); 2) the forms of the
38
degrees of comparison (for qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal
forms of derivation; 3) adjectival functions in the sentence (attribute to
a noun, adjectival predicative).
The features of the numeral: 1) the categorial meaning of number
(cardinal and ordinal); 2) the narrow set of simple numerals; the specific
forms of composition for compound numerals; the specific suffixal forms of
derivation for ordinal numerals; 3) the functions of numerical attribute
and numerical substantive.
The features of the pronoun: 1) the categorial meaning of indication
(deixis); 2) the narrow sets of various status with the corresponding
formal properties of categorial changeability and word-building; 3) the
substantival and adjectival functions for different sets.
The features of the verb: 1) the categorial meaning of process (presented
in the two upper series of forms, respectively, as finite process and non-
finite process); 2) the forms of the verbal categories of person, number,
tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite
forms; 3) the function of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the
mixed verbal — other than verbal functions for the non-finite verb.
The features of the adverb: 1) the categorial meaning of the secondary
property, i.e. the property of process or another property; 2) the forms of
the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; the specific suffixal
forms of derivation; 3) the functions of various adverbial modifiers.
We have surveyed the identifying properties of the notional parts of
speech that unite the words of complete nominative meaning characterised by
self-dependent functions in the sentence.
Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete
nominative meaning and non-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the
sentence. These are functional parts of speech.
On the principle of "generalised form" only unchangeable words are
traditionally treated under the heading of functional parts of speech. As
for their individual forms as such, they are simply presented by the list,
since the number of these words is limited, so that they needn\'t be
identified on any general, operational scheme.
To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article,
the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the
interjection.
39
The article expresses the specific limitation of the substantive
functions.
The preposition expresses the dependencies and interdependences of
substantive referents.
The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena.
The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting
meaning. To this series, alongside of other specifying words, should be
referred verbal postpositions as functional modifiers of verbs, etc.
The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pronounced or less
pronounced detached position, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the
reflected situation and its parts. Here belong the functional words of
probability (probably, perhaps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation
(fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation and
negation.
The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sentence, is a
signal of emotions.
§ 3. Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided
into subseries in accord with various particular semantico-functional and
formal features of the constituent words. This subdivision is sometimes
called "subcategorisation" of parts of speech.
Thus, nouns are subcategorised into proper and common, animate and
inanimate, countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract, etc. Cf.:
Mary, Robinson, London, the Mississippi, Lake Erie — girl, person, city,
river, lake;
man, scholar, leopard, butterfly — earth, field, rose, machine;
coin/coins, floor/floors, kind/kinds — news, growth, water, furniture;
stone, grain, mist, leaf — honesty, love, slavery, darkness.
Verbs are subcategorised into fully predicative and partially
predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional and statal, factive and
evaluative, etc. Cf.:
walk, sail, prepare, shine, blow — can, may, shall, be, become;
take, put, speak, listen, see, give — live, float, stay, ache, ripen,
rain;
40
write, play, strike, boil, receive, ride — exist, sleep, rest, thrive,
revel, suffer;
roll, tire, begin, ensnare, build, tremble — consider, approve, mind,
desire, hate, incline.
Adjectives are subcategorised into qualitative and relative, of constant
feature and temporary feature (the latter are referred to as "statives" and
identified by some scholars as a separate part of speech under the heading
of "category of state"), factive and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
long, red, lovely, noble, comfortable — wooden, rural, daily,
subterranean, orthographical;
healthy, sickly, joyful, grievous, wry, blazing — well, ill, glad, sorry,
awry, ablaze;
tall, heavy, smooth, mental, native — kind, brave, wonderful, wise,
stupid.
The adverb, the numeral, the pronoun are also subject to the
corresponding subcategorisations.
§ 4. 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. This fact
gives cause to some linguists for calling in question the rational
character of the part of speech classification as a whole, gives them cause
for accusing it of being subjective or "prescientific" in essence. Such
nihilistic criticism, however, should be rejected as utterly ungrounded.
Indeed, considering the part of speech classification on its merits, one
must clearly realise that what is above all important about it is the
fundamental principles of word-class identification, and not occasional
enlargements or diminutions of the established groups, or re-distributions
of individual words due to re-considerations of their subcategorial
features. The very idea of subcategorisation as the obligatory second stage
of the undertaken classification testifies to the objective nature of this
kind of analysis.
For instance, prepositions and conjunctions can be combined into one
united series of "connectives", since the function of both is just to
connect notional components of the sentence. In this case, on the second
stage of classification, the enlarged word-class of connectives will be
41
subdivided into two main subclasses, namely, prepositional connectives and
conjunctional connectives. Likewise, the articles can be included as a
subset into the more general set of particles-specifiers. As is known,
nouns and adjectives, as well as numerals, are treated in due contexts of
description under one common class-term "names": originally, in the Ancient
Greek grammatical teaching they were not differentiated because they had
the same forms of morphological change (declension). On the other hand, in
various descriptions of English grammar such narrow lexemic sets as the two
words yes and no, the pronominal determiners of nouns, even the one
anticipating pronoun it are given a separate class-item status — though in
no way challenging or distorting the functional character of the treated
units.
It should be remembered that modern principles of part of speech
identification have been formulated as a result of painstaking research
conducted on the vast materials of numerous languages; and it is in Soviet
linguistics that the three-criteria characterisation of parts of speech has
been developed and applied to practice with the utmost consistency. The
three celebrated names are especially notable for the elaboration of these
criteria, namely, V. V. Vinogradov in connection with his study of Russian
grammar, A. I. Smirnitsky and B. A. Ilyish in connection with their study
of English grammar.
§ 5. Alongside of the three-criteria principle of dividing the words into
grammatical (lexico-grammatical) classes modern linguistics has developed
another, narrower principle of word-class identification based on syntactic
featuring of words only.
The fact is, that the three-criteria principle faces a special difficulty
in determining the part of speech status of such lexemes as have
morphological characteristics of notional words, but are essentially
distinguished from notional words by their playing the role of grammatical
mediators in phrases and sentences. Here belong, for instance, modal verbs
together with their equivalents — suppletive fillers, auxiliary verbs,
aspective verbs, intensifying adverbs, determiner pronouns. This
difficulty, consisting in the intersection of heterogeneous properties in
the established word-classes, can evidently be overcome by recognising only
one criterion of the three as decisive.
Worthy of note is that in the original Ancient Greek
42
grammatical teaching which put forward the first outline of the part of
speech theory, the division of words into grammatical classes was also
based on one determining criterion only, namely, on the formal-
morphological featuring. It means that any given word under analysis was
turned into a classified lexeme on the principle of its relation to
grammatical change. In conditions of the primary acquisition of linguistic
knowledge, and in connection with the study of a highly inflexional
language this characteristic proved quite efficient.
Still, at the present stage of the development of linguistic science,
syntactic characterisation of words that has been made possible after the
exposition of their fundamental morphological properties, is far more
important and universal from the point of view of the general
classificational requirements.
This characterisation is more important, because it shows the
distribution of words between different sets in accord with their
functional destination. The role of morphology by this presentation is not
underrated, rather it is further clarified from the point of view of
exposing connections between the categorial composition of the word and its
sentence-forming relevance.
This characterisation is more universal, because it is not specially
destined for the inflexional aspect of language and hence is equally
applicable to languages of various morphological types.
On the material of Russian, the principles of syntactic approach to the
classification of word stock were outlined in the works of A. M.
Peshkovsky. The principles of syntactic (syntactico-distributional)
classification of English words were worked out by L. Bloomfield and his
followers Z. Harris and especially Ch. Fries.
§ 6. The syntactico-distributional classification of words is based on
the study of their 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 function words of various
syntactic values.
43
Here is how Ch. Fries presents his scheme of English word-classes
[Fries].
For his materials he chooses tape-recorded spontaneous conversations
comprising about 250,000 word entries (50 hours of talk). The words
isolated from this corpus are tested on the three typical sentences (that
are isolated from the records, too), and used as substitution test-frames:
Frame A. The concert was good (always).
Frame B. The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly).
Frame C. The team went there.
The parenthesised positions are optional from the point of view of the
structural completion of sentences.
As a result of successive substitution tests on the cited "frames" the
following lists of positional words ("form-words", or "parts of speech")
are established:
Class 1. (A) concert, coffee, taste, container, difference, etc. (B)
clerk, husband, supervisor, etc.; tax, food, coffee, etc. (C) team,
husband, woman, etc.
Class 2. (A) was, seemed, became, etc. (B) remembered, wanted, saw,
suggested, etc. (C) went, came, ran,... lived, worked, etc.
Class 3. (A) good, large, necessary, foreign, new, empty, etc.Class 4.
(A) there, here, always, then, sometimes, etc.
(B) clearly, sufficiently, especially, repeatedly, soon, etc.
(C) there, back, out, etc.; rapidly, eagerly, confidently, etc. All these
words can fill in the positions of the frames
without affecting their general structural meaning (such as "thing and its
quality at a given time" — the first frame; "actor — action — thing acted
upon — characteristic of the action" — the second frame; "actor — action —
direction of the action" — the third frame). Repeated interchanges in the
substitutions of the primarily identified positional (i.e. notional) words
in different collocations determine their morphological characteristics,
i.e. characteristics referring them to various subclasses of the identified
lexemic classes.
Functional words (function 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 limited groups
totalling 154 units.
The identified groups of functional words can be distributed among the
three main sets. The words of the first set are used as specifiers of
notional words. Here belong determiners of nouns, modal verbs serving as
specifiers of notional
44
verbs, functional modifiers and intensifiers of adjectives and adverbs. The
words of the second set play the role of inter-positional elements,
determining the relations of notional words to one another. Here belong
prepositions and conjunctions. The words of the third set refer to the
sentence as a whole. Such are question-words {what, how, etc.), inducement-
words (lets, please, etc.), attention-getting words, words of affirmation
and negation, sentence introducers (it, there) and some others.
§ 7. Comparing the syntactico-distributional classification of words with
the traditional part of speech division of words, one cannot but see the
similarity of the general schemes of the two: the opposition of notional
and functional words, the four absolutely cardinal classes of notional
words (since numerals and pronouns have no positional functions of their
own and serve as pro-nounal and pro-adjectival elements), the
interpretation of functional words as syntactic mediators and their formal
representation by the list.
However, under these unquestionable traits of similarity are distinctly
revealed essential features of difference, the proper evaluation of which
allows us to make some important generalisations about the structure of the
lexemic system of language.
§ 8. One of the major truths as regards the linguistic mechanism arising
from the comparison of the two classifications is the explicit and
unconditional division of the lexicon into the notional and functional
parts. The open character of the notional part of the lexicon and the
closed character of the functional part of it (not excluding the
intermediary field between the two) receives the strict status of a formal
grammatical feature.
The unity of notional lexemes finds its essential demonstration in an
inter-class system of derivation that can be presented as a formal four-
stage series permeating the lexicon and reflected in regular phrase
correlations. Cf.:
a recognising note — a notable recognition — to note recognisingly — to
recognise notably; silent disapproval — disapproving silence — to
disapprove silently — to silence disapprovingly; etc.
This series can symbolically be designated by the formula St (n.v.a.d.)
where St represents the morphemic stem of
45
the series, while the small letters in parentheses stand for the
derivational features of the notional word-classes (parts of speech). Each
stage of the series can in principle be filled in by a number of lexemes of
the same stem with possible hierarchical relations between them. The
primary presentation of the series, however, may be realised in a four-unit
version as follows:
strength — to strengthen — strong — strongly peace — to appease —
peaceful — peacefully nation — to nationalise — national — nationally
friend — to befriend — friendly — friendly, etc.
This derivational series that unites the notional word-classes can be
named the "lexical paradigm of nomination". The general order of classes in
the series evidently corresponds to the logic of mental perception of
reality, by which a person discriminates, first, objects and their actions,
then the properties of the former and the latter. Still, as the actual
initial form of a particular nomination paradigm within the general
paradigmatic scheme of nomination can prove a lexeme of any word-class, we
are enabled to speak about the concrete "derivational perspective" of this
or that series, i. e. to identify nomination paradigms with a nounal (N-V),
verbal (V>), adjectival (A>), and adverbial (D>) derivational perspectives.
Cf.:
N> power — to empower — powerful — powerfully
V> to suppose —supposition — supposed — supposedly
A> clear — clarity — to clarify — clearly
D> out — outing — to out — outer
The nomination paradigm with the identical form of the stem for all the
four stages is not represented on the whole of the lexicon; in this sense
it is possible to speak of lexemes with a complete paradigm of nomination
and lexemes with an incomplete paradigm of nomination. Some words may even
stand apart from this paradigm, i.e. be nominatively isolated (here belong,
for instance, some simple adverbs).
On the other hand, the universal character of the nomination paradigm is
sustained by suppletive completion, both lexemic and phrasemic. Cf.:
an end — to end final — finally
good — goodness well — to better
evidence — evident — evidently to make evident
wise — wisely — wisdom to grow wise, etc.
46
The role of suppletivity within the framework of the lexical paradigm of
nomination (hence, within the lexicon as a whole) is extremely important,
indeed. It is this type of suppletivity, i.e. lexemic suppletivity, that
serves as an essential factor of the open character of the notional lexicon
of language.
§ 9. Functional words re-interpreted by syntactic approach also reveal
some important traits that remained undiscovered in earlier descriptions.
The essence of their paradigmatic status in the light of syntactic
interpretation consists in the fact that the lists of functional words may
be regarded as paradigmatic series themselves — which, in their turn, are
grammatical constituents of higher paradigmatic series on the level of
phrases and especially sentences.
As a matter of fact, functional words, considered by their role in the
structure of the sentence, are proved to be exposers of various syntactic
categories, i.e. they render structural meanings referring to phrases and
sentences in constructional forms similar to derivational (word-building)
and relational (grammatical) morphemes in the composition of separate
words. Cf.:
The words were obscure, but she understood the uneasiness that produced
them.> The words were obscure, weren\'t they? How then could she understand
the uneasiness that produced them?> Or perhaps the words were not too
obscure, after all? Or, conversely, she didn\'t understand the uneasiness
that produced them?> But the words were obscure. How obscure they were!
Still she did understand the uneasiness that produced them. Etc.
This role of functional words which are identified not by their morphemic
composition, but by their semantico-syntactic features in reference to the
embedding constructions, is exposed on a broad linguistic basis within the
framework of the theory of paradigmatic syntax (see further).
§ 10. Pronouns considered in the light of the syntactic principles
receive a special systemic status that characteristically stamps the
general presentation of the structure of the lexicon as a whole.
Pronouns are traditionally recognised on the basis of indicatory
(deictic) and substitutional semantic functions.
47
The two types of meanings form a unity, in which the deictic semantics is
primary. As a matter of fact, indication is the semantic foundation of
substitution.
As for the syntactic principle of the word stock division, while
recognising their deictic aspect, it lays a special stress on the
substitutive features of pronouns. Indeed, it is the substitutional
function that immediately isolates all the heterogeneous groups of pronouns
into a special set of the lexicon.
The generalising substitutional function of pronouns makes them into
syntactic representatives of all the notional classes of words, so that a
pronominal positional part of the sentence serves as a categorial
projection of the corresponding notional subclass identified as the filler
set of the position in question. It should be clearly understood that even
personal pronouns of the first and second persons play the cited
representative role, which is unambiguously exposed by examples with direct
addresses and appositions. Cf.:
I, Little Foot, go away making noises and tramplings. Are you happy, Lil?
Included into the system of pronouns are pronominal adverbs and verb-
substitutes, in due accord with their substitutional functions. Besides,
notional words of broad meaning are identified as forming an intermediary
layer between the pronouns and notional words proper. Broad meaning words
adjoin the pronouns by their substitutional function. Cf.:
I wish at her age she\'d learn to sit quiet and not do things. Flora\'s
suggestion is making sense. I will therefore briefly set down the
circumstances which led to my being connected with the affair. Etc.
As a result of these generalisations, the lexical paradigm of nomination
receives a complete substitutive representation. Cf.: one, it, they... —
do, make, act... — such, similar, same... — thus, so, there...
Symbolically the correlation of the nominal and pronominal paradigmatic
schemes is stated as follows:
N — V — A — D — Npro — Vpro — Apro — Dpro.
§ 11. As a result of the undertaken analysis we have obtained a
foundation for dividing the whole of the lexicon on the upper level of
classification into three unequal parts.
The first part of the lexicon forming an open set includes
48
an indefinitely large number of notional words which have a complete
nominative function. In accord with the said function, these words can be
referred to as "names": 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.
The second part of the lexicon forming a closed set includes substitutes
of names (pro-names). Here belong pronouns, and also broad-meaning notional
words which constitute various marginal subsets.
The third part of the lexicon also forming a closed set includes
specifiers of names. These are function-categorial words of various servo-
status.
Substitutes of names (pro-names) and specifiers of names, while standing
with the names in nominative correlation as elements of the lexicon, at the
same time serve as connecting links between the names within the lexicon
and their actual uses in the sentences of living speech.
CHAPTER V NOUN: GENERAL
§ 1. The noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of
"substance" or "thingness". It follows from this that the noun is the main
nominative part of speech, effecting nomination of the fullest value within
the framework of the notional division of the lexicon.
The noun has the power, by way of nomination, to isolate different
properties of substances (i.e. direct and oblique qualities, and also
actions and states as processual characteristics of substantive phenomena)
and present them as corresponding self-dependent substances. E.g.:
Her words were unexpectedly bitter.— We were struck by the unexpected
bitterness of her words. At that time he was down in his career, but we
knew well that very soon he would be up again.— His career had its ups and
downs. The cable arrived when John was preoccupied with the arrangements
for the party.— The arrival of the cable interrupted his preoccupation with
the arrangements for the party.
This natural and practically unlimited substantivisation
4-1499 49
force establishes the noun as the central nominative lexemic unit of
language.
§ 2. The categorial functional properties of the noun are determined by
its semantic properties.
The most characteristic substantive function of the noun is that of the
subject in the sentence, since the referent of the subject is the person or
thing immediately named. The function of the object in the sentence is also
typical of the noun as the substance word. Other syntactic functions, i.e.
attributive, adverbial, and even predicative, although performed by the
noun with equal ease, are not immediately characteristic of its substantive
quality as such. It should be noted that, while performing these non-
substantive functions, the noun essentially differs from the other parts of
speech used in similar sentence positions. This may be clearly shown by
transformations shifting the noun from various non-subject syntactic
positions into subject syntactic positions of the same general semantic
value, which is impossible with other parts of speech. E.g.:
Mary is a flower-girl.> The flower-girl (you are speaking of) 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 characterised
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 corner; red in the face; far from its
destination.
The casal (possessive) combinability characterises the noun alongside of
its prepositional combinability with another noun. E.g.: the speech of the
President — the President\'s speech; the cover of the book — the book\'s
cover.
English nouns can also easily combine with one another by sheer contact,
unmediated by any special lexemic or morphemic means. 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 event; film
festivals.
The lexico-grammatical status of such combinations has presented a big
problem for many scholars, who were uncertain as to the linguistic heading
under which to treat them:
50
either as one separate word, or a word-group.* In the history of
linguistics the controversy about the lexico-grammatical status of the
constructions in question has received the half-facetious name "The cannon
ball problem".
Taking into account the results of the comprehensive analysis undertaken
in this field by Soviet linguists, we may define the combination as a
specific word-group with intermediary features. Crucial for this decision
is the isolability test (separation shift of the qualifying noun) which is
performed for the contact noun combinations by an easy, productive type of
transformation. Cf.: a cannon ball> a ball for cannon; the court
regulation> the regulation of the court; progress report > report about
progress; the funds distribution > the distribution of the funds.
The corresponding compound nouns (formed from substantive stems), as a
rule, cannot undergo the isolability test with an equal ease. The
transformations with the nounal compounds are in fact reduced to sheer
explanations of their etymological motivation. The comparatively closer
connection between the stems in compound nouns is reflected by the spelling
(contact or hyphenated presentation). E.g.: fireplace> place where fire is
made; starlight > light coming from stars; story-teller > teller (writer,
composer) of stories; theatre-goer > a person who goes to (frequents)
theatres.
Contact noun attributes forming a string of several words are very
characteristic of professional language. E.g.:
A number of Space Shuttle trajectory optimisation problems were simulated
in the development of the algorithm, including three ascent problems and a
re-entry problem (From a scientific paper on spacecraft). The accuracy of
offshore tanker unloading operations is becoming more important as the cost
of petroleum products increases (From a scientific paper on control
systems).
§ 3. As a part of speech, the noun is also characterised 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, conversion patterns. It discriminates the
grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination,
which will be analysed below.
* See: Смирницкий А. И. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956, § 133;
[Жигадло В. Н., Иванова И. П., Иофик Л. Л. § 255].
51
The cited formal features taken together are relevant for the division of
nouns into several subclasses, which are identified by means of explicit
classificational criteria. The most general and rigorously delimited
subclasses of nouns are grouped into four oppositional pairs.
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 realised is the division of
English nouns into concrete and abstract.
The order in which the subclasses are presented is chosen by convention,
not by categorially relevant features: each subclass correlation is
reflected on the whole of the noun system; this means that the given set of
eight subclasses cannot be structured hierarchically in any linguistically
consistent sense (some sort of hierarchical relations can be observed only
between animate — inanimate and human — non-human groupings). Consider the
following examples: There were three Marys in our company. The cattle have
been driven out into the pastures.
The noun Mary used in the first of the above sentences is at one and the
same time "proper" (first subclass division), "animate" (second subclass
division), "human" (third subclass division), "countable" (fourth subclass
division). The noun cattle used in the second sentence is at one and the
same time "common" (first subclass division), "animate" (second subclass
division), "non-human" (third subclass division), "uncountable" (fourth
subclass division).
The subclass differentiation of nouns constitutes a foundation for their
selectional syntagmatic combinability both among themselves and with other
parts of speech. In the selectional aspect of combinability, the subclass
features form the corresponding selectional bases.
In particular, the inanimate selectional base of combinability can be
pointed out between the noun subject and the verb predicate in the
following sentence: The sandstone was crumbling. (Not: *The horse was
crumbling.)
The animate selectional base is revealed between the noun
52
subject and the verb in the following sentence: The poor creature was
laming. (Not: *The tree was laming.)
The human selectional base underlies the connection between the nouns in
the following combination: John\'s love of music (not: *the cat\'s love of
music).
The phenomenon of subclass selection is intensely analysed as part of
current linguistic research work.
CHAPTER VI NOUN: ENDER
§ 1. There is a peculiarly regular contradiction between the presentation
of gender in English by theoretical treatises and practical manuals.
Whereas theoretical treatises define the gender subcategorisation of
English nouns as purely lexical or "semantic", practical manuals of English
grammar do invariably include the description of the English gender in
their subject matter of immediate instruction.
In particular, a whole ten pages of A. I. Smirnitsky\'s theoretical
"Morphology of English" are devoted to proving the non-existence of gender
in English either in the grammatical, or even in the strictly lexico-
grammatical sense [Смирницкий, (2), 139-148]. On the other hand, the well-
known practical "English grammar" by M. A. Ganshina and N. M. Vasilevskaya,
after denying the existence of grammatical gender in English by way of an
introduction to the topic, still presents a pretty comprehensive
description of the would-be non-existent gender distinctions of the English
noun as a part of speech [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 40 ff.].
That the gender division of nouns in English is expressed not as variable
forms of words, but as nounal classification (which is not in the least
different from the expression of substantive gender in other languages,
including Russian), admits of no argument. However, the question remains,
whether this classification has any serious grammatical relevance. Closer
observation of the corresponding lingual data cannot but show that the
English gender does have such a relevance.
§ 2. The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory
correlation of nouns with the personal pronouns of the third person. These
serve as specific gender classifiers
53
of nouns, being potentially reflected on each entry of the noun in speech.
The category of gender is strictly oppositional. It is formed by two
oppositions related to each other on a hierarchical basis.
One opposition functions in the whole set of nouns, dividing them into
person (human) nouns and non-person (non-human) nouns. The other opposition
functions in the subset of person nouns only, dividing them into masculine
nouns and feminine nouns. Thus, the first, general opposition can be
referred to as the upper opposition in the category of gender, while the
second, partial opposition can be referred to as the lower opposition in
this category.
As a result of the double oppositional correlation, a specific system of
three genders arises, which is somewhat misleadingly represented by the
traditional terminology: the neuter (i.e. non-person) gender, the masculine
(i.e. masculine person) gender, the feminine (i.e. feminine person) gender.
The strong member of the upper opposition is the human subclass of nouns,
its sememic mark being "person", or "personality". The weak member of the
opposition comprises both inanimate and animate non-person nouns. Here
belong such nouns as tree, mountain, love, etc.; cat, swallow, ant, etc.;
society, crowd, association, etc.; bull and cow, cock and hen, horse and
mare, etc.
In cases of oppositional reduction, non-person nouns and their substitute
(it) are naturally used in the position of neutralisation. E.g.:
Suddenly something moved in the darkness ahead of us. Could it be a man,
in this desolate place, at this time of night? The object of her maternal
affection was nowhere to be found. It had disappeared, leaving the mother
and nurse desperate.
The strong member of the lower opposition is the feminine subclass of
person nouns, its sememic mark being "female sex". Here belong such nouns
as woman, girl, mother, bride, etc. The masculine subclass of person nouns
comprising such words as man, boy, father, bridegroom, etc. makes up the
weak member of the opposition.
The oppositional structure of the category of gender can be shown
schematically on the following diagram (see Fig. I).
54
GENDER
[pic]
Feminine Nouns Masculine Nouns
Fig. 1
A great many person nouns in English are capable of expressing both
feminine and masculine person genders by way of the pronominal correlation
in question. These are referred to as nouns of the "common gender". Here
belong such words as person, parent, friend, cousin, doctor, president,
etc. E.g.:
The President of our Medical Society isn\'t going to be happy about the
suggested way of cure. In general she insists on quite another kind of
treatment in cases like that.
The capability of expressing both genders makes the gender distinctions
in the nouns of the common gender into a variable category. On the other
hand, when there is no special need to indicate the sex of the person
referents of these nouns, they are used neutrally as masculine, i.e. they
correlate with the masculine third person pronoun.
In the plural, all the gender distinctions are neutralised in the
immediate explicit expression, though they are rendered obliquely through
the correlation with the singular.
§ 3. Alongside of the demonstrated grammatical (or lexico-grammatical,
for that matter) gender distinctions, English nouns can show the sex of
their referents lexically, either by means of being combined with certain
notional words used as sex indicators, or else by suffixal derivation. Cf.:
boy-friend, girl-friend; man-producer, woman-producer; washer-man, washer-
woman; landlord, landlady; bull-calf, cow-calf; cock-sparrow, hen-sparrow;
he-bear, she-bear; master, mistress; actor, actress; executor, executrix;
lion, lioness; sultan, sultana; etc.
One might think that this kind of the expression of sex runs contrary to
the presented gender system of nouns, since the sex distinctions inherent
in the cited pairs of words refer not only to human beings (persons), but
also to all the other animate beings. On closer observation, however, we
see that this is not at all so. In fact, the referents of such nouns as
55
jenny-ass, or pea-hen, or the like will in the common use quite naturally
be represented as it, the same as the referents of the corresponding
masculine nouns jack-ass, pea-cock, and the like. This kind of
representation is different in principle from the corresponding
representation of such nounal pairs as woman — man, sister — brother, etc.
On the other hand, when the pronominal relation of the non-person animate
nouns is turned, respectively, into he and she, we can speak of a
grammatical personifying transposition, very typical of English. This kind
of transposition affects not only animate nouns, but also a wide range of
inanimate nouns, being regulated in every-day language by cultural-
historical traditions. Compare the reference of she with the names of
countries, vehicles, weaker animals, etc.; the reference of he with the
names of stronger animals, the names of phenomena suggesting crude strength
and fierceness, etc.
§ 4. As we see, the category of gender in English is inherently semantic,
i.e. meaningful in so far as it reflects the actual features of the named
objects. But the semantic nature of the category does not in the least make
it into "non-grammatical", which follows from the whole content of what has
been said in the present work.
In Russian, German, and many other languages characterised by the gender
division of nouns, the gender has purely formal features that may even "run
contrary" to semantics. Suffice it to compare such Russian words as стакан
— он, чашка—она, блюдце — оно, as well as their German correspondences das
Glas — es, die Tasse — sie, der Teller — er, etc. But this phenomenon is
rather an exception than the rule in terms of grammatical categories in
general.
Moreover, alongside of the "formal" gender, there exists in Russian,
German and other "formal gender" languages meaningful gender, featuring,
within the respective idiomatic systems, the natural sex distinctions of
the noun referents.
|
