Английский язык - Учебники на русском языке - Скачать бесплатно
In particular, the Russian gender differs idiomatically from the English
gender in so far as it divides the nouns by the higher opposition not into
"person — non-person" ("human— non human"), but into "animate —inanimate",
discriminating within the former (the animate nounal set) between
masculine, feminine, and a limited number of neuter nouns. Thus, the
Russian category of gender essentially divides the noun into the inanimate
set having no
56
meaningful gender, and the animate set having a meaningful gender. In
distinction to this, the English category of gender is only meaningful, and
as such it is represented in the nounal system as a whole.
CHAPTER VII NOUN: NUMBER
§ 1. 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 [-z, -s, -iz ] as presented in the forms dog — dogs, clock —
clocks, box — boxes. The productive formal mark correlates with the absence
of the number suffix in the singular form of the noun. The semantic content
of the unmarked form, as has been shown above, enables the grammarians to
speak of the zero-suffix of the singular in English.
The other, non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are
vowel interchange in several relict forms (man — men, woman — women, tooth
— teeth, etc.), the archaic suffix -(e)n supported by phonemic interchange
in a couple of other relict forms (ox — oxen, child — children, cow — kine,
brother — brethren), the correlation of individual singular and plural
suffixes in a limited number of borrowed nouns (formula — formulae,
phenomenon — phenomena, alumnus— alumni, etc.). In some cases the plural
form of the noun is homonymous with the singular form (sheep, deer, fish,
etc.).
§ 2. The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural
may present some difficulties of interpretation.
On the surface of semantic relations, the meaning of the singular will be
understood as simply "one", as opposed to the meaning of the plural as
"many" in the sense of "more than one". This is apparently obvious for such
correlations as book — books, lake — lakes and the like. However, alongside
of these semantically unequivocal correlations, there exist plurals and
singulars that cannot be fully accounted for by the above ready-made
approach. This becomes clear when we take for comparison such forms as tear
(one drop falling from the eye) and tears (treacles on the cheeks as
57
tokens of grief or joy), potato (one item of the vegetables) and potatoes
(food), paper (material) and papers (notes or documents), sky (the vault of
heaven) and skies (the same sky taken as a direct or figurative
background), etc. As a result of the comparison we conclude that the
broader sememic mark of the plural, or "plurality" in the grammatical
sense, should be described as the potentially dismembering reflection of
the structure of the referent, while the sememic mark of the singular will
be understood as the non-dismembering reflection of the structure of the
referent, i.e. the presentation of the referent in its indivisible
entireness.
It is sometimes stated that the plural form indiscriminately presents
both multiplicity of separate objects ("discrete" plural, e.g. three
houses) and multiplicity of units of measure for an indivisible object
("plural of measure", e.g. three hours) [Ilyish, 36 ff.]. However, the
difference here lies not in the content of the plural as such, but in the
quality of the objects themselves. Actually, the singulars of the
respective nouns differ from one another exactly on the same lines as the
plurals do {cf. one house —one hour).
On the other hand, there are semantic varieties of the plural forms that
differ from one another in their plural quality as such. Some distinctions
of this kind were shown above. Some further distinctions may be seen in a
variety of other cases. Here belong, for example, cases where the plural
form expresses a definite set of objects {eyes of the face, wheels of the
vehicle, etc.), various types of the referent {wines, tees, steels),
intensity of the presentation of the idea {years and years, thousands upon
thousands), picturesqueness {sands, waters, snows). The extreme point of
this semantic scale is marked by the lexicalisation of the plural form,
i.e. by its serving as a means of rendering not specificational, but purely
notional difference in meaning. Cf. colours as a "flag", attentions as
"wooing", pains as "effort", quarters as "abode", etc.
The scope of the semantic differences of the plural forms might pose
before the observer a question whether the category of number is a variable
grammatical category at all.
The answer to the question, though, doesn\'t leave space or any
uncertainty: the category of number is one of the regular variable
categories in the grammatical system of he English language. The
variability of the category is simply given in its form, i.e. in the forms
of the bulk of English nouns which do distinguish it by means of the
described
58
binary paradigm. As for the differences in meaning, these arise from the
interaction between the underlying oppositional sememic marks of the
category and the more concrete lexical differences in the semantics of
individual words.
§ 3. The most general quantitative characteristics of individual words
constitute the lexico-grammatical base for dividing the nounal vocabulary
as a whole into countable nouns and uncountable nouns. The constant
categorial feature "quantitative structure" (see Ch. V, §3) is directly
connected with the variable feature "number", since uncountable nouns are
treated grammatically as either singular or plural. Namely, the singular
uncountable nouns are modified by the non-discrete quantifiers much or
little, and they take the finite verb in the singular, while the plural
uncountable nouns take the finite verb in the plural.
The two subclasses of uncountable nouns are usually referred to,
respectively, as singularia tantum (only singular) and pluralia tantum
(only plural). In terms of oppositions we may say that in the formation of
the two subclasses of uncountable nouns the number opposition is
"constantly" (lexically) reduced either to the weak member (singularia
tantum) or to the strong member (pluralia tantum).
Since the grammatical form of the uncountable nouns of the singularia
tantum subclass is not excluded from the category of number, it stands to
reason to speak of it as the "absolute" singular, as different from the
"correlative" or "common" singular of the countable nouns. The absolute
singular excludes the use of the modifying numeral one, as well as the
indefinite article.
The absolute singular is characteristic of the names of abstract notions
{peace, love, joy, courage, friendship, etc.), the names of the branches of
professional activity {chemistry, architecture, mathematics, linguistics,
etc.), the names of mass-materials {water, snow, steel, hair, etc.), the
names of collective inanimate objects {foliage, fruit, 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, or concrete
objects exhibiting the respective qualities. Cf.:
Joy is absolutely necessary for normal human life.— It was a joy to see
her among us. Helmets for motor-cycling are
59
nowadays made of plastics instead of steel.— Using different modifications
of the described method, super-strong steels are produced for various
purposes. Etc.
The lexicalising effect of the correlative number forms (both singular
and plural) in such cases is evident, since the categorial component of the
referential meaning in each of them is changed from uncountability to
countability. Thus, the oppositional reduction is here nullified in a
peculiarly lexicalising way, and the full oppositional force of the
category of number is 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. Cf.:
The last two items of news were quite sensational. Now I\'d like to add
one more bit of information. You might as well dispense with one or two
pieces of furniture in the hall.
This kind of rendering the grammatical meaning of common number with
uncountable nouns is, in due situational conditions, so regular that it can
be regarded as special suppletivity in the categorial system of number (see
Ch. III, §4).
On the other hand, the absolute singular, by way of functional
oppositional reduction, can be used with countable nouns. In such cases the
nouns are taken to express either the corresponding abstract ideas, or else
the meaning of some mass-material correlated with its countable referent.
Cf.:
Waltz is a lovely dance. There was dead desert all around them. The
refugees needed shelter. Have we got chicken for the second course?
Under this heading (namely, the first of the above two subpoints) comes
also the generic use of the singular. Cf.:
Man\'s immortality lies in his deeds. Wild elephant in the Jungle can be
very dangerous.
In the sphere of the plural, likewise, we must recognise the common
plural form as the regular feature of countability, and the absolute plural
form peculiar to the uncountable subclass of pluralia tantum nouns. The
absolute plural, as different from the common plural, cannot directly
combine with numerals, and only occasionally does it combine with discrete
quantifiers (many, few, etc.).
The absolute plural is characteristic of the uncountable
60
nouns which denote objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors,
tongs, spectacles, etc.), the nouns expressing some sort of collective
meaning, i.e. rendering the idea of indefinite plurality, both concrete and
abstract (supplies, outskirts, clothes, parings; tidings, earnings,
contents, politics; police, cattle, poultry, etc.), the nouns denoting some
diseases as well as some abnormal states of the body and mind (measles,
rickets, mumps, creeps, hysterics, etc.). As is seen from the examples,
from the point of view of number as such, the absolute plural forms can be
divided into set absolute plural (objects of two halves) and non-set
absolute plural (the rest).
The set plural can also be distinguished among the common plural forms,
namely, with nouns denoting fixed sets of objects, such as eyes of the
face, legs of the body, legs of the table, wheels of the vehicle, funnels
of the steamboat, windows of the room, etc.
The necessity of expressing definite numbers in cases of uncountable
pluralia tantum nouns, as well as in cases of countable nouns denoting
objects in fixed sets, has brought about different suppletive combinations
specific to the plural form of the noun, which exist alongside of the
suppletive combinations specific to the singular form of the noun shown
above. Here belong collocations with such words as pair, set, group, bunch
and some others. Cf.: a pair of pincers; three pairs of bathing trunks; a
few groups of police; two sets of dice; several cases of measles; etc.
The absolute plural, by way of functional oppositional reduction, can be
represented in countable nouns having the form of the singular, in
uncountable nouns having the form of the plural, and also in countable
nouns having the form of the plural.
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 thereby changed into "nouns of multitude". Cf.:
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".
The second type of the described oppositional reduction, consisting in
the use of the absolute plural with uncountable nouns in the plural form,
concerns cases of stylistic marking
61
of nouns. Thus, the oppositional reduction results in expressive
transposition. Cf.: the sands of the desert; the snows of the Arctic; the
waters of the ocean; the fruits of the toil; etc,
This variety of the absolute plural may be called "descriptive
uncountable plural".
The third type of oppositional reduction concerns common countable nouns
used in repetition groups. The acquired implication is indefinitely large
quantity intensely presented. The nouns in repetition groups may themselves
be used either in the plural ("featured" form) or in the singular
("unfeatured" form). Cf.:
There were trees and trees all around us. I lit cigarette after
cigarette.
This variety of the absolute plural may be called "repetition plural". It
can be considered as a peculiar analytical form in the marginal sphere of
the category of number (see Ch. III, §4).
CHAPTER VIII NOUN: CASE
§ 1. 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. Thus, the case form of the noun,
or contractedly its "case" (in the narrow sense of the word), is a
morphological-declensional form.
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 which term we will stick in the
following presentation*), to the unfeatured form of the noun, usually
called the "common" case. The apostrophised -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 boy\'s ball, the clerk\'s promotion, the Empress\'s jewels.
* The traditional term "genitive case" seems preferable on the ground
that not all the meanings of the genitive case are "possessive".
62
The genitive of the bulk of plural nouns remains phonetically
unexpressed: the few exceptions concern only some of the irregular plurals.
Thereby the apostrophe as the graphic sign of the genitive acquires the
force of a sort of grammatical hieroglyph. Cf.: the carpenters\' tools, the
mates\' skates, the actresses\' dresses.
Functionally, the forms of the English nouns designated as "case forms"
relate to one another in an extremely peculiar way. The peculiarity is,
that the common form is absolutely indefinite from the semantic point of
view, whereas the genitive form in its productive uses is restricted to the
functions which have a parallel expression by prepositional constructions.
Thus, the common form, as appears from the presentation, is also capable of
rendering the genitive semantics (namely, in contact and prepositional
collocation), which makes the whole of the genitive case into a kind of
subsidiary element in the grammatical system of the English noun. This
feature stamps the English noun declension as something utterly different
from every conceivable declension in principle. In fact, the inflexional
oblique case forms as normally and imperatively expressing the immediate
functional parts of the ordinary sentence in "noun-declensional" languages
do not exist in English at all. Suffice it to compare a German sentence
taken at random with its English rendering:
Erhebung der Anklage gegen die Witwe Capet scheint wьnschenswert aus
Rucksicht auf die Stimmung der Stadt Paris (L. Feuchtwanger). Eng.: (The
bringing of) the accusation against the Widow Capet appears desirable,
taking into consideration the mood of the City of Paris.
As we see, the five entries of nounal oblique cases in the German
utterance (rendered through article inflexion), of which two are genitives,
all correspond to one and the same indiscriminate common case form of nouns
in the English version of the text. By way of further comparison, we may
also observe the Russian translation of the same sentence with its four
genitive entries: Выдвижение обвинения против вдовы Капет кажется
желательным, если учесть настроение города Парижа.
Under the described circumstances of fact, there is no wonder that in the
course of linguistic investigation the category of case in English has
become one of the vexed problems of theoretical discussion.
63
§ 2. Four special views advanced at various times by different scholars
should be considered as successive stages in the analysis of this problem.
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. Linguistic formulations of the theory, with
various individual variations (the number of cases recognised, the terms
used, the reasoning cited), may be found in the works of J. C. Nesfield, M.
Deutschbein, M. Bryant and other scholars.
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, i.e. purely positional
cases: nominative, vocative, dative, and accusative. The uninflexional
cases of the noun are taken to be supported by the parallel inflexional
cases of the personal pronouns. The would-be cases in question can be
exemplified as follows.*
The nominative case (subject to a verb): Rain falls. The vocative case
(address): Are you coming, my friend? The dative case (indirect object to a
verb): I gave John a penny. The accusative case (direct object, and also
object to a preposition): The man killed a rat. The earth is moistened by
rain.
In the light of all that has been stated in this book in connection with
the general notions of morphology, the fallacy of the positional case
theory is quite obvious. The cardinal blunder of this view is, that it
substitutes the functional characteristics of the part of the sentence for
the morphological features of the word class, since the case form, by
definition, is the variable morphological form of the noun. In reality, the
case forms as such serve as means of expressing the functions of the noun
in the sentence, and not vice versa. Thus, what the described view does do
on the positive lines,
* The examples are taken from the book: Nesfield J. С Manual of English
Grammar and Composition. Lnd., 1942, p. 24.
64
is that within the confused conceptions of form and meaning, it still
rightly illustrates the fact that the functional meanings rendered by cases
can be expressed in language by other grammatical means, in particular, by
word-order.
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 in certain object and attributive collocations 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 would-be prepositional
cases are generally taken (by the scholars who recognise them) as
coexisting with positional cases, together with the classical inflexional
genitive completing the case system of the English noun.
The prepositional theory, though somewhat better grounded than the
positional theory, nevertheless can hardly pass a serious linguistic trial.
As is well known from noun-declensional languages, all their prepositions,
and not only some of them, do require definite cases of nouns
(prepositional case-government); this fact, together with a mere semantic
observation of the role of prepositions in the phrase, shows that any
preposition by virtue of its functional nature stands in essentially the
same general grammatical relations to nouns. It should follow from this
that not only the of-, to-, and for-phrases, but also all the other
prepositional phrases in English must be regarded as "analytical cases". As
a result of such an approach illogical redundancy in terminology would
arise: each prepositional phrase would bear then another, additional name
of "prepositional case", the total number of the said "cases" running into
dozens upon dozens without any gain either to theory or practice [Ilyish,
42].
The third view of the English noun case recognises 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,
5—1499 65
and has since been radically developed by the Soviet scholars A. I.
Smirnitsky, L. S. Barkhudarov and others.
The limited case theory in its modern presentation is based on the
explicit oppositional approach to the recognition of grammatical
categories. In the system of the English case the functional mark is
defined, which 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 opposition is shown as being effected in full with animate
nouns, though a restricted use with inanimate nouns is also taken into
account. The detailed functions of the genitive are specified with the help
of semantic transformational correlations [Бархударов, (2), 89 и сл.].
§ 3. We have considered the three theories which, if at basically
different angles, proceed from the assumption that the English noun does
distinguish the grammatical case in its functional structure. However,
another view of the problem of the English noun cases has been put forward
which sharply counters the theories hitherto observed. This view approaches
the English noun as having completely lost the category of case in the
course of its historical development. All the nounal cases, including the
much spoken of genitive, are considered as extinct, and the lingual unit
that is named the "genitive case" by force of tradition, would be in
reality a combination of a noun with a postposition (i.e. a relational
postpositional word with preposition-like functions). This view, advanced
in an explicit form by G. N. Vorontsova [Воронцова, 168 и сл.], may be
called the "theory of the possessive postposition" ("postpositional
theory"). Cf.: [Ilyish, 44 ff.; Бархударов, Штелинг, 42 и сл.].
Of the various reasons substantiating the postpositional theory the
following two should be considered as the main ones.
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. Compare some
examples cited by G. N. Vorontsova in her work: somebody else\'s daughter;
another stage-struck girl\'s stage finish; the man who had hauled him out to
dinner\'s head.
Second, there is an indisputable parallelism of functions between the
possessive postpositional constructions and the
6G
prepositional constructions, resulting in the optional use of the former.
This can be shown by transformational reshuffles of the above examples:
...> the daughter of somebody else; ...> the stage finish of another stage-
struck girl; . ..> the head of the man who had hauled him out to dinner.
One cannot but acknowledge the rational character of the cited reasoning.
Its strong point consists in the fact that it is based on a careful
observation of the lingual data. For all that, however, the theory of the
possessive postposition fails to take into due account the consistent
insight into the nature of the noun form in -\'s achieved by the limited
case theory. The latter has demonstrated beyond any doubt that the noun
form in -\'s is systemically, i.e. on strictly structural-functional basis,
contrasted against the unfeatured form of the noun, which does make the
whole correlation of the nounal forms into a grammatical category of case-
like order, however specific it might be.
As the basic arguments for the recognition of the noun form in -\'s in the
capacity of grammatical case, besides the oppositional nature of the
general functional correlation of the featured and unfeatured forms of the
noun, we will name the following two.
First, the broader phrasal uses of the postpositional -\'s like those
shown on the above examples, display a clearly expressed stylistic
colouring; they are, as linguists put it, stylistically marked, which fact
proves their transpositional nature. In this connection we may formulate
the following regularity: the more self-dependent the construction covered
by the case-sign -\'s, the stronger the stylistic mark (colouring) of the
resulting genitive phrase. This functional analysis is corroborated by the
statistical observation of the forms in question in the living English
texts. According to the data obtained by B. S. Khaimovich and B. I.
Rogovskaya, the -\'s sign is attached to individual nouns in as many as 96
per cent of its total textual occurrences [Khaimovich, Rogovskaya, 64].
Thus, the immediate casal relations are realised by individual nouns, the
phrasal, as well as some non-nounal uses of the - \'s sign being on the
whole of a secondary grammatical order.
Second, the -\'s sign from the point of view of its segmental status in
language 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, which, among
5* 67
other things, has hitherto prevented it from being entered into
dictionaries as a separate word.
As for the fact that the "possessive postpositional construction" is
correlated with a parallel prepositional construction, it only shows the
functional peculiarity of the form, but cannot disprove its case-like
nature, since cases of nouns in general render much the same functional
semantics as prepositional phrases (reflecting a wide range of situational
relations of noun referents).
§ 4. The solution of the problem, then, is to be sought on the ground of
a critical synthesis of the positive statements of the two theories: the
limited case theory and the possessive postposition theory.
A two case declension of nouns should be recognised in English, with its
common case as a "direct" case, and its genitive case as the only oblique
case. But, unlike the case system in ordinary noun-declensional languages
based on inflexional word change, the case system in English is founded on
a particle expression. The particle nature of -\'s is evident from the fact
that it is added in post-position both to individual nouns and to nounal
word-groups of various status, rendering the same essential semantics of
appurtenance in the broad sense of the term. Thus, within the expression of
the genitive in English, two subtypes are to be recognised: the first
(principal) is the word genitive; the second (of a minor order) is the
phrase genitive. Both of them are not inflexional, but particle case-forms.
The described particle expression of case may to a certain extent be
likened to the particle expression of the subjunctive mood in Russian
[Иртеньева, 40]. As is known, the Russian subjunctive particle бы not only
can be distanced from the verb it refers to, but it can also relate to a
lexical unit of non-verb-like nature without losing its basic subjunctive-
functional quality. Cf.: Если бы не он. Мне бы такая возможность. Как бы не
так.
From the functional point of view the English genitive case, on the
whole, may be regarded as subsidiary to the syntactic system of
prepositional phrases. However, it still displays some differential points
in its functional meaning, which, though neutralised in isolated use, are
revealed in broader syntagmatic collocations with prepositional phrases.
One of such differential points may be defined as
68
"animate appurtenance" against "inanimate appurtenance" rendered by a
prepositional phrase in contrastive use. Cf.:
The people\'s voices drowned in the roar of the started engines. The
tiger\'s leap proved quicker than the click of the rifle.
Another differential point expressed in cases of textual co-occurrence of
the units compared consists in the subjective use of the genitive noun
(subject of action) against the objective use of the prepositional noun
(object of action). Cf.: My Lord\'s choice of the butler; the partisans\'
rescue of the prisoners; the treaty\'s denunciation of mutual threats.
Furthermore, the genitive is used in combination with the of-phrase on a
complementary basis expressing the functional semantics which may roughly
be called "appurtenance rank gradation": a difference in construction (i.e.
the use of the genitive against the use of the of-phrase) signals a
difference in correlated ranks of semantic domination. Cf.: the country\'s
strain of wartime (lower rank: the strain of wartime; higher rank: the
country\'s strain); the sight of Satispy\'s face (higher rank: the sight of
the face; lower rank: Satispy\'s face).
It is certainly these and other differential points and complementary
uses that sustain the particle genitive as part of the systemic expression
of nounal relations in spite of the disintegration of the inflexional case
in the course of historical development of English.
§ 5. Within the general functional semantics of appurtenance, the English
genitive expresses a wide range of relational meanings specified in the
regular interaction of the semantics of the subordinating and subordinated
elements in the genitive phrase. Summarising the results of extensive
investigations in this field, the following basic semantic types of the
genitive can be pointed out.
First, the form which can be called the "genitive of possessor" (Lat.
"genetivus possessori"). Its constructional meaning will be defined as
"inorganic" possession, i.e. possessional relation (in the broad sense) of
the genitive referent to the object denoted by the head-noun. E.g.:
Christine\'s living-room; the assistant manager\'s desk; Dad\'s earnings; Kate
and Jerry\'s grandparents; the Steel Corporation\'s hired slaves.
The diagnostic test for the genitive of possessor is its transformation
into a construction that explicitly expresses
69
the idea of possession (belonging) inherent in the form. Cf.: Christine\'s
living-room > the living-room belongs to Christine; the Steel Corporation\'s
hired slaves > the Steel Corporation possesses hired slaves.*
Second, the form which can be called the "genitive of integer" (Lat.
"genetivus integri"). Its constructional meaning will be defined as
"organic possession", i.e. a broad possessional relation of a whole to its
part. E.g.: Jane\'s busy hands; Patrick\'s voice; the patient\'s health; the
hotel\'s lobby.
Diagnostic test: ...> the busy hands as part of Jane\'s person; ...> the
health as part of the patient\'s state; ...> the lobby as a component part
of the hotel, etc.
A subtype of the integer genitive expresses a qualification received by
the genitive referent through the headword. E.g.: Mr. Dodson\'s vanity; the
computer\'s reliability.
This subtype of the genitive can be called the "genitive of received
qualification" (Lat. "genetivus qualificationis receptae").
Third, the "genitive of agent" (Lat. "genetivus agentis"). The more
traditional name of this genitive is "subjective" (Lat. "genetivus
subjectivus"). The latter term seems inadequate because of its unjustified
narrow application: nearly all the genitive types stand in subjective
relation to the referents of the head-nouns. The general meaning of the
genitive of agent is explained in its name: this form renders an activity
or some broader processual relation with the referent of the genitive as
its subject. E.g.: the great man\'s arrival; Peter\'s insistence; the
councillor\'s attitude; Campbell Clark\'s gaze; the hotel\'s competitive
position.
Diagnostic test: ...> the great man arrives; ...> Peter insists; ...> the
hotel occupies a competitive position, etc.
A subtype of the agent genitive expresses the author, or, more broadly
considered, the producer of the referent of the head-noun. Hence, it
receives the name of the "genitive of author" (Lat. "genetivus auctori").
E.g.: Beethoven\'s sonatas; John Galsworthy\'s "A Man of Property"; the
committee\'s progress report.
Diagnostic test: ...—» Beethoven has composed (is the author of) the
sonatas; ...> the committee has compiled (is the compiler of) the progress
report, etc.
Fourth, the "genitive of patient" (Lat. "genetivus patientis").
* We avoid the use of the verb have in diagnostic constructions, because
have itself, due to its polysemantism, wants diagnostic contextual
specifications
70
This type of genitive, in contrast to the above, expresses the recipient of
the action or process denoted by the head-noun. E.g.: the champion\'s
sensational defeat; Erick\'s final expulsion; the meeting\'s chairman; the St
Gregory\'s proprietor; the city\'s business leaders; the Titanic\'s tragedy.
Diagnostic test: ...> the champion is defeated (i.e. his opponent
defeated him); ...> Erick is expelled; ...> the meeting is chaired by its
chairman; ...> the St Gregory is owned by its proprietor, etc.
Fifth, the "genitive of destination" (Lat. "genetivus destinationis").
This form denotes the destination, or function of the referent of the head-
noun. E.g.: women\'s footwear; children\'s verses; a fishers\' tent.
Diagnostic test: ...> footwear for women; ...> a tent for fishers, etc.
Sixth, the "genitive of dispensed qualification" (Lat. "genetivus
qualificationis dispensatae"). The meaning of this genitive type, as
different from the subtype "genitive of received qualification", is some
characteristic or qualification, not received, but given by the genitive
noun to the referent of the head-noun. E.g.: a girl\'s voice; a book-
keeper\'s statistics; Curtis O\'Keefe\'s kind (of hotels — M.B.).
Diagnostic test: ...> a voice characteristic of a girl; ...> statistics
peculiar to a book-keeper\'s report; ...> the kind (of hotels)
characteristic of those owned by Curtis O\'Keefe.
Under the heading of this general type comes a very important subtype of
the genitive which expresses a comparison. The comparison, as different
from a general qualification, is supposed to be of a vivid, descriptive
nature. The subtype is called the "genitive of comparison" (Lat. "genetivus
comparationis"). This term has been used to cover the whole class. E.g.:
the cock\'s self-confidence of the man; his perky sparrow\'s smile.
Diagnostic test: ...> the self-confidence like that of a cock; ...> the
smile making the man resemble a perky sparrow.
Seventh, the "genitive of adverbial" (Lat. "genetivus adverbii"). The
form denotes adverbial factors relating to the referent of the head-noun,
mostly the time and place of the event. Strictly speaking, this genitive
may be considered as another subtype of the genitive of dispensed
qualification. Due to its adverbial meaning, this type of genitive can be
used with
71
adverbialised substantives. E.g.: the evening\'s newspaper; yesterday\'s
encounter; Moscow\'s talks.
Diagnostic test: ...> the newspaper issued in the evening; ...> the
encounter which took place yesterday; ...>the talks that were held in
Moscow.
Eighth, the "genitive of quantity" (Lat. "genetivus quantitatis"). This
type of genitive denotes the measure or quantity relating to the referent
of the head-noun. For the most part, the quantitative meaning expressed
concerns units of distance measure, time measure, weight measure. E.g.:
three miles\' distance; an hour\'s delay; two months\' time; a hundred tons\'
load.
Diagnostic test: ...> a distance the measure of which is three miles;
...> a time lasting for two months; ...> a load weighing a hundred tons.
The given survey of the semantic types of the genitive is by no means
exhaustive in any analytical sense. The identified types are open both to
subtype specifications, and inter-type generalisations (for instance, on
the principle of the differentiation between subject-object relations), and
the very set of primary types may be expanded.
However, what does emerge out of the survey, is the evidence of a wide
functional range of the English particle genitive, making it into a helpful
and flexible, if subsidiary, means of expressing relational semantics in
the sphere of the noun.
§ 6. We have considered theoretical aspects of the problem of case of the
English noun, and have also observed the relevant lingual data instrumental
in substantiating the suggested interpretations. As a result of the
analysis, we have come to the conclusion that the inflexional case of nouns
in English has ceased to exist. In its place a new, peculiar two case
system has developed based on the particle expression of the genitive
falling into two segmental types: the word-genitive and the phrase-
genitive.
The undertaken study of the case in the domain of the noun, as the next
step, calls upon the observer to re-formulate the accepted interpretation
of the form-types of the English personal pronouns.
The personal pronouns are commonly interpreted as having a case system of
their own, differing in principle from the case system of the noun. The two
cases traditionally recognised here are the nominative case (I, you, he,
etc.) and the
72
objective case (me, you, him, etc.). To these forms the two series of forms
of the possessive pronouns are added — respectively, the conjoint series
(my, your, his, etc.) and the absolute series (mine, yours, his, etc.). A
question now arises, if it is rational at all to recognise the type of case
in the words of substitutional nature which is absolutely incompatible with
the type of case in the correlated notional words? Attempts have been made
in linguistics to transfer the accepted view of pronominal cases to the
unchangeable forms of the nouns (by way of the logical procedure of back
substitution), thereby supporting the positional theory of case (M.
Bryant). In the light of the present study, however, it is clear that these
attempts lack an adequate linguistic foundation.
As a matter of fact, the categories of the substitute have to reflect the
categories of the antecedent, not vice versa. As an example we may refer to
the category of gender (see Ch. VI): the English gender is expressed
through the correlation of nouns with their pronominal substitutes by no
other means than the reflection of the corresponding semantics of the
antecedent in the substitute. But the proclaimed correlation between the
case forms of the noun and the would-be case forms of the personal pronouns
is of quite another nature: the nominative "case" of the pronoun has no
antecedent case in the noun; nor has the objective "case" of the pronoun
any antecedent case in the noun. On the other hand, the only oblique case
of the English noun, the genitive, does have its substitutive reflection in
the pronoun, though not in the case form, but in the lexical form of
possession (possessive pronouns). And this latter relation of the
antecedent to its substitute gives us a clue to the whole problem of
pronominal "case": the inevitable conclusion is that there is at present no
case in the English personal pronouns; the personal pronominal system of
cases has completely disintegrated, and in its place the four individual
word-types of pronouns have appeared: the nominative form, the objective
form, and the possessive form in its two versions, conjoint and absolute.
An analysis of the pronouns based on more formal considerations can only
corroborate the suggested approach proceeding from the principle of
functional evaluation. In fact, what is traditionally accepted as case-
forms of the pronouns are not the regular forms of productive morphological
change implied by the very idea of case declension, but individual
73
forms sustained by suppletivity and given to the speaker as a ready-made
set. The set is naturally completed by the possessive forms of pronouns, so
that actually we are faced by a lexical paradigmatic series of four subsets
of personal pronouns, to which the relative who is also added: I — me — my
— mine, you — you — your — yours,... who — whom — whose — whose. Whichever
of the former case correlations are still traceable in this system (as, for
example, in the sub-series he—him—his), they exist as mere relicts, i.e. as
a petrified evidence of the old productive system that has long ceased to
function in the morphology of English.
Thus, what should finally be meant by the suggested terminological name
"particle case" in English, is that the former system of the English
inflexional declension has completely and irrevocably disintegrated, both
in the sphere of nouns and their substitute pronouns; in its place a new,
limited case system has arisen based on a particle oppositional feature and
subsidiary to the prepositional expression of the syntactic relations of
the noun.
CHAPTER IX
NOUN: ARTICLE DETERMINATION
§ 1. Article is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the
noun in communicative collocation. Its special character is clearly seen
against the background of determining words of half-notional semantics.
Whereas the function of the determiners such as this, any, some is to
explicitly interpret the referent of the noun in relation to other objects
or phenomena of a like kind, the semantic purpose of the article is to
specify the nounal referent, as it were, altogether unostentatiously, to
define it in the most general way, without any explicitly expressed
contrasts.
This becomes obvious when we take the simplest examples ready at hand.
Cf.:
Will you give me this pen, Willy? (I.e. the pen that I am pointing out,
not one of your choice.) — Will you give me the pen, please? (I.e. simply
the pen from the desk, you understand which.) Any blade will do, I only
want it for scratching out the wrong word from the type-script. (I.e. any
blade of the stock, however blunt it may be.) — Have
74
you got something sharp? I need a penknife or a blade. (I.e. simply a
blade, if not a knife, without additional implications.) Some woman called
in your absence, she didn\'t give her name. (I.e. a woman strange to me.)— A
woman called while you were out, she left a message. (I.e. simply a woman,
without a further connotation.)
Another peculiarity of the article, as different from the determiners in
question, is that, in the absence of a determiner, the use of the article
with the noun is quite obligatory, in so far as the cases of non-use of the
article are subject to no less definite rules than the use of it.
Taking into consideration these peculiar features of the article, the
linguist is called upon to make a sound statement about its segmental
status in the system of morphology. Namely, his task is to decide 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, if of a more abstract meaning than other determiners.
The problem is a vexed one; it has inspired intensive research activity
in the field, as well as animated discussion with various pros and cons
affirmed, refuted and re-affirmed.* In the course of these investigations,
however, many positive facts about articles have been established, which at
present enables an observer, proceeding from the systemic principle in its
paradigmatic interpretation, to expose the status of the article with an
attempt at demonstrative conviction.
To arrive at a definite decision, we propose to consider the properties
of the English articles in four successive stages, beginning with their
semantic evaluation as such, then adding to the obtained data a situational
estimation of their uses, thereafter analysing their categorial features in
the light of the oppositional theory, and finally concluding the
investigation by a paradigmatic generalisation.
§ 2. A mere semantic observation of the articles in English, i.e. the
definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not
two, but three meaningful
* Different aspects of the discussion about the English article are very
well shown by B. A. Ilyish in the cited book (p. 49 ff.).
75
characterisations of the nounal referent achieved by their correlative
functioning, namely: one rendered by the definite article, one rendered by
the indefinite article, and one rendered by the absence (or non-use) of the
article. Let us examine them separately.
The definite article expresses the identification or individualisation 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 can be
brought to explicit exposition by a substitution test. The test consists in
replacing the article used in a construction by a demonstrative word, e.g.
a demonstrative determiner, without causing a principal change in the
general implication of the construction. Of course, such an "equivalent"
substitution should be understood in fact as nothing else but analogy: the
difference in meaning between a determiner and an article admits of no
argument, and we pointed it out in the above passages. Still, the
replacements of words as a special diagnostic procedure, which is applied
with the necessary reservations and according to a planned scheme of
research, is quite permissible. In our case it undoubtedly shows a direct
relationship in the meanings of the determiner and the article, the
relationship in which the determiner is semantically the more explicit
element of the two. Cf.:
But look at the apple-tree!> But look at this apple-tree! The town lay
still in the Indian summer sun.—» That town lay still in the Indian summer
sun. The water is horribly hot.> This water is horribly hot. It\'s the girls
who are to blame.—» It\'s those girls who are to blame.
The justification of the applied substitution, as well as its explanatory
character, may be proved by a counter-test, namely, by the change of the
definite article into the indefinite article, or by omitting the article
altogether. The replacement either produces a radical, i.e. "non-
equivalent" shift in the meaning of the construction, or else results in a
grammatically unacceptable construction. Cf.: ...> Look at an apple-tree!>
*Look at apple-tree! ...> *A water is horribly hot.> *Water is horribly
hot.
The indefinite article, as different from the definite article, is
commonly interpreted as referring the object denoted by the noun to a
certain class of similar objects; in other words, the indefinite article
expresses a classifying generalisation of the nounal referent, or takes it
in a relatively
76
general sense. To prove its relatively generalising functional meaning, we
may use the diagnostic insertions of specifying-classifying phrases into
the construction in question; we may also employ the transformation of
implicit comparative constructions with the indefinite article into the
corresponding explicit comparative constructions. Cf.:
We passed a water-mill. >We passed a certain water-mill. It is a very
young country, isn\'t it? > It is a very young kind of country, isn\'t it?
What an arrangement! >What sort of arrangement! This child is a positive
nightmare. > This child is positively like a nightmare.
The procedure of a classifying contrast employed in practical text-books
exposes the generalising nature of the indefinite article most clearly in
many cases of its use. E.g.:
A door opened in the wall. > A door (not a window) opened in the wall. We
saw a flower under the bush.> We saw a flower (not a strawberry) under the
bush.
As for the various uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic
point of view they all should be divided into two types. In the first
place, there are uses where the articles are deliberately omitted out of
stylistic considerations. We see such uses, for instance, in telegraphic
speech, in titles and headlines, in various notices. E.g.:
Telegram received room reserved for week end. (The text of a telegram.)
Conference adjourned until further notice. (The text of an announcement.)
Big red bus rushes food to strikers. (The title of a newspaper article.)
The purposeful elliptical omission of the article in cases like that is
quite obvious, and the omitted articles may easily be restored in the
constructions in the simplest "back-directed" refilling procedures. Cf.:
...> The telegram is received, a room is reserved for the week-end. ...>
The conference is adjourned until further notice. ...> A big red bus rushes
food to the strikers.
Alongside of free elliptical constructions, there are cases of the
semantically unspecified non-use of the article in various combinations of
fixed type, such as prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt,
etc.), fixed verbal collocations (take place, make use, cast anchor, etc.),
descriptive coordinative groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog
and gun, day by day, etc.), and the like. These cases of
77
traditionally fixed absence of the article are quite similar to the cases
of traditionally fixed uses of both indefinite and definite articles (cf.:
in a hurry, at a loss, have a look, give a start, etc.; in the main, out of
the question, on the look-out, etc.).
Outside the elliptical constructions and fixed uses, however, we know a
really semantic absence of the article with the noun. It is this semantic
absence of the article that stands in immediate meaningful correlation with
the definite and indefinite articles as such.
As is widely acknowledged, the meaningful non-uses of the article are not
homogeneous; nevertheless, they admit of a very explicit classification
founded on the countability characteristics of the noun. Why countability
characteristics? For the two reasons. The first reason is inherent in the
nature of the noun itself: the abstract generalisation reflected through
the meaningful non-use of the article is connected with the suppression of
the idea of the number in the noun. The second reason is inherent in the
nature of the article: the indefinite article which plays the crucial role
in the semantic correlation in question reveals the meaning of oneness
within its semantic base, having originated from the indefinite pronoun
one, and that is why the abstract use of the noun naturally goes with the
absence of the article.
The essential points of the said classification are three in number.
First. The meaningful absence of the article before the countable noun in
the singular signifies that the noun is taken in an abstract sense,
expressing the most general idea of the object denoted. This meaning, which
may be called the meaning of "absolute generalisation", can be demonstrated
by inserting in the tested construction a chosen generalising modifier
(such as in general, in the abstract, in the broadest sense). Cf.:
Law (in general) begins with the beginning of human society. Steam-engine
(in general) introduced for locomotion a couple of centuries ago has now
become obsolete.
Second. The absence of the article before the uncountable noun
corresponds to the two kinds of generalisation: both relative and absolute.
To decide which of the two meanings is realised in any particular case, the
described tests should be carried out alternately. Cf.:
John laughed with great bitterness (that sort of bitterness: relative
generalisation). The subject of health (in general:
78
absolute generalisation) was carefully avoided by everybody. Coffee (a kind
of beverage served at the table: relative generalisation) or tea, please?
Coffee (in general: absolute generalisation) stimulates the function of the
heart.
Third. The absence of the article before the countable noun in the
plural, likewise, corresponds to both kinds of generalisation, and the
exposition of the meaning in each case can be achieved by the same semantic
tests. Cf.:
Stars, planets and comets (these kinds of objects: relative
generalisation) are different celestial bodies (not terrestrial bodies:
relative generalisation). Wars (in general: absolute generalisation) should
be eliminated as means of deciding international disputes.
To distinguish the demonstrated semantic functions of the non-uses of the
article by definition, we may say that the absence of the article with
uncountable nouns, as well as with countable nouns in the plural, renders
the meaning of "uncharacterised generalisation", as different from the
meaning of "absolute generalisation", achieved by the absence of the
article with countable nouns in the singular.
So much for the semantic evaluation of the articles as the first stage of
our study.
§ 3. Passing to the situational estimation of the article uses, we must
point out that the basic principle of their differentiation here is not a
direct consideration of their meanings, but disclosing the informational
characteristics that the article conveys to its noun in concrete contextual
conditions. Examined from this angle, the definite article serves as an
indicator of the type of nounal information which is presented as the
"facts already known", i.e. as the starting point of the communication. In
contrast to this, the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the
article introduces the central communicative nounal part of the sentence,
i.e. the part rendering the immediate informative data to be conveyed from
the speaker to the listener. In the situational study of syntax (see Ch.
XXII) the starting point of the communication is called its "theme", while
the central informative part is called its "rheme".
In accord with the said situational functions, the typical syntactic
position of the noun modified by the definite article
79
is the "thematic" subject, while the typical syntactic position of the noun
modified by the indefinite article or by the meaningful absence of the
article is the "rhematic" predicative. Cf.:
The day (subject) was drawing to a close, the busy noises of the city
(subject) were dying down. How to handle the situation was a big question
(predicative). The sky was pure gold (predicative) above the setting sun.
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. This can be probed by reducing the constructions in question on
re-arrangement lines to the logically "canonised" link-type constructions.
Cf.:
If you would care to verify the incident (object), pray do so. > If you
would care the incident (subject) to be verified, pray have it verified. I
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. You are
talking nonsense (object), lad. > What you are talking, lad, is nonsense
(predicative).
Another essential contextual-situational characteristic of the articles
is their immediate connection with the two types of attributes to the noun.
The first type is a "limiting" attribute, which requires the definite
article before the noun; the second type is a "descriptive" attribute,
which requires the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the
article before the noun. Cf.:
The events chronicled in this narrative took place some four years ago.
(A limiting attribute) She was a person of strong will and iron self-
control. (A descriptive attribute) He listened to her story with grave and
kindly attention. (A descriptive attribute)
The role of descriptive attributes in the situational aspect of articles
is particularly worthy of note in the constructions of syntactic
"convergencies", i.e. chained attributive-repetitional phrases modifying
the same referent from different angles. Cf.: My longing for a house, a
fine and beautiful house, such a house I could never hope to have, flowered
into life again.
80
§ 4. We have now come to the third stage of the undertaken analysis of
the English articles, namely, to their consideration in the light of the
oppositional theory. The oppositional examination of any grammatically
relevant set of lingual objects is of especial importance from the point of
view of the systemic conception of language, since oppositions constitute
the basis of the structure of grammatical paradigms.
Bearing in mind the facts established at the two previous stages of
observation, it is easy to see that oppositionally, the article
determination of the noun should be divided into two binary correlations
connected with each other hierarchically.
The opposition of the higher level operates in the whole system of
articles. It contrasts the definite article with the noun against the two
other forms of article determination of the noun, i.e. 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, i.e. the
member that leaves the feature in question ("identification") unmarked.
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, i.e. the relative generalisation
distinguishing its strong member (the indefinite article plus the
meaningful absence of the article as its analogue with uncountable nouns
and nouns in the plural) and the absolute, or "abstract" generalisation
distinguishing the weak member of the opposition (the meaningful absence of
the article).
The described oppositional system can be shown on the following diagram
(see Fig. 2).
It is the oppositional description of the English articles that involves
the interpretation of the article non-use as the zero form of the article,
since the opposition of the positive exponent of the feature to the
negative exponent of the feature (i.e. its absence) realises an important
part of the integral article determination semantics. As for the
heterogeneity of functions displayed by the absence of the article, it by
no means can be taken as a ground for denying the relevance or expediency
of introducing the notion of zero in the article system. As a matter of
fact, each of the two essential meanings
81
[pic]
ARTICLE DETERMINATION
Relative Generalisation Absolute Generalisation
("Classification") ("Abstraction")
Fig. 2
of this dialectically complex form is clearly revealed in its special
oppositional correlation and, consequently, corresponds to the really
existing lingual facts irrespective of the name given to the form by the
observer.
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. Cf. the examples given below.
Identical nounal positions for the pair "the definite article — the
indefinite article": The train hooted (that train). — A train hooted (some
train).
Correlative nounal positions for the pair "the definite article — the
absence of the article": I\'m afraid the oxygen is out (our supply of
oxygen). — Oxygen is necessary for life (oxygen in general, life in
general).
Correlative nounal positions for the pair "the indefinite article — the
absence of the article": Be careful, there is a puddle under your feet (a
kind of puddle).— Be careful, there is mud on the ground (as different from
clean space).
Finally, correlative nounal positions for the easily neutralised pair
"the zero article of relative generalisation — the zero article of absolute
generalisation": 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).
On the basis of the oppositional definition of the article it becomes
possible to explicate the semantic function of the article determination of
nouns for cases where the inherent value of the article is contrasted
against the contrary semantic value of the noun or the nounal collocation.
82
In particular, the indefinite article may occasionally be used with a
nounal collocation of normally individualising meaning, e.g.:
Rodney Harrington laughed out loud as he caught a last glimpse of Allison
Mackenzie and Norman Page in his rear-vision mirror (Gr. Metalious). After
all, you\'ve got a best side and a worst side of yourself and it\'s no good
showing the worst side and harping on it (A. Christie).
Conversely, the definite article may occasionally be used with a nounal
collocation of normally descriptive meaning, e.g.: Ethel still went in the
evenings to bathe in the silent pool (S. Maugham).
The indefinite article may occasionally be used with a unique referent
noun, e.g.: Ted Latimer from beyond her murmured: "The sun here isn\'t a
real sun" (A. Christie).
The zero article may occasionally be used with an ordinary concrete noun
the semantic nature of which stands, as it were, in sharp contradiction to
the idea of uncountable generalisation, e.g.:
The glasses had a habit of slipping down her button nose which did not
have enough bridge to hold them up (S. M. Disney). He went up a well-kept
drive to a modern house with a square roof and a good deal of window (A.
Christie).
In all these and similar cases, by virtue of being correlated with
semantic elements of contrary nature, the inherent categorial meanings of
the articles appear, as it were, in their original, pure quality. Having no
environmental support, the articles become intensely self-dependent in the
expression of their categorial semantics, and, against the alien contextual
background, traces of transposition can be seen in their use.
§ 5. Having established the functional value of articles in oppositional
estimation, we can now, in broader systemic contraposition, probe the
correlation of the meanings of articles with the meanings of functional
determiners. As a result of this observation, within the system of the
determiners two separate subsets can be defined, one of which is centred
around the definite article with its individualising semantics (this —
these, that — those, my, our, your, his, her, its, their), and the other
one around the indefinite article with its generalising semantics (another,
some, any,
83
But unhappily the wife wasn\'t listening. —But unhappily his wife wasn\'t
listening. The whispering voices caught the attention of the guards. —Those
whispering voices caught their attention. What could a woman do in a
situation like that? — What could any woman do in that sort of situation?
At least I saw interest in her eyes. —At least I saw some interest in her
eyes. Not a word had been pronounced about the terms of the document.— No
word had been pronounced about those terms.
The demonstration of the organic connection between the articles and semi-
notional determiners, in its turn, makes it possible to disclose the true
function of the grammatical use of articles with proper nouns. E.g.:
"This," said Froelich, "is the James Walker who wrote \'The Last of the
Old Lords\'" (M. Bradbury). Cf.: This is the same James Walker. I came out
to Iraq with a Mrs. Kelsey (A. Christie). Cf.: The woman was a certain Mrs.
|
