Download CHAPTER I

МІНІСТЕРСТВО ОСВІТИ ТА НАУКИ УКРАЇНИ
СОЦІАЛЬНО-ПЕДАГОГІЧНИЙ ІНСТИТУТ
"ПЕДАГОГІЧНА АКАДЕМІЯ"
Кафедра англійської філології
Баранова О.А.
Панкратова М.Є.
МЕТОДИЧНИЙ ПОСІБНИК З ТЕОРЕТИЧНОЇ ГРАМАТИКИ
(яка тільки здається важкою)
READINGS IN SEEMS-TO-BE-DIFFICULT THEORETICAL GRAMMAR
КІРОВОГРАД- 2004
1
УДК
МЕТОДИЧНИЙ ПОСІБНИК З ТЕОРЕТИЧНОЇ ГРАМАТИКИ
(яка тільки здається важкою)
Автори-укладачі: О.А.Баранова, М.Є.Панкратова
Кіровоград: Соціально-педагогічний інститут “Педагогічна академія”
НРЦ -2004, 62 с.
Рецензенти:
Кандидат філологічних наук, доцент кафедри
теорії перекладу та загального мовознавства
Кіровоградського державного педагогічного університету
Данілко М.І.
Кандидат філологічних наук, доцент кафедри
соціально-гуманітарних наук Показєєва Л.Г.
Методичний посібник містить матеріал з теоретичної граматики і є
навчальним посібником по курсу "Теоретична граматика англійської мови"
для студентів філологічних спеціальностей інститутів та факультетів
іноземних мов.
Граматичні категорії в посібнику представлені як системи опозицій з
тотожністю граматичних значень. В посібнику дано опис граматичної
будови мови як системи в доступній для розуміння формі.
В розділах посібника теоретичний матеріал подається з прикладами, які
значно полегшують розуміння теоретичних положень.
Граматична характеристика мовних явищ в англійській мові порівнюється з
відповідними положеннями в українській та російських мовах, що також
забезпечує свідоме засвоєння матеріалу.
Затверджено: прот № 9 від 15.06.04
КІРОВОГРАД - 2004
2
ВСТУП
Матеріал даного посібника викладено у відповідності з робочою програмою
курсу "Теоретична граматика англійської мови" та розрахований на студентів
старших курсів філологічних спеціальностей, які пройшли курс практичної
граматики: морфологію та синтаксис. Матеріал, який пропонується в даному
посібнику, розкриває найбільш проблемні питання морфології та синтаксису
англійської мови у порівнянні з відповідними граматичними явищами в
українській та російській мовах. Це означає, що матеріал даного посібника
тісно пов’язано з теоретичними положеннями, які вивчались студентами в
курсі "Типологія англійської, української та російської мов". Крім того, при
описі граматичних явищ англійської мови використано пояснення, яке
грунтується на розумінні історичних змін в будові мови, що вимагає від
студента розуміння основних положень курсу "Історія англійської мови".
Проблемні аспекти опису морфології та синтаксису даного посібнику містять
матеріали різного ступеня теоретичної складності, але у більшості
викладення теоретичних положень значно спрощено для забезпечення
свідомого вивчення матеріалу студентами старших курсів факультетів
іноземних мов. В тій мірі, в якій це полегшує розуміння суті теоретичних
проблем, аналіз категорій англійської мови доповнюється прикладами
англійської та рідних мов. З тієї ж мети в посібнику розглянуто
загальнолінгвістичні проблеми, які узагальнюють знання, здобуті на
попередніх курсах та відтворюють загальну картину розуміння будови мови.
Там, де це виявляється можливим, опис граматичних категорій зводиться до
простіших компонентів і тим самим встановлюється відношення похідності
між вихідними значеннями та утвореними на їх основі більш складними
значеннями. Компоненти, до яких зводиться більш складне значення є лише
відносно більш едементарними, оскільки теоретичний опис граматичних
категорій може мати різні ступені глибини.
Після кожного теоретичного розділу посібника студентам даються питання
для обговорення, що допомагає їм сконцентрувати увагу на основних
положення під час розгляду цих питань у вигляді інтерактивних лекцій або
дискутивних практичних занять.
Даний посібник уявляє собою спрощене узагальнене викладення положень
теоретичної граматики англійської мови та базується на підручниках відомих
авторів теоретичних граматик: М.Я.Блох, Бархударов Л.С., Гуревич В.В.,
Б.С.Хаймович, Б.І.Роговская. Отже більш детальний опис граматичних явищ
англійської мови можна знайти у зазначених підручниках.
3
ЗМІСТ
1. ГРАМАТИКА В СИСТЕМНІЙ КОНЦЕПЦІЇ МОВИ
2. МОРФЕМНА СТРУКТУРА СЛОВА
2.1Загальні відомості
3. МОРФОЛОГІЯ. ВСТУП
3.1 Структура слова
3.2 Класифікація слів
3.3 Сполучуваність слів
4. МОРФОЛОГІЯ. ЧАСТИНИ МОВИ
5. ІМЕННИК. ЗАГАЛЬНА ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА
5.1 Категорія відмінку
5.2 Присвійний відмінок
5.3 Загальний відмінок
5.4 Категорія числа
6. ПРИКМЕТНИК
7. ЗАЙМЕННИК
7.1 Особові займенники
7.2 Присвійні займенники
8. ПРИСЛІВНИК
9. ЧИСЛІВНИК
10.ДРУГОРЯДНІ ЧАСТИНИ МОВИ
10.1Прийменник
10.2 Сполучник
10.3 Частка
10.4 Артикль
4
CONTENTS
1. GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE
2. MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
2.1 General remarks
3. MORPHOLOGY. INTRODUCTION
3.1 Structure of words
3.2 Classification of words
3.3 Combinability of words
4. MORPHOLOGY. PARTS OF SPEECH
5. NOUN. GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS.
5.1 Category of case
5.2 Possessive case
5.3 Common case
5.4 Category of number
6. THE ADJECTIVE
7. THE PRONOUN
7.1 Personal pronouns
7.2 Possessive pronouns
8. THE ADVERB
9. THE NUMERAL
10.THE SEMI-NOTIONAL PARTS OF SPEECH
10.1 THE PREPOSITION
10.2 THE CONJUNCTION
10.3 THE PARTICLE
10.4 THE ARTICLE
CHAPTER I
GRAMMAR IN THE SYSTEMIC CONCEPTION OF LANGUAGE
1. Language is a means of forming and storing ideas as reflections of reality
and exchanging them in the process of human intercourse. Language is social by
nature; it is inseparably connected with the people who are its creators and users; it
grows and develops together with the development of society.
Language incorporates the three constituent parts ("sides"), each being inherent
in it by virtue of its social nature. These parts are the phonological system, the
lexical system, and the grammatical system. Only the unity of these three elements
forms a language; without any one of them there is no human language in the
above sense.
The phonological system is the subfoundation of language; it determines the
5
material (phonetical) appearance of its significative units. The lexical system is
the whole set of naming means of language, that is, words and stable word-groups.
The grammatical system is the whole set of regularities determining the
combination of naming means in the formation of utterances as the embodiment of
thinking process.
Each of the three constituent parts of language is studied by a particular
linguistic discipline. These disciplines, presenting a series of approaches to their
particular objects of analysis, give the corresponding "descriptions" of language
consisting in ordered expositions of the constituent parts in question. Thus, the
phonological description of language is effected by the science of phonology; the
lexical description of language is effected by the science of lexicology; the
grammatical description of language is effected by the science of grammar.
Any linguistic description may have a practical or theoretical purpose. A
practical description is aimed at providing the student with a manual of practical
mastery of the corresponding part of language (within the limits determined by
various factors of educational destination and scientific possibilities). Since the
practice of lingual intercourse, however, can only be realized by employing
language as a unity of all its constituent parts, practical linguistic manuals more
often than not comprise the three types of description presented in a complex. As
for theoretical linguistic descriptions, they pursue analytical aims and therefore
present the studied parts of language in relative isolation, so as to gain insights into
their inner structure and expose the intrinsic mechanisms of their functioning.
Hence, the aim of theoretical grammar of a language is to present a theoretical
description of its grammatical system, i.e. to scientifically analyse and define its
grammatical categories and study the mechanisms of grammatical formation of
utterances out of words in the process of speech making.
2. In earlier periods of the development of linguistic knowledge, grammatical
scholars believed that the only purpose of grammar was to give strict rules of
writing and speaking correctly. The rigid regulations for the correct ways of
expression, for want of the profound understanding of the social nature of
language, were often based on purely subjective and arbitrary judgments of
individual grammar compilers. The result of this "prescriptive" approach was that
alongside quite essential and useful information, non-existent "rules" were
formulated that stood in sheer contradiction with the existing language usage, i.e.
lingual reality. Traces of this arbitrary prescriptive approach to the grammatical
teaching may easily be found even in to-date's school practice.
To refer to some of the numerous examples of this kind, let us consider the wellknown rule of the English article stating that the noun which denotes an object
"already known" by the listener should be used with the definite article. Observe,
however, English sentences taken from the works of distinguished authors directly
contradicting this "rule".
"I've just read a book of yours about Spain and I wanted to ask you about it." "It's not a very good book, I'm afraid" (S. Maugham). I feel a good deal of
hesitation about telling you this story of my own. You see it is not a story like
other stories I have been telling you: it is a true story (J.K. Jerome).
6
Or let us take the rule forbidding the use of the continuous tense-forms with the
verb be as & link, as well as with verbs of perception. Here are examples to the
contrary:
My holiday at Crome isn't being a disappointment (A. Huxley). For the first
time, Bobby felt, he was really seeing the man (A. Christie).
The given examples of English articles and verb-forms, though not agreeing
with the above "prescriptions'', contain no grammar mistakes in them.
The said traditional view of the purpose of grammar has lately been re-stated by
some modern trends in linguistics. In particular, scholars belonging to these trends
pay much attention to artificially constructing and analysing incorrect utterances
with the aim of a better formulation of the rules for the construction of correct
ones. But their examples and deductions, too, are often at variance with real facts
of lingual usage.
Worthy of note are the following two artificial utterances suggested as far back
as 1956:
Colourless green Ideas sleep furiously. Furiously sleep ideas green colourless.
According to the idea of their creator, the prominent American scholar N.
Chomsky, the first of the utterances, although nonsensical logically, was to be
classed as grammatically correct, while the second one, consisting of the same
words placed in the reverse order, had to be analysed as a disconnected,
"ungrammatical" enumeration, a "non-sentence". Thus, the examples, by way of
contrast, were intensely demonstrative (so believed the scholar) of the fact that
grammar as a whole amounted to a set of non-semantic rules of sentence
formation.
However, a couple of years later this assessment of the lingual value of the
given utterances was disputed in an experimental investigation with informants natural speakers of English, who could not come to a unanimous conclusion about
the correctness or incorrectness of both of them. In particular, some of the
informants classed the second utterance as "sounding like poetry".
To understand the contradictions between the bluntly formulated "rules" and
reality, as well as to evaluate properly the results of informant tests like the one
mentioned above, we must bear in mind that the true grammatical rules or
regularities cannot be separated from the expression of meanings; on the contrary,
they are themselves meaningful. Namely, they are connected with the most
general and abstract parts of content inherent in the elements of language. These
parts of content, together with the formal means through which they are expressed,
are treated by grammarians in terms of "grammatical categories". Such are, for
instance, the categories of number or mood in morphology, the categories of
communicative purpose or emphasis in syntax, etc. Since the grammatical forms
and regularities are meaningful, it becomes clear that the rules of grammar must be
stated semantically, or, more specifically, they must be worded functionally. For
example, it would be fallacious to state without any further comment that the
inverted word order in the English declarative sentence is grammatically incorrect.
7
Word order as an element of grammatical form is laden with its own meaningful
functions. It can express, in particular, the difference between the central idea of
the utterance and the marginal idea, between emotive and unemotive modes of
speech, between different types of style. Thus, if the inverted word order in a
given sentence does express these functions, then its use should be considered as
quite correct. E.g.:
In the centre of the room, under the chandelier, as became a host, stood the head
of the family, old Jolyon himself (J. Galsworthy).
The word arrangement in the utterance expresses a narrative description, with
the central informative element placed in the strongest semantic position in
narration, i.e. at the end. Compare the same sort of arrangement accompanying a
plainer presentation of subject matter:
Inside on a wooden bunk lay a young Indian woman (E. Hemingway).
Compare, further, the following:
And ever did his Soul tempt him with evil, and whisper of terrible things. Yet did
it not prevail against him, so great was the power of his love (O. Wilde). (Here the
inverted word order is employed to render intense emphasis in a legend-stylized
narration.) One thing and one thing only could she do for him (R. Kipling).
(Inversion in this case is used to express emotional intensification of the central
idea.)
Examples of this and similar kinds will be found in plenty in modern English
literary texts of good style repute.
3. The nature of grammar as a constituent part of language is better understood
in the light of explicitly discriminating the two planes of language, namely, the
plane of content and the plane of expression.
The plane of content comprises the purely semantic elements contained in
language, while the plane of expression comprises the material (formal) units of
language taken by themselves, apart from the meanings rendered by them. The two
planes are inseparably connected, so that no meaning can be realized without some
material means of expression. Grammatical elements of language present a unity
of content and expression (or, in somewhat more familiar terms, a unity of form
and meaning). In this the grammatical elements are similar to the lingual lexical
elements, though the quality of grammatical meanings, as we have stated above, is
different in principle from the quality of lexical meanings.
On the other hand, the correspondence between the planes of content and
expression is very complex, and it is peculiar to each language. This complexity is
clearly illustrated by the phenomena of polysemy, homonymy, and synonymy.
In cases of polysemy and homonymy, two or more units of the plane of content
correspond to one unit of the plane of expression. For instance, the verbal form of
the present indefinite (one unit in the plane of expression) polysemantically
renders the grammatical meanings of habitual action, action at the present
moment, action taken as a general truth (several units in the plane of content).
eg.:
I get up at half past six in the morning. I do see your point clearly now. As a
rational being, I hate war.
8
The morphemic material element -s/-es find pronunciation [-s, -z, -n]), one unit
in the plane of expression (in so far as the functional semantics of the elements is
common to all of them indiscriminately), homonymically renders the grammatical
meanings of the third person singular of the verbal present tense, the plural of the
noun, the possessive form of the noun, i.e. several units of the plane of content.
E.g.:
John trusts his friends. We have new desks in our classroom. The chief’s order
came as a surprise.
In cases of synonymy, conversely, two or more units of the plane of expression
correspond to one unit of the plane of content. For instance, the forms of the
verbal future indefinite, future continuous, and present continuous (several units in
the plane of expression) can in certain contexts synonymically render the meaning
of a future action (one unit in the plane of content).
E.g.:
Will you come to the party, too? Will you be coming to the party, too? Are you
coming to the party, too?
Taking into consideration the discrimination between the two planes, we may
say that the purpose of grammar as a linguistic discipline is, in the long run, to
disclose and formulate the regularities of the correspondence between the plane of
content and the plane of expression in the formation of utterances out of the stocks
of words as part of the process of speech production.
4. Modern linguistics lays a special stress on the systemic character of language
and all its constituent parts. It accentuates the idea that language is a system of
signs (meaningful units) which are closely interconnected and interdependent.
Units of immediate inter-dependencies (such as classes and subclasses of words,
various subtypes of syntactic construction, etc.) form different microsystems
(subsystems) within the framework of the global macrosystem (supersystem) of
the whole of language.
Each system is a structured set of elements related to one another by a common
function. The common function of all the lingual signs is to give expression to
human thoughts.
The systemic nature of grammar is probably more evident than that of any other
sphere of language, since grammar is responsible for the very organization of the
informative content of utterances [Bokh, 1986, 11]. Due to this fact, even the
earliest grammatical treatises, within the cognitive limits of their times, disclosed
some systemic features of the described material. But the scientifically sustained
and consistent principles of systemic approach to language and its grammar were
essentially developed in the linguistics of the twentieth century, namely, after the
publication of the works by the Russian scholar Beaudoin de Courtenay and the
Swiss scholar Ferdinand de Saussure. These two great men demonstrated the
difference between lingual synchrony (coexistence of lingual elements) and diachrony (different time-periods in the development of lingual elements as well as
language as a whole) and defined language as a synchronic system of meaningful
elements at any stage of its historical evolution.
On the basis of discriminating synchrony and diachrony, the difference between
9
language proper and speech proper can be strictly defined, which is of crucial
importance for the identification of the object of linguistic science.
Language in the narrow sense of the word is a system of means of expression,
while speech in the same narrow sense should be understood as the manifestation
of the system of language in the process of intercourse.
The system of language includes, on the one hand, the body of material units sounds, morphemes, words, word-groups; on the other hand, the regularities or
"rules" of the use of these units. Speech comprises both the act of producing
utterances, and the utterances themselves, i.e. the text Language and speech are
inseparable, they form together an organic unity. As for grammar (the grammatical
system), being an integral part of the lingual macrosystem it dynamically connects
language with speech, because it categorically determines the lingual process of
utterance production.
Thus, we have broad philosophical concept of language which is analyzed and
divided by linguistics into two different aspects - the system of signs (language
proper) and the use of signs (speech proper). The generalizing term "language" is
also preserved in linguistics, showing the unity of these two aspects [Blokh, 1966,
18].
The sign (meaningful unit) in the system of language has only a potential
meaning. In speech, the potential meaning of the lingual sign is "actualized", i.e.
made situationally significant as part of the grammatically organized text.
Lingual units stand to one another in two fundamental types of relations:
syntagmatic and paradigmatic.
Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear relations between units in a
segmental sequence (string).
E.g:
The spaceship was launched without the help of a booster rocket.
In this sentence syntagmatically connected are the words and word-groups "the
spaceship", "was launched", "the spaceship was launched", "was launched without
the help", "the help of a rocket", "a booster rocket".
Morphemes within the words are also connected syntagmatically.
E.g.: space/ship; launch/ed; with/out; boost/er.
Phonemes are connected syntagmatically within morphemes and words, as well
as at various juncture points (cf. the processes of assimilation and dissimilation).
The combination of two words or word-groups one of which is modified by the
other forms a unit which is referred to as a syntactic "syntagma". There are four
main types of notional syntagmas: predicative (the combination of a subject and a
predicate), objective (the combination of a verb and its object), attributive (the
combination of a noun and its attribute), adverbial (the combination of a modified
notional word, such as a verb, adjective, or adverb, with its adverbial modifier).
Since syntagmatic relations are actually observed in utterances, they are
described by the Latin formula as relations "in praesentia" ("in the presence").
The other type of relations, opposed to syntagmatic and called "paradigmatic", are
such as exist between elements of the system outside the strings where they co10
occur. These intra-systemic relations and dependencies find their expression in the
fact that each lingual unit is included in a set or series of connections based on
different formal and functional properties.
In the sphere of phonology such series are built up by the correlations of
phonemes on the basis of vocality or consonantism, voicedness or devoicedness,
the factor of nazalization, the factor of length, etc. In the sphere of the vocabulary
these series are founded on the correlations of synonymy and antonymy, on
various topical connections, on different word-building dependencies. In the
domain of grammar, series of related forms realize grammatical numbers and
cases, persons and tenses, gradations of modalities, sets of sentence patterns of
various functional nature, etc.
Unlike syntagmatic relations, paradigmatic relations cannot be directly observed
in utterances, that is why they are referred to as relations "in absentia" ("in the
absence").
Paradigmatic relations coexist with syntagmatic relations in such a way that
some sort of syntagmatic connection is necessary for the realization of any
paradigmatic series. This is especially evident in a classical grammatical paradigm
which presents a productive series of forms each consisting of a syntagmatic
connection of two elements: one common for the whole of the series (stem), the
other specific for every individual form in the series (grammatical featureinflexion, suffix, auxiliary word). Grammatical paradigms express various
grammatical categories.
The minimal paradigm consists of two form-stages. This kind of paradigm we
see, for instance, in the expression of the category of number: boy-boys. A more
complex paradigm can be divided into component paradigmatic series, i.e. into the
corresponding sub-paradigms (c/. numerous paradigmatic series constituting the
system of the finite verb). In other words, with paradigms, the same as with any
other systemically organized material, macro- and micro-series are to be
discriminated.
5. Units of language are divided into segmental and supra-segmental.
Segmental units consist of phonemes, they form phonemic strings of various status
(syllables, morphemes, words, etc.). Supra-segmental units do not exist by
themselves, but are realized together with segmental units and express different
modification meanings (functions) which are reflected on the strings of segmental
units. To the supra-segmental units belong intonations (intonation contours),
accents, pauses, patterns of word-order.
The segmental units of language form a hierarchy of levels. This hierarchy is of
a kind that units of any higher level are analyzable into (i.e. arc formed of) units of
the immediately lower level. Thus, morphemes are decomposed into phonemes,
words are decomposed into morphemes, phrases are decomposed into words, etc.
But this hierarchical relation is by no means reduced to the mechanical
composition of larger units from smaller ones; units of each level are characterized
by their own, specific functional features which provide for the very recognition
of the corresponding levels of language.
The lowest level of lingual segments is phonemic, it is formed by phonemes as
11
the material elements of the higher-level segments. The phoneme has no meaning,
its function is purely differential: it differentiates morphemes and words as
material bodies. Since the phoneme has no meaning, it is not a sign.
Phonemes are combined into syllables. The syllable, a rhythmic segmental
group of phonemes, is not a sign, either; it has a purely formal significance. Due to
this fact, it could hardly stand to reason to recognize in language a separate
syllabic level; rather, the syllables should be considered in the light of the intralevel combinability properties of phonemes.
Phonemes are represented by letters in writing. Since the letter has a
representative status, it is a sign, though different in principle from the levelforming signs of language.
Units of all the higher levels of language are meaningful; they may be called
"signemes" as opposed to "cortemes" (from Lat. cortex "bark, crust, shell"), i.e.
non-meaningful units of different status, such as phonemes (and letters as
phoneme representatives), syllables, and some others.
The level located above the phonemic one is the morphemic level. The
morpheme is the elementary meaningful part of the word. It is built up by
phonemes, so that the shortest morphemes include only one phoneme. E.g.: ros-y
[-1); a-fire [a-]; come-s j-z].
The morpheme expresses abstract, "significative" meanings, which are used as
constituents for the formation of more concrete, "nominative" meanings of words.
The third level in the segmental lingual hierarchy is the level of words, or
lexemic level.
The word (lexeme), as different from the morpheme, is a directly naming
(nominative) unit of language: it names things and their relations. Since words are
built up by morphemes, the shortest words consist of one explicit morpheme only.
Cf.: man; will; but; I; etc.
The next higher unit is the phrase (word-group), it is located at the phrasemic
level. To level-forming phrase types belong combinations of two or more notional
words. These combinations, like separate words, have a nominative function, but
they represent the referent of nomination as a complicated phenomenon, be it a
concrete thing, an action, a quality, or a whole situation. Cf., respectively: a
picturesque village; to start with a jerk; extremely difficult; the unexpected arrival
of the chief.
This kind of nomination can be called "polynomination", as different from
"mononomination" effected by separate words.
Notional phrases may be of a stable type and of a free type. The stable phrases
(phraseological units) form the phraseological part of the lexicon, and are studied
by the phraseological division of lexicology. Free phrases are built up in the
process of speech on the existing productive models, and are studied in the lower
division of syntax. The grammatical description of phrases is sometimes called
"minor syntax", in distinction to "major syntax" studying the sentence and its
textual connections.
In order to better understand the nature of phrases as level-forming units we
must take into consideration their status in the larger lingual units built up by
12
them. These larger units are sentences. It is within the sentence that any phrase
performs its level-determined function (being used as a notional part of the
sentence). On the other hand, any notional word, not only a phrase, can be used in
the role of a separate part of the sentence, such as subject, object, predicate, etc.
We infer from this that in more exact terms the units located above the words in
the segmental lingual hierarchy are notional parts of the sentence. These can be
formed by phrases (word-groups), or by separate notional words. Since the
function of these parts is denotative (they not only name, but also indicate, or
denote, objects and phenomena involved in the situation expressed by the
sentence), they may be called "denotemes" (in the previous editions of the book
they were referred to as "nomemes"). The level at which denotemes are identified
is then the denotemic level of language. In this connection, the phrasemic level
should be presented as the upper sublevel of the denotemic level. The
demonstrated approach marks the necessary development of the theory of levels of
language emphasizing the strictly hierarchical principle of inter-level derivational
relations of lingual units (see above).
Above the denotemic level, the level of sentences is located, or the proposemic
level.
The peculiar character of the sentence ("proposeme") as a signemic unit of
language consists in the fact that, naming a certain situation, or situational event, it
expresses predication, i.e. shows the relation of the denoted event to reality.
Namely, it shows whether this event is real or unreal, desirable or obligatory,
stated as a truth or asked about, etc. In this sense, as different from the word and
the phrase, the sentence is a predicative unit. C/.: to receive - to receive a letter Early in June I received a letter from Peter Melrose.
The sentence is produced by the speaker in the process of speech as a concrete,
situationally bound utterance. At the same time it enters the system of language by
its syntactic pattern which, as all the other lingual unit-types, has both syntagmatic
and paradigmatic characteristics.
But the sentence is not the highest unit of language in the hierarchy of levels.
Above the proposemic level there is still another one whose units are formed by
separate sentences united into topical groupings. These sentence-groups each
distinguished by its micro-topic as part of a continual text are tentatively called
"super-sentential constructions". For the sake of unified terminology, the level at
which they are identified can be called "supra-proposemic".
In the printed text, the supra-sentential construction very often coincides with
the paragraph (as in the example above).
The supra-sentential construction is a combination of separate sentences forming
a textual unity. Such combinations are subject to regular lingual patterning making
them into syntactic elements. The syntactic process by which sentences are
connected into textual unities is analyzed under the heading of "cumulation".
Cumulation, the same as formation of composite sentences, can be both syndetic
and asyndetic.
Eg:
He went on with his interrupted breakfast. Lisette did not speak and there was
13
silence between them. But his appetite satisfied, his mood changed; he began to
feel sorry for himself rather than angry with her, and with a strange ignorance of
woman's heart he thought to arouse Lisette's remorse by exhibiting himself as an
object of pity (S. Maugham).
In the printed text, the supra-sentential construction very often coincides with the
paragraph (as in the example above). However, the constitutive unit of the level in
question, obeying the universal derivational regularity of segmental lingual
hierarchy, should be reducible to one sentence only, the same as the sentence is
reducible to one denoteme (sentence-part), the same as the nomeme is reducible to
one lexeme (Word), etc. This regularity considered, we come to the conclusion that
the generalized unit that is located above the sentence and is distinguished by its
topical (micro-topical) function is not necessarily represented by a group of
sentences, i.e. by a super-sentential construction; in general terms, this unit is
formed either by a group of sentences (a super-sentential construction shown
above), or by one separate sentence which is placed in a semantically (topically)
significant position in speech. In oral speech it is delimited by a long pause
combined with the corresponding "concluding" tone of voice. We have called this
generalized unit the "dicteme" (from Lat. dice "I speak") [Blokh, 1986, 48]. In
written (printed) text it is often represented by a sentence-paragraph, i.e. by a
paragraph formed by a single independent sentence.
Thus, from the point of view of its constitutive units, the supra-sentential level
may be called the dtctemtc level, the dicteme being defined as an elementary
topical segmental unit of the continual text.
We have surveyed six levels of language, each identified by its own, functional
type of segmental units. If now we% carefully observe the functional status of the
level-forming segments, we can distinguish between them more self-sufficient and
less self-sufficient types, the latter being defined only in relation to the functions of
other level units. Indeed, the phonemic, lexemic and proposemic levels are most
strictly and exhaustively identified from the functional point of view: the function
of the phoneme is differential, the function of the word is nominative, the function
of the sentence is predicative. As different from these, morphemes are identified
only as significative components of words, denotemes present notional parts of
sentences, and dictemes mark the transition from the sentence to the text.
Furthermore, bearing in mind that the phonemic level forms the subfoundation
of language, i.e. the non-meaningful matter of meaningful expressive means, the
two notions of grammatical description shall be pointed out as central even within
the framework of the structural hierarchy of language: these are, first, the notion of
the word and, second, the notion of the sentence. The first is analyzed by
morphology, which is the grammatical teaching of the word; the second is
analyzed by syntax, which is the grammatical teaching of the sentence.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
1. What are the three constituent parts of the language?
2. What is the aim of theoretical grammar?
14
3.
4.
5.
6.
Two planes of language: how do they explain the systemic nature of grammar?
How are the syntagmetic and paradigmatic relations in utterances expressed?
What are the segmental units of the language?
What are the language levels?
Chapter 2 MORPHEMIC STRUCTURE OF THE WORD
Some general remarks
In this reader the phoneme, the morpheme, the word and the sentence are
regarded as the basic units of language and speech. The definitions of these units
have never been generally agreed on, and in different references one can find
slightly different descriptions, yet following are some brief functional
characteristics, that are supposed to help learners in discussing problems of
morphology and syntax.
The phoneme is the smallest distinctive unit. It may be the only distinctive feature
marking the difference between words (tale - table).
The morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit. The word UN-FAIL-ING-LY
For example consists of 4 morphemes - meaningful parts.
The word is he smallest naming unit. Though the words terror, terrible, terrific,
terrify contain more than one morpheme each, they are the smallest units naming a
certain feeling, certain properties and a certain action respectfully.
The sentence is the smallest communication unit. It rains is a sentence because it
contains a communication.
The phoneme, morpheme, the word and the sentence are units of different levels of
language structure. The phoneme is a unit of the lowest level, the sentence - of the
highest.
The units of each level can be analyzed as to their inner structure, the classes they
belong to in the language system (their paradigmatic relations) and the
combinations they form in speech (their syntagmatic relations).
As we are often obliged to use the terms language and speech, we must have a
working definitions of these terms, however imperfect and incomplete.
We shall assume that the structure of various units and the classes they form are
the sphere of language, while the combinations the same units form in the process
of communication are the sphere of speech.
The language and the speech are interdependent and interpenetrating.
MORPHOLOGY. INTRODUCTION
There exist many definitions of the term word and none of them is generally
accepted. But in the majority of cases people actually experience no difficulty in
separating one word from another in their native tongue.
15
Linguists point out as most characteristic features of words their isolatability (a
word may become a sentence: Boys! Where? Certainly), uninterruptibility (a
word is not easily interrupted by a parenthetical expression as a sequence of words
may be; comp. black — that is bluish-black — birds where bluish-black may not
be inserted in the middle of the compound blackbird), a certain looseness in
reference to the place in a sequence (cf. the parts of un-gentle-man-li-ness versus
away in Away he ran. He ran away. Away ran he.), etc. This is reflected in writing
where the graphic form of almost every word is separated by intervals from its
neighbours.
Some difficulty is caused by different applications of the term word. Linguists
often apply it to a whole group like write, writes, wrote, will write, has written, etc.
All this group is then regarded as one word. But when speaking about every word
being separated from its neighbours in speech, we, naturally, mean individual
members of such a group, not the group as a whole. The whole group is never used
as a unit of speech. Thus we must either distinguish the word as a unit of language
and the word as a unit of speech, or we have to choose a unit common to both
language and speech and designate it by the term word. In this reader the latter
course is taken. A unit like write is a word with regard to both language and
speech. The group write, writes, wrote, etc. is not a word, but a lexeme, a group of
words united by some common features, of which we shall speak later on.
THE STRUCTURE OF WORDS
One of the main properties of a word is its double nature. It is material
because it can he heard or seen, and it is immaterial or ideal as far as its meaning is
concerned. We shall regard the material aspects of the word (written and oral) as
its forms, and its meanings as its content . When defining the word as "the smallest
naming unit", we refer primarily to its content, whereas in pointing out the most
characteristic features of words we deal chiefly with the form.
The word books can be broken up in two parts: book-and -s. The content of
the first part can be rendered by the Russian КНИГ- and the meaning of the second
part is 'plurality'. So each of the two parts of the word books has both form and
content. Such meaningful parts of a word are called morphemes. If we break up the
word books in some other way, e. g. boo-ks, the resulting parts will not be
morphemes, since they have no meanings.
There is an important difference between the.morpheme book- and the word
book besides that of a part and the whole. The word book contains the meaning of
"singular number", which the morpheme does not. The meaning of "singularity" is
acquired by the word book because there exists the word books with the morpheme
of "plurality" -s. So the absence of -s in book is interpreted as "singular number".
Thus, we may say that the word book contains the morpheme book-plus a zero
morpheme with the meaning of "singular number".
Note. Zero refers only to the form of the morpheme. The morpheme -s having a
positive form may be called a positive morpheme.
The morphemes book- and -s differ essentially:
16
a) In their relations to reality and thought. Book-' is directly associated with
some object of reality, even if it does not name it as the word book does (cf.
bookish). The morpheme -s is connected with the world of reality only indirectly,
through the morpheme it is linked with. In combination with the morpheme bookit means "more than one book". Together with the morpheme pot- it refers to
"more than one pot". But alone it does not remind us of the notion "more than one"
in the same way as, for instance, the morpheme plural- does.
b) In their relations to the word of which they are part. Book- is more independent
than -s. As we have seen, book-makes a word with a zero morpheme added, -s
cannot make a word with a zero morpheme. It always depends on some positive
morpheme.
c) In their relations to similar morphemes in other words. The meaning of -s is
always relative-.- In the word books it denotes "plurality", because books is
opposed to book with the zero morpheme of "singularity". In the word news -s has
no plural meaning because there is no "singular" opposite to news. Or, to take
another example, the morpheme -s in wants shows the meaning of "present tense"
in relation to the morpheme -ed of wanted, but it shows the meaning of "third
person, singular" in relation to the zero morpheme of want. Now we cannot say
that book- has one meaning when contrasted with table- and another meaning
when contrasted with chair-.
The meanings of the morphemes -s, -ed, relative, dependent and only indirectly
reflecting reality, are grammatical meanings of grammatical morphemes.
Morphemes of the book- type and their meanings are called lexical.
The lexical and grammatical morphemes of a word are linked together so
closely that sometimes it seems impossible to separate them. The relation between
foot and feet is similar to the relation between book and books. But how are we to
separate the "plural" morpheme in feet from the lexical morpheme? In a general
way we can say that everything distinguishing the form of feet from that of foot
expresses "plurality". But the answer can be more elaborate. We may regard /f.-t/
as a discontinuous form of the lexical morpheme, /-u-/ as the form of the
grammatical morpheme of "singularity", and /-i:-/ as that of the morpheme of
"plurality". Then /-u-/ and /-i:-/ are grammatical morphemes inserted into a lexical
one, and we deal with internal inflection. We may also assume that the 'singular'
meaning in foot is, as usual, not marked, i. e. we have there a zero morpheme. The
word feet contains the lexical morpheme foot- and the grammatical morpheme of
"plurality" whose form is /u > i:/, i. e. the change of the vowel /u/ to the vowel /i:/.
Thus "plurality" is expressed by vowel change.
It is not uncommon in English that the function of a grammatical morpheme
is discharged by an apparent word. The lexical meanings of the words invite,
invited and the combination shall invite (I invite you. I invited you. I shall invite
you.) are the same. The main difference in content is the "present" meaning in
invite, the "past" meaning in invited and the "future" meaning in shall invite. These
meanings are grammatical. By comparing the"relations of invite — invited and
invite — shall invite we can see that the function of shall is similar to that of the
grammatical morpheme -ed.
17
Thus, shall is a kind of contradiction. Formally, it is a word, since it has the
looseness of a word (I shall come. I shall certainly come. Shall I come? I shall.).
As to its content, it is not a word, but a grammatical morpheme:
a) Unlike a word, it has no lexical meaning in We shall arrive to-morrow.
b) The meaning of -(e)d in arrived and that of shall in shall arrive are
homogeneous.
c) The meaning of shall is relative like that of grammatical morphemes. Shall
invite shows the "future" meaning when it is opposed to invite with the "present"
meaning. But when it is contrasted with will invite, it shows the meaning of
"first person".
d) The meaning of shall is only indirectly connected with reality, through the word
it is linked with. It does not denote "futurity" in general, but the futurity of the
action denoted by invite, arrive, etc.
Since shall has the properties of both a word and a grammatical morpheme, we
shall call it a grammatical word-morpheme.
Let us now compare the two units: works and will work. They contain the same
lexical morpheme work- and different grammatical morphemes -s and will. The
grammatical, morpheme -s is a bound morpheme: it is rigidly connected with the
lexical morpheme. The grammatical morpheme will is a free morpheme or a wordmorpheme: it is loosely connected with the lexical morpheme. Owing to the
difference in the forms of the grammatical morphemes, there is a difference in the
forms of the units works and will work. Works has the form of one word, will work
that of a combination of words.
Units like works, with bound grammatical morphemes, are called synthetic words.
They are words both in form and in content.
Units like will work, with free grammatical morphemes, or grammatical wordmorphemes, are called analytical words. They are words in content only. In form
they are combinations of words.
Since the difference between synthetic and analytical words is a matter of form,
not content, we may speak of synthetic and analytical forms.
Analytical forms are much more characteristic of English, than of Russian.
Especially rich in analytical forms is the English, verb where they greatly exceed
the synthetic forms in number.
Owing to the prevalence of analytical forms, English is usually spoken of as an
analytical language, and Russian, Latin, Greek, in which synthetic forms prevail,
as synthetic languages.
Note. This is but one of the distinctive features of the analytical structure of
Modern English. As to the functions of grammatical word-morphemes in the
structure of the English sentence, see Syntax.
'
Besides lexical and grammatical morphemes there exist some intermediate
types.
The first morphemes in the words de-part, for-give, and the second morphemes in
the words fty-er, home-less resemble grammatical morphemes in their dependence
on lexical morphemes. But they differ from grammatical morphemes in not toeing
relative. True, one can say that in the pair merciful ---- merciless the morpheme 18
less is correlated with -ful,
but in homeless, jobless, etc. -less retains its meaning though it is not contrasted
with -ful.
Like grammatical morphemes, de-, for-, -er, -less are attached only to certain
classes of lexical morphemes. The morpheme -er, for instance, is usually attached
to morphemes like sing- , read-, speak- which are associated with the grammatical
morphemes -s, -ing and the grammatical word-morphemes shall, will. But like
lexical morphemes they determine the lexical meanings of words. Cf. part and
depart, give and forgive. Besides, together with their lexical morphemes, de-, for-,
-er, -less make units whose co-occurrence with grammatical morphemes is similar
to that of simple lexical morphemes- Cf. home — homes, reader — readers; boy
— boy's, reader - - reader's; give —gives —giving — shall give, forgive --forgives — forgiving — shall forgive.
Later we shall speak of other properties that morphemes like de-, for-, -er, -less
have in common with grammatical morphemes, on the one hand, and lexical
morphemes, on the other.
Owing to their double or intermediate nature, we shall call them lexicogrammatical morphemes.
De-, for-, -er, -less are bound morphemes. English possesses also free
lexico-grammatical morphemes, or lexico-grammatical word-morphemes.
Units of the type stand up, give in, find out resemble analytical words in each
having the form of a combination of words and the content of a word. But there is
an essential difference between shall give and give in. Shall does not introduce any
lexical meaning, while in does. Shall give differs from give grammatically, while
give in differs form give lexically. In this respect give in is similar to forgive. In
resembles for- also in being associated with the class of lexical morphemes
attaching the same set of grammatical morphemes: -s, -ing, shall, will, etc. Cf.
gives in, forgives; giving in, forgiving; will give in, will forgive.
There is much similarity in origin and function between the second elements of
stand up, break out and the so-called separable prefixes of the corresponding
German verbs auf-stehen — stand auf, ausbrechen — brack aus. All of them are
lexico-grammatical morphemes. But in German they are only partly free, whereas
in English they are wholly free morphemes, or word-morphemes.
The extensive use of lexico-grammatical word-morphemes is, as L. P. Smith puts
it, "one of the most striking idiosyncrasies" of English. It is an inalienable part of
its analytical structure.
Units of the give in type containing lexico-grammatical word-morphemes will be
treated here as composite words.
A word has at least one lexical morpheme. It may also have grammatical
and lexico-grarnmatical morphemes. The lexical morpheme is regarded as the root
of the word, all the other bound morphemes as affixes: prefixes, suffixes and
infixes.
Position is not the only difference between prefixes and suffixes in English.
Suffixes play a much greater role in the grammatical structure of the language.
First, they include grammatical morphemes besides lexico-grammatical ones,
19
whereas prefixes are only lexico-grammatical. Secondly, the lexico-grammatical
suffixes are more closely connected with grammatical morphemes than prefixes
are. The addition of a suffix to the root mostly changes the set of grammatical
morphemes attached, which is not typical 'of prefixes. Cf. teach and teacher, on
the one hand, give and forgive, on the. other. In this respect lexico-grammatical
word-morphemes resemble prefixes, not suffixes.
Words without their grammatical morphemes (mostly suffixes, often cal led
endings or inflections) are known as stems. A stem may consist of the root alone,
as in the words boy, rooms, moved, or it may be more complicated, as in boyish,
remove, improvement.
We may say that the stem boyish- has been derived from the stem boy- by adding
the suffix -ish, remove- from move-by means of the prefix re-. In such cases we
speak of stem-building by affixation. But affixation is not the only means of sternbuilding in English. The stem of the noun strength has been derived from the stem
of the adjective strong not only by affixation (the suffix -tti) but also by vowel
change (/o/ > /e/).
As already mentioned , a word is not just a combination of morphemes.
Apart from the naming power that unites all the morphemes of a word like
revolutionary and turns them into a higher unit, they are also united by the wordstress which is an essential part of the structure of a word.
If we assume that the verb stem transport- has been derived from the noun stem
transport-, we have to count stress change among the stern-building elements of
the verb.
In accordance with their structure the following four types of stems are
usually distinguished:
1. Simple, containing only the root, as in day, dogs, write, wonted, etc.
2. Derivative, containing affixes or other stem-building elements, as in
boyhood, rewrite, strength, speech (cf. speak)
3. Compound, containing two or more roots, as in whitewash, pickpocket,
appletree, motor-car, brother-in-law, etc.
Note: The stems of blue-eyed, lion-hearted, etc. are both compound and
derivative and are sometimes called compound derivatives.
4. Composite, containing free lexico-grammatical word-morphemes or otherwise
having the form of a combination of words, as in give up, two hundred and twentyfive, at last, in spite of, etc.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED:
1. What is a double nature of a word?
2. Why are morphemes meaningful parts of words? Give examples.
3. In what way does a morpheme differ from a word? What is a grammatical
word-morpheme?
4. What is the different between root and stem?
5. What are the types of stems?
20
THE CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS
A morpheme usually has more than one meaning. This is the case, for
instance, with both the lexical and the grammatical morpheme in the word runs.
The morpheme run- has the following meanings: 1) "move with quick steps" (The
boy runs fast); 2) "flow" (A tear runs ...); 3) "become" (to run dry); 4) "manage"
(run a business); 5) "cause to move" (run a car), and many others. The meanings
of the -s morpheme are as follows: 1) "present tense", 2) "indicative mood", 3)
"third person", 4) "singular number", 5) "non-continuous aspect", and some others.
All the lexical meanings of the word runs, inherent in the morpheme run-, unite
this word with to run, running, will run, shall run, has run, had run, is running,
was running, etc. into one group called a lexeme.
All the grammatical meanings of the word runs, inherent in the morpheme -s, unite
this word with walks, stands, sleeps, skates, lives -and a great many other words
into a group we shall call a gratnmeme.
The words of a lexeme or of a grammeme are united not only by the meanings of
the corresponding morpheme, but by its form too. Still the content is of greater
importance, the form often differing considerably. The words runs and ran, for
instance, have the same lexical meanings and belong therefore to the same lexeme
in spite of the formal difference. Even more significant is an example like buy and
bought. But most striking are cases like go and went, I and me, etc. Similar
examples can illustrate the formal variations of a grammatical morpheme uniting
words into a gramrneme: lived, walked, skated, slept, ran, went.
The number of words in an English lexeme may vary from one (must; milk;
woolen; always) to several dozens (writes, wrote, will write, shall write, am
writing, are writing,, was writing, were writing, have written, has written, had
written, is written, vitas written, etc.).
Note. The lexeme represented by write contains 94 words expressed by 64 forms,
of these on ly 10 words have-synthetic forms, five in number, Here they are:
1. write (infinitive, indicative, subjunctive, imperative)
2. writes
3. wrote (indicative, subjunctive)
4. writing (gerund, participle)
5. written
The number of words in a grammeme is usually very great, practically limi tless.:
But occasionally a grammeme may contain one word only. For instance, the
grammeme having the meanings of 'indicative mood', 'past tense', 'plural number',
'non-continuous aspect', and 'non-perfect order' contains but one word — were.
From the previous paragraph it is clear that a ward like runs containing a
lexical and a grammatical morpheme is at the same time a member of a certain
lexeme and of a certain grammeme. In a lexeme .the lexical morpheme may be
regarded as invariable (at least in content) and the grammatical morphemes as
variables. In a grammeme, on the contrary, the grammatical morpheme is
invariable and the lexical morphemes are variables. This can be seen from the
following table.
21
As we see, each word of a lexeme represents a certain grammeme, and each word
of a grammeme represents a certain lexeme.
Lexeme 1
Lexeme 2
Lexeme 3
Grammeme 1
boy
girl
captain
common
case, singular
number
Grammeme 2
boy's
girl's
captain's
possessive
case, singular
number
Grammeme 3
boys
girls
captains
common
case, plural
number
Grammeme 4
boys'
girls'
captains'
possessive
case, plural
number
male
child,
son, male
servant,
etc.
female
child,
daughter,
maidservant,
etc.
leader,
chief,
officer,
etc.
meanings of grammemes/
meanings of lexemes
The set of gratnmemes represented by all the words of a lexeme I's its
paradigm. The set of lexemes represented by all the words of a grammeme is
usually so large that it is / almost of no practical-value and has therefore got no
name.
The paradigms of the three lexemes in the table above are identical and
characterize the lexemes as belonging to a class called nouns. The paradigm of the
lexeme want, wants, wanted, shall want, etc. is quite different and stamps it as
belonging to another class called verbs.
There is an essential difference in the way lexical and grammatical meanings
exist in the language and occur in speech. Lex ical meanings can be found in a
bunch only in a dictionary or in the memory of a man, or, scientifically, in the
lexical system of a language. In actual speech a lexical morpheme displays only
one meaning of the bunch in each case, and that meaning is singled out by the
context or the situation of speech (in grammar parlance, syntagmatically). As seen
already, words of the same lexeme convey different meanings in different
surroundings. In the sentence The boy runs fast the word runs has meaning 1. In A
tear runs down her cheek it has meaning 2. In runs dry it conveys meaning 3. In
runs a car — meaning 5, and so on.
The meanings of a grammatical morpheme always come together in the word. In
accordance with their relative nature they can be singled out only relatively in
contrast to the meanings of other grammatical morphemes (in grammar parlance,
paradigmatically). Supposing we want to single out the meaning of 'noncontinuous aspect' in the word runs. We have then to find another word which has
22
all the meanings of the word runs but that of 'non-continuous aspect'. The only
word that meets these requirements is the analytical word is running. Runs and is
running belong to the same lexeme, and their lexical meanings are identical. As to
the grammatical meanings the two words do not differ in tense ('present'), number
('singular'), person ('third'), mood ('indicative'), etc. They differ only in aspect. The
word runs has the meaning of "non-continuous aspect' and is running — that
of'continuous aspect'. Thus all the difference in the forms of the two contrasted
words serves to distinguish only these aspect meanings which are thus singled out
from the whole bunch.
When opposed, the two words, runs — is running, form a peculiar language
unit. All their meanings but those of aspect counterbalance one another and do not
count. Only the two particular meanings of 'non-continuous' and 'continuous'
aspect united by the general meaning of 'aspect' are revealed in this opposition or
opposeme, to use an -eme word (Cf. phoneme, morpheme, lexeme, grammeme).
The general meaning of this opposeme ('aspect') manifests itself in the two
particular meanings ('non-continuous aspect' and 'continuous aspect') of the
opposite members (or opposites).
Now we may regard the word runs as representing the whole grammeme runs,
walks, stands, sleeps, skates, lives, etc. Likewise, the word is running represents
the grammeme is running, is walking, is standing, is sleeping, is skating, is living,
etc. When contrasted the two grammemes can also be regarded as an aspect
opposeme since they show the particular meanings of 'continuous' and 'noncontinuous' aspects united by the general meaning of 'aspect'.
The pairs ran — was running, shall run — shall be run-Ming, to run — to be
running, etc. and the corresponding grammemes are all aspect opposemes with the
same general meaning and identical particular meanings.
All the aspect opposemes make up a system which is called the category of aspect.
Each opposeme represents the category as a molecule represents a certain
substance, but the extent of the category is shown by the whole system of
opposemes.
The category of tense is the system of tense opposemes in a given language.
A tense opposeme in English consists not of two but of three members (writes —
wrote — wilt write; is writing — was writing — will be writing) because the
general meaning of 'tense' manifests itself in three particular meanings: 'present',
'past' and 'futurlTrjThe pair is writing — was writing cannot be regarded as a tense
opposeme because one particular manifestation of 'tense' (the 'future tense') is
missing: will be writing. Neither can the group writes — wrote — was writing —
will write be looked upon as a tense opposeme since the 'past tense' is manifested
twice: in wrote and was writing. Besides, was writing introduces the 'continuous'
meaning which the other members of the group do not possess.
In general, an opposeme of any grammatical category consists of as many
members (or opposites) as there are particular manifestations of the general
meaning;( Thus, a morphological opposeme is a minimum set of words Revealing
(by the difference in their forms) only (and afl) the particular manifestations of
some general grammatical meaning. Any morphological category is the system of
23
such, opposemes whose members differ in form to express only (and all) the
particular manifestations of th-e general meaning of the category.
The structure of a lexeme is defined by the opposeme it contains. The
lexeme represented by the word long, for instance, contains the opposeme of but
one category, the 'degrees of comparison'. Its structure, therefore, is, so to say, of
one dimension: long — longer —longest. The lexeme represented by the word
boy contains opposemes of two categories, 'number' and 'case'. As a result, its
structure is a two-dimension one:
boy
- number ------- boys
CASE
CASE
boy's-------number ------- boys'
Each category is represented here by two opposemes. In English there are no
lexemes of three-dimension structure. If the infinitive were regarded as a separate
lexeme, it could be a model of this kind:
to have led, to have been led, to lead, to be led, to be leading, to be being led, to
have been leading, to have been being led.
To be being led and to have been being led are rarely used.
Here each category is represented by four opposemes.
The structure of an English verb lexeme containing opposemes of seven categories
is so complicated that it is next to impossible to present it on paper.
All the words of a lexeme, both synthetic and analytical, are united by the
same lexical meanings.
Historically the analytical words have developed from combinations of two (or
more) words. But the lexical meaning of only one word has been preserved, so that
instead of belonging to two (or more) different lexemes the combination functions
as a word of one lexeme.
We cannot agree with A. I. Smirnitsky that is and has in the analytical words is
written, has written contain some weak lexical meanings . If it were so, writes — is
written, writes — has written could not be regarded as grammatical opposemes, or
as words of the same lexeme: they would differ lexically.
Analytical words are closely connected with synthetic ones.
a) The very existence of analytical words depends on their correlation with
synthetic words of the same lexeme. This makes all the difference between the
analytical word is written and the combination is afraid. The opposeme writes —
is written stamps is written as a word of the same lexeme to which the synthetic
word writes belongs. Is afraid, am afraid, are afraid, was afraid, etc. have no
synthetic opposites. Hence they are not analytical words, but combinations
of words.
b) Analytical words comprise synthetic words. Thus, the analytical form has
prepared consists of two synthetic forms: Ms (cf. had) and prepared (cf. prepare).
Hence it is clear that synthetic words play a very important role in the language.
The means employed in English to distinguish the words, of a lexeme are
similar to those used to distinguish the stems of different lexemes. The chief of
24
them are: affixation, sound interchange and stippletivity.
The words play and plays are related by affixation: the word plays differs from the
word play in having the affix, more exactly suffix, -s added to the stem of the
lexeme. The sterns' speak- and speaker- are also related by affixation.
The words foot and feet are related by sound interchange, more exactly by vowel
interchange (or internal inflection, see § 1 1). The stems full- and fill- are also
related by vowel interchange. The stems speech- and speak- are related by consonant lnterchange.Different stems may contain the same root, e. g. compose,
dispose", "Oppose, propose. Usually, however, there are different roots in different
stems, e. g. replace, discover, forgive. But it is unusual for words of the same
lexeme to have different roots, e. g. / — me, go — went. This unusual phenomenon
is called suppletivity.
As shown by A. I. Smirnitsky , words derived from different roots may be
recognized as suppletive only under the following conditions:
1) When they are identical as to their lexical meaning.
2) When they mutually complement one another, having no parallel opposemes.
For example, better has no other opposite of the positive degree but good and
good has no opposite of the comparative degree but -better.
3) When other lexemes of the same class build up a given opposeme without
suppletivity, i. e. from one root. Thus, we recognize the words go — went as
suppletive because they express exactly the same grammatical meanings as the
opposemes come — came, work — worked, finish — finished, etc.
Of these conditions only the first two seem indispensable.
The words am and is, for example, are suppletive in Modern English in spite of
the fact that other verb lexemes do not build up the given opposeme (of
person) without suppletivity.
The above-mentioned criteria serve to prove the identity of lexical
morphemes in spite of their difference in form. The same criteria can be used to
prove the identity of any morphemes.
H. Gleason writes: "Two elements can be considered as the same morpheme if (1)
they have some common range of meaning, and (2) they are in complementary
distribution...".
By means of these criteria it is possible to prove, for instance, the identity of the
'plural' morphemes -s (in cows) and -en (in oxen):
1. They are identical as to their grammatical meaning.
2. They complement each other or, in other words, their distribution is
complementary: they are not used with the same lexical morpheme. The word ox
has no other 'plural' opposite but oxen (not oxes, for instance) and the word cow
has no 'plural' opposite but cows (not cowen) .
We have already spoken about lexico-grammatical morphemes and their
functions as stem-building elements. Now we are to see their role in building up
classes of words.
A lexico-grammatical morpheme like -er or -ize resembles a lexical morpheme in
being common to all the words of a lexeme. Comp. teacher, 'teacher's, teachers,
25
teachers'; realize, realizes, realized, will realize, has realized, is realized, etc.
But it resembles a grammatical morpheme in being common to many different
lexemes. Comp. teaclier, worker, leader, writer, reader; realize, nationalize,
individualize, naturalize, industrialize, etc.
Hence we may draw the following conclusions:
1) The words of a lexeme are united not only by a lexical morpheme functioning as
its root, but also by its lexico-grammatical morphemes functioning as its stembuilding elements. In short, it is the stem that unites words into a lexeme. To lay
stress on the content we may say that a lexeme is a group of words united by the
same lexical and lexico-grammatical
meanings. Though the words person, personal, personality, personify,
personification have the same lexical morpheme, they belong to different lexemes
owing to their lexico-grammatical morphemes.
2) Lexico-gramrnatical morphemes unite lexemes into groups possessing common
lexico-grammatical properties.
Let us compare the following columns of words:
teatch — teacher
real — realize
work,— worker
national — nationalize
lead, — leader
individual — individualize
write---- writer
,
natural — naturalize
read — reader
industrial — industrialize
The words of column 1 and those of column 2 belong to different classes of
lexemes. The same is true of the words of the last two columns.
These classes differ not only in their lexico-grammatical meanings (morphemes),
but in some grammatical properties as well: different opposemes, paradigms, etc.
Such classes of lexemes have been called parts of speech for over 2000 years.
Therefore we dare not change the name. But we must remember that classes of
units exist only in the system of a language. In speech we come across
combinations of individual representatives of various classes.
Parts of speech are the largest word-classes that may contain endless numbers of
word-groups such as lexemes or grammemes.
It is certainly easier to survey a limited number of parts of speech than an ocean of
lexemes or grammemes. Therefore it has been a long-standing tradition to study
the properties of words within the framework of parts of speach. The chapter
headings of a book on morphology are usually the names of the parts of speech.
We shall adhere to the tradition and after a chapter on the general criteria for
dividing English words into parts of speech we shall analyse them one by one.
THE COMBINABILITY OF WORDS
As already mentioned, only those combinations of words (or single words) which
convey communications are sentences — the object of syntax. All other
combinations of words regularly formed in the process of speech are the object
of morphology as well as single words. Like separate words they name things,
phenomena, actions, qualities, etc., but in a complex way (cf. manners and table
26
manners, blue and dark blue, speak and speak loudly). Like separate words they
serve as building material for sentences.
In English the demarcation line between certain types of words and certain types of
word-combinations is vague. Compare, for instance, the words blackboard, headmaster, brother-in-law and the word-combinations black board, head waiter,
brother in arms.
Some combinations of words in English have become so stable and their meaning
so fused and so different from the meanings of their components that they are
called phraseological fusions, or idioms. Retaining the forms of combinations of
words, they function like single words and may be regarded as word equivalents,
units of the language system, alongside of words.
E. g. Under the rose = in secret, secretly, Once in a blue moon = rarely, or never.
Other combinations of words are more or less freely formed in numerous acts of
speech. For instance, the word his may be freely combined with the words face,
book, love, absence, etc. Grammar mostly studies the relations between the words
of free combinations, whereas lexicology analyses phraseological units.
The combinability of words is as a rule determined by their meanings, not
their forms. Therefore not every sequence of words may be regarded as a
combination of words. In the sentence Frankly, father, I hate been a fool neither
frankly, father nor father, I ... are combinations of words since their meanings are
detached and do not unite them, which is marked orally by intonation and often
graphically by punctuation marks.
On the other hand, some words may be inserted between the components of a
word-combination without breaking it.
Compare,
a) read books
b) read many books
c) read very many books.
In case (a) the combination .read books is uninterrupted. In cases (b) and (c) it is
interrupted, or discontinuous (read... books).
The combinability of words depends on their lexical, grammatical and
lexico-grammatical meanings. It is owing to the lexical meanings of the
corresponding lexemes that the word wise can be combined with the words man,
act, saying and is hardly combinable with the words milk., area, outline.
Trie lexico-grammatical meanings of -er in singer (a noun) and -ly in beautifully
(an adverb) do"not go together and prevent these words from forming a
combination, whereas beautiful singer and sing beautifully are regular wordcombinations.
The combination students sings is impossible owing to the grammatical meanings
of the corresponding grammemes.
Thus one may speak of lexical, grammatical and lexico-grammatical
combinability, or the combinability of lexemes, grammemes and parts of speech.
§35. The mechanism of combinability is very complicated. One has to take into
consideration not only the combinabil ity of homogeneous units, e. g. the words of
one lexeme with those of another lexeme. A -lexeme is often not combinable with a
27
whole class of lexemes or with certain grammemes. For instance, the lexeme few,
fewer, fewest is not combinable with a class of nouns called 'uncountables, such as
mi Ik, information, hatred, etc., or -with members of 'singular' grammemes (i. e.
grammemes containing trie meaning of 'singularity', such as book, table, man, boy,
etc.).
The possessive case grammemes are rarely combined with verbs, barring the
gerund. Some words are regularly combined with sentences, others are not. All this
will "be dwelt on in the corresponding parts of this reader.
It is convenient to distinguish right-hand and left-hand connections. In the
combination my hand (when written down) the word my has a right-hand
connection with the word hand and the latter has a left-hand connection with the
word my.
With analytical forms inside and outside connections are also possible. In the
combination has often written the verb has an insider connection with the adverb
and the latter bias an outside connection with the verb.
It will also be expedient to distinguish unilateral, bilateral and multilateral
connections. By way of illustration we may say that the articles in English have
unilateral right-hand connections with nouns: a book, the child. Such linking words
as prepositions, conjunctions, link-verbs, and modal verbs are characterized by
bilateral connections: love of life, John and Mary, this is John, he must come. Most
verbs may have zero (COME!), unileteral (birds fly), bilateral (I saw him), and
multilateral (Yesterday I saw him there) connections.
In other words, the combinability of verbs is variable.
One should also distinguish direct and indirect connections. In the combination
Look at John the connection between look and at, between at and John are direct,
whereas the connection between look and John is indirect, through the preposition
at.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
What are lexemes and grammemes? Give examples.
What is the difference between lexical and grammatical meanings of words?
How to distinguish the stems of different lexemes?
What are the largest word-classes in a language?
What are idioms in terms of combinability?
Give examples of right-hand and left-hand combinability.
MORPHOLOGY. PARTS OF SPEECH
It is common knowledge that the vocabulary of a language does not become a
means of communication unless it has been organised by grammar.
In order to organize the boundless ocean of words that constitute the vocabulary,
grammar must abstract itself from the individual lexical meanings of words,
though, as will be shown further on, the lexical meanings of certain classes of
28
words influence, to some extent, their grammatical properties.
The possibility of abstraction lies in the very nature of words.
And indeed, the word tree, for instance, denotes not only a definite, particular tree,
but a tree in general, in fact, any tree.
Naturally, the degree of generalization characteristic of different words is not the
same.
By comparing the words apple, pear, lemon, orange with the word fruit we may see
that the meaning of the latter is some kind of abstraction, the generalization of the
meanings of the former words.
Nevertheless the lexical meaning of the word fruit is quite definite even if it is
somewhat more general than the meaning of the word apple.
The vocabulary contains words with much more general signification than that of
the word fruit. For instance, the meaning of the word thing is so general that it
embraces the meanings of such different words as fruit, book, house, stone and
thousands of other words. This kind of generalization which characterizes the
lexical meaning of a word is lexical generalization. There exists another type of
generalization which may be named lexico-grammatical. Let us take the following
example. Abstracting itself from the individual lexical meanings of separate words,
grammar unites thousands upon thousands of such words as man, beast, water,
love, knowledge into one class called nouns. We may notice that though the
generalization here is of a high degree, it is not limitless and it is not wholly
indifferent to the meanings of the words belonging to this class.
We cannot, for instance, include words like come, decide, appear, or beautiful,
which belong to other classes.
The meanings of the above-mentioned noun-words have something in common,
some general meaning found in every noun besides its individual lexical meaning
and uniting them into one class. This general meaning which is more abstract than
the lexical meaning of any noun because it embraces the meanings of all of them,
may be called 1 е х і с о - grammatical. We usually say that nouns denote
"substances", or, in other words, that nouns possess the lexico-grammatical
meaning, of "substantivity". But we must not forget that the lexico-grammatical
meaning of nouns is more general than the meaning of the word "substance" even
if taken in the broadest sense.
Such lexico-grammatical meanings help to classify all the immense mass of words
that language possesses into a comparatively small number of classes called parts
of speech.
Now, a part of speech is characterized not only by this general lexico-grammatical
meaning. Grammar often provides parts of speech with special categories which
distinguish them from each other.
The words which belong to the class of nouns are recognized as such not only by
their lexico-grarnmatical meaning, but also by its variety of characteristic features
which are, by the way, different in different languages.
In English, for instance, such nouns as man, table, knife also found in the forms
men, tables, knives.
29
The difference between these two groups of forms is not lexical, as they denote the
same objects; it is grammatical.
The second group of forms is used when reference is made not to a single object,
but to a greater number, while the forms of the first group are used, as a rule, with
regard to one thing.
This shows that English grammar has special means of expressing number
distinctions in nouns. To be more exact, grammar expresses not any number
distinctions, but the difference between "oneness" and "more-than-oneness".
In contrast to nouns, adjectives like green, wide, clever, etc. do not express number
distinctions. So when comparing nouns with adjectives, we may say that the
former express number distinctions grammatically or, in other words, possess the
category of number, while the latter do not.
The category of number is thus a unity of the grammatical meanings of "oneness"
or "more-than-oneness" (accompanying the lexical meanings of nouns) and the
grammatical forms expressing these meanings.
We have proved the existence of the category of number by opposing the forms
and meanings of man, table, knife to men, tables, knives. In the same way by
opposing the meanings of student, teacher, woman to student's, teacher's, woman's
we can prove that nouns possess the category of case, which distinguishes them
from other parts of speech.
Thus, parts of speech are characterized by their specific grammatical categories.
Further, by opposing the noun teacher to the verb teach,- the noun worker lo the
verb work, manager — to manage, driver - to drive, or the noun darkness to the
adjective dark, sweetness to sweet, emptiness to empty, thickness to thick, we may
say, that nouns are characterized by such word-building suffixes as -er, -ness, etc.
Finally, we shall dwell on another characteristic feature of a part of speech that has
lately been pointed out by Soviet linguists.
We mean the power of forming combinations of definite patterns with words of
certain classes. This combinative power, as we might call it, is different for various
classes of words. Nouns may be combined with other classes of words in a way
peculiar to them and different from that of adjectives or verbs, and this is closely
connected with the difference in their general lexico-grammatical meanings.
The combinative power is not expressed by any special forms, outwardly, so to
say, but like the hidden image of a photographic plate, which becomes visible
when the plate comes into contact with some developer, the combinative power of
a certain class of words becomes apparent when words of this class come into соn flict with words of other classes in the process of speech.
It is possible to say (or register in a dictionary) in advance, before a word is used in
a sentence, what classes of words it can attach to itself. One may say beforehand
that the word table, for instance, may be preceded by a preposition, an article, an
adjective, etc.
Obviously, the power of attaching certain classes of words in a definite way is not
an individual peculiarity of the word table, but a feature which the word table
shares with the words stone, ground, sky, telephone, passion and other nouns.
In other words, the combinative power, or the ability of forming combinations with
30
words of certain classes, is a constant characteristic feature of words belonging to
the same part of speech.
Thus English words which belong to the class of nouns possess the following
characteristic features:
The general lexico-grammatical meaning of "substance".
The grammatical categories of number and case.
Special word-building elements (such suffixes er, -ness, etc.).
The combinative power of attaching articles, adjectives and prepositions (and not
adverbs)
The definite functions in the sentence like subject, object, predicative.
Some linguists add as one of the features of a part of speech the syntactical
function (or functions) usually discharged by words of a given class. Nouns, they
say, commonly function as subjects, objects or predicatives, verbs — as predicates,
adjectives — as attributes, etc. So they think the role a word plays in the sentence
characterizes it as belonging to a certain part of speech. We cannot share this view
for two reasons:
Though there, undoubtedly, exists some connection between certain parts of
speech and certain parts of the sentence, it never assumes the nature of obligatory
correspondence. The subject of a sentence may be expressed not only by a noun,
but also by a pronoun, a numeral, a gerund, an infinitive, etc. An attribute may be
expressed not only by an adjective but also by a noun with or without a
preposition, by a pronoun, a numeral, a participle, an infinitive, etc.
These facts show that the grammatical meanings of the parts of the sentence are
more general than the lexico-grammatical meanings of the parts of speech. We
may say that the grammatical meaning of a part of the sentence is some kind of
abstraction from several lexico-grammatical meanings, much in the same way as
the lexico-grammatical meaning of a part of speech is some abstraction from many
individual lexical meanings. And just as we cannot say "this is a rose because it is
a flower (or because the word is a noun)", we should not assert "this is a noun
because it is (or can be) the subject of a sentence."
Thus parts of speech may be defined as lexico-grammatical classes of words which
arc distinguished from other classes and internally connected by their general
lexico-grammatical meaning, common grammatical categories, word-building
elements and combinative power.
It should be born in mind, however, that not all of the above-mentioned four
features of the parts of speech are necessarily present in every word or even in each
part of speech.
Words like physician, worker, sailor which have all the four features of a noun
might be called classical nouns.
But there exist such nouns as darkness, hatred which do not change their forms to
express case and number distinctions, in other words, do not possess the categories
of case and number, as other nouns do.
There are further such nouns as meat, bread which possess neither the categories of
number and case, nor word-building elements like classical nouns. Only two
31
features stamp them as nouns:
The general meaning of "substance".
The combinative power of nouns.
Words like with, of, at are said to form a separate part of speech — prepositions —
because they possess the following features distinguishing them from the other
parts of speech:
Their general lexico-grammatical meaning (they denote the
relation of a thing to another thing, phenomenon or situation).
Their peculiar combinative power (they are mostly asso
ciated with nouns).
Thus the lexico-grammatical meaning and the combinative power are the most
general characteristic features of the parts of speech.
In accordance with the principles described above it is possible to distinguish the
following parts of speech in English:
1. Nouns.
8. Modal words (modals).
2. Adjectives.
9. Prepositions.
3 Pronouns.
10. Conjunctions.
4 Numerals.
11. Particles.
5 Verbs.
12. Interjections.
6 Adverbs.
13. Articles.
7 The category of state (adlinks)
Academician V. V. Vinogradov thinks it necessary to distinguish between parts
and particles of speech.
In his opinion, only the noun, the adjective, the pronoun, the numeral, the verb, the
adverb and the words of the category of state in the Russian language may be
considered parts of speech, as these classes of words possess "naming power", i. e.
they denote or indicate objects, qualities, quantities, actions, states, etc.
Prepositions, conjunctions and particles which, he thinks, fulfil no naming function
and denote different relations, are called by him particles of speech. Modal words
and interjections, in his opinion, are specific classes of words which belong neither
to parts nor to particles of speech.
Though this system of classification has been elaborated by V. V. Vinogradov for
the Russian language, it can be applied to English as well, and we shall make use
of' it in this book. But when there is no need to emphasize the difference between
parts and particles of speech we shall, for the sake of convenience, apply the term
"parts of speech" to all the lexico-grammatical classes of words.
Naturally, the classification of English parts of speech given above is not the only
possible one. H. Sweet, for instance, distinguishes the following classes of words
in Modern English: nouns, adjectives, numerals, verbs and particles. A similar
classification is suggested by O. Jesperson: substantives, adjectives, verbs, pronouns and particles.
The essential drawback of these classifications lies in the fact that words
possessing different semantical and grammatical properties are artificially united in
one class. For instance, under the name, of "particles" these linguists unite adverbs,
32
prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, particles proper, which are all separate
lexico-grammatical classes of words.
Soviet linguists have, besides, proved the existence of a separate lexicogrammatical class of words called modal words (certainly, of course, probably,
possibly, etc.) which are a lexical means of expressing modality, and are
characterized by their lexico-grammatical meaning (they express the attitude of the
speaker towards the relation of his speech to reality) and peculiar combinative
power (they are usually connected not with separate words, but with the whole
sentence), so that they must not be confused with adverbs or other classes of
words. So, the system of parts of speech is historically variable.
New parts of speech come into being in the course of language development. Old
English, for instance, did not know the category of state, the articles, the modals as
separate classes of words, though were recognizable as such in New English.
But no matter how many parts of speech we may find in a language, we see that
the words of the vocabulary are not a chaotic mass of separate words. Grammar
organizes them into a comparatively small number of lexico-grammatical classes
— parts or particles of speech.
Every new word that appears in the vocabulary usually joins one of the existing
classes and possesses the features of the other words of the same class.
In most cases new words are formed on the basis of already existing ones, e. g. the
word steamer was formed on the basis of the word steam, the word motor-car —
on the basis of the words motor and car.
Now the new word may either remain in the class to which the basic word belongs,
as in the examples above, or pass to another lexico-grammatical class, like the
noun follower derived from the verb to follow.
In the latter case, i. e. when the new word passes to another part of speech, it,
naturally, acquires all the features characterizing the words of that part of speech.
The word follower is distinguished from the word follow by all those features
which distinguish an English noun from a verb:
By the general meaning of "substance" (and not of action).
By its word-building suffix -er (соmр. teacher, worker, etc.).
By its system of forms (paradigm) expressing the meanings
of number and case (and not of tense, person, etc.).
By its power of attaching articles, prepositions, adjectives (and not adverbs).
But outwardly the forms follow—follower are distinguished only by the suffix -er,
which is therefore often considered to be the only means of word-building in this
case.
Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky has proved that the paradigm of a word can also serve as a
means of word-building. This is especially obvious when there are no special
word-building elements like the suffix -er,
Let us compare, for instance, the noun doctor with the verb (to) doctor derived
from the noun. The Latin suffix -or which is found in both forms, naturally, does
not fulfil the function of word-building. What then is the means of word-building
in this case? It is the paradigm of each word.
33
On the one hand we have doctor - doctors
on the other
doctor's - doctors'
doctor s
doctor ed
doctor s'
doctor | ing
etc.
Taken as a whole the paradigm of one word shows it to be a noun, while the
paradigm of the other clearly characterizes it as a verb.
This way of word-building, very common in Modern English, has got the name of
conversion.
Prof. L. I. Smirnitsky defines conversion as a type of word-building in which the
paradigm is t h e only means of word-building.
We quite agree that the paradigms of doctor (noun) and doctor (verb) characterize
them as two separate words belonging to different parts of speech and thus the
change of paradigm is really a means of word-building. But do these words differ
from each other only in their paradigms? Hardly so.
Out of the four features that may characterize a word as belonging to a certain part
of speech they lack only one: special word-building elements.
Thus the two words are characterized by the remaining three features:
doctor (noun)
doctor (verb)
1.
The general lexico- grammatical meaning:
Denotes a substance Denotes an action
2.
The paradigm:
Possesses a system of forms to express number and case
Possesses forms to express tense, person, mood
2.
The combinative power:
Attaches articles, prepositions Attaches adverbs, etc.
Consequently, the creation of the verb doctor on the basis of the noun doctor has
been achieved not only by means of changing the paradigm but also by changing
the general lexico-grammatical meaning and the combinative power.
All these changes have brought about the creation of a new word, that is all of
them serve as word-building means.
Moreover, the paradigm in Modern English is very often much less significant than
the other features.
There are very many words in English (both nouns and adjectives, and words of
other parts of speech) which do not change their forms, e. g. meat, bread, hatred,
dead, deaf, alive,must, etc.
English paradigms are mostly so poor that forms of different words very often
coincide. Even in our example the noun forms doctor, doctors coincide with the
verb forms doctor, doctors.
Thus, unlike special word-building elements (prefixes, suffixes, stress, etc.) which
characterize every form of a word with such an element as belonging to a given
part of speech, the paradigm in English distinguishes only some of the forms of a
word, where lexico-grammatical meaning and the combinability characterize every
34
form of every word as belonging to a part of speech and must, therefore, be
considered the universal features of a part of speech.
So, conversion might be defined negatively as a way of word building without
special word-building features.
The positive definition would be more lengthy:
Conversion is a way of forming new words from already made ones by means of
changing the paradigm, the lexico-grammatical meaning and the combinative
power or only the last two features.
This definition covers not only cases like the one discussed above (doctor n.—
doctor v.) but also changes of the type native -a/ native- n. (substantivization),
across adv./ across prep, etc.
Consequently we can say that word-building is closely connected with the division
of words into parts of speech, the characteristic features of the latter discharging
the functions of word-building means.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1. The definition of a part of speech.
2. Characteristic features of parts of speech
3. Parts of speech in English
4. Conversion in Modern English.
THE NOUN
As follows from our previous discussion of the parts of speech in English, the noun
may be defined as a part of speech characterized by the following features:
The lexico-grammatical meaning of "substance".
The categories of number and case.
Typical word-building means, as in: ideal-ist, work-er, friend-ship, manage-ment,
etc.
Special combinative models: the noun is usually preceded by articles, prepositions,
adjectives, possessive pronouns, etc.
When speaking of the lexico-grammatical meaning of the class of nouns we should
bear in mind that this meaning is, as shown above, an abstraction from the lexical
meanings of individual nouns.
Though the morphological categories of number and case may be treated as typical
of the noun, yet it is not every noun that possesses these categories. Some classes
of nouns are bereft either of the category of number, or case, or both. The word
information, for instance, has no plural form, i. e. it cannot change its form to
express number distinctions. So we may say that the noun information does not
possess the category of number. The nouns book, pencil, etc., having no forms of
any other case, cannot, naturally, express case distinctions, i. e. they do not possess
the category of case. And such nouns as butter, geometry, changing neither for
number nor for case, are bereft of both categories.
The combinative power of the noun is closely connected with its lexico35
grammatical meaning. Denoting substances, nouns are, naturally, associated with:
- Words serving to characterize substances (adjectives, participles, possessive
pronouns, articles, etc.), e. g. a clever boy, his broken cup.
- Words showing the number of substances or their order
(cardinal and ordinal numerals), e. g. two girls, the first attempt,
- Words denoting different relations towards substances (prepositions).
As to word-building, nouns are created not only by affixation and other ways of
derivation, such as conversion (a wash, a swim), shortening (phone, exam), but by
composition as well (book-keeper, merry-go-round).
THE CATEGORY OF CASE
Case is the grammatical category of nouns denoting the relation of the substances
they indicate to other substances, actions, states, etc. Accordingly case forms
express the relation of the noun to other words in the sentence.
Thus if we take such forms as дом in На нашей улице строится новый дом and
дому in Мы подошли к дому, we see that different forms assumed by the noun
serve to indicate its relations to the other words in the sentence. Accordingly we
are justified to say that case, though a morphological category, has a distinct
syntactical signification.
Analysing the category of case in Russian, Academician V. V. Vinogradov
emphasizes the idea that case forms reflect those relations of objects, actions,
phenomena, qualities which exist in the world of material reality. This is equally
true of the English language.
There is no unity of opinion concerning the category of case in English.
Thus M. Deutschbein finds four cases in Modern English: nominative, genitive,
dative, and accusative. In his opinion case is expressed not only by case endings
but by the order of words and by prepositions as well.
We consider such views contradictory to the facts of the English language: they
force upon Modern English those categories which do not really exist in it. It is
utterly groundless to treat the order of words as a means of expressing the category
of case since the order of words in a sentence characterizes words not as parts of
speech but as parts of the sentence, whereas case is a morphological category. We
cannot say that here in we leave here tonight' is used in the accusative case though
it may be treated as a direct object, which is formally shown by its position in the
sentence.
As to the theory that cases are expressed by prepositions (of the boy, to the boy),
the majority of Russian scientists are of the opinion that since prepositions usually
retain their lexical meanings, word-groups, they participate in, can hardly be
treated as analytical forms of nouns.
So, most Russian scientists find two cases of nouns in Modern English: the
common case, characterized by a zero suffix (girl), and the possessive case,
characterized by the suffix [-z, -s, -iz], represented in spelling by 's or only the
apostrophe (girl's, Max').
The Modern English case system is the result of long historical development. The
36
OE case system of nouns comprised four cases — nominative, genitive, dative,
accusative.
The development of the case system of the personal pronouns (and the pronoun
who) differs to some extent from that of the noun. The pronouns have preserved
the nominative case and developed the objective case in which the original dative
and accusative have merged, their genitive case forms becoming isolated and
constituting a separate group — the possessive pronouns.
Accordingly we speak of two case systems in English: that of nouns — the noun
system of cases—and that of the personal pronouns (and the pronoun "who")—
the pronoun system of Cases.
Since the only positive case ending of English nouns is that of the possessive case
(the common case is characterized by a zero-suffix), it acquires tremendous
importance. It would be no exaggeration to say that the case system of English
nouns rests upon the 's suffix of the possessive case. This is why we begin our
study of the noun case system with the possessive case.
THE POSSESSIVE CASE
The possessive case of Modern English has some peculiarities distinguishing it
from the genitive case of other languages, such as Russian and Ukrainian (and
from the genitive case of the OE language). Briefly, these peculiarities may be
summed up as follows:
1.
In contrast to the genitive case in other languages (and in OE), the
possessive case is used almost exclusively with nouns denoting living objects.
Thus in Modern English the category of case is closely connected with the lexical
meanings of nouns, whereas in Russian and Ukrainian the category of case is much
more indifferent to the lexical meaning of the noun.
2.
In contrast to the genitive case inflexions of Russian, Ukrainian, German,
Latin, etc. the possessive case morpheme of Modern English (-'s) is agglutinative,
which is proved by the following:
It is monofunctional, representing no grammatical categories but that of case. If we
compare such forms as мальчика, хлопчика and the boy's, we see that in the
Russian and Ukrainian forms the -a inflexion expresses the categories of gender,
case, number, while in English the -'s morpheme expresses only case.
Like all agglutinative morphemes the -'s is attached not to the stem of a word but to
the word as a whole. This becomes particularly manifest in such words as
children's, women's in which the -'s is added to nouns in the plural.
3.
Unlike the genitive case in other languages (Russian, Ukrainian, etc.),
where a noun in the genitive case can be dependent both upon a noun and upon a
verb, the Modern English possessive case is primarily adnominal.
E. g. Mary's plans. My father's return.
Sometimes, however, a noun in the possessive case is dependent on a verb. Then it
is mostly used in reference to some noun mentioned above. E. g. What is her
opinion? What is George's?
37
The possessive case is also found in peculiar constructions like A friend of Mary's
which have a partitive meaning.
The adnominal possessive is used attributively, the possessive dependent upon the
verb —in different other functions. E. g. Having forgotten my umbrella, I
borrowed Ann's. That idea was, no doubt, her husband's.
But the possessive case is comparatively rarely found in such functions as those of
object, predicative, etc. In Old English a noun in the genitive case was freely used
as an attribute, an object to a verb, an object to an adjective, an adverbial modifier.
In Russian and Ukrainian nouns in the genitive case are employed as objects,
adverbial modifiers much more frequently than in English.
5.
The meaning' of the possessive case is much narrower than that of the
genitive case in other languages even if taken only in its adnominal use. The
possessive case mostly expresses the relation of possession (hence its name),
belonging, as in Peter's bicycle. It may be used in the meaning of the genitive of
the whole. E. g. Fleur's while lids (occasionally even with nouns denoting
inanimate objects, e. g. the easy chair's arm). When associated with nouns of
verbal nature, it is employed in the meaning of the subjective genitive (the noun in
the possessive case denotes the doer of the action designated by the modified noun
or gerund), e. g. My father's arrival. His sister's mentioning this.
The possessive case is but rarely used as the objective genitive (to denote the
object of the action indicated by the modified noun). E. g. Martin's release.
Caesar's murderers. The treaty's ratification.' Its use in the meaning of the genitive
of characteristic is quite accidental, as in a child's tricks; her tender sister's caress.
It is not used in the meanings of the genitive of composition and material. In
Russian and Ukrainian it is freely used in all of the above mentioned and some
other meanings.
6.
The possessive case morpheme in English, as emphasized by B. A. Ylyish,
is no longer a case inflexion in the classical sense of the word:
The -'s morpheme may be attached not only to nouns but to other parts of speech,
for instance, to adverbs of substantival origin, as in yesterday's events.
It may be associated with a whole group of words, e. g. Mary and Tom's
apartment. It is then usually termed the group-possessive. Occasionally it is even
attached to whole clauses, as in the well-known example: He is the man I saw
yesterday's son.
On the strength of the facts given above, G. N. Vorontsova is of (lie opinion that
the -'s is no longer a case suffix but a form-word, and accordingly the Modern
English noun has no case inflexions.
Other Grammarians object to this point of view because:
1.
The -'s morpheme is mostly attached to nouns like other
inflexions.
2.
Its general meaning — the relation of a noun to another
word — corresponds to the general meaning of other case inflexions showing the relation of nouns to other words in the sentenсе. Yet, it cannot be denied that its peculiarities are such as
to admit no doubt of its gradually acquiring some new properties
38
distinguishing it from a case ending.
The synonym of the possessive case is the so-called "of-phrase" which differs
considerably from the possessive case both in meaning and function.
The of-phrase is freely used with all nouns irrespective of their lexical meanings.
It expresses many of those semantical relations which are indicated by the genitive
case in other languages. Thus it may have the meaning of the objective genitive
(the building of Communism), the genitive of composition (a group of children),
the genitive of material (a table of oak), etc.
The of-phrase is believed to sound more formal than the possessive case. Compare:
Fleur Forsyte, Soames's daughter and Fleur Forsyte, the daughter of Soames.
In the language of official documents the of-phrase is usually preferred here.
It is interesting to observe that poets sometimes use the possessive case where the
of-phrase would be used in prose, as in: the wall's shelter.
When the governing noun is used figuratively the possessive case, as a rule, is
avoided and the of-phrase is used, as in He fell into the hands of Heep (not Heep's
hands).
When the attributive noun is accompanied by a lengthy attribute, the of-phrase and
not the possessive case is generally preferred, as in: We expected the arrival of
Paul Robeson, one of the most prominent peace champions of the world.
THE COMMON CASE
As shown above, it has no positive case endings. It is characterized by a zerosuffix as opposed to the -'s suffix of the possessive case.
The common case of nouns is used much more often than the possessive case.
According to our statistics more than 95% of nouns in English prose are in the
common case.
The range of meaning or rather meanings of the common case is exceptionally
wide. This is no wonder since the common case is the outgrowth of the Old
English nominative, dative and accusative cases. It has also inherited much of the
meaning of the Old English genitive case. Besides, it has acquired new meanings
in the course of its development. So that now it would be impossible to enumerate
all the meanings of the common case, especially since they have blended and
become very general and indefinite. In very many instances these meanings are
specified by prepositions, so that English prepositions are said to render many of
the meanings expressed by case forms in other languages or in Old English. Hence
the idea that the combinations of some prepositions with the common case of
nouns are analytical case forms, equivalents of the synthetical forms of the oblique
cases in other languages. To the student is said to be an analytical dative case form
(equivalent to the Russian студенту). Of the student: is said to be an analytical
genitive case form (equivalent to the Russian студента). By the student is said to
be an analytical instrumental case form (equivalent to the Russian студентом), etc.
Apart from the fact already mentioned that prepositions in such combinations
usually preserve their lexical meanings, while form-words building up analytical
39
forms lose, as a rule, their meanings, we may raise such objections to the idea of
prepositional case forms in English.
Combinations like of John's (e. g. A friend of John's) have then to be considered
double case-forms (i. e. genitive case forms, expressed analytically, and possessive
case forms, expressed synthetically). But this is impossible. English does not
possess a single form that would have positive indications of two tenses, two
moods, two numbers, etc.
Analytical forms are characterized by a certain isolation from analogous
combinations of words. (Соmр. is writing, not *has writing or * shall writing).
The so-called analytical case forms do not possess this property. Соmр. to think
about (of) John, to compare with (to) a thing, etc.
There is much subjectivity in the choice of prepositions forming analytical cases.
Scientists usually point out those prepositions whose meanings approximate to the
meanings of some cases in other languages or in Old English. But the analogy with
other languages or with an old stage of the same language does not prove
existence of a certain category in a given modern language.
Therefore we think it unjustified to speak of units like to the student, of the student,
with the student, by the student, etc. as analytical case-forms. They are at present
syntactical combinations of prepositions with nouns in the common case.
As we know, it is characteristic of the combinative power of nouns that they are
associated with prepositions. This is especially true with regard to nouns in the
common case. Very often this association with a preposition is the most important
outward feature distinguishing a noun in the common case from a verb form of the
same root.
Соmр. ...some ray of hope that she will recover ...some people hope that she will
recover.
It is also characteristic of the noun in the common case to be associated with a verb
to denote the subject (doer) or object (recipient) of the action denoted by the verb.
Hence the principal syntactical functions of a noun in the common case — those ot
the subject or the object in a sentence.
But the syntactical functions of nouns in the common case are so varied that they
may (alone or with prepositions) be used as nearly any part of the sentence. This is
why the syntactical function is an unreliable criterion in defining a common case
form of a noun.
As a result of its historical development the common case is used now to denote
those relations of the noun to other words in the sentence which were expressed by
different cases in Old English.
Thus, analysing the sentence John! that man gave your brother a book, H. Sweet4
says that in Old English the first two nouns would be in the nominative, the third in
the dative, the fourth in the accusative.
Likewise, the common case fulfils those functions which are rendered by a whole
system of case forms in languages like Russian or Ukrainian.
Compare: I know this officer.
Я знаю этого офицера. Я знаю цього офіцера.
Here the common ease indicates those syntactical relations which are shown by the
40
accusative case form in Russian and Ukrainian:
This young officer i's a very good shot.
Этот молодой офицер очень хороший стрелок.
Цей молодий офіцер дуже вправний стрілець.
The subject is represented by a noun in the common case, whereas in Russian (and
Ukrainian) the noun used as the subject is in the nominative case.
He gave the officer some valuable information.
Он дал офицеру ценные сведения.
Він дав офіцеру цінні відомості.
The common case is employed to indicate those syntactical relations which are
shown by the dative case in Russian and Ukrainian.
The functions fulfilled by a noun in the common case very often depend on its
position in the sentence but this will be treated in our "Syntax".
THE CATEGORY OF NUMBER
Number is a grammatical category of the noun indicating whether the noun denotes
one object (oneness) or more than one (more-than-oneness), as in girl — girls,
event — events.
The generalizing force of this category manifests itself if we analyse such words as
tables, stars, mistakes, boys. We see that the forms of the plural number express
the idea of plurality irrespective of the concrete lexical meanings of the given
words.
As a rule, the change of number does not involve any change of the semantical
meaning of the noun, thus (a) rose and roses denote exactly the same thing, the
difference between them being that (a)rose stands for one object (or the given class
of objects as a whole, соmр. The rose is a beautiful flower), whereas roses stands
for more objects than one.
However, we sometimes observe that the plural form differs from the singular in
its lexical meaning.
E. g. colour (blue)—colours (flag); manner (way, mode)-manners (behaviour).
Analogous phenomena are found in Russian and Ukrainian as well. Thus, «бега»
denotes something different from «бег», «грязи» differs from «грязь» not only in
being in the plural form but in its lexical signification. On the strength of such facts
some linguists treat the number of nouns either as a lexical category or as a lexicogrammatical one.
This interpretation does not seem to be sufficiently convincing, as in most cases
the meaning of a noun does not change with the change of the number form, in the
same way as it does not change with the change of the case form.
When the meaning of the plural form differs from that of the singular, we deal not
with different forms of the same words but with different words. Thus, custom (a
habit) and customs (duty) are not forms of one word but different words, since they
denote different objects, and we may, therefore, say that number forms
occasionally possess a word-building function.
However, though we treat the number of nouns as a grammatical category, we
41
cannot say that it is wholly indifferent to the lexical meanings of nouns. Some
nouns are not used in the plural form since their lexical meanings are not
compatible with the idea of plurality. They are for the most part the so-called
material, collective and abstract nouns (such as sugar, peasantry, enthusiasm)
which are traditionally termed "singularia tantum". Similarly there are nouns which
are not, as a rule, used in the singular form (the so-called "pluralia tantum"). They
are mostly nouns denoting objects consisting of two or more parts (as tongs
scissors), complex phenomena or ceremonies (as nuptials etc.).
Strictly speaking, words used either only in the singular or only in the plural have
no category of number, their singularity or plurality being part of their lexical
characteristics. Yet they are understood as being in the singular or in the plural on
the analogy of most English nouns which have two number forms.
The singular form is, as a rule, characterized by a zero-inflexion. Herein it differs
from the singular form of Russian and Ukrainian nouns which often have a positive
inflexion in the singular. Compare: book (zero-inflexion), книга (-a inflexion).
The plural number of most nouns is built up with the help of the - suffix (from the
OE suffix -as of the masc. gender, o-stem).
This is the only productive plural suffix. It differs greatly from the corresponding
inflexions of Modern Russian and Ukrainian in being monofunctional. Thus if we
compare книги and books. we see that -u in the word книги serves to indicate
plural number nominative or accusative case, whereas the -s suffix in English
shows only the plural number.
There are, besides, some unproductive ways of building up plural forms, such as:
internal inflexion: man— men (a survival of the Old English "palatal mutation"),
the addition of the -en suffix (a survival of the OE weak declension), as in ox —
oxen, a zero-suffix, as in sheep — sheep, deer — deer (a survival of the OE
declension of long o-stems, neut. gender).
As known, some nouns of foreign origin, mostly used in scientific prose, retain the
plural forms they had in the languages they were borrowed from as: datum — data,
radius — radii, criterion — criteria, crisis—crises, etc.
This is, probably, suggestive of the fact that these nouns remain, figuratively
speaking, as a sort of foreign body in true English language, while those foreign
words which have been assimilated, may build up their plural forms in a regular
way, as terminus — terminuses.
A singular form may indicate:
- a single object (a table),
- a whole class of objects as in: The teacher is loved and respected in our
country,
- indifference to number as in hatred, geometry, admiration
milk.
The plural form denotes that the noun stands for more objects than one. It may be
used for stylistic purposes to suggest indefinite extension or repetition, as in The
sands of the deserts; The snows of the Antarctic, etc.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
42
1. The definition of case.
2. The historical development of the case system in English.
3. Different points of view concerning the category of case
in English.
4. The possessive case, its functions and peculiarities distinguishing it from the genitive case in Russian, Ukrainian, Latin,
Old English, etc.
5. The possessive case and the "of-phrase".
7. The common case, its meanings and functions.
8. The problems of the number categories in nouns.
THE ADJECTIVE
As a part of speech adjectives are characterized by:
The lexico-grammatical meaning of attributes (of substances). It should be
understood that by "attribute" we mean different properties of substances, such as
their size (large, small), colour (red, blue), position in space (upper, inner), material (wooden, woollen), psychic state (happy, furious), etc.
The category of degrees of comparison (though it is incident not to all adjectives).
Special word-building elements, such as the suffixes -/a/, -less, -ish, -ous, -ive, ic, etc. (though very many adjectives have no specific word-building elements).
A peculiar combinative power: they are associated with nouns (as in a beautiful
girl), may be modified by adverbs, mostly those of degree (as in a very clever boy).
In Old English adjectives were inflected for gender, number and case. There were
two declensions: strong (or indefinite) and weak (or definite), distinguishing a
twofold use. The forms of the strong declension were used if there was no
demonstrative word before the adjective. In case there was some demonstrative
word, the forms of the weak declension were employed. E. g. god mann, se goda
mann (a good man, the good man).
Here are the paradigms of the OE strong and weak declensions (masc., sing.)strongweak
N. god mann N. se goda mann
G. godes marines
G. baes godan mannes
D. godum mcnn
D. baem godan menn
A. godne mann
А. pone godan mann
Instr. gode menn
The breaking down of inflexional forms affecting nouns was even more thoroughgoing in the case of adjectives. In the course of time adjectives gradually lost their
forms of gender, number and case; the difference between the strong and the weak
declensions disappeared. At the close of the Middle English period adjectives
became indeclinable, their only change of form being for comparison. So in
Modern English, as we have already said, the only change of form adjectives
undergo is for the degrees of comparison.
By the degrees of comparison we mean the grammatical category of adjectives
reflecting the degree or the relative amount of some quality (denoted by the
adjective) as compared with the amount of the same quality in other objects.
43
Some linguists are inclined to think that the degrees of comparison belong to wordbuilding rather than to form-building, since the forms of comparison, in their
opinion, represent different properties of substances.
But if we take such adjectives as nice, pretty, beauttful and compare them with
pretty, prettier, (the) prettiest, it becomes quite manifest that nice, pretty, beautiful
represent different properties of substances, and prettier, (the) prettiest indicate
different degrees of one and the same property.
The degrees of comparison, though they possess a distinct generalizing force, are
not wholly indifferent to the lexical meanings of adjectives. Thus some adjectives
are not used in the forms of comparison on account of their lexical meanings.
They are: 1) relative adjectives indicating properties whose amount cannot, as a
rule, change, e. g. woollen, wooden;
2) some qualitative adjectives: a) those having the -ish suffix which indicates the
degree of a quality lexically, e. g. yellowish; b) many adjectives with a negative
prefix, e. g. unavoidable, inadmissible, c) those denoting qualities which cannot be
associated with the notion of comparison: deaf, dead, lame, unique, perpendicular,
etc.
As known, Modern English adjectives build up their forms of comparison
synthetically (with the help of affixation and suppletivity) and analytically (with
the help of form-words).
Of great interest is the fact that suffixes of comparison, though very old (they are
found in the Old Germanic languages at their oldest stages, c. g. OE -ra, -ost, -est, ust, -ast), have not lost their productivity and remain a living part of the
grammatical system of Modern English.
Suppletive forms are probably of still greater antiquity. They are indicative of the
fact that it was only by slow degress that people acquired the understanding of
quantitative distinctions of qualities.
Originally, it is said, the degrees of comparison were associated with number
distinctions of substances, corresponding to the singular, dual and plural numbers.
In Modern English we have, for example, such suppletive forms as good—better
— best, bad — worse — worst.
The same is observed in other Indo-European languages; in Russian: хороший —
лучший, плохой — худший; in Ukrainian: добрий — кращий, поганий —
гірший; in German: gut — besser, in French: bon — meilleur; in Latin: bonus —
optimus, etc.
The development of analytical forms was facilitated by the general trend of the
English language toward analysis. The new analytical forms of comparison did not
become common until the 16-th century.
Some scientists are of the opinion that combinations with more and most, such as
more difficult and (the) most difficult cannot be treated as analytical forms of
adjectives before all because more and most have retained their lexical
signification.
True, it must be admitted that the form-words participating in these analytical
forms still preserve to some extent their lexical signification, unlike auxiliary verbs
(in the perfect forms, the passive voice, etc.) which are wholly devoid of any
44
lexical meanings of their own.
Yet, on the strength of the fact that more and most bring in no meanings but those
of the degrees of comparison and owing to their being exactly parallel (from the
semantical point of view, at least) to the suffixes -er and -est, most Russian and
foreign linguists treat such forms as more difficult and (the) most difficult as the
analytical forms of comparison.
Many scientists, among them Prof. B. A. Ylyish, stress the idea that the
demarcation line between adjectives forming their degrees of comparison
synthetically and those building up their forms of comparison analytically is rather
mobile.
Monosyllabic adjectives may for the sake of emphasis build up their forms of
comparison analytically (this is particularly frequent when they are used
predicatively).
E. g. It sounded even more stern than usually. (Dickens)
This is quite natural since the suffix (-er or -est) cannot be stressed, whereas more,
most are for the most part stressed.
In connection with the analytical forms of comparison there arises a question
whether such word-combinations as less beautiful, least beautiful should be treated
as analytical forms of comparison or not. We are inclined to answer this question
in the negative.
Before all, in contrast to forms with more and most, combinations like less strong,
least strong are not frequent, the usual form of expression being not so strong as or
weaker than, etc. Further, unlike more and most, less and least have no synthetical
parallels, which contributes to the fact that less and least retain their force of
independent lexical units.
Accordingly less strong, least cold are considered here as word-combinations and
not analytical forms.
Occasionally polysyllabic adjectives form their degrees of comparison
synthetically, mostly for stylistical purposes (to represent children's talk or to
produce a comical effect) or as an indication of a somewhat archaic style. E. g.
That was the beautifullest doll...
Carlyle uses fruitfuller, powerullest, etc.
Generally the meanings of the degrees of comparison are as
follows:
The positive degree denotes the quality of some substance without expressing the
idea of comparison, e. g. a tall tree, a clever boy.
The comparative degree is used to denote that one object (or class of objects) has
more of a certain quality than another thing (or class of things): Peter is stronger
than John.
Of two such lessons,
why forget the nobler and the
manlier one?
(G. Byron)
The meaning of the comparative degree is purely relative. That is, if we say Tom is
older than Mary, it by no means implies that Tom is old, it only indicates that Tom
45
has more of this quality than Mary.
The superlative degree shows the highest degree of a quality by comparing
different objects possessing this quality: Mary was the smartest of the girls
present.
When employed thus, the superlative degree is said to be used in the superlative
meaning.
The forms of the superlative degree sometimes assume an absolute meaning,
showing that the degree of the quality denoted by the adjective is very high, but it
is not compared with the amount of the same quality in other objects. In this sense
the superlative degree is highly expressive:
' The letter was written in the kindest forms.
His ideas of time were of the vaguest order.
He made the rudest remark.
When so employed the superlative degree is said to have the elative meaning.
In Russian and Ukrainian this meaning is known to be expressed mostly (though
not exclusively) by the synthetical forms of the superlative degree.
«Стоял тишайший степной вечер». (Павленко)
До найменшої подробиці.
Under certain syntactical conditions the forms of the positive and comparative
degrees may also express the highest degree of some quality.
E. g. There was no one so brave as...
There was no braver officer in the regiment than Gastello.
He is cleverer than all the other boys of his class.
The form of the superlative degree is sometimes used when only two objects are
compared. Thus, Thackeray writes:
This court has been the most magnificent of the two.
In all the Indo-European languages adjectives can be substantivized, i. e. converted
into nouns. In English it is easier than in other languages since for the most part
adjectives in their vocabulary form are not characterized by any morphemes distinguishing them from nouns (compare: sick — (a)chick, slender — gender, etc).
When adjectives are converted into nouns, they no longer indicate attributes of
substances, but substances possessing these attributes. Thus in / felt it my duty to
help the sick, the sick — a substantivized adjective — denotes persons who are
sick.
Adjectives wholly converted into nouns acquire not only the lexico-grammatical
meaning of nouns, but their typical morphological categories and combinative
power, as in a young native's hut where the word native not only expresses
substantivity, but has the form of the possessive case, the singular number, is used
with the indefinite article and modified by an adjective. More frequently
substantivization is partial: adjectives acquire the lexico-grammatical meaning of
nouns and to some extent their combinative power as in the sentence In capitalist
countries ths rich exploit the poor, where rich expresses substantivity, is associated
with the definite article, but in contrast to the noun native, the word rich has no
forms of case and number, it may be modified by an adverb as in the fabulously
rich, etc. Such substantivized adjectives as the poor, the rich, the young, etc.
46
mostly have collective force, while in earlier English substantivized adjectives and
participles were freely used to denote individuals. Some survivals of this usage are
seen in my intended, the accused, etc. Practicallv any adjective may be converted
into a noun, though the conversion is often temporary, unstable, conversion "for
the noun" as in The mysterious attracted him.
If we compare English adjectives with those of the Russian and Ukrainian
languages we see that though they have some features in common (their meaning,
combinative power, degrees of comparison), there is a considerable dissimilarity
between them.
1.
English adjectives have no categories of gender, number
and case, and accordingly they do not agree in form with the nouns they modify.
In Russian and Ukrainian adjectives possess the categories of case, number and
gender and agree in form with the substantives they define.
2.
English adjectives in their initial forms often have no special morphemes to
show their belonging to the class of adjectives. That is not the case in Russian and
Ukrainian where the form of an adjective shows the part of speech the word
belongs to. Сотр. red a. — червоний, bed n. — ліжко.
In English there are no full and short forms of adjectives observed in Russian and
to some extent in Ukrainian: умный —умен; повний — повен; пливе човен
води повен.
In English we find no suffixes of subjective estimation, such as are found in
Russian and Ukrainian: беленький — білесенький.
The number of relative adjectives in English is much smaller than in Russian (or
Ukrainian) where, according to Acad. V. V. Vinogradov, they constitute the main
stock of adjectives. In Russian and Ukrainian the same adjectives (with certain
exceptions) may have both synthetical and analytical forms of comparison:
Высокий - выше — высочайший
Высокий - более высокий — самый высокий
In English some adjectives arc exclusively or mostly used in the synthetical forms,
while others build up analytical forms.
3.
The synthetical form of the comparative degree in Russian and Ukrainian is
mostly used predicatively. In English it is freely used both predicatively and
attributively:
Коля умнее Пети. Nick is cleverer than Pete. Nick is a cleverer boy than Pete.
3.
In Modern Russian and Ukrainian we observe a peculiar
stylistical differentiation in the use of the synthetical and analytical forms of
comparison. The analytical form of the comparative degree is preferred in
written language, in scientific prose, etc. This is not observed in English.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1. THE DEFINITION OF THE ADJECTIVE AS A PART OF SPEECH,
ITS LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL CHARACTERISTICS.
2. THE DEGREES OF COMPARISON. WAYS OF EXPRESSION.
3. ENGLISH ADJECTIVES AS COMPARED WITH RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN ADJECTIVES.
47
THE PRONOUN
It has been shown above that words fall into classes known as parts of speech in
accordance with their lexico-grammatical meaning, morphological categories,
typical word-building elements and their combinative power.
The peculiarity of pronouns as a part of speech lies in the fact that they are not
united by any morphological categories characterizing all the classes of pronouns
or at least most of them, different classes of pronouns possessing different
morphological properties. The same holds true with regard to their combinative
power.
Pronouns are treated as a part of speech primarily through their peculiar lexical
meaning, though they possess some grammatical peculiarities as well.
Pronouns are words denoting substances and their attributes not by naming or
describing them, but by indicating them.
Their meaning is a relative one: it changes depending on the given situation of
speech. Thus if a person in speaking of himself uses the pronoun, this is not his
constant appellation. The same person may be addressed as you, or when spoken
about he may be designated as he.
One and the same object may be defined as this (e. g. this table) or that without
undergoing any change whatever. The choice of the pronoun depends upon the
speaker's position in space. The meanings of pronouns are of very general nature.
Indeed, any speaker may use in referring to himself, any object spoken about may
be referred to as it.
The dialectical nature of words becomes particularly manifest in pronouns which
being of very general and abstract nature serve to indicate concrete substances and
their properties when used in a sentence. Thus the meaning of the pronoun it is
highly indefinite, whereas in the sentence I like this book, it is full of useful
information, it serves to indicate a concrete thing.
The pronouns are but few in number, yet they are used very frequently.
Though the pronouns have no morphological categories common to all of them,
they possess some grammatical peculiarities, distinguishing them from the other
parts of speech.
1.
The specific feature of their combinative power lies in the
fact that, as a rule, they cannot be preceded by articles, adjectives,
numerals, etc. Thus one cannot say The clever she, etc.
This is characteristic of pronouns in Russian and Ukrainian as well.
2.
Being notional words, some pronouns discharge certain
formal functions as well. Thus some pronouns serve to introduce
subordinate clauses (I know whom you mean), to indicate the
doer of an action expressed by a verb ( he worked), since the verb
has but few forms of number and person. The pronoun it is used
as a formal structural subject (less frequently a formal object).
E. g. It rained, I thought it wise to interfere.
An analogous phenomenon is observed in Russian and Ukrainian. Acad. V. V.
48
Vinogradov mentions the fact that pronouns in Russian sometimes undergo a
distinct semantical weakening and fulfil the functions of form-words. This is much
more typical of English than of Ukrainian or Russian.
In accordance with their meanings and combinative power all the pronouns of
Modern English fall into two classes: noun-pronouns and adjective-pronouns. The
former indicate substances, the latter denote qualities of substances.
Most pronouns may be used both as noun-pronouns and as adjective-pronouns.
E. g. This was his masterpiece. This masterpiece was known all over the globe.
Some pronouns are always noun-pronouns, e. g. the personal pronouns, the
pronoun who.
Some other pronouns are always adjective-pronouns — the conjoint possessive
pronouns, the pronoun every.
Within this part of speech we find several groups characterized by certain
semantical and grammatical features.
They are: personal pronouns, such as he, she, they, possessive — my, mine,
demonstrative — this, that, reflexive — myself, himself, etc.
For lack of space we shall limit ourselves here to a few remarks on the semantical
and grammatical peculiarities of some classes of pronouns.
PERSONAL PRONOUNS
The personal pronouns serve to indicate the speaker or a group of persons
including the speaker — the first person, the person or persons addressed — the
second person, the person or thing (or a group of persons or things) not
participating in the process of speech — the third person.
The pronouns of the 3rd person have a distinct demonstrative force since they are
employed to indicate a person or a thing spoken of. The pronouns of the third
person are not strictly personal since they may be employed in speaking of things
as well as persons. E. g. Do you know these girls? They are my daughter's
schoolmates. What about those films? They are full of humour.
In grammatical tradition, retained in school grammar, pronouns (pro-nomen) are
treated as substitutes of names.
This is based on the fact that the pronouns of the third person are used
anaphorically instead of nouns, as in: I know Tom, he is a clever boy.
But the personal pronouns of the 1st and the 2nd person do not substitute any
nouns. Really, what noun is replaced by the pronoun I, for example?
In the Indo-European languages the personal pronouns are characterized by
extraordinary stability.
If we compare the personal pronouns of some Indo-European languages, we see
that they have come down from the same source:
Russian Ukrainian
Latin
English
French
я
я
ego
I
je
мне
мені
mihi
me
me
Many forms which were in existence in Old English have been retained in the
Modern English language.
The system of the personal pronouns in Modern English does not differ in any
49
essential points from that of Middle English. There are some distinctions, though.
The pronoun of the 2nd person singular thou is no longer used in everyday speech,
it is found in religious texts, poetry, the so-called "elevated prose":
Hail to thee (a skylark), blithe spirit, Bird thou never wert... (P. B. Shelley).
The pronoun you in Modern English is used for the nominative and the objective,
the original nominative (ye) being found in poetry and "elevated prose" only.
The personal pronouns have case-forms mostly built up with the help of
suppletivity:
she—her, we — us, e. g. She hesitated a little. I understood her.
In Modern English we observe a peculiar tendency, steadily on the increase, to use
the objective case when a pronoun is used predicatively or when it is used as a
subject but is separated from the verb, as in: Me and my brother. The objective
case in It is me has established itself as a literary norm. It is her, it is them, etc. are
treated as careless speech.
At the same time the nominative case is regularly preserved when an unstressed
personal pronoun is a semi-auxiliary word indicating the person and number of the
subject the action of the verb is associated with. E. g. He came. They departed.
In Prof. B. A. Ilyish's opinion it is quite probable that English gradually develops a
system of personal pronouns resembling that of Modern French in which the socalled conjoint pronouns (pronoms conjoins) je, tu, il, Us are essentially formwords always directly associated with verbs, whereas the absolute pronouns
(pronoms absolus) тої, toi, lui, eux arc-stressed pronouns used predicatively
(c'est moi — It is me) or when a pronoun does not directly precede the verb, and
in some other cases.
As to the category of number it should be observed that, strictly speaking, the
personal pronouns of the first and the second person have no category of number;
for instance, we cannot be treated as the plural of I since it does not mean I+I+I,
but rather I and you, I and he, etc.
Thus we and you should be treated as independent lexical units ("pluralia tantum"
within the class of the personal pronouns) but not the plural forms of I and thou
respectively.
POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS
The possessive pronouns are an outgrowth of the OE genitive case of the personal
pronouns. In Modern English we find two forms of the possessive pronouns: the
noun-pronouns (absolute pronouns) as mine, ours, hers and adjective-pronouns
(conjoint pronouns) my, your, etc.
One of the striking peculiarities of Modern English is the extensive use of the
conjoint possessive pronouns even when their presence is not called forth by any
semantical necessity as in: He entered with his hands in his waistcoat pockets.
(Ch. Dickens)
In the corresponding Russian or Ukrainian sentences no possessive pronouns are
necessary. The explanation of this widespread use of the possessive pronouns lies
probably in the fact that owing to the weakening of their meaning and the limited
50
combinative power (they are ordinarily associated almost exclusively with nouns)
they have come to resemble the definite article in their employment.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1. SEMANTICAL AND GRAMMATICAL PECULARITIES OF PRONOUNS AS A PART
OF SPEECH
2.
The Peculiarities of the PERSONAL PRONOUNS IN ENGLISH
4.
The Peculiarities of the POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS IN ENGLISH
5.
Noun-pronouns and Adjective-pronouns in the English languag
THE ADVERB
The: adverb is a part of speech characterized by the
following features:
1. The lexico-grammatical meaning of "qualitative, quantitative or circumstantial
characteristics of actions, states or qualities".
2. The category of the degrees of comparison.
3. Typical. stem-building affixes, as in quick-ly, side-[ways, clock-wise, backwards, a-shore, etc.
4. Its unilateral combinability with verbs, adjectives, and adverbs, less regularly
with adlinks and nouns.
5. The function of adverbial complement, sometimes other functions.
The category of the degrees of comparison of adverbs is similar to that of
adjectives. It is a system of three-member opposemes (soon - sooner - soonest;
actively - more actively - most actively) showing whether the characteristic the
adverb contains is absolute or relative. The 'comparative' and 'superlative' members
of the opposeme are built up either synthetically (by means of affixation or
suppletivity), or analytically (by means of word-morphemes). The synthetic and
ana1ytical forms are in complimentary distribution like those of the adjective, only
the number of synthetic forms is smaller in as much as there are fewer
monosyllabic and disyllabic. adverbs. Cf. lazy - lazier - (the) laziest,
lazily -more lazily- most lazily.
With regard to the category of the degrees of
comparison adverbs (like adjectives) fall into comparables and non-comparab1es.
The number of non-comparables is much greater among adverbs than among
adjectives. In other words, there are many adverbs whose lexemes contain but
one word (yesterday, always, northward, upstairs, etc.).
As the definition of the lexico-grammatical meaning shows, adverbs may be
divided into three lexico-grammatical subclasses: qualitative, quantitative and
51
circumstantial.
Qualitative adverbs like loudly, quickly, brightly, etc. usually modify verbs, less
often adlinks. They show the quality of an action or state much in the same way as
a qualitative adjective shows the quality of some substance. Cf. speaks loudly and
loud speech, walks quickly and a quick walk.
The connection between qualitative adverbs and adjectives is obvious. In most
cases the adverb is derived from the adjective with the help of the most productive
adverb-forming suffix -ly. Like the corresponding adjectives qualitative adverbs
usually have opposites of the comparative and superlative degrees.
On the strength of this likeness A. I. Smirnitsky advances the view that quick and
quickly might be treated as belonging to the same part of speech, but having
different combinability. In other words, quick - quickly might be regarded as an
adjectival grammatical opposeme, and -/y as a grammatical morpheme of
adverbiality. We must take to issue with Prof. Smirnitsky over this theory.
1. The most typical feature of a grammatical morpheme distinguishing it from a
lexico-grammatical one is its relativity.
As stated above the morpheme -s in books denotes 'plurality' because books is
opposed to book with the zero morpheme of 'singularity'. In the opposeme quickquickly it is also possible to assert that -ly denotes 'adverbiality'
because quickly is opposed to quick with the zero morpheme of 'adjectivity'.
But in purpose - purposely, part - partly, night - nightly -ly denotes
'adverbiality', though it is not opposed to the zero morpheme of 'adjectivity', but
rather to that of 'substance'. In first - firstly, second - secondly, third - thirdly,
"etc.. -ly denotes 'adverbiality' though it is opposed to 'numerality'. In mocking mockingly, admiring- admiringly, confused - confusedly, broken - brokenly,
etc. the 'adverbiality' of -ly is opposed to 'participiality', etc. In short, the
'adverbial' meaning in -ly is not relative, and, -ly is not a grammatical, morpheme.
2. The suffix -ly is a lexico-grammatical morpheme which accounts for its being
common to all the words of an adverb lexeme e. g. violently - more violently most violently.
3. Though -ly is very productive, there are other lexico-grammatical morphemes
forming the stems of qualitative adverbs from adjective stems, or else adverbs and
adjectives are related by conversion. Cf. loud a. - loudly, loud adv., aloud; long a. long adv., longways, longwise. .
4. There are many adjectives in -ly related by conversion with corresponding
adverbs early, daily, deadly, etc.
There are other adjectives in -ly which have no corresponding adverbs, e. g. lovely,
lonely, lively, etc.
5. The comparison of such words as
high a. - high adv., highly,
late a. - late adv., lately,
hard a. - hard adv., hardly,
near a. - near adv., nearly
shows that the suffix -ly introduces changes in the lexical meanings of words, so
52
that words with and without -ly cannot belong to the same opposeme or lexeme.
The words probably, possibly, luckily, etc., derived from adjective stems, are no
longer adverbs but modal words, so that the adjectives probable, possible, lucky
have no corresponding adverbs, but they have corresponding modal words
with the suffix -ly.
All these and similar facts show that -ly is not an inflexion but a highly productive
stem-building suffix. Therefore quick and quickly are not members of a
grammatical opposeme.
They have different stems and belong to different lexemes.
These lexemes with different stems, different combinability and different
syntactical functions, naturally, belong to different parts of speech.
Thus, qualitative adverbs, with or without -ly are a subclass of adverbs with
peculiar lexico-grammatical features. As they characterize the quality of an action
or state, they are inwardly bound with a verb or an adlink and are usually placed as
close as possible to the verb or adlink they modify.
And then nature mercifully intervened. (Gilbert).
Tony and the daughter of the Polish governor catch one glimpse of each other and
are madly aflame. (The People's World).
Quantitative adverbs like very, rather, too, nearly, greatly, fully, hardly, quite,
utterly, twofold, etc. show the degree, measure, quantity of an action, quality, state,
etc. The combinability of this subclass is more extensive than that of the qualitative
adverbs. Besides verbs and ad1inks quantitative adverbs modify adjectives,
adverbs, numerals, moda1s, even nouns.
You've quite vamped the foreman. (Galsworthy).
Rather disconsolate she wandered out into the cathedral. (Galsworthy). .
She knew it only too well. (Randall).
He had become f ully aware of her. (Randall).
It was nearly ten. (Hornby).
He is wholly master of the situation. (Ruck).
Ve r y probably he won't budge. (Christie).
The combinability of some adverbs of this subclass can be rather narrow. The
adverb very (frightfully, awfully, etc.), for instance, mostly precedes those
adjectives and adverbs which have opposites of comparison. It does not, as a rule,
modify verbs, adlinks or numerals.
The combinability of nearly or almost, on the other hand, is so extensive, that these
words are close to particles. Quantitative adverbs are correlative with quantitative
pronouns, such as much, (a) littl., Circumstantial adverbs serve to denote various
circumstances (mostly local and temporal) attending an action.
Accordingly they fall under two heads:
a) adverbs of time and frequency (yesterday, tomorrow, before, often, again, twice,
etc.),
b) adverbs of place and direction (upstairs, inside, behind, homewards).
Circumstantial adverbs are not inwardly connected with the verbs they are said to
modify. They do not characterize the action itself but name certain circumstances
attending the action described in the sentence and usually referring to the situation
53
as a whole. Therefore a circumstantial adverb can be used in a sentence in which
the only verb is a link-verb, i. e. where no action is described.
E. g. He will be ten tomorrow.
This accounts for the fact that, unlike ,qualitative and quantitative adverbs,
circumstantial adverbs are not necessarily placed near the verb, they may occupy
different places in the sentence.
E. g. It wasn't any too warm yesterday. '(Lewis).
Yesterday they had a snow-squall out west. (Lewis).
When H. Sweet speaks of adverbs, as showing "almost the last remains of normal
free order in Modern English", it concerns, mostly, circumstantial adverbs. '
Similarly G. Curme's words that "An adverb can freely stand in almost any
position" mainly apply to circumstantial adverbs. '
Barring some adverbs with the -ward(s) suffix (backwards, inwards), the -ice
suffix (twice, thrice), circumstantial adverbs ave no typical stem-building elements
(Cf. with the -ly suffix incident to qualitative adverbs). They are often
morphologically indivisible (north, home, down, etc.), even more often are they
related by conversion with prepositions (in, out, behind), conjunctions (since,
before), nouns (north, home), adjectives (late, far) or they are homonymous with
lexical word-morphemes {in, out, up, see).
Only a small group of circumstantial adverbs denoting indefinite time and place
(soon, late, often, near, far) have opposites of comparison. Most adverbs of this
sub-class form no opposemes of any grammatical category.
Circumstantial adverbs are mostly used in the function of adverbial modifiers of
time and place.
See you tonight. (Lewis).
Going clear d o w n - tow n? (Lewis).
But sometimes they can be used in other functions,e. g. as attributes.
E. g. See the notes above. (Hornby).
The room upstairs is vacant.
The words of an adverb lexeme like soon - sooner- soonest represent three
grammemes with one actual grammatical meaning each. Lexemes like forward,
yesterday, ahead contain but one word each with the oblique grammatical'
meaning of the 'positive degree'. There are no adverbs in English with the oblique
meaning of the 'comparative' and the 'superlative' degrees. Thus we may speak of
but four grammemes in the class of adverbs.
Positive actual (soon, strongly), positive oblique (forward, yesterday), comparative
(sooner, better - synthetical and more proudly - analytical) and superlative
(soonest, best - synthetical and most strongly - analytical).
When comparing English and Russian adverbs as parts of speech, one may say that
they differ but slightly. Their lexico-grammatical meanings, morphological categories, combinability and syntactical functions are fundamentally the same.
Nevertheless, certain distinctions are worth noting:
1. The stem-building (lexico"grammatical) morphemes of Russian adverbs are
somewhat more numerous and varied.
2. Among the adverb building morphemes we find several suffixes of subjective
54
appraisal (-онько/ -енько, -онечко/ -eнечко, охонько/ -ехонько, овато), which
are аbsolutely alien to English.
3. The adverbialization of substantival or adjectival grammemes, (e. g. шагом,
стрелой, весной) is the most productive way of forming adverbs in Russian
whereas in English it is less common.
4. As to the degrees of comparison one might say that the synthetic form of the
superlative grammeme (подробнейше, нижайше, малейше) is no longer used
colloquially and is employed for some stylistic purpose. The corresponding
English grammeme (oftenest, soonest) occurs in different speech styles.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
As a part of speech, what features do adverbs possess?
What are the lexico-grammatical classes of adverbs?
Adjectives and adverbs: similarities and differencies?
What are the special features of quantitative adverbs?
English and Russian adverbs: similar or different categories?
THE NUMERAL
The numeral as a part of speech is characterized by
1) its lexico-grammatical meaning of 'number',
2) the category of numerical qualification represented in
opposemes like seven - seventh, nine - ninth,
3) its unilateral combinability with nouns (three children,
the third child),
4) such typical stem-building suffixes as -teen, -ty,
5) its functioning as an attribute, less frequently as some
other part of the sentence.
The lexico-grammatical meaning of 'number' is not to be confused with the
grammatical meaning of 'number'.
a) The former is the generalization of a multitude of lexical meanings of individual
numerals (five, ten, fifty-seven, etc.). The latter is the generalization of only two
grammatical meanings: "singular" and "plural".
b) The plural number, as in boys, shows indefinite plurality, whereas the meanings
of numerals, as in twenty, forty are definite plurality.
c) Like any grammatical meaning the "plural" of nouns is relative, dependent and
indirect. The lexical "plural" of a numeral like eight is not relative, being as much
correlated with the "singular" of one as with the "plural" of seven, or nine, or
eighty. The "plural" of eight is independent in as much as it is the lexical meaning
of an independent word.
Its reflection of reality is direct as that of any lexical meaning.
Numerals are usually divided into two groups - cardinal numerals (one, five,
twenty) and ordinal numerals (first fifth, twentieth). The former denote some
numerical quantity, the latter - some numerical order.
55
The difference between these groups is sometimes exaggerated to such an extent
that they are treated as belonging to different parts of speech. For instance, A. I.
Smirnitsky is of the opinion that only cardinal numerals form a separate part of
speech, whereas ordinal numerals are adjectives.
Language facts do not support such views.
1. Each cardinal numeral has a corresponding ordinal one.- Cf, seven - seventh,
thirty - thirtieth, eighty-four- eighty-fourth, etc. .
2. Both cardinals and ordinals qualify substances quantitatively, as distinct from
adjectives whose qualification is qualitative.
3. Cardinals often denote numerical order like ordinals.
Cf. lesson five = the fifth lesson.
4. Only numerals have the suffix -th. Nouns denoting number (gross, score, etc.)
cannot be associated with it.
Formations of the type *grossth, *scoreth are impossible.
5. If -th were regarded as a stem-building suffix, it would be the only suffix of this
kind in the English language embracing all the words of a part of speech '(in our
case - numerals) minus three (one, two, three).
6. The relation between ten and tenth resembles the relation between boy and
boy's. As words of the boy's type are mostly used in the function of attributes, they
might also be declared adjectives.
In our opinion, the pair ten - tenth forms an opposeme of the grammatical category
of numerical qualification.
The lexical meaning of the two words expressed by the lexical morpheme ten is the
same. They are opposed only grammatically by the opposition of the zero
morpheme in ten and the -th morpheme in tenth. This opposition is as regular as
that of the zero morpheme of the singular and the -(e)s 'morpheme of the plural.
Even more so, in fact, because there are fewer exceptions. The meaning of the zero
morpheme is that of 'numerical quantity', and the meaning of the morpheme -th is
that of 'numerical order'. Like every grammatical meaning the meaning of
"numerical order" is relative (always correlated with the meaning of 'numerical
quantity') and dependent on the lexical meaning of the word, i. e. the suffix
-th does not express "numerical order" in general, but the order of the number
named by the lexical part of the word.
In the opposemes one - first, two - second, three-third the meaning of numerical
qualification is expressed by means of suppletivity and sound interchange.
The words half, quarter, zero, nought, gross, score, etc. which have no ordinal
opposites, but possess plural opposites are nouns, not numerals.
The combinability of numerals is rather limited.
As a rule, they form combinations with nouns. Numerals usually precede the nouns
they modify, but when a cardinal denotes numerical order it follows the noun.
Numerals are naturally associated with countable nouns. In cases like
the first love, the first snow instances of the phenomena are meant. The definite
article in combinations like the second dance is easily accounted for, as the
numeral singles out the object or event by indicating its position in a series.
Numerals are, as a rule, not modified by other words. This negative combinability
56
is also a characteristic feature of the part of speech.
As to their stem structure English numerals fall into
a) simple or root numerals, such as one, two, three (up to twelve)
b) derivative numerals formed with the help of the suffixes -teen (from thirteen to
nineteen), -ty (from twenty to ninety)
c) compound numerals (from twenty-one to ninety-nine) and
d) composite numerals, such as nine hundred and three.
I It is owing to the remarkable way of forming composite numerals that an
unlimited multitude of numbers can be named with the help of a limited number of
words.
It has been pointed out that numerals have a peculiar manner of building up
compound and composite stems not observed in any other part of speech.
When a numeral of a lower rank follows a higher numeral their numbers are added,
as in eighty-one == eighty + one.
If the order is reverse, the numbers are multiplied
e. g. five hundred = five X hundred. In two hundred and nine multiplication and
addition are combined.
Numerals are easily substantivized, acquiring noun features.
Let us by way of illustration take the following sentence from a school text-book in
arithmetic: "In order to add two numbers add the units of one number to the units
of the other, the tens to the tens, the hundreds to the hundreds, etc." Here the
numerals tens, hundreds have many features in common with the noun- units. They
have the lexico-grammatical meaning of 'substance', the 'plural', suffix -s; they
have left-hand connections with articles, prepositions; they are used in the
functions of objects. Other instances of the substantivization of numerals are:
Arrival of Moscow e 1 e v e n. Two can play at that game. We are seven.
Form f o u r s! '"
English and Russian numerals are similar as to their lexico-grammatical meanings,
ways of stem-building, combinability and syntactical functions, but they differ,
greatly as regards their grammatical categories.
1) Unlike their English counterparts, Russian numerals
possess the categories of gender (пятый, пятая, пятое) ;
case (четыре, четырех, четырем etc.) and number (первый - первые).
2) There is a great difference between ordinal and cardinal numerals in Russian as
far as their categories are concerned. Ordinal numerals resemble adjectives not
only in having the categories of number, gender and case, but in the
forms of the grammatical morphemes as well.
Пятый - красный пятого - красного пятому - красному
Пятая - красная пятые - красные
Cardinal numerals do not possess the categories of number and gender (with the
exception of один, два). The case inflections are also different.
Cf. Десять - десяти - десятью
Знать - знати - знатью
It is no wonder, therefore, that some linguists separate cardinal and ordinal
numerals in Russian and regard the latter as adjectives. But this is certainly no
57
reason why the same should be done in English where conditions are quite
different.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1. What are general characteristics of numerals that unite them into a part of
speech?
2. How is lexico-grammatical meaning of "number" treated in numerals?
3. What are the grammatical opposemes in numerals?
4. What are the specific features of numerals combinability?
5. What other parts of speech can numerals be compared to? In what way?
6. In what way are English and Russian (Ukrainian) numerals similar?
THE SEMI-NOTIONAL PARTS OF SPEECH
THE PREPOSITION
THE CONJUNCTION
THE PARTICLE
THE ARTICLE
THE ARTICLE
It is difficult to speck of the articles as a class of words, since only two
words – a (an) and the – beling here. Still these words possess a general lexicogrammatical meaning, abstracted from the individual meanings of each word, and a
peculiar combinative power, which is sufficient to treat them as a separate part (or
particle ) of speech.
The lexical meaning of a(an) in Modern English is a very weak reminder of
its original meaning (an – one).
The weakening of the lexical meaning of the numeral one to “one of many”,
“some”, has taken place even in such languages as Russian and Ukrainian, where
there are no articles.
e.g. В один прекрасный день, Одна жiнка Вас тут питала...
But in spite of the long process of weakening there remains enough of the
original meaning in a (an) to exclude the possibility of its being attached to a plural
noun-form.
The lexical meaning of the in Modern English is a pale shadow of its
original demonstrative meaning (Old English – dem.pron. se).
The general lexico-grammatical meaning of these words, as usual, is not
identical with their individual lexical meanings. It abstracts itself from the meaning
of “oneness” in a(an) and the “demonstrative” meaning in the.Perhaps, the names
of the articles (“definite”, “indefinite”) denote the nearest approach to this lexicogrammatical meaning, thich, for lack of a better term, might be defined as that of
“definiteness – indefiniteness”.
The combinative power of the articles is very limited: they are associated
almost exclusively with nouns.
58
This limited combinative power, the weak lexical meaning and the existence
of only two words of this kind in the language are points of similarity between the
articles and the form-words building up analytical forms, as, for instance, shall and
will. But there are other points to prove that the articels are not form-words of that
type.
1.Shall and will are attached only to certain froms of the verb – the infinitive – to
build up analytically the from of the future tense. The verb to have is associated
only with one form of the verb – the past participle – to build up analytically the
perfect forms. But the articles are associated with the noun in all its forms(if
they do not contradict the lexical meanings of the articles, as in a books).
Comp: the student, the students, the student's, the students', in the same way as his
student, his students, his student's, his students'.
2. Shall and will in combination with the infinitive build up the analytical forms of
a certain grammatical category – the future tense – opposed to the categories of
the present and the past tenses. A and the in combination with the noun do not
build up such analytical forms, for no grammatical category in represented by
these combinations. We cannot say that the combinations represent the category
of substantivity, for substantivity is expressed by the nouns themselves without
articles, as in Beauty lies in lover's eyes! Neither can we say that combinations
with the definite article represent the grammatical category of “definiteness”,
and “indefiniteness” are added to the noun lexically, through the lexical
meanings of the articles. This is seen from the following.
First of all, there is no correlation in the use of the two articles. There are,
for instance, many nouns and noun-forms with which the is used and a is
not, and this is closely connected with the lexical meanings of both the
articles (however weak they may be) and the nouns they are associated
with.
The difference in the use of the two articles is, to some extent, similar to that
in the use of two words belonging to some other part of speech, for instance,
two adjectives – white and clever. As words of the same lexoci-grammatical
class white and clever have the same combinative power, i.e. They may
attach, or be attached to the same calsses of words, in our case, for instance,
nouns.
But when we come to consider the individual nouns or groups of nouns
with which each of these adjectives may be associated, we must take into
consideration the lexical meanings of these words. White in accordance
with its meaning may be associated with words like milk, snow, paper, etc.
with which clever would not ordinarily go. Clever, in its turn, can be used
with such groups of nouns which are hardly ever associated with the
adjective white, e.g. Remark, trick, answer, etc.
Both articles as words of the same lexico-grammatical class have the
same combinative power: they are attached to nouns. But the lexical
meaning of each article, however abstract and general, limits the groups
and forms of nouns to which it can be attached.
Now, the grammatical category of “definiteness” - “indefiniteness”, if
59
it existed, might be expressed even with greated consistency with the
help of one article, for instance, the. Nouns with t wouldld be
“definite”, and without the - “indefinite”. This is the way many
categories are expressed in Modern English. For instance, nouns with
the suffix -s express the plural number, without -s – the singular.
Verbs with the suffix -ed express the past tense, without it – the
present tense.
As it is, the articles carry not only the general lexico-grammatical
meaning of “definiteness” - “indefiniteness”, but their individual
lexical meanings as well: the meaning of “oneness” (a, an) and the
“demostrative” meaning (the.)
That is why the articles cannot be considered parts of analytical forms
representing some grammatical category of the noun. They are to be
treated as words forming free syntactical combinations with nouns in
the same way as prepositions do.
So when the articles are called form-words it is merely to emphasize
that they are not words of full lexical meaning, that their lexical
meaning is very weak and general, that they lack the naming power of
words of full lexical meaning like nouns, verbs, etc. Therefore, in
accordance with Acad. V.V. Vinogradov's classification they form a
particle of speech, not a part of speech.
Some grammarians speak of the “zero article” and the “zero-form of
the indefinite article” in modern English. The “sero forms” are
necessary to cover the absence of correlation in the use of the two
articles. But if we consider the articels as words forming free
syntactical combinations with nouns, there is no more need for the
artificial “zero article” that there for in a “zero-preposition” or a “zeroconjunction”. It is an unnecessary complication to consider that in the
sentence Drops of rain fell on my hand the noun drops is preceded by
“the sero-form of the indefinite article” and the noun rain by the 'zeroarticle'. In our opinion it is much more simple and true to fact to say
that all the nouns in this sentence are used without articles because
they need here no specification added by the articles: the word a
cannot be used before the plural forms drops and the “uncountable”
noun rain because of its lexical meaning of “oneness”, the word the is
not used before these nouns as no “pointing out”, no “demonstrative”
meaning is implied. And in “my hand” the word my with a much
stronger indicating power than that of the makes the latter
unnecessary.
Thus we may say that though the articles have much in common with
form-words, parts of analytical forms, they have preserved enough of
their lexical meanings to explain the most important cases of their use.
In accordane with its meaning “one of many” the indefinite article is
used to denote one thing of a class and is therefore a classifying
article.
60
Thus the sentence I bought a pencil is roughly equivalent to another
sentence I bought one of those things called pencils in the same way
as He is a student is equivalent to He is one of those people called
students.
Naturally the indefinite article is not used with a plural form, but it can
be used with a noun in the singular denoting the whole class, as an
Eagle is a very strong bird. Comp. Орёл – сильная птица.
In compliance with its “demonstrative” meaning the definite article
points out or individualizes the object denoted by the noun it is
associated with, and is therefore an individualizing or limiting
article.
Now, since it is possible to “point out” almost any object or substance,
the definite article may be used with most nouns in any form.
The indefinite article owing to its classifying forms, draws the
attention of the listener (or reader) to the word the indefinite article is
used with. This is not the case when the definite article is employed.
Comp: The curtain rose and a girl stepped out
The curtain rose and the girl stepped out.
In the first example the attention of the listener is attracted to the fact
that it was a girl (not a boy, an old man, etc) who stepped out. In the
second sentence the listenr's attention is drawn to the action of
stepping out. So the indefinite article is associated with some novelty
of information, the definite article points out an object as something
familiar.
PROBLEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
1.The article as a particle of speech.
2.Points of similarity and dissimilarity between the articles and form-words – parts
of analytical forms.
3.The meaning and a use of the indefinite article
4.The meaning and use of the definite article
5.The problem of so-called”zero article”
61