Definition of Grammatical Category

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 2 из 45Следующая ⇒

A.A. Shakhmatov and G.N. Vorontsova identify the grammatical category with grammatical meaning, F.F. Fortunatov -with grammatical form. However, there exist neither formless grammatical meanings nor meaningless grammatical forms. That's why the majority of linguists regard the grammatical category as a two-fold unity of grammatical meaning and grammatical form.

Grammatical Meaning

Grammatical meaning is closely interwoven with lexical meaning. Tradition says that the difference between grammatical and lexical meaning lies in the degree of the inherent abstraction. Lexical meaning is considered to be concrete, grammatical meaning -abstract [H. Sweet].

There is no gainsaying the fact that grammatical meaning is usually more abstract than lexical, for it concerns itself not with concrete meanings of separate words, but with meanings characteristic of whole classes of words, e.g. the grammatical

meaning of number is characteristic of nouns, the grammatical meaning of aspect is characteristic of verbs, etc.

In the opinion of M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, however, it is not a higher degree of abstraction that differentiates grammatical meaning from lexical meaning, for lexical meaning also represents a generalized reflection of reality. Some lexical meanings, according to M.I. Steblin-Kamensky, are even more general than grammatical meanings. Compare the lexical meaning of the word time and the grammatical meanings of verbal tenses (present, past, or future).

What is more, the same meanings (e.g. the meanings of 'defmiteness - indefmiteness') can be represented differently in different languages. In English, they are grammatical (articles serve the purpose of their realization). In Russian, they are lexical because in Russian there are no constant grammatical means to express the meanings of 'deflniteness - indeflniteness'.

Other linguists [e.g. V.M Nikitevich] hold that the difference between grammatical and lexical meanings lies in their content. Lexical meaning is naming; grammatical meaning is relational: it expresses the relations between words in sentences.

Grammatical meaning is really opposed to lexical meaning as relational to naming. But if one follows M.I. Steblin-Kamensky and goes deeper into it, he will see that grammatical meaning does not always express relations in the proper sense of the word.. Let us take the grammatical meaning of number in nouns. It does not realize any relations; it only actualizes a certain property common to things, namely plurality.

According to another current conception, the difference between grammatical and lexical meanings lies in the form of their expression [R.S. Ginzburg, S.S. Khidekel, G.G. Knyazeva, A.A. Sankin]: lexical meaning is rendered by words and word combinations, grammatical meaning - by forms of words, stress, word order, etc.

But there exist words that convey purely grammatical meanings, e.g. auxiliary verbs, articles, and other function words.

In view of the fact that language is an immediate actuality of thought, M.I. Sieblin-Kamensky suggests that grammatical and lexical meanings should be differentiated with regard to thought. Lexical meanings form the basis of thought; hence, they are

independent. Grammatical meanings organize thought; hence, they are dependent on the lexical meanings they accompany.

Since grammatical meanings only help organize thought, the question arises whether they reflect any relations of extra linguistic reality. The majority of linguists think that grammatical meanings are heterogeneous in this respect. The first classification of grammatical meanings goes back to A.A. Shakhmatov who singled out three types of grammatical meanings.

!. Grammatical meanings based on the phenomena of extra linguistic reality, e.g. the meaning of number in nouns that reflects the existing distinctions between one and more than one.

2. Grammatical meanings based on the subjective attitude of
the speaker to the phenomena of extra linguistic reality, e.g. the
meaning of mood in verbs. The indicative mood presents the action
as real; the imperative and the conjunctive — as something desired,
probable, or problematic.

3. Grammatical meanings predetermined linguistically, e.g. the
singular or plural form of the demonstrative pronouns this and that
depends on the singular or plural form of the following nouns. Cf:

this house - these houses (R, Murphy),

that room - those rooms (R. Murphy).

The classification will only profit if every stage of analysis is based on one principle. At the first stage, we classify grammatical meanings in accordance with the presence or absence of extra linguistic basis into those that reflect extra linguistic reality and those that have nothing to do with extra linguistic reality. At the second stage, grammatical meanings that reflect extra linguistic reality are further subdivided in accordance with the presence or absence of subjective evaluation of the speaker into subjective-objective and objective.

Each part of speech has a specific set of grammatical meanings. The English noun, for instance, has the grammatical meanings of number and case, the adjective - the grammatical meanings of degrees of comparison.

However, in view of the fact that parts of speech possess the structure of a field, with a compact core and a diffuse periphery, the grammatical meanings characteristic of a certain part of speech are not obligatorily to be found in all the words of the given part of speech. They are always common to the words forming the centre of

this or that part of speech, i.e. the words that possess the lexico-grammatical meaning of the pan of speech in question. Thus, the grammatical meaning of number is characteristic only of countable nouns that denote things in the proper sense of the word. Uncountable nouns, which have the grammatical meaning of 'thingness', lack the grammatical meaning of number.

Grammatical meaning is always realized in this or that form.

Grammatical Form

The logicians [e.g. F.L Buslaev] identity grammatical form with sound form. A.A. Potebnya has proved that sound changes do not always bring about changes in grammatical meaning, e.g.: Kynu caxapa/caxapy_. The sound forms are different (a, y); the inherent grammatical meaning is the same. It is the meaning of the accusative case.

Neither can we identify grammatical forms with form-building components as N.P. Nekrasov does. The main drawback of this conception is that outwardly dissimilar forms can render identical grammatical meanings., and vice versa: different grammatical meanings can find expression in similar forms. Cf.:

Who did they arrest? - Whom did they arrest? (M. Swan).

It's me. -It'si(M. Swan).

He drinks like a fish (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

Have you arty soft drinks? (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

Besides, if we looked upon grammatical form as a form-building component, we would be bound to recognize the existence of formless words and even of formless languages. This conclusion is quite naturally drawn by F.F. Fortunatov. It is theoretically wrong. Form represents inner organization of content. It follows from it that there are no formless grammatical meanings.

It goes without saying that grammatical forms are heterogeneous. They comprise form-building components, auxiliary elements, word order, intonation, and many other means.

In other words, the grammatical form is the sum total of all the formal means constantly employed to render this or that grammatical meaning. K. Pike and A.V. Bondarko qualify the sum

total of grammatical means used to convey a certain grammatical meaning as a grammeme. For instance, the present tense grammeme comprises the zero exponent for the first and second persons singular and plural and the third person plural and the inflection -(e)s for the third person singular. (A zero exponent represents meaningful absence of any outward sign which serves the purpose of rendering some grammatical meaning when opposed to forms with positive inflections.). The past tense grammeme comprises the inflection ~(e)d for regular verbs and vowel change, consonant change, etc. for irregular verbs. The future tense grammeme comprises the analytical combination of the infinitive with the auxiliary verb -will.

Homogeneous grammemes, i.e. grammemes possessing a common generalized grammatical meaning, build up a grammatical category. Thus, the generalized grammatical meaning of tense, lying at the basis of the present, past, and future tense grammemes, generates the grammatical category of tense.

According to A.V. Bondarko, the notions 'grammatical form', 'grammeme', and 'grammatical category' build up a three-level hierarchy. The grammatical form constitutes the lowest ladder on the rank scale, then comes the grammeme as a unity of homogeneous grammatical forms, then - the grammatical category as a unity of homogeneous grammemes.

A.I. Smirnitsky points out the following characteristics of the grammatical form.

1. It never characterizes the word as a whole. Otherwise, we
would have to speak not of grammatical, but of lexico-grammatical
categories. Take, for instance, the category of gender in Russian,
where nouns do not change in accordance with the existing genders
but as whole units refer to this or that concrete gender. Cf.:

cmoji - (zero exponent) - masculine, deeowa - (the inflection -a) - feminine, okho - (the inflection -o) - neuter.

2. One and the same form can render the meanings of different
grammatical categories, e.g.: The sun rises in the east (M. Vince.
K. McNicholas), where the inflection -s shows that the verb rise is
in the third person, singular number, present tense, indicative'mood,
non-continuous aspect, active voice.

3. But one form cannot combine in itself two meanings of one
and the same grammatical category. Thus, no form exists which
could simultaneously render the meanings of two cases or two
numbers. That's why we say that the present perfect is not a tense
form, but one of the members of a specific grammatical category of
phase. If perfect were a tense form, we would have a unity of two
tenses in one form (present and perfect in present perfect, past and
perfect in past perfect, future and perfect in future perfect), which is
clearly out of the question.

4. There are no isolated grammatical forms. Each grammatical
form makes part of this or that grammatical category.

Types of Grammatical Forms

The ways of building up grammatical forms depend on the structure of the language. Linguists usually draw a distinction between two main types of form-building: synthetic and analytical. Synthetic forms are built up by a change in the body of the word. Analytical forms consist of at least two words, one rendering the grammatical meaning, the other — the lexical meaning of the analytical complex. Inflected languages, such as Russian, resort to synthetic forms, primarily. Analytical languages, e.g. English, give preference to analytical forms. The latter, however, does not mean that inflected languages never make use of analytical forms or that synthetic forms are alien to analytical languages. Synthetic and analytical forms go hand in hand. It is not the presence or absence but the relative proportion of synthetic and analytical forms that differentiates languages.

Synthetic Forms

To synthetic forms belong affixation and sound interchange.

Affixation

Affixation consists in attaching grammatical morphemes to the root. Affixes are traditionally divided into prefixes that come before the root to which they are joined; suffixes that come after the root to which they are joined; and infixes that are inserted within the root.

Prefixation

Those who recognize the existence of aspects in Old English say that prefixation was used to form the perfective aspect, e.g.:

wntan - gewnlan,

nsan - orison.

The majority of linguists, however, think that the Old English prefixes ge~ and a- cannot be regarded as a means of expressing aspect distinctions, i.e. as grammatical prefixes for two reasons. In the first place, the opposition 'prefixed verbs - prefixless verbs' was not common to all the verbs in the language. In the second place, both prefixed verbs and prefixless verbs could render the meanings of completeness and incompleteness.

Doubtful in Old English, grammatical prefixation has completely disappeared in Modern English.

Infixation

Infixation has never been typical of English. A.I. Smirnitsky thinks that the component -n- in stand, as opposed to stood, can perhaps be regarded as an infix of the present tense.

P.M. Berezin doubts the possibility of regarding the component -n- here as an infix with a specific meaning of the present tense because it is the only example of an infix used to differentiate the present tense of verbs from other forms, although Indo-European languages like Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit made a considerable use of infixes for similar purposes.

Suffixation

Of all the types of affixation, suffixation is the commonest. For instance, we find suffixation in the category of number in nouns [the suffix -(e)s of the plural number], in the category of degrees of comparison of adjectives (the suffix -er of the comparative degree and the suffix -est of the superlative degree), etc.

In spite of the fact that suffixes play an important role in Modern English, they are rather few in number. The scarcity of grammatical suffixes is easy to .^ung^ersjand^, In,.the__firet_r-rjlace English is an analytical language, oor in

place, there are a lot of zero exponents in Modern English (the zero exponent of the singular number in nouns, the zero exponent of the positive degree in adjectives, etc.)- In the third place, English is rich in homonymous suffixes, i.e. suffixes that have the same form but realize different grammatical meanings. Some homonymous suffixes characterize one part of speech, e.g. [boiz], where the suffix [z] admits of two interpretations. On the one hand, we may regard it as a suffix of the plural number; on the other hand, we may look upon it as a means of forming the genitive case. Other homonymous suffixes mark off different parts of speech, e.g. [driyks], where the suffix [s] may represent the third person, singular number, present tense, indicative mood, non-continuous aspect, active voice of a verb or the plural number of a noun.

Sound Interchange

Sound interchange is not a productive means of form-building in Modern English, although in Old English it played an important role. Sound interchange may be divided into vowel and consonant interchange. Historically, vowel interchange falls under ablaut (or gradation), which is found in the forms of irregular verbs (e.g. to meet - met ~ met), and umlaut (or mutation), which occurs nowadays in the plural number of some nouns (e.g. man - men, woman — women).

By means of sound interchange nouns differentiate the category of number, e.g.:

foot-feet (vowel interchange),

wife - wives (consonant interchange);

adjectives differentiate degrees of comparison, e.g.:

much - more - most (vowel and consonant interchange);

pronouns differentiate cases and numbers, e.g.:

thou - thee (vowel interchange).

this ~ these (vowel and consonant interchange);

irregular verbs differentiate their main forms, e.g.:

to sing - sang - sung (vowel interchange),

to send ~ sent - sent (consonant interchange).

Sound interchange is often combined with affixation, e.g.:

they-them.

Analytical Forms

Analytical forms admit of several interpretations. Some linguists think that synthetic forms represent words, analytical -combinations of words [P.H. Matthews]. If we accepted this definition, we would be bound to admit that all languages are analytical because the number of word combinations is always greater than the number of words.

Other linguists say that analytical forms are easily divided into their components as opposed to synthetic forms that represent more closely connected units [V. Tauli]. In this case, the notion of analytical form loses its defmiteness because the question arises how to gauge the degree of integrity of the components under examination.

Some linguists identify analytical forms with phraseological units. This conception is theoretically wrong since phraseological units constitute a specific level of language structure [A.V. Kunin], clearly distinct from the grammatical level to which analytical forms belong.

Traditionally, the analytical form is defined as a unity of a notional word and an auxiliary word. In the opinion of L.S. Barkhudarov and D.A. Shteling, the first component in the analytical form is devoid of lexical meaning, the second has lost its grammatical characteristics.

According to A.I. Smirnitsky, the first component in the analytical form always retains some of its lexical meaning. He adduces the following proofs.

1. Perfect and passive forms are identical in their second component (Participle II). Cf:

has written is written.

Nevertheless, we never fail to distinguish these forms because their first components has and is are lexically different.

A.I. Smirnitsky is right: perfect and passive forms are easily distinguished in the language. But they are grammatical forms, so it seems more likely that it is not the lexical, but the grammatical meanings of the first components that help differentiate them.

2. The first component of an analytical form may be used independently in short answers, which also testifies to its having a certain lexical meaning. Cf.:

Are you listening to the radio? — Yes, I am (R. Murphy).

Does he work hard? - Yes, he does (R. Murphy).

Did you pack the bags yourself? - Yes, I did (P. Viney).

However, it is not only words with full or weakened lexical meanings that can be used in an independent function in the sentence. Take, for example, the so-called prop-words that are completely devoid of any lexical meaning and still perform the function of this or that part of the sentence, e.g.: I'd like a pound of apples. - Which ones? - The red ones (M. Swan), where the prop-word ones is a direct object.

B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya hold that the first component in the analytical form has no lexical meaning. Otherwise, we would have to admit that writes — is -written represent two different words, not grammatical forms of one and the same word.

That's why it seems better to exclude the first component of an analytical form from lexical units. The latter, of course, does not mean that the first component in the analytical form is an 'empty' word. It carries the grammatical meaning of the analytical complex, and grammatical meaning is one of many types of meaning.

Lexically, the first components of analytical forms are heterogeneous. Some have become pure auxiliaries; others still preserve their original lexical meanings to a certain extent, for analytical forms go back to free word combinations, where each component was used in accordance with its own lexical meaning. The first group of analytical forms are analytical forms in the proper sense of the term (e.g. the continuous aspect - he is sleeping; the perfect phase — she has cooked dinner, etc.). The second group comprises transitional cases that cause much controversy among linguists. Strictly speaking, when the first component preserves some of its lexical meaning, the complex should be regarded as a combination of words and not as a word form. However, one should not disregard the nature of the conveyed meaning and the current tendencies in the development of the language. For instance, linguists are still at variance as to how to treat combinations with more and most (more beautiful - most beautiful). On the face of it,

they should be referred to free word combinations because the first components more and most belong to notional words. But if one bears in mind that they realize the same grammatical meanings of degrees of comparison as the suffixes -er and -est and that the number of analytical forms in Modern English is constantly on the increase, then one will find it possible to regard them as analytical degrees of comparison in the making (in the process of being made).

Structurally, analytical forms are word combinations; functionally they are equivalent to words. The analytical way of form building is productive in Modern English, especially in the system of the verb.

The length of an analytical form, according to I.B. Khlebnikova. is usually limited to four items for two reasons. First, the limited span of immediate memory. The analytical form is a regressive structure, which means that the main meaningful item of the construction is placed at the end, and a human being cannot grasp and hold in his memory a longer unit with a single generalized meaning. The depth hypothesis was formulated by G.A. Miller and V. Yngve. Second, considerations of euphony are very important, too.

Analytical forms cannot form a system without the existence of parallel synthetic formations.

There is a growing tendency in Modern colloquial English to abbreviate the first finite auxiliary component of an analytical form. Contraction is to be found in the forms of the present, past, and future tenses, continuous aspect, perfect phase, conjunctive mood, and passive constructions. Cf:

I've got a cousin who lives in Athens (M. Swan).

Who'd you talk to? (J.D. Salinger).

/'// call you tomorrow (B. Gutcheon).

Don't go out now. It's raining (R. Murphy).

We've bought a new car (R. Murphy).

PA have told you earlier if I'd known (Get Your Tenses Right).

It's broken (V. Evans).

The most frequent type of contracted auxiliary verb is with personal pronouns, e.g.:

You're wasting your time (P. Viney).

Contracted auxiliary verbs also occur in the following cases.

1. With some indefinite, negative, and interrogative pronouns,

Someone's comin' out (E. O'Neill). What's going on here"? (H. Pinter).

2. With some adverbs introducing direct questions, e.g.:
Where 've I been since supperl (T. Williams).

3. With proper names and other nouns, e.g.:

Charlie's helping Phoebe sort out the computer (B. Gutcheon).

That kid's got talent (S. Heym).

But they are less frequent than contracted auxiliary verbs with personal pronouns.

According to V.V. Buzarov, contracted auxiliary verb forms are not used if the nominal component ends in the same sound, e.g.:

The gas has gone out (H. Pinter).

In our opinion, the occurrence of a similar sound in the nominal component makes the auxiliary verb contraction highly improbable, too, because it is usually impossible to pronounce the resultant sound combination, e.g.:

What'd" he do? - Frankly, I'd just as soon not go into details (J.D. Salinger).

Finite auxiliary verbs are generally not abbreviated when they are stressed, i.e. in affirmative general questions, short answers to general questions, and tag-questions. Cf.:

Have the police been hereyetl (E.S. Gardner).

Does your sister still live in Canada? — Yes, she does (M. Foley, D. Hall).

You haven't met my wife, haveyoul (M. Swan).

The only exception to the rule is the auxiliary verb do in the present indefinite. When opening general questions in colloquial speech, it can sometimes be contracted. Thus, instead of saying Do you have any of the letter si (E.S Gardner), we can say D'you have any of the letters!

The contraction of a finite auxiliary verb results in its losing a vowel. Since all English words, including function words, always comprise a vowel, contracted forms of auxiliary verbs cannot be regarded as words.

What is more, words are autonomous. Contracted auxiliary verbs are not autonomous: they are joined to the preceding nominal component by an apostrophe.

In view of the fact that contracted auxiliary verbs render grammatical meaning and are not autonomous, we find it possible to qualify them as grammatical morphemes.

According to J. Barren, the auxiliary verb, over time, has become an affix supplying information regarding tense, aspect, and other verbal categories to the whole sentence.

The morphemic status of contracted auxiliary verbs seems indisputable. However, the question arises if they can be regarded as traditional inflectional morphemes. Traditional inflectional morphemes form an organic whole with the base of the word. Contracted auxiliary verbs are separated from the nominal component by an apostrophe. Traditional inflectional morphemes create word forms (or grammemes). Contracted auxiliary verbs cannot form new grammatical forms of the nominal component because they belong to different parts of speech. We suggest that contracted auxiliary verbs should be called specific grammatical morphemes.

The use of contracted auxiliary verbs brings about a significant redistribution of predicative categories in the English sentence. In sentences with full forms of auxiliary verbs, the predicative categories of modality and tense are expressed in the verbal component, the predicative category of person — usually in the nominal component. In sentences with contracted forms of auxiliary verbs, all the predicative categories find their expression in the nominal component. This is a peculiarity of the English language. In Russian, only the verbal component can render all the predicative categories.

Suppietive Forms

Suppletive forms go back to different roots, e.g.: good - better - best.

According to A.I. Smirnitsky, different roots constitute suppletive forms on the following conditions.

1. If they fully coincide in their lexical meaning, e.g.: go — went — gone.

The three forms have the same meaning of moving.

2, If there are no synonymous non-suppletive forms to express
the same grammatical meaning, e.g.:

good - better - best.

The meanings of a higher and the highest degree of the given quality can be conveyed only by suppletive forms. The non-suppletive forms *gooder - goodest do not exist.

3. If other words of the same category have non-suppletive
forms to express the same grammatical meaning. Thus, the forms
good - better - best are qualified as suppietive degrees of
comparison of the adjective good because the English language has
a great number of adjectives that form degrees of comparison non-
suppjetively. Cf.:

nice — nicer - nicest,

big - bigger - biggest, etc.

English nouns have no suppletive forms. True, some regard people as a suppletive plural from person. But the noun person has another plural form, persons, which is non-suppletive, and suppletive forms cannot be synonymous with non-suppletive formations. In the second place, the noun people has a collective meaning that is alien to the noun person. As to suppletive forms, they must be lexically identical. That's why A.I. Smirnitsky draws the conclusion that people is not a suppletive plural from person.

Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 2454; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

Поделиться с друзьями:

⇐ Предыдущая 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Следующая ⇒

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!