What Language Units Do We Classify into Parts of Speech ?

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 6 из 45Следующая ⇒

Traditionally, it is only words that are classified into parts of speech. According to NJ. Avaliany, L.I. Rojsenson and A.M. Lyatina, word combinations can be referred to parts of speech, too, on condition that they are grammatically, semantical!}', and phraseologically equivalent to words.

This conception, however, makes the boundaries of parts of speech rather vague since it is very difficult to say which word combinations have already turned into word equivalents and which have not.

Development of Parts of Speech

The category of parts of speech is slowly but constantly changing. For instance, the adjective in Old English had three genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter; two numbers: singular and plural; five cases: nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, and instrumental; and three degrees of comparison: positive, comparative, and superlative. In Modern English, the adjective has become an uninflected part of speech except for the category of degrees of comparison in qualitative adjectives.

THE NOUN

General Characteristics

The English noun is a pan of speech that is characterized by the following features. 1.. Meaning:

a) generalized lexi co-grammatical primary meaning of
'thingness', e.g.: table, chair, lamp, etc.;

b) generalized grammatical secondary meaning of'thingness',
t.g.:joy, peace, milk, etc.

2. Cpmbinabijity with:

a) verbs, both in preposition and in postposition, e.g.:
He closed the door ... (S. Sheldon),

The door closed (I. Murdoch);

b) adjectives, usually in preposition, e.g.:
She was a beautiful girl... (J. Cheever);

c) prepositive nouns, both in the genitive and in the common
case, e.g.:

... and the evenings were long and happy, because Robert's father was there (N. Hale),

I saw it in the Chicago newspaper (F.S. Fitzgerald);

d) prepositive articles and other determiners, e.g.:
Wait a minute (E. Hemingway),

The father tried his best... (W.C. Williams), My heart sank a little (W.S. Maugham);

e) prepositions, e.g.:

He read a letter from his wife to me (T. Mori);

3. Syntactic .Functions:

a) subject, e.g.:

Father decided to take a holiday from his office... (S. Leacock);

b) object, e.g.:

You love your parents, don't you? (J.D. Salinger).

4. MorphologicaJ Structure.

As far as their morphological structure is concerned, nouns fall under the following types;

a) simple,

b) derived,

c) compound.

Simple nouns have neither prefixes nor suffixes, e.g.: book, pen, pencil, table, chair, lamp, etc.

Derived nouns have either a prefix or a suffix or both. Noun derivational prefixes typically do not change the word class; i.e. the prefix is attached to a noun base to form a new noun with a different meaning, e.g.:

group - subgroup.

Noun derivational suffixes, on the other hand, often change the word class; i.e. the suffix is often attached to a verb or adjective base to form a noun with a different meaning. Cf.:

agree (v) — agreement (n),

effective (adj) — effectiveness (n).

There are, however, also many nouns that are derived by suffixes from other nouns, e.g.:

infant (n) — infancy, (n).

Apart from derivation by affixes, there is also zero derivation (or conversion). Adjectives and verbs may be converted to nouns. The noun often acquires more specific meanings with conversion. Cf:

White (adj) — You could see the whites of his eyes (D. Biber et aL).

Walk (v) — Let's go for a walk (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

Affixes vary in frequency and productivity, i.e. the extent to which they are used to build new words. Noun derivational prefixes are considerably less frequent and less productive than noun derivational suffixes. A reason why derivational prefixes are less productive than derivational suffixes is perhaps that many of them are of Greek origin, whereas almost all the suffixes are of Romance or native Germanic origin. It is noticeable that the two most productive prefixes are in fact Latinate ones: co- and sub-. Cf.: co-chairman, sub-committee.

The productivity of the Greek prefixes hyper-, mono-, and poly- could be due to the fact that they arrived in English more recently and are frequently used nowadays to create new lexical items, mainly in specialized scientific areas. Cf.: hyperinflation, monosyllable, polysyllable.

Although derivational suffixes are characterized by a higher frequency of occurrence than derivational prefixes, there are

extensive differences in the productivity of noun derivational suffixes. The suffix -ion is by far the most productive, e.g.: action, communication, education, operation, situation, etc.

The derivational suffixes -ity, -er, -ness, -ism, and -ment are relatively productive, too, e.g.: ability, writer, darkness, realism, development, etc.

Since in academic discussions frequent reference is made to abstract concepts that usually find their expression in derived abstract nouns, derivational affixes are by far the most productive in academic prose.

In compound nouns two or more than two words are combined to form a single noun. In English, compounding is a highly productive process. Cf.: eye-witness, lamp-post, bigwig, cookbook, rocking-chair, income, self-control, etc.

Practice varies as to whether to represent a compound as two orthographic words, one unbroken orthographic word, or a hyphenated word. Partly this is because there is no clear dividing line between compounds and free combinations.

Compounds are over twice as frequent in news than in conversation. It is not surprising, for the overall frequency of nouns in conversation is much smaller than in news. What is more, the greater variety of compound patterns in news fits in with the tendency of this register to use a more varied vocabulary.

'Noun + noun compounds' are the most productive type structurally, e.g.: newspaper. The next most common types of compounds are those consisting of adjective 4- noun and those beginning or ending with a particle, e.g.: highway, feedback, outfit.

5- Mprphplo^cal.Categones.

Nouns that possess a generalized lexico-grammatical primary meaning of 'thingness' and are consequently placed in the centre of the noun field have the morphological categories of case and number.

The Category of Case

Definition of Case

The notion of case goes back to Ancient Greece. However, they understood it differently then. Thus, Aristotle defined cases as deviations from names and verbs due to the logically dependent position in the sentence, i.e. according to Aristotle, both nouns and verbs had cases.

The Stoics restricted the use of the term 'case¹ to noun paradigms. They were the first to call them 'nominative, genitive, dative, accusative, vocative, and instrumental'.

Nowadays, case is usually regarded as a morphological form of a declinable word used to express a certain meaning or to denote a certain relation to other words [C.T. Onions].

B.A. Ilyish gives another definition. In his opinion, case is a category of the noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and another thing, property, or action. This definition does not stand criticism: being a linguistic notion, case cannot connect objects of extra linguistic reality.

Number of Cases

Linguists are still at variance as to the number of cases in Modern English. Representatives of universal grammar speak of 6 cases, i.e. they apply the Latin system to the English language. But English has its own peculiarities that should not be disregarded. For example, as opposed to inflected Latin, Modem English is an analytical language.

J.C. Nesfield mentions 5 cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative remarking at the same time that the genitive is the only case that is now indicated by change of form. The other cases have lost their case inflections and are indicated only by grammatical relation.

When a noun is used as subject, it is said to be in the nominative case, e.g.:

Rainfalls (J.C. Nesfield).

When a noun is used for the sake of address, it is said to be in the vocative case, e.g.:

Pronouns: Nouns:

Are you coming, my friend"? (J.C. Nesfield).

When a noun is a direct object, it is said to be in the accusative case, e.g.:

Mary took the money (M. Vince, K. McNicholas).

When a noun is an indirect object, it is said to be in the dative case, e.g.:

1 gave the boy a penny (J.C. Nesfieid).

If we stick to the definition of case as a morphological category, we shall have to admit that neither nominative, nor vocative, nor accusative, nor dative exist in Modern English because there are no formal distinctions between them.

According to G. Curme, there are 4 cases in Modern English: nominative, genitive, dative, and accusative. These cases did exist in Old English. In the course of time, however, the original nominative, dative, and accusative coincided in one form that is opposed nowadays to the inflected genitive.

But G. Curme thinks that the relations that were earlier expressed by special case inflections are now indicated by word order and prepositional combinations.

However, case is a morphological category, and word order is a syntactic factor. As for the theory of the so-called analytical cases that consist of a preposition and a noun, it is debatable, too. B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya deny their existence on the following grounds.

1. Every grammatical category should comprise a limited
number of members. If we referred prepositional combinations to
case forms, the number of cases would grow immensely, and we
would be merely creating the illusion of classification.

2. Analytical forms are generally singled out as opposed to
synthetic forms. With prepositional constructions, it is different.
They are often synonymous with the so-called synthetic cases, e.g.:

the house of your neighbour = your neighbour's house (O. Jespersen).

3. There is much subjectivity in the choice of prepositions.

M. Bryant and H. Whitehall single out 3 cases in Modern English nouns by analogy with case forms of personal pronouns: nominative, genitive, and objective.

Objective

Genitive

his man's

Nominative

him man

he man

Criticizing this point of view, A.I. Smirnitsky puts forth the following arguments.

1. Nouns and personal pronouns belong to different parts of
speech.

2. The group of personal pronouns is rather small. That's why
it is doubtful that the case system of personal pronouns could
influence the case system of nouns.

What is more, nouns lack special inflections for the nominative and the objective.

The majority of linguists recognize the existence of 2 cases in Modern English: common and genitive. The common case is unmarked both in meaning and in form. It has a very general meaning that is specified by means of word order and prepositions and that may be characterized only negatively as a non-genitive form. It is represented by a zero exponent. Nouns in the common case can perform any syntactic function in the sentence. Cf.:

Suddenly the weather changed (L. Untermeyer) - subject.

He touched my hand (G. Jones) - direct object.

The grocer gave the baby a stick of candy ... (H. Garland) -non-prepositional indirect object.

Mrs. Hail did not ask about her affairs (H. Garland) -prepositional indirect object.

He was a shy man (B. MacLeverty) - predicative.

She's in the souvenir shop (English Course) - attribute.

He had not seen Mabel for seven years (W.S. Maugham) -adverbial.

Genitive Case Form of the Genitive Case

The genitive case is marked both in meaning and in form. The regular way of forming the genitive case of singular nouns is by adding 's, e.g.:

My sister's little girl fell downstairs (J. Cheever).

There are two ways of forming the genitive case of plural nouns. If the plural ends in -s, we just add an apostrophe, e.g.:

Even grandmothers' dreams don't always come true... (D.H. Lawrence).

If the plural does not end in -s, we add 's, e.g.:

The children's toys are new (R. Quirk et al.).

Meaning of the Genitive Case

The central meaning of the genitive case is that of possession.

e.g.:

Vinny would inherit her mother's money (D.H. Lawrence).

That's why A.I. Smirnitsky suggests that the genitive case should be called the possessive case.

The meaning of possession, however, is not the only meaning of the genitive case. In Old English, the genitive case had a wide range of meanings. Nowadays, the scope of meanings of the genitive case has narrowed. Nevertheless, linguists, both abroad and in this country, mention several semantic types of the genitive case.

1. Possessive genitive, e.g.:

Mrs. Johnson's passport —» Mrs. Johnson has a passport (R. Quirk etal.).

2. Subjective genitive, indicating the doer of the action, e.g.:
the people's choice —» The people chose (S. Greenbaum).

3. Genitive of source, denoting such relationships as
authorship and origin. Cf.:

the general's letter —> The general wrote a letter (R. Quirk et al.).

Australia's exports —» the exports that come from Australia (S. Greenbaum).

4. Objective genitive, indicating the object of the action, e.g.:
Kennedy's assassination —» Somebody assassinated Kennedy

(S. Greenbaum).

5. Temporal genitive, denoting a period of time, e.g.:

ten days' absence —> The absence lasted ten days (R. Quirk et al.).

6. Equational genitive, establishing the identity of the referent,

a mile's distance

The distance is a

(L.S. Barkhudarov).

7. Genitive of destination, e.g.:

a women's college —»• a college for women (R. Quirk et al.).

The semantic classification, in the opinion of R. Quirk and his co-authors, is in part arbitrary. For example, one could claim that cow's milk is not a genitive of origin (milk from a cow) but a subjective genitive (The cow provided the milk}. No wonder that L.S. Barkhudarov sometimes finds it difficult to name the kerne! sentence from which the construction with the genitive case has been derived, e.g.: Nick's school (L.S. Barkhudarov). Of course, Nick's school could be transformed into Nick goes to school, but such transformations can be regarded only as quasi transformations [Z. Harris] because they do not give an opportunity to clearly formulate the rules of generating constructions with the genitive case.

Types of Nouns Used in the Genitive Case

In Old English, the genitive case was freely formed from all nouns. In Modern English, the genitive case is restricted to the following nouns.

1. Personal names, e.g.:

George Washington's statue (R. Quirk et al.).

2. Personal nouns, e.g.:

the boy's new bicycle (R. Quirk et al.).

3. Animal nouns, in particular those denoting 'higher animals',
e.g.:

the horse's tail (R. Quirk et al.), the dog's collar (R. Quirk et al.).

4. Collective nouns, which emphasize the aspect of 'organized
individuals¹, in particular those denoting authoritative and other
organizational bodies, e.g.:

the government's economic plans (R. Quirk et al.), the committee's decision (R. Quirk et al.)-

5. Geographical names:

continents: Europe's future (R. Quirk et al.), countries: China's development (R. Quirk et al.),

states: Maryland's Democratic senator (R. Quirk et al.), cities and towns: London's water supply (R. Quirk et al.), universities: Harvard's Department of Linguistics (R. Quirk et al.).

6. Locative nouns denoting regions, institutions, heavenly
bodies, etc. They can be very similar to geographical names, and are
often written with initial capital letters, e.g.:

the world's economy (R. Quirk et af,), the Club ^!s pianist (R. Quirk et al.), (he hotel's entrance (R. Quirk et al.), (he school's history (R. Quirk et al.).

7. Temporal nouns, e.g.:

a day's work(R. Quirk et al.),

a moment's thought (R. Quirk et al.),

today's payer (R. Quirk et al.).

8. Other nouns of 'special relevance to human activity', e.g.:
the mind's development (R. Quirk et al.),

the body's needs (R. Quirk et a!.),

my life's aim (R. Quirk et al,),

the book's true importance (R. Quirk et ai.),

the play's philosophy (R. Quirk et al.),

the novel's structure (R. Quirk et al.),

a word's function (R. Quirk et al.),

television's future (R. Quirk et al,),

duty's call (R. Quirk et al.),

the poll's results (R. Quirk et al.),

the treaty's ratification (R. Quirk et al.).

Use of the Genitive Case

As to its use, the genitive case fails under dependent and independent. Dependent genitives are used with the nouns they modify and come before them, e.g.:

He stared at his aunt's face (J.C. Gates).

Independent genitives occur without a following head noun. Many independent genitives involve ellipsis. In elliptical genitives, the head noun can be inferred either from the preceding or from the following context. Cf.:

My car is faster than John's (R. Quirk et al.).

Mary's was the prettiest dress (R. Quirk et al.).

Other independent genitives have become conventional, and they need no supporting noun head in the context. They generally refer to people's homes, shops, restaurants, bars, firms, and other places. R. Quirk and his co-authors call them local independent genitives. Cf.:

We 'H meet at Bill's (R. Quirk et al.).

/ bought these buns at the baker's (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

Let s have dinner at Tiffany's (R. Quirk et al.).

I'm going to the dentist's (R. Quirk et al,).

Elliptical independent genitives are relatively rare in all registers. Local independent genitives are more frequent, but still rare compared with dependent genitives. Conversation makes the most frequent use of independent genitives. Independent genitives reflect the greater simplicity of phrases in conversation.

Choice between S-Genitives and Of-Phrases

The genitive meaning can be rendered by a noun as head of a prepositional phrase with of. The (^phrase is normally used with inanimate concrete nouns, e.g.:

the roof of this house (R. Quirk et al.).

The choice between the i'-genitive and the q^phrase, according to the authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, varies depending upon a number of factors, the most important of which are: register, the type of dependent noun, semantic relations between head and the dependent phrase, the complexity of the dependent phrase, the information status of the dependent phrase, and specific collocations.

Register. S-genitives are outnumbered by o/-phrases in all registers. The far greater frequency of ey^phrases in all registers may be due to the fact that postmodification produces a less dense and more transparent means of expression. The frequency of o/phrases represents the current state of a historical shift towards of that has been ongoing ever since Old English, where inflected genitive predominated.

News has by far the highest frequency of the ^-genitive, presumably because it represents a good way of compressing information. The low frequency of j-genitives in academic prose in

part reflects the suojcC* .patter of academic prose, where human beings and relationships play a less important roie than in other registers. Academic prose has by far the highest frequency of o/-phrases because the postmodiiying structure makes it clear which words go together and opens up more possibilities of qualifying the dependent noun.

The...type..pX.dependent..npun. Nouns with human/personal reference tend to occur with the s-genitive rather than an o/-phrase. Nouns with inanimate concrete reference and abstract impersonal nouns tend to occur in an of-phrase rather than the ^-genitive. Plural nouns are generally more likely to occur in e/-phrases than singular nouns.

Semantic..relations.between_.head.arid.._dependent; phrase. To indicate the object of an action, one usually resorts to an q^phrase. To render the meaning of possession and to denote the doer of an action, one generally makes use of the ^-genitive.

The..complexj^....of...^e...deE^4eQt..£feMe. Most typically, 5-genitive constructions are used in one-word dependent phrases. In contrast, of-phr&ses are commonly used in much longer dependent phrases.

The., information....^ S-genitives,

coming before the head noun, are generally preferred for presenting given information; y/parases, following the head noun, are preferred for presenting new information. The choice agrees with one of the main ordering principles at the clause level, namely the information principle, stating that new information should be distributed later in the clause.

Specific....collocations. Genitives tend to occur in fixed collocations. Cf:

at death ^!s door,

life's work,

out of harm 's way.

The genitive with the word sake is particularly productive, e.g.:

for God's sake, for goodness' sake, for heaven 's sake.,

for old time 's/times' sake, etc.

Double Genitive

The double genitive is a special construction in which the independent genitive occurs in an of-phrase, e.g.:

He is a good friend of my husband's (S. Gibbons).

Constructions with of plus a possessive pronoun are often alternatives to double genitives. Cf.:

a friend of Deborah's (D. Biber et al.),

a friend of hers (D. Biber et al,).

The double genitive is far less common than corresponding constructions with possessive pronouns. The low frequency of the double genitive may in part be due to the fact that it competes with ordinary postmodi tying q^-phrases. Cf:

a friend of Deborah's —*• a friend of Deborah (D. Biber et a!.).

For the corresponding constructions with possessive pronouns there is no such alternative:

a friend of hers —> *a friend of her (D. Biber et al.).

The construction with of plus a possessive pronoun is particularly common in fiction.

The postmodifier in the double genitive must be definite and human, e.g.;

an opera of Verdi's (R. Quirk et al.).

The head noun in the double genitive must be essentially indefinite. That's why it is most typically preceded by the indefinite article if it is expressed by a common noun in the singular or by such words as some, several, and the like. Cf.:

a friend of the doctor's (R. Quirk et al.),

some friends of Jim's (R. Quirk et al.),

several pupils of his (R. Quirk et al.).

As a consequence of the condition that the head must be indefinite, the head cannot be a proper noun. Thus, while we can say Mrs. Brown's Mary (R. Quirk et al.), we cannot say *Mary of Mrs. Brown's (R. Quirk et al.).

Neither can the head combine with the definite article. When the noun preceding the o/-phrase has definite reference, the s-genitive would be used in preference to the double genitive, e.g.: Johnny's good idea instead of *the good idea of Johnny's (D. Biber et al.).

But the double genitive is commonly found with demonstratives, e.g.:

that irritating habit of her father's (R. Quirk et al.).

Group Genitive

Sometimes the genitive suffix is attached not to the head noun, but to the last word of a genitive phrase. It is the so-called group genitive. The group genitive is most common with of-phrases and coordinate phrases. Cf.:

the Museum of Modern Art's Director (R, Quirk et al.),

a minute or two's rest (B. Biber et al.).

Linguistic Status of's

G.N. Vorontsova denies the existence of the genitive case in Modem English. She offers the following proofs.

1. The use of the genitive case inflection 's is optional It
generally occurs with reference to human beings. With nouns
denoting inanimate things and abstract notions, the genitive case
relation is rendered by the o/-phrase, e.g.;

/ sat at the foot of the bed... (E. Hemingway).

The mysteries of storm and the rain and tide were revealed (J. Galsworthy).

What is more, even those nouns, which do admit of the genitive case, often resort to the o/phrase to render the meaning of the genitive case. Cf.:

From the corner of my eye I had seen something small and white fly from Julian's body (L. Durrell).

/ could not see the body of Julian... (L. Durrell).

2. One and the same inflection ('s) is used both in the singular
and in the plural, which is usually not to be found in other
languages. Cf.:

English: the man's hat (V. Evans) - genitive singular,

the men's umbrellas (V. Evans) - genitive plural. Russian: McuibvuKa ~ genitive singular, - genitive plural.

3. The genitive case inflection goes back not to the Old
English genitive ~es, but to the formations of the kind the king his
head.

4. The 's does not make an inseparable part of the structure of
a word. Sometimes the 's refers to a whole group of words, e.g.:

The University of Minnesota^ President (R. Quirk et al.).

The function of the 's, according to G.N. Vorontsova, is parallel to that of a preposition, except that it is placed after the noun phrase. That's why G.N. Vorontsova calls it 'a postposition' (noc&enoe). R. Quirk and his co-authors call it an 'enclitic postposition'. An enclitic is an independent word in syntax that forms a phonological unit with the word that precedes it [P.M. Matthews].

A.I. Smirnitsky does not share G.N. Vorontsova's conception. He looks upon the 's as a grammatical morpheme of case. Here are his arguments.

1. Its general meaning 'the relation of a noun to another word'
is typical case meaning.

2. Although the use of the genitive case is relatively restricted
in Modern English and the o/-phrase is very often used in the same
sense, the inflected genitive can be formed from any noun. Cf.:

... he challenged the house's silence (W. Deeping). ... the clock's tick was as heavy as feet (J. Hanley). ... he could see her shoulders' softness... (D.H. Lawrence).

3. One and the same inflection occurs both in the singular and
in the plural only in nouns that form the plural in an irregular way,
and such nouns, as is well known, are very few.

4. Historically, the 's goes back to the Old English genitive
case inflection -es. The latter can be proved by comparing English
with the Scandinavian languages, which had very much in common.
In the Scandinavian languages, the genitive case had been
developing in the same way, although the possessive construction
the king his head was alien to them.

5. The 's can be separated from the noun it modifies, but cases
of the kind the University of Minnesota's President are not as
numerous as those where the 's morpheme is attached to the noun it
modifies. According to B.S. Khaimovich and B.I. Rogovskaya, they
constitute only about 4%.

6. The existence of certain lexical restrictions in the use of the
inflected genitive also testifies to the fact that the 's cannot be
included into one group with prepositions for the use of a
preposition is generally determined by the meaning of the
preposition itself and not by the meaning of the noun it introduces.

7. Finally, the 's differs from English prepositions
phonetically, in not having a vowel.

L.S. Barkhudarov thinks that neither of the two interpretations is convincing. On the one hand, we cannot follow G.N. Vorontsova and say that the 's is a word.

1. In the English language, all words comprise a vowel.

2. If the 's were a word, then it would be impossible to account
for the morphological structure of such constructions as the boys'

friends, where one and the same morph [z] would have to be regarded as a morpheme when rendering the grammatical meaning of the plural number and as a word when rendering the grammatical meaning of the genitive case. The latter is absurd.

On the other hand, the 's is hardly a traditional morpheme, as A.L Smirnitsky thinks. Really, if the 's were a traditional morpheme, the preceding sequence of elements would have to be looked upon as a compound word, for a traditional morpheme always makes part of a word. The structure of inflected genitive case forms, however, runs counter to the current definition of the word, according to which we cannot insert into the word any other word, word combination, or clause. In the constructions under examination, this can be done. Cf.:

A week's sunshine —*• a week or so's sunshine (R. Quirk et al.). — The conjunctional combination or so is inserted between the head noun week and the 's.

The teacher's room ~»• the teacher of music's room (R. Quirk et al,). - The prepositional combination of music is inserted between the head noun teacher and the 's.

The boy's brother —» the boy who lives across the street's brother (A. Hill). - The clause who lives across the street is inserted between the head noun boy and the 's.

(True, according to R. Quirk and his co-authors, the group genitive is not normally acceptable when the postmodifi cation is a clause.).

Hence, L.S. Barkhudarov draws the conclusion that the 's is neither a word nor a traditional morpheme. It is a specific

morpheme that can be attached not only to single words but occasionally also to combinations of words.

Different Approaches to the Study of Case

There are different approaches to the study of case as a morphological category. Many traditional studies have examined various uses of case. More recent work has been directed toward the analysis of the case systems of different languages. A great deal of research, early and late, has been devoted to an understanding of the evolution of case notions and of case morphemes.

For Ch.J. Fillmore and his adherents, case is not an element of the surface, but of the deep structure of a sentence. The deep (or basic) structure of a sentence, according to Ch.J. Fillmore, consists of a verb and one or more noun phrases, each associated with the verb in a particular syntactic-semantic (or case) relationship. ChJ. Fillmore singles out 7 semantic cases.

1. Agentive — the case of the typically animate instigator of the
action indicated by the verb, e.g.:

John opened the door (ChJ. Fillmore).

The door was opened by John (Ch.J. Fillmore).

2. Instrumental - the case of the inanimate force or object
involved in bringing about the action or state indicated by the verb,
e.g.:

The key opened the door (Ch.J, Fillmore).

John opened the door with the key (Ch.J. Fillmore).

John used the key to open the door (ChJ. Fillmore).

3. Dative - the case of the animate being affected by the state
or action indicated by the verb, e.g.:

John believed that he would win (ChJ. Fillmore).

We persuaded John that he would win (ChJ. Fillmore).

It was apparent to John that he would win (ChJ. Fillmore).

4. Factitive - the case of the object or being resulting from the
action or state indicated by the verb, e.g.:

John built the house (ChJ. Fillmore).

5. Locative - the case that identifies the location or spatial
orientation of the state or action indicated by the verb, e.g.:

Chicago is windy (ChJ. Fillmore).

It is windy in Chicago (ChJ. Fillmore).

6. Benefactive - the case of the typically animate being who
benefits from the action or state indicated by the verb, e.g.:

Jennie got skipping-ropes for the twins that day... (M. Spark).

7. Objective - the semantically most neutral case.
ChJ. Fillmore thinks that the concept of the objective case should
be limited to things which are affected by the action or state
indicated by the verb, e.g.:

John opened the door (ChJ. Fillmore).

The door was opened by John (ChJ. Fillmore).

The key opened the door (ChJ. Fillmore).

John opened the door with the key (ChJ. Fillmore).

John used the key to open the door (ChJ. Fillmore).

The door opened (ChJ. Fiflmore).

A semantic case may correspond to varying roles (or forms) in the surface structure. For instance, Locative in the sentence It is windy in Chicago corresponds to an adverbial; while in the sentence Chicago is windy it is represented by the subject.

The number of semantic cases varies from author to author. R. Schank singles out 5 semantic cases, ChJ. Fillmore, W.L. Chafe, V.G. Gak and I.P. Susov - 7, D.G. Lockwood - 9, V.V. Bogdanov - 14, Y.D. Apressyan - 25. N.N. Leontyeva - 50. The higher the degree of detailization, the greater is the number of the singled out semantic cases. To determine the optimum degree of detailization is extremely difficult. However, one thing is clear: when the number of semantic cases grows indefinitely, the classification loses its definiteness and finally disappears.

A.P. Guminsky denies the central role of the verb in the sentence and places the noun in focus. In his opinion, there exist only two semantic cases: ucxodnu^uu and soMUKaiouiuu, e.g.:

John loves Mary (E.K. Brown, I.E. Miller).

The simplicity of the binary approach is tempting. But simplicity should not be an end in itself. The question arises: does it contribute to a better understanding of the semantic structure of the sentence? The answer is ^lNo\ The abstraction of the binary semantic case system is so high that it can hardly be successfully applied in the process of analysis without some detailization.

The Category of Number

From a logical point of view, the distinction is between one and more than one. The corresponding grammatical distinction is between singular and plural, e.g.: a table - tables.

Some linguists say that the essential meaning of the category of number is not that of quantity, but that of discreteness. The plural, according to them, denotes something consisting of distinguishable parts, e.g.: spectacles, scissors, trousers, etc. [E.A. Korneyeva, N.A. Kobrina. K.A. Guzeyeva, M.I. Ossovskaya].

These nouns do indicate discrete things consisting of two parts. But we are hardly justified in referring them to the plural number because they have no singular counterparts, and the plural and the singular are correlative notions: when there is no singular, we cannot speak about the plural, and vice versa.

So, the generalized grammatical meaning of number is that of quantity. In Modern English, it is represented by the opposition 'oneness (singular) - more than oneness (plural)'.

At first sight, it may seem that the difference between the singular and the plural is not grammatical, but lexical since, for example, table (singular) and tables (plural) denote different objects of extra linguistic reality [F.F. Fortunatov].

However, we know that the meaning of a word cannot be identified with the thing it is used to denote. Besides, we should not disregard the fact that the idea of plurality usually has constant grammatical forms of its expression. In English, it is the inflection ~(e)s, e.g.:

a lamp — lamps,

a box - boxes.

(The inflection -es is added after -s, -ss, -ch, -sh, -tch, -x, -z, and -o.).

We can only speak of 'more than one', i.e. of the plural, in regard to things, which, without being identical, belong to the same kind [O. Jespersen]. Plurality, thus, presupposes difference, but if the difference is too great, it is impossible to use words like 'two' or 'three'. For instance, a brick and a musical sound are not two.

Some linguists single out two other types of the plural: lexicalized plural and the plural of approximation.

The so-called lexicalized plural either introduces new shades of meaning into the singular or comes to render a totally different meaning. Cf.:

Tragedy is lack of experience (D.H. Lawrence).

He's had many odd experiences (R. Quirk et a!.).

Colour (ifeem) - colours (<pnaz),

The form of lexicalized plural is identical with that of grammatical plural: -(e)s. But the meaning of lexicalized plural is always different from the corresponding singular. That's why it should be excluded from the grammatical category of number, for the components of the grammatical category of number should be lexically identical.

The plural of approximation, mentioned by O. Jespersen, in our opinion, is closer to lexical forms, for though, like grammatical plural., it ends in -(e)s and denotes several objects, the objects do not belong to the same kind, e.g.: There are many things people remember about the sixties (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor), where sixties does not mean 'one sixty + another sixty + ...', but 'sixty' + 'sixty-one' + 'sixty-two', and so on till 'sixty-nine'.

The combinability with singular verbs and the substitution by singular pronouns testifies to the word-building, i.e. lexical, and not the form-building, i.e. grammatical nature of the morpheme -(e)s in formations of the kind the sixties, the nineties, etc. Cf.:

The sixties was a time when young people used to do whatever they wanted (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor).

There are many things people remember about the sixties. Some remember it for mini-skirts, hippies, and the flower children (J.C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor).

In other words, only those forms are qualified by us as plural that introduce the grammatical meaning of 'more than oneness', without changing the lexical meaning of the singular form.

The category of number in English is represented by the opposition of the singular and the plural. The singular form denotes 'oneness'; it is the non-marked member of the opposition. The plural form denotes 'more than oneness'; it is the marked member of the opposition. The regular way of forming the plural is by adding the -(e)s inflection.

There are several irregular ways of forming the plural.

1. Voicing of final consonant •+• -s plural.

Some nouns ending in -/or ~fe form their plurals by changing the ending to -ves, e.g.: a knife - knives.

Others have regular plurals as well, e.g.: a scarf- scarves (scarfs).

2. Mutation plurals.

In a few nouns, the plural is formed by mutation, i.e. a change in the vowel, e.g.: a man - men, a woman - women, afoot —feet, a tooth - teeth, etc.

3. -en plurals, e.g.:
an ox - oxen.

Children, the plural of child, combines a vowel change and the irregular ending -en.

4. Zero plurals.

Countable nouns that have the same form for singular and plural are said to have zero plural, e.g.: a sheep - sheep, a deer - deer.

5. Foreign plurals.

In many learned words scholars have introduced the plural as well as the singular form from foreign languages, e.g.:

curriculum - curricula,

formula -formulae.

There is. however, a strong tendency to inflect such words in the English way, especially in everyday speech, e.g.:

a formula -formulas.

There is no special form for the common (or generic) number. The meaning of the generic number in English is rendered in the following ways:

1) the singular without any article, e.g.:
Man should be lonely (J. Updike);

2) the singular with the indefinite article, e.g.:
A barking dog does not bite (Proverb);

3) the singular with the definite article, e.g.:
The early bird catches the worm (Proverb);

4) the plural without any article, e.g.:

But rich people do have their problems (N. Monsarrat).

As regards the category of number, all English nouns can be divided into two classes: countable and uncountable. Countable nouns are those that have the opposition 'singular - plural', e.g.: a book - books.

Uncountable nouns do not call up the idea of any definite thing with a certain shape or precise limits. They are either material, e.g.: silver, water, butter, gas, etc., or abstract, e.g.: leisure, music, success, tact, etc.

Those uncountable nouns that always combine with singular verbs and are substituted by singular pronouns are called Singularia Tantum. Most Singularia Tantum are singular in form. Cf.:

Sugar is not fashionable any more (O. Wilde).

Take the money out and countJt (M. White).

/ know my hair is_ beautiful... (Th. Hardy),

Some Singularia Tantum end in -s. They are:

1) the noun news, e.g.:

Well, \vhatj_ the news? (W. Deeping);

2) nouns ending in -ics that denote subjects, sciences, etc.,
e.g.:

Mathematics has the same educational function as classics used to have (M. Swan);

3) names of certain diseases ending in -s, e.g.:
Measles takes a long time to get over (M. Swan);

4) names of some games ending in -s, e.g.:
DraughtsJs an easier game than chess (M. Swan).

The final -5 in ail these cases, however, is not an inflection of the plural number.

Singular collective nouns that refer to groups of people (e.g. family, team, government, etc.) may be treated as either singular or plural. They are treated as plural, especially in British English, when the focus is on the group as individuals. In these cases, a plural verb is used, and the group is referred to by the pronouns they and who, e.g.:

My family are wonderful. They do all they can for me, I don't know any other family who_ would do so much (M. Swan).

They are treated as singular when we see the group as an impersonal unit. In these cases, a singular verb is used, and the

group is referred to by the pronoun it and the words which and that, not who, e.g.:

The average family (which now consists of four members at

most) is a great deal smaller than it used to be (M. Swan).

Those uncountable nouns that always combine with plural verbs and are substituted by plural pronouns are called Pluralia Tantum. Most Pluralia Tantum end in -s. Cf.:

My trousers are getting too small round the waist (M. Swan).

The nurse's wages were good (W. Collins).

Where_are my scissors? (A.S. Hornby).

The sugar-tongs were too wide for one of her hands, and she had to use both in wielding them (Ch. Bronte).

Some Pluralia Tantum lack the final -s. They include the following nouns:

I)people, e.g.:

Were there many people at the meetingl (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);

2)police., e.g.:

The police have caught the murderer (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);

3) cattle, e.g.:

All his cattle were grazing in the field (R. Quirk et al.);

4)poultry (farmyard birds), e.g.:

Where are your poultry? (R. Quirk et al.)¹;

5) livestock (animals kept on a farm), e.g.:

Our livestock are not as numerous as they used to be (R. Quirk et al.);

6) vermin, e.g.:

These vermin cause disease (R. Quirk et al).

According to A.I. Smirnitsky, both Singularia and Pluralia Tantum have the category of number. His point of view, however, does not seem convincing. Every grammatical category must be represented by an opposition of at least two forms. In the case of Singularia and Pluralia Tantum, we deal with one form only. That's why it seems more reasonable to accept the conception of

But the noun poultry is treated as singular in the sense of'meat', e.g.: Poultry is cheaper than meat at the moment (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik and say that both Singularia and Pluralia Tantum stand outside the grammatical category of number.

The Category of Gender

Traditionally, gender is defined as a morphological category that finds its expression in special noun inflections of gender and that is closely tied to the sex of the referent.

"There is no unity of opinion concerning the category of gender in Modern English. Old English nouns distinguished 3 grammatical genders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. H. Sweet finds the same 3 genders in Modern English.

Criticizing the conception of H, Sweet, A.I. Smirnitsky emphasizes that in Modern English it is not nouns, but the things they denote that are classified into the so-called genders. For instance, there is no formal difference between the nouns boy and girl. But the noun boy is considered to belong to the masculine gender, the noun girl - to the feminine gender. In other words, gender in Modern English nouns is expressed lexically.

1. By using totally different nouns, e.g.:
father — mother,

son - daughter, uncle - aunt, man - woman, bull — cow, etc.

2. By using derived nouns with masculine and feminine
suffixes: -er/-or, -ess, e.g.:

waiter - waitress, actor - actress.

3. By using compound nouns in -man and -woman, e.g.:
policeman -policewoman.

4. By using a modifier denoting sex, e.g.:
boy-friend - girl-friend, _

he-goat - she-goat, Tom-cat — Pussy-cat, male nurse, female officer, woman doctor, etc.

English speakers use masculine terms more often than feminine terms. There are two reasons for the preference of male terms over female terms.

1. The continuing male sex bias in English society where men
still hold more positions of power and authority than women.

2. The masculine terms are often used to refer to both sexes,
but not vice versa.

In recent decades, efforts have been made to avoid masculine bias by using gender-neutral compound nouns in -person instead of -man or -woman, e.g.:

Mrs. Ruddock said she had been nominated as spokesperson for the wives (D. Biber et al.).

However, this trend has had limited success so far.

O. Jespersen and J. Vendryes define gender not as a morphological but as a syntactic category because it finds its expression in grammatical agreement. In the opinion of J. Vendryes, when there is no agreement, gender disappears. The loss of inflections, which began in the Middle English period, resulted in an almost complete disappearance of agreement.

Thus, gender in Modern English is expressed neither morphologically, i.e. by special inflections of gender, nor syntactically, i.e. by forms of agreement. Gender in Modem English is a purely lexical category.

The Semantic Classification of Nouns

The semantic classification of nouns still causes much controversy among linguists. According to W.L. Chafe, the distinction between countable and uncountable nouns is most important. V.V. Bogdanov takes the opposition "animate ~ inanimate' as a starting point for his noun classification. We side with Y.S. Stepanov in regarding the relation to extra linguistic reality as a basis for a semantic classification of nouns.

At the first stage, in accordance with the presence or absence of direct connection with extra linguistic reality, all nouns are divided into those denoting objects and those denoting non-objects, i.e. abstract notions. Objects are further subdivided into those having clear-cut boundaries and those having no definite boundaries, i.e. material nouns, e.g.: water, milk, sand, etc. Objects

having clear-cut boundaries fall into living and non-living, i.e. things, e.g.: pen, table, chair, etc. Living objects can be animate and inanimate, i.e. plants, e.g.: rose, tulip, lily, etc. Animate living objects either lack person characteristics (animals), e.g.: cat, dog, fox, etc. or possess person characteristics (people).

Nouns denoting things, people, and sometimes plants and materials can be classified into two large classes: common, e.g.: pen, cat, boy, rose, water, etc. and proper, e.g.: Britain, Rex, John, Burgundy, etc. Common nouns generally draw a distinction between singularity and plurality. Cf.:

This is a hat. - These are hats (A.S. Hornby).

This is a child. ~ These are children (C.E. Eckersley).

The only exception is constituted by common material nouns, where the plural suffix, as a rule, introduces a new shade of meaning that is incompatible with the grammatical plural. Cf.:

The water feels very cold on winter mornings... (C.E. Eckersley).

Where are we going, Grandpa? - To wash in the waters of bitterness (A.J. Cronin).

In common nouns denoting people and sometimes animals, the dichotomy 'singularity - plurality' is supplemented by collective nouns, e.g.: people, police, cattle, etc. Collective nouns denoting people, in the opinion of R. Quirk and his co-authors, possess person characteristics when they combine with plural verbs and/or are substituted by plural pronouns, e.g.:

The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal (R. Quirk etal.).

The gender differentiation of singular and proper nouns, suggested by V.V. Bogdanov, seems superfluous for the English language because English nouns lack the grammatical category of gender.

Non-objects (or abstract notions) are classified into terms, e.g.: sentence, noun, verb, etc. and non-terms, e.g.: remark, beauty, honesty, etc. The subdivision of non-objects into terms and non-terms comes very close to the subdivision of objects, possessing definite boundaries, into proper and common. Both terms and non-terms are registered in the singular and in the plural. Cf.:

noun - nouns,

remark ~ remarks.

However, the plural member of the opposition in non-objects is characterized by a far lower frequency of occurrence than its singular counterpart.

THE ADJECTIVE

General Characteristics

The following features are commonly considered to be characteristic of adjectives. 1 - Meaning:

a) generalized lexico-grammatical primary meaning of
non-temporal property, e.g.: black, big, clever, etc.;

b) generalized grammatical secondary meaning of
non-temporal property, e.g.: comfortable, national, graceful, etc.

2. Combinability with:

a) nouns, mostly in postposition, e.g.:
He was a pleasant fellow (T. Mori);

b) verbs in preposition, e.g.:

/ married young (M. Burgess);

c) adverbs of degree in preposition, e.g.:

... he was a deeply emotional man (S. Sheldon);

d) prepositional combinations in postposition, e.g.:
It is full of clean payer (W. Deeping).

3. Syntactic.Functions:

a) attributive,

b) predicative.

In attributive function, the adjective is part of a noun phrase: it generally precedes and modifies the head noun, e.g.:

She had a small child in her arms (W.S. Maugham).

Predicative adjectives characterize a noun phrase that is a separate clause element. Predicative adjectives have two syntactic roles: subject predicatives and object predicatives. Subject predicatives complement a copular verb, characterizing the noun phrase in subject position, e.g.:

She was wonderful to me (D. Robins).

Object predicatives follow a direct object, making a predication about that noun phrase, e.g.:

He made the children happy (R. Quirk et al.).

In news and academic prose, attributive adjectives are much more frequent than predicative adjectives, which reflects the heavy reliance of these registers on noun phrases to present information.

Predicative adjectives are somewhat more frequent in fiction than in the other registers, in part because fictional descriptions sometimes include sequences of subject predicative adjectives, such as:

What she intended to be was gay, pleasure-giving, exuberant, free, beautiful, healthy (D. Biber et al.).

In conversation, attributive and predicative adjectives are both relatively rare because conversation is more verbal than nominal. The roughly equal frequency of predi cati ve and attributive adjectives in conversation is in keeping with the general reliance on a clausal rather than nominal presentation of information. Cf.:

You got a cold? - No. Just a bit sniffy. Cos I'm ~ I am cold. And I'll be all right once I've warmed up (D. Crystal, D. Davy).

4. Morphological Structure.

As far as their morphological structure is concerned, adjectives fall under the following types:

a) simple,

b) derived,

c) compound.

Simple adjectives have neither prefixes nor suffixes, e.g.: green, high, low, fat, etc.

Derived adjectives have either a prefix or a suffix or both. Derived adjectives are usually formed from nouns and verbs. The most productive adjective-forming suffix is -al, e.g.: international local, natural, formal, usual, etc.

The derivational suffixes -ent, -ive, and -ous are moderately common, too. Cf.:

different, present, innocent, silent, excellent;

active, attractive, expensive, negative, relative',

serious, curious, dangerous, famous, nervous, etc.

The derivational suffixes -ate, -ful, and -less are relatively rare in all registers. Cf:

private, moderate;

beautiful, useful;

helpless, useless, etc.

Although the suffixes -like and -type are even less common, they have interesting uses. As a matter of fact they retain the meanings of like and type as separate words, and are therefore near the boundary between affixation and compounding. Cf.:

business-like, child-like;

Hollywood-type, Mr.-Smith-type, textbook-type, etc.

Adjectives can be derived from other adjectives by the negative prefixes un-, in-, and non~, e.g.: unhappy^ inattentive, nonexistent, etc.

In the last three examples, prefixation is combined with suffixation.

Derived adjectives are by far the most common in academic prose. They are moderately common in news, and are relatively rare in fiction and conversation.

English grammarians mention participial adjectives. Evidently, they can also be regarded as derived adjectives, namely as adjectives formed by zero derivation (or conversion) from -ing and -erfparticiples. Cf.:

Attributive Use

His surprising views. The offended man.

Predicative Use

His views were very surprising. The man seemed very offended. (R. Quirk et al,).

Often, the difference between the adjective and the Participle is not clear-cut. The verbal force of the Participle is explicit for the -ing form when a direct object is present, for the ~ed form - when a fry-agent phrase with a personal agent is present. Cf:

You are frightening the children (R. Quirk et al.).

The man was offended by the policeman (R. Quirk et al.).

For both participle forms, premodification by the intensifier very is considered an explicit indication that the forms have achieved adjective status. Cf.:

You are very frightening (R. Quirk et al.).

The man was very offended (R. Quirk et al.).

However, there is a rising tendency nowadays to use the intensifier very not oniy before participial adjectives in -ed but also before -ed participles. Cf.:

The man was very offended (R. Quirk et ai.).

The man was very offended by the policeman (R. Quirk et ai.).

Attributive uses outnumber predicative uses for both -ing and -ed participial adjectives.

Compound adjectives are made from a combination of more than one word and represent compact, integrated forms of expression, which are not easy to produce 'online' except for lexicalized components, such as tongue-lied, old-fashioned, etc. No wonder that compound adjectives are common in the written registers, but are relatively rare in conversation.

Formally, compound adjectives take many shapes. Adjectives can be added to other adjectives, e.g.: grayish-blue. Compounds can also be composed of an adjective and a noun, e.g.: full-time. Many adjective compounds involve participial forms, e.g.: highly- educated, good-looking, etc. But adverb-adjective sequences constitute by far the most productive type of compound adjectives, especially in news, e.g.: politically-independent, fiercely-competitive, etc. Reduplicative compounds are more productive in conversation than in the other registers because they are lexicalized (the two parts rarely occur separately) and because they serve an emotive purpose (they usually play on sounds), e.g.:

wishy-washy - thin and without strength; watery; without determination or clear aims and principles;

roly-poly - fat and round.

5. Morphological .Categories^

In Old English, adjectives were inflected for case, gender, number, and degrees of comparison. In Modern English, only qualitative adjectives are marked for the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. Cf.:

nice — nicer - nicest,

beautiful — more beautiful — most beautiful.

The class of adjectives can be represented as a lexico-grammatical field. The centre of the lexico-grammatical field of adjectives is constituted by those adjectives that possess a lexico-grammatical meaning of non-temporal property, have degrees of comparison, and can be used both attributively and predicatively.

Adjectives that lack one or more of these defining characteristics form the periphery of the lexi co-grammatical field of adjectives.

Classes of Adjectives

According to their meaning and grammatical characteristics, adjectives can be classified into qualitative and relative. Qualitative adjectives denote qualities of a substance directly, e.g.: small, brown, quick, etc. Most qualitative adjectives have degrees of comparison, e.g.: small - smaller - smallest. From most qualitative adjectives adverbs can be formed by the suffix ~ly, e.g.: quick - quickly. Qualitative adjectives are used both attributively and predicatively. Cf.:

What wonderfully blue eyes you have, Ernest] (O. Wilde) -attribute.

They are quite, quite blue (O. Wilde) - subjective predicative.

Relative adjectives express qualities of a substance through their relation to materials (wooden), place (Italian), time (weekly), or action (preparatory), i.e. indirectly. Relative adjectives have no degrees of comparison. They do not form adverbs by the suffix -ty. Relative adjectives are chiefly used as attributes, e.g.:

... he found at the bottom of the box a pair of wooden skates which had been Kate's when she was a child (AJ. Cronin).

There are no hard-and-fast lines between qualitative and relative adjectives. A relative adjective can acquire the meaning of a qualitative adjective. Cf.:

wooden walls = walls made of wood (A.S. Hornby),

a wooden smile = an inexpressive smile (A.S. Hornby).

V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik mention also quantitative adjectives. This class comprises such words as many, much, little, and few. Like qualitative adjectives, they have degrees of comparison. Cf.: many, much - more - most, little - less - least, few -fewer —fewest, e.g.:

We have much work to do (R.A. Close).

George did more work than anyone else (R.A. Close).

The most work is often done by the quietest worker (R.A. Close).

I have very little tune for reading (A.S. Hornby).

Please make less noise (R.A. Close).

George gives me the least trouble (R.A. Close).

Fortunately, there were very few people down there at the time... (A.M. Burrage).

There were fewer people today than yesterday (R.A. Close).

Harry made the fewest mistakes (R.A. Close).

But as opposed to qualitative adjectives, which express qualities of an object directly, and in contrast to relative adjectives, which denote qualities of an object indirectly, the so-called quantitative adjectives characterize the given object numerically. just as numerals do. Thus, it is open to discussion whether many, much, little, few can be considered adjectives. If one gives precedence to form, one should refer them to adjectives because they have degrees of comparison. If one considers meaning to be the most important factor, one should exclude them from the class of adjectives and refer them to numerals, or rather to pronouns because their numerical characteristics are extremely general. Cf: Jive tables (numeral),

some tables (pronoun),

many tables (the so-called quantitative adjective).

Degrees of Comparison

Linguistic Status of the Category of Degrees of Comparison

The problem of degrees of comparison has given rise to much controversy. First of all, there is no unity of opinion concerning the character of this category in Modem English. Some linguists think that degrees of comparison should be treated as a lexical category. In their opinion, long - longer - longest represent three different words, not forms of one and the same word.

Criticizing this point of view, A.l. Smirnitsky says that long- longer - longest are not different words, but forms of the same word because they have the same stem long and are consequently characterized by identical lexical meaning.

Adjectives that Lack Degrees of Comparison

As a rule, only qualitative adjectives admit of degrees of comparison because they denote properties capable of appearing in different degrees, e.g.: fine -finer -finest.

But some qualitative adjectives stand outside the category of comparison. They are:

1) adjectives that express the highest degree of a quality, e.g.:
supreme, extreme, etc.;

2) adjectives having the suffix -ish, e.g.: reddish, whitish, etc.;

3) adjectives with a negative meaning, e.g.: illiterate;

4) adjectives expressing incomparable qualities, e.g.: deaf,
dead, lame, etc. Writers sometimes use them in degrees of
comparison for stylistic effect, e.g.:

Mrs. Thompson, Old Man Fellows' housekeeper, had found him deader than a doornail when she went upstairs to see what had kept him so long before breakfast (R. L. Mangum).

Relative adjectives have no degrees of comparison.

Number of Degrees of Comparison

The next question is how many degrees of comparison the English adjective has. With qualitative adjectives, which can denote degrees of a given quality, three types of comparison are possible:

1) comparison to the same degree,

2) comparison to a lower degree,

3) comparison to a higher degree [O. Jespersen; R. Quirk
et al.].

Comparison in relation to the same degree is expressed by as ... as, e.g.:

She's as pretty as her sister (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English).

Comparison in relation to a lower degree is expressed by less and least, e.g.:

This problem is less difficult than the previous one (R. Quirk

et al.).

This is the least difficult problem of all (R. Quirk et al.).

For higher degree comparisons, English has a three-term formal contrast: positive, comparative, and superlative. The

so-called positive degree of comparison, as O. Jespersen rightly points out, is rather negative of comparison, than positive, e.g.:

They are all strong men (A.S. Hornby).

That's why H. Sweet, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya mention only two degrees of comparison, namely the comparative degree and the superlative degree.

However, there is little justification for excluding the so-called positive degree from the classification because although it does not imply any comparison, it forms the basis for comparison. R. Quirk and some other English grammarians call the positive degree the absolute degree.

The comparative degree indicates that the quality is found in the person or thing described in a higher degree than in some other person or thing, e.g.:

The man in the middle is stronger than the man on the left (A.S. Hornby).

The superlative degree denotes the highest degree of a quality, e.g.:

He is the strongest of the three men (A.S. Hornby).

The classification of degrees of comparison put forward by A.I. Smirnitsky, on the whole, does not differ from the traditional classification. He also speaks about the positive, the comparative, and the superlative degrees. But taking meaning as a starting point, he finds it possible to combine the comparative degree and the superlative degree into one group that he calls 'relative' and to oppose it to the positive degree. The meaning of-the positive degree, in his opinion, is absolute. It is the norm of some quality, so to speak. As to the comparative and the superlative degrees, they are both relative in meaning. Thus, if one says Mrs. Black is three years younger than her husband (A.S. Hornby), one does not mean that Mrs. Black is young. She may be 75 years old, whereas her husband is 78. The sentence only indicates that Mrs. Black has more of this quality (being young) than her husband. So, the meaning of the comparative degree is relative.

If one says Mary is the youngest in the family... (Lingaphone English Course), one does not mean that Mary is a little girl. One simply emphasizes that Mary has the highest degree of this quality (being young) as compared with the rest of the family. Thus, the meaning of the superlative degree is also relative.

Taking into consideration the relative character of meaning of the comparative and the superlative degrees, as opposed to the positive degree, A.I. Smirnitsky thinks there is good ground to speak of two forms of comparison only: the positive degree and the relative degree. The latter (the relative degree) exists in two varieties - the comparative degree and the superlative degree.

Synthetic and Analytical Forms of Degrees of Comparison

The problem of forms of degrees of comparison is also controversial. Monosyllabic adjectives, i.e. adjectives consisting of one syllable, and the disyllabic adjectives ending in -er, -ly, -le, -y, and -w, form the comparative degree by the suffix -er and the superlative degree - by the suffix -est. Cf:

The days get longer... (B. Zaffran, D. Krulik).

... these were the longest days of the year (J. Cheever).

The examination was easier than we expected (R. Murphy).

The day we were married was the happiest day of my life (M. Fuchs, M. Bonner).

This is a synthetic way of forming degrees of comparison. The existence of synthetic forms of degrees of comparison is recognized by the majority of linguists. As to the combinations with more and most, less and least, the question is debatable.

First, we shall discuss the problem of the combinations with less and least, e.g.: less important - least important. To qualify these constructions as analytical degrees of comparison, we must prove that they represent analytical forms of the adjective important. Analytical forms are generally opposed to synthetic forms. As to combinations with less and least, they have no parallel synthetic forms to express a lower degree of this or that quality.

True, according to G, Curme and G.N. Vorontsova, the existence of correlation with corresponding synthetic forms was absolutely necessary only in the Middle English period, when the first analytical forms came to be used. Now, when there are a lot of analytical forms in the system of the English language, they may appear independently, by analogy with other analytical forms. Thus, the combinations with less and least, in their opinion, were coined by analogy with the analytical forms built on the pattern 'more/most + adjective'. This, however, is a debatable point since all the other

analytical forms in the English language have parallel synthetic forms.

What is more, the words less and least do not either lose or weaken their lexical meaning as auxiliary elements in analytical forms should, e.g.:

I found the memory much less vivid... (W. Deeping).

So, the adjectival combinations with less and least are free word combinations, not analytical forms of degrees of comparison.

Now we shall take up the problem of the combinations with more and most, e.g.:

Let's talk about something more interesting (R. Murphy).

He's the most interesting person I've ever met (R. Murphy),

According to V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik, they are also outside the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. First, more and most form combinations with adjectives similar to those with less and least: more beautiful - less beautiful, most beautiful - least beautiful, e.g.:

Oh, I'm the most sensible person here - and Lucille is the least sensible (C.E. Eckersley).

Since the forms less beautiful and least beautiful are not degrees of comparison, the combinations with more and most cannot be considered degrees of comparison either.

Second, combinations with most can be used with the indefinite article to express a very high degree of quality, e.g.:

A most tragic thing happened to her early in the war (W. Deeping).

This meaning is not to be found in the synthetic superlative degree. Constructions of the type *a prettiest girl do not occur in the English language. Therefore, it is doubtful whether the combinations 'more + adjective' and 'most + adjective' are forms of degrees of comparison.

This argument is not convincing since in the sentence 'A most tragic thing happened to her early in the war' most is not the superlative degree of much, but an independent word, an adverb synonymous with very.

Finally, V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik consider it wrong to refer the forms with more and most to degrees of comparison because more and most fully retain their lexical meaning. They really do. Cf.:

You'll be more comfortable if you turn the seat down (C.E. Eckersley).

They were the most beautiful children she had ever seen (S. Sheldon).

However, the conception of V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova and L.L. lofik is not universally accepted. The majority of linguists think that such combinations as more beautiful and most beautiful are analytical degrees of comparison or, at least, analytical degrees of comparison in the making. They offer the following proofs.

First, polysyllabic qualitative adjectives like beautiful express properties that can be present in different degrees and therefore they can have degrees of comparison.

Second, the analytical degrees of comparison with more and most have corresponding synthetic forms in -er and -est. Cf.: more beautiful -prettier, most beautiful -prettiest.

Third, analytical forms In Modern English are constantly on the increase.

All the above-mentioned arguments sound rather convincing.

English grammarians do not use the terms synthetic and analytical forms of degrees of comparison. They speak of inflectional and phrasal comparison. The essence of the two sets of terms is the same.

The relative infrequency of phrasal comparison reflects the generally lower frequency of polysyllabic adjectives, especially in conversation.

Inflected comparative degree adjectives are about twice as frequent as inflected superlative degree adj ecti ves. The comparatively low frequency of superlatives in academic writing probably reflects a general reluctance to make extreme claims. In contrast, news reportage has the greatest frequency of superlatives, probably reflecting a focus on the extreme in the interests of attracting readers.

If the superlative is used attributively, the definite article or some other definite determiner is required. Cf.:

Anna is the/their youngest child (R. Quirk et al.).

Delia is the most effective publisher in the office (R. Quirk et al.).

Delia is our most effective publisher (R. Quirk et al.).

The choice between inflectional and phrasal comparison, as has already been shown, is largely determined by the length of the adjective. Although monosyllabic adjectives normally form the comparative and superlative degrees by inflection, most monosyllabic and disyllabic adjectives can also form their degrees of comparison with more and most. Phrasal forms are usually used for emphasis in spoken English. Cf.:

You should be more proud of the things you've already achieved (M. Foley, D. Hall).

/ think this is the one she is the most proud of (M. Foley, D. Hail).

In conversation, adjectives are occasionally doubly marked for degree, carrying both inflectional and phrasal markers. Cf.:

// 's much more warmer in there (D. Biber et al.).

She's a bit more nicer than Mrs. Jones (D. Biber et al.).

Irregular Forms of Comparison

Besides the already mentioned synthetic and analytical forms of degrees of comparison, there are irregular forms. A few adjectives have suppleti've forms of comparison that are derived from different roots, e.g.: good - better - best, bad'- worse - worst. Cf.:

Is Lucille a good dancerl (C.E. Eckersley).

You 're a much better cook than your mother was, Elisabeth (S. Sheldon).

The best women are divorced... And the best men are married (A. Sillitoe).

A few adjectives have two sets of degrees of comparison, e.g.:

old - older - oldest (age in general),

old- elder - eldest (age within the family). Cf:

She is an old woman... (I. Shaw).

His friends were older than Vivian (S. Sheldon).

... White's was one of the oldest clubs in England... (S. Sheldon).

My elder brother was in a car accident last week (M. Swan). The eldest daughter does all the housework (M. Swan). Since the second set of forms (elder - eldest) has a meaning slightly different from the meaning of the positive degree (old), they

can hardly be regarded as grammatical forms of degrees of comparison, but should be qualified as separate lexical units which originally were, perhaps, grammatical degrees of comparison of the adjective old.

Absolute Use of the Superlative Degree

Adjectives in the superlative degree imply limitation, that's why the noun modified by an adjective in the superlative degree always combines with the definite article or one of the definite determiners, e.g.:

It was one of the worst days for him (N. Hale).

Since adjectives preceded by the definite article are easily substantivized, the superlative degree is often used absolutely, either with the head noun mentioned before or without any noun whatsoever. Cf:

Their pool was perhaps the oldest in the country... (J. Cheever).

... the villa in Sardinia was her favourite. It was by no means the largest, but it was the most colourful, the friendliest (S. Sheldon).

... let's hope for the best (Lingaphone English Course).

But if the worst comes to the worst, don't blame me (Lingaphone English Course).

Дата добавления: 2018-09-22; просмотров: 1701; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы!

Поделиться с друзьями:

⇐ Предыдущая 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 10 Следующая ⇒

Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!