The Category of case of the E Noun.
Look up : Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови) – P . 48-50
According to Ilyish B.A.(P. 41-42):
Case – is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things or properties, or actions and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself.
This category is expressed in E. by the opposition of the form -‘s, called the possessive case to the unfeatured form of the noun, called the common case.
The Category of case shows the relation of the thing(s) denoted by the noun to other things or objects and it should be manifested by some formal sign in (the form of) the noun itself.
Thus case is part of the morphological system of a language. We will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means.
Diagram:
Case:
Thing (denoted by the Noun) ---------à (relation) --------------à other things / objects.
This sign is almost always 1) an inflexion; or it may be 2) a “zero” sign. Absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another.
It is obvious that the minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence of two correlated elements at least isneeded to establish a category.
Views on the problem of case differ widely.
1.The most usual view is that
1) there are two cases in the E. Noun: a common case (e.g.: father) :: a genitive / possessive case (: Father’s).
2) The number of cases is more than two ; (Max Deutschbein’s positional theory; Charles Fillmore’s theory of deep cases)
3) The number of cases is less than two; (Since 2 -1 = O). I.e. there are no cases at all in the E. Noun. (G. Vorontsova’s postpositional theory).
Theory № 2.
( > than 2)
The number of cases is more than two ;
We will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means: by prepositions (by the phrase “Prep. + Noun”), by word order. According to Max Deutschbein’s positional theory: In MnE. there are 4 cases: Nominative, genitive (‘s; of + N), dative (to+ N; & by word order), accusative (by word order).
Critique:
if we admit the above, the number of cases is bound to grow indefinitely, (this isthe conclusion, academician Meshchaninov arrived at, Чл предложения и части речи p. 297). e.g.:
With the pen – instrumental; In the pen – a locative case.
This view would mean abandoning all idea of morphology and confusing form of a word with syntax.
|
|
|
Theory of deep cases.
Since 1960s theories have been put forward claiming that the semantic relationships borne by nominal parts of speech to verbs (N à V) make up a small, universal set. Charles J. Fillmore
(1968 Case Grammar; Case about case – НЛ № 10); Joyce Anderson. Localist Case Grammar (1971); Simon Dik. Functional Grammar (1978).
Charles J. Fillmore uses agentive, instrumental, dative, factitive, locative, objective. He called these “syntactic-semantic relations” cases. Fillmorean-type cases are called deep cases and traditional ones are surface cases.
Ch. J. Fillmore in his seminal (конструктивный) paper Case about case – НЛ № 10) proposed 6 cases, later – 7 cases. He called these “syntactic-semantic relations” cases, e.g.:
| Patient – The bird ate the worm. Agent – The audience rose to their feet. Experiencer – They love music Destination – He turned to the house. Location – The vase is on the table. | Instrument – He got beaten up by a gang. Source – They got news from home Recipient - She gave her change to the collectors. Purpose – He went to the Peach pit for some take-away. () |
W.Chafe, V.Gak,I. Susov single out 7 cases, D. Lockwood -9 cases, V.V. Bogdanov – 14, N.N. Leontyeva – 50 cases.
Critique:
There are no agreed criteria & no consensus on the universal inventory of deep cases.
Charles J. Fillmore’scase grammar has fallen into disrepute because no-one has been able to produce a de’finitive ( окончательный ) list of semantic roles. But the notion of semantic roles
is embraced by a number of major theories e.g.: Government and Binding and Lexical Functional Grammar.
Theory № 3.
(2 – 1 =0)
There are certain phenomena which give doubts about the existence of such a 2 case system, about the form in ‘s being a case form at all. Here are some examples to illustrate the point:
| 1.The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s speech -речь канцлера казначейства. 2.Oxford professor of poetry’s lecture. 3.The Duke of Edinburg’s residence. 4. The son of Pharaoh’s daughter is the daughter of Pharaoh’s son. 5. Jim laughs but the stalker ahead’s ( гордо шествующий ) comment is “What bad taste!” | 7.The girl I was dancing with’s name was Jane (a phrase=N + attributive clause) 8.Smith and Brown’s office 9. In the Sunday times I have been reading that fellow’s what’s his name’s attacks. 10.And there’d have been no success, no nothing but another stage-struck girl’s stage finish. | ||
| 6 He called all curses of all Gods – upon the man (который) had hurled him out (энергично отправил) to dinner’s head. (=the man’s head).
| |||
1.Here we can see that the inflexion –s can be attached not only to nouns, but to other parts of speech, and even to clauses.
2.Besides, –‘s form can denote not only THE RELATION OF POSSESSSION, but also the relation of locality (Kiev’s inhabitants);
the relation of distance (to have a mile’s walk),
subjective genitive (my father’s arrival à my father arrived),
objective genitive (Doughty’s famous trial and execution àDoughty was tried and executed). Due to the fact that the ‘s belongs to a phrase (= N + attributive clause),
G.Vorontsova holds (считает, полагает) the –‘s to be a syntactical formant, a postposition (= particle). «Формант –‘ s подобен предлогу, способному отстоять от ведущего существительного на некотором расстоянии. Если предлог возглавляет конструкцию, то формант –‘ s ее замыкает. Но оба они оформляют зависимость члена предожения , в состав которого входят. Следовательно, –‘ s не часть формы слова, чисто синтаксический формант,функционально сходный с предлогом, но в постпозиции, почему его и следует обозначить термином «послелог». Г . Воронцова . Очерки по грамматике английского языка . – М ., 1960. – С .181)
|
|
|
3.Since the –‘s can belong to a phrase it is no longer a case inflection even when it belongs to a single noun. An essential argument in favour of this view is that both the form with and without –‘s, can perform the same syntactic functions, e.g.: My father was a happy man; :: My father’s was a happy life.
In the constructions like “at the stationer’s”, “at the baker’s” the ending –‘s is considered to be a word-building suffix, a lexicalized inflexion.
| According to B. Ilyish, Cases 2 & 3 lead to the conclusion that there are no cases in the MnE noun. The only case ending to survive in MnE, has developed into an element of a different character - possibly a particle denoting possession (p. 45). According to G.Vorontsova, Due to the fact that the ‘s belongs to a phrase (= N + attributive clause), G.Vorontsova holds (считает, полагает) the –‘s is a syntactical formant, a postposition (= particle). According to Blokh M.Ya., the inflexional case of the noun in MnE has ceased to exist.In its place a new peculiar 2-case system has developed based on the particle expression of the Genitive falling into 2 segmental types: the word Genitive (John’s book) & the phrase Genitive (King of France’s arrival ) |
Critique:
Such examples (as are G.Vorontsova’s type) statistically are very rare and far between. So, in E. there are 2 morphological cases.
Lecture 6
Дата добавления: 2018-10-26; просмотров: 638; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!