Theoretical English grammar

We shall survey the distributional morpheme types arranging them in pairs of immediate correlation.

On the basis of the degree of self-dependence, "free" morphemes and "bound" morphemes are distinguished. Bound morphemes cannot form words by themselves, they are identified only as component segmental parts of words. As different from this, free morphemes can build up words by themselves, i.e. can be used "freely".

For instance, in the word handful the root hand is a free morpheme, while the suffix -ful is a bound morpheme.

There are very few productive bound morphemes in the morphological system of English. Being extremely narrow, the list of them is complicated by the relations of homonymy. These morphemes are the following:

1) the segments -(e)s [-z, -s, -iz]: the plural of nouns, the possessive case of nouns, the third person singular present of verbs;

the segments -(e)d [-d, -t, -id]: the past and past participle of verbs;

the segments -ing: the gerund and present participle;

the segments -er, -est: the comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives and adverbs.

The auxiliary word-morphemes of various standings should be interpreted in this connection as "semi-bound" morphemes, since, being used as separate elements of speech strings, they form categorial unities with their notional stem-words.

On the basis of formal presentation, "overt" morphemes and "covert" morphemes are distinguished. Overt morphemes are genuine, explicit morphemes building up words; the covert morpheme is identified as a contrastive absence of morpheme expressing a certain function. The notion of covert morpheme coincides with the notion of zero morpheme in the oppositional description of grammatical categories (see further).

For instance, the word-form clocks consists of two overt morphemes: one lexical (root) and one grammatical expressing the plural. The outwardly one-morpheme word-form clock, since it expresses the singular, is also considered as consisting of two morphemes, i.e. of the overt root and the co\ert (implicit) grammatical suffix of the singular. The usual symbol for the covert morpheme employed by linguists is the sign of the empty set: 0.

On the basis of segmental relation, "segmental" morphemes and "supra-segmental" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as supra-segmental morphemes in distributional terms are intonation contours, accents, pauses.

The said elements of language, as we have stated elsewhere, should beyond dispute be considered signemic units of language, since they are functionally bound. They form the secondary line of speech, accompanying its primary phonemic line (phonemic complexes). On the other hand, from what has been stated about the morpheme proper, it is not difficult to see that the morphemic interpretation of suprasegmental units can hardly stand to reason. Indeed, these units are functionally connected not with morphemes, but with larger elements of language: words, word-groups, sentences, supra-sentential constructions.

On the basis of grammatical alternation, "additive" morphemes and "replacive" morphemes are distinguished. Interpreted as additive morphemes are outer grammatical suffixes, since, as a rule, they are opposed to the absence of morphemes in grammatical alternation. Cf. look+ed; small+er, etc. In distinction to these, the root phonemes of grammatical interchange are considered as replacive morphemes, since they replace one another in the paradigmatic forms. Cf. dr-i-ve -- dr-o-ve -- dr-i-ven; m-a-n -- m-e-n; etc.

It should be remembered that the phonemic interchange is utterly unproductive in English as in all the Indo-European languages. If it were productive, it might rationally be interpreted as a sort of replacive "infixation" (correlated with "exfixation" of the additive type). As it stands, however, this type of grammatical means can be understood as a kind of suppletivity (i.e. partial suppletivity).

On the basis of linear characteristic, "continuous" (or "linear") morphemes and "discontinuous" morphemes are distinguished.

By the discontinuous morpheme, opposed to the common, i.e. uninterruptedly expressed, continuous morpheme, a two-element grammatical unit is meant which is identified in the analytical grammatical form comprising an auxiliary word and a grammatical suffix. These two elements, as it were, embed the notional stem; hence, they are symbolically represented as follows:

be ... ing -- for the continuous verb forms (e.g. is going); have ... en -- for the perfect verb forms (e.g. has gone); be ... en -- for the passive verb forms (e.g. is taken)

It is easy to see that the notion of morpheme applied to the analytical form of the word violates the principle of the identification of morpheme as an elementary meaningful segment: the analytical "framing" consists of two meaningful segments, i.e. of two different morphemes. On the other hand, the general notion "discontinuous constituent", "discontinuous unit" is quite rational and can be helpfully used in linguistic description in its proper place.

CHAPTER III. CATEGORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical (morphological) meanings. These features determine the grammatical form of the word.

Grammatical meanings are very abstract, very general. Therefore the grammatical form is not confined to an individual word, but unites a whole class of words, so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning together with its individual, concrete semantics.

For instance, the meaning of the substantive plural is rendered by the regular plural suffix -(e)s, and in some cases by other, more specific means, such as phonemic interchange and a few lexeme-bound suffixes. Due to the generalised character of the plural, we say that different groups of nouns "take" this form with strictly defined variations in the mode of expression, the variations being of more systemic (phonological conditioning) and less systemic (etymological conditioning) nature. Cf.: faces, branches, matches, judges; books, rockets, boats, chiefs, proofs; dogs, beads, films, stones, hens; lives, wives, thieves, leaves; girls, stars, toys, heroes, pianos, cantos; oxen, children, brethren, kine; swine, sheep, deer; cod, trout, salmon; men, women, feet, teeth, geese, mice, lice; formulae, antennae; data, errata, strata, addenda, memoranda; radii, genii, nuclei, alumni; crises, bases, analyses, axes; phenomena, criteria.

As we see, the grammatical form presents a division of the word on the principle of expressing a certain grammatical meaning.

The most general notions reflecting the most general properties of phenomena are referred to in logic as "categorial notions", or "categories". The most general meanings rendered by language and expressed by systemic correlations of word-forms are interpreted in linguistics as categorial grammatical meanings. The forms themselves are identified within definite paradigmatic series.

The categorial meaning (e.g. the grammatical number) unites the individual meanings of the correlated paradigmatic forms (e.g. singular -- plural) and is exposed through them; hence, the meaning of the grammatical category and the meaning of the grammatical form are related to each other on the principle of the logical relation between the categorial and generic notions.

As for the grammatical category itself, it presents, the same as the grammatical "form", a unity of form (i.e. material factor) and meaning (i.e. ideal factor) and constitutes a certain signemic system.

More specifically, the grammatical category is a system of expressing a generalised grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms.

The ordered set of grammatical forms expressing a categorial function constitutes a paradigm.

The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category are exposed by the so-called "grammatical oppositions".

The opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalised correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features: common features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in question.

The oppositional theory was originally formulated as a ; phonological theory. Three main qualitative types of oppositions were established in phonology: "privative", "gradual", and "equipollent". By the number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary (two members) and more than binary (ternary, quaternary, etc.).

The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition; the other types of oppositions are reducible to the binary privative opposition.

The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterised by the presence of a certain differential feature ("mark"), while the other member is characterised by the absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the "marked", or "strong", or "positive" member, and is commonly designated by the symbol + (plus); the member in which the feature is absent is called the "unmarked", or "weak", or "negative" member, and is commonly designated by the symbol -- (minus).

For instance, the voiced and devoiced consonants form a privative opposition [b, d, g --p, t, k]. The differential feature of the opposition is "voice". This feature is present in the voiced consonants, so their set forms the marked member of the opposition. The devoiced consonants, lacking the feature, form the unmarked member of the opposition. To stress the marking quality of "voice" for the opposition in question, the devoiced consonants may be referred to as «nоn-voiced".

The gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or аbsenсе of a feature, but by the degree of it.

For instance, the front vowels [i:--i--e--ae] form a quaternary gradual opposition, since they are differentiated by the degree of their openness (their length, as is known, is' also relevant, as well as some other individualising properties, but these factors do not spoil the gradual opposition as such).

The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features.

For instance, the phonemes [m] and [b], both bilabial consonants, form an equipollent opposition, [m] being sonorous nazalised, [b ] being plosive.

We have noted above that any opposition can be reformulated in privative terms. Indeed, any positive feature distinguishing an oppositionally characterised lingual element is absent in the oppositionally correlated element, so that considered from the point of view of this feature alone, the opposition, by definition, becomes privative. This reformulation is especially helpful on an advanced stage of oppositional study of a given microsystem, because it enables us to characterise the elements of the system by the corresponding strings ("bundles") of values of their oppositional featuring ("bundles of differential features"), each feature being represented by the values + or --.

For instance, [p] is distinguished from [b] as voiceless (voice --), from [t ] as bilabial (labialisation +), from [m] as non-nazalised (nazalisation --), etc. The descriptive advantages of this kind of characterisation are self-evident.

Unlike phonemes which are monolateral lingual elements, words as units of morphology are bilateral; therefore morphological oppositions must reflect both the plane of expression (form) and the plane of content (meaning).

The most important type of opposition in morphology, the same as in phonology, is the binary privative opposition.

The privative morphological opposition is based on a morphological differential feature which is present in its strong parked) member and absent in its weak (unmarked) member. In another kind of wording, this differential feature may be said to mark one of the members of the opposition positively (the strong member), and the other one negatively (the weak member). The featuring in question serves as the immediate means of expressing a grammatical meaning.

For instance, the expression of the verbal present and past tenses is based on a privative opposition the differential feature of which is the dental suffix -(e)d. This suffix, rendering the meaning of the past tense, marks the past form of the verb positively (we worked), and the present form negatively (we work).

The meanings differentiated by the oppositions of signemic units (signemic oppositions) are referred to as "semantic features", or "semes".

For instance, the nounal form cats expresses the seme of plurality, as opposed to the form cat which expresses, by contrast, the seme of singularity. The two forms constitute a privative opposition in which the plural is the marked member. In order to stress the negative marking of the singular, it can be referred to as "non-plural".

It should be noted that the designation of the weak members of privative morphological oppositions by the "non-" terms is significant not only from the point of view of the plane of expression, but also from the point of view of the plane of content. It is connected with the fact that the meaning of the weak member of the privative opposition is more general and abstract as compared with the meaning of the strong member, which is, respectively, more particular and concrete. Due to this difference in meaning, the weak member is used in a wider range of contexts than the strong member. For instance, the present tense form of the verb, as different from the past tense, is used to render meanings much broader than those directly implied by the corresponding time-plane as such. Cf.:

The sun rises in the East. To err is human. They don't speak French in this part of the country. Etc.

Equipollent oppositions in the system of English morphology constitute a minor type and are mostly confined to formal relations only. An example of such an opposition can be seen in the correlation of the person forms of the verb be: am -- are -- is.

Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognised; in principle, they can be identified as a minor type on the semantic level only. An example of the gradual morphological opposition can be seen in the category of comparison: strong -- stronger -- strongest.

A grammatical category must be expressed by at least one opposition of forms. These forms are ordered in a paradigm in grammatical descriptions.

Both equipollent and gradual oppositions in morphology, the same as in phonology, can be reduced to privative oppositions within the framework of an oppositional presentation of some categorial system as a whole. Thus, a word-form, like a phoneme, can be represented by a bundle of values of differential features, graphically exposing its categorial structure. For instance, the verb-form listens is marked negatively as the present tense (tense --), negatively as the indicative mood (mood --), negatively as the passive voice (voice--), positively as the third person (person +), etc. This principle of presentation, making a morphological description more compact, at the same time has the advantage of precision and helps penetrate deeper into the inner mechanisms of grammatical categories.

In various contextual conditions, one member of an opposition can be used in the position of the other, counter-member. This phenomenon should be treated under the heading of "oppositional reduction" or "oppositional substitution". The first version of the term ("reduction") points out the fact that the opposition in this case is contracted, losing its formal distinctive force. The second version of the term ("substitution") shows the very process by which the opposition is reduced, namely, the use of one member instead of the other.

By way of example, let us consider the following case of the singular noun-subject: Man conquers nature.

The noun man in the quoted sentence is used in the singular, but it is quite clear that it stands not for an individual person, but for people in general, for the idea of "mankind". In other words, the noun is used generically, it implies the class of denoted objects as a whole. Thus, in the oppositional light, here the weak member of the categorial opposition of number has replaced the strong member.

Consider another example: Tonight we start for London.

The verb in this sentence takes the form of the present, while its meaning in the context is the future. It means that the opposition "present -- future" has been reduced, the weak member (present) replacing the strong one (future).

The oppositional reduction shown in the two cited cases is stylistically indifferent, the demonstrated use of the forms does not transgress the expressive conventions of ordinary speech. This kind of oppositional reduction is referred to as "neutralisation" of oppositions. The position of neutralisation is, as a rule, filled in by the weak member of the opposition due to its more general semantics.

Alongside of the neutralising reduction of oppositions there exists another kind of reduction, by which one of the members of the opposition is placed in contextual conditions uncommon for it; in other words, the said reductional use of the form is stylistically marked. E.g.: That man is constantly complaining of something.

The form of the verbal present continuous in the cited sentence stands in sharp contradiction with its regular grammatical meaning "action in progress at the present time". The contradiction is, of course, purposeful: by exaggeration, it intensifies the implied disapproval of the man's behaviour.

This kind of oppositional reduction should be considered under the heading of "transposition". Transposition is based on the contrast between the members of the opposition, it may be defined as a contrastive use of the counter-member of the opposition. As a rule (but not exclusively) transpositionally employed is the strong member of the opposition, which is explained by its comparatively limited regular functions.

The means employed for building up member-forms of categorial oppositions are traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms themselves are classed into synthetical and analytical, too.

Synthetical grammatical forms are realised by the inner morphemic composition of the word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of "substantial" meaning. Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer inflexion, and suppletivity; hence, the forms are referred to as inner-inflexional, outer-inflexional, and suppletive.

Inner inflexion, or phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in modern Indo-European languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most ancient lexemic elements. By this feature, the whole family of Indo-European languages is identified in linguistics as typologically "inflexional".

Inner inflexion (grammatical "infixation", see above) is used in English in irregular verbs (the bulk of them belong to the Germanic strong verbs) for the formation of the past indefinite and past participle; besides, it is used in a few nouns for the formation of the plural. Since the corresponding oppositions of forms are based on phonemic interchange, the initial paradigmatic form of each lexeme should also be considered as inflexional. Cf.: take -- took -- taken, drive -- drove -- driven, keep -- kept -- kept, etc.; man -- men, brother -- brethren, etc.

Suppletivity, like inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely morphological type of form. It is based on the correlation of different roots as a means of paradigmatic differentiation. In other words, it consists in the grammatical interchange of word roots, and this, as we pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in principle with inner inflexion (or, rather, makes the latter into a specific variety of the former).

Suppletivity is used in the forms of the verbs be and go, in the irregular forms of the degrees of comparison, in some forms of personal pronouns. Cf.: be -- am -- are -- is -- was -- were; go -- went; good -- better; bad -- worse; much -- more; little -- less; I -- me; we -- us; she -- her.

In a broader morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognised in paradigmatic correlations of some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns, as well as certain nouns of peculiar categorial properties (lexemic suppletivity -- see Ch. IV, § 8). Cf.: can -- be able; must -- have (to), be obliged (to); may -- be allowed (to); one -- some; man -- people; news -- items of news; information -- pieces of information; etc.

The shown unproductive synthetical means of English morphology are outbalanced by the productive means of affixation (outer inflexion), which amount to grammatical suffixation (grammatical prefixation could only be observed in the Old English verbal system).

In the previous chapter we enumerated the few grammatical suffixes possessed by the English language. These are used to build up the number and case forms of the noun; the Person-number, tense, participial and gerundial forms of the verb; the comparison forms of the adjective and adverb. In the oppositional correlations of all these forms, the initial paradigmatic form of each opposition is distinguished by a zero suffix. Cf.: boy + ш -- boys; go + ш -- goes; work + ш -- worked; small + ш --smaller; etc.

Taking this into account, and considering also the fact that each grammatical form paradigmatically correlates with at least one other grammatical form on the basis of the category expressed (e.g. the form of the singular with the form of the plural), we come to the conclusion that the total number of synthetical forms in English morphology, though certainly not very large, at the same time is not so small as it is commonly believed. Scarce in English are not the synthetical forms as such, but the actual affixal segments on which the paradigmatic differentiation of forms is based.

As for analytical forms which are so typical of modern English that they have long made this language into the "canonised" representative of lingual analytism, they deserve some special comment on their substance.

The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognises two lexemic parts in it, stating that it presents a combination of an auxiliary word with a basic word. However, there is a tendency with some linguists to recognise as analytical not all such grammatically significant combinations, but only those of them that are "grammatically idiomatic", i.e. whose relevant grammatical meaning is not immediately dependent on the meanings of their component elements taken apart. Considered in this light, the form of the verbal perfect where the auxiliary "have" has utterly lost its original meaning of possession, is interpreted as the most standard and indisputable analytical form 'in English morphology. Its opposite is seen in the analytical degrees of comparison which, according to the cited interpretation, come very near to free combinations of words by their lack of "idiomatism" in the above sense [Смирницкий, (2), 68 и сл.; Бархударов, (2), 67 и сл.].*

The scientific achievement of the study of "idiomatic" analytism in different languages is essential and indisputable. On the other hand, the demand that "grammatical idiomatism" should be regarded as the basis of "grammatical analytism" seems, logically, too strong. The analytical means underlying the forms in question consist in the discontinuity of the corresponding lexemic constituents. Proceeding from this fundamental principle, it can hardly stand to reason to exclude "unidiomatic" grammatical combinations (i.e. combinations of oppositional-categorial significance) from the system of analytical expression as such. Rather, they should be regarded as an integral part of this system, in which, the provision granted, a gradation of idiomatism is to be recognised. In this case, alongside of the classical analytical forms of verbal perfect or continuous, such analytical forms should also be discriminated as the analytical infinitive (go -- to go), the analytical verbal person (verb plus personal pronoun), the analytical degrees of comparison of both positive and negative varieties (more important -- less important), as well as some other, still more unconventional form-types.

Moreover, alongside of the standard analytical forms characterised by the unequal ranks of their components (auxiliary element--basic element), as a marginal analytical form-type grammatical repetition should be recognised, which is used to express specific categorial semantics of processual intensity with the verb, of indefinitely high degree of quality with the adjective and the adverb, of indefinitely large quantity with the noun. Cf.:

He knocked and knocked and knocked without reply (Gr. Greene). Oh, I feel I've got such boundless, boundless love to give to somebody (K. Mansfield). Two white-haired severe women were in charge of shelves and shelves of knitting materials of every description (A. Christie).

§ 5. The grammatical categories which are realised by the described types of forms organised in functional paradigmatic oppositions, can either be innate for a given class of words, or only be expressed on the surface of it, serving as a sign of correlation with some other class.

For instance, the category of number is organically connected with the functional nature of the noun; it directly exposes the number of the referent substance, e.g. one ship -- several ships. The category of number in the verb, however, by no means gives a natural meaningful characteristic to the denoted process: the process is devoid of numerical features such as are expressed by the grammatical number. Indeed, what is rendered by the verbal number is not a quantitative characterisation of the process, but a numerical featuring of the subject-referent. Cf.:

The girl is smiling. -- The girls are smiling. The ship is in the harbour. -- The ships are in the harbour.

Thus, from the point of view of referent relation, grammatical categories should be divided into "immanent" categories, i.e. categories innate for a given lexemic class, and "reflective" categories, i.e. categories of a secondary, derivative semantic value. Categorial forms based on subordinative grammatical agreement (such as the verbal person, the verbal number) are reflective, while categorial forms stipulating grammatical agreement in lexemes of a contiguous word-class (such as the substantive-pronominal person, the substantive number) are immanent. Immanent are also such categories and their forms as are closed within a word-class, i.e. do not transgress its borders; to these belong the tense of the verb, the comparison of the adjective and adverb, etc.

Another essential division of grammatical categories is based on the changeability factor of the exposed feature. Namely, the feature of the referent expressed by the category can be either constant (unchangeable, "derivational"), or variable (changeable, "demutative").

An example of constant feature category can be seen in the category of gender, which divides the class of English nouns into non-human names, human male names, human female names, and human common gender names. This division is represented by the system of the third person pronouns serving as gender-indices (see further). Cf.:

It (non-human): mountain, city, forest, cat, bee, etc. He (male human): man, father, husband, uncle, etc. She (female human): woman, lady, mother, girl, etc. He or she (common human): person, parent, child, cousin, etc.

Variable feature categories can be exemplified by the substantive number (singular -- plural) or the degrees of comparison (positive -- comparative -- superlative).

Constant feature categories reflect the static classifications of phenomena, while variable feature categories expose various connections between phenomena. Some marginal categorial forms may acquire intermediary status, being located in-between the corresponding categorial poles. For instance, the nouns singularia tantum and pluralia tantum present a case of hybrid variable-constant formations, since their variable feature of number has become "rigid", or "lexicalised". Cf.: news, advice, progress; people, police; bellows, tongs; colours, letters; etc.

In distinction to these, the gender word-building pairs should be considered as a clear example of hybrid constant-variable formations, since their constant feature of gender has acquired some changeability properties, i.e. has become to a certain extent "grammaticalised". Cf.: actor -- actress, author -- authoress, lion -- lioness, etc.

In the light of the exposed characteristics of the categories, we may specify the status of grammatical paradigms of changeable forms.

Grammatical change has been interpreted in traditional terms of declension and conjugation. By declension the nominal change is implied (first of all, the case system), while by conjugation the verbal change is implied (the verbal forms of person, number, tense, etc.). However, the division of categories into immanent and reflective invites a division of forms on a somewhat more consistent basis.

Since the immanent feature is expressed by essentially independent grammatical forms, and the reflective feature, correspondingly, by essentially dependent grammatical forms, all the forms of the first order (immanent) should be classed as "declensional", while all the forms of the second order (reflective) should be classed as "conjugational".

In accord with this principle, the noun in such synthetical languages as Russian or Latin is declined by the forms of gender, number, and case, while the adjective is conjugated by the same forms. As for the English verb, it is conjugated by the reflective forms of person and number, but declined by the immanent forms of tense, aspect, voice, and mood.

CHAPTER IV. GRAMMATICAL CLASSES OF WORDS

The words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided into grammatically relevant sets or classes. The traditional grammatical classes of words are called "parts of speech". Since the word is distinguished not only by grammatical, but also by semantico-lexemic properties, some scholars refer to parts of speech as "lexico-grammatical" series of words, or as "lexico-grammatical categories" [Смирницкий, (1), 33; (2), 100].

It should be noted that the term "part of speech" is purely traditional and conventional, it can't be taken as in any way defining or explanatory. This name was introduced in the grammatical teaching of Ancient Greece, where the concept of the sentence was not yet explicitly identified in distinction to the general idea of speech, and where, consequently, no strict differentiation was drawn between the word as a vocabulary unit and the word as a functional element of the sentence.

In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria: "semantic", "formal", and "functional". The semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalised meaning, which is characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given part of speech. This meaning is understood as the "categorial meaning of the part of speech". The formal criterion provides for the exposition of the specific inflexional and derivational (word-building) features of all the lexemic subsets of a part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of words in the sentence typical of a part of speech. The said three factors of categorial characterisation of words are conventionally referred to as, respectively, "meaning", "form", and "function".

In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided into notional and functional, which reflects their division in the earlier grammatical tradition into changeable and unchangeable.

To the notional parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb.

The features of the noun within the identificational triad "meaning -- form -- function" are, correspondingly, the following: 1) the categorial meaning of substance ("thingness"); 2) the changeable forms of number and case; the specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes in English do not discriminate parts of speech as such); 3) the substantive functions in the sentence (subject, object, substantival predicative); prepositional connections; modification by an adjective.

The features of the adjective: 1) the categorial meaning of property (qualitative and relative); 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison (for qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) adjectival functions in the sentence (attribute to a noun, adjectival predicative).

The features of the numeral: 1) the categorial meaning of number (cardinal and ordinal); 2) the narrow set of simple numerals; the specific forms of composition for compound numerals; the specific suffixal forms of derivation for ordinal numerals; 3) the functions of numerical attribute and numerical substantive.

The features of the pronoun: 1) the categorial meaning of indication (deixis); 2) the narrow sets of various status with the corresponding formal properties of categorial changeability and word-building; 3) the substantival and adjectival functions for different sets.

The features of the verb: 1) the categorial meaning of process (presented in the two upper series of forms, respectively, as finite process and non-finite process); 2) the forms of the verbal categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite forms; 3) the function of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the mixed verbal -- other than verbal functions for the non-finite verb.

The features of the adverb: 1) the categorial meaning of the secondary property, i.e. the property of process or another property; 2) the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; the specific suffixal forms of derivation; 3) the functions of various adverbial modifiers.

We have surveyed the identifying properties of the notional parts of speech that unite the words of complete nominative meaning characterised by self-dependent functions in the sentence.

Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and non-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech.

On the principle of "generalised form" only unchangeable words are traditionally treated under the heading of functional parts of speech. As for their individual forms as such, they are simply presented by the list, since the number of these words is limited, so that they needn't be identified on any general, operational scheme.

To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection.

The article expresses the specific limitation of the substantive functions.

The preposition expresses the dependencies and interdependences of substantive referents.

The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena.

The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series, alongside of other specifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as functional modifiers of verbs, etc.

The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pronounced or less pronounced detached position, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts. Here belong the functional words of probability (probably, perhaps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation and negation.

The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sentence, is a signal of emotions.

Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with various particular semantico-functional and formal features of the constituent words. This subdivision is sometimes called "subcategorisation" of parts of speech.

Thus, nouns are subcategorised into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract, etc. Cf.:

Mary, Robinson, London, the Mississippi, Lake Erie -- girl, person, city, river, lake;

man, scholar, leopard, butterfly -- earth, field, rose, machine;

coin/coins, floor/floors, kind/kinds -- news, growth, water, furniture;

stone, grain, mist, leaf -- honesty, love, slavery, darkness.

Verbs are subcategorised into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional and statal, factive and evaluative, etc. Cf.:

walk, sail, prepare, shine, blow -- can, may, shall, be, become;

take, put, speak, listen, see, give -- live, float, stay, ache, ripen, rain;

write, play, strike, boil, receive, ride -- exist, sleep, rest, thrive, revel, suffer;

roll, tire, begin, ensnare, build, tremble -- consider, approve, mind, desire, hate, incline.

Adjectives are subcategorised into qualitative and relative, of constant feature and temporary feature (the latter are referred to as "statives" and identified by some scholars as a separate part of speech under the heading of "category of state"), factive and evaluative, etc. Cf.:

long, red, lovely, noble, comfortable -- wooden, rural, daily, subterranean, orthographical;

healthy, sickly, joyful, grievous, wry, blazing -- well, ill, glad, sorry, awry, ablaze;

tall, heavy, smooth, mental, native -- kind, brave, wonderful, wise, stupid.

The adverb, the numeral, the pronoun are also subject to the corresponding subcategorisations.

§ 4. We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by modern linguists on the lines of traditional morphology.

It is known that the distribution of words between different parts of speech may to a certain extent differ with different authors. This fact gives cause to some linguists for calling in question the rational character of the part of speech classification as a whole, gives them cause for accusing it of being subjective or "prescientific" in essence. Such nihilistic criticism, however, should be rejected as utterly ungrounded.

Indeed, considering the part of speech classification on its merits, one must clearly realise that what is above all important about it is the fundamental principles of word-class identification, and not occasional enlargements or diminutions of the established groups, or re-distributions of individual words due to re-considerations of their subcategorial features. The very idea of subcategorisation as the obligatory second stage of the undertaken classification testifies to the objective nature of this kind of analysis.

For instance, prepositions and conjunctions can be combined into one united series of "connectives", since the function of both is just to connect notional components of the sentence. In this case, on the second stage of classification, the enlarged word-class of connectives will be subdivided into two main subclasses, namely, prepositional connectives and conjunctional connectives. Likewise, the articles can be included as a subset into the more general set of particles-specifiers. As is known, nouns and adjectives, as well as numerals, are treated in due contexts of description under one common class-term "names": originally, in the Ancient Greek grammatical teaching they were not differentiated because they had the same forms of morphological change (declension). On the other hand, in various descriptions of English grammar such narrow lexemic sets as the two words yes and no, the pronominal determiners of nouns, even the one anticipating pronoun it are given a separate class-item status -- though in no way challenging or distorting the functional character of the treated units.

It should be remembered that modern principles of part of speech identification have been formulated as a result of painstaking research conducted on the vast materials of numerous languages; and it is in Soviet linguistics that the three-criteria characterisation of parts of speech has been developed and applied to practice with the utmost consistency. The three celebrated names are especially notable for the elaboration of these criteria, namely, V. V. Vinogradov in connection with his study of Russian grammar, A. I. Smirnitsky and B. A. Ilyish in connection with their study of English grammar.

Alongside of the three-criteria principle of dividing the words into grammatical (lexico-grammatical) classes modern linguistics has developed another, narrower principle of word-class identification based on syntactic featuring of words only.

The fact is, that the three-criteria principle faces a special difficulty in determining the part of speech status of such lexemes as have morphological characteristics of notional words, but are essentially distinguished from notional words by their playing the role of grammatical mediators in phrases and sentences. Here belong, for instance, modal verbs together with their equivalents -- suppletive fillers, auxiliary verbs, aspective verbs, intensifying adverbs, determiner pronouns. This difficulty, consisting in the intersection of heterogeneous properties in the established word-classes, can evidently be overcome by recognising only one criterion of the three as decisive.

Worthy of note is that in the original Ancient Greek grammatical teaching which put forward the first outline of the part of speech theory, the division of words into grammatical classes was also based on one determining criterion only, namely, on the formal-morphological featuring. It means that any given word under analysis was turned into a classified lexeme on the principle of its relation to grammatical change. In conditions of the primary acquisition of linguistic knowledge, and in connection with the study of a highly inflexional language this characteristic proved quite efficient.

Still, at the present stage of the development of linguistic science, syntactic characterisation of words that has been made possible after the exposition of their fundamental morphological properties, is far more important and universal from the point of view of the general classificational requirements.

This characterisation is more important, because it shows the distribution of words between different sets in accord with their functional destination. The role of morphology by this presentation is not underrated, rather it is further clarified from the point of view of exposing connections between the categorial composition of the word and its sentence-forming relevance.

This characterisation is more universal, because it is not specially destined for the inflexional aspect of language and hence is equally applicable to languages of various morphological types.

On the material of Russian, the principles of syntactic approach to the classification of word stock were outlined in the works of A. M. Peshkovsky. The principles of syntactic (syntactico-distributional) classification of English words were worked out by L. Bloomfield and his followers Z. Harris and especially Ch. Fries.

The syntactico-distributional classification of words is based on the study of their combinability by means of substitution testing. The testing results in developing the standard model of four main "positions" of notional words in the English sentence: those of the noun (N), verb (V), adjective (A), adverb (D). Pronouns are included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes. Words standing outside the "positions" in the sentence are treated as function words of various syntactic values.

Here is how Ch. Fries presents his scheme of English word-classes [Fries].

For his materials he chooses tape-recorded spontaneous conversations comprising about 250,000 word entries (50 hours of talk). The words isolated from this corpus are tested on the three typical sentences (that are isolated from the records, too), and used as substitution test-frames:

Frame A. The concert was good (always).

Frame B. The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly).

Frame C. The team went there.

The parenthesised positions are optional from the point of view of the structural completion of sentences.

As a result of successive substitution tests on the cited "frames" the following lists of positional words ("form-words", or "parts of speech") are established:

Class 1. (A) concert, coffee, taste, container, difference, etc. (B) clerk, husband, supervisor, etc.; tax, food, coffee, etc. (C) team, husband, woman, etc.

Class 2. (A) was, seemed, became, etc. (B) remembered, wanted, saw, suggested, etc. (C) went, came, ran,... lived, worked, etc.

Class 3. (A) good, large, necessary, foreign, new, empty, etc.Class 4. (A) there, here, always, then, sometimes, etc.

(B) clearly, sufficiently, especially, repeatedly, soon, etc.

(C) there, back, out, etc.; rapidly, eagerly, confidently, etc. All these words can fill in the positions of the frames

without affecting their general structural meaning (such as "thing and its quality at a given time" -- the first frame; "actor -- action -- thing acted upon -- characteristic of the action" -- the second frame; "actor -- action -- direction of the action" -- the third frame). Repeated interchanges in the substitutions of the primarily identified positional (i.e. notional) words in different collocations determine their morphological characteristics, i.e. characteristics referring them to various subclasses of the identified lexemic classes.

Functional words (function words) are exposed in the cited process of testing as being unable to fill in the positions of the frames without destroying their structural meaning. These words form limited groups totalling 154 units.

The identified groups of functional words can be distributed among the three main sets. The words of the first set are used as specifiers of notional words. Here belong determiners of nouns, modal verbs serving as specifiers of notional verbs, functional modifiers and intensifiers of adjectives and adverbs. The words of the second set play the role of inter-positional elements, determining the relations of notional words to one another. Here belong prepositions and conjunctions. The words of the third set refer to the sentence as a whole. Such are question-words {what, how, etc.), inducement-words (lets, please, etc.), attention-getting words, words of affirmation and negation, sentence introducers (it, there) and some others.

Comparing the syntactico-distributional classification of words with the traditional part of speech division of words, one cannot but see the similarity of the general schemes of the two: the opposition of notional and functional words, the four absolutely cardinal classes of notional words (since numerals and pronouns have no positional functions of their own and serve as pro-nounal and pro-adjectival elements), the interpretation of functional words as syntactic mediators and their formal representation by the list.

However, under these unquestionable traits of similarity are distinctly revealed essential features of difference, the proper evaluation of which allows us to make some important generalisations about the structure of the lexemic system of language.

One of the major truths as regards the linguistic mechanism arising from the comparison of the two classifications is the explicit and unconditional division of the lexicon into the notional and functional parts. The open character of the notional part of the lexicon and the closed character of the functional part of it (not excluding the intermediary field between the two) receives the strict status of a formal grammatical feature.

The unity of notional lexemes finds its essential demonstration in an inter-class system of derivation that can be presented as a formal four-stage series permeating the lexicon and reflected in regular phrase correlations. Cf.:

a recognising note -- a notable recognition -- to note recognisingly -- to recognise notably; silent disapproval -- disapproving silence -- to disapprove silently -- to silence disapprovingly; etc.

This series can symbolically be designated by the formula St (n.v.a.d.) where St represents the morphemic stem of the series, while the small letters in parentheses stand for the derivational features of the notional word-classes (parts of speech). Each stage of the series can in principle be filled in by a number of lexemes of the same stem with possible hierarchical relations between them. The primary presentation of the series, however, may be realised in a four-unit version as follows:

strength -- to strengthen -- strong -- strongly peace -- to appease -- peaceful -- peacefully nation -- to nationalise -- national -- nationally friend -- to befriend -- friendly -- friendly, etc.

This derivational series that unites the notional word-classes can be named the "lexical paradigm of nomination". The general order of classes in the series evidently corresponds to the logic of mental perception of reality, by which a person discriminates, first, objects and their actions, then the properties of the former and the latter. Still, as the actual initial form of a particular nomination paradigm within the general paradigmatic scheme of nomination can prove a lexeme of any word-class, we are enabled to speak about the concrete "derivational perspective" of this or that series, i. e. to identify nomination paradigms with a nounal (N-V), verbal (V>), adjectival (A>), and adverbial (D>) derivational perspectives. Cf.:

N> power -- to empower -- powerful -- powerfully

V> to suppose --supposition -- supposed -- supposedly