Seminar 5 The verb: the verbal categories of person, number, voice

1. Classification of verbs in English. Different criteria for classifying English verbs.

H. Sweet  declinables (verb-words)

O. Jespersen  verbs

J. Sledd  inflectional

Ch. Fries  class II words

Classification of verbs (from the lecture):

1. Finite and non-finite forms.

Finites change for person, number and agree with subjects.

Non-finites are hybrids, half-verbs.

Gerund, Participle I: correlation, voice.

Infinitive: correlation, voice, aspect.

2. Morphological classification.

Regular verbs.

Irregular verbs:

• “sing”-type

• unchangeable type

• dental suffix (keep)

• suppletive (go)

3. Functional classification.

Notional verbs – full lexical meaning.

Semi-notional verbs: very general, faded lexical meaning. Auxiliary (analytical form), link (connect predicative with subject), modal verbs (don’t denote any action, their paradigm is different) – they serve to connect words in speech.

Many words can function as link verbs in special contexts.

Some verbs can function both as modals and full-notional verbs (e.g. need, dare).

4. Combineability.

Transitive.

Intransitive.

Some verbs can be both transitive and intransitive (e.g. Water boils (intr) at 100°C; I’m boiling (tr) some water).

English verbs are polisemantic. There are verbs that are transitive in their primary meaning, but they are intransitive in their secondary meaning. (e.g. I’m reading (intr. as there is no direct object); to run (tr)a hotel).

There are verbs where it is difficult to say if they are transitive or not (e.g. The weather changes; The dean changed the time table).

There are pairs of verbs where transivity is expressed lexically (e.g. sit-set; lie-lay).

5. According to the aspective nature of their meaning.

Terminative (Durative) – verbs which have inherent limit in time and space (e.g. to close, to shut).

Non-terminative (Non-durative) – no time limit (e.g. to sleep, to love, to live).

Verbs can be terminative and non-terminative depending on a context (e.g. We are building (interm) a cottage; We’ve built (term) a cottage).

2. What is the nature of the verbal categories of person & number?

Ilyish:

The categories of Person and number must be considered in close connection with each other, since in languages of the Indo-European family they are expressed simultaneously, i.e. a morpheme expressing person also expresses number.

The category of person in the verb expresses the relation between the speaker, the person or persons addressed, and other persons or things.

The category of number expresses the quantity of the subjects.

1^st person Sg  the speaker

2^nd person Sg  one person spoken to

3^rd person Sg  one person or thing (neither speaker nor spoken to)

1^st person Pl  the speaker and another person or other persons

2^nd person Pl  more than one person spoken to

3^rd person Pl  more than one person or thing (neither speakers nor spoken to)

However, this system does not hold good for the ME verb, and this is for 2 reasons:

1. there is no distinction of persons in the Plural number (e.g. we live; you live; they live).

2. There is no distinction of numbers in the 1^st or 2^nd person (e.g. I live; you live).

 Opposition: stem + s / stem + Ø (3^rd person Sg / any person of both numbers except 3^rd person Sg).

The first item of the opposition is marked both in meaning and in form.

Blokh:

The categories of person and number are closely connected with each other.

Both categories are different in principle form the other categories of the finite verb, in so far as they do not convey any inherently “verbal” semantics, any constituents of meaning realized and confined strictly within the boundaries of the verbal lexeme. The nature of both of them is purely “reflective”.

Both the personal and numerical semantics, though categorially expresses by the verb, cannot be characterized as process-relational, similar to the other aspects of the verbal categorial semantics. These aspect semantics are to be understood only as substance-relational, reflected in the verb from the interpretation and grammatical featuring of the subject.

The expression of the category of person is essentially confined to the singular form of the verb in the present tense of the indicative mood and, besides, is very singularly presented in the future tense.

In the present tense the expression of the category of person is divided into 3 peculiar subsystems:

1. The modal verbs that have no personal inflections: can, may, must, will, shall, ought, need, dare. So, in the formal sense, the category of person is wholly neutralized with these verbs, it is left unexpressed.

2. The unique verbal lexeme be (am-is-are).

3. The regular, normal expression of person with the remaining multitude of the English verbs, with each morphemic variety of them.

Хаймович, Роговская:

In ME the category of person has certain peculiarities.

1. the second member of the opposemes is not used colloquially:

speak – speakest – speaks

am – art – is

The category of person is practically represented by 2-member opposemes: speak-speaks, am-is.

2. person opposemes are neutralized when associated with the “plural” meaning.

Proff. Smirnitsky thinks that owing to the presence of the plural personal pronouns (we, you, they) person distinctions are felt in the plural of the verbs as well (e.g. we know – you know – they know).

The idea is open to criticism. If the verb itself (in the Plural) does not show any person distinctions we are bound to admit that in ME the verb in the plural has no person.

3. Person distinctions do not go with the meaning of the Past tense in the English verb (e.g. I/he asked)

4. As concerns “shall/should” and “will/would” – the person distinctions in such opposemes are not connected with number meanings.

The category of number shows whether the action is associated with one doer or with more than one. It denotes smth fundamentally different form what is indicated by the number of nouns  we see here not “oneness” or “more-than-oneness” of action, but the connection with the singular or plural doer.

The category is represented in its purity in the opposeme was-were. In am-are, is-are, am/is-are  it is blended with person.

Бархударов:

The use of number forms of English verbs is syntactically conditioned and is determined by the character of the subject.

3. Characterize the members of the opposition expressing the integral categorial sphere of person & number.

Blokh:

The blending of the morphemic expression of the 2 categories is complete, for the only explicit morphemic opposition in the integral categorial sphere of person and number is reduced with these verbs to the 3^rd person Singular (present tense, indicative mood) being contrasted against the unmarked finite form of the verb.

Иванова, Бурлакова, Почепцова:

In English verbs the categories of number and person are expressed not to the full. In Past tense verbs do not have any person or number distinctions, it is expressed by a noun or a pronoun. The past tense of the verb “to be” has number distinctions, but not person distinctions (was/were).

Ending –s does not convey the category of number, as there exists a form, expressing Singular number which does not possess this ending –s (I look). The ending –s does not convey the category of person as well, as there exists the form which belongs to the 3^rd person, but does not have this ending (they look)  forms of the verb with –s is paradigmatically isolated.

 The categories of person and number are represented fragmentarily and asymmetrically. These are the residual (остаточные) categories.

4. Point out the cases of neutralization of the opposition of person & number.

Blokh:

The modal verbs that have no personal inflections: can, may, must, will, shall, ought, need, dare. So, in the formal sense, the category of person is wholly neutralized with these verbs, it is left unexpressed (“agreement in sense”).

1. Combinations of the finite verb with collective nouns.

e.g. The government were (to reflect the plural composition of the subject) definitely against the bill introduced by the opposing liberal party. The newly appointed government has gathered (to render its integral, single-unit quality) for its first time.

2. Predicative constructions whose subject is made imperatively plural by a numeral attribute.

e.g. Three years have elapsed (ordinary plural) since we saw him last. Three years is (a measure) a long time to wait.

3. Constructions whose subject is expressed by a coordinative group of nouns, the verb being given an option of treating it either as a plural or as a singular.

e.g. My heart and soul belongs to this small nation in its desperate struggle for survival. My emotional self and rational self have been at variance about the attitude adopted by Jane.

4. Dialectal and colloquial person-number neutralizations.