6. The notion of a part of speech as a lexico-grammatical class of words. Criteria for differentiating the classes of words: semantic, formal and functional.

The traditional term “parts of speech” was developed in Ancient Greek linguistics and reflects the fact that at that time there was no distinction between language as a system and speech, between the word as a part of an utterance and the word as a part of lexis. The term “parts of speech” is accepted by modern linguistics as a conventional, or “non-explanatory” term (“name-term”) to denote the lexico-grammatical classes of words correlating with each other in the general system of language on the basis of their grammatically relevant properties.

There are three types of grammatically relevant properties of words that differentiate parts of speech: semantic, formal and functional properties. They traditionally make the criteria for the classification of parts of speech.

- The semantic criterion refers to the generalized semantic properties common to the whole class of words, e.g.: the generalized (or, categorial) meaning of nouns is “thingness”, of verbs “process”, of adjectives “substantive property”, of adverbs “non-substantive property”.

- The formal criterion embraces the formal features (word-building and word-changing) that are characteristic for a particular part of speech, e.g.: the noun is characterized by a specific set of word-building affixes, cf.: property, bitterness, worker, etc., and is changed according to the categories of number, case and article determination: boy-boys, boy – boy’s, boy – the boy – a boy, etc. Combinability is also a relevant formal feature for each particular part of speech; for example, verbs can be modified by adverbs, while nouns cannot (except in specific contexts).

- The functional criterion is based on the functions that the words of a particular class fulfill in the sentence, e.g.: the most characteristic functions of the noun are those of a subject and an object; the only function of the finite form of the verb is that of a predicate; the adjective functions in most contexts as an attribute; the adverb as an adverbial modifier.

7. Principles of grammatical classification of words. The traditional classification. Notional and functional parts of speech in the traditional classification. The problem of grammatical relevance of the traditional classification of parts of speech. Polydifferential and monodifferential (heterogeneous and homogeneous) classifications.

Traditionally, all parts of speech are subdivided on the upper level of classification into notional words and functional words. Notional words, which traditionally include nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, pronouns and numerals, have complete nominative meanings, are in most cases changeable and fulfill self-dependent syntactic functions in the sentence. The noun, for example, as a part of speech, is traditionally characterized by 1) the categorial meaning of substance (“thingness”), 2) a specific set of word-building affixes, the grammatical categories of number, case and article determination, prepositional connections and modification by an adjective, and 3) the substantive functions of subject, object or predicative in the sentence. In the same way, all the other notional parts of speech are described. Functional words, which include conjunctions, prepositions, articles, interjections, particles, and modal words, have incomplete nominative value, are unchangeable and fulfill mediatory, constructional syntactic functions.

Classifications in general may be based either on one criterion (such classifications are called homogeneous, or monodifferential), or on a combination of several criteria (such classifications are called heterogeneous, or polydifferential). The traditional classification of parts of speech is polydifferential (heterogeneous); it is based on the combination of all the three criteria mentioned above: ‘meaning – form – function’.

The employment of the three criteria combined, in present-day mainstream linguistics, was developed mainly by V. V. Vinogradov, L. V. Scherba, A. I. Smirnitsky, B. A. Ilyish and others.

There are certain limitations and controversial points in the traditional classification of parts of speech, which make some linguists doubt its scientific credibility.

First of all, the three criteria turn out to be relevant only for the subdivision of notional words. As for functional words – prepositions, conjunctions, particles, interjections, etc. – these classes of words do not distinguish either common semantic, or formal, or functional properties, they are rather characterized by the absence of all three criteria in any generalized form.

Second, the status of pronouns and the numerals, which in the traditional classification are listed as notional, is also questionable, since they do not have any syntactic functions of their own, but rather different groups inside these two classes resemble in their formal and functional properties different notional parts of speech: e.g., cardinal numerals function as substantives, while ordinal numerals function as adjectives; the same can be said about personal pronouns and possessive pronouns.

Third, it is very difficult to draw rigorous borderlines between different classes of words, because there are always phenomena that are indistinguishable in their status. E.g., non-finite forms of verbs, such as the infinitive, the gerund, participles I and II are actually verbal forms, but lack some of the characteristics of the verb: they have no person or number forms, no tense or mood forms, and what is even more important, they never perform the characteristic verbal function, that of a predicate. Equally dubious is the part-of-speech characterization of auxiliary verbs, intensifying adverbs, conjunctive adverbs and pronouns, and of many other groups of words which have the morphological characteristics of notional words, but play mediatory constructional functions in a sentence, like functional words. There are even words that don’t go to any classification at all; for example, many linguists doubt whether the words of agreement and disagreement, yes and no, can occupy any position in the classification of parts of speech.

These, and a number of other problems, made linguists search for alternative ways to classify lexical units. Some of them thought that the contradictions could be settled if parts of speech were classified following a strictly scientific approach, a unified basis of subdivision; in other words, if a homogeneous classification of parts of speech were undertaken.

It must be noted that the idea was not entirely new. The first classification of parts of speech was homogeneous: in ancient Greek grammar the words were subdivided mainly on the basis of their formal properties into changeable and unchangeable; nouns, adjectives and numerals were treated jointly as a big class of “names” because they shared the same morphological forms. This classical linguistic tradition was followed by the first English grammars: Henry Sweet divided all the words in English into “declinables” and “indeclinables”. But the approach which worked well for the description of highly inflectional languages turned out to be less efficient for the description of other languages.

8. The syntactico-distributional classification of words (Ch. Fries). The combination of the syntactico-distributional and the traditional classifications: three main layers of lexicon. Supra/sub-classes of words. Functional differences between the three layers of lexicon. Intermediary phenomena between the three major layers.

The syntactic approach, which establishes the word classes in accord with their functional characteristics, is more universal and applicable to languages of different morphological types. The principles of a monodifferential syntactico-distributional classification of words in English were developed by the representatives of American Descriptive Linguistics, L. Bloomfield, Z. Harris and Ch. Fries.

Ch. Fries selected the most widely used grammatical constructions and used them as substitution frames: the frames were parsed into parts, or positions, each of them got a separate number, and then Ch. Fries conducted a series of substitution tests to find out what words can be used in each of the positions. Some of the frames were as follows: The concert was good (always). The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly). The team went there. All the words that can be used in place of the article made one group, the ones that could be used instead of the word “clerk” another, etc. The results of his experiments were surprisingly similar to the traditional classification of parts of speech: four main positions were distinguished in the sentences; the words which can be used in these positions without affecting the meaning of the structures were united in four big classes of words, and generally speaking coincide with the four major notional parts of speech in the traditional classification: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs. Besides these “positional words” (“form-words”), Ch. Fries distinguished 15 limited groups of words, which cannot fill in the positions in the frames. These “function words” are practically the same as the functional words in the traditional classification.

The syntactico-distributional classification of words distinguished on a consistently syntactic basis testifies to the objective nature of the classification of parts of speech. More than that, in some respects the results of this approach turn out to be even more confusing than the “non-scientific” traditional classification: for example, Group A, embracing words that can substitute for the article “the” in the above given frames, includes words as diverse as “the, no, your, their, both, few, much, John’s, twenty”, or one word might be found in different distributional classes. Thus, the syntactico-distributional classification cannot replace the traditional classification of parts of speech, but the major features of different classes of words revealed in syntactico-distributional classification can be used as an important supplement to traditional classification.

The combination of syntactico-distributional and traditional classifications strongly suggests the subdivision of the lexicon into two big supra-classes: notional and functional words. The major formal grammatical feature of this subdivision is their open or closed character. The notional parts of speech are open classes of words, with established basic semantic, formal and functional characteristics. There are only four notional classes of words, which correlate with the four main syntactic positions in the sentence: nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs. They are interconnected by the four stages of the lexical paradigmatic series of derivation, e.g.: to decide – decision – decisive – decisively. The functional words are closed classes of words: they cannot be further enlarged and are given by lists. The closed character of the functional words is determined by their role in the structure of the sentence: the functional words expose various constructional functions of syntactic units, and this makes them closer to grammatical rather than to lexical means of the language.

As for pronouns and the numerals, according to the functional approach they form a separate supra-class of substitutional parts of speech, since they have no function of their own in the sentence, but substitute for notional parts of speech and perform their characteristic functions. The difference between the four notional parts of speech and substitutional parts of speech is also supported by the fact that the latter are closed groups of words like functional parts of speech.

The three supra-classes are further subdivided into classes (the parts of speech proper) and sub-classes (groups inside the parts of speech). For example, nouns are divided into personal and common, animate and inanimate, countable and uncountable, etc.; pronouns are subdivided into personal, possessive (conjoint and absolute), objective pronouns, demonstrative, reflexive, relative, etc.; numerals are subdivided into cardinal and ordinal, etc.

9. The field approach in the classification of parts of speech. The field approach helps clarify many disputable points in the traditional classification of parts of speech. The borderlines between the classes of words are not rigid; instead of borderlines there is a continuum of numerous intermediary phenomena, combining the features of two or more major classes of words. Field theory states that in each class of words there is a core, the bulk of its members that possess all the characteristic features of the class, and a periphery (marginal part), which includes the words of mixed, dubious character, intermediary between this class and other classes. For example, the non-finite forms of the verb (the infinitive, the gerund, participles I and II) make up the periphery of the verbal class: they lack some of the features of a verb, but possess certain features characteristic to either nouns, or adjectives, or adverbs.

There are numerous intermediary phenomena that form a continuum between the notional and functional supra-classes; for example, there are adverbs whose functioning is close to that of conjunctions and prepositions, e.g.: however, nevertheless, besides, etc. Notional words of broad meaning are similar in their functioning to the substitutive functioning of the pronouns, e.g.: He speaks English better than I do; Have you seen my pen? I can’t find the wretched thing. Together with the regular pronouns they form the stages of the paradigmatic series, in which the four notional parts of speech are substitutively represented, cf.: one, it, thing, matter, way… - do, make, act…- such, similar, same… - thus, so, there…

The implementation of the field approach to the distribution of words in parts of speech was formulated by the Russian linguist V. G. Admoni.

TASKS

1. Доберіть українські еквіваленти та дайте їм визначення:

significative (meaning), intermediary phenomenon (phenomena), root, affix, lexical (derivational, word-building) affix, grammatical (functional, word-changing) affix, stem, infix, suppletivity, the IC analysis, allo-emic theory, morph, allomorph, distribution (complementive, contrastive, non-constrastive), distributional analysis, full and empty morphemes, free and bound morphemes, overt and covert morphemes, segmental and suprа-segmental morphemes, additive and replacive morphemes, continuous and discontinuous morphemes

2. Проаналізуйте морфологічну структуру слів. Охарактеризуйте кожну з морфем:

reproductiveness, irregularities, unexpectedly, babysitter’s

3. Розділіть речення на мінімальні смислові сегменти (морфи). Які з них можна визначити як слова, а які як морфеми.

I have been thinking about Jane’s decision for a long time.

4. Наведіть приклади словотворчих парадигм.

наприклад: soft - softness - softly - to soften

to endure - endurance - endurable - endurably

5. а) Виділіть у наступних словах морфему ‘-(e)s’. Разбийте слова на групи у відповідності до значення, яке передає ця морфема:

takes, pants, statistics, Brussels, linguistics, books, speaks, Alps, lots, vitals, fists, odds, corps, tidings, news, proceeds, human’s, ashes, stays, spectacles, civics, stops, official’s

б) Наведіть інші приклади для ілюстрації лексичної та граматичної суфіксальної омонімії (-er, -en, -ed, -ing).

6. Розділіть наступні слова на морфеми; визначте «дистрибутивний тип» кожної з морфем:

1) повні й пусті морфеми - lawyer, rejoinder;

2) вільні та зв’язані морфеми - chronic, playing;

3) відкриті та приховані морфеми – girl - girls;

4) адитивні й субституційні морфеми – girl - girls, man - men;

6) неперервні та розривні – played - have played

7. Визначте, до якої частини мови належать слова наступного уривку:

“I couldn’t bear Button sober,” I said to Charles. “Too true,” he said. “I’ll be damned glad when I get to London.” I’d known for a month that he’d landed a job there, but when he spoke so lightly about going away I felt lonely and lost; I wanted him to stay permanently in Dufton, I suppose, so that I’d at least be able to depend upon my hometown providing me with company. Dufton’s only virtue was that it never changed; Charles to me was part of Dufton. Now that he was leaving the town, the lever had been pulled that would complete its journey into death” (Braine).

Learn and remember!

A thorough study of linguistic literature on the problem of English parts of speech enables us to conclude that there were three tendencies in grouping English words into parts of speech or into form classes:

1. Pre - structural tendency;

2. Structural tendency;

3. Post - structural tendency;

1. Pre - structural tendency is characterized by classifying words into word - groups according to their meaning, function and form. To this group of scientists H. Sweet , O. Jespersen, O.Curme, B. Ilyish and other grammarians can be included.

2. The second tendency is characterized by classification of words exclusively according to their structural meaning, as per their distribution. The representatives of the tendency are: Ch. Fries, W. Francis, A. Hill and others.

3. The third one combines the ideas of the two above-mentioned tendencies. They classify words in accord with the meaning, function, form; stem-building means and distribution (or combinability). To this group of scientists we can refer most Russian grammarians such as: Khaimovitch and Rogovskaya, L. Barkhudarov and Shteling and others.

One of the central problems of a theoretical Grammar is the problem of parts of speech. There is as yet no generally accepted system of English parts of speech. Now we shall consider conceptions of some grammarians.

H. Sweet's classification of parts of speech is based on the three principles (criteria), namely meaning, form and function. All the words in English he divides into two groups: 1) noun-words: nouns, noun-pronouns, noun-numerals, infinitive, gerund; 2) verbs: finite verbs, verbals (infinitive, gerund, participle)

I. Declinable Adjective words: adjective, adjective pronouns, adjective-numeral, participles

II. Indeclinable: adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection

As you see, the results of his classification, however, reveal a considerable divergence between his theory and practice. He seems to have kept to the form of words. Further, concluding the chapter he wrote: "The distinction between the two classes which for convenience we distinguish as declinable and indeclinable parts of speech is not entirely dependent on the presence or absence of inflection, but really goes deeper, corresponding, to some extent, to the distinction between head - word and adjunct-word. The great majority of the particles are used only as adjunct-words, many of them being only form-words, while declinable words generally stand to the particles in the relation of headwords.

According to O. Jespersen the division of words into certain classes in the main goes back to the Greek and Latin grammarians with a few additions and modifications. He argues against those who while classifying words kept to either form or meaning of words, he states that the whole complex of criteria, i.e. form, function and meaning should he kept in view. He gives the following classification:

1. Substantives (including proper names)

2. Adjectives

In some respects (1) and (2) may be classed together as "Nouns ".

3. Pronouns (including numerals and pronominal adverbs)

4. Verbs (with doubts as to the inclusion of "Verbids")

5. Particles (comprising what are generally called adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions coordinating and subordinating - and interjections).

As it is seen from his classification in practice only one of those features is taken into consideration, and that is primarily form. Classes (1-4) are declinable while particles not. It reminds Sweet's grouping of words. The two conceptions are very similar.

Tanet R. Aiken kept to function only. She has conceived of a six-class system, recognizing the following categories: absolute, verb, complement, modifiers and connectives.

Ch. Fries' classification of words is entirely different from those of traditional grammarians. The new approach - the application of two of the methods of structural linguistics, distributional analysis and substitution - makes it possible for Fries to dispense with the usual eight parts of speech. He classifies words into four form - classes, designated by numbers, and fifteen groups of function words, designated by letters. The form-classes correspond roughly to what most grammarians call noun and pronouns (1st clause), verb (2nd clause), adjective and adverbs, though Fries warns the reader against the attempt to translate the statements which the latter finds in the book into the old grammatical terms. The group of function words contains not only prepositions and conjunctions but certain specific words that more traditional grammarians would class as a particular kind of pronouns, adverbs and verbs. In the following examples:

1. Woggles ugged diggles

2. Uggs woggled diggs

3. Diggles diggled diggles

The woggles, uggs, diggles are "thing", because they are treated as English treats "thing" words - we know it by the "positions" they occupy in the utterances and the forms they have, in contrast with other positions and forms. Those are all structural signals of English. So Fries comes to the conclusion that a part of speech in English is a functioning pattern.1 All words that can occupy the same "set of positions" in the patterns of English single free utterances (simple sentences) must belong to the same part speech.

Fries' test-frame-sentences were the following:

Frame A

The concert was good (always)

Frame B

The clerk remembered the tax (suddenly)

Frame C

The team went there

Fries started with his first test frame and set out to find in his material all the words that could be substituted for the word concert with no change of structural meaning:

The concert was good

food

coffee

taste.....

The words of this list he called class I words. The word “was” and all the words that can be used in this position he called class 2 words. In such a way he revealed 4 classes of notional words and 15 classes of functional words. These four classes of notional words contain approximately 67 per cent of the total instances of the vocabulary items. In other words our utterances consist primarily of arrangements of these four parts of speech.

Functional words are identified by letters

Class A Words

the concert was good

the a/an every

no my our

one all both

that some John’s

All the words appearing in this position (Group A) serve as markers of Class 1 words. Sometimes they are called "determiners". The author enumerates fourteen more groups of function words among which we find, according to the traditional terminology

Group B - modal verbs Group I - interrogative pr-ns and adverbs

Group C - p.not Group J - subordinating conj-s

Group D - adverbs of degree Group K- interjections

Group E - coordinating conj-s. Group L- the words yes and no

Group F - prepositions Group M - attention giving signals look, say, listen

Group G - the aux-v. do Group N - the word please

Group H - introductory there Group O - let us, let in request sentences.

The difference between the four classes of words and function words are as follows:

1. The four classes are large in number while the total number of function words amounts to 154.

2. In the four classes the lexical meanings of the separate words are rather clearly separable from

the structural meanings of the arrangements in which these words appear. In the fifteen groups it is usually difficult if not impossible to indicate a lexical meaning apart from the structural meanings which these words signal.

3. Function words must be treated as items since they signal different structural meanings:

The boys were given the money.

The boys have given the money.

Russian grammarians in classifying words into parts of speech keep to different concepts;

A.I. Smirnitsky identifies three criteria. The most important of them is the syntactic function next comes meaning and then morphological forms of words. In his opinion stem-building elements are of no use. His word-groups are:

Notional words Function words

1. Nouns link – verbs 4. Pronouns (article, particle)

2. Adjectives prepositions,conjunctions 5. Adverbs only, even, not

3. Numerals modifying function words 6. Verbs

Khaimovich and Rogovskaya identify five criteria

1. Lexico - grammatical meaning of words

2. Lexico - grammatical morphemes (stem - building elements)

3. Grammatical categories of words.

4. Their combinability (unilateral, bilateral)

5. Their function in a sentence.

Their Classification

1. Nouns 8. Modal words

2. Adjectives 9. Prepositions

3. Pronouns 10. Conjunctions

4. Numerals 11. Particles (just, yet, else, alone)

5. Verbs 12. Interjections

6. Adverbs 13. Articles

7. Adlinks (the cat. of state) 14. Response words (yes, no)

As authors state the parts of speech lack some of those five criteria. The most general

properties of parts of speech are features 1, 4 and 5.

B. A. Ilyish distinguishes three criteria:

1. meaning; 2. form, 3. function. The third criteria is subdivided into two:

a) the method of combining the word with other ones - has to deal with phrases

b) the function in the sentence - with sentence structure.

B. A. Ilyish considers the theory of parts of speech as essentially a part of morphology, involving, however, some syntactical points.

1. Nouns 7. Adverbs

2. Adjective 8. Prepositions

3. Pronoun 9. Conjunctions

4. Numerals 10. Particles

5. Statives (asleep, afraid) 11. Modal words

6. Verbs 12. Interjections

L. Barkhudarov, D. Steling. Their classification of words are based on four principles. But the important and characteristic feature of their classification is that they do not make use of syntactic function of words in sentences: meaning, grammatical forms, combinability with other words and the types of word - building (which are studied not by grammar, but by lexicology).

1. Nouns 7. Verbs

2. Articles 8. Prepositions

3. Pronouns 9. Conjunctions

4. Adjectives 10. Particles

5. Adverbs 11. Modal words

6. Numerals 12. Interjections

We find another approach of those authors to the words of English. All the words are divided into two main classes: notional words and function - words: connectives, determinatives

Function words are those which do not have full lexical meaning and cannot be used as an independent part of sentences. According to their function these words, as has been mentioned, are subdivided into connectives and determinatives:

1. connectives form phrases as to believe in something or as in the hall. To connectives authors refer: prepositions, conjunctions, modal and link verbs;

2. determinatives are words which define the lexical meaning of notional words (they either limit them, or make them more concrete). These words include articles and particles.

The consideration of conceptions of different grammarians shows that the problem of parts of speech is not yet solved. There's one point which is generally accepted: in M-n English there are two classes of words-notional and functional - which are rather distinct.