3. The notion of opposition in Theoretical Grammar

The paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms in a category are exposed by the so-called grammatical oppositions. The theory of grammatical opposition was first introduced in the Prague School by Prince Nikolai Trubetskoy in 1933. It was developed for the investigation of the phonological level of the language. Three main types of opposition were singled out for phonological analysis: privative, gradual and equipollent oppositions. The privative opposition may only be binary and is characterized by the opposition of two members one of which is marked by some feature and the other one is unmarked. The gradual opposition is characterized by the degree the feature is expressed. The equipollent opposition is based on the opposition of two non-opposed features. R. Jacobson further developed and radically transformed the theory of opposition. Moreover he extrapolated it on the grammatical level of linguistic description.

Opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalized 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 ones and distinctive ones. Common features serve as the basis of contrast, while distinctive features immediately express the function in question.

The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition. The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterized by the presence of a certain distinctive feature (“mark”), while the other member is characterized 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).

E.g. want ÷ wanted – the expression of the verbal present and past tenses is based on a privative opposition the distinctive feature of which is the dental suffix –(e)d. This suffix rendering the meaning of the past tense marks the past tense of the verb positively (I wanted) and the present tense is marked negatively (I want).

The binary nature of feature oppositions is an important and controversial aspect of R. Jacobson’s theory. Oppositions, according to R. Jacobson, can only have two values: “+” or “-“, standing for the presence or absence of quality in question. In the Prague School theory, oppositions may also be bilateral or multilateral according to the number of members. They may also be privative or gradual according to whether the members are distinguished by the presence versus absence, or by more versus less of a feature.

By allowing only binary features with + or – R. Jacobson treats all oppositions as, in effect, bilateral (binary) and privative. With oppositions only one question is relevant: Does X have the feature or not? Thus, according to R. Jacobson, “the dichotomous scale is the pivotal principle of linguistic structure”.

Linguists still discuss whether binarism is inherent in the language system or it is one of the convenient techniques designed by scholars. But all linguists are agreed that a grammatical opposition is the way a grammatical category functions [Штелинг 1996: 115].

A grammatical category must be expressed by at least one opposition of forms. These forms are ordered in a paradigm in grammatical descriptions. Thus, the whole grammatical system is based on oppositions. If there are no oppositions, there are no grammatical categories. This makes the theory of opposition one of the fundamental linguistic theories.

Nevertheless oppositions may be neutralized in speech. In this case the opposition disappears, its members ceasing to be opposed each other in a certain linguistic environment. Thus, for instance, the opposition table ÷ tables may be neutralized in the following sentence: A table is a piece of furniture, as the noun in the singular here does not express singularity, but a whole class of objects like a noun in the plural. Another example of neutralization is the so-called elative use of the superlative degree of adjectives (e.g., It was a most (=very) interesting book) when it equals a positive degree of comparison. Thus the opposition comes to be neutralized or annulled.