5. Classifications of parts of speech developed within structuralist linguistics

Other structuralists retain the traditional names of parts of speech, though their critical attitude to their predecessors makes them continue rethinking the content of the grammar course. Thus, the methods they use to identify various parts of speech, the number of them and the distribution of words among them are all different from what is found in traditional grammar. They also exclude function words from the traditional parts of speech and give them entirely separate treatment.

• Classification suggested by Gleason

H.A. Gleason criticizes the usual definitions of parts of speech and works out his own classification based on two criteria, within the word and outside the word. The criteria, which are found within the word, comprise types of inflection, derivational suffixes and other grammatical features. The “outside-the-word” criteria might be found in the use in sentences. He divides all the words into two big groups:

1. The first group has formal properties of word formation.

2. The second group that has no such properties.

Thus, H.A. Gleason speaks of paradigmatic classes, i.e. words having formal features, and syntactic classes, and i.e. words occurring in the same or comparable environments. The first group includes nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. But strictly following the principle that all the words of the class are to be characterized by the same paradigm, H. Gleason excludes from this class all the words that do not have all the forms making up the paradigm. Thus, such a word as beautiful does not refer to the group of adjectives as it does not have the forms *beautifuller, *beautifullest.

The second group consists of classes singled out by the criterion of syntactic function; they lack a paradigm but may be used in the same linguistic environment as the corresponding paradigmatic classes. So, beautiful that takes the same position as fine refers to a wider class of adjectivals that includes adjectives themselves. The same pattern exists for pronominals; it is a wider class than pronouns.

The classes that can be used in the same positions are called constituent classes. But H. Gleason does not give their exact description or definition, and it is not clear if he includes here the formal parts of speech, though he seems to refer prepositions to some certain class.

H. Gleason’s classification is less systematized than the Fries one: one and the same word can belong to both classes simultaneously, whereas others belong only to one class. Besides, there are no systemic relations between classes.

• The Sledd classification

This classification is closely connected with the Gleason one. J. Sledd singles out inflectional and positional classes, which correspond to Gleason’s paradigmatic and syntactic classes. The inflectional classes are parts of speech distinguished by suffixes. They have familiar names: noun, pronoun, verb, adverb, and adjective. The main positional classes, i.e. parts of speech distinguished by position, are: nominals, verbals, adjectivals, adverbials. Besides, there are 8 smaller classes: determiners, prepositions, conjunctions, relatives, interrogatives, intensive-reflexives, auxiliaries, and adverbials of degree. But positional classes are totally different from the inflectional classes as the second set includes both words and forms larger than words (phrases and clauses). Phrases and clauses are included into the second set as they occur in the same or similar positions to the words making up this class.

This classification is not devoid of some disputable and moot points either: some pronouns take the same positions as the nouns but are grouped into a separate class, interrogative pronouns do not differ from other pronouns from the positional point of view but build a separate class.

Alongside weak points these classifications have some advantages as well. They both state the importance of word-building affixes as modifiers of parts of speech. The next strong point is that they both pay attention to non-homogeneous properties of some linguistic units belonging to the same class. This is actually the basis on which they build their classifications and divide words into narrower groups.

• The Trager and Smith classification

There is another part of speech classification that fits the frame of descriptive linguistics and is closely connected with the former two. This conception was worked out by Georges Trager and Henry Lee Smith. In 1951 their book under the title “An Outline of English structure” was published. In it they set up two systems of classes - one is based on inflexional criteria, the other takes into account syntactic behaviour. In the first class there are: 1. nouns, 2. personal pronouns, 3. adjectives, 4. verbs. Only those words are considered to be nouns which have inflexions –s, ‘s. Such nouns as man-men are also included as they have a formal signal of number and case.

Personal pronouns including possessive pronouns are distinguished as they have a paradigm of their own. Adjectives also have their paradigm (-er, -est). If there are no such inflexions (e.g. beautiful) such words are not adjectives for them. Such a word as beautiful is not an adjective morphologically but syntactically words of this type behave like adjectives. So they classify such words as adjectivals. They insist on this distinction.

Verbs also have their paradigm.

All the other words without inflexions are classed together as particles.

In Class II there are correspondingly:

(1) nominals, (2) pronominals, (3) adjectivals, (4) verbals, (5) adverbials, (6) prepositionals, and so on. So to all the traditional terms the suffix –al is added. This system of two sets of terms is not very convenient. The two systems do not match exactly. The terminology presents certain difficulties as well, for the grammarians use some conventional terms and attribute a new meaning to them (adjective proves a smaller class than it is usually known), or vice versa they invent terms whereas there exist ready-made ones (prepositionals are not necessary as the term preposition already exists).

Most grammarians first rejected this system for its complexity, but later they understood that if the language is complex, its interpretation is also to be complex. That’s why nowadays some of the suggested terms are widely used, e.g. beautiful is an adjectival as it refers to this class due to its syntactic behaviour. It must be recognized that studies and practical suggestions made by structural linguists in this field, though not quite successful at all points, are important for language learning.