Seminar

1.Корнеева, Кобрина и др. Пособие по морфологии английского языка. – М., 1974. – С.5-25. + Список лит.

2.Харитонов И. Теоретична граматика. + Список лит.

Lecture 5.

The Category of case of the E Noun.

(Look up: Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови) –P. 48-50

According to Ilyish B.A.(P. 41-42):

Case – is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things or properties, or actions and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself.

This category is expressed in E. by the opposition of the form -‘s, called the possessive case to the unfeatured form of the noun, called the common case.

The Category of case shows the relation of the thing(s) denoted by the noun to other things or objects and it should be manifested by some formal sign in (the form of) the noun itself.

Thus case is part of the morphological system of a language. We will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means.

Diagram:

Case:

Thing (denoted by the Noun) ---------à (relation) --------------à other things / objects.

This sign is almost always 1) an inflexion; or it may be 2) a “zero” sign. Absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another.

It is obvious that the minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence of two correlated elements at least is needed to establish a category.

Views on the problem of case differ widely.

1.The most usual view is that

1) there are two cases in the E. Noun: a common case (e.g.: father) :: a genitive / possessive case (: Father’s).

2) The number of cases is more than two ; (Max Deutschbein’s positional theory; Charles Fillmore’s theory of deep cases)

3) The number of cases is less than two; (Since 2 -1 = O). I.e. there are no cases at all in the E. Noun. (G. Vorontsova’s postpositional theory).

Theory № 2.

( > than 2)

The number of cases is more than two ;

We will not recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means: by prepositions (by the phrase “Prep. + Noun”), by word order. According to Max Deutschbein’s positional theory: In MnE. there are 4 cases: Nominative, genitive (‘s; of + N), dative (to+ N; & by word order), accusative (by word order).

Critique:

if we admit the above, the number of cases is bound to grow indefinitely, (this is the conclusion, academician Meshchaninov arrived at, Чл предложения и части речи p. 297). e.g.:

With the pen – instrumental; In the pen – a locative case.

This view would mean abandoning all idea of morphology and confusing form of a word with syntax.

Theory of deep cases.

Since 1960s theories have been put forward claiming that the semantic relationships borne by nominal parts of speech to verbs (N à V) make up a small, universal set. Charles J. Fillmore

(1968 Case Grammar; Case about case – НЛ № 10); Joyce Anderson. Localist Case Grammar (1971); Simon Dik. Functional Grammar (1978).

Charles J. Fillmore uses agentive, instrumental, dative, factitive, locative, objective. He called these “syntactic-semantic relations” cases. Fillmorean-type cases are called deep cases and traditional ones are surface cases.

Ch. J. Fillmore in his seminal (конструктивный) paper Case about case – НЛ № 10) proposed 6 cases, later – 7 cases. He called these “syntactic-semantic relations” cases, e.g.:

Patient – The bird ate the worm. Agent – The audience rose to their feet. Experiencer – They love music Destination – He turned to the house. Location – The vase is on the table.

Instrument – He got beaten up by a gang. Source – They got news from home Recipient - She gave her change to the collectors. Purpose – He went to the Peach pit for some take-away. ()

W.Chafe, V.Gak,I. Susov single out 7 cases, D. Lockwood -9 cases, V.V. Bogdanov – 14, N.N. Leontyeva – 50 cases.

Critique:

There are no agreed criteria & no consensus on the universal inventory of deep cases.

Charles J. Fillmore’s case grammar has fallen into disrepute because no-one has been able to produce a de’finitive (окончательный) list of semantic roles. But the notion of semantic roles

is embraced by a number of major theories e.g.: Government and Binding and Lexical Functional Grammar.

Theory № 3.

(2 – 1 =0)

There are certain phenomena which give doubts about the existence of such a 2 case system, about the form in ‘s being a case form at all. Here are some examples to illustrate the point:

1.The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s speech -речь канцлера казначейства. 2.Oxford professor of poetry’s lecture. 3.The Duke of Edinburg’s residence. 4. The son of Pharaoh’s daughter is the daughter of Pharaoh’s son. 5. Jim laughs but the stalker ahead’s (гордо шествующий) comment is “What bad taste!”	7.The girl I was dancing with’s name was Jane (a phrase=N + attributive clause) 8.Smith and Brown’s office 9. In the Sunday times I have been reading that fellow’s what’s his name’s attacks. 10.And there’d have been no success, no nothing but another stage-struck girl’s stage finish.
6 He called all curses of all Gods – upon the man (который) had hurled him out (энергично отправил) to dinner’s head. (=the man’s head).

1.Here we can see that the inflexion –s can be attached not only to nouns, but to other parts of speech, and even to clauses.

2.Besides, –‘s form can denote not only THE RELATION OF POSSESSSION, but also the relation of locality (Kiev’s inhabitants);

the relation of distance (to have a mile’s walk),

subjective genitive (my father’s arrival à my father arrived),

objective genitive (Doughty’s famous trial and execution àDoughty was tried and executed). Due to the fact that the ‘s belongs to a phrase (= N + attributive clause),

G.Vorontsova holds (считает, полагает) the –‘s to be a syntactical formant, a postposition (= particle). «Формант –‘s подобен предлогу, способному отстоять от ведущего существительного на некотором расстоянии. Если предлог возглавляет конструкцию, то формант –‘s ее замыкает. Но оба они оформляют зависимость члена предожения , в состав которого входят. Следовательно, –‘s не часть формы слова, чисто синтаксический формант, функционально сходный с предлогом, но в постпозиции, почему его и следует обозначить термином «послелог». Г. Воронцова. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. – М., 1960. – С.181)

3.Since the –‘s can belong to a phrase it is no longer a case inflection even when it belongs to a single noun. An essential argument in favour of this view is that both the form with and without –‘s, can perform the same syntactic functions, e.g.: My father was a happy man; :: My father’s was a happy life.

In the constructions like “at the stationer’s”, “at the baker’s” the ending –‘s is considered to be a word-building suffix, a lexicalized inflexion.

According to B. Ilyish, Cases 2 & 3 lead to the conclusion that there are no cases in the MnE noun. The only case ending to survive in MnE, has developed into an element of a different character - possibly a particle denoting possession (p. 45). According to G.Vorontsova, Due to the fact that the ‘s belongs to a phrase (= N + attributive clause), G.Vorontsova holds (считает, полагает) the –‘s is a syntactical formant, a postposition (= particle). According to Blokh M.Ya., the inflexional case of the noun in MnE has ceased to exist.In its place a new peculiar 2-case system has developed based on the particle expression of the Genitive falling into 2 segmental types: the word Genitive (John’s book) & the phrase Genitive (King of France’s arrival )

Critique:

Such examples (as are G.Vorontsova’s type) statistically are very rare and far between. So, in E. there are 2 morphological cases.

Lecture 6

The Noun. The Category of number.

The Category of number is expressed by such forms of the noun which formally signal whether the speaker means one object or more than one, the inflexion –s being such a signal. It is based on a two-member (binary) opposition of the singular number vs the plural number. As a rule only countable nouns can be used in the plural form.

There are some non-productive ways of expressing the singular - plural opposition.

1. Nouns with vowel interchange (man-men);

2. Nouns with the archaic suffix –en in the plural (ox-oxen);

3. Nouns of Latin, Greek or French origin (stratum-0strata);

4. The plural form of the N is homogeneous with the singular form (sheep, swine, deer, fish).

In MnE there is a big group of nouns, not subject to number variations. They are Singularia Tantum nouns (advice, police, foliage) and Pluralia Tantum nouns (scissors, trousers, goods). They are out of the grammatical category of number because there is no opposition of at least two grammatical forms. Such nouns lack the other member of the opposition “singularia against the plural”. We know if there is no opposition a grammatical category cannot exist.

(Alexeyeva, p.40):The opposition of singular and plural numbers can be neutralized due to the fact that:

1) singular nouns may be used to express plural: to have a keen eye; blue of eye; strong of muscle. This is stylistic transposition that exemplifies synechdoche - the simplest case of metonymy in grammar.

2) the plural form may express size differentiation (heavens, sands, woods), defined as stylistic usage for the sake of picturesqueness, as well as various types of the referent (wines, teas, cheeses), intensity of the presentation “class - subclass” (fish-fishes, fruit-fruits).

The extreme point of this semantic scale is marked by lexicalization of the plural form, e.g.: colour (=tint) – colours (=flag); сustom (habit) – сustoms (duties).

Some scholars distinguish the third member of the number opposition. They claim that the meaning of collective nouns may presuppose either a plurality or a unit and they may be followed by verbs either in plural or in singular, viz.: the govt has approved it; & the govt are unlikely to work out a solution.

Some scholars call these nouns doubly countables. The double-sidedness of collective nouns weakens the number opposition in English (Раевська, 1967).

+ p.41.

(Ganshina, p.21): Pl. identical in form with the singular:

Nouns partly survivals of OE plurals, viz.:

some sorts of fish: trout, cod, pike, salmon.

Names indicating number: dozen pair, couple, score (=20).

After many and few both forms are found e.g.:

so many pair of wings, a great many pairs of gloves;

a few scores of heads; 5 score of eggs; three dozen of shirts;

Lecture 7.

The Category of gender of the Noun.

[Alexeyeva, (p.37-38)].

In any language the category of gender must be strictly oppositional. It should consist of at least 2 members of the opposition. The opposition presupposes that a noun may be classified as belonging either to masculine or feminine or neuter.

In R., U. Latin, Old Greek & German there are 3 genders: m, f. & n. In Arabic, French & Italian there are 2 genders: m. & f. In the above languages the purely grammatical gender is a formal feature of nouns.

The morphological category of gender had disappeared from English by the end of the ME period. What has survived the time is the possibility of lexical indication of the biologicasl sex. These are purely lexical or derivational means, e.g.: boy – girl; cock – hen; bull – cow; (These are cases of supplitivity); + lion – lioness; waiter – waitress; he-goat – she- goat.

Replacement of nouns by the pronouns, marking the biological sex (he, she), or the inanimate nature (it) may be interpreted by the proponents of the gender category in English as an argument in favour of their position.

In this case the pronominal property of gender differentiation (he-goat – she- goat.) is obviously transferred onto nouns that lack this property. Moreover, the choice between he she, it is also lexically determined and is not related to grammar. Such a noun as dog may be substituted either for “he or she, or it” and here the key factor will be the speaker’s subjective attitude to the dog.

Similar subjective attitude may turn inanimate nouns into he or she. This kind of personification is either a stylistic device or an everyday language phenomenon regulated by cultural-historical traditions. Cf. in English:

The reference of she with the names of countries, vehicles, weaker animals; & The reference of he with the names of weaker animals; phenomena suggesting crude strength and fierceness.

What test can be used to prove the existence of gender in a language? The grammatical gender of a noun requires corresponding agreement of verbs, adjectives, pronouns and articles, accompanying the noun. E.g.: мальчик сказал; девочка сказала; большое окно; большой дом; большая дорога =a big window/house; a boy/ a girl said; он сделал; она сделала; оно сделало.

No such processes are observed in English. Thus, In English there is no grammatical gender.

It seems justified to restrict the term “gender” to the languages that have precise and mutually exclusive noun classes marked by clear formal markers.

N.B. The current tendency to avoid gender suffixes (-ess, -ette, -woman, - man, -lady, -lord) decreases the number of words with “lexical gender”. Words denoting professions are replaced by neologisms with no sex indication e.g.:

1.Cameraman – videographer; Camera-operator; 2.Policeman – police officer; 3.Chairman – chair.

4.Stewardess – flight attendant;

Thus, In English there is no grammatical gender.

Lecture ¾

Semantic and grammatical peculiarities of the English verb. (Навчальный посибник з теории англ мови) –P.51-54

Lecture 8

The category of aspect.

Aspect is a verbal grammatical category showing the way in which the action develops (Прибыток И.И., с. 86).

В.Д.Аракин: Категория вида – такая лексико-грамматическая категория, которая передает характеристику протекания действия или процесса, обозначенного глаголом, - повторяемость, длительность, многократность, мгновенность действия или результативность, не/завершенность или предельность, то есть отношение действия к его внутреннему пределу (С.121).

There are 2 sets of forms in the MnE verb which are contrasted with each other on the principle of use or non-use of the pattern “be + Participle I”:

Writes :: is writing

Has written :: has been writing

Will write:: will be writing

Wrote:: will be writing

These two sets of forms clearly belong to the same verb write. What is the basic difference between writes and is writing? The definition of the meaning of is writing given in different grammar books, is that it denotes an action proceeding continuously at a definite period of time, within certain time limits.

On the other hand, Writes denotes an action not thus limited, but either occurring repeatedly or everlasting, without any notion of lasting duration at a given moment.

The basic difference between the 2 sets of forms appears to be this: an action going on continuously during a given period of time, and an action not thus limited and not described by the very form of the verb as proceeding in such a manner.

How should this essential difference in meaning between the two sets of forms be described?=It is a difference in the way the action is shown to proceed.

This is the grammatical notion described as the category of aspect with reference to the Slavonic languages and to Old Greek in which the category is clearly expressed.

According to O. Akhmanova: Вид – грамматическая категория глагола, обозначающая особые свойства глагола, характер протекания данного процесса, т.е. в его отношении к внутреннему пределу, результату, длительности, повторяемости и т.д.

AS IS WELL KNOWN not all verbs are commonly used in the form of “be + Participle I”. Verbs denoting a) abstract relations (e.g. belong), b) sense perception or C) emotion ((e.g. see, hear, hope, love, like, fear) seldom appear in this form.

But examples are there:e.g.: It was as if she were seeing herself for the first time.

What is meant here is a sense perception (were seeing) going on (involuntarily) for some time. It is not a momentaneous action. The form “be + Participle I” is very appropriate here.

Some more examples.

Both were visibly hearing every word of the conversation and ignoring it at the same time.

(Let’s replace indefinite forms in the following variant: Both visibly heard every word of the conversation and ignored it at the same time). The descriptive character of the original text has disappeared after the substitution.

Mr. March was looking absent and somber again. (A temporary state of things is meant).

The two aspects dwelt above may be described by the terms common aspect and continuous aspect.

DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS

O. Jespersen treated the type is writing as a means of expressing limited duration. O. Jespersen, H. Sweet deny the existence of the category of aspect. They look upon continuous forms as tense forms. If it were so, continuous forms would represent a unity of two tenses:

present & Continuous in Present Continuous;

Past & Continuous in Past Continuous;

Future & Continuous in Future Continuous;

But we know that no grammatical form exists that could combine in itself two meanings of the same grammatical category.

2.A similar view by prof. Irtenyeva, who thinks that the basic meaning of the type

is writing is that of a simultaneity of an action with another action. These views are plausible for some cases for a complex clause when is writing in the subordinate clause and writes in the main clause. This can only be found when the narration refers to the past time e.g. Once she was in the car and Andrew was bending over her, her sense of freedom left her.

But the view propounded by these authors does not fit in with the use of the present

is writing which is never used in a complex sentence of that structure. In sentences with the present tenses like e.g.: What is he doing? He is reading. - there is no other action with which is writing could be simultaneous or to which it might be a time frame. Prof. Irtenyeva says that in such a case the action expressed by the is writing type is simultaneous with the act of speech (Irtenyeva N.F. Грамматика англ языка, 1956, с. 83).

But the act of speech is not mentioned in the speech. Besides, simultaneity with the act of speech is the definition of the present tense and not of the type is writing as such. Thus this view which does not take into account the category of aspect does not appear to be convincing.

3)Prof. I. Ivanova recognizes the existence of the category of aspect in English, but treats it in a peculiar way. According to Prof. I. Ivanova, the form is writing is an aspect form of the continuous aspect but writes is not an aspect form at all. She calls it a purely tense form.

Concerning this view it must be said that it agrees with the view put forward above: The distinction between writes and is writing is a distinction of aspect. But Prof. I. Ivanova denies the existence of common aspect. This seems rather a difference of wording than of essence. No aspect seems something like another version of common aspect.

The difficulty of formulating the meaning of the common aspect is one more case of distinction between a marked and non-marked member of an opposition.

The continuous aspect is marked both in meaning and in form (be+ P I), whereas the common aspect is non-marked both in meaning and in form. Thus the theory of common and continuous aspect may be upheld.

Аракин В.Д. (С.125), +Жигадло, Иофик, Иванова И.П. consider that the category of aspect forms an inseparable whole with the category of tense.

считают, что вида как особой грамматической категории в англ языке – нет. Как длительный, так и перфектный разряд не является видовым, а лишь имеет грамматическое значение вида, тесно переплетающееся с категорией времени, которая рассматривается как ведущая в этой системе.

But the majority of linguists consider that despite this, the grammatical categories of tense and aspect can and should be separated.

3)V.D. Arakin (Сравнительная типология англ и русского языков. – М., 1989. – С.121-122) completely denies the existence of the category of aspect in English.

Система видов в русском языке имеет свой отличительный признак – наличие соотносительных пар глаголов в совершенном и несовершенном виде, которые образуют соотносительные ряды форм, пронизывающих всю систему глагольных форм при тождестве их лексического значения, например: носить – нести; давать-дать;

Почти каждый глагол в английском языке может принимать как форму общего вида, так и форму длительного вида. Иными словами, глаголы в английском языке соотносительных пар не образуют. (с.125).

The majority of linguists speak of two aspects in English: continuous and non- continuous (=common aspect).

The continuous aspect is marked both in form (‘be + Participle I’) & in meaning (it represents an action in its development).

The non-continuous aspect is unmarked both in form (no characteristic pattern ‘be + Participle I’) & in meaning (it represents an action as simply occurring with no reference to its duration).

I.B. Khlebnikova draws the conclusion that the opposition of continuous vs non-continuous aspects can be qualified as a privative opposition one member of which is characterized by the presence of a certain feature, the other – by the absence of the same FEATURE feature.

Since the relations between the members of the privative opposition of aspect are not polar but isomorphous, i.e. have points of conti’guity (соприкосновения), the opposition of aspect can be neutralized on the syntagmatic axis.

According to the rules of neutralization, the unmarked non-continuous aspect finds itself in the position of neutralization, because it has a more general meaning and no specific formal exponent.

Thus neutralization of duration are those case when the Pres. Ind. is used instead of the Pres. Cont. in describing the things that happen (in stage remarks): e.g.:

Smith passes to Webster and Webster shoots and it’s a goal!

But neutralization of duration is more common on the axis of the past. Cf.:

In the case of non-terminative verbs:

They were dancing while he was playing the guitar – no neutralization.

They danced while he was playing the guitar – partial neutralization.

They were dancing while he played the guitar – partial neutralization.

They danced while he played the guitar – complete neutralization.

=Aspect neutralization is typical of non-terminative verbs.

With terminative verbs aspect neutralization is impossible for it brings about a change of meaning. Cf.:

We were meeting them at the concert hall, but we didn’t know which entrance tghey were waiting at. (were meeting = describes an arranged action that was about to take place at some late time).

I met her at the bus stop this morning. (met = an action that took place in the past). Lecture 9.

The category of tense.

The category of tense may be defined as a verbal category which reflects the objective category of time and expresses on this background the relations between time of the action and the time of the utterance.

The main divisions of the objective time are three: past, present and future. However tense systems of different languages are far from identical.

The diapason of grammatical meanings differentiating meanings of time within the cxategory of tense i.e the number of tenses is great: from 16 to two.