References:

1. Александрова О. В. Современный английский язык: Морфология и синтаксис. = Modern English Grammar: Morphology and Syntax: учебное пособие. / О. В. Александрова, Т. А. Комова. – М.: ИЦ Академия, 2007. – С. 77-82; 83-84.

2. Бархударов Л. С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. / Л. С. Бархударов – М.: Высшая школа, 1975. – С. 71-96.

3. Блох М. Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: учебник. / М. Я. Блох. – М.: Высш. шк., 2003. – С. 64-69.

4. Иванова И. П., Бурлакова В. В., Почепцов Г. Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка: Учебник. / И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова, Г. Г. Почепцов. – М.: Высш. шк., 1981. – С. 21-23.

5. Ильиш Б. А. Строй современного английского языка (Теоретический курс): Учеб. пособие. – М. –Л.: Просвещение, 1965. – С. 36-63.

6. Chalker, S. Weiner E. The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar. / S. Chalker, E. Weiner. – N.Y.: Oxford University Press. – P. 266.

Theme 8. The noun: the category of case Plan

1. The definition of the category of Case.

2. The problem of category of Case in Modern English.

3. Different approaches to its interpretation:

   1. The traditional approach.

   2. The theory of “positional” cases.

   3. The “prepositional cases” theory.

   4. The so-called “limited case” system.

4. The difference between the morpheme ’s and other grammatical morphemes of the English language.

In the course of its historic development the English noun has lost its former Case system. Thus “case” which is a morphological category present in German, Russian and many other languages, is not as significant for the English noun as it used to before.

The English noun, however, has retained one remnant of its former case system, called the possessive case form: the use of this form is illustrated by the following examples:

e.g. the Government’s public relations;

Mr Walker’s announcement;

their children’s lives;

a parents’ union;

Diana and Maria’s general answer.

In Modern English the Category of case is formed by the opposition of two categorial forms: the Common Case : : the Possessive Case:

e.g. a boy – boy’s book; boys’ books

a doctor – doctor’s bag; doctors’ bags.

The latter form is often termed “Possessive”, although the few examples above show that the scope of its meaning is wider than possession in the narrow sense of the word: e.g. an hour’s walk; Thompson’s paintings. As its function is to determine the following noun, this form is dealt with as possessive determiner. Since its meaning is not reduced to possession alone, it is often referred to as Genitive.

The Case forms are given in the table:

The Genitive Case	Non-Genitive	The Genitive Case	Non-Genitive
Singular		Plural
boy’s	boy	boys’	boys
man’s	man	men’s	men
child’s	child	children’s	children
cat’s	cat	cats’	cats
wife’s	wife	wives’	wives
fox’s	fox	foxes’	foxes
ox’s	ox	oxen’s	oxen

Case forms are inflexional noun forms. Since there is only one positive inflexional morpheme { -‘s} in English, expressing its syntactical function in the sentence, there are reasons to admit a two-member case system in Modern English, represented by the zero morpheme (the Common Case) / the { -‘s} morpheme (the Genitive Case). Thus, the category of Case in English is constituted by the two categorial forms: the strong member (marked) with the ‘s – the Genitive Case : : the weak member (unmarked) – the Non-Genitive Case form (the Common Case).

The Genitive Case morpheme { -‘s} is represented by the three phonologically conditioned allomorphs /s/, /z/, /iz/. { -‘s} is pronounced as /s/ after voiceless, /z/ after voiced, /iz/ after sibilants. Unlike the {s} morpheme that helps build the Plural form, { -‘s} has no unproductive allomorphs. It is only in some of the nouns that the Genitive Case morpheme is given separately from that of the Number morpheme: e.g. men’s, children’s, oxen’s. In the rest of the nouns the morphemes of the Plural and Case forms merge.

The problem of case has always been a complicated and vague one in many respects. Linguists differ on the number and nomenclature of noun case forms as well as the semantics of these forms. Moreover, the category of case itself is being questioned. Undoubtedly, there are reasons for it.

The first view to be dealt with is the theory of “positional cases”. It is directly connected with the old grammatical tradition. In accord with this theory, the unchangeable forms of the noun are differentiated as different cases by virtue of the functional positions occupied by the noun in the sentence. On the analogy of classical Latin Grammar, the English noun would distinguish besides the inflexional genitive case, also the non-inflexional, i.e. purely positional cases: Nominative, Vocative, Dative and Accusative. The Case in grammar means the relationship of nouns and pronouns to each other in the sentence. In terms of syntax nouns function as subjects, objects, nominative predicatives, attributes and adverbials (together with prepositions).

e.g. Obviously, he wrote this letter with his left hand outside the office room.

Leo Tolstoy is a great writer of the 20^th century.

Bill, open the door!

The fallacy of this theory is quite obvious: it substitutes the functional characteristics of the part of the sentence for the morphological form of the noun as the word class, since the case form is a variable morphological form of the noun. The positive thing about this approach is that it shows that the functional meaning rendered by cases can be expressed in language by other grammatical means, i.e. by word order in particular.

Like the theory of positional cases, prepositional phrases like “of the boy”, “to the boy”, “from the boy”, were considered to be the “genitive” case form, the “dative” case form and the “ablative” case form correspondingly.

However, this opinion is not very well grounded. According to L. S. Barkhudarov, the prepositional phrases like listed above, can’t be identified as analytical word-forms. They belong to the syntax, not morphology.

The theory of analytical cases seems to be unconvincing for a number of reasons.

1. In order to treat the combinations of the student, to the student, by the student as analytical words (like shall come or has come) we must regard of, to, with as grammatical word-morphemes. But then they are to be devoid of lexical meaning, which they are not. Like most words a preposition is usually polysemantic and each meaning is singled out in speech, in a sentence or a word-combination. Cf. to speak of the student, the speech of the student, news of the student, it was kind of the student, what became of the student, etc. In each case of shows one of its lexical meanings. Therefore it cannot be regarded as a grammatical word-morpheme, and the combination of the student cannot be treated as an analytical word.

2. A grammatical category, as known, is represented in opposemes comprising a definite number of members. Combinations with different prepositions are too numerous to be interpreted as opposemes representing the category of case. The number of cases in English becomes practically unlimited.

3. Analytical words usually form opposemes with synthetic ones (comes – came – will come). With prepositional constructions it is different. They are often synonymous with synthetic words. E.g. the son of my friend = my friend’s son; the wall of the garden = the garden wall. On the other hand, prepositional constructions can be used side by side with synthetic cases, as in the doll of Mary’s, a friend of John’s. If we accepted the theory of analytical cases, we should see in of John’s a double-case word, which would be some rarity in English, there being no double-tense words nor double-aspect words and the like.

4. There is much subjectivity in the choice of prepositions supposed to form analytical cases. Grammarians usually point out those prepositions whose meanings approximate to the meanings of some cases in other languages or in Old English. But the analogy with other languages or with the older stage of the same language does not prove the existence of a given category in a modern language.

Therefore we think it unjustified to speak of units like to the student, of the student etc. as of analytical cases. They are combinations of nouns in the common case with prepositions.

The morpheme -’s, on which the category of case of English nouns depends, differs in some respects from other grammatical morphemes of the English language and from the case morphemes of other languages.

As emphasized by B.A. Ilyish, -’s is no longer a case inflexion in the classical sense of the word. Unlike such classical inflexions, -’s may be attached

1. to adverbs (of substantival origin), as in yesterday’s events;

2. to word-groups, as in Mary and John’s apartment, our professor of literature’s unexpected departure;

3. even to whole clauses, as in the well-worn example The man I saw yesterday’s son.

B.A. Ilyish comes to the conclusion that the -’s morpheme gradually develops into a ‘form-word’, a kind of particle serving to convey the meaning of belonging, possession.

G.N. Vorontsova does not recognize -’s as a case morpheme at all. The reasons she puts forward to substantiate her point of view are as follows:

1. The use of -’s is optional (her brother’s, of her brother).

2. It is used with a limited group of nouns outside which it occurs very seldom.

3. -’s is used both in the singular and in the plural (child’s, children’s), which is not incident to case morphemes (cf. мальчик-а, мальчик-ов).

4. It occurs in very few plurals, only those with the irregular formation of the plural member (oxen’s, but cows’).

5. -’s does not make an inseparable part of the structure of the word. It may be placed at some distance from the head-noun of an attributive group.

“Been reading that fellow what’s his name’s attacks in the ‘Sunday Times’?” (Bennett).

Proceeding from these facts G.N. Vorontsova treats -’s as a ‘postposition’, a ‘purely syntactical form-word resembling a preposition’, used as a sign of syntactical dependence.

In keeping with this interpretation of the -’s morpheme the author denies the existence of cases in Modern English.

At present, however, this extreme point of view can hardly be accepted. The following arguments tend to show that -’s does function as a case morpheme.

1. The -’s morpheme is mostly attached to individual nouns, not noun groups. According to our statistics this is observed in 96 per cent of examples with this morpheme. Instances like The man I saw yesterday’s son are very rare and may be interpreted in more ways than one. As already mentioned, the demarcation line between words and combinations of words is very vague in English. A word-combination can easily be made to function as one word. Cf. a hats-cleaned-by-electricity-while-you-wait establishment (O. Henry), the eighty-year-olds (D. W.). In the last example the plural morpheme -s is in fact attached to an adjective word-combination, turning it into a noun. It can be maintained that the same morpheme -s likewise substantivizes the group of words to which it is attached, and we get something like the-man-I-saw-yesterday’s-son.

2. Its general meaning – “the relation of a noun to another word” – is a typical case meaning.

3. The fact that -’s occurs, as a rule, with a more or less limited group of words bears testimony to its not being a “preposition-like form word”. The use of the preposition is determined, chiefly, by the meaning of the preposition itself and not by the meaning of the noun it introduces (Cf. on the table, in the table, under the table, over the table, etc.).

4. The fact that the possessive case is expressed in oxen – oxen’s by -’s and in cows – cows’ by zero cannot serve as an argument against the existence of cases in English nouns because -’s and zero are here forms of the same morpheme:

1. Their meanings are identical.

2. Their distribution is complimentary.

5. As a minor argument against the view that -’s is “a preposition-like word”, it is pointed out that -’s differs phonetically from all English prepositions in not having a vowel, a circumstance limiting its independence.

Yet, it cannot be denied that the peculiarities of the -’s morpheme are such as to admit no doubt of its being essentially different from the case morphemes of other languages. It is evident that the case system of Modern English is undergoing serious changes.

M.Y. Bloch suggests that the solution of the problem be sought on the ground of a critical synthesis of the positive statements of the two theories: the limited Case theory.

Historical development, again, is responsible for the fact that English has only a few lexical means to express gender: e.g. actor – actress; boy-friend – girl-friend; he-goat – she-goat; Tom-cat – Pussy cat. The absence of gender is one of the marked differences between English and German or Russian, where gender distinction is made either by the article (German: der Tisch, die Lampe, das Fenster) or morphological indication (Russian: стол, лампа, окно). The English noun only makes a semantic distinction between animate / inanimate and between sexes (male / female), which is expressed by pronouns and possessive determiners. The distinction is only expressed by pronouns where the singular is concerned (“he”, “she”, “it”; “it”, however, does not denote sex); in the Plural even this disappears (“they”).

e.g. Maggie, the dark girl,… had been with me for over five years now: she was clever to just short of the point of being brilliant. (animate, female)

Jimmy Duclos. My first thought was that he must have considered his information to be of a vital and urgent nature. (animate, male)