THEME 5 LECTURES 8-9

CLASSIFICATION OF NOMINATIVE AND FUNCTIONAL WORDS

OUTLINE

1. Categorization and subcategorization

2. Principles of lexico-grammatical word classification

2.1 logico-syntactical approach

2. logico-inflectional approach

1. Syntactico-distributional classification

2. Lexico-grammatical word classes

3. Word-classes and their basic characteristics

4. Notional and functional words

Recommended reading

1. Blokh M.Y. A Course of Theoretical English Grammar. – M: Высшая школа, 1983

2. Morokhovskay E.J. Fundamentals of English Grammar:Theory and Practice. – Kyiv: Vysca Skola, 1993.

3. O’Grady W., Dobrovolsky M., Aronoff M. Contemporary Linguistics: An

Introduction. – NY: St.Martin’s Press, 1989

4. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика

современного английского языка. -M.: Высшая школа, 1981.

5. Кубрякова Е.С. Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения. – М.: РАН,

1997

Key terms: categorization, subcategorization, logico-syntactical approach, logico-inflectional approach, lexico-grammatical classes, lexico-morphological classes, lexico-syntactical groupings, form-classes, semantic criterion, formal criterion, functional criterion, functional and distributional principles, notional parts of speech, functional parts of speech

Projects

1. Cognitive view of the parts-of-speech problem

2. Analytization of English and the parts-of-speech problem

Study questions

Additional reading

1. Lexico-grammatical classification of nominative words

Categorization is a classificational operation of ascribing objects to a category or categories which are maximally general classes of objects, each having its own distinguishing characteristics. The iden­tification of an element in its categorial membership helps to point out the characteristic features this or that element shares with other mem­bers of a category.

Every science, linguistics including, works out and operates with the categorial inventory sets which are necessarily used in typological analysis. Grammatical linguistic typologies of units are based on such main categorial sets as "parts of speech" or "parts of the sentence". They do not exclude some other minor categorial sets. The categorial classi­fication of units, i. e. their categorization as belonging to a category, presupposes the differentiation of categorial characteristics and their attribution to all and every member of the given category.

Subcategorization is a classificational operation designed to set up subclasses of elements within the class of units. The subcategorization of linguistic units is carried out with a greater effect if it is based on the principles of dichotomy.

2. Principles of the lexico-grammat1cal

WORD CLASSIFICATION

The parts-of-speech problem remains one of the most controversial problems in general grammar. It has a long-time history. The working term "parts-of-speech" goes back to ancient times. The original Greek term is to be interpreted as "constituents of the sentence". Then logico-syntactical approach to the "parts-of-speech" is revealed in the most fundamental division between "noun" and "verb", the distinctions between which were drawn in terms of logico-syntactical categories of utterances such as "subject" and "predicate" primarily. In various systems, which are further developments of traditional Aristotelian logic, a distinction is made between "names" and "predicates", the lat­ter being classified as "one-place", "two-place", "three-place", etc. according to the number of "names" with which they may occur in well-formed propositions.

The original Greek term was reinterpreted in Latin grammar in accordance with the logico-inflectional approach to the classification of words. The traditional lexico-grammatical division was made bet­ween "partes orationis" (parts of speech) and "particles orationis" (particles of speech) with regards to the inflexional declinability/indeclinability of words. The parts of speech were distinguished as words grammatically changeable. Nouns, for instance, were defined as the words inflected for case and number, verbs were characterized as in­flected for person, number, tense and mood. As to the adjectives, they were surely inflected for gender.

Declinable words were opposed to the particles of speech, i. e. in­declinable words. But the term "particle orationis" should not be mistaken for what later on was defined as "secondary parts of speech" because the group of particles of speech comprised different words, ad­verbs including, which were not capable of inflexion.

In the course of time the Latinate logico-inflectional principle was imported into the grammars of most Indo-European languages and developed into the traditional lexico-morphological principle of the word-classification. It seems acceptable for the classification of words in the languages of synthetic order which resemble Latin grammati­cally. The extrapolation of the logico-inflectional principles of word-classification onto the languages with rather poor inflectional paradig­matic systems seems refutable and hardly workable.

As to the English language, the traditional mode of classifying words was acceptable for the earlier stages of its development. Histo­rical changes made English analytical. It is a language with very poor morphology. That is why the lexico-morphological principle is hardly workable for classifying English words into lexico-grammatical. clas­ses. Thus, the notion "parts-of-speech", which is used in English gram­mar, appears conventional and is sometimes substituted by the term "form-class", the latter also being not very much lucky.

Acad. Scerba was quite right demanding that the classifica­tion of words into the parts of speech should be specified for concrete languages only, and the principles of classification should be worked out separately for the definite periods in the historic development of languages. His valuable remarks clarify the specific character of lin­guistic classification which is predetermined by the nature of lingual elements. Their classification is surely a synchronic procedure,

Still, the traditional mode of classifying words had been reigning in English grammar up to the end of the previous century when cer­tain attempts were undertaken to break the limits of the deep-rooted grammatical traditions. It is clear that at that time criticism and re­futation could not have been very active. A new trend in the approach to the parts-of-speech problem can be illustrated by H. S w e e t's word-classification. He introduced a functional criterion for ascribing words to word-classes but, on the whole, his classification remains traditional because it looks like the classical division of words into "partes orationis" and "particles orationis". H. Sweet's functional cri­terion was accepted by the American descriptivists who implemented the procedures of distributional analysis.

The distributional principle of classifying words pretended to be an entirely new approach which came to succeed H. Sweet's attempt to resort to the functional features of words under classification. It has become clear that the traditional principles of word-classification stand in need of radical revision because the analytical order of English does not allow to rely upon the morphology of words. The distribu­tional principle of classifying words has certain advantages if used for the word-classification in analytical languages which are languages with rather poor morphologies. But the distributional word-classifica­tion has, in fact, little to do with the subdivision of words into the "parts of speech", the term is too specific.

In view of this, the term "form-class", which is widely used by modern American grammarians, seems more or less workable, even despite its conventionality. These principles of word-classification are commonly illustrated by Ch. Fries' subdivision of English words into "class-words" and "function words". Class-words are notional units which share the distribution in a standard utterance-frame and make up a distributional constituent-class of elements tillable for the given position. They are designated as "form-classes". There are four types of class-words according to Ch. Fries' distributional scheme:

Class I words,

Class II words,

Class III words,

Class IV words.

At close examination class-words coincide with the traditional subdivi­sion of notional words into nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs. As a result, the classification produces effect of false novelty. What is really valuable in Ch. Fries' theory is his thorough inspection of function-words which fall into fifteen groups. The elements of each group are characterized by appropriate distribution and corresponding function.

A more consistent distributional classification of English words can be illustrated by Ch. Hocket's "parts-of-speech". He defines a part of speech as a form-class of stems which show similar behavior in inflection, in syntax or both. Since inflexion in English is poor, the syntactical behavior of words turns out decisive in determining their class-membership. Ch. Hockett noticed that most English stems can occur as words belonging to the/ classes with different semantic and syntactical characteristics: A/N—sweet, savage, private; N/V— walk, cure, change; A/V— clean, dry, thin; N/A/V — fancy, faint, black.

The term "particles" which is used by the author to designate ver­satile words standing apart from the main word-classes is transparent in its terminological application as the Latin "particles orationis". The tradition is broken only from within. On the surface the classification appears traditional.

The discussion of the "notional" theory of the "parts-of-speech" within the framework of the generative grammar was initiated by John Lyons who is of the opinion that the traditional "notional" theory of the parts of speech merits a rather more sympathetic con­sideration than it has received from most linguists in recent years.

J.Lyons is quite right underlining that in their discussion of the "parts of speech" many traditional grammarians confused, or may have ap­peared to confuse, two different questions, namely, of the class-member­ship and that of labelling the classes as "nouns", "verbs", "adjec­tives", etc. Traditional grammatical theories do not provide us with sufficiently consistent definitions of word-classes. Modern gramma­rians feel dissatisfaction with traditional parts of speech but cannot dispense with logical or "notional" categories which re qualified as "deep" or "lexical" categories, when the invariant semantic characte­ristics of particular word-classes are established. Traditional and ge­nerative grammatical theories are very much alike in the logical ground of the word-classification.

Opinions may differ as to the number and types of word-classes distinguished in the languages in which the Word is the main lexico-grammatical unit, but the lexico-grammatical nature of the Word pre­determines the adequacy of the general lexico-grammatical classifica­tion of notional words. The classification of grammatical words is, in principle, different from that of notional words. Thus, the dif­ferentiation between lexical and grammatical words is basic and pri­marily relevant.

LEXICO-GRAMMATICAL CLASSIFICATION AND

GENERAL CHARACTERIZATION OF NOMINATIVE WORDS

There are two main criteria which are essential for distin­guishing lexico-grammatical classes of nominative words and their corresponding characterization: semantic and grammatical.

The grammatical characteristics which are of morphological and syntactical types are revealed in word-classes of different languages. Nominative words in synthetic languages are usually morphologically formed up. They have developed paradigms and exuberant mor­phological characteristics which are differentially significant for the definition of the word-classes in such languages as the lexico-morpho­logical classes. The traditional term "parts-of-speech" is well-acceptab­le for the purpose.

The nominative words in English, which is analytical in order, are not morphologically formed up (except the verb). Their morpholo­gical characteristics are not differentially significant. The lexico-gram­matical classes of nominative words in English are likely to be de­fined as lexico-syntactical groupings. The terms like "form-class" or "lexico-syntactical class" seem preferable for the designation of the nominative-word classes in English.

The designation and the symbolization of lexico-morphological ver­sus lexico-syntactical classes of nominative words must be in accord with the principles of their definition.

Lexico-grammatical word-classes

lexico-morphological word classes lexico-syntactical word-classes

parts of speech form-classes

n. — nouns N — nominals

a. —adjectives A—adjectivals

v. —verbs V—verb(al)s

adv. — adverbs D — adverbials

num.—numerals (Q—quantifiers)

The semantic characterization of nominative words requires the consideration of their semantics. The semantic basis for distin­guishing lexico-grammatical word-classes is grounded on the categorial significative meaning inherent in the semantics of all the units of the class. The nomination of concrete objects, phenomena, qualities or actions is made on the basis and in accord with the invariant signi­ficative semantic features of the class. In other words, every denotator possesses, at a time, two distinguishing semantic features: the categorial significative meaning and the individual denotative meaning.

The semantic bases of the main lexico-grammatical classes of no­minative words are represented by Substantivity, Qualitativeness, Quantitativeness, Verbiality and Adverbiality. These meanings are rela­tively universal and reveal themselves in separate languages as grounds for distinguishing substantive words, qualitative words, quantitative words, verbal and, lastly, adverbial words. In the languages where the parts of speech (lexico-morphological classes) are distinguishable, Substantivity, Qualitativeness, Quantitativeness, Verbiality and Adver­biality differentiate semantically the main parts of speech, respective­ly: nouns, adjectives, numerals, verbs and adverbs.

In analytical languages such as English, the semantic criterion for the classification of nominative words is justly given preference to because the words lack morphological characteristics. The semantic criteria must not be absolutized since nominative words are lexico-grammatical units and their grammatical characteristics should not be ignored although either morphological or syntactical ones may pre­vail depending upon the degree of syntheticity or analyticity of the language.

The morphological characterization of nominative words is their paradigmatic definition with regards to the peculiarities of their paradigmatics. There are several parameters of the general paradigmatic (morphological) characterization of a word-class but it must be borne in mind that the extent to which this or that characteristic reveals itself in a language is conditioned by the structure and by the general gram­matical tendency according to which the language develops.

The paradigmatic characterization of a word-class is orienting us to the analysis of the morphological declinability/indeclinability of the words belonging to a word-class which is revealed in the nature of the word's paradigm and results in the realization of the range of grammatical categories that associate with the particular lexico-grammatical class of nominative words.

The lexico-morphological subclassification of nominative words in accordance with the implicit meanings of grammatical relevance helps to determine the factors conditioning the realization of the morpholo­gical categories in the paradigm of the word-class.

The paradigmatic characterization of nouns would not be efficient if their subcategorization into countable/uncountable, animate/inani­mate, abstract/concrete is not taken into consideration. In a similar way, English verbs fall into several paired classes in accordance with the implicit meanings of grammatical relevance which influence the realization and actualization of verbal categories: terminative/non-terminative, transitive/intransitive, the verbs of implicit voice meanings (reflexive, reciprocal, passive and medial verbs),

The paradigms of words, the systems of their grammatical forms, can be of synthetic type if synthetic devices prevail and of analytical type in case analytical word-forms are numerous in the paradigm and dominate over the synthetic ones. The paradigm of English nouns is synthetic: worker, workers, worker's, workers'. There are synthetic devices in the form-derivation of the verbs but their paradigms con­tain more analytical markers than synthetic ones. On this ground the verb-paradigm in English must be defined as analytical in type.

The syntactical characterization of nominative words must be made with regard to their functional significance in the frame of the sentence and in accordance with their combinability in particular contextual conditions. E.g. the functions of the N-words are in accord with their significative meaning of substantivity. They usually occur as subjects or nominal object complements. The function of the prep-N-form depends upon the nature of the preposition and its signification.

The function of the A-words is predetermined by their qualitative semantics. They function as either attributive modifiers of different types or as qualitative predicate complements. Their qualitativeness interacts with the semantics of the verb to which an A-word refers and causes the functional shift on the part of the verb.

The syntactical combinability of nominative words is, to a great extent, predetermined by the semantic factors, by the compatibility/ incompatibility of their significative and denotative meanings. The categorial valency of a lexico-syntactical class of words regulates the categorial combinability of the word-classes. In this view, the cate­gorial substantivity of nominals opens the adjunct positions for the attributive modifiers which are designed to qualify or to quantify the nominal element they refer to.

The combinability of the A-words is predetermined by their qualitativeness. They pattern with nouns functioning as their modifiers and with the degree adverbials which function as the specifiers of their qualitativeness indicating its graduality. The A-words commonly occur also as predicatives.

The valency of the verb is the most decisive factor which influ­ences not only upon the combinability of the verbal elements but also upon the structural relational scheme of the verb-phrase and of the sen­tence-type too.

/Morokhovskay E.J. Fundamentals of Theoretical English Grammar. – Kiev: Vysca Skola, 1984. – P.57-65/

Grammatical Classes of Words

§ 1. The words of language, depending on various formal and semantic features, are divided into grammatically relevant sets or classes. The traditional grammatical classes of words are called “parts of speech”. Since the word is distinguished not only by grammatical, but also by semantico-lexemic properties, some scholars refer to parts of speech as "lexico-grammatical" series of words, or as "lexico-grammatical categories" (Smirnitskiy A.I).

It should be noted that the term "part of speech" is purely traditional and conventional, it can't be taken as in any way defining or explanatory. This name was introduced in the grammatical teaching of Ancient Greece, where the con­cept of the sentence was not yet explicitly identified in dis­tinction to the general idea of speech, and where, consequent­ly, no strict differentiation was drawn between the word as a vocabulary unit and the word as a functional element of the sentence.

In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated on the basis of the three criteria: "semantic", "formal", and "functional". The semantic criterion presupposes the evalu­ation of the generalized meaning, which is characteristic of all the subsets of words constituting a given part of speech. This meaning is understood as the "categorial meaning of the part of speech". The formal criterion provides for the exposition of the specific inflexional and derivational (word-building) features of all the lexemic subsets of a part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of words in the sentence typical of a part of speech. These three factors of categorial characterization of words are con­ventionally referred to as, respectively, "meaning", "form", and "function".

§ 2. In accord with the described criteria, words on the upper level of classification are divided into notional and functional, which reflects their division in the earlier gram­matical tradition into changeable and unchangeable.

To the notional parts of speech of the English language belong the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb.

The features of the noun within the identificational triad "meaning —form — function" are the fol­lowing:

1) the categorial meaning of substance ("thingness");

2) the changeable forms of number and case; the specific suffixal forms of derivation (prefixes in English do not discrimi­nate parts of speech as such);

3) the substantive functions in the sentence (subject, object, substantival predicative); prepositional connections; modification by an adjective.

The features of the adjective:

1) the categorial meaning of property (qualitative and relative);

2) the forms of the degrees of comparison (for qualitative adjectives); the specific suffixal forms of derivation;

3) adjectival functions in the sentence (attribute to a noun, adjectival predicative).

The features of the numeral:

1. the categorial meaning of number (cardinal and ordinal);

2. the narrow set of simple numerals; the specific forms of composition for compound numerals; the specific suffixal forms of derivation for ordinal numerals;

3) the functions of numerical attribute and numeri­cal substantive.

The features of the pronoun:

1. the categorial meaning of indication (deixis);

2. the narrow sets of various status with the corresponding formal properties of categorial changeabil­ity and word-building;

3) the substantival and adjectival functions for different sets.

The features of the verb:

1. the categorial meaning of pro­cess (presented in the two upper series of forms, respectively, as finite process and non-finite process);

2) the forms of the verbal categories of person, number, tense, aspect, voice, mood; the opposition of the finite and non-finite forms;

3) the function of the finite predicate for the finite verb; the mixed verbal — other than verbal functions for the non-finite verb.

The features of the adverb:

1) the categorial meaning of the secondary property, i.e. the property of process or an­other property;

2) the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs; the specific suffixal forms of derivation;

3) the functions of various adverbial modifiers.

The no­tional parts of speech unite the words of complete nominative meaning characterized by self-dependent functions in the sentence. Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and non-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech.

Only unchangeable words are traditionally treated under the heading of func­tional parts of speech. As for their individual forms as such, they are simply presented by the list, since the number of these words is limited, so that they needn't be identified on any general, operational scheme. To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection.

The article expresses the specific limitation of the sub­stantive functions.

The preposition expresses the dependencies and interdependencies of substantive referents.

The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena.

The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series, alongside of other spec­ifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as func­tional modifiers of verbs, etc.

The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pro­nounced or less pronounced detached position, expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts. Here belong the functional words of probability (prob­ably, perhaps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation and negation.

The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sentence, is a signal of emotions.

§ 3. Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with various particular semantico-functional and formal features of the constituent words. This subdivision is sometimes called "subcategorization" of parts of speech.

Thus, nouns are subcategorized into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and uncountable, con­crete and abstract, etc. Cf.:

Mary, Robinson, London, the Mississippi, Lake Erie — girl, person, city, river, lake;

man, scholar, leopard, butterfly — earth, field, rose, machine;

coin/coins, floor/floors, kind/kinds — news, growth, water, furniture;

stone, grain, mist, leaf — honesty, love, slavery, dark­ness.

Verbs are subcategorized into fully predicative and par­tially predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional and statal, factive and evaluative, etc.

Cf.: walk, sail, prepare, shine, blow — can, may, shall, be, become;

take, put, speak, listen, see, give — live, float, stay, ache, ripen, rain;

write, play, strike, boil, receive, ride—exist, sleep, rest, thrive, revel, suffer;

roll, tire, begin, ensnare, build, tremble—consider, ap­prove, mind, desire, hate, incline.

Adjectives are subcategorized into qualitative and rela­tive, of constant feature and temporary feature (the latter are referred to as "statives" and identified by some scholars as a separate part of speech under the heading of "category of state"), factive and evaluative, etc. Cf.: long, red, lovely, noble, comfortable — wooden, rural, daily, subterranean, orthographical;

healthy, sickly, joyful, grievous, wry, blazing — well, ill, glad, sorry, awry, ablaze;

tall, heavy, smooth, mental, native—kind, brave, won­derful, wise, stupid.

The adverb, the numeral, the pronoun are also subject to the corresponding subcategorizations.