Define what part of speech the underlined word is

Her nephew was silent for some moments. «You really think, then,»he began earnestly, and with a desire for trustworthy information—«

as you call them. You have lived too longout of the country. You will be sure to make some great mistake. You are too innocent.»

«My dear aunt, I am not so innocent,»

said Winterbourne, smiling and curling his mustache.

«I haven’t the least idea what such young ladies expect a man to do. But I really think that you had better not meddle with little American girls that are uncultivated,

You really think that—» But he paused again.

Daisy evidently had a natural talent for performing introductions;

very polite nonsense; he was extremelyurbane, and the young American, who said nothing, reflected uponthat profundity of Italian cleverness which enables people to appearmore gracious in proportion as they are more acutely disappointed.

Giovanelli, of course, had counted upon something more intimate;

he had not bargained for a party of three.

She strolled alone with one of them on each side of her; Mr. Giovanelli, who spoke English very cleverly—Winterbourne afterward learned that he had practiced the idiom upon a great many American heiresses—addressed her a great deal of

she mentioned the name of each of her companions to the other.

«Are you an American man?»

And then, on Winterbourne’s affirmative reply

—«American menare the best,» he declared.

«I see you are one of the best

pursued this vivacious infant.

Ilyish B.A. The Structure of Modern English. — L., 1971. — P. 24-26. Wierzbicka A. A Semantic Basis for Grammatical Typology // Discourse

Grammar and Typology / Ed. by A.T. Given, S.A. Thompson. — Cambridge, 1995.-P. 202-204.

Seminar 4

GRAMMATICAL CLASSES

OF WORDS

1.Principles of grammatical classification of words. The traditional classi fication of words.

2.The syntactico-distributional classification of words.

3.The theory of three ranks (O. Jespersen).

4.The notion of lexical paradigm of nomination.

5.Functional words and their properties in the light of

—the traditional classification,

—the syntactico-distributional classification,

—the mixed approach.

6.Pronouns and their properties in the light of

—the traditional classification,

—the syntactico-distributional classification,

—the mixed approach.

Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar

In Modern Linguistics parts of speech are differentiated either by a number of criteria, or by a single criterion.

The polydifferential («traditional») classification of words is based on the three criteria: semantic, formal, and functional. The semantic criterion presupposes the evaluation of the generalized (categorial) meaning of the words of the given part of speech. The formal criterion provides for the exposition of all formal features (specific inflectional and derivational) of all the lexemic subsets of a particular part of speech. The functional criterion concerns the typical syntactic functions of a part of speech. Contractedly the set of these criteria is referred to as «meaning, form, function».

2. Traditional Classification of Words

In accord with the traditional criteria of meaning, form, and function, words on the upper level of classification are divided into notional and functional.

In English to the notional parts of speech are usually referred the noun, the adjective, the numeral, the pronoun, the verb, the adverb.

On the lines of the traditional classification the adverb, e.g., is described in the following way: the adverb has the categorial meaning of the secondary property (i.e. the property of process or another property); the forms of the degrees of comparison for qualitative adverbs, the specific derivative suffixes; the syntactic functions of various adverbial modifiers.

The notional parts of speech are the words of complete nominative value; in the utterance they fulfil self-dependent functions of naming and denoting things, phenomena, their substantial properties. Opposed to the notional parts of speech are the functional words which are words of incomplete nominative value, but of absolutely essential relational (grammatical) value. In the utterance they serve as all sorts of mediators.

To the basic functional parts of speech in English are usually referred the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the particle, the modal word, the interjection. As has been stated elsewhere, functional words are limited in number. On the lines of the traditional classification they are presented by the list, each of them requiring its own, individual description.

3. Syntactic Classification of Words

The syntactic (monodifferential) classification of words is based on syntactic featuring of words only. The syntactic classification of words, in principle, supplements the three-criteria classification specifying the syntactic features of parts of speech. For the Russian language the basic principles of the syntactic classification of words were outlined in the works of A.M. Peshkovski. In English the syntacticodistributional classification of words was worked out by L. Bloomfield and his followers Z. Harris and especially Ch.C. Fries.

The syntactico-distributional classification of words is based on the study of their combinability by means of substitution tests. As a result of this testing, a standard model of four main syntactic positions of notional words was built up. These positions are those of the noun, verb, adjective, and adverb. Pronouns are included into the corresponding positional classes as their substitutes. Words incapable to occupy the said main syntactic positions are treated as functional words.

4. The Three-Layer Classification of Words (M. Blokh)

The evaluation of the differential features of both cited classifications allows us to work out a classification of the lexicon presenting some essential generalizations about its structure (Blokh 2000: 4448). The semantico-grammatical analysis of the lexicon shows that it is explicitly divided into two parts: the notional words and the functional words. The open character of the notional part and the closed character of the functional part have the status of a formal grammatical feature. Between these two parts there is an intermediary field of

semi-functional words.

The unity of the notional lexemes, as well as their division into four infinitely large classes, is demonstrated in the inter-class system of derivation. This inter-class system of derivation is presented as a four-stage series permeating the lexicon; it has been given the name of «Lexical Paradigm of Nomination». For example: «fancy — to fancy — fanciful — fancifully».

As the initial position in a particular nomination paradigm can be occupied by a lexeme of any word class, one can define the concrete «derivational perspective» of the given series in accord with a

6 — 3548

part of speech status of the constituent in the initial position. Thus, in the following paradigm of nomination the derivational perspective is verbal (V ->): «to decide — decision — decisive — decisively».

The universal character of the nomination paradigm is sustained by suppletivity, both lexemic and phrasemic, e.g.: «an end — to end — final — finally» (lexemic), «gratitude — grateful — gratefully — to express gratitude» (phrasemic).

The lexical paradigm of nomination has a parallel substitutional representation: «one, it, they… — to do, to make, to act … — such, same, similar… — thus, so, there…»

In consequence of the identification of the said pronominal paradigm representation, the functional part of the lexicon is to be divided into two sets: first, the pronominal; second, the functional proper, or «specifier».

Thus, the general classification of the lexicon, not denying or in any sense depreciating the merits of their classification, but rather deriving its essential propositions from their positive data, is to be presented in a brief outline in the following way:

—the whole of the lexicon is divided into three layers;

—the first, the upper layer, having an open character, is formed by four classes of notional words; since these words have full nominative value, they may be referred to as «names»: respec tively, substance-names (nouns), process-names (verbs), pri mary property names (adjectives), secondary property names (adverbs);

—the names are consolidated into an integral system by the lex ical paradigm of nomination — the paradigmatic series whose function is to form and distribute any given word root among the four lexical class-types (parts of speech);

—the second, intermediate layer, having a closed character is formed by pronominal words or «substitutes of names»; here belong pronouns and replacer lexemes of all kinds (noun-, verb-, adjective-, adverbal-replacers), words of broad mean ing (cf.: thing, matter, etc.), and also numbers;

—the third, the lower layer, having a closed character, is formed by functional words proper, or «specifiers of names»: deter miners, prepositions, conjunctions, particles, etc.

: The function of the second and third layers, within the framework of their specifying role, is to organize together with the categorial means of grammar, the production of speech utterances out of the direct naming means of language (the first layer).

Questions:

1.What is the grammatical essence of the term «part of speech»?

2.What are the strong and weak points of the traditional (polydifferential)

classification of words?

«3. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the syntactico-distribu- tional (monodifferential) classification of words?

4.What are the main principles of the three-layer classification of words?

5.What parts does the whole of the lexicon consist of?

6.What is the differential feature of the notional part of the lexicon?

7.What is the notional part of the lexicon represented by? What demon strates the unity of the notional part of the lexicon?

8.What is the role of suppletivity in the lexical paradigm of nomination?

9.What functions do the words of the second and third layers of the lexicon perform in the production of speech?

I. Build up the lexical paradigm of nomination.

MODEL: high: high — height — heighten — highly (high)

1) fool, to criticize, slow, fast;

1) new, work, to fraud, out;

3)to cut, sleep, brief, hard;

4)down, beauty, to deceive, bright.

II.Define part-of-speech characteristics of the underlined words. Analyze them according to O. Jespersen’s theory of three ranks. Give your reasons.

1.I don’t know why it should be, I am sure; but the sight of another man asleep in bed when I am up, maddens me (Jerome).

2.He did not Madame anybody, even good customers like Mrs. Moore.

3.To out-Herod Herod.

4.If jfs and ans were pots and pans there’d be no need of tinkers.

5.Poor dears, they were always worrying about examinations… (Christie)

6.«After all, I married you for better or for worse and Aunt Ada is decid edly the worse.» (Christie)

7.Good thing, too. He’d have gone to the bad if he’d lived (Christie).

8.«I believe,» said Tommy thoughtfully, «she used to get rather lots of fun out of saying to old friends of hers when they came to see her «I’ve left you a little something in my will, dear» or «This brooch that you’re so fond of I’ve left you in my will.» (Christie)

9.When I’m dead and buried and you’ve suitably mourned me and taken up your residence in a home for the aged. I expect you’ll be thinking you are Mrs. Blenkinsop half of the time (Christie).

10.The little work-table dispossessed the whatnot — which was relegated to a dark corner of the hall (Christie).

11.«But -» Tuppence broke in upon his «but» (Christie).

12.«Look here, Tuppence, this whole thing is all somethings and someones. It’s just an idea you’ve thought up.» (Christie)

13.Tommy came back to say a breathless goodbye (Christie).

14.Although it was dim, there was a faded but beautiful carpet on the floor, a deep sage-green in colour (Christie).

15.I thought it was something wrong when his wife suddenly up and left him (Christie).

Revision

I. Give the definitions of the following notions:

category, complementary distribution, element, contrastive distribution, grammatical meaning, morph, opposition, oppositional reduction, paradigm, signeme, system.

II.Analyze the morphemic composition of the following words:

a)embodiment, conceive, multifarious;

b)impassable, marksmanship, genii;

c)unconsciously, strawberry, indistinguishable;

d)insubordination, impracticable, media.

III. Define the type of the morphemic distribution according to which the following words are grouped:

a)lice — houses;

b)ineffable — immortal;

c)transfusible — transfusable;

d)non-flammable — inflammable.

IV. Account for the stylistic flavour of the oppositionally reduced forms of the words used in the sentences.

MODEL: Why are you being so naughty?

In this sentence the stylistic effect is brought about by the transpositional use of the strong member of the opposition (the continuous form of the verb «to be») instead of its weak member.

1.Peter’s talk left me no opening had I besieged it ever so hard (O.Henry).

2.The faces of her people appeared to her again, and how dark were their skin, their hair, and their eyes, she thought, as if though living with the fair people she had taken on the dispositions and the preju dices of the fair (Cheever).

3.He weighed about as much as a hundred pounds of veal in his summer suitings, and he had a Where-is-Mary? expression on his features so plain that you could almost see the wool growing on him (O.Henry).

4.She remembered how in Nascosta even the most beautiful fell quickly under the darkness of time, like flowers without care; how even the most beautiful became bent and toothless, their dark clothes smell ing, as the mamma’s did, of smoke and manure (Cheever).

5.The road Francis took brought him out of his own neighborhood, across the tracks, and toward the river, to a street where the nearpoor lived, in houses whose peaked gables and trimmings of wooden lace conveyed the purest feeling of pride and romance… (Cheever)

6.He raised his shoulders, spread his hands in a shrug of slow indiffer ence, as much as to inform her she was an amateur and an impertinent nobody (Lawrence).

7.«Full of curiosity, no doubt, little woman, to know why I have brought you here?» «Well, Guardian,» said I, «without thinking myself a Fatima, or you a Blue Beard, I am a little curious about it.» (Dickens)

8.«Oh,» said Tuppence, «don’t be an idiot.» «I’m not being an idiot,» Tommy had said. «I am just being a wise and careful husband.» (Christie)

Seminars on Theoretical English Grammar

mar». Because of Fries’ insistence on the principles of linguistics — he meant, of course, as a device for establishing a grammatical analysis — the scheme also came to be identified as «linguistics», and is commonly so called by English teachers today.

Linguists generally look on Fries’ work as a small step in the right direction but a rather timid one. In particular, they consider as extremely conservative his failure to use phonemic notation for his examples or to give more than passing attention to intonation.

A sober appraisal of Fries’ structural grammar must, I think, consider it more nearly as scholarly traditional grammar. It is, of course, much influenced by descriptive linguistics, particularly by the Bloomfieldian point of view of 30-s and 40-s. Like the work of these linguists, it is based directly on a sample of actual usage collected for the purpose. But neither of these characteristics would set it off from traditional grammar.

Fries differs from the older grammarians of the scholarly tradition in showing much more concern for the basic structure of the grammar. His innovations are almost entirely here, rather than in details. Indeed, the easiest criticism to level against his work is grossness. A great deal of refinement in detail will be needed before it can be considered adequate. Much of that refinement, however, can be accomplished by working along the same lines as Fries. Structural grammar must be judged not as a complete system, but as a skeleton. Perhaps no more could legitimately be expected in one publication. Unfortunately, there has not been much work expended on feeling out and perfecting the scheme. Structural grammar stands today very nearly where Fries put it in 1952.

Parts of Speech. Basis of Classification

There are several bases on which definitions can be made. The traditional definition of the adverb is in terms of syntactic use: «An adverb is a word that modifies a verb, adjective, or another adverb.» That of the noun is in terms of meaning: «A noun is a name of a person, place, or thing.» Some recently proposed definitions have been in terms of inflection: «A noun is a word which forms a plural by adding -s or the equivalents.» Many of the classes could be defined in any of these three ways.

Some grammars have seemed to use different techniques for defining different parts of speech. Inconsistency might result in overlapping categories or in uncovered gaps. Indeed, some grammars quite clearly suffer from either or both of these difficulties.

Yet no one type of definition seems fully satisfactory by itself. As a result, many grammarians have tried to combine several techniques into elaborate definitions, carefully created to avoid at least the most serious gaps and overlappings. This is not, however, an easy matter. The several criteria are often in conflict. The difficulties in working them together harmoniously cab best be seen from some simple examples.

«Table» presumably names a thing, it is inflected for plural by adding -s, and it occurs in typically noun positions in sentences. By any definition, «table» is a noun. «Handshake» meets the inflectional and syntactic definitions but seems to state an action more than name a thing. (Unless, of course, a thing is defined simply as anything named by a noun — an interesting circularity!) «Perseverance» may name a thing — the application of the definition is quite unsure; but it does not occur in typical noun positions in sentences; but it does not seem to have a plural. «Cattle» has the opposite trouble; it does not seem to have a singular and it shows no evidence that it is inflected for plural — it somehow just is plural, witness: «The cattle are lowing». «Handshake», «perseverance», and «cattle» are examples of words that are nouns by some definitions, but not by all. There are many more. Because of these, the choice of basis of definition may be crucial.

Certainly the least promising type of definition is that based on meaning. In the first place, it is hard to draw the lines clearly and decisively. We do not at present have sufficiently precise techniques for delimiting and classifying the meanings of words. No definition based on meaning will be clear enough in its application to satisfy any but the least critical user. As a matter of fact, the traditional meaning-based definitions of school grammar do not seem to be actually applied, even by the authors of the books, because they would not serve the needs. Parts of speech are identified in some other way, perhaps not consciously recognized by the identifier, and then the definition is used merely to legitimize the decision.

structural (that is, grammatical) features of the words classified. There are, however, 2 quite different possibilities: 1) The criteria might be found within the word — in types of inflection, derivational suffixes, or other features. For example, a noun might be defined as a word that takes a plural in -s or the equivalent, or is formed by the suffixes -ance, -ness, or -ity. By such a definition, «handshake» is a noun because there is a plural «handshakes», and «perseverance» is a noun because it is formed by the suffix -ance. No such definitions will help with «cattle», which we somehow would like to see included. 2) The criteria might be found outside the word — in the use in sentences. Thus a noun might be defined as any word that can occur in a frame such as: The ——- is/are good. «Handshake» and «cattle» fit this with no question. But does «perseverance»? — «The ‘perseverance’ is good.» This sentence seems a little odd. This might be for any number of reasons: because we cannot think of an occasion to use such a sentence and so are badly handicapped in judging whether it would be acceptable; or because we have selected a bad frame to use as a test. It will require a very sophisticated use of carefully selected frames to avoid many difficulties of this sort.

Probably some more elaborate definition will make it clear that «perseverance» is indeed a noun, just like «table», «handshake», and «cattle». Certainly a good definition, be it morphologic or syntactic, will be a very difficult thing to Tlesign, and perhaps also quite complex to operate.

Notice that the difficulties with the definitions come at different places. «Cattle» poses a problem for one; «perseverance» does not. «Perseverance» was a crux for the other; but this had no difficulty with «cattle». Perhaps a joint definition could exploit the potentialities of both. Any word which meets either criterion or both would be a noun. This has its difficulties also. In general, however, this has been the procedure of good scholarly traditional grammar, insofar as it has examined the question at all. (Traditional grammarians have tended to concentrate their attention elsewhere and accept the parts of speech rather uncritically.) Even an involved joint definition will probably leave a small list of difficult cases that must be assigned more or less arbitrary.

A different technique has been employed by Trager and Smith4 and linguists in their tradition. They set up 2 systems of classes. One is based on inflectional criteria. In it are distinguished nouns, personal pronouns, adjectives, and verbs. These are defined as words showing the following types of inflection:

The remaining words, which show no inflection at all, are classed together as particles.

Trager and Smith’s second system is classified by syntactic criteria. In it are found nominals, pronominals, adjectivals, verbals, adverbials, prepositionals, and so on. The two sets of terms are carefully distinguished by the using the suffix -al in all syntactic terms. In general, nouns are also nominals, verbs are also verbals, and so forth. The two systems do not match exactly, however; if they did there would be no need to treat them as separate systems.

Such a distinction between two systems of classification has certain merits. When adhered to carefully, it makes clear exactly what is being talked about. It helps to avoid the jumping to syntactic conclusions on inflectional evidence, and vice versa. It gives a simple system for statements about syntax.

Unfortunately, some of the suggested labels present terminological difficulties. For example, «verbal» has long been established in another meaning. «Prepositional» seems to many unnecessary, since «preposition» is available and not needed in the morphology-based system. «Adjective» is a very much smaller class than that usually known by this name. Partly for such reasons, most grammarians have rejected Trager and Smith’s scheme, often with the protest that it is too elaborate and awkward. Others see no need for the complexity of two partly parallel classifications. Such criticism is not wholly justified — after all the facts of English are complex, and no simple system of parts of speech can be expected to be adequate.

There is another criticism, possibly much more cogent. This divorcing of the two may be, in part, an abdication of responsibility. Syntax and inflection are different, of course, but they are part of the same grammar. They should be worked into the most completely integrated statement possible. Trager and Smith’s system, perhaps, makes too much of the difference between various levels of syntax.

Questions:

1.What is the purpose of structural grammar?

2.What principle did Ch. Fries apply to identify his form classes?

3.Why isn’t there any correspondence (according to Fries himself) between the traditional parts of speech and Fries’s form classes/function words’ groups?

4.What makes the problem of parts of speech extremely difficult?

2.

Strang B. Modern English

Structure

The second main kind of class-meaning is form-class meaning. When a dictionary lists the functions of words it does at least two things: it describes their lexical role (usually either by listing approximate synonyms or by listing uses in the sentence), and it classifies the words according to what is traditionally called a parts of speech system. This second kind of characterization is essential, for «the meaning of a word is its use in the language» and when words are used their function is always dual. They bear in themselves a lexical meaning, but what they do in the sentence results from something further, the fact that they are members of classes (and, of course, of «groups»). In some words lexical meaning is perhaps dominant, in others class-meaning certainly is but in none is classmeaning absent. […]

A full description of a language would include an inventory of all forms with their lexical and class functions, but since this would be

an unmanageably vast undertaking, the lexical description is normally carried out in a separate work, the dictionary, while the establishment of classes and their functions, being a work of greater generality, belongs to the grammar. Accordingly, when our analysis of utterance structure is complete, our chief remaining task will be treatment of form-classes, and this term must now be explained. It clearly bears a close relationship to the traditional term, already mentioned, part of speech. The difficulties about that are that it does not suggest any clear meaning, and its technical use is somewhat tainted because it was used in an outgrown type of analysis. If anything, it suggests that members of the parts of speech function as components of speech or utterances, and we have agreed that it is the «group» that does this; the «group» may often be represented by a member of a part of speech in actual utterances, but that coincidence is not necessary. In reaction against the traditional term, word-class had come into widespread use. It is an improvement, but it suggests that members of the classes are always and necessarily words, and in fact they are only usually so. As the members are alike (within each class) in form, in one sense or another (morphological structure, syntactical patterning, etc.) form-class is probably the best name for the classes, with the caveat that it does not chiefly refer to likeness of shape within the class-member for instance, «beautifully», «sweetly», «happily», all belong to one form-class, but «goodly», though apparently similar in shape, does not. […]

How then are form-classes to be established? […] There are 2 chief bases, the syntactical, i.e., in what patterns, and what kind of concomitants, a form functions; and the morphological, i.e., what its morpheme structure and potential contrasts are. The peculiarly controversial nature of English form-class analysis is due to the fact that for a statement both full and relatively neat both must be used. Morphology is inadequate alone, because relatively few kinds of English words are subject to morphological variation and because even these few exhibit regular patterns of syntactic occurrence it is willful to ignore. Syntax alone will not do, partly because it brings us up against the familiar problem that we have to find criteria for determining what is the same syntactical position, and partly because it too ignores a substantial amount of evidence. Accordingly, we shall con-