Is the word with a preposition or conjunction

Prepositions

Tests:

        

THE
PREPOSITION

It
is
common
knowledge that prepositions are a most important element
of the structure of many languages, particularly those which,
like Modern English, have no developed case system in their nominal
parts of speech.

We
have briefly discussed the problem of the meaning of prepositions
but here we shall have to consider it at some length.

It
is sometimes said ¹
that
prepositions express the relations between
words in a sentence, and this is taken as a definition of the meaning
of prepositions. If true, this would imply that they do not denote
any relations existing outside the language. However, this is
certainly not true, and two or three simple examples will show it.
If we compare the two sentences: The
book is lying on the table, and
The
book is lying under the table, and
ask ourselves, what do the
prepositions express here, it will at once be obvious that they
express
relations (in space) between the book (the thing itself) and
the table (the thing itself). The difference in the situations
described
in the two sentences is thus an extralinguistic difference expressed
by means of language, namely, by prepositions. It would certainly
be quite wrong to say that the prepositions merely express the
relations between the word book
and
the word table,
as
the definition quoted above would imply. The same may be said about a
number of other sentences. Compare, for instance, the two sentences,
He
will come before dinner, and
He
will come after dinner.
It
is absolutely clear that the prepositions denote relations between
phenomena in the extralinguistic world (time relations between
«his coming» and «dinner»), not merely relations
between the
word come
and
the word dinner.

We
must add that there are cases in which a preposition does not
express relations between extralinguistic phenomena but merely serves
as a link between words. Take, for instance, the sentence This
depends on you. Here
we cannot say that the preposition on
has
any meaning of its own. This is also clear from the fact that no
other
preposition could be used after the verb depend
(except
the preposition
upon,
which
is to all intents and purposes a stylistic variant
of on).
Using
modern linguistic terminology, we can say that
the preposition on
is
here predicted by the verb depend.
The
same
may be said about the expression characteristic
of him. If
the adjective
characteristic
is
to be followed by any prepositional phrase at
all the preposition of
must
be used, which means that it is predicted by the word characteristic.
Returning
now to our examples The
book is lying on the table and
The
book is lying under the table,
we
must of course say that neither the preposition on
nor
the
preposition
under
is
predicted by the verb lie.
If
we put the sentence like
this: The
book is lying …
the
table, the
dots might be replaced by
a number of prepositions: on,
in, under, near, beside, above, etc.
The
choice of the preposition would of course depend on the actual
position
of the book in space with reference to the table. Similarly, if
we are given the sentence He
will come .
. . the
performance, the
dots
may be replaced by the prepositions before,
during, after, according
as things stand. Now, in defining the meaning of a preposition,
we must of course start from the cases where the meaning is seen
at its fullest, and not from those where it is
weakened
or lost, just as we define the meaning of a verb as a part of speech
according
to what it is when used as a full predicate, not as an auxiliary.

We
need not go further into the meanings of various prepositions in
various contexts, since that is a problem of lexicology rather than
grammar. What we needed here was to find a definition based on
the real meaning of prepositions.

The
next point is, the syntactical functions of prepositions. Here we
must distinguish between two levels of language: that of phrases
and that of the sentence and its parts. As far as phrases are
concerned,
the function of prepositions is to connect words with each
other. ¹
On
this level there are patterns like «noun +
preposition
+
noun»,
«adjective +
preposition
+
noun»,
«verb +
preposition
+
noun»,
etc., which may be exemplified by numerous phrases, such
as a
letter from my friend, a novel by Galsworthy, fond of children,
true to life, listen to music, wait for an answer, etc.

On
the sentence level: a preposition is never a part of a sentence by
itself; it enters the part of sentence whose main centre is the
following noun, or pronoun, or gerund. We ought not to say that
prepositions
connect parts of a sentence. They do not do that, as they stand
within a part of the sentence, not between two parts.

The
connection between the preposition,» the word which precedes
it, and the word which follows it requires special study. Different
cases have to be distinguished here. The question is, what predicts
the use of this or that preposition. We have already noted the
cases when it is the preceding word which determines it (or predicts
it). In these cases the connection between the two is naturally
strong.
In the cases where the use of a preposition is not predicted by the
preceding word the connection between them is looser, and the
connection between the preposition and the following word may prove
to be the stronger of the two. This difference more or less
corresponds
to that between objects and adverbial modifiers expressed by
prepositional phrases. Thus, in a sentence like This
depends on
him
the
preposition is predicted by the verb and the phrase on
him is
of
course an object, whereas in a sentence like The
book is lying under
the table the
preposition is not predicted by the verb and the phrase
is an adverbial modifier. However, this criterion does not hold
good in all cases.

Sometimes
the boundary line between a preposition and another part
of speech is not quite clear. Thus, with reference to the words like
and
near
there
may be doubtful cases from this viewpoint. For instance,
there certainly is the adjective near,
used
in such phrases as
the
near future. On
the other hand, there is the preposition near,
found
in such sentences as they
live near me.

The
adjective has degrees of comparison, and the preposition of
course has none. In this connection let us examine the following
sentence,
which presents us with a whole bundle of problems involving
both that of parts of speech and that of subordinate clauses: When
they had finished their dinner, and Emma, her shawl trailing the
floor, brought in coffee and set it down before them, Bone drew back
the curtains and opened wide the window nearest where they sat.
(BUECHNER)
The question about the word nearest
is
closely connected
with that about the ties between the where-clause
and
the
main clause. As to the word nearest,
there
are obviously two ways
of interpreting it: it is either an adjective in the superlative
degree,
or a preposition. Each of the two interpretations has its
difficulties.
If we take nearest
as
an adjective in the superlative degree,
it will follow that this adjective (that is, the adjective near)
can
take an object clause, in the same way as it takes an object within
a clause, e. g. near
our house, near midnight, etc.,
and this would
mean that the subordinate clause where
they sat is
treated very
much like a noun. If, on the other hand, we take nearest
as
a
preposition, we should have to state that there is a special
preposition
nearest
in
Modern English: it would obviously not do to say that
the preposition near
has
degrees of comparison. There would appear
to be no valid reason to prefer the one or the other of the two
views, and a third possibility seems to present itself, viz. saying
that
we have here a borderline case of transition between an adjective
in the superlative degree and a preposition.

This
is one more example of language phenomena requiring a
careful and wholly undogmatic approach: it would be futile to expect
that every single language fact would fit easily into one pigeonhole
or another prepared for it in advance. Language phenomena
have as it were no obligation to fit into any such pigeonholes and
it is the scholar’s task to approach them with an open mind, to take
into account their peculiarities, and to adjust his system as
best he can to receive such «unorthodox» facts. Another
example of
this kind has been considered above: it concerned the status of the
words many,
much, few, and
little
(see
pp. 71—72).

A
special case must now be considered. In some phrases, which are
not part of a sentence, a preposition does not connect two words
because
there is no word at all before it, and so its ties are опз-sided:
they point only forwards, not back.

As
characteristic examples we may quote the titles of some poems
and novels: «To
a Skylark» (SHELLEY)
,»On
a Distant Prospect
of Eton College» (GRAY),
«Of
Human Bondage» (MAUGHAM),
«Under
the Greenwood Tree» (TH.
HARDY). The syntactical function
of the prepositions in cases of this type is a peculiar one. The
preposition
either expresses a relation between the thing expressed by
the noun and something not mentioned in the text (as in «To
a Skylark»),
or
it gives the characteristic of the place where something
not specified takes place («Under
the Greenwood Tree»).

It
is evident that in such cases the preposition has only a onesided
connection, namely with the noun following it, but we may ask whether
it has not also some reference to something not expressed
which may be imagined as standing before the preposition.

Let
us, for instance, compare the actual title of W. Somerset Maugham’s
novel, «Of
Human Bondage», with
a possible variant «Human
Bondage», without
the preposition. In this way the meaning
and function of the preposition become clear: the preposition of
is
here used as it is used in the phrases speak
of something, think
of something, etc.
In the title as it stands, the preposition implies
that the author is going to speak of human bondage, that is,
human bondage is going to be discussed. ¹

We
shall arrive at a similar conclusion if we compare the actual title
of Th. Hardy’s novel, «Under
the Greenwood Tree», with
the possible
variant «The
Greenwood Tree». The
preposition implies that
we shall be reading about something happening under the tree, rather
than about the tree itself. So it will probably be right to say that
something is implied (very vaguely, it must be admitted).

We
should especially note some peculiar uses of the preposition about,
namely
in such sentences as, There
were about twenly people in
the room, which
of course means that the number is given approximately.
The preposition here has only a one-sided connection, namely with the
numeral, and has no connection at all with the preceding verb. It
certainly does not express any relation between were
and
twenty.
Syntactically,
it makes an element of the subject group
(about
twenty people). Indeed
we may be inclined to doubt whether
the word about
is
a preposition at all in such a case. It rather
approaches the status of a particle.

This
is still more confirmed by examples in which the group introduced
by about
stands
after another preposition, as in the

sentence,
This
happened at about three o’clock. The
group about
three
o’clock here
follows the preposition at
in
quite the same way as
the group three
o’clock would
follow it in the sentence This
happened
at three o’clock. The
group about
three o’clock is
a designation
of a certain time as much as the group three
o’clock, and
to establish
its relation with the verb happened
it
also requires the preposition
at
to
be used.

We
also find two prepositions close to each other in different contexts.
Compare, for instance, the following sentence: He
sat until
past midnight in the darkness while grief and sorrow overcame him.
(E.
CALDWELL) Here also belongs the phrase from
under in
a
sentence like The
cat stretched its paw from under the table. It
seems
quite possible to take this in the same way as we took at
about
in
the preceding example, and to say that under
the table denotes
a certain place and from
indicates
movement from that place.
However, it is also possible to view this case in a somewhat
different way, namely to suppose that from
under is
a phrase equivalent
to a preposition, and then we should not have two prepositions
following one another here. This problem should be further
investigated.

Prepositions
can sometimes be followed by adverbs, which apparently
become partly substantivised when so used. The groups from
there, from where, since then, since when are
too widely known to require illustrative examples. Another case in
point is the
following: She
is beautiful with that Indian summer renewal of physical charm which
comes to a woman who loves and is loved, particularly
to one who has not found that love until comparatively late
in life. (O’NEILL)

Prepositions
in English are less closely connected with the word or
phrase they introduce than, say, in Russian. It would be impossible
in English for a preposition to consist of a consonant only, that
is, to be non-syllabic, which is the case with the three Russian
prepositions в,
к,
с.
This
greater independence of English prepositions
manifests itself in various ways.

There
is the possibility of inserting, between a preposition and the word
or phrase it introduces, another phrase, which can, in its turn,
be introduced by a preposition. Here is an example of this kind:
The
first of these, «The Fatal Revenge», appeared in 1807,
and
was followed by, among other, «The Milesian Chief» …
(COUSIN)
The two prepositions, by
and
among,
stand
one after the other,
but there is certainly no syntactic connection between them, and
probably there is a pause, corresponding to the comma of the written
text. The connection between followed
and
by
appears
to be
closer than that between by
and
the phrase which it introduces, namely,
«The
Milesian Chief». Unless
it were so, the preposition by
would
come after the inserted phrase among
others, rather
than before
it. But that variant, though perhaps not impossible, would certainly
be less idiomatic than that in the text.

This
way of making one preposition come immediately after another, showing
the independence of the first preposition, is also seen in some cases
where the status of the second preposition may be
doubted, that is, it may be doubted whether the word is really a
preposition in that context (compare what has been said on p.
152).
The
following sentence, which is fairly characteristic of modern usage,
will show the essence of the phenomenon: His
industry
was marvellous, and its results remain embodied in about 40
books,
of which about 25
are
commentaries on books of Scripture. (COUSIN)
Of course all this is made possible by the fact that prepositions
in English do not require the word they introduce to have a
specified case form.

Sometimes
even a parenthetical clause come between the preposition
and the noun it introduces, e. g. Some
weeks ago Mr Blessington
came down to me in, as it seemed to me, a state of considerable
agitation. (CONAN
DOYLE)

The
looseness of the tie between the preposition and the following
noun can be offset by a closer tie between the preposition and the
preceding word. This may be seen, for instance, in some passive
constructions
with the phrase «verb +
noun
+
preposition»
acting as
a kind of transitive unit. Examples of this use are well known.
Compare
the following sentence: Their
conference was put an end to
by the anxious young lover himself, who came to breathe his parting
sigh before he set off for Wiltshire. (J. AUSTEN)
The active construction
would have been, The
young lover put an end to their conference, where
an
end would
be a non-prepositional, and to
their conference
a
prepositional object. It might be argued, however, that put
an end is
something of a phraseological unit and should therefore
be treated as the predicate. Be that as it may, the fact remains that
the noun end
is
included into the passive form of the verb, and the
subject of the passive construction is the noun which, in the active
construction, would have been part of the prepositional object.It
should also be noted that a preposition does not necessarily connect
the word which immediately precedes it with the one that follows.
Cases are frequent enough in which there is no connection at
all between the preposition and the preceding word. For instance, in
the sentence, This
beauty is a trifle dimmed now by traces of recent
illness (O’NEILL)
there is no connection between the words now
and
by.
The
preposition by
is
of course connected with the passive participle dimmed
and
the adverb now
could
be left out without
affecting the connections and the functions of the preposition:
This
beauty is dimmed by traces of recent illness. The
same may
be said about the sentence
I
get
the same tale of woe from
every one in our part of the country (Idem);
the preposition from
is
not connected with the noun woe
which
precedes it, it is connected
with the verb get,
which
is separated from it by five other words.
Many more examples of this kind might be given. This should
warn us against an oversimplified understanding of the syntactical
function of a preposition.

Special
attention must be given to groups of words whose meaning
and functions in the sentence are the same as those of prepositions.
Here belong the groups out
of, as to, as for, instead of, in spite
of, etc.
We cannot term these groups prepositions, since a preposition
is a word, not a word group, and it is essential to keep up the
distinction between words and word groups; neglect of it would bring
about a muddle both in grammar and in lexicology. The current
haziness in the treatment of such groups and the vague terms
«compound
preposition» and the like are not conducive to a clear and
consistent grammatical theory. Since much the same can be said
about phrases equivalent in meaning and function to conjunctions,
we will return to this problem after having considered the
conjunctions.

THE
CONJUNCTION

Taking
up the definition of a conjunction given above in cur general survey
of parts of speech, we must first of all, just as we have done with
prepositions, consider the question of the meaning of
conjunctions. Many authors, in defining a conjunction, limit
themselves
to indicating that they serve to connect words (or parts of
the sentence) and clauses. ¹
This
would seem to imply that conjunctions
have no meaning of their own, that is, that they do not themselves
express any phenomena of the extralinguistic world. This
is untenable, as may be very easily shown by the simplest examples.
Compare, for instance, the two sentences, He
came because
it was late, and
He
came though it was late. The
different conjunctions
obviously express different real relations between two
extralinguistic
phenomena: his coming and its being late. The causal
connection between them exists outside the language, and so does
the concessive relation expressed in the latter of the two sentences.
There is no difference whatever in the grammatical structure of the
two sentences: the difference lies only in the meanings of
the two conjunctions. The same observation can be made on comparing
the two sentences, We
will come to see you before he comes back,
and
We
will come to see you after he comes back, and
also in a
number of other cases. All this goes to prove that every conjunction
has its own meaning, expressing some connection or other existing
between phenomena in extralinguistic reality.

So
far our reasoning and our conclusions have been the same as in
the case of prepositions. Now, however, comes a point in which
conjunctions
are different from prepositions. When discussing prepositions,
we noted that in a certain number of cases the use of a given
preposition is predicted by the preceding word: thus the verb depend
can
only be followed by the preposition on
(or
upon),
the
adjective
characteristic
only
by the preposition of,
etc.
In such cases
the preposition has no meaning of its own. Conjunctions in this
respect are entirely different. The use of a conjunction is never
predicted
by any preceding word. We will no longer inquire into the
meanings of conjunctions, as this is a question of lexicology rather
than grammar. In studying the syntactical functions of conjunctions,
we have, just
as with prepositions, to distinguish between two levels —
that
of
phrases and that of sentences.

On
the phrase level it must be said that conjunctions connect words
and phrases. It is the so-called co-ordinating conjunctions that
are found here, and only very rarely subordinating ones.
On
the sentence level it must be said that conjunctions connect clauses
(of different kinds). Here we find both so-called co-ordinating
and so-called subordinating conjunctions.

The
division of conjunctions into co-ordinating and subordinating
is one that can hardly be dealt with outside syntax: co-ordinating
conjunctions imply co-ordination of clauses, and subordinating
conjunctions imply subordination of clauses. So we shall have to
look again into this question when we come to syntax. ¹
Here
it will
be sufficient to say that there is nothing in the conjunction itself
to show whether it is co-ordinating or subordinating, and even in
the structure of the clauses there is no unmistakable sign of this
(as
is the case, for instance, with word order in Modern German).

Conjunctions
can sometimes lose their connecting function, as is
the case with the conjunction if
in
sentences expressing wish, like
the following:
If
only
she might play the question loud enough to
reach the ears of this Paul Steitler. (BUECHNER)
Probably we shall
have to say that if
here
is no longer a conjunction but a particle.
We will consider such cases in Syntax as well.²

PREPOSITIONS
AND CONJUNCTIONS

In
comparing prepositions with co-ordinating and subordinating
conjunctions
we cannot fail to notice that while prepositions have nothing in
common with co-ordinating conjunctions, some prepositions
are very close in meaning to subordinating conjunctions, and in
some cases a preposition and a subordinating conjunction sound
exactly
the same. As examples of similarity in meaning we may give,
for instance, such phrases and clauses: during
his illness =
while
he was ill’, examples
of complete identity in meaning and sound
are the words before,
after, since.

All
this presents us with intricate problems. On the one hand, it
seems doubtful whether we are right in uniting subordinating
conjunctions
(that is, words like when,
as, after, before, since) together
with co-ordinating conjunctions (that is, words like and,
but,
or) into
one part of speech and separating them from prepositions (that is,
words like of,
from, after, before, since), with
which they
obviously have much more in common. On the other hand, it
remains doubtful how we should treat the relations between the
preposition
after
and
the conjunction after
(and
similarly, before
and
since).
None
of the treatments so far proposed seems satisfactory.One
way is to say, there is the word after,
which
may function both
as a preposition and as a conjunction. But then the question
arises, what part of speech is after?
If
it can only function
as
a preposition
and as a conjunction, this would mean that it is neither the
one nor the other.

Another
way is to say that after
the
preposition and after
the
conjunction
are homonyms. This will not do either, since homonymy,
by definition, supposes complete difference of meaning, as between
saw
‘instrument
for sawing’ and saw
‘old
saying’, whereas the meaning of after
the
preposition and after
the
conjunction is absolutely
the same.

These
considerations apply as well to the words before
and
since,
and
here the question is further complicated by the fact that they can
also be adverbs. ¹

The
difficulty with the word after
would
be overcome if we were
to unite prepositions and conjunctions into one part of speech (as
hinted above, p. 33),
which
would then have to be given a
new
name.
The difference between what we now call the preposition after
and
the conjunction would then be reduced to different syntactical
uses of one word. But the difficulty with the adverbs and
preposition-conjunctions
before
and
since
would
not be solved by this: it
would not do to say that an adverb and a word uniting the qualities
of preposition and conjunction are the same word.

A
fully convincing solution of this problem has yet to be found.

As
to the relation between prepositions, co-ordinating conjunctions,
and subordinating conjunctions, it must be said that on the ground
of the peculiarities which have been pointed out a completely
different
treatment of the three types of words is possible. An idea to
this effect was put forward by the French scholar L. Tesnière
in
a book on general principles of syntax. Tesnière
classes what are usually
called co-ordinating conjunctions as a type for itself: he calls
them «jonctifs» (that is, junctives), whereas prepositions
and what
we call subordinating conjunctions come together under the name
of «translatifs» (translatives) and are distinguished from
each
other as subclasses of this large class: prepositions are called
«translatifs,
premier degré»
(translatives, first degree) and subordinating
conjunctions, «translatifs, second degré»
(second degree).²
This
is quite natural in a book on syntax, in which things are looked
at from a syntactical angle and words classified according to
their functions in the sentence.

It
should also be noted that the difference between prepositions and
conjunctions is much less pronounced in Modern English than in
Russian, where prepositions are closely connected with cases, while
conjunctions have nothing whatever to do with them. In English,
with its almost complete absence of cases, this difference between
prepositions and conjunctions is very much obliterated. While in
Russian the substitution of a conjunction for a preposition makes jt
necessary to change the case of the following noun, in English 00
such
change is necessary or, indeed, possible. So the distinction between
preposition and conjunction is based here only on semantic criteria
and, also, on the use of these words in other contexts, where
they are not interchangeable.

In
discussing prepositions, we noted that there are in English, as
well as in Russian and in other languages, certain phrases which
cannot
be termed prepositions, since they are not words, but which are
similar to prepositions in meaning and in syntactical function. The
same is true of conjunctions. A certain number of phrases (consisting
of two or three words) are similar in meaning and in function
to conjunctions. Among them we can quote such phrases as in
order
that, as soon as, as long as, notwithstanding that, etc.
Just as prepositional
phrases, these will be analysed in a special chapter in
Syntax (see p. 179
ff.).

THE
PARTICLE

To
include a word in the class of particles we must find out whether
it has the characteristic features of particles which we have
described
in our general survey of parts of speech, and we should not
apply any other criteria. We shall not inquire whether the word has
one syllable, or two, or many; this phonetic quality of a word is
irrelevant to its grammatical status: just as, for example, a
preposition
may have one syllable (of,
to) or
four (notwithstanding),
a
particle may have one syllable (just)
or
four (exclusively).
Thus
the
diminutive suffix -icle
should
not be taken to refer to the length of
the word.

In
dealing with particles, we will limit ourselves to the grammatical
side of the matter. We will not discuss either their meanings,
which belong to the sphere of lexicology, nor the morphemes
making them up, which should be considered in the theory of
word-building.

When
speaking of particles in our review of parts of speech we have
noted already that they usually refer to the word (or, sometimes,
phrase) immediately following and give special prominence to
the notion expressed by this word (or phrase), or single it out in
some
other way, depending on the meaning of the particle.

This
usage, which is by far the most common one, can be illustrated
by a variety of examples. We will give a few: One
just does what
is reasonable, and everything is bound to go all right. (R.
WEST) She
could feel anger stir, even at this late date, as she thought
of that night, but she subdued it and tossed her head until the
earrings danced. (M.
MITCHELL)

Sometimes
a particle occupies a different position in the sentence.
This question will be dealt with in the chapter on word order.

The
question of the place of a particle in sentence structure remains
unsolved. It would appear that the following three solutions are
possible: (1)
a
particle is a separate secondary member of the sentence,
which should be given a special name; (2)
a
particle is an
element in the part of the sentence which is formed by the word (or
phrase) to which the particle refers (thus the particle may be an
element of the subject, predicate, object, etc.); (3)
a
particle neither
makes up a special part of the sentence, nor is it an element in
any part of the sentence; it stands outside the structure of the
sentence
and must be neglected when analysis of a sentence is given.

Each
of these three views entails some difficulties and none of them
can be proved to be the correct one, so that the decision remains
arbitrary.

The
view that a particle is a part of the sentence by itself makes it
necessary to state what part of the sentence it is. Since it
obviously
cannot be brought under the headings either of object, or attribute,
or adverbial modifier, we should have to introduce a special part
of the sentence which ought then to be given a special name.

The
second view would be plausible if the particle always stood
immediately
before (or immediately after) the word or phrase to which
it belongs. But the fact that it can occasionally stand at a distance
from it (for example, within the predicate, while referring to
an adverbial modifier) makes this view impossible of realisation;
compare,
for instance, I
have only met him twice.

The
last view, according to which a particle stands, as it were, outside
the sentence, seems rather odd. Since it is within the sentence,
and is essential to its meaning, so that omission of the particle
could involve a material change in the meaning, it is hard to
understand
how it can be discounted in analysing the structure of
the sentence.

Since,
then, the second view proves to be impossible and the third
unconvincing, we shall have to adhere to the first view and to
state that a particle is a separate secondary part of the sentence
which
ought to be given a special name.

THE
PARTICLE Sot

The
particle not
deserves
special attention. It can, as is well known,
be used in two different ways. On the one hand, it may stand
outside the predicate, as in the following sentence: Not
till Magnus
had actually landed in Orkney did he consider the many difficulties
that confronted him. (LINKLATER)
It also stands outside the
predicate in a type of so-called short answers, in which the negative
is expressed by the particle not,
if
it is accompanied by a modal
word like certainly,
perhaps, or
a phrase equivalent to a modal
word, e. g. of
course: Certainly not. Perhaps not. Of course not.¹
Compare
also: /
am
afraid not, I think not, etc.
In these cases the
particle not
appears
to be the main part of the sentence.Another
use of the particle not
is
that within the predicate. In these
cases it is customary to treat it as part of the verb itself. The
usual way of putting it is this. The negative form of the present
indicative,
e. g., of the verb be,
is:
(/)
am
not, (he) is not, etc.,
or,
the negative form of the present indicative, e. g., of the verb
sing is,
(I)
do
not sing, (he) docs not sing, etc.
The particle not
is
thus treated as an auxiliary element making part of the verb form.
This of course appears to be especially necessary with verbs whose
negative form includes the auxiliary verb do,
i.
e. with the vast
majority of Modern English verbs. Here the particle has obviously
no syntactic function of its own, and is an auxiliary element
within the morphology of the verb. ¹

The
particle not
undergoes
further fusion with forms of the verb in
the following cases, where indeed it is no longer a word at all but
a morpheme within a verb form. The first step in this direction
is clearly seen in the form cannot,
where
it preserves its vowel sound,
and the next step in the contracted forms isn’t,
aren’t (also
the
subliterary ain’t),
wasn’t, weren’t, haven’t, hasn’t, hadn’t, shan’t,
won’t, shouldn’t, wouldn’t, don’t, doesn’t, didn’t, mayn’t, mightn’t,
mustn’t, oughtn’t, can’t, and
occasionally also usen’t
for
used
not. Here
the two elements have quite coalesced into a unit, and
some of these forms (e. g. shan’t,
won’t, and
don’t)
cannot
now even
be divided into morphemes.

DOUBTFUL
WORDS

There
are some words which may be classed either as particles or
as adverbs, since the criteria which we apply to distinguish between
these two parts of speech do not appear to yield a clear result here.

Among
these we should cite the words almost
and
nearly,
which
are
close to each other in meaning. Taking a sentence like The
boat almost
overturned, we
can say that it is a matter for discussion whether the word almost
does
or does not denote the manner in which the action of the verb was
conducted. Again, talcing the sentence
He
is nearly thirty years old now, we
can also doubt whether
the word nearly
does
or does not modify the word thirty
(or,
perhaps, the phrase thirty
years). It
would rather seem that it does
not, but any judgement on this issue is bound to be subjective to
a considerable extent, since, as we pointed out above, objective
criteria
do not yield any clear results. Accordingly, the syntactical function
of the words almost
and
nearly
will
also remain doubtful and
a matter for subjective opinion.

In
weighing different considerations that may be put forward in
favour of including the word nearly
into
one or other morphological
category, it is essential to bear in mind a phenomenon which quite
definitely speaks against including this word in the class of
particles.
The word nearly
may
occasionally have the adverb very
standing before it and modifying it, as in the sentence: The
time is very
nearly seven fifteen. In
the sentence The
time is nearly seven fifteen
we
might bring forward certain arguments to prove that nearly
is
a particle. However, the possibility of its being modified by
the adverb very
is
a powerful argument against that view: a particle
cannot be modified by an adverb, or by any other kind of word,
for that matter. Since the status of the word nearly
was
doubtful
anyway, the phrase very
nearly casts
a definite weight against its being a particle and in favour of its
being an adverb.

We
may also note that there is a difference here between the word
nearly
and
the word almost,
close
as they are in meaning: almost
cannot
be modified by any word, and the phrase very
almost is
certainly impossible. Whether this is sufficient reason to put them
into different parts of speech is another matter.

The way young children are introduced to prepositions (including multi-word examples) is by being shown pictures illustrating static spatial (locative) relationships (‘the box is beside / under / in front of / next to / on top of / on the left of / near (to) … the table). This is a semantic treatment. Directional relationships come next, then temporal. Non space/time, including the slightly- and highly-idiomatic, usages of prepositions are introduced later, with a necessary re-emphasis on syntactic properties. Prepositions are neither wholly functional nor wholly lexical words, when considered in all their usages.

In Grammar: A Student’s Guide, Hurford cites some ‘intercategorial polysemes’ which nicely illustrate the differences between ‘subordinating conjunctions’ (‘subordinators’ may be a more useful term) and prepositions.

Other sources such as

• Brighthub Education
• The Teacher’s Grammar of English with Answers (Cowan)

show analyses of prepositions and their use.

The coordinator class is defined purely in terms of syntactic function:

‘Coordinating conjunctions, also called coordinators, are
conjunctions that join, or coordinate, two or more items (such as
words, main clauses, or sentences) of equal syntactic importance.’
(Wikipedia) (‘Importance’ in this sense means one can’t have (3) here:
(1) ‘bacon and eggs is on the menu’ (2) ‘I like gammon and Jill likes
pineapple’ (3) ‘bacon and Jill likes pineapple’.

‘Position in the syntactic hierarchy’ is probably a better term.

But if you look at the uses of prepositions Cowan cites, you’ll find (I think) they ‘relate’ structures of unequal syntactic ‘importance’.