Б. А. Ильиш строй современного английского языка Учебник

136 The Verb: Verbals

may be the subject or the object in a sentence, and only rarely an attribute, whereas the participle is an attribute first and foremost.

We should also bear in mind that in certain syntactical contexts the difference tends to be obliterated. For instance, if in the sentence Do you mind my smoking? (where smoking is a gerund) we substitute me for my, in the resulting sentence Do you mind me smoking? the form smoking may, at least, be said to be the participle. Again, in the sentence Do you mind her smoking? where her may be the possessive pronoun, corresponding to my, or the objective case of the personal pronoun, corresponding to me, the gerund and the participle are practically indistinguishable. We may say, in terms of modern linguistics, that the opposition between them is neutralised.¹

If, on the other hand, we prefer to abandon the distinction and to speak of the ing-form, we shall have to formulate its meaning and its functions in such a way as to allow for all the cases of the ing-forms to be included. For instance, instead of distinguishing between substantival and adjectival qualities, we shall speak, in a more general way, of nominal qualities, so as to embrace both the substantival and the adjectival ones, and so forth. Such a view seems also quite possible, and the decision to be taken will, as we have seen above, depend on the general attitude one adopts in matters of this kind.

¹ The notion of neutralisation was first introduced by N. Trubetzkoy in his book on essentials of phonology (Grundzuge der Phonologie, Prague, 1939; the book also appeared in a Russian translation in 1960).

The essential idea at the bottom of neutralisation in phonology may be briefly stated as follows. An opposition existing between two phonemes may under certain circumstances (which are to be strictly defined in each case) disappear, that is, it may lose its validity and become irrelevant. Such cases probably occur in every language. It will perhaps be best to give an example of neutralisation in Russian phonology. The sounds [t] and [d] are certainly different phonemes in Russian, as the difference between them may be the only means of distinguishing between two words. Compare, e.g., том 'volume' and дом 'house', or там 'there' and дам 'I shall give'. However, the difference between the two phonemes disappears at the end of a word (and also in some 'other cases). Thus, for example, the words рот 'mouth' and род 'genus' sound alike, a voiced [d] being impossible at the end of a word in Russian. Trubetzkoy says, accordingly, that the opposition between [t] and [d] is neutralised in those conditions. To put it more exactly, whereas in the word том the relevant features of the initial phoneme are three, namely, it is (a) a forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, and (c) voiceless, and the initial consonant of дом also has three relevant features, namely, it is (a) a forelingual consonant, (b) a stop, (c) voiced, the final consonant in рот or род has only two relevant features: it is (a) a forelingual consonant, and (b) a stop. No third relevant feature is found here. The consonant is of course phonetically voiceless, but the voicelessness is phonologically irrelevant, as the corresponding voiced consonant cannot appear in this position.

The notion of neutralisation has since been applied to grammar as well.

Chapter XV

THE VERB: POLYSEMANTIC AND HOMONYMOUS FORMS

Modern lexicology has in many cases to solve the problem whether we have to deal with two or more meanings of one word or with two or more different words sounding the same. Such questions have arisen concerning, for example, the nouns hand, head, board, the verbs draw, bear, and a number of other words.

Similar problems confront us in the field of grammar as well. In quite a number of cases we are faced with a choice between two possible interpretations of established linguistic facts, notably in the sphere of verb morphology: is a certain form one grammatical form with two or more different meanings, or two or more different grammatical forms sounding alike?

We have dealt with each of these problems as they arose in the course of our study of the verb system. Now it may prove expedient to cast a look at the problem in its entirety. We will first take up those cases in which there has been a general discussion and both, varying views have found more or less wide support, and then we will pass on to the problems in which one view is more or less prevailing, and only a few dissenting voices are heard.

1. Is the form knew in the sentence He knew it all along and the form knew in the sentence If he knew this, he would be here the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? The question also applies to forms of the type lived, stopped, told, etc.
   
2. Is the form had known in the sentence He had known it all along and the form had known in the sentence If he had known this, he would have come the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? The question also applies to forms of the type had lived, had stopped, had told, etc.
   
3. Is the form should come in the sentence I said I should come soon and the form should come in the sentence If I were you I should come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? Is the form would come in the sentence She said she would come soon and the form would come in the sentence If she knew this she would come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?
   
4. Is the form should have come in the sentence I thought 1 should have come before he rang up and the form should have come in the sentence If I had known this I should have come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? Is the form would have come in the sentence He thought he would have come before you rang up and the form would have come in the sentence If he had known this he would have come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?
   

188 The Verb: Polysemantic and Homonymous Forms

5. Is the form would come in the sentence If he knew this he would come at once and the form would come in the sentence In those days he would come and sit with us for hours, and tell us about his life the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?
   
6. Is the form laughing in the sentence I found a laughing little boy and the form laughing in the sentence He answered by laughing the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?
   
7. Is the form having found in the sentence Having found the solution of the problem, he published a paper on the subject and the form having found in the sentence He was proud of having found the solution of the problem the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?
   

Those were questions that had been answered in different ways by different scholars. Now comes a question that has had no special attention focused upon it:

(8) Is the form wrote in the sentence He wrote it and the form wrote in the sentence They wrote it the same form, or are they two homonymous forms sounding the same?

There is a consideration in favour of the view that they are two different homonymous forms; the verb be has different forms for the singular and the plural in the past tense (was, were) — from this fact the inference may be drawn that in Modern English there is the category of number (singular and plural) in the past tense, and consequently in the verbs where no distinction in sound is found between singular and plural, we have to recognise homonymous forms. It may be further argued that in all verbs which admit of a past continuous form, or of a past passive, or of a past continuous passive, that is, of forms derived by means of the verb be, the category of number is found in the past tense: compare, e. g., was writing, were writing, was written, were written, was being written, were being written, or, was driving, were driving, was driven, were driven, was being driven, were being driven, etc.

(9) If the argument laid down in (8) is followed up, it may also be asked whether the forms know (1st person singular) and know (plural) are one form, or different forms sounding alike. In favour of the latter view it may be argued that in the verb be the corresponding forms do not sound the same: am, are, so this verb has a material distinction along these lines, and, consequently, all verbs in which no material distinction is found have homonymous forms. It may further be argued that verbs which have a present continuous, or a present passive, or a present passive continuous, or two, or all of these forms, also show that distinction: compare am driving, are driving; am driven, are driven, am being driven, are being driven, etc.

Invariable Meaning 189

In proceeding now to consider different arguments referring to the nine questions enumerated here, we will first of all point out the problem of various structural meanings inherent in a grammatical form and of an invariable meaning, that is, one to be found in every possible single application of a form. This has been treated in different ways with reference to such questions as the general meaning of a case, for instance of the genitive case in Russian or Latin, etc.

Whether we think it necessary to find an invariable structural meaning which manifests itself in different ways in different applications of a grammatical category, or whether we deny the necessity of such an invariable meaning, is a matter which largely depends on a scholar's theoretical views on the meaning of grammatical categories and grammatical forms in general. We can hardly expect either of these views (for or against an invariable structural meaning for every category and every form) to be definitely proved as the only right one. We will assume that an invariable meaning does exist, and then try to find out what it is in every case.

Starting, then, with the question of polysemy or homonymy of forms like knew or lived, which may either denote a real action in the past, or an unreal supposition in the present or future, we may look for an invariable meaning comprising both these concrete applications. This meaning would seem to be something like "an action not actually happening in the present", or an action removed from present reality, that is, either having occurred in the past and in this way cut off from present reality or else only vaguely supposed, or even definitely unreal, and in this second way cut off from present reality.¹ This would justify the view that knew or lived in all its applications is one and the same form, which we may call past indicative, and which is used in certain syntactical contexts to denote an unreal action in the present or future.

While this way of interpreting facts will probably never be proved to be the only correct one, -there are many arguments in its favour and we will here endorse this view of forms like knew and lived.

If that is accepted, a similar reasoning will hold good concern? ing the forms had known and had lived. The common element of meaning, that is the invariable to be found both in the sentence I had known this before and in the sentence If I had known this 1 should have come may be defined as follows: an action not really

¹ This idea was propounded, in a somewhat different context, by Prof. A. Potebnia with reference to some facts of Slavonic languages; e.g. in Russian the form of the conditional mood сказал бы is a combination of the past tense form сказал with the particle бы, which itself is by origin a past tense form of the verb быть.

140 The Verb: Polysemantic and Homonymous Forms

happening at a given period in the past; the two applications of that common invariable would then result in the following meaning: (a) an action happening before that period of the past which is being considered, and (b) an action merely supposed, and not actually happening in the past. The additional difficulty in this second item is, that everything has to be treated as belonging to the past (in some way or other), whereas with the first item the distinction was between the past and the present.

This approach to things is also possible in the case of our item (3), where the forms in question are, should come and would come, respectively. In trying to arrive at an invariable meaning for these forms, we will look for something which might establish a connection between an action unreal in the present and an action expected to happen at some moment future from the point of view of past time. The invariable in this case may be defined something like this: an action not really happening either in the present or in the specified period of the past; that idea is then substantiated either

1. as something merely supposed for the present or future, or
   
2. as an action viewed from a past viewpoint as happening in the future.
   

A similar reasoning would of course have to be applied to forms like should have come and would have come, with everything shifted, as it were, one step further back into the past: the invariable in this case would be something like "an action not actually happening either in the past, present, or future", and the applications would be, (a) an unreal action in the past, and (b) an action viewed from a past viewpoint as completed at a certain time in the future. In this last type of forms the past dominates throughout.

Similar considerations will hold good with reference to forms like should be coming, would be coming, should have been coming, would have been coming, which, however, are rarely found in their temporal application (future-continuous-in-the-past, future-perfect-continuous-in-the-past). Everything stated so far would also apply to the corresponding forms of the passive voice, wherever a verb admits of passive forms at all.

The next item, which we gave under number 5, is of a somewhat different character, and presents us with new difficulties. Besides being used to denote an unreal action in the present, and an action expected in the future from a past viewpoint, the phrase would come (in this particular case the verb would is completely dissociated from the verb should) can also express a repeated action in the past. For this problem, there seems to be no convincing way of finding an invariable meaning able to cover both the meaning of unreality in the present and expectation in the future from a past viewpoint. So, unless and until such common ground for an invariable is found, it will be well to say that would come denoting un-

Gerund and Participle 141

reality in the present and expected action in the future from a past viewpoint, on the one hand, and would come denoting a repeated action in the past are two different formations sounding the same. ¹

Now we come to items (6) and (7), concerning the ing-form or ing-forms in their different applications. The traditional view is, that we have here two homonymous forms: the participle (present or perfect) and the gerund (present or perfect). A more recent view, put forward by E. Kruisinga, is that there are not two different forms sounding the same but one form, which he shortly terms "the ing", being used in various ways in the sentence.

It is a peculiar feature of this ing-problem that in some contexts the two "ings" come very close together and additional factors are required to draw a distinction between them. The two "ings" coincide in such sentences as, He was afraid of her knowing the truth,² where the "ing" is a gerund if her is a possessive pronoun, and a participle if her is a personal pronoun in the objective case; also in the sentence He was glad at John's coming the "ing" is a gerund, but if John's is replaced by John, the "ing" seems to be a participle, though this is not acknowledged by all scholars: M. Deutschbein believed the "ing" to be a gerund in both cases.

The question is a very difficult one. Since up to now it has not been possible to find a convincing invariable meaning to cover both participle and gerund, we shall do well again, until such an invariable is discovered, to hold to the traditional view which has it that the participle and the gerund are two essentially different forms sounding the same. This of course applies equally to present and perfect, active and passive participles and gerunds.

The last two items of our list include questions connected with the whole system of grammar and the principles of stating grammatical categories. In item (8) the essence of the problem is this. All Modern English verbs, however many they may be, have no distinction of number in the past tense, with one exception only, the verb be, which distinguishes in the past tense between the singular (was) and the plural (were).³ Should this peculiarity of the verb be bring us to the conclusion that the category of number in the past tense exists in all English verbs, and that, accordingly, all verbs

¹ From the viewpoint of synchronic analysis of Modern English the fact that the source of the auxiliary would is in both cases the same (past tense of will) is of course irrelevant.

² The example is taken from M. Deutschbein, System der neuenglischen Syntax, S. 154.

³ We will for the moment overlook the fact that in non-standard English there is a strong tendency to do away with the distinction and to use the form was without regard to number: I was, he was, we was, you was, they was.

142 The Verb: Polysemantic and Homonymous Forms

except be have here homonymous forms? This is the view held by L. Bloomfield. Bloomfield thinks that the existence of one word of a certain category, which has a certain grammatical distinction, is sufficient reason for stating that all words of that category have that distinction, and all of them but the one in question have homonymous forms. In his own words, "The existence of even a single over-differentiated paradigm implies homonymy in the regular paradigms." ¹

This view, however, is completely arbitrary and unacceptable. If we were to endorse it, we should arrive at very strange conclusions indeed. For example, starting from the fact that two English words which may be used as attributes to a noun, namely the words this and that, have a distinction between singular and plural (they agree in number with their head word, e. g. this street, but these streets, that street, but those streets), we might infer that all words thus used also have the category of number; for example, we should have to say that the word new has a distinction of singular and plural: in the phrase new house the word new is in the singular, but in the phrase new houses it is in the plural; the singular and the plural forms would be homonyms.

Besides being queer in itself, such a view would lead to a very peculiar interpretation of the development of a language. We interpret the development of adjective morphology in English by saying that the category of number, which was clearly expressed in Old English and to some extent in Middle English, has completely disappeared in Modern English, the adjectives having become invariable except for degrees of comparison. If we were to endorse Bloomfield's view we should have to say that the category of number in adjectives has not disappeared, that it still exists, but the forms of singular and plural have become homonymous. That view would give a distorted idea of the development of the language. So the fact that one verb, namely be, has preserved a distinction of number in the past tense, will not influence our view of the past tense of all other verbs.

The other consideration that has been put forward in this respect deserves special attention: the verb be takes part as an auxiliary in the formation of the past continuous, past passive, and past continuous passive of all verbs having those forms, and in so far it may be said that these verbs have a distinction of number in these forms; for example, the verb write has a distinction of number in the past continuous, past passive, and past continuous passive. Does this fact, or does it not, lead to the conclusion that there is a distinction of number in the past tense of all verbs generally? For

L. Bloomfield, Language, 1955, p. 224.

The Verb Be 143

example, from the fact that there is a distinction between was writing I were writing, was written I were written, was being written / were being written, does it follow that there is the same distinction between (he) wrote / (they) wrote, the forms being homonymous?

This appears to be one of those questions which admit of different opinions rather than of a definite objective solution that might be described as the only correct one. Generally speaking, a negative answer would seem rather more appropriate: it is fair to say that there is a distinction of number in the past forms enumerated above but not in the past indefinite, active. However, the other view might also be defended.

The same thing is true about the distinction in number between the first person singular of the verb be (am) and the first person plural of this verb (are): it should not be considered sufficient reason to establish this difference of number in all other verbs and to say that, for example, the forms (I) write and (we) write are homonyms.

As to the argument that the verb be is used to form the present continuous, present passive, and present continuous passive of other verbs, so that these tense forms have a distinction of number in the first person, it will have to be treated in the same way as the corresponding argument about number in the past tense: as a problem admitting of opinions rather than a definite solution, with much to be said in favour of a negative answer.