Б. А. Ильиш строй современного английского языка Учебник
| Вид материала | Учебник |
- Advanced English Course: Лингафонный курс английского языка. Арс, 2001; Media World,, 641.95kb.
- Программа дисциплины опд. Ф. 02. 3 Лексикология английского языка, 112.16kb.
- Н. Н. Этимологические основы словарного состава современного английского языка. М.,, 8.77kb.
- Рабочая программа дисциплины лексикология современного английского языка наименование, 245.25kb.
- Программа дисциплины дпп. Ф. 08. 3 Грамматика Цели и задачи дисциплины, 108.5kb.
- Вопросы по курсу «Теоретическая лексикология современного английского языка» 2007, 39.13kb.
- С. Ф. Леонтьева Теоретическая фонетика английского языка издание второе, ■исправленное, 4003.28kb.
- Встатье рассматривается многокомпонентное словосочетание современного английского языка, 194.54kb.
- Межотраслевая полисемия в терминологической системе современного английского языка, 924.34kb.
- Библиотека филолога и. Р. Гальперин очерки по стилистике английского языка, 6420.74kb.
a
n adjective, since many adjectives, e. g. wooden, woollen, European, do not form degrees of comparison either.The criteria to be applied here are the following: (1) Has the first element of those phrases number distinctions? (2) Is it able in the cases when it denotes a human being to have a possessive form? (3) Does it denote a substance or a property? Strangely enough all these questions are very hard to answer. As to (1), it must be stated that the first element usually appears only in one number form, which is either singular or plural, e. g. stone wall, not stones wall; house fronts, not houses fronts; goods van, not good van, etc. However, that observation leads us nowhere. It is quite possible to argue that the first element is a noun, capable of number distinctions, but always appearing in a definite number form when making part of that phrase. So the application of criterion (1) proves to be inconclusive. As to criterion (2), we also run into difficulties. If, for example, we take the phrase the Einstein theory and ask whether the first element can take the possessive form, we shall have to concede that of course it can; thus the phrase Einstein's theory is quite possible, and indeed, it occurs in actual texts. However, those who hold that it is not a noun, but either an adjective or an attributive noun (meaning a special part of speech) argue that the word in the phrase the Einstein theory is not the same word as in the phrase Einstein's theory and that the word in the first of these groups is incapable of taking a possessive form. Thus, it appears to be impossible to come to a definite conclusion on the basis of this criterion. Now we proceed to criterion (3). How are we to decide whether the word Einstein in the former group denotes a substance or a property? There seems to be no perfectly convincing argument either way. We might say that it denotes a substance but this substance only serves to characterise the property of the thing denoted by the noun.
Thus, we reach the conclusion that no perfectly objective result can be attained in trying to determine what part of speech the first element in such phrases is. This explains the existing difference of views on the subject and we are compelled to recognise that the question can only be solved in a somewhat subjective way, according as we start from one premise or another. If we start from the premise that we shall not speak of homonyms, or indeed new parts of speech, unless this is made strictly necessary by indisputable facts, we will stick to the view that the first element of such phrases as stone watt or speech sound is a noun in a special syntactical function. It is this view that appears to be the most plausible,
3 Б, А. Ильиш
Chapter VI
THE PRONOUN AND THE NUMERAL
THE PRONOUN
As we have already seen (p. 30), the definition of pronouns as a separate part of speech has caused many difficulties. More than Once in the history of linguistics the very existence of pronouns as a part of speech has been denied. 1 However, attempts of this kind have not proved successful and in present-day grammars, both English and Russian, pronouns are recognised as a part of speech. This in itself seems to prove that they indeed have some peculiar features which cannot be "explained away".
Thus, the pronouns I, you, he, etc., though pointing to things (in the widest sense of the word) and in so far resembling nouns, cannot as a rule be modified by adjectives. (Phrases like poor me appear to be rare.) These pronouns differ from nouns in that they cannot be connected with any article, or modified by a prepositional phrase, etc. We will therefore start on the assumption that pronouns do constitute a separate part of speech, and proceed to investigate their grammatical properties.
CLASSIFICATION OF PRONOUNS
We usually find in grammars a classification of pronouns into personal, possessive, interrogative, indefinite, relative, etc. It is clear, however, that some points in that classification are not grammatical at all. Thus, if we say, for example, that a pronoun is indefinite we do not characterise it from a grammatical but from a semantic point of view. There is no doubt that the pronoun something is indefinite in its meaning, but that indefiniteness of meaning is in no way reflected either in its morphological properties or in its syntactical functions. This is as much as to say that the indefiniteness of its meaning is irrelevant from the grammatical viewpoint. In a similar way, if we state that the pronoun nothing is negative, we characterise its meaning (and a most important characteristic it is, too), but, again, this is irrelevant for grammar, since it does not entail anything concerning the morphological or syntactical peculiarities of the word. Therefore, in proceeding to a study of pronouns, we will try to keep the grammatical viewpoint firmly in mind, though this will not always be an easy thing to do.
CASE
In dealing with the category of case in pronouns, we must bear in mind that they need not in this respect be similar to nouns.
1 See, for example, Л. В. Щерба, О частях речи в русском языке. Избранные работы по русскому языку, 1957, стр. 68 сл.
The Pronoun 67
S
ome of them may, and indeed do, have peculiarities which no noun shares.Some pronouns distinguish between two cases which are best termed nominative and objective (instead of nominative we might also say subjective). These are the following:
Nomin. I he she (it) we (you) they who Obj. me him her (it) us (you) them whom
The two pronouns in brackets, it and you, might have been left out of the list. We have included them because they share many other peculiarities with the pronouns I, he, she, we, and they. No other pronoun, and, indeed, no other word in the language has that kind of case system.
A certain number of pronouns have a different case system, viz. they distinguish between a common and a genitive case, in the same way as the nouns treated above (see p. 41 ff.). These are, somebody, anybody, one, another, and a few more.
All other pronouns have no category of case (something, anything, nothing, everything, some, any, no, my, his, etc.; mine, hers, etc.).
The case system in pronouns of the somebody type is identical with that of the nouns of the father type. So we need not go into this question any further.
The case system of the pronouns given on this page, on the other hand, is quite isolated in the language, and requires special investigation.
It is very well known that the form me, which is an objective case form, is not only used in the function of object (direct or indirect), but also as predicative, in sentences like It is me. The sentence It is I, though still possible, is rarely used: it has acquired a kind of archaic flavour as its stylistic peculiarity and has therefore become inappropriate in colloquial speech. However, in the construction it is... who the form I is usual: "It's I who am tiresome" he replied. (FORSTER) As to the other pronouns of this group, the sentences It is him, It is her, It is us, It is them, with the objective case form used as a predicative, do occur, but they seem still to have a somewhat careless or "low colloquial" colouring and they have not superseded the variants It is he, It is she, It is we, It is they. Here is an example: No, I don't suppose it will prove to be them. (FORSTER)
The form me can occasionally be found in the function of subject, provided it does not immediately precede the predicate verb, as in the sentence: That's the law of the state, Ham, and there's nothing me or you can do about it. (E. CALDWELL) The form me could not have been used here if there had not been the second subject you, in the sentence. This confirms the view that stress plays
С8 The Pronoun and the Numeral
a
n important part in determining the use of I or me in such conditions. The form her as subject is found, for instance, in the following sentence from a short story by the same author. Lujean's the likable kind. You and her will get along just fine before you know it. (E. CALDWELL) It should be noted, however, that the form her is possible here because it is part of the group you and her, and therefore gets some sentence-stress. If a feminine pronoun were to be the only subject of the sentence, the form would have to be she, no matter what the style of the sentence was.Opinions on the precise stylistic colouring of such sentences differ to some extent. What seems certain here is that the nominative forms I, he, etc. are being gradually restricted to the function of subject, whereas the objective case forms me, him, etc., are taking over all other functions. This process seems to have gone further with the 1st person singular pronoun than with the others; the reason for this is not yet clear. It is the isolated position of this case system in the language which must be held responsible for the change. The distinction between I, he, she, we, they, on the one hand, and me, him, her, us, them, on the other, is thus changed from a case distinction to one of a different character — that of unstressed and stressed forms of pronouns. This is similar to the process which has long since been completed in the French language (and in other Romance languages, such as Italian, or Spanish), where the original nominative form (e. g. French je, from Latin ego) has been restricted to the function of subject of the sentence, whereas the original objective case form (e. g. French moi, from Latin me) has taken over its other functions, mainly that of predicative. Cf. Je suis ici 'I am here' and C'est moi 'it is me'; Il est ici 'he is here' and C'est lui 'it is he (him)'. The development in Modern English seems to be following the same lines, on the whole, but it does differ from the French in so far as the use of I as a predicative is still quite possible, whereas in French that possibility is completely lost for the forms je, tu, etc. Here is a curious example from a modern play by S. Taylor:
Maude (suspecting). Is there someone you want to marry?
(Sabrina nods) Who is it?
Sabrina (turning to Linus). Him!
Linus. For God's sake, Sabrina, watch your grammar.
Sabrina. It is he!
With the pronoun who the development is partly similar, and partly different. It is similar in the main point: the case difference between who and whom is quite obviously disappearing. But here it is the original objective case form that is giving way, and it is no longer preserved in any specific syntactic function. Thus, the sentence whom did you see? is being superseded by the variant, who
The Pronoun 69
d
id you see?, and, similarly, who tends to take the place of whom in such sentences as, This is the man who(m) you wanted to see.Examples of this use are found as early as in Shakespeare, for instance Between who? ("Hamlet"), and also occur in the 18th century, for instance in a novel by Jane Austen in a conversation between educated speakers: But who are you looking for? Are your sisters coming? An example from a modern play: Who were you private secretary to? (TAYLOR)
E. Sapir has devoted several pages of his book on language to a detailed discussion of all factors contributing to the use of who instead of whom in such contexts. 1 Be that as it may, the gradual elimination of the objective form whom is beyond doubt.
Thus the general tendency is clearly towards the disappearance of the opposition between nominative and objective in pronouns.
NUMBER
It ought to be emphasised that what we mean here is the grammatical category of number, and the question is, in what pronouns and to what extent that category is actually found.
, It will be easily seen that the category of number has only a very restricted field in pronouns. It is found in the pronouns this/ these, that / those, other / others (if not used before a noun). We need not dwell here on the very peculiar means which are used to form the plural of this and of that. The question is one of the history of English, rather than of Modern English structure. We can limit ourselves to the statement that the method by which each of the two words forms its plural is quite individual and unanalysable from the viewpoint of the modern language.
As to the pronouns I / we; he, she, it / they, it must be stated that there is no grammatical category of number here. We is not a form of the pronoun I, but a separate word in its own right. In a similar way, they is not a form of he, or she, or it, or of all of them, but a separate word.
There is no grammatical category of number either in the pronouns my / our; his, her, its / their, and mine / ours; his, hers / theirs. E. g., her and their are different words, not different forms of one word.
A peculiar difficulty arises here with reference to the pronouns myself / (ourself), ourselves; yourself / yourselves; himself, herself, itself / themselves.
If we compare the two pronouns myself and ourselves, we shall see at once that the difference between the first elements of the two words is purely lexical (just as in the corresponding words my
1 E. Sapir, Language, 1921, pp. 166—174.
70 The Pronoun and the Numeral
a
nd our), whereas the second elements differ from each other by the same suffix -s that is used to form the plural of most nouns. 1 Thus we are brought to the conclusion that ourselves is essentially a different word from myself.There are no other grammatical categories in the English pronoun: there is no category of gender. The pronouns he, she, it, and also the pronouns his, her, Us; his, hers; himself, herself, itself, are all separate words. Thus, she is not a form of the word he but a separate word in its own right.
DISTINCTION OF TYPES OF PRONOUNS
There are many examples in English pronouns of the same phonetic unit used to express different meanings in different contexts. So the question arises whether this is a case of polysemy, that is, different meanings of the same word, or of homonymy, that is, different words sounding alike. We may state the following cases in point: that demonstrative and that relative; who interrogative and who relative; which interrogative and which relative; myself (and the other self-pronouns) reflexive, and the same pronouns intensive (non-reflexive).
That seems to be the easiest of the problems to settle, as we can apply the test of the plural form here. The demonstrative that has a plural form those, whereas the relative that remains unchanged in the plural.
It is obvious that the that which remains unchanged in the plural cannot be the same word as the that which has the plural form those. So we arrive at the conclusion that there are two different pronouns: that (relative) and that / those (demonstrative, parallel to this).
With the other pronouns mentioned above no criterion of this kind can be applied, as they, none of them, have any special plural form. So, if that question is to be solved at all, we shall have to look for criteria of a different kind, which may not prove so decisive as the one we applied in the case of that.
We shall have to rely on meaning and syntactical function. It is not hard to distinguish between the interrogative and the relative meaning in the pronouns who, what, and which. It is also evident that the relative who, what, and which can introduce subordinate clauses. However, it is not so easy to say whether the pronoun what is interrogative or relative in a sentence like the following: I know what you mean. On the one hand the meaning of the pronoun what seems to be the same as in the sentence I know what
1 And of course also by the alternation [f]/[v], just as in the nouns shelf/shelves, wolf/wolves, etc. This is irrelevant here.
The Pronoun 71
h
as happened (a so-called indirect question), where it is obviously interrogative. On the other hand, it can hardly be denied that what may be taken here as equivalent to that which and as connecting the subordinate clause with the main clause. 1 Since no clear distinction can be established, it seems unjustified to separate the two and to say that they are homonyms. More or less similar considerations apply to the other cases enumerated on page 70. We will therefore speak of "the pronoun himself", etc., without distinguishing "the reflexive pronoun himself" and "the emphatic pronoun himself".2LIMITS OF THE PRONOUN CLASS
The limits of the pronoun class are somewhat difficult to define. That is, there are words which have some pronominal features, without being full pronouns, or, even, have other features which are not pronominal at all. We may take the word many as a case in point.
Many is in several respects similar in meaning and function to the pronouns some and several; -cf. some children, some of the children, some of them; several children, several of the children, several of them; many children, many of the children, many of them. In this respect many differs from adjectives, which of course cannot be followed by the group "of + noun or pronoun". That would favour the view that many belongs to the pronoun class. On the other hand, however, many has an important characteristic which separates it from pronouns and brings it together with adjectives; it has degrees of comparison: more, (the) most. No pronoun has degrees of comparison, and indeed the pronouns some and several, which stand so close to many in other respects, cannot form such degrees. So, in determining the part of speech to which many belongs we have to decide which of its characteristics is more essential, unless we prefer to state that many, few, much and little are hybrids, partaking both of pronouns and of adjectives. Since the choice of the more essential feature remains somewhat arbitrary, the conclusion on the word many may be affected by it. If, for example, we decide that the morphological feature is more essential, we will say that many is an adjective, but we shall have to add that it shares some vital syntactical features with pronouns.
Another case in point is the word certain. When used as a predicative it is of course an adjective, as in the sentence, We were
1 For a general theory of subordinate clauses, see Chapter XXXIV.
2 The question of polysemy and homonymy of words is of course a lexicological, not a grammatical, question. We only touched on it here because we have to express a view of these words when we speak of their grammatical peculiarities.
72 The Pronoun and the Numeral
q
uite certain of the fact. Things are different, however, when certain is used as an attribute standing before a noun and has a meaning much the same as some, e. g. There are certain indications that this is true, or, A certain Mr Brown wants to see you. The question arises, is this the same word, the adjective certain as in the first sentence, or is it a pronoun? Here, too, we should apply some objective tests. One of the peculiarities of the word is that it can be preceded by the indefinite article, which generally is not the case with pronouns. 1 We must also find out whether certain can be followed by the group "of + noun or pronoun". If no such examples are met with, we shall have to conclude that there are no sufficient reasons to class certain with the pronouns, in spite of the peculiar meaning it has in such sentences.Other problems of this kind would have to be treated along similar lines.
THE NUMERAL
With numerals, even more than with pronouns, it is difficult to keep the strictly grammatical approach and not to let oneself be diverted into lexicological considerations. O. Jespersen has quite rightly remarked that numerals have been treated by grammarians in a different way from other parts of speech. This is what he says, "...the grammarian in this chapter on numerals does what he never dreamed of doing in the two previous chapters (those on nouns and adjectives. — B. I.), he gives a complete and orderly enumeration of all the words belonging to this class." 2
It seems therefore all the more necessary to stick to the grammatical aspect of things when dealing with this particular category of words. What, indeed, ought to be said about numerals from a grammatical viewpoint?
There are no grammatical categories to be discussed in numerals. There is no category of number, nor of case, nor any other morphological category. The numerals are, to all intents and purposes, invariable. So there is only the function of numerals to be considered, and also possibilities of their substantivisation.
The most characteristic function of numerals is of course that of an attribute preceding its noun. However a numeral can also perform other functions in the sentence (it can be subject, predicative, and object) if the context makes it clear what objects are meant, as in: We are seven, Of the seven people 1 was looking for I found only three.
1 A special ease is another; here the indefinite article has become an integral part of the pronoun in the singular.
2 O. Jespersen, The Philosophy of Grammar, p. 37.
The Numeral 73
A
n ordinal numeral can also be modified by an infinitive denoting the action in which the object mentioned occupies a definite place; a characteristic example of this usage is, He was the first to come.The numerals, both cardinal and ordinal, share certain peculiarities of syntactic construction with pronouns. Cf., e. g., five children, five of the children, five of them; some children, some of the children, some of them; also the first travellers, the first of the travellers, the first of them. This, however, does not seem a sufficient reason for uniting pronouns and numerals into one part of speech, and such a union has not so far been proposed. 1
1 Academician L. Sšerba proposed in his paper on parts of speech in Russian to establish a part of speech called quantitative words (количественные слова), which would include both cardinal numerals and words such as many, several, etc. He has not been followed in this by any other scholar. (See Л. В. Щерба, О частях речи в русском языке. Избранные работы по русскому языку, стр. 73.)