The Participle

The participle is a term applied to adjectival forms of verbs. It is a form that ‘participates’ in the features of the verb (e.g. The girl is sitting there) and of the adjective (e.g. The girl sitting here).

There are two types of participle: the present participle and the past participle.

The present participle. The term present participle may be misleading since the participle does not express tense distinctions. It is a traditional term, originally applied to adjectival forms of verbs in Ancient Greece which were inflected for tense, aspect, and case. It was borrowed from Greek grammar through Latin grammar and uncritically applied to English verbal forms which had an adjective-like use. As to its temporal meaning, the present participle expresses a process simultaneous with or prior to the process of the finite verb: it may denote present, past, and future. Consider: I see/saw/ will see a child crying in the street. vs. Having heard the noise, we stopped talking.

Present participles, in their outer form, are homonymous with the gerund. They are similar in meaning to the gerund: both forms denote a process – the present participle (or the past participle) denote a qualifying process while the gerund denotes a substantival process. Both the present participle and the gerund distinguish the same grammatical categories of voice and order:

A.

writing (non-perfect, non-passive) – being written (non-perfect, passive)

having written (perfect, non-passive) – having been written (perfect, passive)

B.

walking (non-perfect, non-passive) – having walked (perfect, non-passive)

As already indicated, the said grammatical categories relate the present participle to the verb. What are the other verb traits of the present participle? Like the verb, it combines with the object (e.g. Entering the room, I was dazzled by the bright light), the adjunct (e.g. He came in laughing loudly); like the verb, it participates in the formation of the verbal predicate (e.g. Lucy is writing now). To verbal features we can also attribute the use of the present participle as secondary predicate:

Believing that Juliet was dead, Romeo decided to kill himself.

Having failed twice, he didn’t want to try again.

Walking along the street, I met a friend whom I had not seen for a long time.

What are its adjectival properties? Like the adjective, the present participle can be used as an attribute – generally as a postposed attribute, e.g. The man talking to John is my boss. More problematic is the use of the present participle in preposition to the noun: the point is that such attributes must denote permanent, or characteristic properties. Cf. The girl is clever _ the clever girl vs. The girl is smiling _ *the smiling girl1. But if the process of smiling is conceived as habitual, the word combination the smiling girl is acceptable, e.g.

Where is that smiling girl? Cf. also: I was awakened by a barking dog. or The beginning student should be given every encouragement.

1 When used out of context, such constructions may sound ungrammatical. But in the context they may look quite normal although they denote a particular situation. This generally happens when the preposed-participle construction presents a transformed version of the respective postposed-participle construction. That is, to use the participle preposedly, we must first use it postposedly, e.g. A. The girl smiling at you is my daughter. B. Who, did you say, is the smiling girl?

The past participle. The forms of the past participle are derivationally related either to transitive or intransitive verbs, e.g. write _ written go _ gone

Unlike the present participle, it has no paradigm of its own. Its verbal features are participation in the structure of the verbal predicate (e.g. The house was destroyed by a bomb) and the use as secondary predicate (e.g. Her spirit, though crushed, was not broken). Its adjectival feature is its attributive function, e.g. She looked at the broken cup. The meaning of the past participle is determined by the aspective peculiarities of the underlying verb: if the verb expresses a bounded perfective process, the past participle expresses priority (e.g. He stopped before a closed door); if the verb expresses an unbounded process, the participle expresses simultaneity (e.g. This man, loved and respected by all his friends, is a teacher); if the bounded verb is both perfective and imperfective, the meaning of such a participle is determined by the co-text: it may denote priority or simultaneity (e.g. His was a victory gained against all rules. vs. The questions discussed at the meeting are of great importance, where discussed, because of the double nature of the verb it derives from, can be interpreted in this co-text as expressing either simultaneity or priority (Cf. Lith. Klausimai, aptarti/aptariami susirinkime, yra labai svarbus).

Similar to the present participle, the past participle can be used in postposition or in preposition to the noun: the broken cup vs. the cup broken.

But as compared to the present participle, the past participle occurs in preposition to the noun more frequently, which is especially true of past participles derived from bounded perfective verbs, e.g.

1. The police used hidden television cameras.

2. The teenager was shot and killed while driving a hijacked car.

3. He loved to feel the covers of newly printed books.

Past participles derived from unbounded verbs are less common as preposed attributes, e.g. *a watched game, *loved people. Cf. Lith. stebimos rungtynes, mylimi ћmones. But if such participles are modified by adverbs, we can use them in this position more freely, e.g. a carefully watched game, well-loved people.

It will be noted that it is mostly participles derived from transitive verbs that are used as attributes; past participles derived from intransitive verbs are more usual as parts of analytic words. The exceptions are: runaway, fallen, collapsed, vanished, gone, come, faded, withered, retired. E.g. a fallen idol, vanished civilizations, retired people, etc. In these examples the idea of a process is suppressed and the idea of a quality is made prominent.

We have said earlier that the participle has no category of aspect. But the existence of such examples as Questions discussed at the House of Parliament are of great importance and The questions being discussed now are of great importance show that the forms discussed and being discussed can be regarded as aspective pairs. Consider more such examples:

A.

The music which is played at the concert hall is by Bach _

The music played at the concert hall is by Bach.

B.

The music which is being played now is by Bach _

The music being played now is by Bach.

Theoretically, even perfective participles can have aspective pairs: having played vs. having been playing (cf. Marcella Frank, op. cit., 305). Practically, however, such forms are not generally used. By way of summing up, let us discuss constructions with non-finites. Constructions with the Infinitive. Traditionally, grammarians distinguish the following constructions with the infinitive:

1. The objective infinitive construction;

2. The subjective infinitive construction;

3. The for - to infinitive construction.1

The first construction consists of a noun in the common case or a pronoun in the objective form and the infinitive. In the sentence this construction has the function of a complex object, e.g. I saw John cross the street. This construction is used after verbs of mental processes (e.g. hear, watch, feel, observe, notice; know, think, consider, believe, suppose, expect, imagine, find; like, want, wish, desire, mean, intend, choose), verbal processes (e.g. pronounce, report, declare), and verbs of causative processes (e.g. make, cause, get, have, order, allow).2 The second construction consists of a noun in the common case or a pronoun in the nominative form and the infinitive. In the sentence, the construction functions as a complex subject, e.g. John was seen to cross the street. The construction is used with verbs in the passive voice denoting mental (e.g. see, hear, etc), verbal (e.g. say, report, etc.), modal (epistemic) processes (e.g. appear, be likely, etc.), and verbs of causative processes (e.g. make, order, allow). This construction is infact a passive version of the former.

1 As can be seen, the classification is of little scientific value: it is based on two criteria – function and form. But no-one has offered a better one so far. 2 A causative process is a resultative process: it changes the situation being described. Structurally, causative processes are of two kinds: synthetic (e.g. kill, ripen) and analytic (e.g. make + infinitive, have + infinitive, let + infinitive). It will be obvious that subjective infinitive constructions can only be formed on the basis of causative processes expressed analytically.

The third construction consists of the preposition for (or of), a noun in the common case or a pronoun in the objective form and the infinitive, e.g. He is a good man for you to know. As already shown elsewhere, the prepositions are used when the speaker wishes to explicate the ‘subject’ of the infinitive clause. If the subject is not explicated, the sentence expresses a generic situation. Cf. He is a good man to know. vs. He is a good man for me/you to know.

Syntactically, the construction is polyfunctional: it may function as a complex subject (e.g. For you to do such a thing will only cause trouble), a complex object (e.g. The store arranged for us to pay the money in three installments), a complex predicative (e.g. The regulation is for boys and girls to live in separate dormitories), and a complex adverbial (a complex adjunct) (e.g. In order for me to buy a car, I’ll have to take a loan from the bank).

Constructions with the Gerund. The gerund can form a construction which consists of a noun or a pronoun followed by the gerund, e.g. Do you mind John’s smoking in the room? The noun may be expressed either in the genitive case or in the common case, e.g. I insist on Mary’s going there. vs. I insist on Mary going there. If a pronoun is used, it may be either in the possessive form or in the objective form, e.g. I don’t like his coming here. vs. I don’t like him coming here. As already indicated, the two constructions – with the gerund preceded by a genitive noun or a possessive pronoun and with the gerund preceded by a common-case noun or an objective pronoun – differ in meaning: the first verbal is more substantive in meaning than the second. In the literature, the second verbal is called the half-gerund or the fused participle. M. Blokh (op. cit., 121) calls it a transferred participle and a gerundial participle. Despite the difference in form, we do not think that such forms as Mary going in I insist on Mary going there or him coming in I don’t like him coming here should be given a special name: they merely present another variety of the gerund construction. To quote W. Stannard Allen (1962: 188), “They are not participle constructions but true gerunds, since the object in each case is <…> the whole phrase to the end of the sentence”. The ‘possessive’ form is considered to be more literary and elegant; the ‘objective’ form is found mainly in the spoken language, “where it is probably just as common as the possessive form” (W. Stannard Allen, op. cit., 188).

Constructions with the Participle. There are four such constructions:

1) The objective – participle construction;

2) The subjective – participle construction;

3) The subjective – absolute participle construction;

4) The absolute participle construction.1

The first construction is similar to the corresponding objective-infinitive construction. Cf. I saw John running away. vs. I saw John run away. The first construction represents the situation in progress and the second as completed. The second construction is similar to the corresponding subjective-infinitive construction. Cf. John was seen running away. vs. John was seen to run away. As with the first two constructions, the subjective- participle construction views the process in progress while the subjective-infinitive construction views the process as completed. The subjective-absolute participle construction, traditionally called “the nominative absolute participial construction”, consists of a common-case noun or a pronoun in the nominative form and participle, e.g. The elevator being out of order, everyone had to walk. Personal pronoun “subjects” of such a construction are more likely to occur in conversational English than in formal English (Marcella Frank, op. cit., 358), e.g. He being sick, we’ll have to do his work. If a personal pronoun is preceded by the preposition with, the pronoun is in objective form, e.g. With him being sick, we’ll have to do his work. The nominal position can be taken by the expletives (i.e. prop-words) it and there, e.g. It being Sunday, the stores were not open. There having been some question about the bookkeeper’s honesty, the company asked him to resign.

The participle can be elided in such constructions e.g. His book [being] now a best-seller, he felt pleased with the world.

The subjective-absolute participial construction functions in the sentence as an adverbial of time (e.g. Dinner [being] ready, the hostess asked her guests to be seated), cause (e.g. The children having been fed, their mother put them to bed), condition (e.g. A riot once begun, our small police force will be unable to handle it), manner (e.g. She sat in a corner, her hands over her eyes). The absolute participle construction is a construction in which the participle is not connected with the sentence, just as the participle in the subjective absolute construction. Cf. Generally speaking, I don’t like cats. vs. Her mother being away, she has to do all the housework. The absolute participle construction should not be confused with the adverbial participle construction, e.g. Not knowing anyone in town, he felt very lonesome, where not knowing anyone in town is not absolute (i.e. independent of the sentence): the “subject” of the construction is the same as the subject of the sentence. The learner should use such constructions with care if he is to avoid the so-called ‘dangling’ participle, a participle which does not depend on any other individual element of the sentence, e.g. *Walking back, it snowed.

The Adjective

The adjective expresses the property of an entity. In the sentence, the

adjective performs the functions of an attribute (an adjunct) and a predicative.

Of the two, the more typical function is that of an attribute since the function

of a predicative can also be performed by other parts of speech.1 Cf. The young

man vs. The man is young. In the latter example, the adjective is syntactically

the complement of the verb be, but semantically they both constitute the

predicate. As a lexeme, be has little meaning; it performs the function of

predicativity; it expresses the verbal categories of person, number, tense, etc.

The combination of be + adjective is then comparable to a verb with its own

lexical content. Cf.

The man was dead. vs. The man died.

Typically, adjectives denote states, usually permanent ones, although there

are also adjectives which can denote temporary states (e.g. John is being clever).

A state can also be denoted by verbs (e.g. know, understand, like, etc.). However,

the more typical meaning of the verb is a dynamic process.

Derivationally, adjectives are related either to nouns or verbs. Suffixes

changing nouns to adjectives are: - (i)al, -ar, -ary or –ery, -ed, -en, -esque, -ful, -

ic(al), -ish, -istic, -less, -like, -ly, -ous, -ward, -wide, -y. E.g. monument _

monumental, family _ familiar, element _ elementary, talent _ talented,

picture _ picturesque, hope _ hopeful, history _ historic(al), style _ stylish,

character _ characteristic, use _ useless, life _ lifelike, friend _ friendly,

fame _ famous, back _ backward, world _ world-wide, wind _ windy. Suffixes

changing verbs to adjectives are: -able or –ible, -ent or –ant, -ed, -ing, -ive, -

(at)ory. E.g. to navigate _ navigable, to sense _ sensible, to depend _ dependent,

to frustrate _ frustrated, to bore _ boring, to attract _ attractive, to congratulate

_ congratulatory.

All the adjectives can be divided into two large groups: gradable and nongradable.

Gradable (also called descriptive, or qualitative) adjectives denote

1 Adjectives were treated in antiquity as a subclass of a noun, added or adjoined (Lat.

adjectivus, that is added) to nouns, to restrict, or concretize the referents. They were said to

have a role parallel to that of adverbs in their relation to verbs. Adjectives were distinguished

as a separate part of speech (‘noun adjective’ vs. ‘noun substantive’) in the later Middle

Ages, and in the modern period, seen as sharing properties with the verbs.

properties of entities that can be estimated quantitatively, or measured. So, for

instance, the property beautiful can be estimated as high (very beautiful) or low

(not very beautiful), adequate (beautiful enough) or inadequate (not beautiful

enough). To put it otherwise, entities may have a different amount of property:

some may have more than others (She is more beautiful than Mary, i.e. she has

more of the property beauty than Mary); some have the most (She is the most

beautiful of the other girls). As already mentioned, to gradable adjectives

linguists generally attribute qualitative, or descriptive adjectives. However,

not all such adjectives are gradable, i.e. not all of them are variable with respect

to the quantity of the property, e.g. extinct, extreme, genuine, final, etc. They

denote the highest degree of the properties, e.g. an extinct fire cannot be less or

more extinct.

Gradable adjectives can be further divided into stative and dynamic.1

Adjectives are characteristically stative. Many adjectives, however, can be seen

as dynamic. These are generally adjectives denoting the person’s behaviour.

Cf. He is tall (stative property) vs. He is being careful (dynamic property). The

stative property of an entity is a property that cannot be conceived as a

developing process, and the dynamic property of an entity is a property that is

conceived as active, or as a developing process. Cf. John is very tall. vs.*John is

being very tall today or John is very careful today (unemphatic). vs. John is being

careful today (emphatic).

Dynamic adjectives closely resemble activity verbs: like activity verbs,

they can be used in the progressive and in the perfect form (e.g. John is being

careful today vs. John has been careful today. Cf. *John has been very tall

today). The progressive form is used when the speaker wishes to give greater

prominence to the relevance of the process to the moment of speaking. In this

usage such constructions are comparable to John is always talking in class.

Both are used to express emotions – positive and negative.

Non-gradable adjectives constitute three groups: 1) relative; 2) intensifying;

3) restrictive, or particularizing.

Relative adjectives express the property of an entity related to some other

entity. For instance, wooden is related to wood, chemical to chemistry, coloured

to colour, etc. Relative adjectives express non-gradable properties. If entities

have such properties, they cannot be said to have less or more of such properties

as compared to other entities having the same properties. So, if a house is

made of wood, it cannot be more wooden than the other house: both are made

of wood. However, if a house is built of wood and concrete, we can say that the

house is more wooden than the other house.

1 Stative here means permanent state and dynamic, temporary state.

Intensifying adjectives constitute two groups: 1) emphasizers; 2) amplifiers.

Emphasizers have a heightening effect on the noun (clear, definite, outright,

plain, pure, real, sheer, sure, true); amplifiers scale upwards from an assumed

norm (complete, great, firm, absolute, close, perfect, extreme, entire, total, utter).

Restrictive adjectives restrict the noun to a particular member of the class

(chief, exact, main, particular, precise, principal, sole, specific)1.

It should be observed, however, that the said types of adjective exhibit

varying degrees of resistance to the process of comparison. The most stubborn

are relatives and intensifiers, whereas amplifiers can sometimes be subjected

to comparison. According to Geoffrey K. Pullum and Rodney Huddleston

(2002: 532), unique, complete, perfect, total are not absolutes proper, i.e.

native speakers do not treat them in this way. Consider: highly unique, one of

the more unique features, the most unique person; more complete; more perfect.

The appearance of the above constructions can be accounted for by the desire

of the speaker to set the entity apart from other entities having the same

property.

From a syntactic point of view, adjectives can be divided into three groups:

1) adjectives which can be used attributively and predicatively; 2) adjectives

which can be used attributively only; 3) adjectives which can be used

predicatively only. Gradable adjectives denoting a permanent property, or

state, belong to the first group, e.g. a big house vs. the house is big. Intensifying

and restrictive adjectives are usually used attributively only, e.g. a complete

fool vs. *The fool is complete or a particular child vs. *The child is particular.

Adjectives denoting a temporary property, or state, are used predicatively

only, e.g. She is being very clever today does not yield she is a very clever girl.

The category of comparison. It is the only grammatical category of the

adjective in English. It is based on gradable, or qualitative adjectives. The

category of comparison is constituted by the opposition of three forms of the

adjective: the positive, the comparative, and the superlative. Some grammarians

have expressed the view that there are only two degrees of comparison. Otto

Jespersen (1968: 244), for instance, argues that the positive degree cannot be

regarded as a degree of comparison as it does not convey the idea of comparison.

According to A.I. Smirnitsky (1959: 158), the degrees of comparison include

the positive degree and the relative degree which is subdivided into the

comparative and the superlative degree. As is rightly pointed out by Gunnar

Kivivali (1971: 52), “The solution of the problem depends on how we define

degrees of comparison. If we define them as forms which show whether the

adjective denotes the property of some substance absolutely or relatively,

1 The classification and the examples have been taken from Randolph Quirk et al., 1972: 259.

there would be three degrees of comparison. If we define degrees of comparison

as forms expressing comparison of some substance with another in respect of

a certain property, there would be only two degrees of comparison”. In this

book we shall adhere to the first view on the problem.

There are three ways of forming degrees of comparison: synthetic, analytic,

and suppletive. The synthetic way of forming degrees of comparison is by the

inflections –er, -est; the analytic way, by placing more and most before the

adjective. The synthetic way is generally used with monosyllabic adjectives

and dissylabic adjectives ending in –y, -ow, -er, -le and those which have the

stress on the last syllable, e.g. tall _ taller, tallest; pretty _ prettier, prettiest;

narrow _ narrower, narrowest; clever _ cleverer, cleverest; simple _ simpler,

simplest; polite _ politer, politest. An apparent exception to this rule are the

following adjectives which are stressed on the first syllable: pleasant _

pleasanter; cruel _ crueler, cruelest; quiet _ quieter, quietest; stupid _ stupider,

stupidest; common _ commoner, commonest. However, in the dissylabic

group we can observe radical changes: adjectives formerly taking –er and –est

are tending to go over to more and most, e.g. more common, most common;

more cloudy, most cloudy; more fussy, most fussy; more cruel, most cruel; more

quiet, most quiet; more clever, most clever; more profound, most profound;

more simple, most simple; more pleasant, most pleasant – all these were

normally compared with –er and –est before the war (Charles Barber, 1964:

131-132).

According to Charles Barber, recently there have been many cases of more

and most spreading even to monosyllabic adjectives: more crude, most crude;

more plain, most plain; more keen, most keen. All this goes to show that

English comparison is getting more and more analytic. The analytic way of

comparison is preferable when the speaker wishes to focus attention on the

degree. Cf. She seems happier than she used to be. vs. She seems. more happy

than she used to be. vs. She seems more. happy than she used to be. Analytic

forms are in complementary distribution with the synthetic forms of

comparison, i.e. the distribution of analytic forms, or the use of analytic forms,

complements the distribution of synthetic forms. To put in simple language,

where the speaker cannot use synthetic forms, he resorts to analytic forms.

They complement each other.

The question that linguists have been grappling with is: what is the linguistic

status of analytic forms? Are more and most adverbs of quantity (degree) or

grammatical word-morphemes? The problem is similar to the problem of the

future in English. At present linguists are divided on this question: some

linguists (A. I. Smirnitskyj, op. cit., 98-99; B. Khaimovich and B. Rogovskaya,

op. cit., 77-78; B. Blokh, op. cit., 215-219) treat degrees of comparison with

more and most as analytic constructions proper while others (V. N. Zhigadlo

et al., 1956: 41; L. S. Barkhudarov, D. A. Shteling, op. cit., 115) treat them as

free combinations of adverbs and adjectives. Still others (B. Ilyish, 1971, 60-

61) think that “considerations of meaning tend towards recognizing such

formations as analytical forms, whereas strictly grammatical considerations

lead to the contrary view”. However, the scholar adds that “the tendency towards

making linguistics something like an exact science <…> should make us

prefer the second view, based on strictly grammatical criteria”. It goes without

saying that it is convenient to treat more, most as analytic elements functionally

identical with the bound morphemes –er and –est. Acting together (i.e. being

in complementary distribution), more, most and –er, -est cover all the gradable

adjectives. However, this circumstance is no proof of the grammaticalized

status of more and most.

To analytic forms of comparison M. Blokh also attributes less/least

combinations. He calls them forms of reverse comparison (op. cit., 219). By

the way, the forms less, least are generally used as an argument against the

treatment of more and most as grammatical word-morphemes. So, for instance,

B. Ilyish (op. cit., 60) argues that if less and least are not grammatical word

morphemes, more and most are not grammatical word-morphemes either.

While we can speak of direct and indirect way of comparison, the way M.

Blokh does, the problem of the linguistic status of more and most or less and

least remains unsolved. In our opinion, attempts to prove that more and most

have turned into grammatical word-morphemes are as futile as attempts to

prove that shall and will have turned into grammatical word-morphemes in I

shall/will go there. Forms with more and most can only be referred to as analytic

if the notion analytic form is given a broad interpretation, i.e. if we waive the

requirement that an analytic form proper should consist of a lexically emptied

word and a notional word.1

As already pointed out, the third way of forming degrees of comparison is

by the use of suppletive forms: good _ better, best; bad _ worse, worst; far _

farther/further, farthest/furthest; little _ less, least; much/many _ more, most.

In discussing the category of comparison, linguists generally mention such

constructions as a most beautiful girl. The use of the indefinite article with

them is sometimes exploited as an argument against the treatment of more and

most as grammatical word-morphemes. However, the indefinite article has

1 According to V. J. Plotkin (op. cit., 61), full delexicalization is not a necessary condition

for the treatment of a word as a grammatical word-morpheme. Hence his treatment of

adjective combinations with more and most as analytic structures.

nothing to do with comparison; it points to another problem, viz. the

lexicalization of superlative forms: most no longer marks the superlative

degree; it has turned into an adverb of degree whose meaning is the same as

that of very. Cf. also the best suit vs. a best suit; the best seller vs. a best-seller.

The problem of the category of state. There is a class of words in English

with the following morphological, semantic and syntactic characteristics:

1) The words of this type may be characterized by the prefix a- (it derives

from the Middle English preposition an ‘in, on’): alive, asleep, ajar, etc.; they

generally do not form degrees of comparison, e.g. *Mary is more asleep; *Mary

is the most asleep;

2) The words of this type denote a temporary state, e.g. The child is ill. Cf.

The child is healthy;

3) The words of this type are used predicatively only, e.g. He is awake.

Because of the said features, these words are regarded by some grammarians

as a separate part of speech which has been variously referred to as the category

of state words, adlinks, and statives (B. Ilyish, op. cit., 74-75; B. S. Khaimovich

and B. I. Rogovskaya, op. cit., 199). Can we distinguish the category on the

basis of the above-mentioned features? First of all, the number of such words

does not exceed several dozen. These words cannot be compared to other

parts of speech. “Why, then - asks M. Blokh (op. cit., 211) - an honour of the

part-of-speech status to be granted to a small group of words…?” The prefix ais,

of course, a marker of such adjectives. However, there are many adjectives

of temporary state without the prefix a-, e.g. ill, well, glad, sorry, fine, worth(while),

great, swell, wonderful, lousy, dizzy, hot, blue, et. Consider:

How is your friend? He’s fine (great, swell, wonderful, lousy, dizzy, hot, blue,

green, faint, laudatory)1. Cf. *a fine (great, swell, etc) friend.

Besides, other adjectives can also be used as temporary adjectives, e.g. John

is being noisy today. A stronger argument is that such adjectives are restricted

to a predicative position, or a position after the noun, e.g. The man is ready or

The materials ready will be shipped. vs. *The ready man; *The ready

materials. Postposed position is generally a marker of temporariness, and the

preposed position is a marker of permanence.

The analysis shows that temporary adjectives are generally distinguished

on the basis of meaning and syntactic function. The last argument concerns

the category of comparison. Temporary adjectives, unsimilar to ‘normal’

adjectives, are said to lack forms of comparison. This is true, but to some

extent, only: temporary adjectives do not take the synthetic forms of the degrees

of comparison, but they are capable of expressing comparison analytically

1 The examples have been drawn from B. Bolinger (1967: 18-19).

(M. Blokh, op. cit., 210), e.g. Jack was the one most aware of the delicate

situation in which we found ourselves or He is more dead than alive.

The traditional view of the stative, which separates temporary adjectives

from other adjectives, does not seem to be convincing: temporary adjectives

are part and parcel of the adjective class as a whole. At the same time, we must

admit that these adjectives have features (meaning, function) that allow us to

assign them to a separate subclass of the adjective. But the features examined

are not sufficient for the distinction of the category of state within the adjective.

Substantivization of adjectives. Language is an economical system. When

the need arises, the users of a language can easily change the categorical function

of a word: verbs are transposed into nouns, nouns into verbs, adjectives into

nouns. In English it is easier than in other languages owing to the scarcity of

suffixes. Linguists generally distinguish two types of substantivized adjectives:

fully and partially substantivized adjectives (e.g. native _ a native vs. rich _ the

rich). More often than not, substantivization is but partial.

The Adverb

The adverb is one of the parts of speech established in antiquity. In the

grammar of English and other Indo-European languages, the adverb is a word

denoting a non-substantive property, a feature which sets the adverb apart from

the adjective which, as already known, denotes a substantive property, e.g. He

wrote it badly, where badly denotes a property of the process expressed by wrote.

As to their structure, adverbs may be non-derived, or simple (e.g. here,

there, now, then, so, quick, why, how, where, when, very, rather) and derived (e.g.

slowly, sideways, clockwise, homewards, away, ahead, apart, across). We can

also distinguish composite forms and phrasal forms of the adverb: sometimes,

nowhere, anyhow; at least, at most, at last, to and fro, upside down.

A prolific source of adverbs is the adjective: many –ly adverbs are

transformationally related to respective adjectives. Consider:

He liked Mary considerably. _- He liked Mary to a considerable extent.

He spoke to John sharply. _- He spoke to John in a sharp manner.

He wrote frequently. _- He wrote on frequent occasions.

Politically, it is a bad decision. _- From the political point of view, it is a bad

decision.

The suffix –ly is a typical marker of the adverb. However, many adverbs

related to adjectives may not be necessarily used with the suffix –ly, e.g. fast,

late, hard, high, clean, clear, close, loud, tight, firm, quick, right, sharp, slow,

wide, etc. Consider:

John drives fast.

He came late. vs. Have you been to the cinema lately?

Father works hard. vs. I hardly know her.

Open your mouth wide. vs. He traveled widely.

I clean forgot to ask him about it. vs. The top of the ornament broke cleanly off.

The bullet went clear through the door. vs. I couldn’t see him clearly.

Stay close to me. vs. She studied the photographs very closely.

We decided to go slow (i.e. to work slowly). vs. He was moving slowly.

Very characteristic of English are adverbs which can be used as prepositions

and conjunctive words, e.g. before, after, round, within. Cf.

We arrived just before two o’clock. vs.

Have you been to London before?

She ran after him into the courtyard. vs.

Soon after, Faraday began his research into electricity.

There was a wall all the way round. vs.

He now has five shops scattered (a)round the town.

The prisoners demanded the freedom to congregate within the prison. vs.

He decorated the house within and without.

On second thoughts, however, the said words can be regarded as

prepositions in all the cited examples. So, for instance, Have you been to

London before? may be treated as an elliptical sentence in which the noun is

omitted, e.g. Have you been to London before the present time?

Special mention should be made of preposition-adverb like elements which

form a semantic blend with verbs: to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away,

to give over, etc; to set up, to set in, to set forth, to set down, etc.; to get on, to get

off, to get through, to get about1, etc. The verb-adverb combination goes by

several names: two-part verbs, composite verbs, phrasal verbs. The verbs in

such combinations are mostly one-syllable words; the most common adverbs

are those denoting place, e.g. in, out, on, off, over, up, down, through, etc. Some

of the adverbs may be separated by objective complements, e.g. Please hand in

your papers. vs. Please hand your papers in. Others are non-separable, e.g. John

called on me. vs. *John called me on.

In verb-adverb combinations the second element may: a) retain its adverbial

properties of showing direction (e.g. to go out, to go in, to go away); b) change

the aspect of the verb, i.e. mark the completeness of the process (e.g. to eat – to

eat up; to stand – to stand up; to sit – to sit down; to lie – to lie down; to shave

– to shave off; to speak – to speak out); c) intensify the meaning of the process

(e.g. to end – to end up; to finish – to finish up (off); to cut – to cut off; to talk

1 The material and classification have been taken from Gunnar Kivivali (op. cit., 96).

– to talk away); d) lose its lexical meaning and form an integral whole, a set

expression (e.g. to fall out ‘to quarrel’; to give in ‘to surrender’; to come off ‘to

take place’; to leave off ‘to stop’; to boil down ‘to be reduced in quantity’).

These combinations have been treated by different scholars in different

ways. Some scholars have treated the second element as a variety of adverbs, as

preposition-like adverbs (A. Smirnitsky, 1959, 376), as a special kind of adverb

called adverbial postpositon (I. E. Anichkov, 1947), as postverbial particles

(L. Kivimagi et al., 1968: 35), as a special kind of form-word called pospositive

(N. N. Amosova, 1963: 134), a postfix or postpositive affix (Y. Zhluktenko,

1954), a separate part of speech called posposition (B.A. Ilyish, 1948: 243 –

5). As for B. Ilyish, he later (1971:148) changed his view arguing that, since

the second element does not indicate the circumstances in which the process

takes place, the whole construction is a phraseological unit: the whole has a

meaning different from the meanings of the components. M. Blokh (op. cit.,

225) calls the second element a special particle. Gunnar Kivivali (op. cit., 96)

notes that the second element in such combinations has formally not merged

with the verb: the grammatical ending is added not to the second element but

to the verb (e.g. He gets up at seven); the second element may be separated

from the verb (e.g. Give my love to Polly and tell her to feed you up). All this

would say that the second element looks like a loose morpheme, a postfix (Cf.

Y. Zhluktenko). The great variety of interpretations shows the complexity of

the problem. At present we cannot say which interpretation is the right one:

the problem requires further research.

Semantic classification of adverbs. We can distinguish two large groups of

adverbs: 1) non-spatial and 2) spatial. To non-spatial adverbs belong:

1) viewpoint adverbs (e.g. Looked at politically, it was not an easy problem);

2) focusing adverbs (e.g. He is doing it purely and simply for your benefit);

3) intensifying adverbs (e.g. It’s simply a question of hard work); 4) process

adverbs (e.g. They treated him badly); 5) subjective adverbs (e.g. Bitterly, he

buried his children); 6) adverbs of cause and consequence (e.g. We have a

growing population and therefore we need more food). To spatial adverbs belong:

place adverbs (e.g. They are not there; He threw his manuscript aside); 2) time

adverbs (e.g. He arrived last night; He washes his car every Sunday).1

Similar to adjectives, adverbs can be gradable and non-gradable. Gradable

adverbs are adverbs which are capable of expressing the intensivity of the

process, e.g. loudly – more loudly – the most loudly. The number of non-gradables

is much greater among adverbs than among adjectives.

1 For a more detailed classification of adverbs, see Randolp Quirk et al., op. cit., 189-224.

The term space, as treated here, includes both non-temporal and temporal space.

The Pronoun

As already indicated, words are classified into parts of speech by taking into

consideration their meaning, form and syntactic function. The peculiarity of

pronouns as a class of words is that they are not united by any of the said features.

What unites them is the way they denote reality: they denote it indirectly. Take,

for instance, the pronoun he. He denotes a male human not directly but through

a noun: a male human _ John _ he or he _ John _ a male human. In view of

this, pronouns are not notional words in the true meaning of the word; they are

function words, their interpretation derives from the antecedent or the situation

so that they need contain little descriptive information themselves. Their number

is strictly limited and their meanings are acquired from the context.

Pronouns are said to ‘deputize’ for other parts of speech: nouns (he, she, it,

they); adjectives (his, her, its, their; this/these, that/those); numerals (many,

much, few, several, some), and adverbs (here, there, thus).

Traditionally, pronouns are divided into: 1) personal (I, you, he, she, it; we,

they); 2) possessive (my, your, his, her, its; our, their – mine, yours, his, hers, its;

ours, theirs); 3) reflexive (myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself; ourselves,

yourselves, themselves)1; 4) demonstrative (this/these, that/those, here, there,

now, then, the same, such); 5) interrogative-relative (who, what, which, when,

where, how, that); 6) reciprocal (one another, each other); 7) indefinite-negative

(some, somebody, any, anybody, anyone, anything, another, other - no, no-one,

none, nobody, nothing); 8) generalizing (all, each, every, everything, either, both);

9) quantitative (much, many, few, several, some).

Etymologically, the word pronoun means “a word used instead of a noun”.

That is why many English grammarians (J. C. Nesfield, 1924; G. Curme,

1963; A. M. Clark, 1965) define the pronoun as a word used instead of a noun

only. Thus, words such as my, your, etc., which are used in the function of an

adjective, are not pronouns but adjectives; the words this/these, that/those may

be either a pronoun (e.g. Who is this?) or an adjective (e.g. this man). This is a

purely functional view of the problem. If we apply the same principle to other

pronouns, we shall have to admit that to the class of pronouns we shall not be

able to attribute many of the above-mentioned words. Being aware of such a

situation, other linguists have defined the pronoun as a word used instead of a

noun or an adjective; still others, as a word that is used instead of a noun, an

adjective, a numeral, and an adverb. The word used should not be taken in its

literal sense: here it means functioning as.

1 In present – day traditional grammar, personal pronouns include personal pronouns

proper, possessive and reflexive pronouns.

Some linguists use the term substitute saying that pronouns substitute for

or can replace other parts of speech. This is true in general, but there are

pronouns which do not act as ‘deputies’ for other parts of speech. Consider, for

example, the pronouns I, you, we. What nouns can they substitute for?

Semantically, I means the speaker; you, the addressee, and we, the speaker and

the addressee. It is only in such sentences as I, John Smith, was born in 1970

that we can speak of substitution. However, it is a different kind substitution –

a substitution whereby the pronoun is substituted for by a noun. Can we say

that this in this book substitutes for an adjective? There is no such adjective

which could be replaced by this? Nor can we say that the pronouns my, your,

our are substitutes for adjectives. The same can be said about many other

pronouns. Yet, the term substitute should not be rejected, for there are many

pronouns (e.g. he, she, it; this/these, that/those; here, there; the same, such)

which can be used as substitutes proper. Consider:

John is a student. He is studying at Oxford.

Mary went to Oxford. John did the same.

I don’t believe in magic; there is no such thing.

John has got married. This is fantastic!

He substitutes for John; the same substitutes for went to Oxford, and this

substitutes for the whole sentence. The term substitute, unlike the term pronoun,

makes it possible to account for the use of the 3rd person personal pronouns in

the following sentences:

1. Mary thinks she may be able to help.

2. The woman next door thinks she may be able to help.

In sentence (1), she stands for Mary and is a pronoun in the proper meaning

of the word; in sentence (2), she stands for a noun phrase (NP), not for a noun.

Traditional grammar does not draw the distinction between nouns and NPs.

3rd person pronouns could be then defined as words that stand for NPs.

Other linguists treat pronouns as determiners, or restrictors (i.e. words

limiting, or concretizing, the referent of a noun), which function as markers of

nouns. Cf. rich vs. the rich, the writing, a writing vs. his writing. Besides the

article, to the class of determiners they attribute demonstratives (they limit

reference to individuals standing in a relation to the speaker), possessives,

indefinite pronouns, and quantitative pronouns. It will be obvious that even

the term determiner does not cover all the items referred to as pronouns. Cf.

this man vs. he. Unlike this, he does not enter into an attributive relationship

with a noun; it is used absolutely, or independently.

The pronouns are a mixed bag, and we can hardly find a name common to

them. They constitute a functional word class – words that perform various

functions in speech: semantic (act as determiners), deictic (act as words

localizing entities in the context), and textual (act as cohesive devices across

sentences).

Morphological features of the pronouns. Speaking of the personal and

possessive pronouns, linguists (e.g. B. Ilyish, 1971: 67) argue that the said

pronouns distinguish the nominative, the objective, and the possessive case.

Attempts to treat such forms as I – me, you – you, etc. as case-forms date back

to prescriptive grammar, when case was generally identified with a syntactic

function. According to M. Blokh (op. cit., 73), “the categories of the substitute

have to reflect the categories of the antecedent, not vice versa”: the so-called

nominative case of the pronoun has no antecedent (i.e. a nominative case) in

the noun; nor has the so-called objective case of the pronoun an antecedent in

the noun. Such forms as I, you, we have no noun antecedents at all; only he –

him, she – her, it – it, they – them have. The same holds for my, your, our; only

his, her, its, their have noun antecedents. As we cannot speak of nominative and

objective cases in nouns, we cannot speak of nominative and objective cases in

personal pronouns. But what about his, her, its, their? These forms correspond

to such nounal forms as Tom’s, Mary’s, the dog’s, Tom and Mary’s. If we treat

his, her, its, their as case forms, what is the status of my, your, our? And if we treat

him, her, it, them as case-forms, what is then the status of me, you, us? Hence

the best solution to the problem is not to treat the said forms of the pronoun as

case forms.

The personal pronominal case-system has completely disintegrated in

English, and in its place there have appeared four forms: the nominative form,

the objective form, and the possessive form in two versions (the conjoint and

the absolute). Case can only be found in indefinite and reciprocal pronouns,

e.g. somebody vs. somebody’s; each other vs. each other’s. As regards number,

it has only a very restricted field in pronouns: it is found in the pronouns this/

these, that/those, other/others. Personal pronouns have no grammatical category

of number. We is not the plural form of I, but a separate word; they is not the

plural form of he, or she, or it, but a separate word. As for reflexive pronouns,

such forms as myself and ourselves cannot be treated as number forms in the

same way as book and books: myself and ourselves stand in the same relationship

as I and we.

The deictic functions of the pronouns. Deixis is a term for one of the most basic

things we do with words. It means ‘pointing’ via language. Any linguistic form

used so is called a deictic expression. Deictic expressions such as this, that, me, you

are among the first forms to be spoken by very young children. The pronouns give

us three types of deixis: person deixis, spatial deixis and temporal deixis.

1. Person deixis. A communicative act (interaction) generally consists of

the speaker, the addressee, and others. The speaker is the reference, or deictic

centre, i.e. he or she organizes the conversation: the speaker talks to the

addressee, then the role of the speaker is transferred to the addressee. This

suggests that the deictic centre shifts from one participant to another. The

roles of the speaker, the addressee and others are generally grammaticalized

in language: the speaker is actualized as I or we; the addressee as you, and

others as he, she, it, they.1 To the last group we can add indefinite pronouns, e.g.

somebody, each. It should be noted that third person and indefinite pronouns

can also be used as ‘addressee’ words, e.g.

A.

A. Who will come to the blackboard?

B. (pointing to Peter) He will (Cf. You will).

B.

Somebody hasn’t cleaned the blackboard (instead of you haven’t cleaned

the blackboard). Would anybody clean the blackboard?

When such pronouns are used deictically, they are generally accompanied

by a gesture with the hand, a nod of the head, etc., i.e. by certain paralinguistic

features.

2. Spatial deixis. By means of spatial deictic expressions we locate entities

in space shared by the speaker, the addressee and the other participants, if

any. Entities can be located near the speaker and away from the speaker.

Hence two types of distance: proximal and distal. When the speaker uses the

pronouns this, these, here, he or she refers to entities near him or her; when

the speaker uses the pronouns that, those, there, he or she refers to entities

away from him or her. It is interesting to note that the pronoun that does not

necessarily denote distance away from the speaker: the entity may be close

to him, e.g. I don’t like that stuff. That is used when the speaker wishes to

distance himself from the entity. Thus, distance can be of two types: physical

and psychological.

3. Temporal deixis. Like entities, processes are located with reference to

the deictic centre. Such a deictic centre is the present moment, or now. Now

is the speaker’s time. The English pronouns give us only two deictic items –

now and then. Temporal deixis in English is also expressed by appropriate

1 Speaking of deixis, Gregory Ward, Betty Birner and Rodney Huddleston (2002: 1470) argue that

3rd person pronouns are not deictic: “There is nothing in the meaning of those expressions that

relates them to the situation of utterance. We believe, therefore, that it would represent an unnecessary

and undesirable dilution of the sense of deixis…” While we agree with this, we would like to point out

that in the context these pronouns can be used deictically (Cf. John Lyons, 1977: 660).

adverbs or adverbial structures (e.g. these days, nowadays, today vs. yesterday,

the other day, last week; tomorrow, next year, etc.)1 and grammatically, i.e. by

tense.

The textual function of the pronouns. As already said, pronouns can be

used as cohesive devices: referring back or forward to their antecedents, they

connect one sentence to another. To cohesively used pronouns belong thirdperson

pronouns and demonstrative pronouns. Consider:

1) John and Mary came into the room: he was laughing and she was crying.

2) I turned the corner and almost stepped on it. There was a large snake in

the middle of the path.

3) I’ve never seen him. That’s a lie.

4) I’d like to buy a Volvo or a BMW, but such cars are very expensive.

Possessive pronouns may also act as cohesive devices, e.g. I have a car. My

car is very old. However, such texts are rather clumsy since my car is used

redundantly: my car means I have a car. A better solution would be to use the

pronoun it instead of my car, e.g. I have a car. It is very old.

The Preposition

The preposition is traditionally defined as a word expressing relations

between words in the sentence, e.g. Mary sent her photograph to John. The

preposition to, as used in the sentence, relates John, the Recipient, to the verb

send. The weakness of the traditional definition is that it does not allow us to

distinguish prepositions from subordinating conjunctions. Cf. She never saw

him after the concert. vs. She never saw him after he left town. In traditional

analysis, the preposition is used with the noun phrase, not with the verb phrase.

Such being the case, after in the first sentence is a preposition, while before in

the second sentence is a conjunction. In other words, the status of after is

determined by the linguistic status of the following phrase. Accepting this

approach, we shall have to treat the two uses of after as homonyms.

A new approach to prepositions and subordinating conjunctions is to treat

the two traditional categories as prepositions (Geoffrey K. Pullum and Rodney

Huddleston, 2002: 600). The said scholars include in the preposition category

all of the subordinating conjunctions of traditional grammar with the exception

1 Despite tradition, the said adverbs and adverbial structures can be attributed to the class

of adverbial pronouns for the simple reason that their semantic structure includes the

feature [This]: nowadays [in these days], today [this day], yesterday [the day before this

day], the other day [a few days before this day], tomorrow [the day after this day], next year

[the year after this year].

of whether and that: when, until, although, before, after, since, etc.. Prepositions

are taken as heads of phrases and are comparable to verbs, nouns, adjectives,

and adverbs which also function as heads. To prove their point, the scholars

present the following examples:

1. a. I remember the accident. b. I remember you promised to help.

2. a. He left after the accident. b. He left after you promised to help.

The scholars argue that remember remains the same part of speech despite

the difference in the complementation. The same holds for (2): left remains a

verb although in sentence (2a) it is complemented by a noun phrase and in

sentence (2b) by a verb phrase. Hence “There is no reason to handle after in

(2) any differently: it can be analysed as a preposition in both cases”. This

approach to prepositions makes it possible to combine prepositions and

subordinating conjunctions into one class and thus solve the problem of the

discrimination of prepositions and conjunctions.

Prepositions are peculiar to both synthetic and analytic languages.

However, if in synthetic languages they are generally employed to realize

circumstantial functions (e.g. prie namo, su namu, i nama, iљ namo), in analytic

languages, like English, prepositions are used to realize both grammatical and

circumstantial functions (e.g. John’s marriage to Mary vs. John’s wedding-party

in the Town Hall). Being a predominantly analytic language, English has

developed an adequate compensatory mechanism. One such mechanism is

the preposition, which historically derives from adverbs, nouns, and participles

(B. N. Aksenenko, 1956).

Structurally, prepositions fall into two categories: simple, or one-word,

prepositions (in, on, for, to, about, after, etc.) and composite, or two- or threeword,

prepositions (ahead of, because of, according to; by means of, at the cost

of, with reference to, etc.).

Functionally, prepositions can be divided into grammatical, and nongrammatical

(spatial and non-spatial).

Grammatical prepositions have no identifiable meaning independent of

the grammatical construction in which they occur. Consider:

1. He was interviewed by the police.

2. They were discussing the speech of the President.

3. She sent the letter to John.

In all these examples the prepositions have no identifiable meaning of

their own: it is only in the co-text that we can say what meaning they express. In

(1) by marks the element that is the Agent; in (2) of marks the possessive

relationship between the speech and the president; in (3) to marks the

Recipient.

In their grammatical functions, prepositions are similar to inflections in

synthetic languages. Cf.

interviewed by the police: policijos apklaustas;

the speech of the President: prezidento kalba;

sent to John: siunte Dћonui.

As for non-grammatical prepositions, their meaning can be easily identified

outside the co-text (e.g. in, on, above, under, etc.). Unsimilar to grammatical

prepositions, non-grammatical prepositions can be replaced by other nongrammatical

prepositions. Cf.

He put it under/above/near/on the table. vs.

They disposed of the box. _ *They disposed at/below/on/through/under

the box.

As already indicated, non-grammatical prepositions can be divided into

spatial and non-spatial, the term spatial including two types of space: nontemporal

and temporal. Spatial non-temporal prepositions mark the position

of entities with respect to each other: one entity is treated as a reference point

(the deictic centre) with respect to which another is located.1 The reference

point could also be called the landmark (Lith. orientyras) and the entity whose

location or moment is specified the trajector. So, for instance, in The canary is

in the cage, the canary is the trajector, and the cage is the landmark. Landmarks

can be both concrete and abstract entities. Cf. The canary is held in the cage. vs.

The canary is held in captivity.

The Trajector can be static and dynamic. In the case of a dynamic situation,

the trajector moves from an initial location (the source) to its destination, or

goal, e.g. John left London for New York, where John is the trajector, London

the source and New York, the goal. The source may not be explicitly stated: it

is generally given in the context, e.g. John left for New York. Even the goal may

be suppressed if it has already been mentioned, e.g. John has already left.

Besides the source and the goal, we must mention the path, e.g. John went to

New York via Paris, where Paris is the path.

Spatio-temporal relations may be expressed by the prepositions which are

used to express spatio-non-temporal relations (historically the latter

prepositions derive from the former). Cf.

She is in the room. vs. She was born in May.

He walked for two miles. vs. He stayed for two hours.

We met at the airport. vs. We met at noon.

1 Two types of deictic centre can be distinguished in the text: external (the deictic centre is

the speaker) and internal (the deictic centre is some other entity), or a primary and a

secondary deictic centre.

He walks from his home to the centre of the town. vs. He works from morning

till night.

However, this spatio-non-temporal and spatio-temporal parallelism is far

from being complete (M. A. K. Halliday, 1994: 153). Time is unidimensional,

whereas space is three-dimensional. Time is dynamic, whereas space is static.

So, for instance, Tuesday. It comes and goes. London stays where it is.

As indicated, non-grammatical prepositions (to be more exact, their nongrammatical

Поиск по сайту: