CATEGORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

CATEGORIAL STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

1. Notional words, first of all verbs and nouns, possess some morphemic features expressing grammatical

26

(morphological) meanings. These features determine the grammatical form of the word.

Grammatical meanings are very abstract, very general. Therefore the grammatical form is not confined to an individual word, but unites a whole class of words, so that each word of the class expresses the corresponding grammatical meaning together with its individual, concrete semantics.

For instance, the meaning of the substantive plural is rendered by the regular plural suffix -(e)s, and in some cases by other, more specific means, such as phonemic interchange and a few lexeme-bound suffixes. Due to the generalised character of the plural, we say that different groups of nouns 'take' this form with strictly defined variations in the mode of expression, the variations being of more systemic (phonological conditioning) and less systemic (etymological conditioning) nature. Cf.: faces, branches, matches, judges; books, rockets, boats, chiefs, proofs; dogs, beads, films, stones, hens; lives, wives, thieves, leaves; girls, stars, toys, heroes, pianos, cantos; oxen, children, brethren, kine; swine, sheep, deer; cod, trout, salmon; men, women, feet, teeth, geese, mice, lice; formulae, antennae; data, errata, strata, addenda, memoranda; radii, genii, nuclei, alumni; crises, bases, analyses, axes; phenomena, criteria.

As we see, the grammatical form presents a division of the word on the principle of expressing a certain grammatical meaning.

2. The most general notions reflecting the most general properties of phenomena are referred to in logic as 'categorial notions', or 'categories'. The most general meanings rendered by language and expressed by systemic correlations of word-forms are interpreted in linguistics as categorial grammatical meanings. The forms themselves are identified within definite paradigmatic series.

The categorial meaning (e.g. the grammatical number) unites the individual meanings of the correlated paradigmatic forms (e.g. singular  plural) and is exposed through them; hence, the meaning of the grammatical category and the meaning of the grammatical form are related to each other on the principle of the logical relation between the categorial and generic notions.

As for the grammatical category itself, it presents, the

27

same as the grammatical 'form', a unity of form (i.e. material factor) and meaning (i.e. ideal factor) and constitutes a certain signemic system.

More specifically, the grammatical category is a system of expressing a generalised grammatical meaning by means of paradigmatic correlation of grammatical forms.

The ordered set of grammatical forms expressing a categorial function constitutes a paradigm.

The paradigmatic correlations of grammatical forms in a category are exposed by the so-called 'grammatical oppositions'.

The opposition (in the linguistic sense) may be defined as a generalised correlation of lingual forms by means of which a certain function is expressed. The correlated elements (members) of the opposition must possess two types of features: common features and differential features. Common features serve as the basis of contrast, while differential features immediately express the function in question.

The oppositional theory was originally formulated as a ; phonological theory. Three main qualitative types of oppositions were established in phonology: 'privative', 'gradual', and 'equipollent'. By the number of members contrasted, oppositions were divided into binary (two members) and more than binary (ternary, quaternary, etc.).

The most important type of opposition is the binary privative opposition; the other types of oppositions are reducible to the binary privative opposition.

The binary privative opposition is formed by a contrastive pair of members in which one member is characterised by the presence of a certain differential feature ('mark'), while the other member is characterised by the absence of this feature. The member in which the feature is present is called the 'marked', or 'strong', or 'positive' member, and is commonly designated by the symbol + (plus); the member in which the feature is absent is called the 'unmarked', or 'weak', or 'negative' member, and is commonly designated by the symbol  (minus).

For instance, the voiced and devoiced consonants form a privative opposition [b, d, g p, t, k]. The differential feature of the opposition is 'voice'. This feature is present in the voiced consonants, so their set forms the marked member of the opposition. The devoiced consonants, lacking the feature, form the unmarked member of the opposition. To stress the marking quality of 'voice' for the opposition in

28

question, the devoiced consonants may be referred to as nоn-voiced'.

The gradual opposition is formed by a contrastive group of members which are distinguished not by the presence or аbsenсе of a feature, but by the degree of it.

For instance, the front vowels [i:ieae] form a quaternary gradual opposition, since they are differentiated by the degree of their openness (their length, as is known, is' also relevant, as well as some other individualising properties, but these factors do not spoil the gradual opposition as such).

The equipollent opposition is formed by a contrastive pair or group in which the members are distinguished by different positive features.

For instance, the phonemes [m] and [b], both bilabial consonants, form an equipollent opposition, [m] being sonorous nazalised, [b ] being plosive.

We have noted above that any opposition can be reformulated in privative terms. Indeed, any positive feature distinguishing an oppositionally characterised lingual element is absent in the oppositionally correlated element, so that considered from the point of view of this feature alone, the opposition, by definition, becomes privative. This reformulation is especially helpful on an advanced stage of oppositional study of a given microsystem, because it enables us to characterise the elements of the system by the corresponding strings ('bundles') of values of their oppositional featuring ('bundles of differential features'), each feature being represented by the values + or .

For instance, [p] is distinguished from [b] as voiceless (voice ), from [t ] as bilabial (labialisation +), from [m] as non-nazalised (nazalisation ), etc. The descriptive advantages of this kind of characterisation are self-evident.

Unlike phonemes which are monolateral lingual elements, words as units of morphology are bilateral; therefore morphological oppositions must reflect both the plane of expression (form) and the plane of content (meaning).

The most important type of opposition in morphology, the same as in phonology, is the binary privative opposition.

The privative morphological opposition is based on a morphological differential feature which is present in its strong parked) member and absent in its weak (unmarked) member. In another kind of wording, this differential feature may be

29

said to mark one of the members of the opposition positively (the strong member), and the other one negatively (the weak member). The featuring in question serves as the immediate means of expressing a grammatical meaning.

For instance, the expression of the verbal present and past tenses is based on a privative opposition the differential feature of which is the dental suffix -(e)d. This suffix, rendering the meaning of the past tense, marks the past form of the verb positively (we worked), and the present form negatively (we work).

The meanings differentiated by the oppositions of signemic units (signemic oppositions) are referred to as 'semantic features', or 'semes'.

For instance, the nounal form cats expresses the seme of plurality, as opposed to the form cat which expresses, by contrast, the seme of singularity. The two forms constitute a privative opposition in which the plural is the marked member. In order to stress the negative marking of the singular, it can be referred to as 'non-plural'.

It should be noted that the designation of the weak members of privative morphological oppositions by the 'non-' terms is significant not only from the point of view of the plane of expression, but also from the point of view of the plane of content. It is connected with the fact that the meaning of the weak member of the privative opposition is more general and abstract as compared with the meaning of the strong member, which is, respectively, more particular and concrete. Due to this difference in meaning, the weak member is used in a wider range of contexts than the strong member. For instance, the present tense form of the verb, as different from the past tense, is used to render meanings much broader than those directly implied by the corresponding time-plane as such. Cf.:

The sun rises in the East. To err is human. They don't speak French in this part of the country. Etc.

Equipollent oppositions in the system of English morphology constitute a minor type and are mostly confined to formal relations only. An example of such an opposition can be seen in the correlation of the person forms of the verb be: am  are  is.

Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognised; in principle, they can be identified as a minor type on the semantic level only. An example of the gradual

30

morphological opposition can be seen in the category of comparison: strong  stronger  strongest.

A grammatical category must be expressed by at least one opposition of forms. These forms are ordered in a paradigm in grammatical descriptions.

Both equipollent and gradual oppositions in morphology, the same as in phonology, can be reduced to privative oppositions within the framework of an oppositional presentation of some categorial system as a whole. Thus, a word-form, like a phoneme, can be represented by a bundle of values of differential features, graphically exposing its categorial structure. For instance, the verb-form listens is marked negatively as the present tense (tense ), negatively as the indicative mood (mood ), negatively as the passive voice (voice), positively as the third person (person +), etc. This principle of presentation, making a morphological description more compact, at the same time has the advantage of precision and helps penetrate deeper into the inner mechanisms of grammatical categories.

3. In various contextual conditions, one member of an opposition can be used in the position of the other, counter-member. This phenomenon should be treated under the heading of 'oppositional reduction' or 'oppositional substitution'. The first version of the term ('reduction') points out the fact that the opposition in this case is contracted, losing its formal distinctive force. The second version of the term ('substitution') shows the very process by which the opposition is reduced, namely, the use of one member instead of the other.

By way of example, let us consider the following case of the singular noun-subject: Man conquers nature.

The noun man in the quoted sentence is used in the singular, but it is quite clear that it stands not for an individual person, but for people in general, for the idea of 'mankind'. In other words, the noun is used generically, it implies the class of denoted objects as a whole. Thus, in the oppositional light, here the weak member of the categorial opposition of number has replaced the strong member.

Consider another example: Tonight we start for London.

The verb in this sentence takes the form of the present, while its meaning in the context is the future. It means that the opposition 'present  future' has been reduced, the weak member (present) replacing the strong one (future).

31

The oppositional reduction shown in the two cited cases is stylistically indifferent, the demonstrated use of the forms does not transgress the expressive conventions of ordinary speech. This kind of oppositional reduction is referred to as 'neutralisation' of oppositions. The position of neutralisation is, as a rule, filled in by the weak member of the opposition due to its more general semantics.

Alongside of the neutralising reduction of oppositions there exists another kind of reduction, by which one of the members of the opposition is placed in contextual conditions uncommon for it; in other words, the said reductional use of the form is stylistically marked. E.g.: That man is constantly complaining of something.

The form of the verbal present continuous in the cited sentence stands in sharp contradiction with its regular grammatical meaning 'action in progress at the present time'. The contradiction is, of course, purposeful: by exaggeration, it intensifies the implied disapproval of the man's behaviour.

This kind of oppositional reduction should be considered under the heading of 'transposition'. Transposition is based on the contrast between the members of the opposition, it may be defined as a contrastive use of the counter-member of the opposition. As a rule (but not exclusively) transpositionally employed is the strong member of the opposition, which is explained by its comparatively limited regular functions.

4. The means employed for building up member-forms of categorial oppositions are traditionally divided into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms themselves are classed into synthetical and analytical, too.

Synthetical grammatical forms are realised by the inner morphemic composition of the word, while analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two words, one of which is a grammatical auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of 'substantial' meaning. Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer inflexion, and suppletivity; hence, the forms are referred to as inner-inflexional, outer-inflexional, and suppletive.

Inner inflexion, or phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in modern Indo-European languages, but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most ancient

32

lexemic elements. By this feature, the whole family of Indo-European languages is identified in linguistics as typologically 'inflexional'.

Inner inflexion (grammatical 'infixation', see above) is used in English in irregular verbs (the bulk of them belong to the Germanic strong verbs) for the formation of the past indefinite and past participle; besides, it is used in a few nouns for the formation of the plural. Since the corresponding oppositions of forms are based on phonemic interchange, the initial paradigmatic form of each lexeme should also be considered as inflexional. Cf.: take  took  taken, drive  drove  driven, keep  kept  kept, etc.; man  men, brother  brethren, etc.

Suppletivity, like inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely morphological type of form. It is based on the correlation of different roots as a means of paradigmatic differentiation. In other words, it consists in the grammatical interchange of word roots, and this, as we pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in principle with inner inflexion (or, rather, makes the latter into a specific variety of the former).

Suppletivity is used in the forms of the verbs be and go, in the irregular forms of the degrees of comparison, in some forms of personal pronouns. Cf.: be  am  are  is  was  were; go  went; good  better; bad  worse; much  more; little  less; I  me; we  us; she  her.

In a broader morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognised in paradigmatic correlations of some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns, as well as certain nouns of peculiar categorial properties (lexemic suppletivity  see Ch. IV, 8). Cf.: can  be able; must  have (to), be obliged (to); may  be allowed (to); one  some; man  people; news  items of news; information  pieces of information; etc.

The shown unproductive synthetical means of English morphology are outbalanced by the productive means of affixation (outer inflexion), which amount to grammatical suffixation (grammatical prefixation could only be observed in the Old English verbal system).

In the previous chapter we enumerated the few grammatical suffixes possessed by the English language. These are used to build up the number and case forms of the noun; the Person-number, tense, participial and gerundial forms of the verb; the comparison forms of the adjective and adverb. In the oppositional correlations of all these forms, the initial

3-1499 33

paradigmatic form of each opposition is distinguished by a zero suffix. Cf.: boy +   boys; go +   goes; work +   worked; small + smaller; etc.

Taking this into account, and considering also the fact that each grammatical form paradigmatically correlates with at least one other grammatical form on the basis of the category expressed (e.g. the form of the singular with the form of the plural), we come to the conclusion that the total number of synthetical forms in English morphology, though certainly not very large, at the same time is not so small as it is commonly believed. Scarce in English are not the synthetical forms as such, but the actual affixal segments on which the paradigmatic differentiation of forms is based.

As for analytical forms which are so typical of modern English that they have long made this language into the 'canonised' representative of lingual analytism, they deserve some special comment on their substance.

The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognises two lexemic parts in it, stating that it presents a combination of an auxiliary word with a basic word. However, there is a tendency with some linguists to recognise as analytical not all such grammatically significant combinations, but only those of them that are 'grammatically idiomatic', i.e. whose relevant grammatical meaning is not immediately dependent on the meanings of their component elements taken apart. Considered in this light, the form of the verbal perfect where the auxiliary 'have' has utterly lost its original meaning of possession, is interpreted as the most standard and indisputable analytical form 'in English morphology. Its opposite is seen in the analytical degrees of comparison which, according to the cited interpretation, come very near to free combinations of words by their lack of 'idiomatism' in the above sense [Смирницкий, (2), 68 и сл.; Бархударов, (2), 67 и сл.].*

The scientific achievement of the study of 'idiomatic' analytism in different languages is essential and indisputable. On the other hand, the demand that 'grammatical idiomatism' should be regarded as the basis of 'grammatical analytism' seems, logically, too strong. The analytical means underlying the forms in question consist in the discontinuity of the corresponding lexemic constituents. Proceeding from

* Cf. Аналитические конструкции в языках различных типов: Сб. ст./Отв. ред. Жирмунский В. М. и Суник О. П. М.Л., 1965.

34

this fundamental principle, it can hardly stand to reason to exclude 'unidiomatic' grammatical combinations (i.e. combinations of oppositional-categorial significance) from the system of analytical expression as such. Rather, they should be regarded as an integral part of this system, in which, the provision granted, a gradation of idiomatism is to be recognised. In this case, alongside of the classical analytical forms of verbal perfect or continuous, such analytical forms should also be discriminated as the analytical infinitive (go  to go), the analytical verbal person (verb plus personal pronoun), the analytical degrees of comparison of both positive and negative varieties (more important  less important), as well as some other, still more unconventional form-types.

Moreover, alongside of the standard analytical forms characterised by the unequal ranks of their components (auxiliary elementbasic element), as a marginal analytical form-type grammatical repetition should be recognised, which is used to express specific categorial semantics of processual intensity with the verb, of indefinitely high degree of quality with the adjective and the adverb, of indefinitely large quantity with the noun. Cf.:

He knocked and knocked and knocked without reply (Gr. Greene). Oh, I feel I've got such boundless, boundless love to give to somebody (K. Mansfield). Two white-haired severe women were in charge of shelves and shelves of knitting materials of every description (A. Christie).

5. The grammatical categories which are realised by the described types of forms organised in functional paradigmatic oppositions, can either be innate for a given class of words, or only be expressed on the surface of it, serving as a sign of correlation with some other class.

For instance, the category of number is organically connected with the functional nature of the noun; it directly exposes the number of the referent substance, e.g. one ship  several ships. The category of number in the verb, however, by no means gives a natural meaningful characteristic to the denoted process: the process is devoid of numerical features such as are expressed by the grammatical number. Indeed, what is rendered by the verbal number is not a quantitative characterisation of the process, but a numerical featuring of the subject-referent. Cf.:

35

The girl is smiling.  The girls are smiling. The ship is in the harbour.  The ships are in the harbour.

Thus, from the point of view of referent relation, grammatical categories should be divided into 'immanent' categories, i.e. categories innate for a given lexemic class, and 'reflective' categories, i.e. categories of a secondary, derivative semantic value. Categorial forms based on subordinative grammatical agreement (such as the verbal person, the verbal number) are reflective, while categorial forms stipulating grammatical agreement in lexemes of a contiguous word-class (such as the substantive-pronominal person, the substantive number) are immanent. Immanent are also such categories and their forms as are closed within a word-class, i.e. do not transgress its borders; to these belong the tense of the verb, the comparison of the adjective and adverb, etc.

Another essential division of grammatical categories is based on the changeability factor of the exposed feature. Namely, the feature of the referent expressed by the category can be either constant (unchangeable, 'derivational'), or variable (changeable, 'demutative').

An example of constant feature category can be seen in the category of gender, which divides the class of English nouns into non-human names, human male names, human female names, and human common gender names. This division is represented by the system of the third person pronouns serving as gender-indices (see further). Cf.:

It (non-human): mountain, city, forest, cat, bee, etc. He (male human): man, father, husband, uncle, etc. She (female human): woman, lady, mother, girl, etc. He or she (common human): person, parent, child, cousin, etc.

Variable feature categories can be exemplified by the substantive number (singular  plural) or the degrees of comparison (positive  comparative  superlative).

Constant feature categories reflect the static classifications of phenomena, while variable feature categories expose various connections between phenomena. Some marginal categorial forms may acquire intermediary status, being located in-between the corresponding categorial poles. For instance, the nouns singularia tantum and pluralia tantum present a case of hybrid variable-constant formations, since their variable feature of number has become 'rigid',

36

or 'lexicalised'. Cf.: news, advice, progress; people, police; bellows, tongs; colours, letters; etc.

In distinction to these, the gender word-building pairs should be considered as a clear example of hybrid constant-variable formations, since their constant feature of gender has acquired some changeability properties, i.e. has become to a certain extent 'grammaticalised'. Cf.: actor  actress, author  authoress, lion  lioness, etc.

6. In the light of the exposed characteristics of the categories, we may specify the status of grammatical paradigms of changeable forms.

Grammatical change has been interpreted in traditional terms of declension and conjugation. By declension the nominal change is implied (first of all, the case system), while by conjugation the verbal change is implied (the verbal forms of person, number, tense, etc.). However, the division of categories into immanent and reflective invites a division of forms on a somewhat more consistent basis.

Since the immanent feature is expressed by essentially independent grammatical forms, and the reflective feature, correspondingly, by essentially dependent grammatical forms, all the forms of the first order (immanent) should be classed as 'declensional', while all the forms of the second order (reflective) should be classed as 'conjugational'.

In accord with this principle, the noun in such synthetical languages as Russian or Latin is declined by the forms of gender, number, and case, while the adjective is conjugated by the same forms. As for the English verb, it is conjugated by the reflective forms of person and number, but declined by the immanent forms of tense, aspect, voice, and mood.