THEME 2

THE PLACE OF GRAMMAR IN THE ARCHITECTURE

OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. PARTS OF SPEECH

1. Linguistic categories: lexical and grammatical

2. Levels of language structure and their units
2.1. Phonemic
2.2. Morphemic
2.3. Lexical
2.4. Syntactic
2.5. Textual
3. Relation of grammar to other components of linguistic description
4. Parts of speech
4.1. Definition and criteria
4.2. Inventory of the parts of speech in English
4.3. Limitations to the traditional classification of English parts of speech
4.4. Alternative approaches to the traditional classification of English parts of
speech

1.  LINGUISTIC CATEGORIES: LEXICAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Linguistics deals with categories of abstract entities through which we

understand language. They are called linguistic categories.
Conceptual categories can show up as words (lexical categories) or
grammatical categories.
The grammatical category is a unity of form and content. The content of a
grammatical category is called grammatical meaning. Grammatical categories can
be morphological or syntactic.
Morphological categories are of two different kinds – word classes (parts of
speech) and abstract distinctions which are made by means of word classes (e.g.
number, tense, etc.).
Syntactic categories are divided into phrase categories and sentence
categories.
Linguistic Categories

Lexical Categories Grammatical Categories

Morphological Categories Syntactic Categories

Parts of Part-of-speech Phrase Sentence

Speech Distinctions Categories Categories
 2
Fig. 2.1. Types of linguistic categories

2. LEVELS OF LANGUAGE STRUCTURE AND THEIR UNITS

The units of language form a hierarchy of levels. Units of each higher

level are formed of units of the level below. The longer (in linear progression)
the unit is, the higher is its place in the hierarchy of levels. But this hierarchical
relation does not amount to composition: units of a higher level necessarily
exhibit such functional properties which units of a lower level do not have.

Levels of Units of Language Units of Speech

Language Structure (abstractions) (instantiations)
Syntactic Sentence Utterance
Lexemic Word Word-Form
Morphemic Morpheme Morph
Phonemic Phoneme Phone

Fig. 2.2. Levels of language structure and their units

2.1. Phonemic level

The smallest units of language are phonemes.

Phonemes (the units of the feature level) are unilateral (one-sided), i.e. in
contrast to units of the semantic level (morphemes, words, sentences), they carry
no meaning of their own. By themselves, they are incapable of denoting anything
pertaining to extralinguistic reality. Yet they are important for the expression of
meaning: they help to differentiate units of semantic levels.

2.2. Morphemic level

The smallest bilateral unit in the hierarchy of language units is the morpheme

defined as a minimal meaningful unit (L.Bloomfield).
There are three semantic types of morphemes:
 lexical (stem) morphemes, or the base: they carry the main lexical
meaning of the word. Stems can be free, i.e. can stand alone as words or bound;
 derivational (word-building) morphemes: these serve to form new
words;
 inflexional (form-building, grammatical) morphemes: they serve to
form grammatical forms of words.
In its formal aspect, the morpheme is a bunch of instantiations, or morphs.
When two or more morphological units are put together (e.g. stem + affix; two
stems), either or both may undergo some modification (phonetic or graphic), thus
forming an allomorph (a positional variant of a morpheme).
 3
Allomorphs stand in complementary distribution to each other: if one
variant of the morpheme is used in a certain position, it means that the other(s)
cannot be used there.
Grammatical morphemes are scarce in English, which is an analytical
language. Grammatical morphemes are wide-range abstractions. For example, -ed
covers the whole of the subclass of verbs subject to this kind of form-building
(regular verbs), whereas word-building morphemes cover a narrow range of words
grouped into formal or semantic subclasses.
A grammatical morpheme is always a member of an opposition, i.e. opposed
to some other morpheme that expresses the same general grammatical category,
whereas word-building morphemes seldom form an opposition.

2.3. Lexical level

The word is the smallest naming unit of the language. The information
contained in it is traditionally subdivided into denotational (referential) and
categorial (significative) meaning (See the “semantic triangle” of Ogden-
Richards).
The referential meaning reflects the symbolic connection established
between a word and a certain fragment of the extralinguistic world. It is rendered
by lexical morphemes, and is considered in the course of lexicology.
The conceptual meaning reflects the way we categorize the world in
choosing a certain part of speech. It is mostly expressed by derivational
morphemes, and is considered in the course of derivational morphology.
The word also possesses a purely grammatical meaning rendered by its
inflexion (or lack of it - a zero inflexion). A word in a certain grammatical form,
signaled by the inflexion, is called a word-form, or a grammeme. The system of
grammatical forms makes the paradigm of the word.

2.4. Syntactic level

Syntactic units are: the word-group ( word combination, phrase), the

sentence, the member of the sentence.
Being included into a sentence, a word enters into relations with other words
and acquires the status of a unit of speech - the member of the sentence.
The phrase is of an intermediary status between a word and a sentence.
The sentence is the main communicative unit of the language.

2.5. Textual level

Taking into account the achievements of recent decades, it is possible to add

yet another, the highest level of the language description - that of the text. When a
text is considered in its natural speech setting, it becomes discourse. In addition to
text, discourse includes the process of production, of which the text is a product,
and the process of interpretation, for which text is a resource, as well as social
 4
conditions of production and interpretation, the background knowledge of the
speaker and hearer, their mutual knowledge of the situation in question, etc.

3. RELATION OF GRAMMAR TO OTHER COMPONENTS OF

LINGUISTIC DESCRIPTION

Used in a narrow sense, grammar comprises syntax and morphology.

Morphology studies the grammatical aspects of morphemes and words. It
studies the form of words, the intra-word cohesion. Its main units are morphemes
and words.
Syntax is concerned with the way words combine to form sentences, or
inter-word cohesion. Its units are combinations of words and sentences.
The connection of grammar with other levels of linguistic description is
determined by the following factors:
 the units of lower levels make the construction material for the units
of higher levels;
 units of different levels can interact in speech;
 units of different levels can have common meanings and complement
each other.

Unit of Language Aspect of Language Linguistic Discipline

Text Text organization Textlinguistics
Sentence Syntax
Inflexion Morphology Grammar
Derivational Word-Building Lexicology / Grammar
Word morpheme
Stem Lexical Semantics Lexicology
Phoneme Phonetics Phonology

Fig.2.3. Units of language as the object matter of linguistic disciplines

4. PARTS OF SPEECH

4.1. Definition And Criteria

“Parts of speech” is a traditional term for the categories into which all words
of a language are classified according to their functions in sentences. They are
characterized by a general abstract grammatical meaning expressed in certain
grammatical markers (morphemes).
Today parts of speech are defined on the basis of three criteria:
 semantic (meaning). This criterion takes into account the generalized
meaning of all the words which enter the part of speech as well as the
meaning of major subsets of the part of speech;
 5
 formal (form). This criterion is focused on specific inflexional and word-
building features of all the lexemic subsets of the part of speech;
 functional (function). This criterion concerns the syntactic role of words in a
sentence.

4.2. The Inventory of the Parts of Speech in English

The parts of speech in Modern English are divided into:

- 6 notional: Nouns, Adjectives, Numerals, Pronouns, Verbs, and Adverbs;
- 2 functional: Prepositions and Conjunctions;
- 1 suprasyntactic: Interjections.
Notional parts of speech are classes of words which differ in their size. Nouns
and verbs certainly make the largest classes. This is conditioned by their functional
role in a sentence (they fill in the positions of the subject and the predicate, which
together make the predication of the sentence). Among the six notional parts of
speech, four are the main ones (Nouns, Verbs, Adjectives, and Adverbs). They are
usually called autonomous, autosemantic, content, contentive, lexical, vocabulary,
or full words. The word-classes of Numerals and Pronouns are small; they are
closed.
Functional parts of speech are small word-classes; they are closed and serve
as connectors between the main words. They are called synsemantic, syntagmatic
grammar, function, empty, functor, or form words. Prepositions act within one
clause, conjunctions may connect words, clauses and even separate sentences.
Prepositions and conjunctions express relations but not real objects or notions.
Interjections express neither relations, nor notions. They represent a
different layer of language and are called suprasyntactic elements as they express
emotions, the attitude of the speaker towards the situation of speech. The number
of such elements in English is limited though interjections cannot be called a
closed word-class, since their stock is subject to constant change.

PART OF SPEECH BASIC FUNCTION EXAMPLES

noun names a person, place, or thing pirate, Caribbean, ship
pronoun takes the place of a noun I, you, he, she, it, ours, them, who
verb identifies action or state of being sing, dance, believe, be
adjective modifies a noun hot, lazy, funny
adverb modifies a verb, adjective, or other adverb softly, lazily, often
numeral identifies exact number of things one, first, thousand
preposition shows a relationship between a noun (or pronoun) up, over, against, by, for
and other words in a sentence
conjunction joins words, phrases, and clauses and, but, or, yet
interjection expresses emotion ah, whoops, ouch

Fig. 3.1. Parts of speech

 6
There used to be a tendency in mid-fifties of the XXth century to extend the
number of parts of speech in English, mainly under the influence of Russian
grammar theories. The suggested "additions" to the traditional "8 + 1" parts of
speech are as follows:
1. Category of State: e.g. asleep, alive, ajar, etc.
2. Modal words (sentence adverbs): e.g. probably, maybe, possibly, etc.
3. Particles: e.g. only, just, merely, etc.
4. Articles: the, a(n).

4.3. Limitations to the Traditional Classification of the Parts of Speech

1. The definitions of the parts of speech in English which have been provided
by traditional grammars do not make reference to specific properties of English
and are clearly conceived as being applicable to other languages as well.
Therefore, we can say that the failure of the definitions roots in the implicit but
false assumption that a single set of definitions will work at the general and
language-particular level.
The definitions are in the main couched in terms of the meaning of the
words to be classified rather than their grammatical properties.
2. A second point to be made about the definitions considered is that they are
not all of the same kind – though the categories they are meant to defined are
intended to be of the same kind, namely contrasting classes of words or lexemes. It
will be noticed that nouns and verbs are defined independently of the others, while
the definitions given to pronouns, adjectives, adverbs and prepositions refer to
nouns and/or verbs. Thus, for example, the noun is defined in terms of a word’s
inherent semantic properties whereas the adjective is defined in terms of the
semantic relation between a word and the noun or pronoun with which it is in
construction. The trouble with this is that the definitions are not mutually
exclusive, i.e. one part of speech is defined with the help of another.
3. Any satisfactory account of a part of speech must give recognition to the
distinction between its central and more or less marginal members, with the
possibility of some indeterminacy over just where the boundaries are.

4.4.  Alternative Approaches to the Traditional Classification

of the Parts of Speech

H. Sweet is a prominent English grammarian. His New English Grammar,

Logical and Historical (1891) is an attempt of a descriptive grammar intended to
break away from the canons of classical Latin grammar and to give scientific
explanation to grammatical phenomena. His classification of parts of speech makes
distinction between:
1) declinables:
- noun-words: nouns, noun-pronouns, noun-numerals, infinitives, gerunds;
- adjective-words: adjectives, adjective-pronouns, adjective-numerals, participles;
- verbs: finite verbs, verbals (infinitive, participle, gerund);
 7
2) indeclinables (particles): adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections.
H. Sweet could not fully disentangle himself from the rules of classical
grammar (Greek, Latin). That is why we can see that adjectives, numerals and
pronouns, which in English have but a few formal markers, get into the group of
“declinables”.
Sweet’s classification is an attempt to reflect the two-fold functions, or
rather positions in word combinations of such classes as numerals and pronouns,
and the double nature of verbals. The result of such a distribution is a mixture of
morphological and syntactic criteria, and the distorted picture of actual word-
classes existing in English.
Thus, a rational in essence attempt to reflect the facts of English and to
depart from the laws of Latin grammar has in fact brought about a classification in
which no distinction is made between the formal and meaningful features. On
this basis it is impossible to create a theory of independent word-classes, each with
its own properties.
O. Jespersen analyses word classes on different bases. In ‘The Philosophy
of Grammar’ (1924) he presents his Theory of Three Ranks describing the
hierarchy of syntactic relations underlying linear representation of elements in
language structures. The theory is based on the concept of determination. The
“rank” of a word (primary, secondary, or tertiary) depends upon its relation (that of
defined or defining) to other words in a sentence. e.g. extremely hot weather:
weather (the independent word) has the status of primary; hot (defines weather,
i.e. determines, or is subordinated to, the primary ) is secondary; extremely
(defines hot, i.e. modifies the secondary) is tertiary. Though a tertiary word may
be further defined by a (quarternary) word, and this again by a (quinary) word,
and so forth, there are no formal or other traits that distinguish words of these
lower orders from tertiary words.
If now we compare the word combination a furiously barking dog (a dog
barking furiously) with the sentence The dog barks furiously, we can see that the
same subordination obtains in the latter as well as in the former (dog - primary;
barking - secondary; furiously - tertiary). Yet there is a fundamental difference
between them, which calls for separate terms for the two kinds of structure: the
former kind is called junction, and the latter nexus.
It should be noted that the dog is primary not only when it is the subject, as
in the dog barks, but also when it is the direct object, as in I see the dog, or a
prepositional object, as in he runs after the dog.
The words primary, secondary, and tertiary are applicable to nexus as well
as to junction, but O. Jespersen also uses some special names: adjunct for a
secondary word in a junction, and adnex for a secondary word in a nexus. For
tertiary words the term subjunct is used, and quarternary words, in the rare cases in
which a special name is needed, are termed sub-subjuncts.
There is certainly some degree of correspondence between the three main
parts of speech and the three ranks outlined above. O. Jespersen does not deny the
validity of the traditional classification of parts of speech, but he reserves the latter
 8
"for the dictionary" as he puts it. But the two things, word-classes and ranks,
really move in two different spheres. The two classifications represent different
angles at which the same word or word-form may be viewed, first as it is in itself
and then as it is in combination with other words.
No one would dispute the value of O. Jespersen’s analysis and his deep
inquiry into the structure of language. In the theory of three ranks he offered much
that was new in content and had most notable merits. With all this, O. Jespersen’s
analysis contains some disputable points and inconsistency. The very definition of
the notion of rank is not accurate which in some cases leads to inadequacy of
analysis. Applying his principle of linguistic analysis to sentence structures, such
as the dog barks furiously he ignores the difference between junction and nexus
and does not distinguish attributive and predicative relations and thus seems to
leave out the most important word-class – the verb.
Nothing cardinally different from the traditional approach in the part-of-
speech classification was produced by various English grammars within the period
between the works of O. Jespersen and the appearance of Ch. Fries’s book “The
Structure of English” (1952). Ch. Fries belongs to the American school of
descriptive linguistics for which the starting point and basis of any linguistic
analysis is the distribution of elements. In contrast to other representatives of that
school, who excluded meaning from linguistic description, Fries recognized its
importance. He introduced the notion of structural meaning as different from the
lexical meaning of words. In his opinion, the grammar of the language consists of
the devices that signal structural meanings.
This principle is illustrated by means of linearly arranged nonce-words, the
structural meaning of each evident from the form. As an example, Ch. Fries gives a
verse from “Alice in Wonderland”:
Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe...
(The signals are underlined).
Any speaker of English, says Fries, will recognize the frames in which these
words appear (Gf.: the famous глокая куздра... of L. V. Sčerba). So a part of
speech, according to Ch. Fries, is a functional pattern. All the words which can
occupy the same ‘set of positions’ in the pattern of English utterances must belong
to same part of speech. Fries recorded 50 hours of conversation by 300 different
speakers and analyzed 250.000 word entries. As a result of this analysis he singles
out four word-classes (1, 2, 3, and 4) and 15 subclasses of function words
(designated by the letters of Latin alphabet), in which the properties of different
word-classes, which are singled out by traditional grammar, are dissolved in the
distributional patterns. Ch. Fries’s book presents a major linguistic interest as an
experiment rather than for its achievements.