Of speech in Russian Linguistics

IN RUSSIAN LINGUISTICS

1. The main criteria for the classification of parts of speech in Russian Linguistics.
2. The concept of notional and formal words.
3. The classification of parts of speech adopted in Russian linguistics.
4. Disputable issues in the parts of speech system as viewed by Russian linguists:

v the problem of statives;

v the status of modal words;

v prepositions and conjunctions.

1. The main criteria for the classification of parts

The generally recognized definition of parts of speech defines them as lexico-grammatical word-classes, which are characterized by a general, abstract grammatical meaning expressed in certain grammatical markers [Хлебникова 2001: 18]. The problem of the classification of words into parts of speech is still considered topical. Linguists claim that it will remain eternal for many generations of grammarians. What linguists try to overcome, working out different classifications, is the statement that “the largest word classes are convenient fictions” as “all the words in a proposed class are seen to be sharing some features, but few share all of them” [Crystal 1995: 207]. Nevertheless though the problem seems to be of a purely theoretical value, grammarians make heroic attempts at laying strong and solid foundations for their newly arising theories. The publication of new books (cf. Е.С. Кубрякова. “Части речи с когнитивной точки зрения М., 1997; А.Т. Кривоносов. «Система классов слов как отражение структуры языкового сознания (Философские основы теоретической грамматики). Москва – Нью Йорк: Изд-во «Че Ро», 2001) on this problem is a vivid example of this statement. Thus the natural question, which arises in this respect, is: why is it necessary to talk about parts of speech at all? David Crystal, the author of the “Encyclopedia of the English Language” points out that “the main reason is to be able to make general and economical statements about the way the words of the language behave” [Crystal 1995: 206]. He also adds “the task of word class identification is an interesting one for linguists, as it is not always obvious which are the best criteria to use” [Crystal 1995: 207].

Russian linguists are agreed on the idea that it is impossible to build a part of speech classification which will be based on the only criterion due to the complexity and heterogeneity of lingual forms[52]. Traditionally Russian linguists single out three criteria on which the classification of parts of speech may be based. They are meaning, form, and function.

By meaning we do not mean the individual meaning of each separate word, i.e. their lexical meaning, but the ‘abstract meaning’[53], i.e. the meaning common to all the words of the given class and constituting its essence. Thus, the meaning of the noun is “thingness”. This applies equally to each noun and constitutes the structural meaning of the noun as a type of word. Similarly, the meaning of the verb as the type of word is that of “action” or “process”, whatever the individual meaning of a separate verb may happen to be (cf.: to get a letter ÷ to get dry, to go home ÷ to go mad, to grow potatoes ÷ to grow thin). The meaning of the adjective is some property.

By form we mean the morphological characteristics of a type of word. Thus, the noun is characterized by the category of number (singular & plural), the verb – by tense, mood, aspect, etc. Several types of words (prepositions, conjunctions, and some others) are characterized by invariability.

By function we mean the syntactical properties of a type of word. These are subdivided into two:

· the way it combines with other words;

· its function in the sentence.

The former deals with phrases. And the latter has to do with the sentence structure. For instance, the verb combines with the following noun (write letters) and also with the following adverb (write quickly). As to the latter characteristic, the syntactic function of the verb in a sentence, it is that of a predicate.

Thus, parts of speech are considered a lexico-grammatical category as they show lexical groupings of words, on the one hand; while on the other hand, these groupings present generalized classes, each with a unified, abstract meaning of its own. The grammatical character of word-classes mainly finds its manifestation in the ability to express grammatical categories in a set of formal markers. Each part of speech, as a generalized word-class possesses a certain valency, i.e. inner potential to combine with other word-classes in linear order (in actual speech). In accordance with this potency words make combinations (phrases, groups) [Хлебникова 2001: 7, 18].

1. The concept of notional and formal words

Traditionally words are divided into two big classes: notional words and formal words. Notional words denote things, actions and other extralinguistic phenomena; formal words denote relations and connections between the notional words, and thus have no direct bearing on anything extralinguistic [Иванова 1981].

But the problem of dividing words into notional and formal has not got its final solution. Thus, almost all linguists consider such parts of speech as the noun, verb, adjective, adverb, notional parts of speech. But as for formal words, some doubts arise concerning the existence of such classes as prepositions and conjunctions. Besides, some linguists consider it rather doubtful to distinguish between statives and modal words as separate notional parts of speech [Иванова 1981]. Not all linguists consider the article to be among formal words and place it in the class of pronouns, determiners, adjectives or nouns. The discussion over these problems is still going on in linguistics.

N.A. Kobrina suggests we reject the distinction into formal and notional words at all. She draws this conclusion as a result of the comparison of notional and formal words. First N.A. Kobrina analyzes the distinction between these two classes along the traditional lines:

1. Notional words name things. They are communicatively full-fledged. They function as members of the sentence. Contrary to this, formal words do not name anything, they do not have an independent communicative meaning and cannot be part of the sentence. Thus, they are not used separately.

2. Notional words are characterized by a paradigm. Formal words do not have it.

3. Notional words are open in membership, whereas formal words are few in number. They are closed in membership.

4. Notional words are not used as frequently as formal words.

5. Notional words are characterized by a lexical meaning that can be isolated from the grammatical one. Formal words can have a highly generalized meaning that sometimes cannot be presented without context.

But then N.A. Kobrina emphasizes that though clearly singled out, these features characterize only part of the notional words. They can be referred to nouns, verbs, adjectives, numerals and adverbs. But even these groups are not homogenous. For instance, verbs can be auxiliary. Modal verbs are formal centered. Pronouns cannot be notional as they do not name but represent or substitute. Among formal words some discrepancies are also observed. For instance, particles are close to notional parts of speech (cf.: He really loved her ÷ He loved her really and truly). The article is also very specific. Interjections and modal words turn out to be beyond notional and formal words. They adjoin the sentence and cannot be its member. That’s why in her opinion, the property of notional words is a logical and grammatical feature and it is linked with the ability of a word to denote something. The property of formal words is a syntactic feature and can be applied to words that cannot be members of the sentence.

M.Y. Blokh contrasts notional and functional parts of speech. He defines the latter as “words of incomplete nominative meaning and non-self-dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence” [Блох 1983: 39]. Thus M.Y. Blokh divides words into changeable: nouns, adjectives, verbs, numerals, pronouns, adverbs, and unchangeable: article, preposition, conjunction, particle, modal words, interjection. M.Y. Blokh underscores the idea of the subjective character of different subcategorizations (prepositions + conjunctions = connectives).

Summing up the discussion it may be concluded that the problem under consideration concerns

· the definition of notional and formal words;

· the grounds for their distinction;

· the exact lists of both groups;

· the existence of some groups of words (modal words, particles, interjections, prepositions + conjunctions, statives) many of which are singled out under the influence of Russian grammar.

The latter problem is of particular interest as the listed groups of words prove to be disputable issues for grammarians.

v The problem of statives

Here belong the words like afloat, ablaze, awake, asleep, afraid, afire, aglow, agog, adrift, ashamed, aswim, aware and such like. The Russian linguist, academician L.V. Shcherba, first singled out this class of words. He noticed a group of words in Russian like нельзя, можно, надо, пора, жаль, холодно, навеселе, обидно, приятно, грустно and suggested that they form an independent class. He writes “подведение их под какую-либо категорию затруднительно, … так как они не относятся ни к глаголу, ни к прилагательному, ни к другому наречию… Может быть, мы имеем здесь дело с особой категорией состояния». Academician V.V. Vinogradov supported this viewpoint. Nevertheless many grammarians object to this theory. Though the majority of foreign linguists do not distinguish this category, it is of interest to know that the authors of the Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar single out what they call the a-word category or just a-words as a class of words that mainly function predicatively [Oxford Dictionary 1998: 40-41].

These words arrest researchers’ attention as they are characterized by a number of specific features. According to B.A. Ilyish,

1) these words signify passing states a person or thing happens to be in;

2) f ormally they are invariable;

3) as far as their function is concerned (a) they most usually follow a link verb (was sleep, fall asleep). Occasionally they can follow a noun (men alive). They can also sometimes be preceded by an adverb (fast asleep). (b) In a sentence the stative is most usually a predicative. They can also be objective predicatives (I found him asleep) and attributes, almost always following the noun they modify (a man asleep in his chair) [Ильиш 1971: 30-31].

These features (semantic, formal and syntactic) make up a picture of statives as an independent part of speech. On the strength of these arguments B.A. Ilyish, L.L. Ioffic, B.S. Khaimovich & B.J. Rogovskaya say that these words constitute a separate class of words. Moreover, Khaimovich & Rogovskaya give them the name of adlinks, on the analogy of adverbs, or adlinks of states. They consider this term “handier” as it reflects their chief properties.

Other Russian linguists do not share this opinion. L.S. Barkhudarov and I.P. Ivanova think that there is no need to treat the words under analysis as a separate part of speech. They consider them a subclass within a big class of adjectives. A.I. Smirnitsky does not even mention statives as a part of speech. Nowadays the majority of Russian linguists consider these words a subclass within a class of adjectives and give a number of reasons to account for it.

(1) It is not only the category of state words convey this meaning. There are a lot of adjectives which also convey this meaning, e.g. curious, happy, joyful, sound, refreshed, healthy, hungry, busy, active etc.

(2) The combinability characteristics basically coincide with adjectives at large.

(3) Moreover, statives do not independently constitute a new syntactic function. This function is realized first of all due to the link verb. Morphologically they cannot perform the function of the predicative. It is the verb that enables them to do it.

(4) Statives are very few in number.

(5) The fact that they do not have some of the morphological categories (e.g. degrees of comparison) of adjectives can also be explained. Any part of speech includes some words that morphologically differ from the main stock. Nevertheless it does not mean that they do not belong to the category (e.g. Russian indeclinable, and totally unchangeable nouns пальто, какаду, метро, желе are undoubtedly referred to the class of nouns owing to the syntactic feature).

All these arguments enable linguists to look upon statives as a unified set of words within the general class of adjectives.

v The problem of modal words

“Modal words express the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts” [Блох 1983: 40]. The first linguist who singled out modal words as a separate part of speech was ac. V.V. Vinogradov. L.V. Shcherba excluded these words from the whole system of parts of speech due to their inability to be a member of the sentence.

Modal words indicate whether the speaker is sure that the contents of their utterance correspond to reality, or they doubt it, or regard it as something possible, probable, desirable, etc. Here belong such words as

a) those which denote various shades of certainty (certainly, surely, of course, no doubt, indeed, really, etc.);

b) those which denote various degrees of probability (maybe, perhaps, possibly, probably, etc.);

c) those which denote various shades of desirability/undesirability (happily, luckily, fortunately, unfortunately unhappily, etc.) [Хаймович, Роговская 1967: 203].

Needless to say that there may be differences in subcategorizations of modal words from author to author. Thus M.Y. Blokh singles out modal words of probability (probably, perhaps, etc,); of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, luckily, etc.), and also of affirmation or negation [Блох 1983: 40].

Modal words are characterized by certain features:

(1) Meaning. Modal words express the speaker’s evaluation of the relation between an action and reality.

(2) Form. Modal words are invariable.

(3) Function. Modal words perform the function of the parenthesis.

It is this very function that gives grounds to linguists to express doubt about the very idea of the existence of this class of words as a separate part of speech. Foreign linguists call these words sentence modifiers. V.V. Gurevich points out that modal words are different both from notional and formal words. They differ from notional words, as they cannot be members of the sentence. They differ from formal words, as they do not connect words in the sentence. Their position is beyond the framework of the sentence. They themselves constitute a sentence of their own due to their semantics. V.V. Gurevich calls them word-sentences. Thus, for instance, perhaps means I suppose / I am not sure, no doubt, surely = I am sure [Гуревич 2003: 128].

It should be noted that in some cases it is next to impossible to tell modal words apart from adverbs which enables grammarians to put them together: e.g. She really loved him (modal word). ÷ He loved her really and truly (adverb). The same in Russian: Он решительно отказался. ÷ Он решительно сошел с ума. Similar examples are given in French grammars. Thus, V.G. Gak points out that modal words should be considered as a functional subclass within the class of adverbs, but not an independent part of speech [Гак 2000: 414].

On the whole V.M. Zhirmunsky’s[54] observation remains true that modal words attract attention first of all due to their ability to express modality as a lexical equivalent of the grammatical category.

Nevertheless, as the survey shows approaches do differ when it comes to the analysis of modal words as a lexico-semantic group as well as attaching an independent status to them.

v Prepositions and conjunctions

Within formal words there exists a group of connecting words that cover both prepositions and conjunctions. This fact enables linguists to unite them within one class, that of connectors or connectives. Nevertheless these groups of words have distinct grammatical properties and even united they eventually get divided into two subclasses upon further analysis.

Traditionally prepositions are classified as words connecting separate words, while conjunctions – as those connecting sentences. Nowadays some linguists find proofs that conjunctions can also connect separate words, including subordinate conjunctions, e.g.: interesting though difficult.

The meaning of preposition is that of relations of substances. R. Quirk et al. point out that prepositions express relations between two entities, one being that represented by prepositional complement. The relational meanings expressed by prepositions comprise those of place, time, instrument, cause, although in many cases it may be difficult to describe prepositional meanings systematically in terms of these labels [Quirk 1982: 134].

As far as their form is concerned prepositions are invariable.

As for their function, prepositions enter into phrases in which they are preceded by a noun, adjective, numeral, verb, or adverb, and followed by a noun, adjective, numeral or pronoun. In a sentence the preposition is never a separate member of it. It goes together with the following word to form an object, adverbial modifier, predicative, or attribute, and in extremely rare cases, the subject (About a hundred people were in the hall).

Nevertheless this treatment of prepositions is traditional within Russian school of linguistics. In the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics P.H. Matthews defines prepositions as “as a word or other syntactic element of a class whose members typically come before a noun and which is characterized by ones which basically indicate spatial relations: e.g. on in on the mat, behind in behind the sofa, throughout in throughout Asia. Also on in e.g. on Saturday, on receipt, or on my honour, where the temporal and other senses are secondary. Also e.g. during in during August, although the temporal sense is basic”. P.H. Matthews distinguishes between prepositions and postpositions depending on the position of this linguistic unit in relation to the noun (coming before or after it). The term ‘adposition’ covers both [Matthews 1997: 292]. The authors of Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Language also consider prepositions in relation to the syntactic units they are used in. Unlike prepositions conjunctions are defined as words joining two syntactic units [Matthews 1997: 68].

On the whole, there are a number of problems discussed related to the theory of prepositions. V.G. Gak singles out the following debatable issues: (1) the inventory of prepositions and their distinction from other linguistic units, the problem of composite prepositions; (2) functions of prepositions in a sentence; (3) the correlation of the grammatical and lexical properties in prepositions; (4) the semantic classification of prepositions [Гак 2000: 426].

Conjunctions. Many authors, defining a conjunction, confine themselves to the indication that they serve to connect words (or parts of the sentence) and clauses. This would seem to imply that conjunctions have no meaning of their own, i.e. they do not themselves express any phenomena of the extralinguistic world.

Other linguists have an opposing point of view. Thus, B.A. Ilyish gives some examples to prove that conjunctions do have a lexical meaning: He came because it was late. ÷ He came though it was late.

The different conjunctions express different actual relations between the two extralinguistic phenomena: his arrival and his being late. There is no difference whatsoever in the grammatical structure of the two sentences: the difference lies only in the meaning of the two conjunctions.

The same observation can be made if two other sentences are compared: We’ll come to see you before he comes back. ÷ We’ll come to see you after he comes back.

This proves that every conjunction has its own meaning, expressing some connection between extralinguistic phenomena. Thus, the meaning of conjunctions can be identified as follows: they express connections between things and phenomena. This is done in two ways: through coordination and subordination. Thus there are two types of conjunction:

• Coordinating conjunctions link units which have the same status in the sentence, such as two clauses, two noun phrases, or two adjectives. The chief items are and, or, and but, and there are a few “pairs”, such as neither … nor. These conjunctions signal such meanings as additions and sequence (and), the expression of alternatives (or), and contrast (but) [D. Crystal 1995: 213].
• Subordinating conjunctions join units which do not have the same grammatical status in the sentence. The typical case is when one clause is subordinated to another, as in We went out when the rain stopped. Subordinating conjunctions far outnumber coordinating ones, and several consist of more than one word [Crystal 1995: 213].

V.G. Gak makes a clarifying remark that coordinating relations cover major logical operations with objects whereas subordinating conjunctions express relations between processes [Гак 2000: 443].

There is some difference between conjunctions and prepositions that is of importance. The use of prepositions is usually predicted by the preceding word: for one, the word depend can only be followed by the preposition on. Numerous examples of the same kind can be listed here. Conjunctions in this respect are entirely different. The use of a conjunction is never predicted by any preceding word.

As far as their form is considered conjunctions are invariable.

As for their function, they connect any two words, phrases, or clauses. They are never a special part of the sentence. They either connect homogeneous words, and clauses or they join a subordinate clause to its head clause.

Many conjunctions are homonymous with adverbs and prepositions (after, since, before), pronouns (that, so, neither), particles (supposing, provided). This is a vivid example of a specific nature of the English system of parts of speech. As the English language is of an analytical character, syntactic markers are extremely important. The absence of specific formal markers in English leads to the homonymy of parts of speech. As a result of this, a separate word taken out of its environment can hardly be characterized from the point of view of its part of speech assignment. Thus, the word but can be a conjunction (We waited, but he didn’t come), a preposition (He spoke to everybody but me = except me), as a component of either a conjunction or a preposition rendering the conditional meaning (But for the bad weather …), and even a particle (He is but a baby = only a baby; I could but hope = I could only hope).

The complicated character of classifying words is a strong argument in favour of describing the nature of language as a liable, flexible, variable system. V.K. Radzikhovskaya points out that a natural language cannot be rigid because it is closely connected with the nature of mental activities which demand flexibility on the part of the human brain in the process of cognition.

Thus, the existing classification of parts of speech is a compromise between different approaches, and classifications of different types. The compromising character of the traditional classification causes perpetual disagreement concerning different issues arising in the process of singling out and describing different parts of speech. Linguists should be very sensitive to what the structure of a particular language presupposes and should not be embarrassed and confused by the fact that the list of parts of speech may vary from language to language. Academician L.V. Scherba pointed out that each language could be looked upon as an autonomous system; it should not be studied from the point of view of other languages[55]. Given the complicated character of part of speech assignment and the specificity of each language linguists maintain that a particular list of parts of speech should be determined separately for each individual language [Kroeger 2006: 35].

Ø Recommended literature:

1. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1975. – С. 49-67.
2. Блох М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 2008. – С. 42-54.
3. Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики. – М.: Высшая школа, 2004. – С. 92-119.
4. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1981. – С. 19-20.
5. Ильиш Б.А. Строй современного английского языка. – Л.: Просвещение, 1971. – С. 27-35.
6. Кобрина Н.А., Болдырев Н.Н., Худяков А.А. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 2007. – С. 155-164.
7. Корнеева Е.А., Кобрина Н.А., Гузеева К.А., Оссовская М.И. Пособие по морфологии английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1974. – С. 5-25.
8. Хаймович Б.С., Роговская Б.И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1967. – С. 199-204.
9. Quirk R., Greenbaum S., Leech G., Svartvik J. A University Grammar of English/ ed. and abbreviated by I.P. Verkhovskaya. – M.: Vysšaja škola, 1982. – P. 189-224.

Ø Supplementary literature:

1. Гак В.Г. Теоретическая грамматика французского языка. – М.: Добросвет, 2000. – С. 426-449.
2. Ильиш Б.А. Современный английский язык. Теоретический курс. – М.: Издательство литературы на иностранных языках, 1948. – С. 69-93.

3. Мурясов Р.З. Типология глагола в разноструктурных языках. – Уфа: РИЦ БашГУ, 2011. – 250-278.

1. Современный русский язык / В.А. Белошапкова, Е.А. Брызгунова, Е.А. Земская и др.; Под ред. В.А. Белошапковой. – М.: Азбуковник, 1999. – С. 455-466.
2. Хлебникова И.Б. Основы английской морфологии. – М.: «ЧеРо», 2001. – С. 18-27.
3. Щерба Л.В. О частях речи в русском языке // Языковая система и речевая деятельность. – М.: Едиториал УРСС, 2004. – С. 77-100.

Дата добавления: 2017-01-14