Debated Problems within the Category of Case

The Category of Case

Under the category of case we understand the change of form of a noun to denote its grammatical relations to other parts of communication.

The number of cases varies in different languages { two in English (common and Genitive), 7 (including the Vocative case) in Russian). It depends upon the morphological structure of the language and its development.

In Old English cases corresponded to the syntactical positions of nouns. The Nominative represented a subject or a predicative, the Accusative represented direct object, the Dative stood for a indirect object, the Genitive stood for an attribute, the Vocative denoted a direct address. In the course of time the number of cases got reduced, the inflexions died out, and the relations of nouns to other parts of communication came to be expressed by word order, prepositions and two cases – the Common and the Genitive.

To the debated problems within the category of case there refer 1. the existence of this category in English (Otto Jespersen ridiculed the very idea of case in English as a morphological category, but he recognised it as a logical category); 2. the nature of this category (morphological, syntactical, morphologico-syntactical, logical) The prevalent view is the one that treats case as a morphological category, which is based upon the opposition of two cases: the common case and the genitive case; 3. the number of cases { absence of cases, two cases (the common and the genetive case), many cases. Semantic syntax operates with the notion of deep cases while describing semantic relations within a sentence. Charles Fillmore distinguished a proposition, a predicate and arguments when analysing the semantic structure of a proposition. Arguments perform different semantic roles in the sentence, they are associated with cases. Ch. Fillmore suggests such a set of cases: agentive, objective, locative, instrumental, that of goal, that of patient, that ofsource, that of result, etc. One and the same argument may express different roles{ Theteacher explains the new rule ( the agent or the source }). W. Chafe adds the cases of experience and beneficiary (I have seen the world. I have been given flowers); }; 4. the nature of the element –‘ s. It is an uncommon inflexion which cannot be likened to possessive inflexions in Slavic languages (печаль расставания, печаль разлуки, крылатый слова звук, лепесток розы - лепесток роз, пара гнедых, etc). In Russian case inflexions are attached to nouns. In English the element -‘s can be attached to all kinds of nouns, numerals, adverbs, adjectives, pronouns, composite words, phrases and even sentences (Tomorrow’s newspaper. He’ll come in an hour or two’s time. Somebody else’s phrase. The blond I was dancing with’s name was something like Alison). All these peculiarities make the scholars (profs. Ilyish, Vorontsova, Palmer, Gleason) consider- ‘s to be a postposition or even a form- word, like an auxiliary or a particle, serving to convey the meaning of possession, a sign of syntactical dependence. But most scholars believe - ‘s to be a typical case inflexion because it comes from OE genitive case; it expresses relations of a noun to other words; it is phonetically dependent, whereas postpositions are phonetically independent; most often it is attached to nouns. Still it is more peculiar and independent than other English grammatical morphemes.

Genitive Constructions (N’s N)

There are a number of genitive constructions in English which are classified according to different criteria: 1. dependence {Dependent and Independent (Absolute) Genitive (a student’s answer, This student’s was the best answer); 2. the number of the constituents (a single word Genitive: a boy’s bike, a double Genitive(my father’s friend’s pipe), a triple Genitive(my brother’s friend’s bride’s hat), a group Genitive(Prince of Denmark’s tragedy); 3. semantic relations between N’s and N: there are semantic varieties of dependent Genitives which are revealed transformationally and can be interpreted by means of componential method: a possessive Genitive(my son’s bike => my son has a bike), an agentive (subjective) Genitive(the boy’s application => the boy applied), an objective Genitive(the boy’s expulsion => the boy was expelled), an ambiguous Genitive (the writer’s invitation => the writer invites somebody (a subjective Genitive), => somebody invited the writer (an objective Genitive), the Genitive of origin(the girl’s story => the story told by the girl), descriptive Genitive (a mother’s love, a dog’s devotedness), Genitive of destination (the children’s room, the women’s magazine), Genitive of extension (a day’s work), temporal Genitive(a minute’s success, etc.).

All these synthetic Genitives can be replaced by analytical Genitives as there is semantic and structural similarity between the two (France’s wines = the wines of France. It is the genitive of source). Analytical Genitive can be as ambiguous as a synthetic one (the soldier’s shooting = the shooting of the soldiers =>the soldier shot or the soldier was shot). We can distinguish the same varieties of analytical Genitive as they are equal and can be encountered in the same environment (the Genitive of measure: the absence of two days= two days’ absence).

As to an Absolute Genitive, it is used independently. It is structurally and functionally diverse. Most frequent is the anaphorical Genitive which is used instead of a noun and represents the noun previously used to avoid its repetition. In a sentence it can perform the functions of a direct object, an attribute, a predicative, a detached element of a sentence (Render to Caesar those things which are Caesar ’s and render to God those things which are God’s). The cataphorical Genitive anticipates a noun which is to come(J ohn’s married the woman her father had loved).

The partitive (разделительный) Genitive(an opera of Verdi's => one of Verdi's operas). The locative Genitive(I met him at my aunt’s => at my aunt’s place).

Syntagmatically the absolute Genitive structure this N of N’s can express negative or positive evaluation (How naive was that picture of Dirk Stroeve’s. There was a silence threatened for a moment by that laughter of Giovanni’s. So your wife is a great friend of Mr Bossini’s).

Traditionally inanimate nouns are apt not to be used in the Genitive case, but in poetry and artistic texts there are no limitations to any noun being used in the Genitive, which is a marker of personification (a variety of metaphor). Personification is a trope. Its effect consists in imparting the property of animate things to inanimate objects (the ocean’s wave; reason’s voice; twilight’s silence, etc. Soldiers are citizens of death’ s grey land).

At present in media (newspapers and magazines) of various circulation and orientation we encounter the spreading tendency to use any noun in the Genitive(the room’s silence; his book’s success, etc.) In this case nothing is personified. The Genitive loses its meaning of possession and acquires a qualifying function.

The morpheme - ‘s comes to be lexicalized and turns into a derivational element, a suffix which changes the meaning of the word it is attached to (St Paul’s looks like a giant ship in the darkness = St Paul’s Cathedral. In an electrician’s he acquired a 9 volt transistor battery, in a stationer’s he was supplied with paper).

Дата добавления: 2014-01-07