In giving a list of parts of speech, we have not so far mentioned the terms "notional" and "formal". It is time now to turn to this question. According to the view held by some grammarians, 2 words should be divided into two categories on the following principle: some words denote things, actions, and other extralinguistic phenomena (these, then, would be notional words), whereas other words denote relations and connections between the notional words, and thus have no direct bearing on anything extralinguistic (these, then, would be the formal words, or form words). Authors holding this view define prepositions as words denoting relations between words (or between parts of a sentence), and conjunctions as words connecting words or sentences.3
However, this view appears to be very shaky. Actually, the so-called formal words also express something extralinguistic. For instance, prepositions express relations between things. Cf., e. g., The letter is on the table and The letter is in the table: two different relations between the two objects, the letter and the table, are denoted by the prepositions. In a similar way, conjunctions denote connections between extralinguistic things and phenomena. Thus, in the sentence The match was postponed because it was raining the conjunction because denotes the causal connection between two processes, which of course exists whether we choose to express it by
1 See С. С. Fries, The Structure of English, 1961, pp. 76—104.
2 See, for instance, В. Н. Жигадло, И. П. Иванова, Л. Л. Иофик, Современный английский язык, 1956, стр. 16—17.
3 See, for instance, В. Н. Жигадло, И. П. Иванова, Л. Л. Иофик, ор. cit., стр. 193, 202.
The Problem of Notional and Formal Words 85
words or not. In the sentence It was raining but the match took place all the same the conjunction but expresses a contradiction between two phenomena, the rain and the match, which exists in reality whether we mention it or not. It follows that the prepositions on and in, the conjunctions because and but express some relations and connections existing independently of language, and thus have as close a connection with the extralinguistic world as any noun or verb. They are, in so far, no less notional than nouns or verbs.
Now, the term "formal word" would seem to imply that the word thus denoted has some function in building up a phrase or a sentence. This function is certainly performed by both prepositions and conjunctions and from this point of view prepositions and conjunctions should indeed be singled out.
But this definition of a formal word cannot be applied to particles. A particle does not do anything in the way of connecting words or building a phrase or a sentence.
There does not therefore seem to be any reason for classing particles with formal words. If this view is endorsed we shall only have two parts of speech which are form words, viz. prepositions and conjunctions. 1
It should also be observed that some words belonging to a particular part of speech may occasionally, or even permanently, perform a function differing from that which characterises the part of speech as a whole. Auxiliary verbs are a case in point. In the sentence I have some money left the verb have performs the function of the predicate, which is the usual function of a verb in a sentence, In this case, then, the function of the verb have is precisely the one typical of verbs as a class. However, in the sentence I have found my briefcase the verb have is an auxiliary: it is a means of forming a certain analytical form of the verb find. It does not by itself perform the function of a predicate. We need not assume on that account that there are two verbs have, one notional and the other auxiliary. It is the same verb have, but its functions in the two sentences are different. If we take the verb shall, we see that its usual function is that of forming the future tense of another verb, e. g. I shall know about it to-morrow. Shall is then said to be an auxiliary verb, and its function differs from that of the verb as a part of speech, but it is a verb all the same.
After this general survey of parts of speech we will now turn to a systematic review of each part of speech separately.
1 If we should think it fit to unite prepositions and conjunctions together as one part of speech, as hinted above (see p. 32—33), we should of course have only one part of speech as form words.
2*
Chapter III
THE NOUN
The noun in Modern English has only two grammatical categories, number and case. The existence of case appears to be doubtful and has to be carefully analysed.
The Modern English noun certainly has not got the category of grammatical gender, which is to be found, for example, in Russian, French, German and Latin. Not a single noun in Modern English shows any peculiarities in its morphology due to its denoting a male or a female being. Thus, the words husband and wife do not show any difference in their forms due to the peculiarities of their lexical meanings. l
NUMBER
Modern English, as most other languages, distinguishes between two numbers, singular and plural.2
The essential meaning of singular and plural seems clear enough: the singular number shows that one object is meant, and the plural shows that more than one object is meant. Thus, the opposition is "one — more than one". This holds good for many nouns: table — tables, pupil — pupils, dog — dogs, etc. However, language facts are not always so simple as that. The category of number in English nouns gives rise to several problems which claim special attention.
First of all, it is to be noted that there is some difference between, say, three houses and three hours. Whereas three houses are three separate objects existing side by side, three hours are a continuous period of time measured by a certain agreed unit of duration. The same, of course, would apply to such expressions as three miles, three acres, etc.
If we now turn to such plurals as waters (e. g. the waters of the Atlantic), or snows (e.g. "A Daughter of the Snows", the title of a story by Jack London), we shall see that we are drifting further away from the original meaning of the plural number. In the first place, no numeral could be used with nouns of this kind. We could not possibly say three waters, or three snows. We cannot say how many waters we mean when we use this noun in the plural number. What, then, is the real difference in meaning between water and waters, snow and snows, etc.? It is fairly obvious that the plural form in every case serves to denote a vast stretch of water (e. g. an ocean), or of snow, or rather of ground covered by snow (e. g. in the arctic regions of Canada), etc. In the case of water and waters we
1 In such pairs as actor — actress, prophet — prophetess, etc. the difference between the nouns is a purely lexical one.
2 Some languages have a third number, the dual. Among these are ancient Greek, Sanskrit, and Lithuanian.
Number 87
can press the point still further and state that the water of the Atlantic refers to its physical or chemical properties (e. g. the water of the Atlantic contains a considerable portion of salt), whereas the waters of the Atlantic refers to a geographical idea: it denotes a seascape and has, as such, a peculiar stylistic value which the water of the Atlantic certainly lacks. 1 So we see that between the singular and the plural an additional difference of meaning has developed.
Now, the difference between the two numbers may increase to such a degree that the plural form develops a completely new meaning which the singular has not got at all. Thus, for example, the plural form colours has the meaning 'banner' which is restricted to the plural (e. g. to serve under the colours of liberty). In a similar manner, the plural attentions has acquired the meaning 'wooing' (pay attentions to a young lady). A considerable amount of examples in point have been collected by O. Jespersen.2
Since, in these cases, a difference in lexical meaning develops between the plural and the singular, it is natural to say that the plural form has been lexicalised.3 It is not our task here to go into details about the specific peculiarities of meaning which may develop in the plural form of a noun. This is a matter of lexicology rather than of grammar. What is essential from the grammatical viewpoint is the very fact that a difference in meaning which is purely grammatical in its origins is apt under certain conditions to be overshadowed by a lexical difference.
Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum
We must also consider here two types of nouns differing from all others in the way of number: they have not got the usual two number forms, but only one form. The nouns which have only a plural and no singular are usually termed "pluralia tantum" (which is the Latin for "plural only"), and those which have only a singular and no plural are termed "singularia tantum" (the Latin for "singular only'').
Among the pluralia tantum are the nouns trousers, scissors, tongs, pincers, breeches; environs, outskirts, dregs. As is obvious from these examples, they include nouns of two types. On the one hand, there are the nouns which denote material objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors, etc.); on the other, there are those which denote a more or less indefinite plurality (e. g. environs
1It is much the same in Russian: compare, for example, вода Черного моря and воды Черного моря.
2 See О. Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles, Part II, Syntax, vol. I, 1927, p. 85 ff.
3 O. Jespersen used the term "differentiated plural", See ibid., p. 85.
38 The Noun
'areas surrounding some place on all sides'; dregs 'various small things remaining at the bottom of a vessel after the liquid has been poured out of it', etc.). If we compare the English pluralia tantum with the Russian, we shall find that in some cases they correspond to each other (e. g., trousers — брюки, scissors — ножницы, environs — окрестности, etc.), while in others they do not (квасцы — alum, деньги — money, etc.). This seems to depend on a different, view of the objects in question reflected by the English and the Russian language respectively. The reason why a given object is denoted by a pluralia tantum noun in this or that language is not always quite clear.
Close to this group of pluralia tantum nouns are also some names of sciences, e. g. mathematics, physics, phonetics, also politics, and some names of diseases, e. g. measles, mumps, rickets. The reason for this seems to be that, for example, mathematics embrace a whole series of various scientific disciplines, and measles are accompanied by the appearance of a number of separate inflamed spots on the skin (rash). However, the reasons are less obvious in the case of phonetics, for instance. 1Now, it is typical of English that some of these pluralia tantum may, as it were, cease to be plural. They may occasionally, or even regularly, be accompanied by the indefinite article, and if they are the subject of a sentence the predicate verb may stand in the singular.
This way of treating pluralia tantum, which would be unthinkable in Russian, is of course connected with the structure of English as a whole.
The possibility of treating a plural form as if it were singular is also seen in the use of the phrase the United Nations, which may, when it is the subject of a sentence, have the predicate verb in the singular, e. g. the United Nations is a world organisation.
Examples of a phrase including a noun in the plural being modified by a pronoun in the singular and thus shown to be apprehended as a singular are by no means rare. Here are a few typical examples. I myself still wonder at that six weeks of calm madness... (CARY) The unity of the period of time, measured in the usual units of months, weeks, and days, is thus brought out very clearly. Bessie, during that twenty-four hours, had spent a night with Alice and a day with Muriel... (CARY) The unity of the space of time referred to is even more obvious in this example than in the preceding one; twenty-four hours is a commonly received unit of measurement of time (in Russian this would be expressed by a single noun — сутки). The variant those twenty-jour hours would
1 From the historical point of view it should be noted that these pluralia tantum may be due to Latin influence; namely, they may have been formed on the analogy of such Latin neuter plurals as politica, mathematica, etc.
Number 89
be inappropriate here, as it would imply that the statement was referring to every single hour of the twenty-four taken separately.
This way of showing the unity of a certain quantity of space or time by modifying the phrase in question by a pronoun in the singular, and also (if the phrase be the subject of the sentence) by using the predicate verb in the singular, appears to be a very common thing in present-day English.
The direct opposite of pluralia tantum are the singularia tan-turn, i. e. the nouns which have no plural form. Among these we must first note some nouns denoting material substance, such as milk, butter, quicksilver, etc., and also names of abstract notions, such as peace, usefulness, incongruity, etc. Nouns of this kind express notions which are, strictly speaking, outside the sphere of number: e. g. milk, or fluency. 1 But in the morphological and syntactical system of the English language a noun cannot stand outside the category of number. If the noun is the subject of a sentence, the predicate verb (if it is in the present tense) will have to be either singular or plural. With the nouns just mentioned the predicate verb is always singular. This is practically the only external sign (alongside of the absence of a plural inflection in the noun itself) which definitely shows the noun to be singular.
Some nouns denoting substance, or material, may have a plural form, if they are used to denote either an object made of the material or a special kind of substance, or an object exhibiting the quality denoted by the noun. Thus, the noun wine, as well as the noun milk, denotes a certain substance, but it has a plural form wines used to denote several special kinds of wine. The noun iron, as well as the noun quicksilver, denotes a metal, but it may be used in the plural if it denotes several objects made of that metal (утюги). The noun beauty, as well as the noun ugliness, denotes a certain quality presented as an object, but it may be used in the plural to denote objects exhibiting that quality, e. g. the beauties of nature; His daughters were all beauties. Many more examples of a similar kind might be found. Accordingly, the nouns wine, iron, and beauty cannot be called singularia tantum, although in their chief application they no more admit of a plural form than milk, quicksilver, or ugliness.
Collective Nouns and Nouns of Multitude
Certain nouns denoting groups of human beings (family, government, party, clergy, etc.) and also of animals (cattle, poultry, etc.)
The question how much? could of course be asked with reference to milk, and the answer might be, a bottle of milk. This would apply to quantity, not to number. With the noun fluency the question how much? would not make sense.
40 The Noun
can be used in two different ways: either they are taken to denote the group as a whole, and in that case they are treated as singulars, and usually termed "collective nouns" (in a restricted sense of the term); or else they are taken to denote the group as consisting of a certain number of individual human beings (or animals), and in that case they are usually termed "nouns of multitude".
The difference between the two applications of such nouns may be briefly exemplified by a pair of examples: My family is small, and My family are good speakers. 1 It is quite obvious here that in the one sentence the characteristic "small" applies to the family as a whole, while in the other sentence the characteristic "good speakers" applies to every single member of the family ("everyone of them is a good speaker" is what is meant, but certainly not "everyone of them is small"). The same consideration would also apply to such sentences as The cattle were grazing in the field. It is also quite possible to say, Many cattle were grazing in the field, where the use of many (not much) clearly shows that cattle is apprehended as a plural.
The following bit of dialogue is curious, as the noun board, which is the subject of the first sentence, is here connected with a predicate verb in the singular, but is replaced by a plural pronoun in the second sentence: "Does the Board know of this?" "Yes," said John, "they fully approve the scheme." (A. WILSON)
With the noun people the process seems to have gone further than with any other noun of this kind. There is, on the one hand, the noun people, singular, with its plural peoples (meaning 'nations'), and there is, on the other hand, the noun people apprehended as a plural (There were fifty people in the hall) and serving as a kind of plural to the noun person (There was only one person in the hall). People can of course be modified by the words many and few and by cardinal numerals (twenty people).
In the following sentence the word people is even modified by the phrase attribute one or two, although the numeral one in itself could not possibly be an attribute to the noun people in this sense: One or two people looked at him curiously, but no one said anything. (A. WILSON) Strictly speaking we might expect the phrase one man or two people; however, this variant does not appear to be used anywhere. The perfect possibility of the phrase two people appears to be sufficient ground for making the phrase one or two people possible as well.
Recently a peculiar view of the category of number was put forward by A. Isachenko.2 According to this view, the essential
1 We shall treat of concord of predicate verb with subject in a later chapter (see p. 175 ff).
2 See А. В. Исаченко. О грамматическом значении. Вопросы языкознания, 1961, № 1.
Case 41
meaning of the category (in nouns) is not that of quantity, but of discreteness (расчлененность). The plural, in this view, expresses fundamentally the notion of something consisting of distinguishable parts, and the meaning of quantity in the usual sense would then appear to be a result of combining the fundamental meaning of the category as such with the lexical meaning of the noun used in the plural. Thus, in scissors the category of plural number, which, in Isachenko's view, expresses discreteness, combines with the lexical meaning of the noun, which denotes an object consisting of two halves, whereas in houses the same meaning of the grammatical category combines with the lexical meaning of the noun, which denotes separate objects not coalescing together, as in the case of scissors. Accordingly, the resulting meaning is that of a number of separate objects, i. e. the plural number in the usual sense of the term. These views put forward by A. Isachenko throw a new light on the problem of number in nouns and certainly deserve close attention. It is yet too early to say whether they can provide a final solution to the complex problem of number in nouns.
CASE
The problem of case in Modern English nouns is one of the most vexed problems in English grammar. This can be seen from the fact that views on the subject differ widely. The most usual view is that English nouns have two cases: a common case (e. g. father) and a genitive (or possessive) case (e. g. father's). Side by side with this view there are a number of other views, which can be roughly classified into two main groups: (i) the number of cases in English is more than two, (2) there are no cases at all in English nouns.
The first of these can again be subdivided into the views that the number of cases in English nouns is three, or four, or five, or even an indefinite quantity. Among those who hold that there are no cases in English nouns there is again a variety of opinions as to the relations between the forms father and father's, etc.
Before embarking on a detailed study of the whole problem it is advisable to take a look at the essence of the notion of case. It is more than likely that part, at least, of the discussions and misunderstandings are due to a difference in the interpretation of case as a grammatical category. It seems therefore necessary to give as clear and unambiguous a definition of case as we can. Case is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things, or properties, or actions, and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This sign is almost always an inflection, 1 and it may also be a "zero" sign, i. e. the
1 Occasionally, a case may be denoted by change of the root vowel; for instance, in Old English the noun mann 'man' had the form menn for its dative case.
42 The Noun
absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another. It is obvious that the minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence of two correlated elements at least is needed to establish a category. (In a similar way, to establish the category of tense in verbs, at least two tenses are needed, to establish the category of mood two moods, etc.). Thus case is part of the morphological system of a language.
Approaching the problem of case in English nouns from this angle, we will not recognise any cases expressed by non-morphological means. It will be therefore impossible to accept the theories of those who hold that case may also be expressed by prepositions (i. e. by the phrase "preposition + noun") or by word order. Such views have indeed been propounded by some scholars, mainly Germans. Thus, it is the view of Max Deutschbein 1 that Modern English nouns have four cases, viz. nominative, genitive, dative and accusative, of which the genitive can be expressed by the -'s -inflection and by the preposition of, the dative by the preposition to and also by word order, and the accusative is distinguished from the dative by word order alone.
It should be recognised that once we admit prepositions, or word order, or indeed any non-morphological means of expressing case, the number of cases is bound to grow indefinitely. Thus, if we admit that of the pen is a genitive case, and to the pen a dative case, there would seem no reason to deny that with the pen is an instrumental case, in the pen a locative case, etc., etc. Thus the number of cases in Modern English nouns would become indefinitely large. This indeed is the conclusion Academician I. I. Meshchaninov arrived at.2 That view would mean abandoning all idea of morphology and confusing forms of a word with phenomena of a completely different kind. Thus, it seems obvious that the number of cases in Modern English nouns cannot be more than two (father and father's). The latter form, father's, might be allowed to retain its traditional name of genitive case, while the former (father) may be termed common case. 3 Of course it must be borne in mind that the possibility of forming the genitive is mainly limited to a certain class of English nouns, viz. those which denote living beings (my father's room, George's sister, the dog's head) and a few others, notably those denoting units of time (a week's absence, this year's elections), and also some substantivised adverbs (to-day's newspaper, yesterday's news, etc.).
1 See M. Deutschbein, System der neuenglischen Syntax, 1928, S. 155 ff.
2 See И. И. Мещанинов, Члены предложения и части речи, 1945, стр. 297 сл.
3 The term "common case" was first used by Henry Sweet in his book A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical, Part I, 1892.
Case 43
It should be noted, however, that this limitation does not appear to be too strict and there even seems to be some tendency at work to use the -'s- forms more extensively. Thus, we can come across such phrases as, a work's popularity, the engine's overhaul life, 1 which certainly are not stock phrases, like at his fingers' ends, or at the water's edge, but freely formed phrases, and they would seem to prove that it is not absolutely necessary for a noun to denote a living being in order to be capable of having an -'s -form. The more exact limits of this possibility have yet to be made out.
The essential meaning of this case would seem to require an exact definition. The result of some recent investigations into the nature of the -'s form 2 shows that its meaning is that of possessivity in a wide sense of the term. Alongside of phrases like my father's room, the young man's friends, our master's arrival, etc., we also find such examples as nothing could console Mrs Birch for her daughter's loss, 3 where the implied meaning of course is, 'Mrs Birch lost her daughter'. The real relation between the notions expressed by the two nouns may thus depend on the lexical meaning of these nouns, whereas the form in -'s merely denotes the possessive relation.
Up to now we have seen the form in -'s as a genitive case, and in so far we have stuck to the conception of a two-case system in Modern English nouns.
There are, however, certain phenomena which give rise to doubts about the existence of such a system — doubts, that is, about the form in -'s being a case form at all. We will now consider some of these phenomena. In the first place, there are the expressions of the type Smith and Brown's office. This certainly means 'the office belonging to both Smith and Brown'. Not only Brown, whose name is immediately connected with the -'s, but also Smith, whose name stands somewhat apart from it, is included in the possessive relation. Thus we may say that the -'s refers, not to Brown alone, but to the whole group Smith and Brown. An example of a somewhat different kind may be seen in the expression the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech, or the Oxford professor of poetry's lecture. These expressions certainly mean, respectively, 'the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer', and 'the lecture of the Oxford professor of poetry'. Thus, the -'s belongs to the groups the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Oxford professor of poetry. The same of course applies to the groups the Duke of Edinburgh's speech, the King of England's residence, and many others.
1 Quoted after R. Yezhkova (see next note).
2 See notably P. В. Ежкова. К проблеме падежа существительных в современном английском языке. Автореферат канд. дисс., 1962.
3 Example given by M. Deutschbein, System der neuengltschen Syntax, S. 290.
44 The Noun
A further step away from the category of case is taken in the groups somebody else's child, nobody else's business, etc. Here the word immediately preceding the -'s is an adverb which could not by itself stand in the genitive case (there is an obvious difference between somebody else's child and, e. g., to-day's news, or yesterday's paper). The -'s belongs here to the group somebody else as a whole. It cannot, then, be an inflection making an integral part of a word: it is here part of a whole phrase, and, accordingly, a syntactical, not a morphological, element.
Formations of this kind are by no means rare, especially in colloquial style. Thus, in the following sentence the -'s is joined on to a phrase consisting of a noun and a prepositional phrase serving as attribute to it: This girl in my class's mother took us [to the movies] (SALINGER), which of course is equivalent to the mother of this girl (who is) in my class. It is only the lexical meaning of the words, and in the first place the impossibility of the phrase my class's mother, that makes the syntactical connection clear. Compare also:.. .and constantly aimed to suggest a man of the world's outlook and sophistication... (The Pelican Guide to English Literature)
The -'s is still farther away from its status as an inflection in such sentences as the following: The blonde I had been dancing with's name was Bernice something — Crabs or Krebs. (SALINGER ); I never knew the woman who laced too tightly's name was Matheson. (FORSTER)
This is the type usually illustrated by Sweet's famous example, the man I saw yesterday's son, 1that is, the type "noun + attributive clause + -'s".
Let us have a look at J. D. Salinger's sentence. It is obvious that the -'s belongs to the whole group, the blonde 1 had been dancing with (it is her name he is talking about). It need hardly be emphasised that the preposition with cannot, by itself, be in the genitive case. Such constructions may not be frequent but they do occur and they are perfectly intelligible, which means that they fit into the pattern of the language.
All this seems to prove definitely that in the English language of to-day the -'s can no longer be described as a case inflection in nouns without, at least, many reservations. This subject has been variously treated and interpreted by a number of scholars, both in this country and elsewhere. The following views have been put forward: (1) when the -'s belongs to a noun it is still the genitive ending, and when it belongs to a phrase (including the phrase "noun + attributive clause") it tends to become a syntactical element, viz, a postposition; (2) since the -'s can belong to a phrase
H. Sweet, A New English Grammar, Part I, pp. 318—319.
Case 45
(as described above) it is no longer a case inflection even when it belongs to a single noun; (3) the -'s when belonging to a noun, no longer expresses a case, but a new grammatical category, viz. the category of "possession", for example, the possessive form father's exists in contradistinction to the non-possessive form father. An essential argument in favour of this view is, that both the form without -'s and the form with -'s can perform the same syntactic functions; for instance, they can both be subject of the sentence (cf. My father was a happy man and My father's was a happy life). It should be noted that the views listed under (2) and (3) lead to the conclusion that there are no cases in the Modern English noun. 1 Though the question is still under discussion, and a final agreement on it may have to wait some time, we must recognise that there is much to be said in favour of this view. We will, then, conclude the discussion by saying that apparently the original case system in the English nouns, which has undergone a systematic reduction ever since the earliest times in the history of the language, is at present extinct, and the only case ending to survive in the modern language has developed into an element of a different character — possibly a particle denoting possession.
Different views have also been expressed concerning the scope of meaning of the -'s. Besides phrases implying possession in the strict sense of the term (my father's books, etc.), the -'s is also found in other contexts, such as my father's friends, my father's arrival, my father's willingness, etc. The question now arises how wide this scope may be. From this point of view it has been customary to point out that the relation expressed by the collocation "noun + + -'s + noun" is often a subjective relation, as in my father's arrival: my father's expresses the subject of the action, cf. my father arrives. This would then correspond to the so-called subjective genitive of inflected languages, such as Russian or Latin. It would, however, not do to say that the noun having the -'s could never indicate the object of the action: cf. the example Doughty's famous trial and execution,2 where the implied meaning of course is 'Doughty was tried and executed'. This would correspond to the so-called objective genitive of inflected languages. Now, though this particular use would seem to be far less frequent than the subjective, it is by no means impossible or anomalous. Thus it would not be correct to formulate the meaning of the -'s in a way that would exclude the possible objective applications of the -'s -formation.
Parallel use of the -'s- form and the preposition of is seen in the following example: In the light of this it was Lyman's belief and it is mine — that it is a mans duty and the duty of his friends to see
1 See on this issue: P. В. Ежкова, op. cit.
2 Quoted by M. Deutschbein. System der neuenglischen Syntax.
46 The Noun
to it that his exit from this world, at least, shall be made with all possible dignity. (TAYLOR)
It should also be noted in this connection that, if both the subject of an action and its object are mentioned, the former is expressed by a noun with -'s preceding the name of the action, and the latter by an of-phrase following it, as in Coleridge's praise of. Shakespeare, etc. The same of course applies to the phrases in which the object is not a living being, as in Einstein's theory of relativity, or Shakespeare's treatment of history.
The -'s-form can also sometimes be used in a sense which may be termed qualitative. This is best illustrated by an example. The phrase an officer's cap can be interpreted in two different ways. For one thing, it may mean 'a cap belonging to a certain officer', and that, of course, is the usual possessive meaning (фуражка офицера). For another thing, it may mean 'a cap of the type worn by officers', and this is its qualitative meaning (the Russian equivalent for this is офицерская фуражка). Only the context will show which is meant. Here are a few examples of the qualitative meaning; it is only the context that makes this clear: if it were not for the context the usual possessive meaning might be ascribed to the form. She perceived with all her nerves the wavering of Amanda's confidence, her child's peace of mind, and she understood how fragile it was. (CARY) The meaning of the phrase her child's peace of mind is in itself ambiguous. Taken without the context, it may mean one of two things: (1) 'the peace of mind of her child' (the usual possessive meaning), or (2) 'her peace of mind, which was like a child's' (the qualitative meaning). Outside the context both interpretations would be equally justified. In the sentence as it stands in the text the surrounding words unmistakably point to the second, that is, the qualitative interpretation: the whole sentence deals only with Amanda herself, there is no question of any child of hers, so that the usual possessive meaning is not possible here. A somewhat similar expression is found in the phrase, a small cupid's mouth, which might mean, either the mouth of a small cupid, or a small mouth, like that of a cupid. The context also confirms that the intended meaning is the qualitative one.
A special use of the -'s-forms has also to be mentioned, which may be illustrated by such examples as, I went to the baker's; we spent a week at our uncle's, etc. Yes, Mary, I was going to write to Macmillan's and suggest a biography... (GR. GREENE)
The older view was based on the assumption that the -'s-form was an attribute to some noun supposed to be "understood", namely / went to the baker's shop, we spent a week at our uncle's house, etc. However, this interpretation is doubtful. It cannot be proved that a noun following the -'s-form is "understood". It seems more advisable, therefore, to take the facts for what they are and to
Mutual Relations of Number and Case 47
suppose that the -'s is here developing into a derivative suffix, used to form a noun from another noun. This is also seen in the fact that the famous cathedral in London is very often referred to as St. Paul's. A historical novel by the nineteenth-century English writer W. Harrison Ainsworth bears the title "Old St. Paul's", and it appears to be quite impossible here to claim that this is an attribute to the noun cathedral which is "understood": if we were to restore the word which is supposed to be omitted, we should get Old St. Paul's Cathedral, where the adjective old would seem to modify St. Paul, rather than Cathedral, just as in any other phrase of this type: old John's views, young Peter's pranks, etc.
MUTUAL RELATIONS OF NUMBER AND CASE
In Old English, the notions of number and case were always expressed by one morpheme. Thus, in the Old English form stana the ending -a expressed simultaneously the plural number and the genitive case. That was typical of an inflected language. A change came already in Middle English, and in Modern English the two notions have been entirely separated. This is especially clear in the nouns which do not form their plural in -s: in the forms men's, children's number is expressed by the root vowel and the inflection -ren, while the -'s expresses case alone. But this applies to nouns forming their plural in -s as well. E. g. in father's the -'s expresses possessivity, whereas the notion of singular has no material expression. In the plural fathers' the -s expresses the plural number, whereas the notion of possessivity has no material expression in pronunciation (in the written language it is expressed by the apostrophe standing after the -s). In spoken English the two forms may of course be confused. Thus, in the phrase [Ээ 'boiz 'buks] it is impossible to tell whether one or more boys are meant (in written English these variants would be distinguished by the place of the apostrophe: the boy's books as against the boys' books), unless the context gives a clue. Thus, in [mai 'mAЭэz э'pinjэn] it is obvious that my mother's (singular) is meant, whereas in [auэ 'mAЭэz э'pinjэnz] the meaning is doubtful (our mother's or our mothers'?). It is natural, therefore, that ambiguity is better avoided by using the of -phrase instead of the possessive, e. g. the opinions of our mothers, etc.
Another view of the case system in English nouns must also be mentioned here, namely the view that we should distinguish between a nominative and an objective case, though there is no difference between the two in any English noun. 1 Such a differen-
1 See, for example, M. Bryant, A Functional English Grammar, 1945; see also H. Ф. Иртеньева, Грамматика современного английского языка, 1956, стр. 42.
The Noun
tiation could only be based on the fact that personal pronouns (I, he, she, we, they) and the pronoun who have different forms for these cases (I — me, etc.). If, therefore, we start on the assumption that the system of cases is bound to be the same in these pronouns and in all nouns, we shall be led to acknowledge the two cases in nouns. However, there would seem to be no necessity to endorse this view. It is probably more advisable to consider the case system of nouns without taking into account that of the personal pronouns.
Chapter IV
THE ARTICLE
The article presents the student with one of the most difficult and intricate problems of language structure. Although a great number of philologists have treated the article both in English and in other languages, it will be only fair to say that even the most essential points concerning the theory of the articles still remain doubtful.
In embarking now on a study of the Modern English article, we should first of all eliminate those problems which are of no real scientific interest, though they have been occasionally discussed. Thus, we will not dwell on the problem whether the article is a separate part of speech, since neither an affirmative nor a negative answer would in any way affect the really relevant questions concerning the article. We have not included the article in our list of parts of speech; but this should not be taken to mean that it cannot be included in that list. The problem is irrelevant.
Another problem, which, though not irrelevant, appears to have been frequently misstated, is this: is the article a word or a morpheme? It has been solved in different ways by different authors. There would always be some argument in favour of the article being a separate word, and some argument to show that it was a morpheme. 1 This kind of approach, however, does not seem to be the right one. It would mean that we start examining the article, a very peculiar phenomenon, with ready-made notions of what a word and what a morpheme is. Instead we should first study the article as it actually exists and functions in the language, and only then see whether it will fit into any ready-made category. It may well happen that it will not; then we shall have to face the situation and take it for what it is worth.
With respect to the article we must state, in the first place, that there are languages which have no article. Besides Russian and most other Slavonic languages, the Latin language belongs here. Ancient Greek had only one article — the definite one. Many languages (Italian, Spanish, German, Swedish, etc.) have two articles — the definite and the indefinite. As far as its form is concerned, the article is usually a separate unit which may be divided from its noun by other words, chiefly adjectives. However, in certain languages the article may also be a morpheme attached to the noun as a kind of suffix.
1 This applies to Modern English. In speaking of the German language, it would be impossible to assert that the article was a morpheme, since it is declined and, therefore, every form of it consists of two morphemes, e.g. genitive singular neuter d-es, as distinguished from the nominative and accusative d-as.
50 The Article
This is the case, for instance, in Bulgarian, where we find such formations as селото 'the village', литiята 'the line', etc. The same may be said of Rumanian, e. g. universul 'the universe', curentul 'the courier', etc., where -l is the definite article corresponding etymologically to French le, Latin ille. A suffix article is also found in Swedish; compare, e. g., dag 'day', dagen 'the day'; rum 'room', rummet 'the room'. Alongside of this suffix article Swedish also has an article separate from the noun, as in den 'the'. The fact that a suffix article exists in several languages must of course be taken into consideration in a general theory of the article.
