Now we come to items (6) and (7), concerning the ing -form or ing -forms in their different applications. The traditional view is, that we have here two homonymous forms: the participle (present or perfect) and the gerund (present or perfect). A more recent view, put forward by E. Kruisinga, is that there are not two different forms sounding the same but one form, which he shortly terms "the ing", being used in various ways in the sentence.
It is a peculiar feature of this ing -problem that in some contexts the two "ings" come very close together and additional factors are required to draw a distinction between them. The two "ings" coincide in such sentences as, He was afraid of her knowing the truth,2 where the "ing" is a gerund if her is a possessive pronoun, and a participle if her is a personal pronoun in the objective case; also in the sentence He was glad at John's coming the "ing" is a gerund, but if John's is replaced by John, the "ing" seems to be a participle, though this is not acknowledged by all scholars: M. Deutschbein believed the "ing" to be a gerund in both cases.
The question is a very difficult one. Since up to now it has not been possible to find a convincing invariable meaning to cover both participle and gerund, we shall do well again, until such an invariable is discovered, to hold to the traditional view which has it that the participle and the gerund are two essentially different forms sounding the same. This of course applies equally to present and perfect, active and passive participles and gerunds.
The last two items of our list include questions connected with the whole system of grammar and the principles of stating grammatical categories. In item (8) the essence of the problem is this. All Modern English verbs, however many they may be, have no distinction of number in the past tense, with one exception only, the verb be, which distinguishes in the past tense between the singular (was) and the plural (were).3 Should this peculiarity of the verb be bring us to the conclusion that the category of number in the past tense exists in all English verbs, and that, accordingly, all verbs
1 From the viewpoint of synchronic analysis of Modern English the fact that the source of the auxiliary would is in both cases the same (past tense of will) is of course irrelevant.
2 The example is taken from M. Deutschbein, System der neuenglischen Syntax, S. 154.
3 We will for the moment overlook the fact that in non-standard English there is a strong tendency to do away with the distinction and to use the form was without regard to number: I was, he was, we was, you was, they was.
142 The Verb: Polysemantic and Homonymous Forms
except be have here homonymous forms? This is the view held by L. Bloomfield. Bloomfield thinks that the existence of one word of a certain category, which has a certain grammatical distinction, is sufficient reason for stating that all words of that category have that distinction, and all of them but the one in question have homonymous forms. In his own words, "The existence of even a single over-differentiated paradigm implies homonymy in the regular paradigms." 1
This view, however, is completely arbitrary and unacceptable. If we were to endorse it, we should arrive at very strange conclusions indeed. For example, starting from the fact that two English words which may be used as attributes to a noun, namely the words this and that, have a distinction between singular and plural (they agree in number with their head word, e. g. this street, but these streets, that street, but those streets), we might infer that all words thus used also have the category of number; for example, we should have to say that the word new has a distinction of singular and plural: in the phrase new house the word new is in the singular, but in the phrase new houses it is in the plural; the singular and the plural forms would be homonyms.
Besides being queer in itself, such a view would lead to a very peculiar interpretation of the development of a language. We interpret the development of adjective morphology in English by saying that the category of number, which was clearly expressed in Old English and to some extent in Middle English, has completely disappeared in Modern English, the adjectives having become invariable except for degrees of comparison. If we were to endorse Bloomfield's view we should have to say that the category of number in adjectives has not disappeared, that it still exists, but the forms of singular and plural have become homonymous. That view would give a distorted idea of the development of the language. So the fact that one verb, namely be, has preserved a distinction of number in the past tense, will not influence our view of the past tense of all other verbs.
The other consideration that has been put forward in this respect deserves special attention: the verb be takes part as an auxiliary in the formation of the past continuous, past passive, and past continuous passive of all verbs having those forms, and in so far it may be said that these verbs have a distinction of number in these forms; for example, the verb write has a distinction of number in the past continuous, past passive, and past continuous passive. Does this fact, or does it not, lead to the conclusion that there is a distinction of number in the past tense of all verbs generally? For
L. Bloomfield, Language, 1955, p. 224.
The Verb Be 143
example, from the fact that there is a distinction between was writing I were writing, was written I were written, was being written / were being written, does it follow that there is the same distinction between (he) wrote / (they) wrote, the forms being homonymous?
This appears to be one of those questions which admit of different opinions rather than of a definite objective solution that might be described as the only correct one. Generally speaking, a negative answer would seem rather more appropriate: it is fair to say that there is a distinction of number in the past forms enumerated above but not in the past indefinite, active. However, the other view might also be defended.
The same thing is true about the distinction in number between the first person singular of the verb be (am) and the first person plural of this verb (are): it should not be considered sufficient reason to establish this difference of number in all other verbs and to say that, for example, the forms (I) write and (we) write are homonyms.
As to the argument that the verb be is used to form the present continuous, present passive, and present continuous passive of other verbs, so that these tense forms have a distinction of number in the first person, it will have to be treated in the same way as the corresponding argument about number in the past tense: as a problem admitting of opinions rather than a definite solution, with much to be said in favour of a negative answer.
Chapter XVI
THE VERB: THE PROBLEM
OF MORPHOLOGICAL CLASSES
The question of verbal classes in Modern English has given rise to conflicting statements. Various systems have been proposed both in the way of theoretical investigation and in the way of practical language teaching. The terms "weak and strong verbs", "regular and irregular verbs", "living and dead conjugation", and some others have been used, and a given verb included into one class or another as the case might be.
However, one main problem has not so far been solved, or even properly formulated with reference to the English language: which of the forms of a verb ought to be taken as a starting point, that is, as a form from which all the other forms of the verb might be derived, as it were, automatically. Putting this in the language of modern linguistic science, we should find the form of the verb on whose basis the other forms may be predicted.
In English, much as in German, the task is far from being an easy one. If we take the infinitive as a starting point, we shall have to admit that in a number of cases the form of the infinitive gives no possibility to predict the other forms of the verb. For instance, in the infinitives live and give there is nothing to suggest that the past tense of the one is lived, and of the other, gave. Again, in the infinitives shine and pine there is nothing to suggest that the past tense is shone and pined, respectively. We might then think that maybe another form of the verb would yield more possibilities for predicting the remaining forms on its basis. We might think of the past tense and of the second participle.
Let us now inquire into this matter and see whether either of these forms does yield such a possibility. Or, rather, let us ask the questions: Are there cases in which the form of the past tense does not predict that of the infinitive and that of the second participle? And are there cases in which the form of the second participle does not predict that of the infinitive and that of the past tense?
Forms of the type lived, called, stopped, attempted are unambiguous enough in this respect. They predict without any provisos the infinitive forms live, call, stop, attempt, and also the fact that the past tense and the second participle sound the same. Indeed, the number of such cases is large enough (it does not matter here whether we take the past tense, or the second participle as the starting point). But how do things stand with such forms of the past tense as, for instance, wrote, drank, won, stole, bore, held, etc.? Here we run into difficulties. We could establish that a past tense with the vowel [ou] predicts an infinitive with the vowel [ai] and a second participle with the vowel [i] and the suffix -n. Then we could say that the form wrote predicts the infinitive write and the
The Past Tense as a Starting Point 145
second participle written, and the same could be said about the past tense forms drove and rose. But the form stole, which has the same vowel sound and the same vowel letter as wrote, drove and the rest of them, does not fit into this type: the corresponding infinitive is steal and the corresponding second participle stolen. So the form stole would have to be included in a special list. The same must be said about the past tense forms chose and froze, which also have the same vowel sound and the same vowel letter and do not predict their infinitives choose, freeze, and their second participles chosen, frozen. So chose and froze would also have to be put on a special list. If we take the past tense forms bore, tore, wore, swore, we may say that they do predict their infinitives bear, tear, wear, swear, and their second participles born(e), torn, worn, sworn. There seems to be no case contradicting this, that is, no past tense form with the vowel sound [o:] and the letter о which would correspond to an infinitive and a second participle of a different structure from those just mentioned. So that may be accepted without provisos.
To arrive at a definite conclusion in this matter, a thorough investigation of all the material available ought to be undertaken. It goes without saying that we cannot expect to arrive at a system that might do without "exceptions", that is, special cases which would have to be entered on a special list. However, a moderate degree of regularity would seem to be attainable, after all. Probably different systems might be worked out in this sphere, each having its advantages and its drawbacks, and it would be a question of choosing the one that was most likely to give a comprehensive view of the whole and required as few special lists as possible.
Chapter XVII
THE ADVERB
In giving a general review of parts of speech, we have already mentioned some general problems connected with the adverbs. It will be our task now to look at these problems more closely.
We will accept that definition of the meaning of adverbs which, though not quite satisfactory, enables us to distinguish what is an adverb from what is not. The adverb, then, expresses either the degree of a property, or the property of an action, or the circumstances under which an action takes place.
In adopting this definition, we have not included under adverbs words expressing the speaker's view of the action spoken of in the sentence, and have classed them under modal words. Thus, the words perhaps, maybe, certainly, possibly, indeed, etc. do not fall under the head of adverbs.
Among the adverbs there are some which admit of degrees of comparison, and others which do not. In mentioning this, we need not go into details, since we can apply here everything that has been said about degrees of comparison of adjectives. Thus, if we do not admit such phrases as more difficult, (the) most difficult to be analytical degrees of comparison of the adjective difficult, 1 we shall not admit, e. g., more quickly and most quickly to be analytical degrees of comparison of the adverb quickly. In that case, there would be only two types of degrees of comparison in adverbs: (1) the suffix type, for instance, quickly, quicker, quickest, or fast, faster, fastest, and (2) the suppletive type, represented by a few adverbs, such as well, better, best, or badly, worse, worst.
Adverbs may sometimes be preceded by prepositions, which means that they become partly substantivised. This is seen in such phrases as from here, from there, since when, up to now, etc.
VERB AND ADVERB GROUPS
Special attention has been paid by many scholars to groups of the type come in, go out, set up, put down, bring up, etc., i. e. groups consisting of a verb and an adverb so closely united in meaning that the adverb does not indicate a property of the action or a circumstance under which the action takes place. This is especially true of such groups as bring up, meaning 'educate', which certainly does not name an action denoted by the verb bring, performed under circumstances denoted by the adverb up. This also applies to such groups as put up (with something), in which nothing remains either of the meaning of the verb put or of that of the adverb up.
1 See above, p. 80.
Verb and Adverb Groups 147
These groups have been treated by different scholars in very different ways. The main difference is between those who think that formations of the type bring up are phrases and those who think that they are words. If they are phrases, the next question is, what part of speech the second element is. The prevailing view is that the second element is an adverb, but some scholars think it necessary to modify this statement in some way or other. Thus, H. Palmer thinks that they are "preposition-like adverbs". 1 Much the same view was held by Prof. A. Smirnitsky.2 Prof. I. Anitchkov thinks that they are a special kind of adverbs, which he calls "adverbial postpositions".3 Prof. N. Amosova thinks that they are a special kind of form words, which she calls "postpositives".4 The opposite view, namely that formations of the type bring up are words, and consequently their second part is a morpheme, was expressed by Y. Zhluktenko.5 In his view, up in bring up and similarly the second element of other formations of this kind are "pospositive prefixes". To support this view, Zhluktenko pointed out that in some cases we find such correspondences as income (noun) and come in (verb), upbringing (noun) and bring up (verb), upkeep (noun) and keep up (verb), etc. An intermediate view was proposed in my earlier book, where I held that the second element of these formations was a separate part of speech, namely a postposition, and that postpositions were half words, half morphemes. 6 The very variety of views on the subject is a sure sign of its complexity.
In approaching the subject now from the viewpoint of present-day linguistics, we cannot accept the view that the second part of these formations is a morpheme and the whole formation a word. If this were really so, phrases, like brought them up or put it down would be impossible. Y. Zhluktenko's theory is based on the assumption that there are "analytical words", that is, words consisting of two parts which are not only written separately but may even be separated from each other by another word (such as the personal pronouns in brought them up and put it down). This view is unacceptable, since it would destroy the notion of a "word" altogether.
On the other hand, there seems to be no need to constitute the
1 H. E. Palmer, A Grammar of Spoken English, 1930, p. 179.
2 See А. И. Смирницкий, Морфология английского языка, 1959, стр. 374 сл.
3 See И. E. Аничков, Английские адвербиальные послелоги. Докт. дисс., 1947.
4 See H. H. Амосова, Основы английской фразеологии, 1963, стр. 134.
5 See Ю. А. Жлуктенко, О так называемых "сложных глаголах" в современном английском языке. Вопросы языкознания, 1954, № 5.
6 See Б. А. Ильиш, Современный английский язык, изд. 2-е, 1948, стр. 243 см.
148 The Adverb
postpositions as a separate part of speech. The peculiarity of meaning, seen in the fact that the second element in bring up or put down does not indicate the circumstances in which the action takes place (the whole has a meaning entirely different from the meanings of the components), may be put down as phraseology. In this view, for example, bring up would be a phraseological unit consisting of the verb bring and the adverb up, and the analysis of its meaning would completely fall under the domain of lexicology, of which phraseology is a part.
Another difficulty involved in adverbs is that of words like after and be/ore, which are variously used, e. g. I had never seen him before, I had never seen him before last Sunday, I had never seen him before he arrived in Moscow, similar examples might be given with the word after and some other words. We have treated this problem briefly in the chapter on parts of speech and we will turn to it again in Chapter XIX (see p. 156 ff.).
Chapter XVIII
THE PREPOSITION
It is common knowledge that prepositions are a most important element of the structure of many languages, particularly those which, like Modern English, have no developed case system in their nominal parts of speech.
We have briefly discussed the problem of the meaning of prepositions but here we shall have to consider it at some length.
It is sometimes said 1 that prepositions express the relations between words in a sentence, and this is taken as a definition of the meaning of prepositions. If true, this would imply that they do not denote any relations existing outside the language. However, this is certainly not true, and two or three simple examples will show it. If we compare the two sentences: The book is lying on the table, and The book is lying under the table, and ask ourselves, what do the prepositions express here, it will at once be obvious that they express relations (in space) between the book (the thing itself) and the table (the thing itself). The difference in the situations described in the two sentences is thus an extralinguistic difference expressed by means of language, namely, by prepositions. It would certainly be quite wrong to say that the prepositions merely express the relations between the word book and the word table, as the definition quoted above would imply. The same may be said about a number of other sentences. Compare, for instance, the two sentences, He will come before dinner, and He will come after dinner. It is absolutely clear that the prepositions denote relations between phenomena in the extralinguistic world (time relations between "his coming" and "dinner"), not merely relations between the word come and the word dinner.
We must add that there are cases in which a preposition does not express relations between extralinguistic phenomena but merely serves as a link between words. Take, for instance, the sentence This depends on you. Here we cannot say that the preposition on has any meaning of its own. This is also clear from the fact that no other preposition could be used after the verb depend (except the preposition upon, which is to all intents and purposes a stylistic variant of on). Using modern linguistic terminology, we can say that the preposition on is here predicted by the verb depend. The same may be said about the expression characteristic of him. If the adjective characteristic is to be followed by any prepositional phrase at all the preposition of must be used, which means that it is predicted by the word characteristic. Returning now to our examples The book is lying on the table and The book is lying under the table, we must of course say that neither the preposition on nor the
1 See, for instance, Грамматика русского языка, т. I, стр. 41.
150 The Preposition
preposition under is predicted by the verb lie. If we put the sentence like this: The book is lying... the table, the dots might be replaced by a number of prepositions: on, in, under, near, beside, above, etc. The choice of the preposition would of course depend on the actual position of the book in space with reference to the table. Similarly, if we are given the sentence He will come... the performance, the dots may be replaced by the prepositions before, during, after, according as things stand. Now, in defining the meaning of a preposition, we must of course start from the cases where the meaning is seen at its fullest, and not from those where it is weakened or lost, just as we define the meaning of a verb as a part of speech according to what it is when used as a full predicate, not as an auxiliary.
We need not go further into the meanings of various prepositions in various contexts, since that is a problem of lexicology rather than grammar. What we needed here was to find a definition based on the real meaning of prepositions.
The next point is, the syntactical functions of prepositions. Here we must distinguish between two levels of language: that of phrases and that of the sentence and its parts. As far as phrases are concerned, the function of prepositions is to connect words with each other. 1 On this level there are patterns like "noun + preposition + noun", "adjective + preposition + noun", "verb + preposition + noun", etc., which may be exemplified by numerous phrases, such as a letter from my friend, a novel by Galsworthy, fond of children, true to life, listen to music, wait for an answer, etc.
On the sentence level: a preposition is never a part of a sentence by itself; it enters the part of sentence whose main centre is the following noun, or pronoun, or gerund. We ought not to say that prepositions connect parts of a sentence. They do not do that, as they stand within a part of the sentence, not between two parts.
The connection between the preposition," the word which precedes it, and the word which follows it requires special study. Different cases have to be distinguished here. The question is, what predicts the use of this or that preposition. We have already noted the cases when it is the preceding word which determines it (or predicts it). In these cases the connection between the two is naturally strong. In the cases where the use of a preposition is not predicted by the preceding word the connection between them is looser, and the connection between the preposition and the following word may prove to be the stronger of the two. This difference more or less corresponds to that between objects and adverbial modifiers expressed by prepositional phrases. Thus, in a sentence like This depends on
1 This statement will require some modification when we come to the function of prepositions in such cases as "Under the Greenwood Tree", etc. (see p. 158).
Connections of Prepositions 151
him the preposition is predicted by the verb and the phrase on him is of course an object, whereas in a sentence like The book is lying under the table the preposition is not predicted by the verb and the phrase is an adverbial modifier. However, this criterion does not hold good in all cases.
Sometimes the boundary line between a preposition and another part of speech is not quite clear. Thus, with reference to the words like and near there may be doubtful cases from this viewpoint. For instance, there certainly is the adjective near, used in such phrases as the near future. On the other hand, there is the preposition near, found in such sentences as they live near me.
The adjective has degrees of comparison, and the preposition of course has none. In this connection let us examine the following sentence, which presents us with a whole bundle of problems involving both that of parts of speech and that of subordinate clauses: When they had finished their dinner, and Emma, her shawl trailing the floor, brought in coffee and set it down before them, Bone drew back the curtains and opened wide the window nearest where they sat. (BUECHNER) The question about the word nearest is closely connected with that about the ties between the where- clauseand the main clause. As to the word nearest, there are obviously two ways of interpreting it: it is either an adjective in the superlative degree, or a preposition. Each of the two interpretations has its difficulties. If we take nearest as an adjective in the superlative degree, it will follow that this adjective (that is, the adjective near) can take an object clause, in the same way as it takes an object within a clause, e. g. near our house, near midnight, etc., and this would mean that the subordinate clause where they sat is treated very much like a noun. If, on the other hand, we take nearest as a preposition, we should have to state that there is a special preposition nearest in Modern English: it would obviously not do to say that the preposition near has degrees of comparison. There would appear to be no valid reason to prefer the one or the other of the two views, and a third possibility seems to present itself, viz. saying that we have here a borderline case of transition between an adjective in the superlative degree and a preposition.
This is one more example of language phenomena requiring a careful and wholly undogmatic approach: it would be futile to expect that every single language fact would fit easily into one pigeonhole or another prepared for it in advance. Language phenomena have as it were no obligation to fit into any such pigeonholes and it is the scholar's task to approach them with an open mind, to take into account their peculiarities, and to adjust his system as best he can to receive such "unorthodox" facts. Another example of this kind has been considered above: it concerned the status of the words many, much, few, and little (see pp. 71—72).
152 The Preposition
A special case must now be considered. In some phrases, which are not part of a sentence, a preposition does not connect two words because there is no word at all before it, and so its ties are опз-sided: they point only forwards, not back.
