 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
16
confined to formal relations only. An example of such an opposition can be seen in the correlation of the
person forms of the verb be: am - are - is.
Gradual oppositions in morphology are not generally recognized; in principle, they can be identified as a
minor type at the semantic level only. An example of the gradual morphological opposition can be seen in the
category of comparison: strong-stronger-strongest.
A grammatical category must be expressed by at least one opposition of forms. These forms are ordered in a
paradigm in grammatical descriptions.
Both equipollent and gradual oppositions in morphology, the same as in phonology, can be reduced to
privative oppositions within the framework of an oppositional presentation of some categorial system as a
whole. Thus, a word-form, like a phoneme, can be represented by a bundle of values of differential features,
graphically exposing its categorial structure. For instance, the verb-form listens is marked negatively as the
present tense (tense-), negatively as the indicative mood (mood-), negatively as the passive voice (voice-),
positively as the third person (person +), etc. This principle of presentation, making a morphological description
more compact, at the same time has the advantage of precision and helps penetrate deeper into the inner
mechanisms of grammatical categories.
§ 3. In various contextual conditions, one member of an opposition can be used in the position of the other,
counter-member. This phenomenon should be treated under the heading
of
"oppositional reduction" or
"oppositional substitution". The first version of the term ("reduction") points out the fact that the opposition in
this case is contracted, losing its formal distinctive force. The second version of the term ("substitution") shows
the very process by which the opposition is reduced, namely, the use of one member instead of the other.
By way of example, let us consider the following case of the singular noun-subject: Man conquers nature.
The noun man in the quoted sentence is used in the singular, but it is quite clear that it stands not for an
individual person, but for people in general, for the idea of "mankind". In other words, the noun is used
generically, it implies the class of denoted objects as a whole. Thus, in the oppositional light, here the weak
member of the categorial opposition of number has replaced the strong member.
Consider another example: Tonight we start for London.
The verb in this sentence takes the form of the present, while its meaning in the context is the future. It
means that the opposition "present - future" has been reduced, the weak member (present) replacing the strong
one (future).
The oppositional reduction shown in the two cited cases is stylistically indifferent, the demonstrated use of
the forms does not transgress the expressive conventions of ordinary speech. This kind of oppositional
reduction is referred to as "neutralization" of oppositions. The position of neutralization is, as a rule, filled in by
the weak member of the opposition due to its more general semantics.
Alongside the neutralizing reduction of oppositions there exists another kind of reduction, by which one of
the members of the opposition is placed in contextual conditions uncommon for it; in other words, the said
reductional use of the form is stylistically marked. E.g.: That man is constantly complaining of something.
The form of the verbal present continuous in the cited sentence stands in sharp contradiction with its regular
grammatical meaning "action in progress at the present time". The contradiction is, of course, purposeful: by
exaggeration, it intensifies the implied disapproval of the man's behaviour.
This kind of oppositional reduction should be considered under the heading of "transposition". Transposition
is based on the contrast between the members of the opposition, it may be defined as a contrastive use of the
counter-member of the opposition. As a rule (but not exclusively) transpositionally employed is the strong
member of the opposition, which is explained by its comparatively limited regular functions.
§ 4. The means employed for building up member-forms of categorial oppositions are traditionally divided
into synthetical and analytical; accordingly, the grammatical forms themselves are classed into synthetical and
analytical, too.
Synthetical grammatical forms are realized by the inner morphemic composition of the word, while
analytical grammatical forms are built up by a combination of at least two words, one of which is a grammatical
auxiliary (word-morpheme), and the other, a word of "substantial" meaning.
Synthetical grammatical forms are based on inner inflexion, outer inflexion, and suppletivity; hence, the
forms are referred to as inner-inflexional, outer-inflexional, and suppletive.
Inner inflexion, or phonemic (vowel) interchange, is not productive in modern Indo-European languages,
but it is peculiarly employed in some of their basic, most ancient lexemic elements.
By this feature, the whole
family of Indo-European languages is identified in linguistics as typologically "inflexional".
Inner inflexion (grammatical "imixation", see above) is used in English in irregular verbs (the bulk of them