 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
17
belong to the Germanic strong verbs) for the formation of the past indefinite and past participle; besides, it is
used in a few nouns for the formation of the plural. Since the corresponding oppositions of forms are based on
yhonemic interchange, the initial paradigmatic form of each lexeme in question should also be considered
as inflexional. Cf.: take - took - taken, drive - drove - driven, keep - kept - kept, etc.; man - men, brother -
brethren, etc.
Suppletivity, like inner inflexion, is not productive as a purely morphological type of form. It is based on the
correlation of different roots as a means of paradigmatic differentiation. In other words, it consists in the
grammatical interchange of word roots, and this, as we pointed out in the foregoing chapter, unites it in
principle with inner inflexion (or, rather, makes the latter into a specific variety of the former).
Suppletivity is used in the forms of the verbs be and go, in the irregular forms of the degrees of comparison,
in some forms of personal pronouns. Cf:. be - am - are - is - was - were; go - went;good - better; bad -
worse; much - more; little - less; I - me; we - us; she - her.
In a broader morphological interpretation, suppletivity can be recognized in paradigmatic correlations of
some modal verbs, some indefinite pronouns, as well as certain nouns of peculiar categorial properties (lexemic
suppletivity - see Ch. IV, § 8). Cf:. can - be able; must - have (to), be obliged (to); may - be allowed (to); one -
some; man - people; news - items of news; information - pieces of information; etc.
The shown unproductive synthetical means of English morphology are outbalanced by the productive means
of affixation (outer inflexion), which amount to grammatical suffixation (grammatical prefixation could only be
observed in the Old English verbal system).
In the previous chapter we enumerated the few grammatical suffixes possessed by the English language.
These are used to build up the number and case forms of the noun; the person-number, tense, participial and
gerundial forms of the verb; the comparison forms of the adjective and adverb. In the oppositional correlations
of all these forms, the initial paradigmatic form of each opposition is distinguished by a zero suffix. Cf:.
boy+ O -boys; go+ O -goes; work + O - worked; small + O - smaller; etc.
Taking this into account, and considering also the fact that each grammatical form paradigmatically
correlates with at least one other grammatical form on the basis of the category expressed (e.g. the form of the
singular with the form of the plural), we come to the conclusion that the total number of synthetical forms in
English morphology, though certainly not very large, at the same time is not so small as it is commonly
believed. Scarce in English are not the synthetical forms as such, but the actual affixal segments on which the
paradigmatic differentiation of forms is based.
As for analytical forms which are so typical of modem English that they have long made this language into
the "canonized" representative of lingual analytism, they deserve some special comment on their substance.
The traditional view of the analytical morphological form recognizes two lexemic parts in it, stating that it
presents a combination of an auxiliary word with a basic word. However, there is a tendency with some
linguists to recognize as analytical not all such grammatically significant combinations, but only those of them
that are "grammatically idiomatic", i.e. whose relevant grammatical meaning is not immediately dependent on
the meanings of their component elements taken apart. Considered in this light, the form of the verbal perfect
where the auxiliary have has utterly lost its original meaning of possession, is interpreted as the most standard
and indisputable analytical form in English morphology. Its opposite is seen in the analytical degrees of
comparison which, according to the cited interpretation, come very near to free combinations of words by their
lack of "idiomatism" in the above sense [Смирницкий, 1959, 68 ff.; Бархударов, 1975, 67 if.].*
* Cf. Аналитические конструкции в языках различных типов: Сб. ст./Отв. ред. Жирмунский В.М. и Суник О.П. М.-Л.,
1965.
The scientific achievement of the study of "idiomatic" analytism in different languages is essential and
indisputable. On the other hand, the demand that "grammatical idiomatism" should be regarded as the basis of
"grammatical analytism" seems, logically, too strong. The analytical means underlying the forms in question
consist in the discontinuity of the corresponding lexemic constituents. Proceeding from this fundamental
principle, it can hardly stand to reason to exclude "unidiomatic" grammatical combinations (i.e. combinations
of oppositional-categorial significance) from the system of analytical expression as such. Rather, they should be
regarded as an integral part of this system, in which, the provision granted, a gradation of idiomatism is to be
recognized. In this case, alongside the classical analytical forms of verbal perfect or continuous, such analytical
forms should also be discriminated as the analytical infinitive (go - to go), the analytical verbal person (verb
plus personal pronoun), the analytical degrees of comparison of both positive and negative varieties (more
important - less important), as well as some other, still more unconventional form-types.