 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
20
We have surveyed the identifying properties of the notional parts of speech that unite the words of complete
nominative meaning characterized by self-dependent functions in the sentence.
Contrasted against the notional parts of speech are words of incomplete nominative meaning and non-self-
dependent, mediatory functions in the sentence. These are functional parts of speech.
On the principle of "generalized form" only unchangeable words are traditionally treated under the heading
of functional parts of speech. As for their individual forms as such, they are simply presented by the list, since
the number of these words is limited, so that they needn't be identified on any general, operational scheme.
To the basic functional series of words in English belong the article, the preposition, the conjunction, the
particle, the modal word, the interjection.
The article expresses the specific limitation of the substantive functions.
The preposition expresses the dependencies and interdependencies of substantive referents.
The conjunction expresses connections of phenomena.
The particle unites the functional words of specifying and limiting meaning. To this series, alongside other
specifying words, should be referred verbal postpositions as functional modifiers of verbs, etc.
The modal word, occupying in the sentence a more pronounced or less pronounced detached position,
expresses the attitude of the speaker to the reflected situation and its parts. Here belong the functional words of
probability (probably, perhaps, etc.), of qualitative evaluation (fortunately, unfortunately, luckily, etc.), and also
of affirmation and negation.
The interjection, occupying a detached position in the sentence, is a signal of emotions.
§
3. Each part of speech after its identification is further subdivided into subseries in accord with various
particular semantico-functional and formal features of the constituent words. This subdivision is sometimes
called "subcategorization" of parts of speech.
Thus, nouns are subcategorized into proper and common, animate and inanimate, countable and
uncountable, concrete and abstract, etc Cf.:
Mary, Robinson, London, the Mississippi, Lake Eric-girl, person, city, river, lake;
man, scholar, leopard, butterfly-earth, field, rose, machine;
coin/coins, floor/floors, kind/kinds-news, growth, water, funi, ture;
stone, grain, mist, leaf-honesty, love, slavery, darkness.
Verbs are subcategorized into fully predicative and partially predicative, transitive and intransitive, actional
and statal, purely nominative and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
walk, sail, prepare, shine, blow-can, may, shall, be, become;
take, put, speak, listen, see, give-live, float, stay, ache, ripen rain;
write, play, strike, boil, receive, ride-exist, sleep, rest, thrive revel, suffer;
roll, tire, begin, ensnare, build, tremble-consider, approve, mind, desire, hate, incline.
Adjectives are subcategorized into qualitative and relative, of constant feature and temporary feature (the
latter are referred to as "statives" and identified by some scholars as a separate part of speech under the heading
of "category of state"), factual and evaluative, etc. Cf.:
long, red, lovely, noble, comfortable-wooden, rural, daily, subte - ranean, orthographical;
healthy, sickly, joyful, grievous, wry, blazing-well, ill, glad, sorry, awry, ablaze;
tall, heavy, smooth, mental, native-kind, brave, wonderful, wise, stupid.
The adverb, the numeral, the pronoun are also subject to the corresponding subcategorizations.
§
4. We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by
modern linguists on the lines of traditional morphology.
It is known that the distribution of words between different parts of speech may to a certain extent differ
with different authors. This fact gives cause to some linguists for calling in question the rational character of the
part of speech classification as a whole, gives them cause for accusing it of being subjective or "prescientific" in
essence. Such nihilistic criticism, however, should be rejected as utterly ungrounded.
Indeed, considering the part of speech classification on its merits, one must clearly realize that what is above
all important about it is the fundamental principles of word-class identification, and not occasional
enlargements or diminutions of the established groups, or redistributions of individual words due to re-
considerations of their subcategorial features. The very idea of subcategorization as the obligatory second stage