 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
26
subclass division). The noun cattle used in the second sentence is at one and the same time "common" (first
subclass division), "animate" (second subclass division), "non-human" (third subclass division), "uncountable"
(fourth subclass division).
The subclass differentiation of nouns constitutes a foundation for their selectional syntagmatic combinability
both among themselves and with other parts of speech. In the selectional aspect of combinability, the subclass
features form the corresponding selectional bases.
In particular, the inanimate selectional base of combinability can be pointed out between the noun subject
and the verb predicate in the following sentence: The sandstone was crumbling. (Not: 'The horse was
crumbling.)
The animate selectional base is revealed between the noun subject and the verb in the following sentence:
The poor creature was laming. (Not: The tree was laming.)
The human selectional base underlies the connection between the nouns in the following combination:
John's love of music (not: 'the cat's love of music).
The phenomenon of subclass selection is intensely analysed as part of current linguistic research work.
CHAPTER VI
NOUN: GENDER
§ 1. There is a peculiarly regular contradiction between the presentation of gender in English by theoretical
treatises and practical manuals. Whereas theoretical treatises define the gender subcatego-rization of English
nouns as purely lexical or "semantic", practical manuals of English grammar do invariably include the
description of the English gender in their subject matter of immediate instruction.
In particular, a whole ten pages of A.I. Smirnitsky's theoretical "Morphology of English" are devoted to
proving the non-existence of gender in English either in the grammatical, or even in the strictly lexico-
grammatical sense [, 1959, 139-148]. On the other hand, the well-known practical "English
grammar" by MA. Ganshina and N.M. Vasilevskaya, after denying the existence of grammatical gender in
English by way of an introduction to the topic, still presents a pretty comprehensive description of the would-
be non-existent gender distinctions of the English noun as a part of speech [Ganshina, Vasilevskaya, 40 ff.].
That the gender division of nouns in English is expressed not as variable forms of words, but as nounal
classification (which is not in the least different from the expression of substantive gender ia other languages,
including Russian), admits of no argument. However, the question remains, whether this classification has any
serious grammatical relevance. Closer observation of the corresponding lingual data cannot but show that the
English gender does have such a relevance.
§ 2. The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal
pronouns of the third person. These serve as specific gender classifiers of nouns, being potentially reflected on
each entry of the noun in speech.
The category of gender is strictly oppositional. It is formed by two oppositions related to each other on a
hierarchical basis.
One opposition functions in the whole set of nouns, dividing them into person (human) nouns and non-
person (non-human) nouns. The other opposition functions in the subset of person nouns only, dividing them
into masculine nouns and feminine nouns. Thus, the first, general opposition can be referred to as the upper
opposition in the category of gender, while the second, partial opposition can be referred to as the lower
opposition in this category.
As a result of the double oppositional correlation, a specific system of three genders arises, which is
somewhat misleadingly represented by the traditional terminology: the neuter (i.e. non-person) gender, the
masculine (i.e. masculine person) gender, the feminine (i.e. feminine person) gender.
The strong member of the upper opposition is the human subclass of nouns, its sememic mark being
"person", or "personality". The weak member of the opposition comprises both inanimate and animate non-
person nouns. Here belong such nouns as tree, mountain, love, etc.; cat, swallow, ant, etc.; society, crowd,
association, etc.; bull and cow, cock and hen, horse and mare, etc.
In cases of oppositional reduction, non-person nouns and their substitute (it) are naturally used in the
position of neutralization. E.g.:
Suddenly something moved in the darkness ahead of us. Could it be a man, in this desolate place, at this
time of night? The object of her maternal affection was nowhere to be found. It had disappeared, leaving the
mother and nurse desperate.