 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
36
corresponding semantics of the antecedent in the' substitute. But the proclaimed correlation between the case
forms of the noun and the would-be case forms of the personal pronouns is of quite another nature: the
nominative "case" of the pronoun has no antecedent case in the noun; nor has the objective "case" of the
pronoun any antecedent case in the noun. On the other hand, the only oblique case of the English noun, the
genitive, does have its substitutive reflection in the pronoun, though not in the case form, but in the lexical form
of possession (possessive pronouns). And this latter relation of the antecedent to its substitute gives us a clue to
the whole problem of pronominal "case": the inevitable conclusion is that there is at present no case in the
English personal pronouns; the personal pronominal system of cases has completely disintegrated, and in its
place the four individual word-types of pronouns have appeared: the nominative form, the objective form, and
the possessive form in its two versions, conjoint and absolute.
An analysis of the pronouns based on more formal considerations can only corroborate the suggested
approach proceeding from the principle of functional evaluation. In fact, what is traditionally accepted as case-
forms of the pronouns are not the regular forms of productive morphological change implied by the very idea
of case declension, but individual forms sustained by suppletivity and given to the speaker as a ready-made set.
The set is naturally completed by the possessive forms of pronouns, so that actually we are faced with a lexical
paradigmatic series of four subsets of personal pronouns, to which the relative who is also added: I - me - my -
mine, you - you - your - yours, ... who - whom - whose – whose. Whichever of the former case correlations
are still traceable in this system (as, for example, in the subseries he - him - his), they exist as mere relicts, i.e.
as a putrified evidence of the old productive system that has long ceased to function in the morphology of
English.
Thus, what should finally be meant by the suggested terminological name "particle case" in English, is that
the former system of the English inflexional declension has completely and irrevocably disintegrated, both in
the sphere of nouns and their substitute pronouns; in its place a new, limited case system has arisen based on a
particle oppositional feature and subsidiary to the prepositional expression of the syntactic relations of the
noun.
C H A P T E R IX
NOUN: ARTICLE DETERMINATION
§ 1. Article is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in communicative collocation.
Its special character is clearly seen against the background of determining words of half-notional semantics.
Whereas the function of the determiners such as this, any, some is to explicitly interpret the referent of the noun
in relation to other objects or phenomena of a like kind, the semantic purpose of the article is to specify the
nounal referent, as it were, altogether unostentatiously, to define it in the most general way, without any
explicitly expressed contrasts.
This becomes obvious when we take the simplest examples ready at hand. Cf:.
Will you give me this pen, Willy? (I.e. the pen that I am pointing out, not one of your choice.) -Will you
give me the pen, please? (I.e. simply the pen from the desk, you understand which.) Any blade will do, I only
want it for scratching out the wrong word from the type-script. (I.e. any blade of the stock, however blunt it
may be.) - Have you got something sharp? I need a penknife or a blade. (I.e. simply a blade, if not a knife,
without additional implications.) Some woman called in your absence, she didn't give her name. (I.e. a woman
strange to me.) - A woman called while you were out, she left a message. (I.e. simply a woman, without a fur-
ther connotation.)
Another peculiarity of the article, as different from the determiners in question, is that, in the absence of a
determiner, the use of the article with the noun is quite obligatory, in so far as the cases of non-use of the article
are subject to no less definite rules than the use of it.
Taking into consideration these peculiar features of the article, the linguist is called upon to make a sound
statement about its segmental status in the system of morphology. Namely, his task is to decide whether the
article is a purely auxiliary element of a special grammatical form of the noun which functions as a component
of a definite morphological category, or it is a separate word, i.e. a lexical unit in the determiner word set, if of
a more abstract meaning than other determiners.
The problem is a vexed one; it has inspired intensive research activity in the field, as well as animated
discussion with various pros and cons affirmed, refuted and re-affirmed.* In the course of these investigations,
however, many positive facts about articles have been established, which at present enables an observer,
proceeding from the systemic principle in its paradigmatic interpretation, to expose the status of the article with
an attempt at demonstrative conviction.