 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
49
widely known, affects the principal distinctions between the English complementive and uncomplementive
verbs, between the English objective and non-objective verbs. Suffice it to give a couple of examples taken at
random:
Who runs faster, John or Nick? (run - uncomplementive). The man ran after the bus. (run - adverbial
complementive, non-objective). I ran my eyes over the uneven lines, (run - adverbial objective, transitive). And
is the fellow still running the show? (run - monocomplementive, transitive).
The railings felt cold. (feel - link-verb, predicative complementive). We felt fine after the swim. (feel -
adverbial complementive, non-objective). You shouldn't feel your own pulse like that. (feel -
monocomplementive, transitive).
The problem arises how to interpret these different subclass entries - as cases of grammatical or lexico-
grammatical homonymy, or some kind of functional variation, or merely variation in usage. The problem is
vexed, since each of the interpretations has its strong points.
To reach a convincing decision, one should take into consideration the actual differences between various
cases of the "subclass migration" in question. Namely, one must carefully analyse the comparative
characteristics of the corresponding subclasses as such, as well as the regularity factor for an individual lexeme
subclass occurrence.
In the domain of notional subclasses proper, with regular inter-class occurrences of the analysed lexemes,
probably the most plausible solution will be to interpret the "migration forms" as cases of specific syntactic
variation, i.e. to consider the different subclass entries of migrating units as syntactic variants of the same
lexemes [, 1976, 87 ff.]. In the light of this interpretation, the very formula of "lexemic subclass
migration" will be vindicated and substantiated.
On the other hand, for more cardinally differing lexemic sets, as, for instance, functional versus notional, the
syntactic variation principle is hardly acceptable. This kind of differentiation should be analysed as lexico-
grammatical homonymy, since it underlies the expres-sion of categorially different grammatical functions.
C H A P T E R XI
NON-FINITE VERBS (VERBIDS)
§ 1. Verbids are the forms of the verb intermediary in many of their lexico-grammatical features between
the verb and the non-pro-cessual parts of speech. The mixed features of these forms are revealed in the
principal spheres of the part-of-speech characterization, i.e. in their meaning, structural marking, combinability,
and syntactic functions.
The processual meaning is exposed by them in a substantive or adjectival-adverbial interpretation: they
render processes as peculiar kinds of substances and properties. They are formed by special morphemic
elements which do not express either grammatical time or mood (the most specific finite verb categories). They
can be combined with verbs like non-processual lexemes (performing non-verbal functions in the sentence),
and they can be combined with non-processual lexemes like verbs (performing verbal functions in the sen-
tence).
From these characteristics, one might call in question the very justification of including the verbids in the
system of the verb. As a matter of fact, one can ask oneself whether it wouldn't stand to reason to consider the
verbids as a special lexemic class, a separate part of speech, rather than an inherent component of the class of
verbs.
On closer consideration, however, we can't but see that such an approach would be utterly ungrounded. The
verbids do betray intermediary features. Still, their fundamental grammatical meaning is proccssual (though
modified in accord with the nature of the inter-class reference of each verbid). Their essential syntactic
functions, directed by this relational semantics, unquestionably reveal the property which may be called, in a
manner of explanation, "verbality", and the statement of which is corroborated by the peculiar combinability
character of verbid collocations, namely, by the ability of verbids to take adjuncts expressing the immediate
recepients, attendants, and addressees of the process inherently conveyed by each verbid denotation.
One might likewise ask oneself, granted the verbids are part of the system of the verb, whether they do not
constitute within this system a special subsystem of purely lexemic nature, i.e. form some sort of a specific
verbal subclass. This counter-approach, though, would evidently be devoid of any substantiality, since a
subclass of a lexemic class, by definition, should share the essential categorial structure, as well as primary
syntactic functions with other subclasses, and in case of verbids the situation is altogether different. In fact, it is