Adverbs. General Characteristics.

Semantic features. The adverb is usually defined as a word expressing either property of an action, or property of another property, or circumstances in which an action occurs. However, this definition fails to demonstrate the difference between the adverb and the adjective. To overcome this drawback, we should define the adverb as a notional word denoting a non-substantive property, that is, a property of a non-substantive referent. This feature sets the adverb apart from the adjective which, as already known, denotes a substantive property. Adverbs are commonly divided into qualitative, quantitativeand

circumstantial. Qualitativeadverbs express immediate, inherently non-graded qualities of

actions and other qualities. The typical adverbs of this kind are qualitative adverbs in -ly.

Quantitativeadverbs are specific lexical units of semi-functional nature

expressing quality measure, or gradational evaluation of qualities. They may be

subdivided into several sets:

1. Adverbs of high degree("intensifiers"): very, quite, entirely, utterly,

highly, greatly, perfectly, absolutely, strongly, considerably, pretty, much.

2. Adverbs of excessive degree(direct and reverse) also belonging to the

broader subclass ofintensifiers: too, awfully, tremendously, dreadfully, terrifically.

3. Adverbs of unexpected degree: surprisingly, astonishingly, amazingly.

4. Adverbs of moderate degree: fairly, comparatively, relatively, moderately,

rather.

5. Adverbs of low degree: slightly, a little, a bit.

6. Adverbs of approximate degree: almost, nearly.

7. Adverbs of optimal degree: enough, sufficiently, adequately.

8. Adverbs of inadequate degree: insufficiently, intolerably, unbearably,

ridiculously.

9. Adverbs of under-degree: hardly, scarcely.

Although the degree adverbsare traditionally described under the heading of

"quantitative", in reality they occupy an intermediate position between qualitative

and quantitative words and therefore can bereferred to qualitative adverbs. Thus,

the latter are subdivided into qualitative adverbs of full notional value and degree

adverbs – specific functional words.

Circumstantial adverbsare also divided into notional and functional. The

functional circumstantial adverbs are words of pronominal nature. They include

numerical adverbs, adverbs of time, place, manner, cause, consequence. Many of

them are used as syntactic connectives and question-forming words (now, here,

when, where, so, thus, how, why, etc.)

Notional circumstantial adverbs includetwo basic sets: adverbs of time and

adverbs of place: today, tomorrow, already, ever, never, shortly, recently, seldom,

early, late; homeward, eastward, near, far, outside, ashore, etc.

Just like adjectives, adverbs can be divided into evaluative and specificative,

connected with the categorial expression of comparison. Each adverb subject to

evaluation grading by degree words expresses the category of comparison. Thus,

not only qualitative adverbs are included intothe categorial system of comparison.

Morphological features. As to their word-building structure adverbs may

be non-derived, or simple(e.g. here, there, now, then, so, quick, why, how, where,

when, very, rather) and derived(e.g. slowly, sideways, clockwise, homewards,

away, ahead, apart, across). We can also distinguish compositeforms and phrasal

formsof the adverb: sometimes, nowhere, anyhow; at least, at most, at last, to and

fro, upside down. A prolific source of adverbs is the adjective: many –lyadverbs

are transformationally related to respective adjectives. The suffix –lyis a typical

marker of the adverb. However, many adverbs related to adjectives may not be

necessarily used with the suffix –ly, e.g. fast, late, hard, high, clean, clear, close,

loud, tight, firm, quick, right, sharp, slow, wide, etc.

Special mention should be made of preposition-adverb like elements which

form a semantic blend with verbs: to give up, to give in, to give out, to give away,

to give over, etc; to set up, to set in, to set forth, to set down, etc.; to get on, to get

off, to get through, to get about,etc. The verb-adverb combination goes by several

names: two-part verbs, composite verbs, phrasal verbs. The verbs in such

combinations are mostly one-syllable words; the most common adverbs are those

denoting place, e.g. in, out, on, off, over, up, down, through, etc.Some of the

adverbs may be separated by objective complements, e.g. Please hand in your

papers. vs. Please hand your papers in. Others are non-separable, e.g. John called

on me. vs. *John called me on.

In verb-adverb combinationsthe second element may:

a) retain its adverbial properties of showing direction (e.g. to go out, to go

in, to go away);

b) change the aspect of the verb, i.e.mark the completeness of the process

(e.g. to eat – to eat up; to stand – to stand up; to sit – to sit down; to lie – to lie

down; to shave – to shave off; to speak – to speak out);

c) intensify the meaning of the process (e.g. to end – to end up; to finish – to

finish up (off); to cut – to cut off; to talk – to talk away);

d) lose its lexical meaning and form an integral whole, a set expression (e.g.

to fall out ‘to quarrel’; to give in ‘to surrender’; to come off ‘to take place’; to

leave off ‘to stop’; to boil down ‘to be reduced in quantity’).

These combinations have been treated by different scholars in different

ways. Some scholars have treated the second element as a variety of adverbs, as

preposition-like adverbs (A. Smirnitsky, 1959, 376), as a special kind of adverb

called adverbial postpositon (I. E. Anichkov,1947), as postverbial particles (L.

Kivimдgi et al., 1968: 35), as a special kind of form-word called postpositive (N.

N. Amosova, 1963: 134), a postfix or postpositive affix (Y. Zhluktenko, 1954), a

separate part of speech called postposition (B.A. Ilyish, 1948: 243 – 5). As for B.

Ilyish, he later (1971:148) changed his view arguing that, since the second element

does not indicate the circumstances in which the process takes place, the whole

construction is a phraseological unit: the whole has a meaning different from the

meanings of the components. According to M. Blokh, these elements form a

special functional set of particles based on their functional character. He suggests

the term “post-positives”.

The great variety of interpretations shows the complexity of the problem.

Apparently, the problem requires further research.

Syntactic features. Adverbs are characterized by combinability with verbs,

adjectives and words of adverbial nature. The adverb performs the function of an

adverbial modifier.

 

Noun. Gender

In Indo-European languages the category of gender is presented with

flexions. It is not based on sex distinction, but it is purely grammatical.

According to some language analysts (B.Ilyish, F.Palmer, and

E.Morokhovskaya), nouns have no category of gender in Modern English. Prof.

Ilyish states that not a single word in Modern English shows any peculiarities in its

morphology due to its denoting male or female being. Thus, the words husband

and wife do not show any difference in their forms due to peculiarities of their

lexical meaning. The difference between such nouns as actor and actressis a

purely lexical one. In other words, the category of sex should not be confused with

the category of gender, because sex is an objective biological category.It

correlates with gender only when sex differences of living beings are manifested in

the language grammatically (e.g. tiger – tigress).

Gender distinctions in English are marked for a limited number of nouns. In

present-day English there are some morphemes which present differences between

masculine and feminine (waiter – waitress, widow – widower). This distinction is

not grammatically universal. It is not characterized by a wide range of occurrences

and by a grammatical level of abstraction. Only a limited number of words are

marked as belonging to masculine, feminine or neuter. The morpheme on which

the distinction between masculine and feminine is based in English is a wordbuilding morpheme, not form-building.

Still, other scholars (M.Blokh, John Lyons) admit the existence of the

category of gender. Prof. Blokh states thatthe existence of the category of gender

in Modern English can be proved by the correlation of nouns with personal

pronouns of the third person (he, she, it). Accordingly, there are three genders in

English: the neuter (non-person) gender, the masculine gender, the feminine

gender.

 

 

Noun.Number.

The grammatical category of number isthe linguistic representation of the

objective category of quantity. The number category is realized through the

opposition of two form-classes: the plural form:: the singular form.

There are different approaches to defining the category of number. Thus,

some scholars believe that the category of number in English is restricted in its

realization because of the dependentimplicit grammatical meaning of

countableness/uncountableness.The category of number is realized only within

subclass of countable nouns, i.e. nouns having numeric (discrete) structure.

Uncountable nouns have nocategory of number, for they have quantitative

(indiscrete) structure. Two classes of uncountables can be distinguished: singularia

tantum (only singular) and pluralia tantum (only plural). M. Blokh, however, does

not exclude the singularia tantum subclass from the category of number. He calls

such forms absolute singular forms comparable to the ‘common’ singular of

countable nouns.

In Indo-European languages there are lots of nouns that don’t fit into the

traditional definition of the category based on the notion of quantity. A word can

denote one object, but it has the plural form. Or a noun can denote more than one

thing, but its form is singular. There is a definition of the category of number that

overcomes this inconsistency. It was worked out by prof. Isachenko. According to

him, the category of number denotes marked and unmarked discreteness (not

quantity). A word in a singular form denotes unmarked discreteness whether it is a

book, or a sheep, or sheep. If an object is perceived as a discrete thing, it has the

form of the plural number. Thus, trousers and books are perceived as discrete

object whereas a flock of sheep is seen as a whole. This definition is powerful

because it covers nearly all nouns whilethe traditional definition excludes many

words.

The grammatical meaning of number may not coincide with the notional

quantity: the noun in the singular does not necessarily denote one object while the

plural form may be used to denote one object consisting of several parts. The

singular form may denote:

a) oneness (individual separate object – a cat);

b) generalization (the meaning of the whole class – The cat is a domestic

animal);

c) indiscreteness (нерасчлененностьor uncountableness - money, milk).

The plural form may denote:

a) the existence of several objects (cats);

b) the inner discreteness (внутренняя расчлененность, pluralia tantum,

jeans).

To sum it up, all nouns may be subdivided into three groups:

1. The nouns in which the opposition of explicit

discreteness/indiscreteness is expressed: cat::cats;

2. The nouns in which this opposition isnot expressed explicitly but is

revealed by syntactical and lexical correlation in the context. There are two

groups here:

A. Singularia tantum. It covers different groups of nouns: proper names,

abstract nouns, material nouns, collective nouns;

B. Pluralia tantum. It covers the names of objects consisting of several

parts (jeans), names of sciences (mathematics), names of diseases, games, etc.

3. The nouns with homogenous number forms. The number opposition

here is not expressed formally but is revealed only lexically and syntactically in

the context: e.g. Look! A sheep is eating grass.Look! The sheep are eating

grass.

 

Noun. Case.

In present-day linguistics case is used intwo senses: 1) semantic, or logic,

and 2) syntactic.

The semantic case conceptwas developed by C. J.Fillmore in the late

1960s. Ch. Fillmore introduced syntactic-semantic classification of cases. They

show relations in the so-called deep structure of the sentence.According to him,

verbs may stand to different relations to nouns. There are 6 cases:

1. Agentive Case (A) John opened the door;

2. Instrumental case (I) The key opened the door; John used the key to open the

door;

3. Dative Case (D) Johnbelieved that he would win(the case of the animate

being affected by the state of action identified by the verb);

4. Factitive Case (F) The keywas damaged(the result of the action or state

identified by the verb);

5. Locative Case (L) Chicago is windy;

6. Objective case (O) John stole the book.

The syntactic case conceptdates back to the grammars of Ancient Greece

and Ancient Rome. It is a case whose main role is to indicate a relationship

between constituents. To put it otherwise, its role is to indicate a construction in

syntax. Thus genitive is a case which marks one noun as dependent on another, e.g.

John’s car. The conception of case as a marker of a syntactic relation or a

construction can be found in prescriptive, non-structural descriptive and structural

descriptive grammars. Prescriptivists spoke of the nominative, the dative, the

genitive, the accusative, and the ablative.

H. Sweet’sviews (1925) rest on the syntactic conception of case: case to

him is a syntactic relation that can be realized syntactically or morphologically. He

speaks of inflected and non-inflected cases (the genitive vs. the common case).

Non-inflected cases, according to the scholar, are equivalent to the nominative,

vocative, accusative, and dative of inflected languages.

O. Jespersen(1933) speaks of the genitive and the common case. Some

grammarians (R. W. Pence (1947), H. Whitehall (1965), H. Shaw (1952)) give

three cases in English - nominative,genitive (possessive) and accusative

(objective). This three-case system, based on the analogy of the form of pronouns,

remained extremely popular in the grammars of the 20th century, including some

structural grammars (H. Whitehall). H. Whitehall, however, does not reflect the

general situation in the school of structural grammar: structuralists at large

recognize the existence of two cases- the genitive and the common.

Case expresses the relation of a word toanother word in the word-group or

sentence (my sister’s coat). The category of case correlates with the objective

category of possession. The case category in English is realized through the

opposition: The Common Case:: The Possessive Case (sister:: sister’s). However,

in modern linguistics the term “genitive case” is used instead of the “possessive

case” because the meanings rendered by the “`s” sign are not only those of

possession. The scope of meanings rendered by the Genitive Case is the following:

1. Possessive Genitive: Mary’s father – Mary has a father,

2. Subjective Genitive: The doctor’s arrival – The doctor has arrived,

3. Objective Genitive: The man’s release – The man was released,

4. Genitive of origin: the boy’s story – the boy told the story,

5. Descriptive Genitive: children’s books – books for children

6. Genitive of measure and partitive genitive: a mile’sdistance, a day’s trip

7. Appositive genitive: the city of London.

To avoid confusion with the plural, the marker of the genitive case is

represented in written form with an apostrophe. This fact makes possible

disengagement of –`s form from the noun to which it properly belongs. E.g.: The

man I saw yesterday’s son, where -`s is appended to the whole group (the so-called

group genitive). It may even follow a word which normally does not possess such

a formant, as in somebody else’s book.

There is no universal point of view as to the case system in English.

Different scholars stick to a different number of cases.

1. There are two cases. (limited casetheory) The Common one and The

Genitive;

2. There are no cases at all, the form`s is optional because the same

relations may be expressed by the ‘of-phrase’: the doctor’s arrival – the arrival

of the doctor;

3. There are three cases: the Nominative, the Genitive, the Objective due

to the existence of objective pronouns me, him, whom;

4. The theory of positional cases.

5. The theory of prepositional cases.

We adhere to the view that English does possess the category of case, which

is represented by the opposition of the two forms - the genitive vs. the nongenitive, or the common. The marked member of the opposition is the genitive and

the unmarked the common: both members express a relation - the genitive

expresses a specific relation (the relation of possession in the wide meaning of the

word) while the common case expresses a wide range of relations including the

relation of possession, e.g. Kennedy’s house vs. the Kennedy house. While

recognizing the existence of the genitive case, we must say that the English

genitive is not a classical case. Its peculiarities are:

1) the inflection -‘s is but loosely connected with the noun (e.g. the Queen of

England’s daughter; the man I met yesterday’s son);

2) genitive constructions are paralleled by corresponding prepositional

constructions (e.g. Shakespeare’s works vs. the works of Shakespeare);

3) the use of the genitive is mainly limited to nouns denoting living beings;

4) the inflection -‘s is used both in the singular and in the plural (e.g. a boy’s

bicycle vs. the boys’ bicycles), which is not typical of case inflexions.