The problem of the category of case of the noun.

 

Case can be defined in the following way: it is a category of the noun that expresses relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other objects and phenomena and that is manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This category is based on the opposition of 2 cases: the Common case (H.Sweet) – the Possessive case (Genitive – preferable because not all meanings of this case are possessive). The general meaning of possession has other modifications. It can denote the subject of a quality, state of action: the child's intelligence (quality), the child's sleep (state), the child's answer (action). Occasionally it can denote the object of an action: Clyde Griffiths' trial and execution. The opposition in form. The Genitive case is a marked member, the nominative is unmarked. The marker of the GC is the 's-sign which also has 3 allomorphs which are [s], [z] and [iz ].

Various views on the category of case. The number of cases and the recognition of the category as such depends on whether case is treated as a morphological form or as a grammatical meaning that can be rendered by various means (by an inflection, preposition and word order).

1. The 3-case theory or the substitutional theory. It was prompted by the fact that in Old English there existed one common case system for both nouns and personal pronouns. Some grammarians try to introduce a uniform case system in Modern English. Accordingly there are 3 cases recognized in the noun: Nominative, Objective and Genitive. The GC is inflected by the 's-sign. As to the NC and OC they are identified by substituting a personal pronoun for the noun. E.g.: The boy's playing in the garden. – The noun boy is in the NC because it can be replaced by the personal pronoun he. Look at the boy. – The noun boy is in the OC because it can be replaced by him. This theory was criticized and rejected by many grammarians because you cannot attribute the properties of one part of speech to another.

2.The theory of positional cases. It is connected with the old grammatical tradition and we find it in the works of German scholars (Дойчбайн, Несфилд, Брайант). According to that view the case of the noun is determined by its position in the sentence by analogy with classical Latin grammar. The English noun will distinguish the following cases of the noun: Nominative (NC), Vocative (VC), Dative (DC), Accusative (AC). They are not inflectional. They exist along with the inflectional genitive. The noun in the function of the position of the subject is in the NC. The noun in the position of a direct address is believed to be in the VC. The noun in the position of an indirect object to a verb is believed to be in the DC. The noun in the position of a direct object is in the AC. The theory was bitterly criticized. The main weakness of it is that it substitutes the functional characteristics of parts of the sentence for the morphological characteristics of the part of speech, that is the noun. The strong point: it rightly illustrates the fact that the functional meanings can be expressed in language by other grammatical means, in particular, by word-order (rose garden – garden rose, to spend money – money to spend).

3.The theory of prepositional cases (Curmy, also connected with the old school grammar teaching). According to this theory, combinations of nouns and pronouns should be considered as case form: 1. The combination to + noun (to the child) is treated as the DC. 2. The combination of + noun is treated as the GC which exists along with the Inflectional Genitive. 3. The combination by + N is treated as the Instrumental Case. Curmy treats prepositions in these combinations as inflexional prepositions. They are grammatical elements that are equivalent to case inflexions. Other grammarians treat these combinations as analytical cases. This approach is unconvincing and cannot be accepted for the following reasons: 1. Prepositions are not devoid of their lexical mean and they cannot be treated as grammatical auxiliaries of an analytical form. 2. The number of prepositional phrases is too numerous to be regarded members of the opposition of the category of case. 3. There are no discontinous morphemes. They cannot be treated as analytical forms. Weak points: 1. There can be no oppositions, they are synonyms. 2. A paradigm is limited and there are too many prepositions. 3. Prepositions are not empty words; they are relational words (they show relations). 4. Each prepositional phrase would bear then another, additional name of ‘prepositional case’ and the total number will expand greatly.

4.The theory of possessive postposition (Prof.Vonontsva): the case category has been destroyed. The –‘s is a syntactical element which is similar to prepositions. But a preposition begins the construction while the element –‘s closes it. So it can be called post-position.

Strong points: 1 .This postpositional element may not be applied to all the nouns, but mostly to nouns denoting living beings. The use of –‘s is optional. 2. One and the same element is used both with nouns in the Singular and in the Plural (man-man’s, men-men’s/ boy-boy’s, boys-boys’). This morpheme is not dependent on the meaning of plurality. Number and case are expressed separately. 3. The post-positional element can be applied not only to nouns: yesterday’s lecture, somebody else’s book, Mary and Peter’s parents (Mary’s and Peter’s parents). 4. There are instances of Absolute Genitive: chemist - chemist ’s

Weak points: -‘s can be added to phrases, but these are occasional examples. 94% comprise instances where –‘s is added to single nouns. The function of these nouns is always definite

5. The theory denying the existence of the category of case in Modern Eng. The theory was advanced by Prof. Воронцова and is shared by Мухин, Ильиш, Маслова. According to this view the Eng noun has lost the category of case in the historic development. All cases, including genitive, are considered extinct. The following arguments are given to substantiate this theory: 1. The use of the s-sign is optional because it can be replaced by an of -phrase. 2. It is used with a limited group of nouns (animate nouns and some other nouns, denoting distance, time and money). 3. It occurs with very few plurals, only with such plurals as men (men's). As to the other it is impossible to distinguish the sg genitive from the pl genitive by ear. 4. The s-sign is only loosely connected with the noun. It can be used not only with sg nouns but also with whole phrases, e.g.: John and Tom's room. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech. The man I saw yesterday's son. (the s-sign belongs to the whole phrase, not to a single word). So Воронцова makes the following conclusion: the s-sign is not a case inflexion, it is a syntactical element, resembling a preposition. She calls it a postposition or a format. This is why Блох calls this theory the Possessive Postposition Theory. The strong points of this theory is that it is based on careful observation of linguistic data. Yet, it can hardly be accepted, because it disregards the fact that the genitive form of the noun is systematically contrasted to the unmarked form of the noun. The oppositional nature of this correlation cannot be denied. So, if there is an opposition, there is a category. For that reason most linguists stick to the theory which is called the Limited Case Theory. Блох gives other arguments in favor of the LCT. 1. He emphasizes the fact that the phrasal uses of s-sign are stylistically colored. For that reason these cases can hardly be used as arguments against the existence of the category of case. 2. The s-sign differs from ordinary functional words, like prepositions, because it is morpheme-like in its phonetic properties and also because it is strictly postpositional unlike prepositions and it is far more bound element than a preposition. So Блох suggests that the s-sign has a particle nature and he compares it with the Russian particle бы. Блох believes that the solution of the problem of the category of case is to be sought by combining the LCT with the Possessive Postposition Theory. His conclusion is that a peculiar case system has developed instead of the former inflectional case of nouns. It is based on the particle expression of the Genitive and falls into 2 subtypes, which are the word-genitive and the phrase-genitive.