CC BY
30«ШШЭШШМ-ШГМаи #7(N66)), 2023 / PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
57
УДК 8138; 801.6;808
Suleymanova Khatira Etibar gizi Azerbaijan University of Languages, Baku, Azerbaijan DOI: 10.24412/2520-6990-2023-7166-57-60
THE PECULIARITIES OF THE FUNCTIONAL INTERACTION OF PARTS OF SPEECH IN
MODERN ENGLISH
Сулейманова Хатира Этибар кызы
Азербайджанский Университет Языков, Баку, Азербайджан
ОСОБЕННОСТИ ФУНКЦИОНАЛЬНОГО ВЗАИМОДЕЙСТВИЯ ЧАСТЕЙ РЕЧИ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ АНГЛИЙСКОМ ЯЗЫКЕ
Abstract.
The present article deals with the peculiarities of the functional interaction of parts of speech in Modern English. As linguistic science reached a certain level of development it became possible to deal with the mentioned problem in a wider and more comprehensive way. The article reveals the fact that linguists assume the reduction of interaction to various types of the interconnection of linguistic elements. The interaction of parts of speech in English is demonstrated in the processes of conversion, substantiation of adjectives and numerals, as well as adjectivization of nouns. The presented article is aimed at demonstrating that the syntactic criterion is the leading one for highlighting parts of speech in the English language. As a result of the investigation the author comes to the conclusion that with the help of a syntactic criterion, words can be attributed to a certain class, designate those areas where there is a crossing of classes, and demonstrate that the parts of speech are constantly in interaction.
Аннотация.
Настоящая статья посвящена особенностям функционального взаимодействия частей речи в современном английском. Поскольку лингвистическая наука достигла определенного уровня развития, стало возможным решать упомянутую проблему в более широком аспекте. Статья расскрывает тот факт, что лингвисты предполагают уменьшение взаимодействия с различными типами взаимосвязи лингвистических элементов. Взаимодействие частей речи в английском языке демонстрируется в процессах конверсии, субстантивации прилагательных и числительных, а также адъективации существительных. Представленная статья направлена на то, чтобы продемонстрировать, что синтаксический критерий является ведущим для освещения частей речи в английском языке. В результате исследования автор приходит к выводу, что с помощью синтаксического критерия слова могут быть связаны с определенным классом, обозначать те области, где есть пересечение классов, а также выявить части речи, находящиеся в постоянном взаимодействии.
Keywords: parts of speech, interaction, conversion,substantiation, adjectivization
Ключевые слова: части речи, взаимодействие, конверсия, субстантивация, адъективация
Introduction. Linguists talk about the interaction of linguistic entities, parts of speech in particular, quite often, implying both a simple coincidence of the features of certain classes, and the interchangeability of constituents - their constituents under certain conditions of functioning, and the combination of words with each other within different types of lexical and grammatical units, and the transition of words from one part of speech to another. The coverage of these issues is given a prominent place in numerous general theoretical works of both foreign and domestic scientists.
A broad and comprehensive consideration of the problem of the interaction of parts of speech became possible only as linguistic science reached a certain level of development, associated with the establishment of a clearer relationship between extralinguistic and linguistic realities, with the discovery of the fundamental principles for identifying classes of words along with clarifying the list of more general and more particular features of each a separate class, represented in the system of a particular language at a particular stage of its historical existence, with a detailed description of the etymological, semantic and grammatical relationships
of parts of speech, with the discovery of hybrid formations of an interparticular type in languages.
The extensive information on the interaction of word classes, contained in the works of various scientists, is exceptionally interesting in itself, but so far there has not been a unified theoretical basis for it.
2. Research Methodology. As the article is devoted to the investigation ofthe functional interaction of parts of speech in Modern English, we have used the descriptive method of investigation
1. Survey of views. Linguists assume the reduction of interaction to various types of the interconnection of linguistic elements. They point out that the intercrossing of different lines is a natural consequence of the connection of the same elements with different language levels. Scientists allow the selection of not only individual elements, but also groups of elements that, like the first, acquire one or another essential status and enter into a relationship both with individual elements and with each other. They subdivide the connections of interacting linguistic entities into internal and external, i.e. to those that close within certain groupings of elements and to those that
58
PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES / «©SyyOMUM-JSUTMaL» #7(166), 2023
go beyond these groupings. Proponents of the second, syntactic in its basis, point of view delve deeper into the essence of the problem under consideration.
Interaction in the understanding of A.P. Shapkin is the syntactic contact of classes of units in speech and the acquisition by units of some classes of the associative properties of units of other classes. As a result of such contact, words of a certain morphological type become carriers of the syntactic characteristics of words of other morphological types. Such a combination of proper and improper features leads to the emergence of specific peripheral groups within different classes, and at the same time to a violation of the symmetry that would seem to be observed in constituents - components of the same class. The immediate causes leading to the intersection of the syntactic characteristics of parts of speech are numerous. Most often they are caused by the use of certain words in syntactic environments atypical for their class due to the ellipsis of the components of the sentence in the syntagmatic chain, or transposition, which, according to this researcher, covers a wide range of phenomena associated with both the figurative use of words and their transition from one part of speech to another.
L.A. Kozlovainterprets interaction in general terms as a process of "exchanging" classes of words with their syntactic functions. She considers transposition and transition to being the main mechanisms that ensure this process, believing, unlike A.P. Shapkin, that the first concept does not fully include the second and that both of them overlap only partially. Transposition, according to L.A. Kozlova, is the result of syntactic variation of language units in speech and the movement of words of some classes into positions of other classes, due to their semi-functionality. L.A. Kozlova emphasizes that transposition does not lead to the formation of new words, it only reflects the combination in the original word of the signs of interacting classes through the implementation by the word in speech of some of its secondary functions. Transition, in contrast to transposition, is a gradual loss by a word form of all features of its class, which is usually associated with its long-term evolutionary transformation (H.A.K03^0Ba, 1974: 13-27).
A wide range of issues related to the problem of the interaction of parts of speech is covered in the study of L. V. Borte. Interaction, from her point of view, is a complex dialectical process, representing the unity of differentiation and integration. Differentiation, as emphasized by L. V. Borte, is a noticeable and indisputable phenomenon in the system of parts of speech. But language is such a complex interweaving of historically determined and newly emerging internal and external patterns, basic and random factors that its objects cannot achieve strict differentiation. Therefore differentiation is not the only process in the system of parts of speech. No less place is occupied here for integration, combining different objects based on common features.
L.V. Borte believes that the interaction of parts of speech is universal in the sense that it extends to different language levels, taking different forms under appropriate conditions. The researcher refers to its invariant form as a lexically parallel series of words, in which
both commonality and differences of different lexico-grammatical classes are most clearly revealed.
Delimiting interaction from the transition of parts of speech, L.V. Borte notes that interaction means the presence of permanent lexical and grammatical links between the lexico-grammatical categories of words of different parts of speech, while the transition is the functioning of language units in their new lexical and grammatical quality.
2. Conversion, substantiation, and adjectivization. The interaction of parts of speech in English can be demonstrated in the processes of conversion, substantiation of adjectives and numerals, as well as adjectivization of nouns.
The presence of conversion has always been considered a typological feature of the English language, and there is a huge number of works related to it in one way or another. If the above phenomenon is a striking feature of English, it should be studied primarily from a typological point of view. And this means that conversion should be studied as a special kind of transposition process, i.e. processes that establish links between individual parts of speech of a particular language and consist in the fact that the word of one part of speech acts as a source of derivation to create a word of another part of speech, another category or class. The main sign of conversion as a word-formation process is, of course, the formation of a new designation with new content, moreover, modeled according to the same rules that are observed, for example, in suffixation. However, in modern linguistics, the opinion was quite recently expressed that conversion does not belong to the field of word formation at all, i.e. does not represent a specific word-formation process, being nothing more than a functional recategorization of the word - the result of its use in the text and discourse in a new, initially uncharacteristic function, the result of its special use in a syntactic construction new to it.
It is important to note that if, until about the middle of the 19th century, grammarians talked about the transition of parts of speech (noun, adjective, and adverb into a verb, participles into an adjective, etc.), then at the end of the 19th century a new look at the problem appeared. In the grammar of R. Morris, we are already talking about the use of the same word in the position of different parts of speech. He singles out the syntactic criterion as the main one in deciding whether a word belongs to one or another part of speech. The same word, in his opinion, "may be a noun in one part of a sentence, an adjective in another, a verb in a third" (MorrisR, 1986: 22).
Conversion, according to G. Suit, has similarities with derivation, although not always as a result of conversion a new lexical unit is formed. Unlike R. Morris, he believes that the use of a word in the functions of other parts of speech is not yet a basis for considering it as belonging to another part of speech. G. Sweet for the first time among English grammarians introduces the concept of partial conversion, the essence of which he sees in the fact that a word is characterized by formal indicators of two parts of speech at once. In the twenti-
«ШШЭШШМ-ШГМаи #7(166), 2023 / PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
59
eth century, the theory of word formation is further developed, especially in the works of representatives of English descriptive linguistics.
The word-formation criterion, along with the traditional morphological factors of mutability/invariability of words, is now used in determining classes of words in the English language. Conversion is considered a kind of functional transposition, as "the process of moving a word to another class of words without adding an affix" (Greenbaum S., 1996: 464). There are no known languages in which the processes of transposition would not be represented; the latter creates bridges between different parts of speech, but, most importantly, according to Sh. Bally, they do not "close" the words of one part of speech with signs of the same categorical type (Ш. Бали, 1995: 143). Such signs, inextricably conveying their meaning and representing this meaning in a gestalt, holistic form, constitute exclusively the core of their category (simple, non-derivative words). In other terms, they exhibit the prototypes, or prototypes of their class, and organize all the members of the same category around that prototype, i.e. repeating to some extent the characteristics characterizing it. Transposition processes create signs that are different from these prototypes, since, when carried out, they lead to the emergence of mixed signs, hybrids (blendings), combining in their semantic structure two or more categorical meanings in their specific interactions with each other. From mental spaces of different types, they draw heterogeneous meanings and unite, "fuse" units from each space into a single structure, serving to convey the values of the connection between spaces: objective and indicative, process-event and ori-entational, etc., creating interesting combinations or compositions of such heterogeneous values.
The functional interaction of an adjective with a noun is expressed in a process traditionally called adjectival substantiation. Adjectives are able to act in the syntactic functions inherent in a noun - in the function of a subject or object. Adjectives in these cases are used with a definite article and denote, as a rule, a multitude of persons:
To be a "good" writer needs organization too, even if those most capable of organizing their books may be among the least competent at projecting the same skill into their lives.
However, it is also possible to designate an abstract, generalized concept by such an adjective:
I am going to do the unforgivable, said Professor Searle.
Thus, the adjective in the syntactic positions peculiar to the noun comes into close contact with the noun; when expressing an abstract concept, it is close to abstract nouns; when denoting specific units (usually persons), it approaches a plural noun. This process is called substantiation (Л.А. Козлова 2005: 119).
Another process of interaction between an adjective and a noun is expressed in the use of an adjective in the syntactic position of nouns. Transferred adjectives are characterized by asymmetry and categorical features, so they possess both adjectival and nominal properties. Like nouns, they are combined with the definite article and denote either group of people (the rich,
the poor, the bold, and the beautiful,etc.) or abstract concepts (the unknown, the unforgettable, the unattainable, etc.), they are used as subject, object and predicative, and can also be used with a definition (the idle rich, the filthy rich). At the same time, they retain some properties of the adjective, they have degrees of comparison. For example,He was pleased to be able to boast that a sister of his had married one of the most celebrated. The worstlive longer.
Like an adjective, they can be used in an adverb denoting degree
This combination of properties of adjective and noun distinguishes the substantive transposition of the adjective from the processes of conversion and ellipsis.
The meaning of adjectives that have passed into the syntactic position of nouns also undergoes certain changes: they designate not a quality, but a group of people or things related on the basis of a certain quality, and thus they become functional synonyms of two subclasses of nouns: a collective and an abstract noun. This function of generalization is performed by the definite article. The generalizing function of the definite article is best manifested in such cases when transferred adjectives are used in a number of homogeneous parts of the sentence; next to prototypical nouns, where the definite article performs the same generalizing function. For example: How kind of you to help the homeless andthe poor(.n.A.Ko3roBa, 2005: 119).
It should be remembered that substantiation (that is, the transition to another part of speech - a noun) does not occur; the term "substantiation" usually implies the functioning of the adjective in syntactic positions, which are characteristic, first of all, of a noun. Proper substantiation, as such, i.e., the transition of an adjective into a noun, with all its features, including morphological ones, is not excluded; it usually occurs with a stable ellipsis of a noun in an attributive phrase: a private (soldier),a native (inhabitant). However, this is a purely lexical process, and it is related to the grammatical system only insofar as it contributes to the formation of a word of another part of speech.
Like adjectives, numerals undergo a process of substantiation. Substantiated numerals acquire the following characteristics of a noun:
- general grammatical meaning of objectivity;
- the ability to form a plural: There are hundreds among the members of this community.
- the ability to combine articles and prepositions: He got a first in Mathematics; It's after five.
- syntactic functions of subject and object: Three can play this.
Cardinal numbers are more often substantivized than ordinal ones.
There is also a reverse process of substantiation of numerals - the transition of nouns (pair, dozen, score) into numerals, in which the grammatical category of number is lost, and the main word is usually entered without a preposition: 36 is three dozen.
In the works of A.I. Smirnitsky, the reverse process of substantiation is touched upon - the process of adjectivization of a noun. Adjectivization of a noun is observed when a compound word, the first component of which is the basis of a noun, is used in parallel with
60
PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES / «ШУШШШМ-ДОЦГМаи #7(N66)), 2©21
the combination of an adjective with a noun. In this case, the "substantive" component of the compound word can "separate from it" and form an adjective. In some cases, such a temporary adjectivization can develop into a permanent one. An adjectivized noun can become fixed and firmly enter the language as an adjective, acquiring all the features of the latter, in particular the possibility of change in degrees of comparison (А.И Смирницкий, 1959: 154).
However, the question of the adjectivization of nouns suggests the presence of some controversial points. Different linguists cannot agree on whether to consider the first element in constructions like a stone wall, or peace talks as a noun or an adjective. G. Sweet adheres to the position that, due to the lack of degrees of comparison, this element should be attributed to a noun. E.P. Shubin agrees with this opinion but emphasizes that it should be called an attributive noun, based on the syntactic function characteristic of this element.
According to O. Jespersen, the first elements of such constructions should be regarded as an adjective. To prove this, he gives the following arguments:
- they can be combined with adjectives: her Christian andfamily name;
- they may be followed by the word one: two gold earrings and a silver one;
- they may be preceded by an adverb: on rarely found places;
- some of them may have degrees of comparison: in a more gentle way.
Time will tell whether all attributive nouns will turn into adjectives, but the fact that their adjectiviza-tion takes place is beyond doubt (И. И.Прибыток, 2008: 65).
3. Conclusion. Based on the provisions given above, it was clearly displayed how parts of speech act in syntactic functions that are atypical for themselves. Weare of the opinion that the syntactic criterion is the leading one for highlighting parts of speech in the English language. Therefore, the article is aimed at demonstrating how, with the help of a syntactic criterion, words can be attributed to a certain class; to designate those areas where there is a crossing of classes; to demonstrate that the parts of speech are constantly in interaction.
References:
1. Azar, B.S. (2003).Fundamentals of English Grammar, Washington: Georgetown University Press.
2. Балли Ш. (1995).Общая лингвистика и вопросы французского языка. М95 ч.: Изд-во иностранной литературы.
3. Бархударов Л.С. ШтелингД.А. (1960). Грамматика английского языка. М:. Изд-во лит. на иностр. яз.
4. Blokh, M.Y. (1983). A course in theoretical English Grammar, Moscow: Russkaya Skola.
5. Блох М.Я. (1976). Вопросы изучения грамматического строя языка. - М.
6. Бортэ Л.В. (1979). Проявление связей между частями речи в современном русском языке. -Кишинев.
7. Есперсен О. (1958). Философия грамматики. - М.
8. Fromkin, V., Rodman, R. & N. Hyams (2003), An Introduction to Language. 7th edition. USA, Thomson: Heinle.
9. Greenbaum S. (1996). The Oxford English Grammar. - New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Halliday,M.A. (1994). An introduction to functional grammar. London: EdwardArnold.
11. ИвановаИ. П. (1981). Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка - М.: Высш. Школа.
12. Иванова И.П.(1981). О полевой структуре частей речи в английском язык. Теория языка: методы его исследования и преподавания. - Л.
13. Козлова Л.А. (1974). О различных подходах к проблеме взаимодействия классов слов. - Пятигорск.
14. Козлова Л.А.(2005) . Теоретическая грамматика английского языка, Барнаул.
15. Левицкий А. Э. (1998). Функциональные подходы к классификации единиц современного английского языка. Киев.
16. Morris R. (1886). English grammar. - London: Macmillan.
17. ПлоткинВ.Я. (2002). Строй английского языка. - М.: Высш. шк.
18. Прибыток И.И. (2008). Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. М.: Издательский-центр «Академия».
19. Swan, M. (2005). Grammar, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20. Смирницкий А.И.(1959). Морфология английского языка. - М.
21. Thompson, G. (2004). Introducing functional grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
22. ХлебниковаИ. Б.(2004). Морфология английского языка, М.: Высшая школа.
23. Шапкин А.П. (1969). К вопросу о взаимодействии классов слов в английском языке // Учен. зап. Московск. гос. пед. ин-та им. В.И. Ленина .
24. ЩербаЛ.В. (1974). Языковая система и речевая деятельность. - М.
