A Functional Analysis of Present Day English on a General Linguistic Basis 9783110813296, 9789027930774

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN W I J K DEDICATA edenda

curat

C. H. V A N S C H O O N E V E L D Indiana

University

Series Practica

208

A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS O F P R E S E N T DAY E N G L I S H ON A G E N E R A L L I N G U I S T I C BASIS

VILfiM MATHESIUS

Edited by PROF. Dr. J O S E F VACHEK, DrSc.

1975

MOUTON THE HAGUE - PARIS

ACADEMIA

Publishing House of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences PRAGUE

© V i l & n J . Mathesius, 1961 Notes © Josef Vachek, 1975 Translation © Libuse Duskova, 1975 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be translated

or reproduced

in

any form,

by

photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

Scientific Editor Doc. Dr. J a n Firbas, CSc. Scientific Adviser Doc. Dr. Rudolf Zimek, CSc. Translation by Dr. Libuse Duäkovä, CSc.

print,

CONTENTS

Introduction: On the scientific study of language 1. Currents of linguistic research 2. Plan of the present analysis 3. Encoding

9 13 15

A. Functional onomatology I. The meaning of the naming unit 1. The essence and character of the naming unit 2. Components of the naming unit

17 18

II. The form of the naming unit 1. Simple and descriptive naming units 2. The word. General considerations 3. Non-compound words 4. Compound words a) Definition of compound words b) Types of compounds c) Features of collocations d) Verbal compounds and collocations in English 5. Shortening of words and coining of new naming units . . . III. Classification of naming units 1. The problem of the parts of speech (word categories) . . . 2. Formal differences between the word categories in English . 3. The relation between substantives and adjectives in English 4. The relation between nouns and verbs in English 5. The relation between adjectives and adverbs in English . . IV. Classification within the word categories 1. Formal classification, aspectual modifications and categorial transitions 2. Formal classification and aspectual modifications of nouns . a) Gender of nouns b) Aspectual modification of grammatical number c) Aspectual modification of definiteness (Uses of the articles)

23 24 25 28 28 29 32 33 34 38 39 40 42 43

45 46 46 48 52

6

CONTENTS

3. Categorial transitions of nouns 4. Formal classification and aspectual modifications of adjectives 5. Categorial transitions of adjectives 6. Formal categories and aspectual modifications of verbs . . a) Formal categories of the verb b) Aspectual modifications of the verb a) General survey β) Tense γ) Remarks on the problems of tense in English . . . . δ) Verbal aspect ε) Mood 7. Categorial transitions of the verb in English a) The relation of the action to the subject b) The relation of the action to the object a) Subjective and objective verbs β) Reflexive verbs B. Functional syntax I. Definition of the sentence I I . Functional sentence analysis 1. The basis and the nucleus of a statement 2. One-element and two-element sentences from the point of view of functional sentence perspective 3. Functional and formal analysis of the sentence I I I . Formal analysis of simple sentences 1. General remarks 2. One-element verbless thetic sentences 3. One-element verbless predicative sentences 4. Two-element verbless sentences 5. Apposition 6. Absolute construction 7. Verbal sentences a) General remarks b) Grammatical person 8. The function of the subject in English 9. Predication in English a) Actional predication from the formal point of view . . . b) Actional predication from the semantic point of view: active predication c) Types of passive actional predication d) Qualifying predication

54 55 57 58 59 60 60 63 65 68 73 74 74 76 76 77

79 81 82 84 86 87 88 89 90 94 96 96 99 100 104 104 106 107 114

CONTENTS

7

e) Other types of predication 118 10. The object in English 120 a) General remarks 120 b) Object of the accusative type 122 c) Object of the dative type 126 d) Object of the genitive type 128 e) Other types of object 128 11. The attribute in English 133 a) Adjectival attribute 133 b) Substantival attribute 136 12. Adverbiale in English 140 a) General remarks 140 b) Expression of adverbials in English 141 IV. The English sentence as a whole 1. Means of complex condensation 146 a) General remarks 146 b) English participles 148 c) The infinitive and the gerund in English 150 d) Complex constructions 152 2. The word order of the English sentence 153 a) Principles determining the order of words in a language . 153 b) Other problems of English word order 160 3. Strengthening and emphasis 163 4. Notes on negation 165 V. Notes on other problems of functional syntax 1. Compound and complex sentences 171 2. The uses of moods and tenses 172 Notes Bibliography Editor's postscript to the original Czech edition (1961) Postscript to the English translation (1973) Index of persons Index of subjects Index of words

175 191 203 207 208 211 220

INTRODUCTION: ON THE S C I E N T I F I C S T U D Y OF L A N G U A G E

1. C U R R E N T S OF L I N G U I S T I C

RESEARCH

To begin with, it is to be emphasized that the following discussion is an introduction to a scientific, not to a practical study of English. Hence it is necessary to give a brief account of linguistics as a scientific discipline. Linguistics began to be pursued as a systematic science at the beginning of the last century. Its foundation was laid by the Dane R A S M U S R A S K (1787 — 1832) and the German F R A N Z B O P P (1791—1867). Comparing different ancient languages of Europe and Asia, they found some languages to be genetically related. Moreover, a more detailed comparison of identical or similar features in the related languages appeared to offer the possibility of determining the characteristics of an earlier common stage. The method employed by these scholars, the so-called method of g e n e t i c c o m p a r i s o n , prevailed in linguistics throughout the 19th century. It culminated in the N e o g r a m m a r i a n S c h o o l , whose most outstanding representatives were K A R L B R U G M A N X (1849—1919), B E R T H O L D D E L B R Ü C K (1842—1922) and H E R M A N N P A U L (1846—1921).1 One of the most important theses of the Neogrammarian School was the assertion that sound changes were governed by phonetic laws, which operate with no exceptions. This meant the introduction of a firm order into linguistics. The Neogrammarian School undeniably achieved remarkable results, but also had certain weaknesses. The excessive emphasis laid on the historical method, i. e. observation of isolated features of language in their development, resulted in the loss of the conception of a system, the system of language as a whole being thus lost sight of. (In the literature of the English language this is apparent, for example, in the otherwise good grammars bv J. and Ε. M. AVRIGHT, 2 which used to be very popular at one time.) The Neogrammarians also wrote descriptive grammars, although they considered descriptive, nonhistorical linguistics unscientific, but these grammars as a rule again described earlier stages of particular languages. Another weak point of the Neogrammarian School was the fact that its only available material was the language of written documents, which is artificially simplified, since writing

10

INTRODUCTION

does not reflect language in all its aspects (especially its phonic qualities). Besides, the language of written documents is determined by the style of the particular literary work and consequently does not represent the language in its entirety. This point can be illustrated by nominal clauses in English. I n Old English, nominal clauses must have existed, but they are not found in the preserved literary texts since the style of these texts did not admit them; in Middle English they abound, especially in the drama; in the 18th century they do not occur in essays, b u t are often used in the drama and the realistic novel. A third shortcoming of the Neogrammarians was their approach to language exclusively from the standpoint of the reader (or hearer), along with complete disregard of the equally important standpoint of the writer (or speaker). Genetic-comparative research, however, represents only one of the major currents of linguistic study in the 19th century. Besides this line of research, there existed another whose founder was the German scholar W I L H E L M VON H U M B O L D T (1767—1835). He employed the method of a n a l y t i c a l c o m p a r i s o n , i. e. he compared languages irrespective of their genetic relationship, in order to attain a deeper insight into their specific features and to determine their characteristic differences (cf. the flexible word order in Czech and the fixed, grammaticized word order in English). 3 From the beginning, Humboldt's school embraced a wide range of interests, including exotic, non-Indo-European languages, which involved the use of the s y n c h r o n i s t i c m e t h o d , i. e. the study of a particular stage of the language concerned. T h e fact t h a t t h e s t u d y of non-Indo-European languages whose earlier stages are often unknown requires t h e use of other m e t h o d s t h a n h a d been traditionally applied in I n d o - E u r o p e a n linguistics was realized in t h e 1 9 2 0 ' s , when A N T O I N E M E I L L E T a n d M A R C E L C O H E N published a comprehensive work dealing with all t h e m a j o r languages of t h e world ( 1 9 2 4 ) . I n this survey I n d o - E u r o p e a n languages are t r e a t e d diachronistically only with respect to their history, whereas in t h e case of non-Indo-European languages their linguistic characterologies are presented synchronistically.

I t would be erroneous to think, however, that the use of different methods is due only to the possibility or impossibility of establishing the history of a particular language. Humboldt applied the synchronistic approach as a matter of principle. He might thus be expected to have attained the conception of language as a system; in this respect, however, he barred his way by emphasizing t h a t speech was not an 'ergon' (a ready product) but 'energeia' (a creative process). Thus interest in language as a system receded into the background, the principal attention being turned to actual utterances. At the same time this also meant the introduction into linguistics of an undesirable psychological element. Psychology itself, however, is still in such an unsettled state that application of psychological methods in linguistics leads to

INTRODUCTION

11

the transfer of confusion from one science into another. 4 A further weakness of Humboldt's school was its endeavour to bring the character of a language into causal relationship with the character of the nation using it. I t is hard to say which of the two is the more difficult to grasp, one unknown being accounted for in terms of another. Humboldt's conception underwent modification but even after more than a hundred years of development it has failed to produce such an accurate method as had been elaborated by the Neogrammarians. Although many scholars tended towards Humboldt's method, each modified it in his own way. Humboldt's school was in its prime principally in the sixties, seventies and eighties of the last century. Its followers contributed mainly to the Zeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie, edited by Μ . LAZARUS ( 1 8 2 4 — 1 9 0 3 ) and Η . S T E I N T H A L ( 1 8 2 3 — 1 8 9 9 ) . Other adherents of Humboldt's ideas were G E O R G vox D E R G A B E L E N T Z ( 1 8 4 0 — 1 8 9 3 ) , somewhat later F R A N Z N I C O L A U S F I N C K ( 1 8 6 7 to 1 9 1 0 ) and especially the psychologist W I L H E L M W U N D T (1852—1920), the first two volumes of whose Völkerpsychologie (Leipzig 1 9 0 0 — 1 9 2 0 ) are devoted to speech. M A X D E U T S C H B E I N (the author of a systematic treatise System der neuenglischen Syntax [Cöthen 1917]) made an attempt to connect the character of the English language with that of the English people in a comprehensive work Handbuch der Englandkunde.5 Attempts at linguistic characterologv have another, quite practical source. Its beginnings go back to the period of Humanism when writers were required to use pure Ciceronian Latin. That was the reason for the production of manuals (so-called antibarbari) prescribing what was compatible with Ciceronian Latin and what was contrary to it. In a sense, manuals of this kind were an attempt to characterize a language both positively and negatively. In more recent times, a similar point of view has given rise to stylistic analyses of modern languages, especially in Germany. Some of them, written by linguists, apply the method of analytical comparison and thus reveal some points of interest for the characterization of the particular language (cf., for example, P H I L I P P ARONSTEIN

1923).

A third current of linguistic thought determining the course of development of linguistics in the 19th century is represented by the constitution of modern phonetics. From the middle of the I9th century, p h o n e t i c s was increasingly gaining ground and took up an important position among the sciences concerned with language. Phonetics resembles Humboldt's school in studying linguistic material synchronistically, but differs from it in being concerned with the phonic aspect of language in its entirety. Whereas Humboldt's school selected only the most important elements of language as its subject of study, phonetics records by means of instruments even what the human ear cannot register. From the linguistic point of view this may be regarded as a fault (corrected later by phonology). Therefore phonetics hardly ever, if

12

INTRODUCTION

at all, arrives at the conception of a system; it lays too much stress on speech (energeia). I t should be noted, however, t h a t some of the outstanding phoneticians (e. g. the Danish scholar OTTO J E S P E R S E N 1 8 6 0 — 1 9 4 3 ) arrived early at the concept of function and thus profitably diiferentiated themselves from the Neogrammarians, whose conception of language was too mechanical. Still, Jespersen failed to attain the conception of the system of language as it is understood at present, and although he corrected the Neogrammarian theory in many respects, his corrections are insufficient. 6 These are the three traditional linguistic trends of the 19th century; they of course often pervade one another. A fourth major linguistic current does not emerge as a distinct trend until the second quarter of the 20th century, even though its beginnings date back to an earlier period. This current is related to all the previous trends and is best denoted as f u n c t i o n a l s t r u c t u r a l i s m . 7 I t shares one feature with the second and third currents, viz. the interest in synchronistic study. I t points out emphatically t h a t the synchronistic study of language is as important and worthwhile as the historical study. I t compares languages both analytically and genetically, and differs from the previous currents mainly in two respects. First, it approaches language on principle from the functional aspect. The beginnings of the functional conception may be found among the followers of the Polish linguist J A N B A U D O U I N DE COURTENAY (1845—1929), who lectured for many years at Russian universities (Kazan, St. Petersburg). I n particular, it is necessary to mention the phonetician and linguist, Academician L. Y. Sc ERB A of Leningrad (1880—1945), who was one of the first to distinguish between phonetic elements with a distinctive function and those without one (cf. the difference [η — η] in Czech, where it lacks the distinctive function as compared with English, where this difference is functionally distinctive). I n Baudouin's school of thought, however, this functional difference is mistakenly conceived of in purely psychological terms. The beginnings of the functional approach can also be found in Jespersen's Lehrbuch der Phonetik, where the author treats sound economy (Lautökonomie) as a governing principle in language. The second feature that distinguishes functional structuralism from the previous currents is t h e c o n c e p t i o n of t h e s y s t e m . Language can be used as a means of communication only because it forms a system of signs which are interrelated and balanced in a certain manner. If this system is disturbed, a new equilibrium is achieved through the workings of the language itself. (This point was discussed by R O M A N J A K O B S O N , a member of the Prague School, in TCPL 2, 1929.) By emphasizing the system in language, functional structuralism approaches the first and the second, rather than the third current. I t follows up the idea of the Swiss linguist F E R D I N A N D DE SATTSSURE

13

INTRODUCTION

(1857—1913), who strictly distinguished language (la langue) and speech (la parole). La langue is a system of values that has an ideal reality, something like a moral code. 8 Langue is a system of norms that exists reliably in all speakers; its existence is clearly realized when it is deviated from or when we are faced with new communicative tasks for which the existing system of norms still lacks the means of expression. It is thus to be stressed that according to Saussure systematic character is primarily a property of la langue, which is also the view held by functional structuralists. Let us note in conclusion that de Saussure founded a school (the Geneva School), 9 whose most outstanding representatives were CHARLES B A L L Y and ALBERT SECHEHAYE. 1 0

2. P L A N OF T H E P R E S E N T

ANALYSIS

From what has been said so far it follows that we shall examine Present Day English synchronistically, applying the method of analytical comparison, and taking into consideration the functionalist and structuralist viewpoint. In our conception l a n g u a g e is a system of the means of expression, a system of signs, manifested in actual communication as the sum total of the possibilities available to the members of the same language community at a given time in a given place for the purpose of communication through speech, and identifiable from their realizations in particular utterances. This point should be especially emphasized: what can be observed directly are individual utterances on the basis of which the recognition of the system (la langue) can be attained. Direct recognition of this system occurs only occasionally as a result of a certain resistance that arises in a hearer when the system (as the norm) is violated by some other speaker. Other important questions are what constitutes an u t t e r a n c e , through what stages it arises and how comprehension is accomplished. Before answering these questions it is necessary to mention another point. Speech has two functions, i. e. it can operate as a means of e x p r e s s i o n or of c o m m u n i c a t i o n . Expression is spontaneous manifestation of one's emotions; it does not reckon, or is not meant to reckon, with the hearer. It is an act of expression for the sake of expression, of a purely subjective kind. On the other hand communication has a social character; it applies to another speaker as the hearer, being intended to evoke certain thoughts, ideas, decisions, etc. Originally speech presumably functioned only as a means of expression, which gradually changed into communication, until expression became a mere secondary signal accompanying communication. As a result of this process the languages known at present are largely based on communication. The sphere of expression is the source, for example, of primary unanalysable interjections (br, au and the like), vowel lengthening (more [sea — with a length-

14

INTRODUCTION

ened vowel*]), etc. However, the fact that at present speech is based on communication does not mean t h a t there is no longer a need for expression. On the contrary, we may observe that the need for expression is often satisfied in terms of the means of communication. As a matter of fact, a lyric is an example of pure expression which hardly ever aims at communicative function (or does so only as a secondary consideration). 11 Thus when we refer here to a particular utterance as the basis of linguistic analysis we mean primarily a communicative utterance. The different stages arising in the realization of a communicative utterance will be made clear by the following diagram:

writer

reader

I t is not always possible to discern these different stages by introspection, but their existence can be proved negatively by the obstacles that may arise in the formation of an utterance. We often find the content of thought difficult * The translations of Czech examples in square brackets have been a d d e d by t h e translator for t h e convenience of readers unfamiliar with Czech. The degree of literalness is a d a p t e d according to t h e character of t h e point being d e m o n s t r a t e d .

INTRODUCTION

15

to express by means of language, that is we must overcome certain obstacles in proceeding from the content of thought to the encoding. Similar obstacles are involved in the attempt to comprehend an utterance which is not encoded clearly — such instances testify to the existence of the stage denoted as decoding in the above diagram. The above diagram can thus be adopted as the basis of our further procedure. From the linguistic point of view the most important stages are those of e n c o d i n g and d e c o d i n g . The main topic in the present analysis is the question of the nature of encoding in Present Day English. Encoding can be studied from two points of view. To begin with, we can start from the content of thought and observe the manner in which it is reshaped in order to assume the form of encoding specific for a particular language or a language system. Secondly, we can examine encoding from the aspect of a spoken (or written) utterance, i. e. observe the means (acoustic or graphic) by which the encoding of the content of thought is communicated to another person. This kind of investigation is the task of the phonetic-phonological (or graphic) analysis. In this connection it is necessary to add a remark concerning the dichotomy 'spoken utterance —written utterance'. Bopp and most of the other early linguists studied only written material, whereas modern dialectology is in turn concerned only with speech. A t present, however, it is admitted that a written utterance is a form of language sui generis just as a spoken utterance, each having its specific function (cf. A. ABTYMOVYC 1932). Although the written utterance has developed on the basis of speech, it is not a mere mechanical projection of the latter. In cultural languages written language has attained considerable autonomy with respect to speech. I t is to be stressed that orthography does not have the function of phonetic transcription but should reflect both the phonological and the morphological character of the language in question (cf. J. VACHEK 1933)."

3. E N C O D I N G

The content of thought underlying encoding is diverse; it mostly reflects outward experiences, e. g., the fact that someone is writing on the blackboard. What we see is a mixture of visual perceptions. I f all of it were taken as the raw material, it would be a tremendous mixture, incapable of being expressed directly; its expression only becomes possible on the basis of selective analysis. The mixture is broken up into several wholes which, however, do not contain all its elements. We select only such elements as attract our attention and are capable of being denominated by language. This is the first stage of encoding: the content of thought is subjected to selective analysis which provides the elements capable of being denominated by language.13 Thus

16

INTRODUCTION

if we wish to speak about the above experience in Czech, the following elements are available: ucitel [teacher], psat [to write], tabule [blackboard]; in other languages, however, these elements might be different (e. g., it is possible to imagine a language incapable of denominating a blackboard b u t only a 'wall with a blackboard', etc.). In different languages the elements capable of being denominated differ, though in the Indo-European languages they often display much similarity. However, the described procedure does not constitute the entire encoding process. After the elements capable of being denominated have been selected they must be brought into mutual relations in the act of sentence formation, this process constituting an utterance: Ucitel pise na tabuli [the teacher is writing on the blackboard]. The encoding of the content of thought is thus accomplished in two stages. First there is s e l e c t i v e a n a l y s i s providing the elements capable of being denominated by language, which are then brought into m u t u a l r e l a t i o n i n t h e a c t of s e n t e n c e f o r m a t i o n . Only then does the content of thought take the form of an actual utterance. Accordingly the following discussion will be divided into two parts: (a) f u n c t i o n a l o n o m a t o l o g y (the study of the naming units), and (b) f u n c t i o n a l s y n t a x (thestudyof the means by which naming units are brought into mutual relation). Across both these parts runs m o r p h o l o g y , which is concerned with the linguistic forms arranged into systems according to formal criteria. 14 Evidence for the existence of the two parts of the encoding process is found in different types of aphasia (a branch of psychiatry concerned with speech disorders). For a linguist, speech disorders are important in that their different types prove the existence of the different language centres corresponding to the described stages of encoding. For instance, sometimes a person can form sentences but does not understand words — which means t h a t his ability to denominate objects and events by language has been impaired; in another type of speech disorder, a person understands words, but cannot make a sentence — then the disorder has affected his syntactic ability (so-called agrammatism). 15 ' 16

A. F U N C T I O N A L ONOMATOLOGY

I. T H E

MEANING

OF T H E

NAMING

UNIT

1. T H E E S S E N C E A N D C H A R A C T E R OF T H E N A M I N G

UNIT

What is the essence and character of the naming unit ? In the first place it should be realized that the word as a naming unit is a c o n v e n t i o n a l sign (e. g. the word hül [stick] is a conventional denotation of the object 'stick'), i. e. there is nothing in the denotation that would be necessarily determined by the nature of the object itself. (Therefore other languages denote this object differently — of. stick in English, Stock in German, etc.) In E. Maktinak's fitting formulation (1901) the word is a sign whose value is given 'thesei' (by agreement), not 'physei' (by nature), as in the case of a cry uttered in pain. On the other hand, the fact that the word as a naming unit is a conventional sign entails that this convention must be observed, i. e. none of us is allowed to form an individual system of his own naming units (as sometimes occurs in children's word formation). In other words, language convention is as binding for the respective community as any other convention. Another important feature of the naming unit is its g e n e r a l i t y , that is the word as a naming unit is a sign for a general idea formed by our general experience; it is thus neither a sign for a concept, nor for a unique notion. In other words, if we say the word MZ [stick] it may not refer to just a particular stick, but to any stick at all. This general notion, however, does not necessarily constitute a concept; a concept would be formed on the basis of an exact definition of what is understood by a stick (as is the case of a legal or other scientific definition).17 Words can thus, as a rule, refer to particular notions only in a certain context, i. e. in a certain situation (an exception being denotation of unique objects, such as the sun, but even these may sometimes acquire a genera sense, for instance in astronomical contexts). Some names, including proper names, acquire a unique meaning only in a certain situation. Some proper names are of course very definite (Prague, Charles Dickens), but others acquire unique reference only in certain contextual connections (e. g. Mr. Smith). After all, even some common nouns are known to be capable of acquiring a unique meaning, e. g. father, mother in a particular family —- for

18

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

this reason they are used with no article in such contexts. (Similarly in the context of a particular class it is possible to use the word teacher without article if the teacher o f t h a t class is referred to; cf. also town in the speech of the inhabitants of the nearest surroundings of that town.) 18 However, such particular applications of the meaning of a word are largely a matter of the context; in the system of language the word as a naming unit is essentially an expression of a general notion. The range of this notion may of course be different. Roughly speaking, words in a language with a synthetic structure (such as Czech) usually have a more definite meaning than words in a language with an analytical structure (such as English or French). This can be shown by comparing the Czech verb vziti with English take — the meaning of the latter is usually specified by the contextual connection, whereas the meaning of the Czech word, though also context-dependent, shows distinctly a lesser degree of context-dependence than that of English take. A word in English usually has a wider and thus a less definite meaning than the corresponding word in Czech.

2. C O M P O N E N T S OP T H E N A M I N G U N I T

Each naming unit has the following components: (1) the semantic nucleus, which constitutes the basic meaning of the word; (2) the associations attached to the word; and (3) what may be called "emotional colouring". The last component m a y be very i m p o r t a n t (cf. K . 0 . E r d m a n n 1910; H a n s Spebbeb [1925] assigns associations and emotional colouring to the same class of

'consociations')· 19 If English naming units are compared with the stock of words in Czech, one finds a major difference which has already been implied by the foregoing discussions; English words as naming units usually have a wider range and thus a more general and less definite content than Czech words, and are therefore better suited to denote figurative meanings. This difference is encountered especially in translating. A Czech word often has a too narrow, concrete meaning and does not fit in the particular context as well as the corresponding English word. To illustrate this point let us compare the words prostor and space. I n Czech prostor is nearly always three-dimensional and local (if it is used in reference to time it requires the adjective casovy (prostor) [temporal space] since this use is an exception), whereas in English, space refers to both place and time. (Information on such fine points can be found in unilingual English dictionaries; in bilingual English-Czech and Czech-English dictionaries they are not treated systematically.) Even though English words differ from Czech words in that an English word as a naming unit generally has a wider range and consequently a more

THE MEANING OF THE NAMING UNIT

19

general content than its Czech counterpart, English style is required to be highly accurate, logical and concrete. It is thus often necessary to express explicitly in English what in Czech is taken for granted; consequently, English often uses more words where fewer are needed in Czech. For instance, Czech psal mi [he wrote to me] is often expressed in English by he wrote to tell me, or Jeho romanticke charaktery jsou blede [his romantic characters are pale] corresponds in English to His romantic characters are pale of colour. When comparing English and Czech words with respect to their content, we often find that the idea of a thing expressed by the English word does not correspond in all its features to the idea expressed by the corresponding Czech word (e. g. window, bread-and-butter, a cup of tea, bedroom). Though many things in the life of the Czech and the English people are essentially the same, they may differ in certain features; for this reason the meanings of the above words in the two languages are somewhat different. Other differences may be due to the fact that the English extralingual reality sometimes contains items not found in the Czech sphere (this applies especially to cooking: Svestkove hnedliky [plum dumplings], pie, bacon·, but also to other fields, cf. pefina [feather bed], area).20 Yet another source of difference is found where the English and the Czech items of the extralingual reality correspond but the English and the Czech ideas of these items focus attention on different features. This is especially evident in derived words and comparisons. Thus smetana is cream in English, but a creamy voice must be expressed as hebky hlas [smooth voice] in Czech since the Czech naming unit smetana suggests taste rather than the notion of soft elasticity. Similarly English as hard as brick corresponds to Czech tvrdy jako kämen [as hard as stone], the word cihla [brick] in Czech conveying the notion of weight rather than of hardness. There can be another difference between a Czech and an English naming unit — again where the items of the extralingual reality of Czech and English correspond, but where each language distinguishes different parts within the same whole (cf. leg — foot in English compared with noha in Czech, similarly arm — hand compared with ruka).21 Instances where a word in one language has two or several equivalents in another language belong to the sphere of synonymy, the treatment of synonymy in a particular language being called synonymies. Synonyms require a careful study since each of them has different consociations. (Of the treatments of English synonyms the best-known is G . K R Ü G E R ' S 1 9 1 0 , written with respect to German.)22 In dealing with synonyms, attention should be paid to the aspect on which synonymy is based. For instance, the English verbs to try, attempt, endeavour are semantically almost identical, but differ in their consociations; they are thus true synonyms. Sometimes, however, the semantic range of two words in one language is covered by one word in another language. This is not a case

20

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

of true synonymy but of different concept boundaries (e. g., English leg —foot compared with Czech noha, English step — degree compared with Czech stwpen). Both true synonyms (such as liberty —freedom) and apparent synonyms (leg -— foot) are of great importance. The difference between them should be clearly realized. If we substitute apparent synonyms for one another, we commit a gross error, whereas substitution of true synonyms results only in stylistic clumsiness or inaccuracy. The meaning of synonyms is often specified in terms of their semantic opposites (antonyms), e. g. old — new, ancient — modern. A major source of true synonyms in English is the fact t h a t the English stock of words is largely of dual origin: G e r m a n i c (Saxon words, also short words) and L a t i n (Latin words, also long words; these also include words from Greek and French). The difference can be shown by such pairs of words as freedom — liberty, to begin — to commence, to try •— to attempt, etc. Czech vocabulary also includes words of foreign origin, but here the situation is essentially different. There are foreign words of two kinds: in the first place, those t h a t were taken over at the time of the national decline; as a result of puristic efforts these words have been relegated to the sphere of vulgarisms. Second, there are foreign words borrowed in recent times (from French and English) that represent the higher stylistic layer of the vocabulary. An interesting article concerned with these questions was written by 0 , V O C A D L O 1931. Here English is shown to have two parallel sets of names for the theatre and theatrical notions in general: Germanic and Graeco-Latin, cf. play — drama, playhouse — theatre, player —• actor, playwright — dramatist, etc. Each member of such a pair of words has a different consociation, the Graeco-Latin words invariably having a higher stylistic value than the native. 23 In Czech, on the other hand, this is not always the case since many of the foreign words, especially those taken over at an early period from German or through its medium, are now felt as rather vulgar (cf. such pairs as divadlo [theatre] — tyjdtr, herec [actor] — akter, etc.).24 For a treatment of the two strata in the English vocabulary, see also 0 . J E S P E R S E N 1905; P H . A R O N S T E I K 1925; K . L U I C K 1914—1940, pp. 74 ff.25 It is a characteristic feature of this duality in the English vocabulary that a Germanic noun is frequently matched by a Latin adjective, e. g. ear — auricular, house — domestic, etc. (cf. P . M. ROGET 1935). 2 6

The fact that the English vocabulary contains many words of Latin origin results in a number of words common to both Czech and English. Here a word of caution is required against transferring the meaning these Latin words have acquired in Czech to the corresponding words in English. For instance, novel means romdn, not novela [novelette]; actual primarily means skuteintf, much less often aJetudlni [topical]; college does not usually denote the same notion as Icolej [students' hostel], cream as krem [face cream, cake filling], sympathy as sympatie [liking], etc. (cf. M . K O E S S L E R - J . D E R O C QUIGNY 1928). Sometimes a word found in English does not occur in Czech, but is familiar from Latin or French. Even here, there are sometimes semantic differences

T H E MEANING OF T H E NAMING U N I T

21

(presently, public school, etc.). Thus the meaning of a word is not invariably due to its etymology, nor is it analogous to the meaning common in Czech, Latin or French. The view that etymology necessarily determines the meaning of a word (though this is largely the case) has been strongly opposed by C H A B L E S B A L L Y 1 9 0 9 . Finally let us note that English contains some words of the Latin type that are very similar in form but different in meaning (observation — observance, appearance — apparition).

We shall ηολν proceed to a discussion of the e m o t i o n a l c o l o u r i n g of words, which has recently drawn a great deal of attention. The emotional colouring of a word is of course not due to its etymological value but to its actual uses and especially to the associations that arise when the word is used. Thus some familiar Czech vulgarisms are quite unobjectionable in the languages from which they have been borrowed, e. g. Spanish retirado, German Häusel·, after all, even some of the present vulgarisms of native provenance, such as devka [whore], pacholek [knave], were originally quite impeccable. On the other hand, original vulgarisms often lose the undesirable shade of meaning, e. g., the Czech term of endearment bobecek [singular diminutive of 'droppings'], girl in English, whose etymology is sometimes connected with the words that mean 'manure' in English dialects. I t can thus be said that in actual use words acquire an emotional colouring which either lowers them to the sphere of vulgarisms or promotes them to a stylistically higher or neutral level. These facts are of importance for the characterization of the vocabulary. Once a word acquires an undesirable shade of meaning, it is eliminated from the vocabulary of educated speakers. Remedy is sought in two directions: either the original word undergoes a sound change t h a t obscures the original form (though the latter remains traceable) or it is replaced by another word devoid of the objectionable colouring. The latter kind of remedy is called euphemism. The remedy through modification of the original form of the word underlies the replacement of such Czech words as zatraceny [damned], sakramentsky [damned, blooming] by expressions like zatracepentf, saframentsky, etc. During the Puritan period in England swearing and the use of words like God were prohibited. At the beginning of the 17th century words like God and Jesus were prohibited on the stage. In Elizabethan plays swearing was common, but after the Puritan prohibition it disappeared from the drama. However, it did not disappear completely from speech; it only changed into expressions like Good(ness) gracious, Jingo, by Jingo! Similarly, instead of by Jesus people said by Jove, the inadmissible word damned being printed d—d or replaced by words like dashed or darned. The emotional sphere sometimes displays complete reversals of meaning. For instance, blessed acquired the meaning of 'damned' so that it fell into disuse and was replaced by other, then unobjectionable words commencing with the consonant group bl-, in particular bloody. Even this word, however, acquired the meaning of 'damned' and in literature

22

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

the original meaning had to be expressed in a different way. Another substitution for blessed, bloody, viz. blooming, soon underwent the same development as its predecessors. At present, the expression occasionally used for 'damned' is blinking. The other kind of remedy, euphemism, flourished especially in the Victorian period. At that time prudery called forth the replacement of such words as trousers by inexplicables or unmentionables·, even leg was replaced by limb, and the like. At one time, there was a tendency not to use the names of male animals. Thus bull was referred to as ox or even as gentleman-cow (especially in American English). 27 There is yet another remedy that can be used, viz. the replacement of the native word with an undesirable colouring by a foreign word devoid of any such shade of meaning. This, however, often results in a dislike for foreign words. O. VOCADLO 1932 distinguishes three reasons for which vocabulary is restricted: (1) moral, (2) national, and (3) attempts at correctness. In different languages the degree of opposition to foreign words differs; probably most foreign words have been uprooted by Hungarian. In English such puristic tendencies could hardly assert themselves, occasional efforts at promoting native words (so-called Saxonisms) being usually of short duration (cf. 0 . VOCADLO 1935.)

23

II. T H E FORM OF THE NAMING UNIT

1. S I M P L E A N D D E S C R I P T I V E N A M I N G U N I T S

Let us now proceed to the discussion of the form of the naming unit. Naming units can be divided into simple and descriptive. We shall first treat descriptive naming units. When encountering the substantival term vplatni for the first time we may not know what it means, b u t in spite of that we can guess at its meaning from our linguistic experience. I t obviously denotes a charge (tax) since words with the suffix -we in Czech usually denote charges (cf. stocne, vodne [water-rate], dlazebnd [charge for the use of pavement]). The suffix -ne indicates a charge, the stem flat- in turn points to a charge connected with payment, and finally the prefix v- [in] signals t h a t the payment must be made in a certain manner. This is an example of a descriptive naming unit, i. e. a unit whose meaning is indicated by the smaller meaningful segments into which the naming unit can be dissociated by means of associative analysis. What is understood by associative analysis ? I t can be contrasted with etymological analysis. Associative analysis consists in breaking up a specimen of language structure on the synchronistic basis. When attempting to guess the meaning of the word vplatne we compared it with synchronistic material only, i. e. material taken from the present-day stage of the language. Such analysis is called associative because on the basis of association it groups words t h a t share one component whose identical form involves identical meaning. I n the above example we thus obtain (1) the group of words associated on account of their containing the component -ne; (2) the group of words associated through the component plat- (plat [pay sb.], platit [pay vb.], platebni [relating to payment, adj.]); and (3) the group of words associated on account of the component v- (vndset [bring into], vchdzet, vstupovat [enter]). On the other hand etymological analysis is performed on a diachronistic basis. I t is an analysis of a specimen of language structure by which one seeks to establish its earlier stage on the basis of genetically related structures. Such etymological analysis leads to the finding t h a t the English word queen and the Czech word zena [woman] are genetically related.

24

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

In contrast to descriptive naming units, simple naming units are not amenable to associative analysis by means of which they could be dissociated into semantic components. As a result their meaning can be neither determined nor guessed at in this manner. A naming unit of this kind is Czech still, English desk. As regards historical development, J. M. Rozwadowski 1904 tried to prove that all naming units were originally descriptive. This is possible28 (though it does not apply to purely expressive words, such as interjections), but for those who approach English from the synchronistic point of view it will suffice to divide naming units into simple, i. e. synchronistically unanalysable, and descriptive, i. e. synchronistically analysable into at least two parts. It is to be noted, however, that in current speech even descriptive naming units are largely treated as simple units since their descriptive character is not usually realized. Only when we come across a naming unit unfamiliar to us or when a naming unit happens to be misused do we clearly realize its composition, provided that it is a descriptive naming unit and that at least some of its components are known to us from previous experience.

2. T H E W O R D . G E N E R A L

CONSIDERATIONS

In commonly known languages the basic form of the naming unit is the word. The word is the smallest meaningful, independently utilizable part of an utterance, arrived at by means of associative analysis. The most conspicuous feature of its independent utilizability is the freedom to occupy different positions and the capability of being separated from the rest of the utterance. For our purpose this definition will suffice. The problem of the word, however, is much more complicated. There are often disputes concerning what should and what should not be regarded as a word. For instance, at one time Romance scholars debated the question whether Je ne le dis pas constitutes one word or five (see L. Tesnieee 1932). It certainly does not seem to be a word of five syllables (such as Czech nevypoviddrn [I am not giving evidence]) for the following reasons: The word nevypoviddm is a whole whose structure cannot be changed by altering the position of its parts (syllables). On the other hand, it is possible to say ne le dis-je pas'1., i. e. to change the order of the components of what is assumed to be a word. (Some other facts, such as the possibility of omitting le, are not so essential as this is also possible in the word nevypoviddm; the most important criterion is the freedom of the parts of je ne le dis pas to occupy different positions.) Linguists attempt to establish precise criteria determining what falls within the definition of the word and what should be excluded. It is important to realize, however, that there are borderline cases; besides independent words there are words approaching affixes (cf. J. Vachek 1935).29

T H E F O R M O F T H E NAMING U N I T

25

I n treating t h e problem of the word, care should be t a k e n not to mix t h e purely phonetic a n d t h e linguistic points of view. At t h e t u r n of the century, i. e. a t t h e time of t h e great upsurge of phonetics, speech was t h o u g h t to be conceivable only in t e r m s of phonetics. This conception gave rise to t h e theory of t h e non-existence of words in speech, since in speech words cannot be ascertained phonetically. W h a t is phonetically observable is a continuous stream of sounds whose segment ation into words is carried out by t h e hearer himself only on t h e basis of his previous linguistic experience. As a result, t h e word was claimed to be a mere product of artificial analysis. This opinion was held by H E N R Y S W E E T , who found followers among German phoneticians. S\veet even revised his Elementarbuch des gesprochenen Englisch 1885 in such a way t h a t in t h e transcriptions of continuous t e x t s sentences are divided not into words b u t into stress groups t h a t always s t a r t with a stressed syllable. A similar procedure was adopted by t h e German phonetician E D U A R D S I E V E R S , who divided the sentence Wo sind die Gefangenen as [vo: zindigs fa^an^n]. F r o m this t h e German linguistic psychologist G. D I T T R I C H concluded t h a t it was a sentence without words and postulated t h e description of the s y n t a x specific for such sentences. These views were erroneous. I t is fallacious to draw conclusions only from t h e phonetic form a n d to ignore t h e semantic aspect. Mention has already been m a d e of associative analysis. Associative analysis, which takes into account factors of content, is b o u n d to lead to the recognition of t h e existence of t h e word. The present writer has arrived at t h e conclusion ( 1 9 1 1 ) t h a t t h e word exists b u t its independence is only potential, i. e. it m a y or m a y not be manifest. I t is erroneous to generalize those instances where the word does not behave as an independent unit. This viewpoint came to be justified in the thirties in t h e journal Maitre Phonetique, where t h e o u t s t a n d i n g English phonetician D. J O N E S drew attention to t h e fact t h a t on t h e basis of refined phonetic analysis a word can be discerned even f r o m a strictly phonetic point of view (cf. J . VACHEK

1934).

3. N O N - C O M P O U N D

WORDS

The basic form of the naming unit is thus the word, the smallest independently utilizable part arrived at by associative analysis of an utterance. If we apply what has been said about the two basic types of the naming unit, i. e. simple and descriptive naming units, to the word itself, we find that from the formal point of view there are several word types. Leaving aside compound words for the present and confining ourselves to non-compound words, we can distinguish three main types: bare words, words with alternation and derived words. The first type (bare words) includes words that cannot be dissociated by means of associative analysis into smaller semanticallv distinct parts (e. g. Czech mol [moth], vrak [wreck], English bell, sun, etc.). The second type comprises words with alternation, i. e. words which though incapable of being dissociated into smaller semantically distinct parts by means of associative analysis display p h o n o l o g i c a l a l t e r n a t i o n with respect to related words. What is meant by this term? The word is known to be imple-

26

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

mented b y phonemes, i.e. the smallest phonic segments capable of distinguishing meanings of words. For instance, the word nes [carry!] covers three phonemes n/e/s; if a n y of these phonemes is replaced b y another, the meaning of the word is changed, cf. les [forest], ncis [us], nech [let!], etc. I t is generally known t h a t no phoneme can be substituted for another without changing or disturbing the meaning of the whole of which it is a constituent part. H e n c e alternation is a variation of the phonemes of semantically related words which does not change the basic meaning of the word, but modifies it to some extent. F o r instance, the imperatives »/e/e — w/o/s [carry!] h a v e essentially the same meaning, the alternation of the vowels ο and e indicating different verbal aspects. There is also alternation between consonants (e. g. plat [pay sb.] — plat [pay! imperative]) or between a vowel and zero (pes [dog] — ps/a [genitive], sen [dream] — snju [genitive]) and the like. Words w i t h alternation are characteristic of Semitic languages. I n these languages the verb as a rule has a root consisting of three consonants, which is the carrier of the basic meaning. The meaning of the root is then grammatically modified according to the vowels t h a t alternate within it. English has some alternations of this kind in accidence (we sing — we sang). I n the English vocabulary, however, alternation is rare (e. g. a light, informal conversation can be denoted as chit-chat, t h a t is alternation accompanied b y reduplication); in some cases alternation or double alternation is found as the distinguishing feature of certain nouns and verbs (use [s] — use [z], break — breach, etc.). T h e third type, represented b y derived words, is of particular interest. Words belonging to this t y p e can be dissociated b y means of associative analysis into dependent, semantically distinct segments, the so-called morphemes. The morpheme is the smallest part of the word t h a t has its own meaning; it is arrived a t b y means of associative analysis. Morphemes can be divided into lexical (free) and non-lexical (bound). A lexical morpheme can operate as an independent word either directly or w i t h some modifications, whereas in a non-lexical morpheme this capacity is lacking. F o r instance, the word vjplatjne consists of three morphemes, of which the morpheme plat- can operate as an independent word, while -ne cannot. (The morpheme v- involves some difficulties in this respect since it is not certain whether all Czech prepositions are independent words.) H a v i n g made this distinction, we can now resume the question as to w h a t constitutes a derived word and w h a t is the substance of d e r i v a t i o n . A derived word is composed of a t least t w o morphemes, one o f which (usually the first) can sometimes operate as an independent word, whereas the other morpheme (usually the terminal) is as a rule non-lexical (bound). I f a word contains more t h a n t w o morphemes, the number of the lexical morphemes m a y be larger, but at least one morpheme, usually the terminal, is non-lexical. Hence a derived

T H E FORM OF T H E NAMING UNIT

27

word can be said to consist of the base morpheme, which is invariably lexical, and the so-called affixes, i. e. non-lexical (bound) morphemes, which fall into three groups, according to their position in the word, viz. s u f f i x e s , p r e f i x e s and i n f i x e s . In both English and Czech, naming units often have the form of derived words, but the nature of the derived words in the two languages displays considerable differences. 1. The stock of prefixes and suffixes in English, just as the overall stock of words, is partly of native, i. e. Germanic, origin, and partly due to foreign sources, Latin (or more precisely, Graeco-Latin) or French. (An instructive list of the Modern English affixes is presented by A. S C H R Ö E R 1909. )30 Though Czech also has affixes of foreign origin their uses are governed by other principles than the uses of foreign affixes in English. Czech permits the attachment of a foreign suffix as a rule only if the base morpheme is also foreign. I f a foreign suffix is attached to a native morpheme, this is felt as a hybrid, incongruous combination. Czech words derived in this manner usually have a pejorative or humorous colouring (e. g. syndtor [son + ator], veddtor [pundit — science + -fator], vlivologie [influence + ology])31. Words formed in this fashion have established themselves only in rare instances (nadace [foundation, grant], i. e. give + atio, is fully established besides the earlier expression naddni; as compared with the latter the new word has the advantage of being capable of forming the adjective nadacni). A similar case is korunovace [coronation] (originally koronace from Latin coronatio, assimilated to the native word korunovdni). The words houslista [violinist] and mdjista [member of the group of poets associated with the literary magazine Mdj (May)] are formed on the analogy of pianista [pianist], realista [realist], etc. The foreign character of hybrid formations in Czech is evidenced by the fact that though Mozarteum is tolerated, Dvofdkeum does not sound Czech. In English, on the other hand, hybrid formation is quite natural; it involves no humorous or other peculiar colouring whatever. In German this type of word formation is unknown — it is an absurd idea to imagine a word like *Sterbation, analogous to starvation, formed from the verb starve by means of the suffix -ation. Hybrid formation has given rise to many other English words, such as drinkable, eatable, breakable, etc. 2. When in Czech a suffix is attached to the base morpheme, the latter often displays alternations; cf. had [snake] — hddjek [small snake], ptdk [bird] — ptdcjek [small bird] (but without any change in motyl [butterfly] — motyljek [small butterfly]). In English such alternations are rare. In the productive types of word formation, i. e. such as underlie the new words that come into existence at present, they are absent altogether. Examples of alternation are deep — depth, broad — breadth, duke — duchess·, they represent unproductive types of word formation. Czech, on the other hand, displays alternation even in the most recent words (e. g. tank [tank] — tancjik [small tank]). Formations

28

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

of this kind show that the attachment of a suffix to the word base is closer in Czech than in English. 3. If suffixes and prefixes are accumulated in one word it is referred to as p o l y m o r p h e m i c . Formations of this kind are found in both Czech and English. An English example is dull un I event jful / ness. I n Czech polymorphemic words are undoubtedly more common than in English. What is of particular importance is the fact t h a t each non-lexical morpheme of an English polymorphemic word has its own distinct meaning. On the other hand, morphemes in Czech polymorphemic words often only add emotional reinforcement to the meaning conveyed by the first non-lexical morpheme, e. g. maty [small] — maljink/y — mal jink jat y (the suffix -aty merely strengthens the meaning of the preceding diminutive suffix -ink-). 4. In Czech the base morpheme can be only one lexical morpheme or at most two lexical morphemes united in a compound, e. g. bratrovrazednij [fratricidal] (derived from the compound bratrojvrazda [fratricide]). I n English it is possible to form derivatives even from groups of words. This is due partly to the looser attachment of suffixes, partly to the weakened capacity of English to give rise to formally distinct compounds, instead of which we often find mere groups of words. For instance, the expression Lord Chancellor consists of two independent words, and yet this group of two words can serve as the base of the derivative Lord Chancellorship. There are even more interesting cases: in other and more get-at-able places (the verb get at + the suffix -able) or the I don't knowish tone of speaking, where the base of the derivation is a whole clause. From what has been said it is evident t h a t English suffixes have a considerable degree of freedom compared with suffixes in Czech. This also applies to prefixes. For instance, a prefix may be preposed to a group of words: besides gardener, city gardener, one can also find an ex-city gardener, an exservice man, a pre-1870 workman and the like.32 In connection with Latin affixes it should be mentioned that educated Englishmen are expected to be fairly familiar with them, Latin affixes being often used with the full force of their semantic distinctions. For instance, other ships are obsolescent if not obsolete (according to Latin obsolescens — obsolctus). Herewith we conclude our brief survey of the main types of noncompound words. 4. C O M P O U N D

a) Definition

WORDS

of compound words

A compound can be defined from the formal point of view as a word t h a t can be dissociated through associative analysis into at least two lexical morphemes of which the one in the terminal position has the same grammatical capacity,

T H E FORM OF T H E NAMING U N I T

29

and sometimes even the same form, as an independent word, whereas the other morphemes lack this capacity; they sometimes also lack the form of an independent word and are thus formally characterized as dependent (bound) word-forms. An analysis of Czech words like bratrojvrah [fratricide, person], kazijsi'it [(spoils-world) bungler], or nezna/boh [(not-knows-god) godless person] shows that each consists of two lexical morphemes. The morpheme in the terminal position has the same grammatical capacity as an independent word (e. g. inflection), and in some instances even its form (-vrah [murderer], -svet [world]); in the case of -boh [god] the form does not exist independently but the grammatical capacity of an independent word persists since the morpheme is capable of inflection and even derivation, e. g. neznabozecky [godless]. The other morphemes (bratro- [brother-], nezna- [not-know-], kazi- [spoils-]) lack the grammatical capacity of independent words and are thus formally characterized as bound word-forms. Moreover, they also lack the form of independent words. Similarly in the German compound Abendblatt the base morpheme -bkitt has the same grammatical capacity and form as an independent word, whereas the morpheme Abend-, though having the form of an independent word, lacks its grammatical capacity. Hence it appears that compounds are easiest to define from the formal point of view. There have also been attempts to define them semantically. A compound has been defined as a connection of two words whose semantics no longer conveys the independent meaning of the components. Such a definition does not apply to collocations of two words like psi vino [(dog's wine) Virginia creeper] where the semantic isolation of the whole with respect to its components has admittedly taken place and yet the collocation does not constitute a compound.

b) Types

of

compounds

The next question concerns the types of compounds, of which there are many. They can be classified according to the word classes of the constituent morphemes (bratrovrah [fratricide] — noun + noun, modrosedy [greyish blue] •— adjective + adjective, kazisvet [spoils-world] — verb + noun). Another criterion is provided by the relation between the components of the compound. The relation may be that of qualification (one morpheme qualifies the other, e. g. svetlemodri) [light blue], tmavomodry [dark blue], modroSedy [greyish blue]. These are q u a l i f y i n g compounds. On the other hand in cervenobily [red-and-white] the first morpheme does not qualify the second, both colours being equivalent parts of the whole; these are c o p u l a t i v e compounds. A very archaic type is represented by b a h u v r i h i compounds,

30

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

which express a quality of something t h a t exists outside the compound itself (therefore they are also called e x o c e n t r i e ) , e. g. German Krauskopf (cf. the Czech surname Kucera [curly-headed]): the quality denoted by the compound belongs to a man whom the compound refers to but whom it does not denote explicitly. Classification of compounds according to all these criteria is no doubt important, but the characterization of English compounds requires a classification of a different kind. There is an essential difference between compounds in which the determined component is expressed by the terminal morpheme (bratrovrah [fratricide] — a murderer who has killed his brother) and those compounds whose determined component is at the beginning (kazisvet [spoils-world] — a man who spoils the world). Hence there are two types of compounds according to whether the determinandum occurs at the end and the determinans precedes (bratrovrah [fratricide]) or whether the determinandum occurs at the beginning and the determinans follows (kazisv&t [spoils-world], neznaboh [not-knows-god]). For the sake of brevity, with reference to English, the type bratrovrah might be denoted as G e r m a n i c , whereas the type kazisvU as R o m a n c e . This does not mean that the former type is invariably of Germanic and the latter of Romance origin (in Czech both types are represented by native compounds), but that in the West-European area, to which English belongs, compounds of the former type are characteristic of Germanic languages (especially of German), while the latter are specific for French (e. g. French porte-plume, cafe-creme as compared with German Federhalter, Weisskaffee). After these general remarks on compounds let us say a few words about the situation in English. I t can be said beforehand that in forming compounds different languages behave differently in more than one respect. We have seen that German and French compounds display a difference in the manner of their formation. German and Czech in turn differ in their respective attitudes towards them. German is known to have such a predilection for compounds as to form even hypercompounds like Wasserrechtverfahrungsstreitigkeiten 'disputes concerning the employment of the water law', whereas in Czech compounds are comparatively rare. Of particular interest is the situation in Present Day English, where there are actually few possibilities of coining formally distinct compounds fully satisfying our definition. We have seen that in Czech compounds the non-terminal morpheme frequently lacks the form of an independent word. Such compounds occur in English too, but their status is literary, bookish, e. g. Anglo-American, Anglo-French, Anglo-Saxon, or monoculture, toxiphobia, ionosphere and the like. However, we might denote as genuine compounds such English formations as spendthrift (a compound of the French type meaning One who squanders away what has been saved'). Here, although both lexical morphemes have the form of independent words, the morpheme spend- lacks

THE FORM OF THE NAMING UNIT

31

the capacity to be inflected. The existence of compounds of the French type is thus also a characteristic feature of English (they have occurred in it since the 15th century). However, compounds of the Germanic type have as a rule lost their formal distinctness so that they can no longer be regarded as genuine compounds. What is the cause of this situation? It will be revealed by a comparison of the German expression Abendzeitung and the English expression evening paper. It shows a formal difference in that Abendzeitung is a formally distinct compound since the initial morpheme has the form of an independent word but lacks its grammatical capacity. Being a noun, Abend can be used as an independent word before another noun that it qualifies only if it assumes the form of the possessive genitive, cf. the construction des Vaters Haus. If a noun is preposed to another noun in the uninflected form, the resulting construction is a compound Vaterhaus. In English, on the other hand, the word evening cannot be said to be a noun because an English noun in the position before another noun acquires the function of an adjective (the involved process being the well-known shift of the categorial function of English nouns, the so-called c o n v e r s i o n of nouns into adjectives). The classification of the word evening as an adjective, however, implies that it is regarded as an independent word. Like other adjectives, even this adjective lacks inflection and, moreover, can be separated from the following noun by another adjective, e. g. an evening radical paper. (For more details concerning adjectives of this kind, see below, p. 40). All this indicates that the expression evening paper is not a compound but a c o l l o c a t i o n . There is another interesting point that characterizes English insofar as compounds are concerned. Compounds of the Germanic type have a distinct structure, i. e. the base morpheme and the determining morpheme are clearly discernible in them (cf. Abendzeitung). Even in compounds of the Romance type their structure is clearly recognizable (cf. pickpocket). English, however, also displays formations that cannot be denied the status of compounds, but in which the structural distinctness is lacking. Consider, for example, the compound the did-not-goes. How is it to be formally analysed ? Formations of this kind might be called q u o t a t i o n a l compounds. They arise in such a way that a sentence element (or phrase or even clause) is used as a noun compound. Other compounds of this kind are, for example, the have-nots 'those who have no property', as compared with the haves. Here we can also include expressions like the lock-out. An intermediate type between quotational compounds and compounds of the French type is represented by expressions like the die-hards ('those who obstinately cling to the views of the minority, of the defeated party'). We have thus found that English has fewer compounds than German, but that it possesses types that German lacks (the Romance type and the quotational type; the latter occurs in German only as an exception, e. g. das Vergiss-

32

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

meinnickt). In Present Day English, compounds of the Germanic type have changed into collocations, i. e. fixed combinations of independent words. A fixed combination of independent words differs from a free combination in a number of features. c) Features of collocations Let us compare two expressions: a 'black 'bird and a 'blackbird. The former is a free combination of two words, the latter is a collocation, i. e. a close, fixed combination. The two formations differ in that a free combination of a noun with an adjective is usually characterized by the level stress (i. e. both words are stressed with equal force), whereas a collocation of a noun with an adjective displays only one stress on the first component; it is this stress which unites the two parts into one whole. Compare also a 'walking-stick "a stick for walking" with one (synthetic) stress and a 'walking 'stick with two stresses (analytical stress) "a stick that walks" (cf. H. Mutschmann 1930.)33 In the collocation a 'blackbird the component black can neither be separated nor modified independently, whereas the combination a 'black 'bird permits the comparison of the first part (the blackest bird) and its separation from the second component (so black a bird) or other changes in the word order (birds black and white). Both the independent changeability of the first component and its freedom to occupy different positions distinguish a free combination of words from a fixed one. In addition, English collocations exhibit other peculiar features. As regards word structure, English can form very extensive collocations, largely of the Germanic type. In translating we invariably start to analyse them from the last component (e. g. the Yorkshire wool industry wage dispute — 'the dispute concerning the wages in the Wool Industry of Yorkshire', Oxford University Summer Vacation Course — 'Summer Vacation Course of Oxford University', etc.). Especially in the intellectual variety of English found in newspapers and magazines such collocations are very common. In some cases the collocation includes not only nouns but also adverbs: the ship-to-shore telephone experiment — 'the experiment in telephoning from the ship to the shore'. A fixed substantival collocation in English is sometimes characterized by the fact that the qualifying noun morpheme, even if it has the meaning of the plural, is used without the plural ending. Thus, if an expression like three bedrooms becomes a qualifying component in a collocation, it drops the plural ending: a three bedroom house 'a house with three bedrooms'. Similarly, fine arts but a fine art exhibition. Still, the plural ending is preserved if the collocation includes a plural expression whose singular counterpart is lacking, e. g. clothes brush, or an expression t h a t admits of a possessive interpretation, students hall.

T H E FORM OF T H E NAMING U N I T

33

I t is also possible for the qualifying component of a collocation to be expressed by another collocation. Such a qualifying component is the collocation motor car in the expression motor car show. In formations of this kind, consisting of three components, the intermediate component is often dropped, which gives rise to formations like motor show (here one has to do with simplification of the so-called h y p e r c o m p o u n d s ) . 3 4 Other examples are open (air) life, secondary (school) teacher. Owing to the change of the compounds of the Germanic type into collocations of independent words the independent non-compound word in English has become a much more distinct base of the denominating structure than is the case in German. In this respect English partly resembles Romance languages. This can also be seen from the fact that the English equivalent of a German compound is often not a collocation but a free combination of words (cf. P H . ARONSTEIN 1924, who gives examples like Schelmenaugen — roguish eyes, Heldentod — a hero's death, Angstgefühl — the sensation of anxiety). This stage has been reached partly in connection with the development undergone by English verbs with separable prefixes.

d) Verbal compounds and collocations in

English

German is known to have two types of compound verbs, those with inseparable prefixes, i. e. such as are firmly attached to the stem (e. g. bekommen) and those with separable prefixes, which in certain syntactic positions are attached to the verb, whereas in others they are separated (cf. zurückkommen — ich komme zurück). I n Present Day English verbs with separable prefixes do not exist. There are only verbs with permanently attached prefixes, such as to forgive, forget, overcome. In addition to these verbs, however, there are others accompanied by a complementary component that might be called a prepositional adverbial, viz. an adverb in the form that is common as a preposition. 35 We can distinguish here two types of instances: 1. Verbs, whether transitive or intransitive, complemented by an adverbial expression of this kind (e. g. to take o f f , to take out; to go out, to come back). 2. Verbs t h a t take a prepositional object (e. g. to look forward to). The latter case is outside the scope of our present interest. Here we shall be chiefly concerned with instances of the former type, which correspond to German verbs with separable prefixes. It is exactly in the first type that we find instances reminiscent of the otherwise non-existent type zurückkommen. Sometimes the adverbial complement is found firmly attached to the verb as its prefix, viz. in the adjectival form of the past participle. Thus the verb to cast down has the past participle downcast (in the transferred sense [cf. drunk — drunken]), e. g. with downcast

34

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

eyes, he was rather downcast. (Another similar case is forthcoming.) However, English compounds of this kind have a wider application. Even adverbial expressions sometimes occur in the function of nominal prefixes if the participle requiring a prepositional phrase has adjectival meaning. Thus we find in English substantivized adjectives such as stage-struck, derived from the passive construction he was stage-struck (i.e.struck by the stage). Similarly t h e active construction the state owns several railway-lines, transformed in t h e passive several railway-lines are owned by the state, underlies the combination the stateowned railway-lines; cf. also home-produced. These are genuine compounds fully satisfying our definition. We can also find substantival verbal expressions with a prefix t h a t is formally identical with the adverbial preposition (e. g. the outlook as against to look out, b u t also the look-out). I n contrast to quotational compounds, compounds of the stage-struck t y p e might be called s y n t h e t i z i n g . While quotational compounds are constituted b y segments of speech consisting of several words without a n y change in word order, used in another categorial function t h a n they usually perform, the nature of synthetizing compounds is different. I n the latter t y p e a combination of words of the order determinandum—determinans changes into a combination of the order determinans—determinandum if it is to be employed with a syntactically different function. Besides constructions with past participles, such as were quoted above, examples of synthetizing compounds are also found among constructions with the present participle (the Arab-teasing desert adventure in Mesopotamia), verbal substantives (book-selling) and infinitives (to house-keep). I n this connection mention should also be made of another t y p e of a fixed combination of words which somewhat resembles compounds, although its components undoubtedly preserve their independence as words. This type is represented by whisky-and-soda (Czech whisky se sodovkou [whisky with soda]), bread-and-butter (chleb s mdslem [bread with butter]), cup-and-saucer (sdlek s talifkem [cup with saucer]), similarly knife-and-fork, carriage-and-pair (vuz s pdrem koni [carriage with a pair of horses]). These examples are of interest since they express paratactically what Czech mostly indicates hypotactically (cf. the translations of the Czech equivalents in square brackets).

5. S H O R T E N I N G OF W O R D S A N D C O I N I N G OF N E W N A M I N G U N I T S

As noted above, the basic t y p e of naming unit in English is t h e word or a word group. I t should be added t h a t English independent words tend towards monosyllabism. Words taken over from Latin usually have several syllables, whereas native and domesticated foreign words are mostly monosyllabic (cf. the difference between short and long words, mentioned above). I n accordance

THE FORM OF T H E NAMING UNIT

35

with this tendency towards monosyllabism, English also shows a predilection for the shortening of words, especially in colloquial speech. Thus omnibus is shortened t o bus, tramway to tram, zoological garden to zoo, chocolate to choc, mother, mamma to ma, father, papa to pa, advertisement to ad, examination to exam, university (i. e. Oxford or Cambridge) to Varsity. T h e rules according to which shortening is carried out are very diverse. Sometimes the abbreviation preserves the terminal syllable of the full word, sometimes the initial, while the dropped part m a y either be limited to the unstressed syllable or include the whole segment preceding the stress. The above examples represent, with the exception of tramway, the shortening of non-compound words. I n the abbreviation tramway one component of the compound is omitted. Shortening of a similar kind is found in motor car > car, head master > head. Sometimes a compound is abbreviated in such a w a y t h a t the second component is replaced b y a suffix (freshman > fresher). Other abbreviations arise b y retaining the initial syllables or letters of a group of words constituting a naming unit, e. g. Czech instances like socidemo [soci(alne) demo(kraticky) social democratic], Umprum [Um(elecko-) prum(yslova skola) Applied A r t School], kdce [k(oruna) ce(skoslovenska) Czechoslovak crown, also w i t h a suffix: kacka], cetka [öe(skoslovenska) t(iskova) ka(ncelar) Czechoslovak Press Bureau], Abbreviations of this kind became v e r y common in Russian after the Great October Revolution (cf. kolchoz, Komsomol), while English has had some expressions of this kind for centuries, e. g. M. P., Μ. Α., Ph. D., V. G. (a bahuvrihi expression — the holder of the Victoria Cross), F. R. S. (Fellow of the R o y a l Society). In later periods such abbreviations g a v e rise to new words like YMCA, YWCA,™ ABC (Aerated Bread Company) — the signboard of some English tea shops. T h e English are so accustomed to them t h a t in m a n y cases they do not realize their origin when using them (e. g. the abbreviations a. m., p. m., which are of L a t i n origin, are often simply in the morning, in the evening). Shortenings formed b y the combination of the initial syllables or letters are often termed c l i p p e d w o r d s or c l i p p i n g s , whereas shortenings resulting from the omission of a certain number of the syllables of one word (like bus, zoo) are usually called s t u m p w o r d s . T o some extent the shortening of words in English also gains support from the so-called b a c k - f o r m a t i o n s (cf. 0 . JESPERSEN 1894). This is a process of forming a new word b y abstracting the presumed base from a word t h a t is only seemingly derived. T h u s the noun scavenger, formally resembling an agent noun (cf. keep — keeper, collect — collector) has given rise to the v e r b scavenge. Similarly the noun difficulty has given rise to the adjective difficult ( c f . 0 . JESPERSEN,

1935).

The examples of back-formations have shown how English can form new naming units. The formation of new naming units is an important and interesting chapter and deserves at least some additional comment.

36

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

I n the formation of a new naming unit we may have to do with different things. I t may become necessary to name a part of the reality t h a t has not existed before or to name a relation that has not been noticed before. (This was the case, for example, of the Czech sports and aviation terminology, or — after 1918 — of military terminology and phraseology.) In other cases it may become necessary to modify a naming unit already in existence. For instance, a naming unit exists as a noun, but is needed in the form of an adjective or a verb (cf. mlddez [youth] — mlddeznicky [youth adj., youth organization]). Sometimes the existing naming unit denotes a single object, but what is needed is a noun for the set containing it, cf. Czech nüz, vidlicka — pfibor [knife, fork — cutlery]; or the denomination of an object is emotionally neutral, but the notion to be expressed involves an emotive approach to it or, on the contrary, the expression of a strong emotion may be undesirable (this often motivates the use of euphemisms, as depression, recession instead of crisis). In forming new naming units the following means are employed: 1. A change in the meaning of a word without any change in its form: Czech branka [goal, originally a gate] in football, letka [squadron, originally a bird's wing] in aviation; English crawl in swimming, squadron in aviation. 2. Alternation (in our languages, this device appears to be unproductive). 3. Derivation: Czech letec [airman from let 'flight'], similarly letiSte [airport], letoun [aircraft]; English fighter, bomber. 4. Composition: some examples are found even in Czech, though they are rare (Geskoslovensko [Czechoslovakia]^; in English, composition occurs mainly in long words (ferro-concrete). 5. A fixed combination of independent words: in Czech Närodni banka ceskoslovenskä [The National Bank of Czechoslovakia], ministerstvo närodni obrany [the Ministry of National Defence]; in English The British Commonwealth of Nations, The Westminster Statute. 6. Processes that are somehow related to derivation or composition: shortening and back-formations, discussed above. Of special interest are the so-called b l e n d i n g s , i. e. words formed by fusing the elements of two different words, in order to indicate the blending of their meaning, e. g. Czech Öechomedäni (Czechs + Mohammedans 'Czech people proceeding in a slow impractical way') or the colloquial expression sloupnout [step on something] (stoupnout [step] + slapnout [tread]). Expressions of this kind are common in English: brunch — something between breakfast and lunch. All the six types of wordformation described so far are based on existing naming units. In this respect the next three types are different. 7. The so-called U r b i l d u n g , i. e. a process by which an entirely new naming unit is formed. According to some scholars this type of word formation does not exist at all; a commonly adduoed example of such an entirely new naming unit is kodak.

THE FORM OF THE NAMING UNIT

37

8. Borrowing from some other language: Czech hydroplän, traktor, fotbal; the source of the borrowing m a y also be a regional dialect (Czech cakan, valaska [kinds of sticks t h a t may be used as weapons]). 9. The so-called c a i q u e s l i n g u i s t i q u e s . They are especially common in Czech. Caiques translate the foreign expression literally p a r t by part: tezky prkmysl was formed according to schwere, Industrie (cf. heavy industry in English), velmoc according to Grossmacht (great poiver in English). In Czech some caiques have existed for centuries, cf. milosrdenstvi = misericordia, svedomi — conscientia. Which of these means are productive in Present Day English ? Alternation and caiques are undoubtedly rare, but composition and derivation are fairly common, especially in foreign words. 37

I I I . CLASSIFICATION OF NAMING

UNITS

1. T H E P R O B L E M OF T H E P A R T S OF S P E E C H CATEGORIES)

(WORD

Languages display a great variety of naming types, but the employment of the different types is facilitated by their being classified in a certain manner. Each language classifies its naming units in a specific way. How are naming units classified in general, and English naming units in particular ? The classification of naming units is known to lead to the so-called parts of speech (word categories). Here we are faced with the problem as to what constitutes the essence of a part of speech. There is no agreement on this point among linguists, there being two different views. Some scholars claim t h a t word categories correspond to ontological categories, i. e. to the categories of so-called extra-lingual reality. What is meant by this conception can best be shown by the three main word classes: according to this theory, nouns are the names of objects, adjectives denote permanent qualities t h a t do not change before our eyes, and verbs in turn denote such aspects of objects that can change before our eyes (cf. F R I E D R I C H S L O T T Y 1 9 2 9 ) . Contrary to this view, the other theory asserts that word classes correspond to syntactic categories. The adherents of this theory define nouns as words that can operate as subjects or objects; adjectives are words that may perform the function of coordinate attributes; and verbs are defined as words expressing the predicate (cf. E D U A R D HERMANN 1928, E . OTTO

1928).

The result of these discussions seems to indicate that word categories reflect neither merely ontological nor solely syntactic categories, but combine the reflection of both. The system of language is so complex that it does not usually allow us to draw sharp lines between the different phenomena involved. If we attempt to do so, the facts of language are described in a manner similar to the projection of a three-dimensional object on a two-dimensional plane. I t can hardly be denied that the main function of nouns is to denote objects and that of adjectives to express permanent qualities. But if a quality is to be used as the subject of a sentence, the adjective is changed into a noun, e. g.

CLASSIFICATION OF NAMING UNITS

3d

the adjective white is transformed into the noun whiteness, and the fact that a quality is expressed here by a noun does not contradict the customary classification. Similarly the verb performs a dual function; its finite forms are the specific means of predication, but at the same time they also often express the changing aspect of an object. Thus, on the one hand, word categories classify the facts of our experience, and on the other hand, they represent types that enable us to arrange the denominations of our experience within the structure of a sentence.38 In dealing with the word categories· in English we shall pay attention to three points. First we shall consider the question as to whether a particular word category is both formally and functionally a distinct type, secondly whether the borderline between it and some other word category is strictly definable and how the transition from one category into another is effected, and finally what secondary classifications can be observed within each word category. Our treatment will again be based on a consistent comparison of English and Czech.

2. F O R M A L D I F F E R E N C E S

BETWEEN THE WORD IN ENGLISH

CATEGORIES

On the whole it can be said that the category of nouns and the category of verbs are not formally differentiated so clearly as in Czech, and that for two reasons. In the first place, Czech has a far larger number of nouns and verbs derived, respectively, by substantival and verbal suffixes, and secondly, the inflection systems of nouns and verbs are also distinctly different. As a result the endings themselves clearly indicate whether the word in question is a noun or a verb. In English, on the other hand, nouns and verbs are rarely derived by distinctly substantival or verbal suffixes; moreover, the endings that are added to these suffixes are seldom indicative of the substantival or verbal character of the word concerned. It is well known that the only productive ending of English nouns is entirely homonymous with the only productive inflection of the verb [-s/-z/-iz]. As for the noun, it completely lacks any ending that might be denoted as specifically substantival. In the case of the verb, there is the ending of the regular preterite [-d/-t/-id], but even this ending is partly ambiguous, being homonymous with the suffix of bahuvrihi adjectives (like blue-eyed). If we examine English suffixes with regard to their categorial distinctiveness, we arrive at analogous conclusions. The native stock of words contains relatively few suffixes that are specifically verbal (such as -en in lengthen, blacken) or specifically substantival (e. g. -er, denoting primarily agent nouns). Specific suffixes of this kind are much more characteristic of foreign words, cf. -fy,

40

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

-ation, -ment, -atory, -ous, etc. Consequently n a t i v e verbs a n d n o u n s differ f r o m each o t h e r a t first sight very little, their base m o r p h e m e s usually having t h e s a m e form. This is connected w i t h a n interesting phonological difference b e t w e e n English a n d Czech. A phonological analysis of n o u n s a n d verbs in English a n d Czech shows t h e phonological s t r u c t u r e of t h e v e r b a l a n d subs t a n t i v a l root m o r p h e m e s in Czech t o be often different, whereas in English t h e y are formally identical (compare length—lengthen w i t h t h e corresponding Czech w o r d s delka — dlouzit). N e i t h e r are n o u n s a n d v e r b s clearly distinguished f r o m each o t h e r w i t h r e g a r d t o their f u n c t i o n . F r o m t h e Czech a d j e c t i v e bily [white] it is possible t o form t h e n o u n belost [whiteness] a n d t h e v e r b bilit [to bleach]. This process, however, involves derivational changes (the a t t a c h m e n t of suffixes), whereas English o f t e n allows transition of one word category into a n o t h e r w i t h o u t a n y such derivational changes (the so-called conversion). However, t h e transition is n o t equally feasible in b o t h directions (from category A i n t o category Β a n d vice versa). Before discussing this point we shall briefly consider t h e m u t u a l relations between s u b s t a n t i v e s a n d adjectives.

3. T H E R E L A T I O N B E T W E E N S U B S T A N T I V E S A N D A D J E C T I V E S IN ENGLISH I n Czech t h e n o u n a n d t h e a d j e c t i v e are t w o categories distinctly differentiated f r o m each other. N o u n s do n o t occur in adjectival f u n c t i o n , except in r a r e cases (chuddk clovek [poor-fellow man], cipera kluk [smart-boy lad]). I n English, on t h e o t h e r h a n d , almost a n y n o u n or a n o u n construction m a y b e readily used as a n adjective. As was shown above, this is connected w i t h t h e problem of English c o m p o u n d s : t h a t is w h y English lacks formally distinct compounds of t h e G e r m a n i c type. 3 9 T h e f a c t t h a t a n English n o u n can convert into a n a d j e c t i v e m a y be p r o v e d b y t h e following a r g u m e n t s : 1. A n o u n converted i n t o a n a d j e c t i v e a n d a prim a r y (i. e. non-converted) adjective, when employed in t h e s a m e s y n t a c t i c function, are coordinated (by m e a n s of and: She is quite vulgar and commonplace). 2. A secondary a d j e c t i v e of this k i n d m a y be s e p a r a t e d f r o m t h e n o u n it qualifies b y a p r i m a r y a d j e c t i v e (evening radical paper, a good office preparatory school). 3. A n even more interesting indication of t h e a d j e c t i v a l character of a converted n o u n is t h e f a c t t h a t it m a y be followed b y t h e expletive word (in J E S P E R S E N ' S terminology p r o p w o r d ) one: Electric engines were still so imperfect at that time that they were much more expensive than the steam ones. 4. Secondary adjectives arisen b y conversion can be qualified b y adverbs, j u s t as p r i m a r y a d j e c t i v e s (cf. That's a too London point of view).*0 E v e n a collocation m a y convert i n t o a n a d j e c t i v e : People are so go-ahead

CLASSIFICATION OF N A M I N G U N I T S

41

here (i. e. so progressive); the come-to-Britain movement (i. e. propagating a visit to Britain); similarly a stay-at-hoine American, a non-stop flight. Substantival expressions converted into adjectives are also illustrated by instances like the ship-to-shore wireless telephony (enabling the ship to be connected with the shore), the stick-in-the-mud attitude (i. e. a stiff, non-elastic approach). Frequently both the original noun and its adjectivized form exist side by side: choice ('the act of choosing' and 'of first quality or carefully chosen': e. g. the choicest fruit). T h e transition of a n o u n into a n a d j e c t i v e is not u n k n o w n e v e n in t h e history of E n g l i s h . It is a t t e s t e d , for e x a m p l e , b y t h e O E n o u n ceap 'purchase', w h i c h passed into the adjective cheap. (The s e m a n t i c d e v e l o p m e n t proceeded through t h e interm e d i a t e stage ' a d v a n t a g e o u s purchase, bargain', cf. F r e n c h bon marchi.)

An opposite kind of transition, i. e. the use of an adjective in the substantival function, is much rarer in both Czech and English than in German. In German, substantivization of adjectives is frequent and easy. In English and Czech however, it is necessary to distinguish different types of such substantivization. First of all it should be emphasized t h a t the point under discussion is the p r o d u c t i v e transition of adjectives into nouns, i. e. such instances where the adjective, besides its adjectival function, commonly performs the substantival function, and not instances of fossilized expression. Such fossilized adjectives are adduced by V. EHTL in his revision of GEBAUER'S Grammar (J. Gebauer V. Ertl 1914) when he discusses adjectives used in substantival function. He gives examples like dobro, sucho, teplo [neuter forms of good, dry, warm], which are adjectives merely from the historical point of view, whereas synchronicallj' they are generally classified as nouns. The same applies to names of occupations such as hajny, vrdfny ['gamekeeper', 'porter', which in Czech originally functioned as masculine adjectives], which again do not represent a productive type since the old adjectives hajny, -a, -e, or vrdtny, -ά, -e have fallen into disuse. In other cases a genuine adjective occurs in the substantival function only in a set phrase, not generally, e. g. na zapfenou [incognito]. In Czech a productive type is represented only by the names of various charges and taxes (vplatne [a charge connected with payment], stocne [water rate]) and by designations of social strata (nezamestnani [the unemployed], chudi [the poor]), but even these are relatively rare in Czech. In English a distinction has to be made between the designations of persons and things. In referring to an individual person, substantivization of an adjective is not possible, as in such instances the adjective requires complementation by a noun or the expletive one. While in German we can say der Alte, die Schöne, in English it is necessary to say the old man (or the old one), the fair maid, girl.*1 In such cases Czech has either a derivative (stafec, krdska) or the combination adjective + noun. In English the use of an adjective in the func-

42

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

tion of a singular noun is rare: the dead, the Almighty. In the plural, however, adjectives are substantivized much more readily. One can distinguish a number of types. Sometimes, if the adjective denotes a group of people, it is employed without any formal change: the blind, the poor, the unemployed, the English (the English people) but English (the English language); similarly the French, the Irish, the Chinese, etc. However, such substantivization is possible only where there is ground for the use of the definite article; only singular names of languages, such as English, French, etc., represent substantivization independent of the use of the article. On the other hand, a fully substantivized adjective even takes the plural ending and does not depend on the definite article: the misfits or misfits (those who do not fit), the reds, whites, blacks, right-wing-moderates ('adherents of the moderate right wing'). An especially noticeable type of the transition of adjectives into nouns is found among expressions like radical, liberal, male, female. As for the designations of things (objects), some adjectives have passed completely into the category of nouns in one of their meanings: vegetables, goods, etc. P r o d u c t i v e substantivization of adjectives denoting things (especially in the singular) is found in instances of personification of certain qualities, e. g. the beautiful, the exceptional; cf. also The papers are more interested in the interesting than in the important. (Aronstein in Englische Stilistik gives interesting examples of how an idea that is expressed by a substantivized adjective in German must be denoted more explicitly in English: der Alte — the old man, das Gewünschte — what they wanted, etc.)

4. T H E R E L A T I O N B E T W E E N N O U N S A N D V E R B S I N

ENGLISH

In Czech, verbs can be formed from both nouns and adjectives, but this process involves the use of suffixes (kämen — kamenovat [stone — to stone], bic — bicovat [whip — to whip], bily — bilit [white — to whiten], etc.); this is also the case in German. In English, on the other hand, nouns can often be used as verbs without any derivational changes. Historically this stage was reached by the merger of many nouns and verbs that had had different forms in the original stock of words. Old English had the noun lufu 'love' and the verb lufian 'to love'; in the course of historical development the two words merged into the NE love [Iav], This formal merger has resulted in a great enrichment of the English vocabulary since on the analogy of instances as love — to love almost any English noun can convert into a verb. For instance, the Czech verb 'vyjadrit' can be rendered as to express but 'vyjadrit program, nämitku' [state a programme, a r objection] also as to voice; similarly it is possible to use to evidence in the sense 'prove by evidence'; divat se na neco may be rendered, besides to look at, as to view something, to eye, etc. Even adjectives can be

CLASSIFICATION OF NAMING UNITS

43

used in verbal function: to un-English our language, to worse oneself; cf. also nominal constructions employed as verbs: to snowball, to side-track, to coldshoulder, to mast-head. As regards the substantivization of verbs, in Czech it is accomplished by means of derivation, i. e. by forming the verbal noun in -ni (nadeleni, psani [presenting, writing]); German uses the substantivized infinitive (das Leben, das Schreiben, etc.). English can also form verbal nouns by derivation, cf. the taking, plural the takings, but such formations are not our present concern. Of special interest in this connection is the fact that English verbs can be used as nouns without any derivational changes. One type of such substantivization of verbs consists in the use of the indefinite article in certain constructions (to have a smoke, a shave, a wash, to lie down for a stretch, etc.). Other instances are the find ('what has been found'), the catch(' what has been caught'), similarly the move (in chess, etc.), the produce, the Liberal miss ('the failure of the Liberals') and the like. The mutual relations between nouns and adjectives on the one hand, and nouns and verbs on the other hand, are the most important chapters as far as conversion of one category into another is concerned. 42 There are, however, other conversion phenomena which, though less typical, are the more interesting. 5. T H E

RELATION

BETWEEN ADJECTIVES IN ENGLISH

AND

ADVERBS

Mention should be made at least of the transition of adjectives into adverbs. Unlike adverbs in German, which have the same form as predicative adjectives, adverbs in English are formally differentiated from adjectives — cf. the English adjective beautiful, the adverb beautifully, as compared with German schön (both adj. and adv.). This has not always been the case. In Old English the adverb and the adjective had different forms, but the difference was slighter than at present (cf. sceort 'short' — sceorte 'shortly'); later, however, these original differences disappeared. Consequently, at one time English had the possibility of merging its adjectives and adverbs just as this has taken place in German. In English, however, this possibility has not been made use of. On the contrary, English has generalized those instances where the adverb had a distinctive suffix -lice (NE -ly, German -lieh, cf. reichlich). In some instances, however, the stage that showed signs of the potential merger of adjectives and adverbs has survived. There are three cases to be distinguished. 1. Sometimes the adverb lacking the suffix exists side by side with the adverb that has the suffix, but there is a semantic difference: hard — hardly (cf. you are working hard — you are hardly working), very — verily, and the like.

44

F U N C T I O N A L ONOMATOLOGY

2. B o t h forms coexist w i t h o u t a n y difference in m e a n i n g exceeding ceedingly.

=

ex-

Note. Adverbs lacking the suffix occur in rather vulgar speech and in American English,· but in the sense of 'unusually' the form exceeding is gaining ground even in Standard English (exceeding well). P. FIJN VAN DRAAT 1910 explains it on the ground of the r h y t h m , but there m a y be other reasons. Sometimes English appears to avoid the same ending in two successive words. After all, even in Czech it is not considered good style if t wo adverbs are used in succession and thus instead of podivuhodne jasne [remarkably clearly] it is preferable to say s podivuhodnou jasnostl [with remarkable clarity]. 3. T h e adverb lacking t h e suffix m a y b e f o u n d in t h e predicate if t h e subject is a n infinitive: it is good to speak frankly, besides it is well to speak frankly, here t h e form well is t o be regarded as a n adjective, t h e difference b e t w e e n good a n d well being s e m a n t i c rather t h a n grammatical, cf. a similar d u a l i t y in P r e s e n t D a y French: il est bien — il est bon. A c t u a l transition from t h e c a t e g o r y o f adjectives i n t o t h e category of adverbs, however, is represented o n l y b y t h e second t y p e (exceeding clear).13

IV. C L A S S I F I C A T I O N W I T H I N T H E W O R D

1.

FORMAL

CATEGORIES

CLASSIFICATION. ASPECTUAL MODIFICATIONS AND CATEGORIAL TRANSITIONS

Not only is the entire stock of words divided into categories, but also within the different word categories there are classifications based on certain principles. Here we have to do with different problems. Sometimes the classification is purely formal — morphological in the widest sense of the word, usually without any semantic consequences. Thus, for instance, the Czech noun kost [bone] is a feminine of the type that forms the plural in -i (kosti [bones]), while another feminine chrupnvka [cartilage] has the plural in -y (chrupavky [cartilages]) and finally the feminine noun tkdfi [tissue] forms the plural in -e (tkdn£ [tissues]). This difference involves no semantic consequences, the classification being purely morphological. On the other hand when in English an aeroplane is referred to as she in one case and as it in another, this difference has nothing to do with a purely morphological classification since grammatical gender in English nouns is independent of morphological classification. The difference here consists in emotional colouring, the basic meaning remaining unchanged: those who have a close relationship to an aircraft refer to it as she. This is a case of a s p e c t u a l m o d i f i c a t i o n . Another aspectual modification in nouns is represented by the grammatical number (book—books) or definiteness (η book — the book); here again the basic meaning is preserved, which is precisely what characterizes aspectual modification. Hence aspectual modification can be opposed to morphological classification on the one hand, and to c a t e g o r i a l t r a n s i t i o n s on the other. Whereas in aspectual modification the basic meaning of the word does not change, categorial transition does involve a change in the meaning of the word in t h a t the word passes from one word category into another, its meaning thus being changed (e. g. a concrete noun passes into an abstract, an adjective denoting a permanent quality changes into an adjective that indicates a changeable quality, a noun with active meaning becomes a noun with passive meaning, etc.). As will be shown in the following discussions, in this respect English behaves quite differently from Czech.

46

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY 2. F O R M A L C L A S S I F I C A T I O N A N D A S P E C T U A L M O D I F I C A T I O N S OF N O U N S

a) Gender of nouns The gender of Czech nouns is a formal grammatical category, i. e. it is due to the fact that the noun belongs to a certain type of declension (masculine, feminine or neuter). These formal categories have doubtless developed from some natural categories, but in the course of their development the connection between the two has become rather remote. Hence masculine and feminine nouns can denote not only men and women, but also things, and sometimes a noun of one gender denotes an animal irrespective of the sex of the particular individual (e. g. Czech kocka, opice [cat, monkey] are formal feminines, pes [dog] is a formal masculine, etc.). In Czech, gender has no semantic consequences (or its consequences are very slight—e. g. the emotionally coloured type ty kluku darebna [you mischievous (feminine) boy (masculine)] is on the whole peripheral), i. e. it is a purely morphological classification. 44 On the other hand, the category of animateness and inanimateness in masculines (or, strictly speaking, the opposition of animate masculines to all the rest) may be utilized for the expression of remarkable semantic differences. This can be seen in the formal changes accompanying the names of things when applied to persons (balik [parcel; bumpkin] — baliky [parcels] — balici [bumpkins], klacek [stick, club; lout] —- dative klacku [to the stick] but klackovi [to the lout]; Spina [dirt; mean person] — dative spine, [to dirt] but spinovi [to a mean person], similarly spinove [mean persons — the plural of spina [dirt] would be spiny], vy dobytkove [you swines — dobytek 'cattle' has no plural], or in designations of things that have become proper names (ryba [fish] — Rybove [men of the name of Ryba] — ryby [fishes], bidlo [pole, crossbar] — Bidlove [men of the name of Bidlo] — bidla [poles, crossbars]). I n Czech the opposition animate/inanimate has also syntactic consequences (cf. Vitrsrazil starci klobouk [wind blew-off to-old-man hat] — Vitr strhl stfechu s kostela [wind carried-away roof from church]). Formerly, the situation in English was the same as in Present Day Czech, i. e. the gender of nouns was a purely formal category. However, significant changes, starting in the north, took place in the period from the 12th to the 14th centuries. At t h a t time the formal morphological gender was replaced by the so-called psychological, or more precisely, natural gender (cf. L . M Ö R S BACH 1926). What are the characteristics of gender in Present Day English ? In nouns denoting persons gender corresponds to sex. This is reflected only in the pronouns, especially personal and possessive, by means of which such nouns are referred to. 45 (The difference between the relative who and which concerns the

CLASSIFICATION W I T H I N T H E WORD CATEGORIES

47

difference between persons and non-persons.) As regards nouns denoting children, substantives designating young children are often referred to by it (cf. Czech Ono to place! [It is crying!]). Older children are referred to as he or she according to sex. I t is of interest to note that in popular speech a young child may be referred to in the same situation by the pronouns of all three genders. How is this to be accounted for? It is the natural expression for sexlessness while the use of he and she is due to the fact t h a t gender in a young child has not necessarily the sexual meaning but rather the meaning of a close emotional relationship, which can be expressed precisely by the difference between he and she. I n a number of words, the form itself indicates that the person referred to is a man or a woman (Englishman — Englishwoman), but on the other hand there are many personal nouns whose gender is not apparent (teacher, friend, cousin, etc.; such nouns are said to have common gender). The denotation of feminines in English is accomplished in different ways. Either the persons of different sexes are denoted by different words (e. g. father, mother), or the feminine is signalled by various suffixes, the most common being the Romance suffix -ess: god — goddess, prince ·— princess, duke — duchess (in the last instance combined with alternation); another suffix is -ine: hero — heroine. As can be seen, these suffixes are of foreign origin and so are, as a rule, the word bases. Where sex cannot be indicated by derivation or composition the noun of common gender is complemented by another word that denotes the sex unambiguously, e. g., a female communist, a lady teacher, a girl pupil, a she-goat, man-servant, maid-servant, etc. Owing to the fact that in English gender of nouns is not a matter of form but of semantics, it is sometimes necessary to express explicitly that a statement applies to both sexes, cf. Any trespasser if he or she be caught will be punished (in Czech: Kdokoli pfestoupi toto naUzeni a bude pristiZen, bude potrestdn [anyone who offends against this rule and is caught will be punished]). Note. The English word man denotes botli a human being and a man. Since this may sometimes give rise to ambiguity the meaning 'people' (concrete) is denoted by folk, people (the latter, for example, in reference to the members of a nation or a smaller group: the English people, the Forsyte people), whereas generic reference to people is made by mankind, human beings, humans. In Czech this difference between the concrete and the generic denotation is not felt. 45

As regards nouns denoting things, in Present Day English any such noun may be used as a neuter, especially in intellectual speech. In the speech of educated people exceptions to this rule are rare. They include names of countries, which are often feminine (Britain, Czechoslovakia, etc.) but sometimes also neuter. (Note t h a t even the United States is as a rule feminine — she — construed as a singular!) 47 Ships (cf. Latin navis) are feminine even if they have a masculine name (I saw the Prince of Wales as she was sinking to the bottom.).

48

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

Another exception to the general rule, found in higher style, is the endowment of nouns with the gender appropriate to the respective nouns in Latin. Thus the sun is sometimes referred to as he (cf. sol in Latin, le soleil in French), the moon in turn as she (according to luna, la lune). The names of mountains and rivers are often referred to as he (cf. mons, fluvius) in some cases, however, in accordance with Latin names rivers are personified as women). Even abstract ideas are sometimes personified: Love = he, i. e. amor; Death — he, according to Germanic mythology (in contrast to Czech, Latin and French), the comic spirit = she. In popular (sometimes even colloquial) speech, which displays a much stronger emotional colouring than intellectual speech, we find other deviations from the rule that usually governs the use of gender. By making use of gender of personal and possessive pronouns, colloquial speech can express the emotional relationship of the speaker to things; thus reference to an object to which the speaker has a positive emotional relationship is made by she (e. g. a pipe, the car, a machine and the like), while in the case of negative emotional relationship the speaker may occasionally use he. Domestic animals are usually denoted according to their sex.48

h) Aspectual modification of grammatical number Grammatical number and related phenomena involve several problems. First, there is p l u r a l i t y , i. e. the fact that there are more units of the given kind than one. Plurality may assume different character (it mostly indicates a definite number, e. g. three persons). A special case is the d u a l n u m b e r (Old Czech dve zene [two women, the plural form of zena being zeny]; at present this form is preserved only in the names of things t h a t occur in pairs: dve oci, dve ruce [two eyes, two hands]); a different category is b i n a r i t y : it is found in items consisting of two parts (nüzky, kalhoty [scissors, trousers]). Plurality, however, may also denote an i n d e f i n i t e n u m b e r : lide [people] (i. e. 'some people', 'an indefinite number of people', cf. Byli tam lide, a tak jsem nechtel mluvit [There were people there and so I didn't want to speak]). Furthermore there is g e n e r i c plurality: Lide jsou smrtelni [People are mortal],!, e. people as a species. We might also add i n c l u s i v e and e x c l u s i v e plurality. Inclusive plurality includes the person addressed, whereas in an exclusive plural

•

i · · ···.. . : · · · · .· Fig.1

s . · + .< Fig.

2

Fig.3

Fig.4

CLASSIFICATION W I T H I N T H E WORD CATEGORIES

49

he is excluded. Thus in a sentence like My chceme delat to a to [We want to do this and t h a t ] the subject we may be interpreted either inclusively: tee — the persons present, i. e. you and I , or exclusively: my absent fellows and I. In some languages inclusive plural has a special form, different from the form denoting exclusive plural (e. g., in French nous autres professeurs may mean 'we professors', i. e. both the speaker a n d the person addressed are professors). A graphic representation of plurality is shown in Figure 1. I n addition, mention should be made of c o l l e c t i v i t y and c o m p l e x i t y . These concepts can be explained by examples from Czech. The singular list [leaf] has the plural listy [leaves], the collective notion being expressed by a special noun listi [foliage] (i. e. a pile of the same items regarded as a whole and hence uncountable within the particular concept); see Figure 2. Complexity on the other hand denotes a set of dissimilar, b u t yet related items conceived of as a whole; in this case the dissimilar items are countable within the particular concept (e. g. ndbytek [a set of furniture]). Czech does not alwa\ r s distinguish between complexity and collectiveness, which is evident from expressions like cukrovi [sweets, candy], which may denote both. Complexity is represented in Figure 3. Finally, it remains to discuss the category of m a s s , e. g. voda, vzduch, cas, chUb, syr [water, air, time, bread, cheese], (See Figure 4.) Plurality and mass appear to be the extreme possible cases. The most significant difference between the two consists in mass nouns being measurable, whereas plural nouns are countable. I n Czech this difference is not expressed in a special way, b u t in English it plays an important role. The question applicable to countable nouns is how many %, the answer being many — few, whereas in asking about measurable nouns we say how much 1 and reply much — little. This is the reason why in English grammars mass nouns are denoted as uncountables and therefore, among other things, they are not used with an indefinite article. Another point to be considered is what represents a part with respect to the whole. Plurality is opposed to individuality: listy — list [leaves — leaf]; collectivity and complexity are opposed to particularized parts: a set of furniture — a piece of furniture (nabytek — bus ndbytku)·, mass is opposed to its p a r t (cf. the partitive article in French: pain — du pain, eau — de Veau\ in Czech, expressions of partitive origin occur in popular speech, e. g. chleba [chleb — bread], syra [syr — cheese]; the original partitive character of such expressions, however, is no longer felt). W h a t means does language employ for the formal expression of these categories? Czech uses partly inflected forms (singular, the remnants of the dual, plural), partly derivation (list — listy — listi [ l e a f — leaves — foliage], cf. in German das Gesteine, das Gebirge). I n French l'article partitif in the singular indicates p a r t of mass, in the plural indefinite plurality of countable objects: des hommes (les hommes denoting generic plurality).

50

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

As in other languages, the formal means available in Czech for the expression of all the shades of the meaning of grammatical number do n o t suffice. Hence collectivity is sometimes indicated by a suffix (listi, Icameni [foliage, stone — collective]), b u t expressions denoting complexity are usually singular nouns (dobytek, nabytek [cattle, furniture]). Binarity, as in niizky, kalhoty [scissors, trousers] is expressed by a plural noun, a special formal device of binarity, however, being provided by the form of the numeral: dve hrusky [two pears] b u t dvoje nuzky (here English resorts to a pair of scissors, two pairs of scissors, etc). On the whole, English can be said to have fewer formal means t h a n Czech for the expression of the various shades of the meaning of grammatical number. The only available devices are the singular and the plural; in contrast to Czech, English has no formal means of denoting collectivity: 'listi' corresponds to leaves, 'rakosi' to reeds (forms like foliage, herbage, constellation are rather bookish and in this respect differ from the Czech t y p e listi, kameni). On the other hand in English grammatical number is felt not as a mere formal component of the meaning b u t as its intrinsic part. I n contrast to this feature, Czech grammatical number is largely a formal component. This is obvious from the fact t h a t in Czech grammatical agreement in number is governed mechanically by the form of the noun. We say listi zloutne [singular verb — the foliage is turning yellow], although all the individual leaves contained in the set are turning yellow; kasarna [barracks] is plural neuter although it is often a single building; Listy filologicke [Philological Papers] is construed as a plural though it is one journal. I n this respect English behaves differently; it is not only the form b u t also the meaning t h a t plays a role. Therefore, as will be shown below, English frequently employs constructions ad sensum, i. e. a formal singular t h a t is felt as a plural takes a plural verb, whereas a formal plural t h a t is felt as a singular is construed as a singular. Evidence for the plural meaning and function of a singular noun is found in the following features: (1) the predicate verb is in the plural; (2) the quantifier takes the form of many, few instead of the expected much and little; sometimes the noun m a y even take a numeric quantifier; (3) it is referred to by the plural possessive pronoun their. For instance, the English word people (populus in Latin, le peuple in French) m a y sometimes have singular meaning, i. e. 'a nation'. Then it takes the article and forms the plural, cf. the peoples of India. More frequently, however, it has plural meaning. I n this case it is construed as a plural and takes no article, cf. many people (There were some twenty people only). Similarly, plural conception m a y prevail in nouns like police (cf. The police are sure that... There were some twenty police there), cattle, clergy and others. These nouns can also be used as singulars if the idea of one whole, though complex, is in the foreground. A plural predicate verb further accompanies formal singulars like government, family, although these

CLASSIFICATION W I T H I N T H E W O R D C A T E G O R I E S

51

nouns cannot take the quantifiers many or few in the attribute. Also words denoting quantity when construed with a genitive plural complement take a plural verb, cf. A great proportion (or a great majority) of coal miners ivere in favour of resuming the strike. On the contrary, a formal plural performs the function of a singular if it is 1. the title of a work of art, a book, a journal or other periodical, etc.: The Times is the best known paper of Britain; The Four Ages was the theme of our talk; 2. the name of a country: The United States was invited to the conference (the plural is also possible: were); 3. the nickname of a person: Blue Eyes was with me that day; 4. a substantivized numeral: the cricket eleven was beaten (in Czech substantivization is implemented by means of a suffix: jedendctka), that four pounds five shillings, and the like; 5. a temporal or spatial expression, conceived as a whole: this two months, another five weeks. A few words that occur only in the plural take the indefinite article it a single object is to be indicated: a works, a barracks. On the whole, however, awareness of plurality is fairly keen in English, which is reflected syntactically in two ways: 1. If reference is made to two ideas or things each of which is characterized by a different adjective, with the object being expressed only once, English employs the plural: the fourth and fifth chapters, the 12th and 13th centuries, the French and English nations.*9 The plural form is avoided only where there is a danger of ambiguity, cf. the eldest and the youngest son. In analogous instances, Czech uses the singular: ctvrtd α pätä kapitola, dvandcte a tfinacte stoleti, francouzsky a anglicky ndrod. 2. Plurality is further reflected syntactically in the agreement of the grammatical number of the object and the subject, cf. At that moment all raised their heads (as against Czech V torn okamziku v&ichni zvedli hlavu [head]). Similarly Many people lost their lives there as against Mnoho lidi tam pfislo ο zivot [life]. In English the grammatical number of the object may serve to indicate fine distinctions. For instance, in reference to one married couple we use the singular — their married life, while in reference to two married couples the plural: their married lives. The singular remains in set phrases: In the sight of the enemy all lost heart (note, however, to lose one's heart, i. e. to fall in love, which displays agreement: The two brothers lost their hearts at the same moment). Note. In addition to pluralia tantum (whiskers, scissors, etc.) English has pluralia tantum of another kind, viz. plurals that have acquired another meaning than might be expected with respect to the singular: colours means not only 'different colours'but also 'flag'; brains not only 'parts of the body' but also 'ingenuity', etc. 5 0

52

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

c) Aspectual modification of definiteness (Uses of the articles) Our main concern will be d e i c t i c definiteness. First of all it is necessary to distinguish external and internal deixis. 51 E x t e r n a l deixis is common in Czech, especially in colloquial speech. I t is signalled by compound demonstrative pronouns: tenhle, tamhleten, tuten [this, t h a t + particle]. I n educated English, external deixis is expressed by this and that, besides which popular English also uses this here, that there. However, we are more interested in i n t e r n a l deixis; here Czech uses the noncompound pronoun ten [that] ( K d y z jsem tarn vesel, ten clovek mne ani nepozdravil [When I entered t h a t man did not even say good morning to me]). Frequently the meaning of the demonstrative pronoun is anaphoric, i. e. it indicates t h a t the noun has been mentioned before (Byl jednou jeden kräl a ten kräl rriel t f i dcery [Once upon a time there was a king and t h a t king h a d three daughters]). Furthermore, the Czech demonstrative ten [that] is used emotionally, i. e. it does not point to an object as known, but expresses the speaker's emotional attitude towards it {To slunicko dnes hezky hfeje [That sun + diminutive suffix is shining nicely today], Τ a hlava mne dnes bolt [That head hurts me today]). I n none of these cases, however, has the pronoun ten changed into the definite article; it always denotes merely contextual, not lexical or conceptual definiteness. English, on the other hand, has a genuine article, just like German or French. The d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e performs not only the function of expressing conceptual definiteness, which is its function proper, b u t also the function of internal deixis. This point may be elucidated by a sentence expressing conceptual definiteness: Das Leben ist kurz, die Kunst ist lang. Here reference is made not to a particular life or art, but to life and art in general, as concepts. Similarly in The dog is much trustier than the cat the use of the is not contextual, but is due to purely conceptual lexical reasons. This is the generic use of the article, which refers to the whole species. The article is also used to indicate internal deixis: There was a man who had a dog and the dog.. . I n English the uses of the articles are different from those in German or French (cf. A. B I A R D 1908).52 I n French the general rule is to use nouns with the article and it is necessary to remember and justify those instances where the article is not employed. I n English, on the contrary, the normal case is a noun without the article and we must know when and why the article is used. Biard claims t h a t in French a sufficient condition of definiteness is conceptual clarity and therefore abstract nouns in French as a rule take the article. I n English, conceptual clarity in itself does not involve definiteness, some restriction or definition of the concept being required. Hence abstract nouns in English are used without article (Time is money, Knowledge is power).

CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE WORD CATEGORIES

53

In the generic sense the singular always takes the article: the dog, the cat; an exception is man, cf. Man is mortal,53 In English there are certain cases in which the article is not used, although it might seem to be required. Thus though the article is used in the University of London, the Green Park, the Tower Bridge, it is absent in London University, Hyde Park, Waterloo Bridge (where the first component is a proper name; note also Earl of Gloucester, King of England). Frequently the article is not used in set phrases where the point in question is not the building itself but the purpose it serves (go to school, to church). Sometimes the article is absent because a common noun is used as a proper name. Thus in a particular family the word father is unambiguous and therefore its members use it without article (Father is not at home). T h e same applies to mother when referred to b y members of her own family, teacher when referred to b y members of his class, and even newcomer m a y be employed without article in a passage where it is a near-equivalent of a proper name. Furthermore, nouns take 110 article in titles of literary works, newspaper headlines and the like. 54 A p a r t from deictic definiteness or definiteness of deictic origin there is also p o s s e s s i v e definiteness, which has a syntactic character. In Czech it is expressed b y the dative of the personal or reflexive pronoun: Slapete mi na nohu [you-are-treading to-me on foot], Zlomil si ruku [he-broke to-himself arm]. Here English invariably uses the possessive pronoun: You are treading on my foot, He broke his arm. While in Czech possessive definiteness often remains unexpressed, English denotes it in all instances, cf. otevfete usta [you-open mouth!] open your mouth; zlomil si nohu a ztratil klobouk [he-broke to-himself leg and lost hat] he broke his leg and lost his hat; polozte (si) prst na tvdr [put (toyourself) finger on cheek] put your finger on your cheek. The definite article in English is sometimes used in the so-called p r e g n a n t sense, i. e. to indicate t h a t what the noun denotes is the thing par excellence, k a t ' exochen: the bookseller (the best among booksellers). In print this use is indicated b y italics, in speech b y the full pronunciation (with long stressed [i:])· Just as Czech lacks the definite article, internal deixis being expressed b y means of the demonstrative pronouns ten, ta, to [that masculine, feminine, neuter], it also lacks the i n d e f i n i t e article, but if necessary, indefiniteness can be expressed b y means of jeden [one] or nejaky [some]: Byl jednou jeden krdl [Once upon a time there was one king], Byl tam nejaky clovek [There was some man there]. In English, contextual indefiniteness is expressed regularly b y means of the indefinite article (Once upon a time there was a king).5i I f a more emphatic expression of indefiniteness is required, the indefinite article is replaced by one or some (He looked at her as if she were some monster). In English there is an important difference between some and any. Some expresses indefiniteness, while any denotes arbitrary generality, e. g. You should read

54

FUNCTIONAL

ONOMATOLOGY

some thrilling book, then you will forget all your troubles, you see, any good detective story will do,56 N o t e . I t is w o r t h n o t i n g t h a t in t h e h i s t o r i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t of E n g l i s h t h e i n d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e e m e r g e d l a t e r t h a n t h e d e f i n i t e a r t i c l e . T h i s d e v e l o p m e n t is also o b s e r v e d in other languages. 3. C A T E G O R I A L

TRANSITIONS

OF

NOUNS

Having treated the formal classification and aspectual modifications of nouns we can now proceed to a discussion of categorial transitions, i. e. such changes as essentially affect the basic meaning of the word. Regrettably, this point has so far received little attention. The'greatest contribution to categorial transitions within different word categories has been made by N . B0GHOLM 1 9 2 1 . Categorial transitions of substantives are also found in Czech, e. g. transitions of abstract into concrete nouns. I f an abstract noun denotes a field of work, in the concrete sense it denotes the representatives of this field: Proti ctyficetihodinovemu pracovnimu tydnu byl hlavne priimysl [the forty-hours working week was opposed mainly by the industry, i. e. the representatives of industry]. I f an abstract noun denotes an emotion, in the concrete sense it may refer to the person or thing that evokes that emotion or is its object: Kterd ζ tech devcat je tvoje läskat [Which of the girls is your love? i. e. the object of your love]. In English, categorial transitions are more frequent than in Czech and there is a greater variety of types. In English, too, an abstract noun often acquires concrete meaning. I f it denotes an occupation, age or a personal quality then in the concrete sense it designates the person who is the bearer of this quality. For instance, labour means not only work but also workers (cf. Labour Party). Similarly youth in the concrete sense means 'young people', but it may refer not only to young people collectively but also to an individual (a young man); in the latter case it forms the plural: youths. The other Czech type described above is found in English as well. We have seen that a noun which as an abstract expresses some emotion, in the concrete sense denotes the object of the emotion. An instance similar to la-ska [love] in Czech (in the sense 'girl' or 'favourite occupation') is consideration in English (in the sense 'a thing considered') and precaution ('a preventive measure'): You may be quite sure, all -precautions have been taken. In addition to these transitions, common also in Czech, English has some others. To begin with, there is the transition by which the noun acquires a higher degree of a c t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r . An example will show what is meant. In Czech if it is necessary to indicate the initiator of an action the noun referring to the action is modified by a subjective genitive: To je pomluva pana Novdka [This is a slander of Mr. Novak]. This, however, may give rise to ambiguity (of Mr. Novdk can be interpreted as an objective genitive). In

CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE WORD CATEGORIES

55

order to avoid ambiguity, even in Czech we say To je pomluva vysld od pana Novdka [This is a slander originating from Mr. Novak], i.e. we insert a participle before the prepositional phrase denoting the initiator. Prepositional phrases denoting the initiator without the accompanying participle are found only in titles of works of art, e. g. Vinobrani od Oskara Nedbala [Vintage by Oscar Nedbal]. In English such instances are far more frequent. Prepositional phrases are used not only to denote authors of books and other works of art, e. g. a play by G. B. Shaw, an opera by B. Smetana, but also to denote other products and activities: a speech by the Chancellor, an experiment by Prof. Tesla (in Czech fee pronesend [a speech made b y . . . ] , pokus provedeny... [an experiment made b y . . . ] ) ; similarly a move by the leader of the Liberals. Here the English noun seems to approach verbal expression of the action; in these cases it definitely has a more actional character than the noun in Czech. I t is a step towards categorial transition, though the phenomenon remains within the limits of aspectual modification. Another kind of transition is observed in the following cases. In Czech some nouns are used only in reference to persons, e. g. zdsluha, but the corresponding English noun merit means not only zdsluha [merit] but also vyhoda, pfednost [advantage, benefit]. I t is not only the difference between a noun that is used in reference to a person and a noun employed in reference to a thing, but also a difference that might be qualified as the distinction between s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e c o n c e p t i o n : vyhoda [advantage] is an objective notion, whereas zdsluha [merit] is a subjective one. Thus we arrive at the difference between a p e r m a n e n t and a t e m p o r a r y quality. For instance, intention is something that applies to a person, but there also exists the phrase the intention of the English Sunday. Here the difference between subjectivity and objectivity on the one hand, and temporariness and permanence on the other, seems to approach the distinction between the active and the passive.

4. F O R M A L C L A S S I F I C A T I O N A N D A S P E C T U A L OF A D J E C T I V E S

MODIFICATIONS

As regards the formal classification of English adjectives, it is rather scanty. While Czech adjectives are distinguished according to hard or soft paradigms, and Latin adjectives belong to three declensions, in English such formal adjectival categories are lacking. The only formal classification of English adjectives is comparison. There are adjectives capable of forming comparatives and superlatives by means of suffixes, and adjectives in which this capacity is absent. Another distinction might further be made between primary adjectives (good, dry), derived adjectives (girlish, manly) and nouns or collocations converted into adjectives (home, Oxford University).

56

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

As far as aspectual modifications are concerned, adjectives are not affected by the differences in number and gender. Where adjectives display differences in number and gender (as in Czech, Latin, German, French) these are due to formal agreement with nouns, grammatical number and gender being features specific to the substantive. I n English even this concord is lacking since the English adjective, as long as it retains its adjectival function, has no plural or other inflections. I n German there is, moreover, the difference between the strong and the weak declension (which reflects definiteness on the syntactic level). I n Present Day English this difference no longer exists (though it was found in Old English). Hence the only aspectual modification of English adjectives is c o m p a r i s o n , which in the broadest sense includes all means employed to express any degree of the quality denoted by the adjective. If two objects are compared with respect to a certain quality, three cases may arise: 1. Both objects display the same degree of the quality: as dangerous as. ..; 2. One object has a higher degree of the quality t h a n the other: more dangerous than...; 3. One object has a lower degree of the quality t h a n the other: less dangerous than..., but more often negatively: not so dangerous as... (cf. the reverse manner of expression in Czech skoro nikdy [almost never] and in English hardly ever). Sometimes the comparative merely denotes a quality, without involving any comparison: higher criticism (cf. also Czech vyssi skola [higher school], although it is a lower school t h a n a university [ = high school in Czech]). The use of the with a comparative emphasizes the degree of the quality. In Czech it corresponds to tim [by-it]. The expresses a uniform and mutually dependent increase or decrease in a quality: The noisier the children ivere, the better pleased she was. Sometimes the use of the involves no comparison: I liked him all the better for it. An interesting instance is the so-called l a t e n t c o m p a r a t i v e . I t consists in inserting the adverb too before an adjective, the construction denoting the fact t h a t a quality is present to a higher degree than is consistent with what is permissible or useful, etc.: We shall come too late. I n some cases the adverb too is used only for the sake of emphasis: You are too kind. Here it indicates a high degree of the quality, which can be expressed in several ways in both Czech and English. Czech has the following means: 1. Lexical: cerveny — rudy — krvavy [red — dark-red — of the colour of blood], 2. Derivation: tichy — tichounky — tichoucky [quiet — quiet + diminutive suffix], 3. The degree of the quality is indicated by an adverb: velice tichy, ndramne tichy [very quiet, exceedingly quiet].

CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE WORD CATEGORIES

57

The first of these means is also employed in English, whereas the second is inapplicable, the derivational capacity of English being much more limited t h a n in Czech (an exception is the suffix -ish, which indicates a lower degree of quality t h a n the adjective to which it is added: greenish). The third means is again quite common in English. I n speech, intensifying adverbs tend to wear off, which gives rise to the formation of new ones. These are frequently too emphatic to be suited to the adjectives they intensify (cf. jste hrozne hodny [you're terribly good], je ukrutne mild [she's cruelly ( = very) amiable], similarly in English, awfully nice). Such words are called i n t e n s i f i e r s (cf. C. S T O F F E L 1901).87 Sometimes the intensifier in the comparative is different from the intensifier in the positive, cf. very pleased — the better phased she was. Besides the suffix -est, the superlative sometimes has the suffix -most, which is added to prepositions and comparatives derived from prepositions: uppermost, innermost. I t is also added to nouns (topmost, bottommost), which again testifies to the adjectival function of these nouns. 58

5. CATEGORIAL T R A N S I T I O N S OF ADJECTIVES I n English, categorial transitions of adjectives take place with much greater facility and play a much more significant role t h a n in Czech. They include the following phenomena. An adjective usually denotes either a permanent quality, or a quality whose duration is not determined, or a quality conceived absolutely. For instance, in the sentences Hill je dlouhd [The stick is long], Pfedndska je dlouhä [The lecture is long] the quality is conceived absolutely. Sometimes, however, length is referred to as a passing, temporary, relative quality. In Czech the adjective dlouh'y [long] cannot acquire such relative meaning, b u t in English this is possible, as is shown by the sentence The economic crisis ivas very long in making itself felt in that district. Here the adjective long does not denote an absolute quality but, as follows from the context, the duration of the crisis relates only to the expression make oneself felt. In Czech this semantic content has to be expressed in another way: Dlouko to trvalo, nez se hospoddrskd krize ν te oblasti projevila [It took a long time before the economic crisis made itself felt in t h a t district] or Krize se... dlouho neprojevovala [The crisis. . . did not make itself felt for a long time]. Similar behaviour is displayed by the adjectives sure, certain: He is sure to come. Here the certainty t h a t is assigned to the subject has a relative validity with respect to the arrival t h a t is predicated of the subject. Through the influence of the context the adjectives sure, certain acquire a quasi-passive meaning (they do not refer to the assurance of the subject b u t to the assurance concerning the subject, felt by others). Another example is At that moment wheels were loud on the gravel, where loud

58

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

is a quality conceived relatively with respect to the given moment — in Czech V te chvili kola hlasite zaskfipala na pisku [At t h a t moment the wheels grated loudly on the gravel]. In transitions of this kind the adjective semantically approaches the verb, which expresses the changing aspect of an object. T h e similarity between the adjective and the verb is evident in instances where the adjective is expanded b y an object or a causal determination. Whereas in Czech adjectives with an object are rather rare (byt dychtiv neceho [be eager for something], besides the v e r b dychtiti po necern [to long for something]), in English such instances are quite common. F o r instance, an object is often found with the English adjective productive, which cannot be entirely identified with its Czech counterpart produktivni. In Czech produktivni [productive] is opposed to neproduktivni [unproductive] as a permanent quality or a quality conceived absolutely, while in English, productive m a y denote an a c t i v i t y , i. e. a passing (temporary) quality, similar to the Czech verbal adjective produkujici [producing, adjective]. Therefore English admits o f expressions like to be productive of in the sense of 'produce something'. A similar instance is murmurous in the sentence That night whole London was murmurous with that news, in Czech London hlucel... [London resounded w i t h t h a t news]. Here again the adjective obviously denotes not an absolute or permanent quality but a quality relative w i t h respect to something else. Another categorial transition consists in the fact t h a t some adjectives which are primarily applied to things m a y also be used to m o d i f y persons and vice versa. In English, transitions of this kind are common, whereas in Czech they are rare. F o r instance, the Czech adjective nesnadntf [difficult] applies exclusively to things and activities, while its English counterpart can also modify persons (cf. a difficult person — 'somebody difficult to get on with'). Similarly the Czech adjective pysn'y [proud] refers as a rule to persons and only on rare occasions to personified things (pysnd budova [a proud building]), whereas in English a phrase like That was a proud sight is quite common. 5 9

β. F O R M A L C A T E G O R I E S A N D A S P E C T U A L M O D I F I C A T I O N S

OF

VERBS \s has already been said, the substance of the word categories is mixed; they represent denominative types partly for certain categories of our experience and partly for particular syntactic functions. The contribution of ontological categories to the classification of words is the most evident in nouns, whereas in the case of verbs the most significant factor in their classification is the syntactic function. Hence the v e r b is best defined as the naming unit denoting the changeable aspect of things in the form required b y the predicative

CLASSIFICATION WITHIN THE WORD CATEGORIES

59

function. This is of course a definition of the verb in its finite forms (verbum finitum); however, it is undoubtedly the finite forms of the verb t h a t are the most essential. The verb is thus a denominative type suitable to perform the predicative function and at the same time the denomination of the changeable aspect of things. a) The formal categories of the verb Let us first inquire into the repertory of the formal categories of the English verb. In comparison with the Czech verb, the English verb is found to have the following characteristic features: 1. A very limited number of s y n t h e t i c forms, i. e. forms t h a t have endings (inflected forms), and a large number of a n a l j ^ t i c forms, i. e. forms composed with auxiliaries. The English verb has in fact only three endings: [-s] / [-z] / [-iz]; [-t] I [-d] I [-id]; [-ϊη]. In addition, the English verb is sometimes characterized by alternations (such as write — wrote, choose — chose). Czech also has analytic forms (budu psät [I shall write] — periphrastic future consisting of the future tense of byt [be] + infinitive; byl bych psal [I should have written] — p a s t conditional), b u t the number of analytic forms in English is much larger (cf. especially the progressive forms of the type I have been learning, etc.). 60 2. Paucity of f o r m a l c o n j u g a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s . Czech has six verbal classes (nesu, tisknu, umim, prosim, deldm, kupuji), the difference between them sometimes involving a semantic modification (nesu [I am carrying] — nosim [I carry] — nosivam [I often carry]). On the other hand, English has formal categories in remnants only. Of particular interest is a small group of verbs which have preserved certain features of the ancient type of preteritepresent verbs in the present tense (3rd person singular without ending: he can, may, must, shall, will). A special case is the verb I am. I n the preterite, there are differences with respect to formation: it is formed either by means of a suffix (I loved) or by alternation (I wrote) or by means of a suffix combined with alternation (I kept) or, finally, it has the same form as the present (I put). Herewith the list of the formal categories of the English conjugation is exhausted. On the other hand, English has a large number of modifying conjugations. As has been shown above, a formal conjugational category is one to which a particular verb belongs according to its formal type and which is apparent in all its forms. On the contrary, a m o d i f y i n g c o n j u g a t i o n i s a conjugational type t h a t is applicable to all or most verbs and which brings about an aspectual modification of its meaning. The main difference between a formal and an aspectual category consists in the semantic aspect: as has already been noted, membership in an aspectual category has semantic consequences, whereas membership in a formal category has none.

60

FUNCTIONAL ONOMATOLOGY

English has the following modifying conjugations: a) The a c t i v e and the p a s s i v e v o i c e : I love — I am loved. This distinction applies to every verb that is semantically capable of forming the passive. b) Simple forms are opposed to the compound conjugation: I love — I am loving (English grammar uses the terms s i m p l e f o r m s — e x p a n d e d or p r o g r e s s i v e f o r m s ) ; this opposition applies to a large majority of all verbs, the principal exception being the preterite-present verbs. 61 c) Besides the a f f i r m a t i v e conjugation there is the n e g a t i v e : I love — I do not love. Negative conjugation with do applies to all verbs except the preterite-present verbs and the auxiliaries, in which negation is signalled by the particle not added to the verbal form. d) D e c l a r a t i v e conjugation is opposed to i n t e r r o g a t i v e forms: do I love? do I not love"1. This manner of forming the question does not apply to the preterite-present verbs and to auxiliaries, where questions are signalled by inversion of the verbal form and the subject. 3. A l a r g e n u m b e r of t e n s e s : Czech has only the present, preterite, future and the pluperfect (which is bookish, artificial), whereas English has the present, preterite, perfect, pluperfect, future, and future perfect. Temporal distinctions are also displayed by non-finite forms: to love — to have loved, speaking — having spoken. These forms, however, denote merely simultaneousness or priority of verbal action, without assigning the verbal form to a particular temporal category. Nevertheless the notion of a simultaneous action expressed by the present participle in Czech appears to be more exact than that conveyed by the English present participle; for example, the Czech participle vchdzeje [entering] denotes a narrower temporal sphere than the English participle entering; this is shown by an instance like Entering into the room he said, which semantically corresponds to Vesel do pokoje a fekl.. . [He entered the room and said]. b) Aspectual modifications

of the verb