Chapter 6 Closed word classes and other parts of speech

Keyword(s):  
2021 ◽  
pp. 3-29
Author(s):  
Kateryna Horodensʹka ◽  

This study aims at investigating the development of grammatical theory at the Institute of the Ukrainian Language for the last 30 years. The paper summarizes achievements in grammar theory from applying the functional, i.e., semantic and grammatical, approach developed by I.R. Vykhovanetsʹ to differentiating units into word and nonword classes and distinguishing morphological categories of major word classes. This facilitated the establishment of the theoretical basis of functional and categorical morphology. The author analyses studies in formal grammatical, semantic, functional, categorical, deri vational, and anthropocentric syntax that attest to the multidimensional growth of a syntactic theory and main aspects of the Ukrainian word formation on the basis of semantic and categorical syntax and a formant- and stem-based derivatology. Some of the latest multi-pronged processes in word formation reflect dynamics of word formation rules, the replenishment of word formation resources, and the development of the word-formation system of Standard Ukrainian. The solving of a complex set of theoretical issues in the modern Ukrainian word-formation introduced the methodological foundations for the recent normative description of the word formation system of Standard Ukrainian. The article addresses issues in studies on applied grammar determined by the process of glo balization and democratization of the Ukrainian society and the needs of Modern Ukrainian language practice to be met. Particular importance is attached to the grammatical prescriptive norms in the professional use, the actualization of case forms appearing in the passive vocabulary, and the dynamics of morphological and syntactic norms in various functional and stylistic dimensions of Standard Ukrainian. Keywords: functional grammar, functional morphology, functional syntax, categorical grammar, categorical syntax, categorical word formation, classification of parts of speech, morphological categories.


2004 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
KEES HENGEVELD ◽  
JAN RIJKHOFF ◽  
ANNA SIEWIERSKA

This paper argues that the word order possibilities of a language are partly determined by the parts-of-speech system of that language. In languages in which lexical items are specialized for certain functionally defined syntactic slots (e.g. the modifier slot within a noun phrase), the identifiability of these slots is ensured by the nature of the lexical items (e.g. adjectives) themselves. As a result, word order possibilities are relatively unrestricted in these languages. In languages in which lexical items are not specialized for certain syntactic slots, in that these items combine the functions of two or more of the traditional word classes, other strategies have to be invoked to enhance identifiability. In these languages word order constraints are used to make syntactic slots identifiable on the basis of their position within the clause or phrase. Hence the word order possibilities are rather restricted in these languages. Counterexamples to the latter claim all involve cases in which identifiability is ensured by morphological rather than syntactic means. This shows that there is a balanced trade-off between the syntactic, morphological, and lexical structure of a language.


Author(s):  
Jaklin Kornfilt

The term “part of speech” is a traditional one that has been in use since grammars of Classical Greek (e.g., Dionysius Thrax) and Latin were compiled; for all practical purposes, it is synonymous with the term “word class.” The term refers to a system of word classes, whereby class membership depends on similar syntactic distribution and morphological similarity (as well as, in a limited fashion, on similarity in meaning—a point to which we shall return). By “morphological similarity,” reference is made to functional morphemes that are part of words belonging to the same word class. Some examples for both criteria follow: The fact that in English, nouns can be preceded by a determiner such as an article (e.g., a book, the apple) illustrates syntactic distribution. Morphological similarity among members of a given word class can be illustrated by the many adverbs in English that are derived by attaching the suffix –ly, that is, a functional morpheme, to an adjective (quick, quick-ly). A morphological test for nouns in English and many other languages is whether they can bear plural morphemes. Verbs can bear morphology for tense, aspect, and mood, as well as voice morphemes such as passive, causative, or reflexive, that is, morphemes that alter the argument structure of the verbal root. Adjectives typically co-occur with either bound or free morphemes that function as comparative and superlative markers. Syntactically, they modify nouns, while adverbs modify word classes that are not nouns—for example, verbs and adjectives. Most traditional and descriptive approaches to parts of speech draw a distinction between major and minor word classes. The four parts of speech just mentioned—nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs—constitute the major word classes, while a number of others, for example, adpositions, pronouns, conjunctions, determiners, and interjections, make up the minor word classes. Under some approaches, pronouns are included in the class of nouns, as a subclass. While the minor classes are probably not universal, (most of) the major classes are. It is largely assumed that nouns, verbs, and probably also adjectives are universal parts of speech. Adverbs might not constitute a universal word class. There are technical terms that are equivalents to the terms of major versus minor word class, such as content versus function words, lexical versus functional categories, and open versus closed classes, respectively. However, these correspondences might not always be one-to-one. More recent approaches to word classes don’t recognize adverbs as belonging to the major classes; instead, adpositions are candidates for this status under some of these accounts, for example, as in Jackendoff (1977). Under some other theoretical accounts, such as Chomsky (1981) and Baker (2003), only the three word classes noun, verb, and adjective are major or lexical categories. All of the accounts just mentioned are based on binary distinctive features; however, the features used differ from each other. While Chomsky uses the two category features [N] and [V], Jackendoff uses the features [Subj] and [Obj], among others, focusing on the ability of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adpositions to take (directly, without the help of other elements) subjects (thus characterizing verbs and nouns) or objects (thus characterizing verbs and adpositions). Baker (2003), too, uses the property of taking subjects, but attributes it only to verbs. In his approach, the distinctive feature of bearing a referential index characterizes nouns, and only those. Adjectives are characterized by the absence of both of these distinctive features. Another important issue addressed by theoretical studies on lexical categories is whether those categories are formed pre-syntactically, in a morphological component of the lexicon, or whether they are constructed in the syntax or post-syntactically. Jackendoff (1977) is an example of a lexicalist approach to lexical categories, while Marantz (1997), and Borer (2003, 2005a, 2005b, 2013) represent an account where the roots of words are category-neutral, and where their membership to a particular lexical category is determined by their local syntactic context. Baker (2003) offers an account that combines properties of both approaches: words are built in the syntax and not pre-syntactically; however, roots do have category features that are inherent to them. There are empirical phenomena, such as phrasal affixation, phrasal compounding, and suspended affixation, that strongly suggest that a post-syntactic morphological component should be allowed, whereby “syntax feeds morphology.”


1989 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilfried Herrmann

SummaryThe present paper deals with a classification of the parts of speech of the Korean language giving priority to syntactico-functional and distributional criteria, which is considered as useful for the purpose of foreign language teaching. Primary syntactic functions of the different word classes have been determined and the question of conversion (change of parts of speech) as well as entering of equivocal (homonymous) words or word forms, both of the same origin, into different word classes according to their different syntactic features has been discussed. Furthermore, correlations between syntactically defined word classes and their morphological features have been specified.As first step, lexical items have been divided into word classes having sentence value and not having sentence value, respectively.As second step, word classes lacking sentence value have been divided into those capable of functioning as an independent member of sentence and those functioning mainly adjunctionally as constituent of a member of sentence, the former as to their primary or prevailing syntactic functions (i.o. predicates, „actants“, „circonstants“) being subdivided into verbs, nouns and adverbs, respectively, and the latter consisting in adjectives (modifiers).Word classes endowed with sentence value consist of interjections and modal words.


1967 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 245-258
Author(s):  
G. G. Pocheptsov

‘Transformation as a technique for linguistic analysis’, by G. G. Pocheptsov, The Kiev Pedagogical Institute for Foreign Languages, Kiev, U.S.S.R. Abstract (by the Editor). Despite the intensive development of transformational theory in the last ten years, certain fundamental questions have not yet been answered. In particular, the notion of ‘structural meaning’ has not been clarified, and criteria are lacking for deciding whether a given transformational difference is ‘structural’. The author distinguishes two kinds of structural meanings associated with grammatical units: ‘explicit’ and ‘implicit’. The former belong to the surface-structure of language, and were the primary concern of the traditional theory of the parts of speech and parts of the sentence; the latter belong to deep-structure, and traditional grammar did not have the apparatus required for their investigation – transformations. The most interesting transformations are those which ‘translate’ implicit meanings into explicit: e.g., the NP, Ms book, in This book is easy to read has the implicit meaning ‘object’, by contrast with this boy in This boy is eager to read. Both sentences may be transformationally ‘reduced’ to the same surface-structure, N V Da. (This book reads easily, This boy reads eagerly): but the structural conditions for the application of the transformations are not identical. The author discusses each sentence in relation to other characteristic transformational possibilities. Finally, the following fundamental types of transformation are distinguished, and illustrated from English: (a) those which establish both a difference of IC structure and a difference between the syntactic relations of the constituents; (b) those which formalize differences in the implicit structural meanings of constituents; (c) those which establish differences between sentence-constituents at the level of word classes and subclasses. Transformational analysis is of relatively small importance in the investigation of ‘lexico-derivational’ and ‘lexico-phraseological’ constraints. It is a valuable method of analysis, but must not be extended beyond its domain of relevance.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria N. Melissourgou ◽  
Katerina T. Frantzi

Abstract The IELTS exams attract numerous candidates globally and are considered high-stakes exams due to the impact the results can have on the candidates. The need therefore for goal-oriented guidance is crucial. Unfortunately, this preparation is based on teachers’ intuition on what is common and appropriate. This paper describes the typical lexicogrammatical features of Reports based on objective quantitative evidence. The WriMA (Writing Model Answers) corpus consists of model writings from preparation material. The DataReports sub-corpus used in this study consists of 100 texts, 16.828 tokens and is POS (Parts of Speech) tagged. The extraction of keywords and recurring patterns is combined with an interpretation of their functional role in the specific context. This analysis arms teachers with knowledge of specific words, word classes and combinations used by experienced writers in order to achieve genrespecific trends usually described in vague terms such as impersonal stance or factual language.


2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (3) ◽  
pp. 727-752 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan Rijkhoff

This article argues that in addition to the major flexible lexical categories in Hengeveld’s classification of parts-of-speech systems (Contentive, Non-Verb, Modifier), there are also flexible word classes within the rigid lexical category Noun (Set Noun, Sort Noun, General Noun). Members of flexible word classes are characterized by their vague semantics, which in the case of nouns means that values for the semantic features Shape and Homogeneity are either left undetermined or they are specified in such a way that they do not quite match the properties of the kind of entity denoted by the flexible item in the external world. I will then argue that flexible word classes constitute a proper category (i.e. they are not the result of a merger of some rigid word classes) in that members of flexible word categories display the same properties regarding category membership as members of rigid word classes. Finally this article wants to claim that the distinction between rigid and flexible noun categories (a) adds a new dimension to current classifications of parts-of-speech systems, (b) correlates with certain grammatical phenomena (e.g. so-called number discord), and (c) helps to explain the parts-of-speech hierarchy.


2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 325-344 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierre Swiggers

Summary This article proposes an analysis of the linguistic work of the Moravian missionary David Zeisberger (1721–1808), and more particularly of his grammar of the Delaware language (= [Lenni-]Lenape), which was published in 1827 in an English translation by Peter S. Du Ponceau (1760–1844), on the basis of the author’s German manuscript. A life-sketch and a short presentation of Zeisberger’s missionary work are intended to place the Delaware grammar in the context of his scholarly output, thus allowing the reader to adequately appreciate the practical orientation of the work. The analysis of the grammar, which is essentially a description of Delaware verb morphology, focuses on the parts-of-speech model, and on the treatment of the various word classes, with special attention being paid to the verb. The article offers a detailed study of the organization of the verb paradigms, of the division into conjugations and into ‘forms’ (positive, negative, etc.), and of the description of verbal ‘transitions’. The practical and analytical outlook of Zeisberger is confirmed by the lexicographically oriented treatment of the undeclinable parts of speech: the adverb, the preposition, the conjunction and the interjection. The conclusion insists on the fact that Zeisberger’s grammar was an important source for 19th-century linguists interested in language typology and more particularly in the structure of polysynthetic languages.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document