Ronald, Johanna, Herb, and all:
I think that one problem with terminology is the term "parts of
speech." (I prefer to discuss "word classes" rather than "parts of
speech." After all, we could also identify prepositional phrases and
subjects and predicates as "parts of speech.") Except for the terms
"gerund" and "participle," the Warriner type of traditional school
grammar ignores the concept of function in its descriptions. For
example, a noun that modifies a noun headword (the garbage can, the
college professor, the computer problem) is labeled an adjective; a
noun modifying a verb (I walked home; He's coming Monday) will be
called an adverb.
But considering both form and function, we would describe the noun
modifiers as nouns functioning adjectivally; the verb modifiers as
nouns functioning adverbially. The word class is one thing; its
function another.
(This problem also shows up in certain traditional test items, when
students are asked to "underline the nouns." Are they looking for
nominals only? Or do nouns functioning as adjectives and adverbs
also require the underline? The same question applies to verb
underlining. We need those -al terms!)
In calling my and his and her determiners, we are discussing their
function. In form, I maintain that they are pronouns. Pronouns
should not be defined according to their function, any more than
adjectives should! And certainly, in teaching school grammar, I
would advocate describing the whole system of personal pronouns:
subjective, objective, and possessive forms. The alternate
possessive forms (mine, his, hers, theirs) function when the noun
headword is missing. And, by the way, a pronoun can, indeed, take
the place of a noun phrase--when that noun phrase is functioning as a
determiner: my big sister's cat = her cat.
The problem with the traditional definition of "pronoun" is that the
term "nominal" is not in the traditional vocabulary. A pronoun takes
the place, not of a noun or even a noun phrase, but of a nominal--no
matter what its form: Exercising regularly is vital to our health =
It is vital to our health.
I would mention, too, that I consider this, that, these, and those
pronouns: i.e., demonstrative pronouns. They, too, take the place of
nominals. And, unlike most personal pronouns, they have no
alternative form when the head is missing. "I have have read all of
these books; I have read all of these." May descriptions of grammar
call them "demonstrative adjectives." (Let's save the term adjective
for those words that, for the most part, fit the formal description.)
I think it's very useful in teaching the concept of "determiner," to
remind students that when they use a pronoun, especially this or
that, without its headword, ambiguity often occurs: The "antecedent"
problem can sometimes be explained better as a "lack of headword"
problem.
One more thought: I consider both 'determiner" and "qualifier" as
the names of word classes--a big, and important, difference from
traditional grammar, with its limited "eight parts of speech." But
in both cases, I recognize that the terms straddle the line between
form and function. On the one hand, articles are straightforward
determiners; however, other word classes, such as possessive
pronouns, also function as determiners, as do pronouns of various
subclasses. In other words, both of these word classes--nouns and
pronouns--also function as determiners. In the case of "qualifier,"
we do have very, the quintessential qualifier;and we have a few
others, like so and rather, that are usually qualifiers. But then
there are all those -ly adverbs that can function as qualifiers:
absolutely true! So they're not really "closed classes," as
conjunctions and prepositions and auxiliaries are. But I think it's
still useful to include "determiners" and "qualifiers" as "structure"
classes, rather than "form" classes--with that caveat--simply to make
clear the special nature of nouns, verbs, adjectives, and adverbs.
Martha
>We've had some interesting discussions of Part of Speech on this list,
>and, while we don't all agree as to which ones and how many English
>grammar needs, there is broad agreement that they are defined on
>morphological and syntactic grounds, as well as semantic. School
>grammars tend to offer much more notional classification reflecting the
>eight pars orationis of the Greco-Latin grammatical tradition.
>
>I've used the "possessive pronoun" terminology consistently throughout
>my career, both as a linguist and as a grammar teacher. The words
>simply do not belong to the same lexical class (part of speech).
>English adjectives may take the suffixes -er and -est, are preceded by
>number words and determiners (articles, demonstratives, possessive
>pronouns), and may also be predicative without changing form.
>Possessive pronouns, on the other hand, precede number words and
>adjectives, are uninflectable except in that they are the diachronic
>product of inflecting a pronoun root, and may change form to be
>predicative (mine, (thine,) hers, ours, yours, theirs). "His" and "its"
>don't show this inflection. And, of course, pronouns a closed class of
>function words while adjectives are an open class of content words.
>
>The standard reference grammars listed below pretty much agree on this
>treatment. I've used the Greenbaum as a text a number of times. School
>grammars tend to be more influenced by grammatical traditions.
>
>Some standard reference grammars:
>
>Biber, Douglas; Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward
>Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London:
>Pearson ESL.
>
>Greenbaum, Sidney. 1996. The Oxford English grammar. New York:
>Oxford University Press.
>
>Huddleston, Rodney D., and Geoffrey K. Pullum. 2002. The Cambridge
>Grammar of the English Language. London: Cambridge University Press.
>
>Quirk, Randolph; Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik.
>1985A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
>
>For historical purposes, I go to Jespersen's seven volume A Modern
>English Grammar on Historical Principles, but modern reference grammars
>agree quite extensively with his grammatical analyses.
>
>In short, I agree with Swan.
>
>Herb
>
>This may sound elementary but is anyone using a reference grammar which
>classifies 'my', 'your', 'her' etc. as 'possessive pronouns' and not as
>'possessive adjectives'?.
>
>For example, Thomson and Martinet (A Practical English Grammar - page
>75)
>classifies them as possessive adjectives.
>
>On the other hand, Michael Swan's Practical English Usage (p. 416)
>classifies them as possessive pronouns and states 'They are not
>adjectives
>though they are sometimes called 'possessive adjectives' in older
>grammars
>and dictionaries'.
>
>Is there anyone on the List who follows Swan's classification?
>
>Ron Sheen
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web
>interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
>
>To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
> http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
>and select "Join or leave the list"
>
>Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/
To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/