Martha,
Thanks for taking the time to write a clear and thoughtful
discussion of the part-of-speech/lexical category problem. As I recall
from earlier threads on this subject, we were not only unable to agree on a set
of categories; we were unable to agree on what to call such categories or what
criteria to use in determining them. I don’t like “parts of
speech” either, with it’s assumed preceding number word “eight”.
Greenbaum suggests eleven categories, but he then points to several words that
don’t fit into any category.
Herb
From: Assembly for the
Teaching of English Grammar [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Martha
Kolln
Sent: Sunday, October 07, 2007 6:59 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Part of speech query
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/