- •§ 4. We have drawn a general outline of the division of the lexicon into part of speech classes developed by modern lin-guists on the lines of traditional morphology.
- •§ 9. Functional words re-interpreted by syntactic approach also reveal some important traits that remained undiscovered in earlier descriptions.
- •§ 11. As a result of the undertaken analysis we have ob-tained a foundation for dividing the whole of the lexicon on the upper level of classification into three unequal parts.
- •§ 2. The categorial functional properties of the noun are de-termined by its semantic properties.
- •§ 2. The category of gender is expressed in English by the obligatory correlation of nouns with the personal pronouns of the third person. These serve as specific gender classifiers
- •§ 2. The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulties of interpretation.
- •§ 2. Four special views advanced at various times by differ-ent scholars should be considered as successive stages in the analysis of this problem.
- •§ 2. A mere semantic observation of the articles in English, I.E. The definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not two, but three meaningful
- •§ 6. The essential grammatical features of the articles ex-posed in the above considerations and tests leave no room for misinterpretation at the final, generalising stage of analysis.
- •§ 5. The class of verbs falls into a number of subclasses dis-tinguished by different semantic and lexico-grammatical fea-tures.
- •§ 8. On the basis of the subject-process relation, all the no-tional verbs can be divided into actional and statal.
§ 9. Functional words re-interpreted by syntactic approach also reveal some important traits that remained undiscovered in earlier descriptions.
The essence of their paradigmatic status in the light of syn-tactic interpretation consists in the fact that the lists of func-tional words may be regarded as paradigmatic series them-selves — which, in their turn, are grammatical constituents of higher paradigmatic series on the level of phrases and espe-cially sentences.
As a matter of fact, functional words, considered by their role in the structure of the sentence, are proved to be exposers of various syntactic categories, i.e. they render structural mean-ings referring to phrases and sentences in constructional forms similar to derivational (word-building) and relational (gram-matical) morphemes in the composition of separate words. Cf.:
The words were obscure, but she understood the uneasiness that produced them.> The words were obscure, weren't they? How then could she understand the uneasiness that produced them?> Or perhaps the words were not too obscure, after all? Or, conversely, she didn't understand the uneasiness that pro-duced them?> But the words were obscure. How obscure they were! Still she did understand the uneasiness that produced them. Etc.
This role of functional words which are identified not by their morphemic composition, but by their semantico-syntactic features in reference to the embedding constructions, is ex-posed on a broad linguistic basis within the framework of the theory of paradigmatic syntax (see further).
§ 10. Pronouns considered in the light of the syntactic prin-ciples receive a special systemic status that characteristically stamps the general presentation of the structure of the lexicon as a whole.
Pronouns are traditionally recognised on the basis of indica-tory (deictic) and substitutional semantic functions.
47
The two types of meanings form a unity, in which the deictic semantics is primary. As a matter of fact, indication is the se-mantic foundation of substitution.
As for the syntactic principle of the word stock division, while recognising their deictic aspect, it lays a special stress on the substitutive features of pronouns. Indeed, it is the substitu-tional function that immediately isolates all the heterogeneous groups of pronouns into a special set of the lexicon.
The generalising substitutional function of pronouns makes them into syntactic representatives of all the notional classes of words, so that a pronominal positional part of the sentence serves as a categorial projection of the corresponding notional subclass identified as the filler set of the position in question. It should be clearly understood that even personal pronouns of the first and second persons play the cited representative role, which is unambiguously exposed by examples with direct ad-dresses and appositions. Cf.:
I, Little Foot, go away making noises and tramplings. Are you happy, Lil?
Included into the system of pronouns are pronominal ad-verbs and verb-substitutes, in due accord with their substitu-tional functions. Besides, notional words of broad meaning are identified as forming an intermediary layer between the pro-nouns and notional words proper. Broad meaning words adjoin the pronouns by their substitutional function. Cf.:
I wish at her age she'd learn to sit quiet and not do things. Flora's suggestion is making sense. I will therefore briefly set down the circumstances which led to my being connected with the affair. Etc.
As a result of these generalisations, the lexical paradigm of nomination receives a complete substitutive representation. Cf.: one, it, they... — do, make, act... — such, similar, same... — thus, so, there...
Symbolically the correlation of the nominal and pronominal paradigmatic schemes is stated as follows:
N — V — A — D — Npro — Vpro — Apro — Dpro.