Typology of the Parts of Speech in the Contrasted Languages

The identification of the parts of speech in the contrasted languages is not always an easy matter though the main subdivision of words into notionals and functionals seems to be indisputable. The ambiguity of form and meaning of many English notional words, however, brought some grammarians to the assumption that there exist no proper grounds and justification for singling out some notional parts of speech in present-day English. C. Fries [41, 94 — 100], for example, suggested a purely functional approach to the classification of English words. He singled out class 1 words (those performing the function of the subject), class 2 words (those performing the function of the predicate), class 3. words (adjectivals), i. e. attributives, and class 4 are were in Fries' classification adverbial function words or word-groups. C. Fries tried to avoid even mentioning the usual term of " parts of speech". The term is also avoided by this grammarian in his classification of " function words", which are allotted to 15 different groups and include also some pronouns, adverbs and verbs.

A typologically more relevant classification has been suggested for English notionals by C. T. Hockett who distinguishes in English " parts of speech" and " classes of words". Among the notionals three pure " classes of words" (or regular parts of speech) are distinguished: " class N words", " class V words" and " class A words". [43, 226 — 227] These " classes" are mainly singled out with regard to the morphological (or rather paradigmatic) properties of these notionals which, having the structure of mere roots or stems, can " show more than one pattern of usage", as C. T. Hockett puts it. In other words, they may follow either the noun or the verb and an adjective pattern. Hence, the grammarian singled out apart from the N, A, V classes of words some double and triple word

stem classes. These are, for example, the NA class, represented by many words, such as American, human, innocent, private, savage, sweet, which may function both as nouns and adjectives (cf. American scientists, an American). The NV class are words which can respectively have the meaning and perform the function of the noun and verb (cf. a book, to book smth.). The AV class represents words which can show the adjective and the verb pattern (cf. clean hands, to clean the room). The NAV class represents words which can follow the noun, the adjective and the verb pattern respectively (cf. the fat of meat, fat meat, to fat (up) fowls). Thus, " classes of words" clearly reflect the amorphous grammatical nature of many English nouns, verbs, adjectives and sometimes adverbs which in the course of their historical development have been reduced, as a rale, to regular roots or stems. As a result, their true lexico-grammatical nature, i. e. their proper lexical meaning, and consequently their formal and functional characteristics can not be discriminated when taken out of a word-group or sentence. The word " export", for example, may be noun or verb (when indicated by stress or determined by the particle " to"). " Negro" may also be noun (a Negro) or adjective (Negro and white schools); " blue" may be noun (the blue of the sky), adjective (the blue sky), or verb (to blue smth.).

In Ukrainian, on the other hand, the lexical meaning and " formal" (morphological) characteristics of such notional words as експорт, негр, синь, синій, синіти, синіючий, синіючи, etc. are always explicitly displayed already at language level, i.e. when taken separately, out of context (as in dictionaries). Therefore, many notionals in English, unlike their lexico-grammatical equivalents in Ukrainian, are variable, i. e. they may change their nature depending on the contextual environment and their functional significance which they acquire in a syntaxeme.

The variability of some English notionals, which can often shift from one part of speech to another without any morphological changes in their form/structure is certainly the main typological (allomorphic) difference pertaining to the nature of some notional words as compared to the corresponding classes of words in Ukrainian. It becomes especially evident when dealing with the conglomerates like NV, AN, ND, NVA and the like, which are in reality no regular parts of speech but one-lexeme units

able to realise different functional meanings depending on their functionally relevant place occupied in a syntaxeme (word-group or sentence).

Nevertheless, the existence of the kind of morphologically indistinct notionals in present-day English does not deprive the language of the regular system of notional parts of speech in general and those of nouns, verbs, and adjectives in particular.

These same parts of speech, though considered to be " words in their dictionary form", functioning " as constituents of phrases", are also identified in English by R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik, [54, 25 — 27] Along with the four notionals, these grammarians also point out " a set of parts of speech", having a " closed system" in English. The " set" includes " article, demonstrative (that, this) pronouns, preposition, conjunction and interjection." [Ibid.]

There is no doubt whatsoever concerning the status and the set to which, for example, different proper nouns like Ann, Peter, Sam, etc. should be allotted. Neither can there be any doubt in the substantival nature of words denoting specific national notions (Miss, sir, hopak) or internationalisms (actress, emperor, computer, phoneme) and many regular class nouns (boy, girl, tree). Neither can there be any denying the fact that words like " do, hear, listen, read, write", etc. can be allotted at first sight by every English language speaker to verbs, since they express action, whereas words like " happy, new, older/younger" are recognised as qualifiers of nouns, i. e. adjectives, and words like " slowly, quickly, unanimously" will be unerringly taken for qualifiers of actions, i. e. adverbs. Easily enough, already at language level, are identified pronouns (he, she, we, they, who), numerals (ten, the first, the tenth), conjunctions (and, or, if, because) and many other words having the same lexico-grammatical nature in English, Ukrainian, and in many other languages.

Consequently, apart from the semantically and morphologically indistinct conglomerates / " word classes" / like AN, NVA, VN, etc. having no definite differentiation at language level, there also exist in English a bulk of words whose lexico-grammatical nature as a part of speech is quite evident and indisputable. These words clearly disclose their lexico-grammatical identity already at language level (when taken separately, i.e. when singled out as in dictionary).

There is much common ground for a typological contrasting of the functional parts of speech as well, which in English and Ukrainian have often their lexico-grammatical nature quite explicit already at language level. This is observed, for example, in case of conjunctions (and, but, or, if, either - or, neither - nor, etc.), prepositions (at, in, on, under), interjections (ah, oh, alas, humph), and some particles (not, to). Most of these functionals, except for the articles, have absolute semantic and functional equivalents in Ukrainian. For example: and - i, but - але, проте, or чи, if-якщо/якби, either-or, чи-чи, in - в/у, on - на, under - під, ah/oh-ax/ox, not-ні/не, etc. As a result, these and a number of other functionals in English and Ukrainian are typologically relevant, i. e. isomorphic, in other words common.

It must be pointed out, however, that some parts of speech both among the notionals and among the semi-notionals/functionals are still disputable in the contrasted languages. Far from unanimously recognised as a separate part of speech by most Western and some Ukrainian and Russian linguists (A. Hryshchenko and co-authors, L.S. Barkhudarov, M.Y. Blokh) is, for example, the stative (alike, asleep), which is considered by these grammarians to be a " predicative adjective". Still other Western grammarians are not quite sure about the numerals which they are inclined to identify as nouns (cardinals) or as relative adjectives (ordinals). Among these grammarians are also R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik. Up to now there is no unanimity yet among some grammarians concerning the status of the modal words (" perhaps, sure, certainly, " etc.), or particles and even articles, which are not always recognised in English as a separate functional part of speech. [16, 49] This idea might have come to life because of the common in both languages phenomenon of " migration" of some parts of speech from one to another. For example: a just man (adj.), he has just come (adv.), just a moment, please (particle). Similarly in Ukrainian: хто там? (adv.), де там? (particle); а там ще люди (conjunctive element). Надворі холодно (adv.); мені холодно (stative), etc.

On the ground of identical or similar semantic, morphological/formal and syntactic/functional properties pertaining to common lexico-grammatical classes of words, the number of notional parts of speech in English and Ukrainian may be considered (from the typological point of

view) all in all the same - seven. Namely: noun, adjective, pronoun, numeral, verb, adverb, stative - іменник, прикметник, займенник, числівник, дієслово, прислівник, слова категорії стану.

As to the functionals (semi-notional words, as they are still sometimes called) their number in the contrasted languages is not identical, because present-day English has the article which is missing in Ukrainian. The rest of functionals are all common: conjunctions, prepositions, modal words and modal expressions, particles, exclamations, articles (in English), сполучники, прийменники, модальні слова та вирази, частки, вигуки.