Plural: -s, -es (or some other ending that means the same thing : ox oxen).Text Chapter 19
Grammar Text Table of Contents
Chapter 20 - Parts of Speech (Form and Function).
This chapter, which in most texts stands near the front, is conspicuously at the back door of this citadel of learning. That is done on purpose. It is here at the end for defensible educational reasons. Very simply, it is the most analytic of the components of systematic grammar. Thus, it is at the opposite end of the continuum from the most holistic aspects of grammatical study. Remember, many days ago when we first started our study, I asked you to produce a variety of sentences that you consider to be complete sentences. In grammatical terms, that is the most holistic exercise. Starting from that end of the systematic continuum is the closest we can get to natural learning.
When I say "natural learning," I am speaking of the way in which we learn to speak our native languages. We do not begin by memorizing lists of parts of speech or by defining each part of speech functionally and formally. We begin by communicating ideas. If we are hungry, we first state our need by crying, the most holistic linguistic activity I can imagine because crying could also mean that we are wet or that we have a pain in a big toe or that the light is too bright or that we are lonely or, in short, that we have a need to be fulfilled. Any need!. Gradually, as we move through infancy to early childhood, we linguistically differentiate among needs by providing our caretakers with different signals for different needs. Eventually, these become specific utterances which we usually interpret as words, but which actually serve as sentences: "Baba!" means "Please, Mother; will you interrupt your busy schedule of cooking, cleaning, and reading trashy magazines to provide me with liquid refreshment?" (Disclaimer: Not all babies think in terms quite this sophisticated.) The process continues to two-phrase utterances that might (or might not) include both subjects and predicates, utterances that sound more like sentences. Then we get three-(or more)-phrase utterances that are true sentences because they contain distinct subjects and predicates. Get the picture? First, we have holistic utterances that can’t be analyzed grammatically but stand as complete sentences. (We still have them as adults. We call them interjections or expletives or, sometimes, just plain cussin'.) Then we begin to speak in analyzable sentences, first with the larger constituents (subject/predicate/DO/SC), then with smaller ones. That is, we master the phrase structure rules first. Eventually, we get down to refining the single words (their parts of speech, the morphemes they contain, etc.) And you probably thought we started with words! By the time we reach the age of six or thereabouts, we have pretty well mastered the grammar of our native language. Then we go to school and have our egos destroyed by teachers who speak dialects different from our own and insist that we are genetically flawed unless we can master their dialects within six weeks. But that’s another story.
Traditionally, we have accepted eight parts of speech. In recent grammar texts this number has varied from refusing to recognize parts of speech at all to recognizing a list that is seemingly endless. For the sake of community comfort and general agreement, I present a list of eight that is identical to that which the traditionalists presented. In some cases, the definitions (which I will not stint in this chapter) are similar to those of traditional grammarians. As such, they often carry the same limitations, exception, misleadings, etc. of traditional grammar definitions. But, beyond those basics, there are many differences between my analysis and that of the traditionalists.
One of the most important concepts in this analysis is the division between form and function. In modern phrase structure grammar, function is most frequently cited in dealing with phrases and form is most often cited in dealing with words as parts of speech. But this is, indeed, one of the fuzziest of all fuzzy areas in grammatical study. So I won’t make a big deal of it here. In examining parts of speech, I will examine both form and function, separately as much as possible.
First, the three major parts of speech: noun, verb, adjective. Keep in mind that these are not called major because they are the most common parts of speech. Mainly, the term refers to their use as heads of phrases that make up the constituents in basic sentence patterns. (Note that , for this discussion, we are only considering words, not other syntactic structures that serve in the range of these parts of speech.)
A. Nouns.
Traditional definition: a word that names a person, place, or thing.
In terms of function, keep in mind the word, "names." Nouns are words that name. Another more technical word for this naming function is nominal. Nouns function as head words in NPs serving as subjects, direct objects, indirect objects, subject complements, object complements, and objects of prepositions.
Formal characteristics of nouns are as follows:
1) A word might be a noun if it can end in the two noun inflections: plural and possessive (genitive).
Plural: -s, -es (or some other ending that means the same thing : ox oxen).
Possessive: -‘s, -s’ [Note: a possessive noun functions adjectivally (e.g., John’s hat.) This is a good example of the difference between part of speech and phrase. A possessive noun is formally a noun as a part of speech but functions adjectivally as a phrase.]
2) A word might be a noun if it ends in a nominal derivational suffix: -age, -ance, -ness, -ism, -ude, -ist, -ment, -tion, -cy, -er, -dom, -ard, -hood, -ity, and a variety of others. Try these out.
3) A word might be a noun if it is modified by a determiner (see under adjectives).
B. Verbs.
Traditional definition: a verb is a word that shows action or state of being.
Functionally, verbs head finite verb phrases or nonfinite verb phrases (infinitive, participial, gerund).
Formally,
1) A word might be a verb if it can take the four verb inflections –S, -ED, -ING, -EN.
-S stands for third person singular endings (e.g., I like, he likes).
-ED is generally referred to as the simple past tense morpheme (dreamed, brought). There are other spellings.
-ING is the symbol for the ending that occurs on a verb because that verb is preceded by the auxiliary verb BE (e.g.: I sleep. I am sleeping.)
-EN is the symbol for the ending that occurs on a verb because that verb is preceded by the auxiliary verb HAVE (e.g.: I sleep. I have been sleeping. I have slept.)
Note: -ED and -ING are, also, participial/gerund endings in nonfinite VPs.
2) a word might be a verb if it begins or ends with a prefix or suffix (derivational affix) that marks it as a verb: -en, -ify, -ize, dis-, re-, un-, mis-, etc.
C. Adjectives.
Traditional definition: an adjective is a word that modifies a noun or pronoun.
Functionally, true adjectives head adjective phrases. There are, however, several grammatical classes that are not true adjectives but are included under the broad traditional umbrella of adjective, which cannot serve as adjective phrase heads. Most of these can be included in a broad class called determiners. Determiners are usually easy to differentiate from true adjectives because they do not head adjective phrases. But there is some fuzziness. For instance, the case of an ordinal number (e.g., the third fish). Is it a determiner or an adjective. Some grammarians avoid the fuzziness by calling it a quantifier. This further analyzes, but doesn't do much for our knowledge of the problem and it adds yet another term to our long list for students to worry about. I'd rather not do that. Some of our formal tests (below) can help us decide whether a word is an adjective..
Formally (true adjectives, not determiners),
1) A word might be an adjective if can take comparative or superlative inflectional suffixes: -er, -est; or it might be an adjective if it permits comparison by being preceded by more or most.
2) A word might be an adjective if it ends in a adjectival derivational suffix: -ish, -ed, -ing, -y, -ic, -able, -some, -al, -ar, -ful, etc.
* * *
I refuse to call the rest of the parts of speech minor, even though I have called the first three major. Instead, I’ll just deal with them individually.
D. Adverbs.
Traditional definition: a word that modifies a verb, an adjective, or another adverb.
Functionally, true adverbs head adverb phrases. However, as in the case of adjectives, there are classes of adverbs called intensifiers or degree adverbs (e.g., very, most, somewhat, rather, etc.) which cannot head a phrase. Their function is simply to modify. Semantically, adverbs answer modification questions regarding time, place, manner, frequency, and degree.
Formally,
1) Just as with an adjective, a word might be an adverb if it ends in –er or –est or if it uses more/most in order to compare.
2) There are just a few adverbial derivational suffixes, the most common of which are –ly, -ard, and –wise.
3) True adverbs (not intensifiers or degree adverbs) tend to be movable in sentences. We have demonstrated this in previous chapters regarding modification.
E. Prepositions.
Traditional definition: the first word in a prepositional phrase (Very helpful!).
Functionally, prepositions head prepositional phrases. Indeed, that is the only thing they do. If a word that is normally a preposition is not heading a prepositional phrase, it is not a preposition. This leads to some consternation since our language is full of such usages. They can be explained, but such explanation is awfully complex and time-consuming. One such usage that is quite common is the particle (e.g., wash up the dishes). The stranded preposition, usually considered less than elegant (e.g.: I don’t know what this is a bottle of), is a true preposition, but its object ("what" in this case) is not it the usual place after the preposition.
There is little that we can say about the form of the preposition. Our best teaching tool is to make students aware of the comparatively long list of possible prepositions while assuring them that this list is not complete and that words on the list might be used for other parts of speech. Especially, there is a lot of crossover with adverbs and prepositions because prepositional phrases are often adverbial in function. Also, there is fuzziness in the distinction between prepositional phrases and adverb clauses which gives us pause as to whether a word is being used as a preposition or a conjunctive adverb. To help students become familiar with the usual list, I like to use one of the many mnemonic devices such as preposition barn: in the barn, over the barn, under the barn, beside the barn, etc. But it is flawed in that it leaves out some of the most common prepositions such as of and because it seems to imply that words on the list are always prepositions. Remember: never teach things that have to be untaught.
F. Pronouns.
Traditional definition: A word that takes the place of a noun. This is a seriously flawed definition if used in the context of the entire range of pronouns, but it is useful for a large number of pronouns. Actually, in a number of cases, pronouns take the place of noun phrases, not nouns. The noun phrase or other nominal constituent being replaced by the pronoun is called the antecedent. Many pronouns don't seem to have nominal antecedents at all.
Pronouns, more than any other part of speech must first be classified: personal, demonstrative, reflexive, indefinite, WH-.
Personal Pronouns.
The English personal pronoun system hearkens back to a time when English was a language that depended heavily upon inflections (suffixes, prefixes, etc.). If you have studied a language such as Spanish or German, you know what I am talking about. English, over the centuries, has lost most of its inflections—except in its personal pronouns. It is somewhat simpler than it was in 1066 AD. Our cases have shrunk from six to three. Our gender system has moved from grammatical gender (three) to natural gender (two). Of course, we still have singular and plural, but we no longer have the dual form [e.g., wit (we two)].
What we have left is as follows: I, me, my, mine; you, your, yours; she/he/it, her/him, hers/his/its; we, us, our; they, them, their(s). I, we, he, she, and they are nominal forms (subject/SC); me, her, him, them are mainly objective forms (although her doubles as a possessive); my, mine, your, yours, her, hers, his, its, their(s) are possessive (genitive) forms. You and it are not differentiated between nominal and objective nor in gender.
Not very complicated if you compare it to other languages, but we still make a few mistakes, especially in differentiating between nominal and objective forms. Perhaps, that is a sign that the language is continuing to simplify in its approach to personal pronouns. That is the direction the language has taken during the last millennium. It will probably continue. For instance, "their" is frequently used as a singular form in current speech and writing.
Demonstrative Pronouns.
This, that, these, those. They are pronouns when used as noun phrases (e.g., This is mine; that is yours.) They are adjectival when used as determiners (e.g., This hat is mine; that hat is yours.) Whether to call the latter demonstrative pronouns, demonstrative adjectives, or just demonstratives, is your call.
Reflexive Pronouns.
Nothing complicated here. They are just pronouns that have –self in them: myself, yourself, himself, herself, itself, ourselves, yourselves, themselves. Keep in mind there are no such forms in standard English as hisself, theirself, or ourself. Let's keep it that way.
Indefinite pronouns.
There is a long list, some of which may be used either as indefinite pronouns or as indefinite adjectives: all, another, any, anybody, anyone, both, each, either, everybody, everyone, few, many, most, neither, many, most, neither, nobody, none, no one, one, other, others, several, some, somebody, someone, such. Keep in mind that these words are only indefinite pronouns in particular contexts, very much like we indicated under demonstrative pronouns.
-WH Pronouns. .
Often called interrogative or relative pronouns, these are a short list which follows the usage patterns of personal pronouns but are pronouns that serve in the formation of questions (Who is it?) or adjective clauses (The man whom I called is here. The man who wrote the letter is here.) or (rarely) noun clauses (Tell me who is at the door). A partial list who, whom, which, what, whose, when, where, why, whether, how, whoever, whomever.
So much could be said about pronouns! I will say very little. Rather, I will refer you to Constance Weaver who provides an abundance of material toward the development of minilessons that can be used for interceding in the errors in standard English that occur in student speech and writing because of the unstable nature of the pronoun in English. You can spend some productive time working with your students on pronoun usage problems . . . or you can waste a lot of time analyzing pronouns into charts and memorizing them. Take your pick.
G. Conjunctions.
Traditional definition: Words that join words, phrases, or clauses.
It is difficult to discuss conjunctions in any greater depth than this simple definition implies without getting into unnecessarily complex territory. There is one area that is relatively simple (and which is seldom misused), that of coordinating conjunction. A short list exists: and, but, or, for, so, nor. Then, there is a short list of multiword (correlative) coordinates: both . . . and, either . . . or, neither . . . nor, whether . . . or, not only . . . but (also). Occasionally, there will be other terms that become coordinating conjunctions. Coordinating conjunctions join words, phrases, or clauses that have relatively equal semantic (pragmatic?) force in the syntactic structures they coordinate. Subordinating conjunctions, on the other hand, join subordinate clauses to other structures in sentences. The subordinating conjunction occupies a fuzzy area. At times, it is obviously some sort of conjunction (e.g., I left after the game ended). At other times, it serves dual functions of conjunction and subject or DO or SC or some other constituent (e.g., I am what I am.). Calling such words conjunctions might be confusing at times. Perhaps, it would be better to avoid the naming issue here except to move back to the word's role in a sentence constituent. This discussion also exemplifies the value of discussing parts of speech last and with reduced emphasis. The most important emphasis should be on sentence constituents (e.g., . . . what I am is a transformed basic sentence wherein what is the subject complement). In that discussion the student can learn about the structure of English sentences.
As with pronouns, there are a lot of interesting and informative things we could say about conjunctions; but little of it would be of much value to our current study.
H. Interjections.
Interjections are like the color white. White is created by mixing all colors together. Interjections make up, in one word, all grammatical roles; and, in so doing they end up having no discrete grammatical role of their own: "Cowabunga!"
Chapter 20 Homework Assignment: In the following sentence indicate the traditional part of speech represented by each word. There are only 8 parts of speech listed in Chapter 20. These are the ones you should look for in the sentence.
Tough turkeys and toads trod tenderly toward Tom who tamed them. Wow!