Substantivisation of adjectives
It is common knowledge that adjectives can, under certain circumstances, be substantivised, i. e. become nouns. This is a phenomenon found in many languages, e. g. in Russian: compare ученый человек and ученый; рабочий стаж and рабочий. In German, compare ein gelehrter Mann and ein Gelehrter; in French, un homme savant and un savant, etc. The phenomenon is also frequent enough in English. The questions which arise in this connection are: (a) what criteria should be applied to find out if an adjective is substantivised or not? (b) is a substantivised adjective a noun, or is it not?
As to the first question, we should recollect the characteristic features of nouns in Modern English and then see if a substantivised adjective has acquired them or not. These features are, (1) ability to form a plural, (2) ability to have a form in -'s if a living being is denoted, (3) ability to be modified by an adjective, (4) performing the function of subject or object in a sentence. If, from this point of view, we approach, for example, the word native, we shall find that it possesses all those peculiarities, e. g. the natives of Australia, a young native, etc.
The same may be said about the word relative (meaning a person standing in some degree of relationship to another): my relatives, a close relative, etc. A considerable number of other examples might be given. There is therefore every reason to assert that native and relative are nouns when so used, and indeed we need not call them substantivised adjectives. Thus the second of the above questions would also be answered.
Things, are, however, not always as clear as that. A familiar example of a different kind is the word rich. It certainly is substantivised, as will be seen, for example, in the title of a novel by C. P. Snow, "The Conscience of the Rich". It is obvious, however, that this word differs from the words native and relative in some important points: (1) it does not form a plural, (2) it cannot be used in the singular and with the indefinite article, (3) it has no possessive form. Since it does not possess all the characteristics of nouns but merely some of them, it will be right to say that it is only partly substantivised. The word rich in such contexts as those given above stands somewhere between an adjective and a noun.
The same may be said of the poor, the English, the Chinese, also the wounded, the accused (which were originally participles), and
64 The Adjective
a number of other words. We might even think of establishing a separate part of speech, intermediate between nouns and adjectives, and state its characteristic features as we have done for parts of speech in general. However, there would appear to be no need to do so. We shall therefore confine ourselves to the statement that these words are partly substantivised and occupy an intermediate position.
Sometimes the result of substantivisation is an abstract noun, as in the following examples: The desire for a more inward light had found expression at last, the unseen had impacted on the seen. (FORSTER) Her mind was focused on the invisible. (Idem) Nouns of this type certainly have no plural form.
ADJECTIVISATION OF NOUNS
There is also the question of the opposite phenomenon — that of nouns becoming adjectives. For a variety of reasons, this question presents a number of difficulties and has, accordingly, given rise to prolonged and inconclusive discussions. The facts are, briefly stated, these. In Modern English a noun may stand before another noun and modify it. Witness numerous formations of the type stone wall, speech sound, peace talks, steel works, the Rome treaty, etc. The question, as usually asked, is, whether the first component of such phrases is a noun or whether it has been adjectivised, i. e. become an adjective. 1 Different views have been put forward here. The view that the first element of such phrases as stone wall is a noun has been defended by H. Sweet 2 and others, the view that it is an adjective or at least approaches the adjective state, by O. Jespersen 3 and others, and finally the view has also been expressed that this element is neither a noun nor an adjective but a separate part of speech, viz. an attributive noun. 4 The very variety of opinions on the subject shows that the problem is one of considerable difficulty.
We shall become aware of that peculiar difficulty if we attempt to apply here the criteria serving to distinguish a noun from an adjective. It must be stated at once, though, that one criterion, namely that of degrees of comparison, is useless here. The first element of those phrases is indeed unable to form degrees of comparison, but that in itself does not prove that the element is not
1 Another question concerning these formations is whether they are phrases or compound nouns. We will not go into this question here.
2 H. Sweet, A New English Grammar, Part I, § 173.
3 O. Jespersen, A Modern English Grammar, Part II, p. 310 ff.
4 See Э. П. Шубин, Атрибутивные имена в языке Шекспира и их генезис. Ученые записки Пятигорского Гос. Педагогического Института т. 14, 1957.
Adjectivisation of Nouns 65
an adjective, since many adjectives, e. g. wooden, woollen, European, do not form degrees of comparison either.
The criteria to be applied here are the following: (1) Has the first element of those phrases number distinctions? (2) Is it able in the cases when it denotes a human being to have a possessive form? (3) Does it denote a substance or a property? Strangely enough all these questions are very hard to answer. As to (1), it must be stated that the first element usually appears only in one number form, which is either singular or plural, e. g. stone wall, not stones wall; house fronts, not houses fronts; goods van, not good van, etc. However, that observation leads us nowhere. It is quite possible to argue that the first element is a noun, capable of number distinctions, but always appearing in a definite number form when making part of that phrase. So the application of criterion (1) proves to be inconclusive. As to criterion (2), we also run into difficulties. If, for example, we take the phrase the Einstein theory and ask whether the first element can take the possessive form, we shall have to concede that of course it can; thus the phrase Einstein's theory is quite possible, and indeed, it occurs in actual texts. However, those who hold that it is not a noun, but either an adjective or an attributive noun (meaning a special part of speech) argue that the word in the phrase the Einstein theory is not the same word as in the phrase Einstein's theory and that the word in the first of these groups is incapable of taking a possessive form. Thus, it appears to be impossible to come to a definite conclusion on the basis of this criterion. Now we proceed to criterion (3). How are we to decide whether the word Einstein in the former group denotes a substance or a property? There seems to be no perfectly convincing argument either way. We might say that it denotes a substance but this substance only serves to characterise the property of the thing denoted by the noun.
Thus, we reach the conclusion that no perfectly objective result can be attained in trying to determine what part of speech the first element in such phrases is. This explains the existing difference of views on the subject and we are compelled to recognise that the question can only be solved in a somewhat subjective way, according as we start from one premise or another. If we start from the premise that we shall not speak of homonyms, or indeed new parts of speech, unless this is made strictly necessary by indisputable facts, we will stick to the view that the first element of such phrases as stone watt or speech sound is a noun in a special syntactical function. It is this view that appears to be the most plausible,
3 Б, А. Ильиш
Chapter VI
THE PRONOUN AND THE NUMERAL
THE PRONOUN
As we have already seen (p. 30), the definition of pronouns as a separate part of speech has caused many difficulties. More than Once in the history of linguistics the very existence of pronouns as a part of speech has been denied. 1 However, attempts of this kind have not proved successful and in present-day grammars, both English and Russian, pronouns are recognised as a part of speech. This in itself seems to prove that they indeed have some peculiar features which cannot be "explained away".
Thus, the pronouns I, you, he, etc., though pointing to things (in the widest sense of the word) and in so far resembling nouns, cannot as a rule be modified by adjectives. (Phrases like poor me appear to be rare.) These pronouns differ from nouns in that they cannot be connected with any article, or modified by a prepositional phrase, etc. We will therefore start on the assumption that pronouns do constitute a separate part of speech, and proceed to investigate their grammatical properties.
CLASSIFICATION OF PRONOUNS
We usually find in grammars a classification of pronouns into personal, possessive, interrogative, indefinite, relative, etc. It is clear, however, that some points in that classification are not grammatical at all. Thus, if we say, for example, that a pronoun is indefinite we do not characterise it from a grammatical but from a semantic point of view. There is no doubt that the pronoun something is indefinite in its meaning, but that indefiniteness of meaning is in no way reflected either in its morphological properties or in its syntactical functions. This is as much as to say that the indefiniteness of its meaning is irrelevant from the grammatical viewpoint. In a similar way, if we state that the pronoun nothing is negative, we characterise its meaning (and a most important characteristic it is, too), but, again, this is irrelevant for grammar, since it does not entail anything concerning the morphological or syntactical peculiarities of the word. Therefore, in proceeding to a study of pronouns, we will try to keep the grammatical viewpoint firmly in mind, though this will not always be an easy thing to do.
CASE
In dealing with the category of case in pronouns, we must bear in mind that they need not in this respect be similar to nouns.
1 See, for example, Л. В. Щерба, О частях речи в русском языке. Избранные работы по русскому языку, 1957, стр. 68 сл.
The Pronoun 67
Some of them may, and indeed do, have peculiarities which no noun shares.
Some pronouns distinguish between two cases which are best termed nominative and objective (instead of nominative we might also say subjective). These are the following:
Nomin. I he she (it) we (you) they who Obj. me him her (it) us (you) them whom
The two pronouns in brackets, it and you, might have been left out of the list. We have included them because they share many other peculiarities with the pronouns I, he, she, we, and they. No other pronoun, and, indeed, no other word in the language has that kind of case system.
A certain number of pronouns have a different case system, viz. they distinguish between a common and a genitive case, in the same way as the nouns treated above (see p. 41 ff.). These are, somebody, anybody, one, another, and a few more.
All other pronouns have no category of case (something, anything, nothing, everything, some, any, no, my, his, etc.; mine, hers, etc.).
The case system in pronouns of the somebody type is identical with that of the nouns of the father type. So we need not go into this question any further.
The case system of the pronouns given on this page, on the other hand, is quite isolated in the language, and requires special investigation.
It is very well known that the form me, which is an objective case form, is not only used in the function of object (direct or indirect), but also as predicative, in sentences like It is me. The sentence It is I, though still possible, is rarely used: it has acquired a kind of archaic flavour as its stylistic peculiarity and has therefore become inappropriate in colloquial speech. However, in the construction it is... who the form I is usual: "It's I who am tiresome" he replied. (FORSTER) As to the other pronouns of this group, the sentences It is him, It is her, It is us, It is them, with the objective case form used as a predicative, do occur, but they seem still to have a somewhat careless or "low colloquial" colouring and they have not superseded the variants It is he, It is she, It is we, It is they. Here is an example: No, I don't suppose it will prove to be them. (FORSTER)
The form me can occasionally be found in the function of subject, provided it does not immediately precede the predicate verb, as in the sentence: That's the law of the state, Ham, and there's nothing me or you can do about it. (E. CALDWELL) The form me could not have been used here if there had not been the second subject you, in the sentence. This confirms the view that stress plays
С8 The Pronoun and the Numeral
an important part in determining the use of I or me in such conditions. The form her as subject is found, for instance, in the following sentence from a short story by the same author. Lujean's the likable kind. You and her will get along just fine before you know it. (E. CALDWELL) It should be noted, however, that the form her is possible here because it is part of the group you and her, and therefore gets some sentence-stress. If a feminine pronoun were to be the only subject of the sentence, the form would have to be she, no matter what the style of the sentence was.
Opinions on the precise stylistic colouring of such sentences differ to some extent. What seems certain here is that the nominative forms I, he, etc. are being gradually restricted to the function of subject, whereas the objective case forms me, him, etc., are taking over all other functions. This process seems to have gone further with the 1st person singular pronoun than with the others; the reason for this is not yet clear. It is the isolated position of this case system in the language which must be held responsible for the change. The distinction between I, he, she, we, they, on the one hand, and me, him, her, us, them, on the other, is thus changed from a case distinction to one of a different character — that of unstressed and stressed forms of pronouns. This is similar to the process which has long since been completed in the French language (and in other Romance languages, such as Italian, or Spanish), where the original nominative form (e. g. French je, from Latin ego) has been restricted to the function of subject of the sentence, whereas the original objective case form (e. g. French moi, from Latin me) has taken over its other functions, mainly that of predicative. Cf. Je suis ici 'I am here' and C'est moi 'it is me'; Il est ici 'he is here' and C'est lui 'it is he (him)'. The development in Modern English seems to be following the same lines, on the whole, but it does differ from the French in so far as the use of I as a predicative is still quite possible, whereas in French that possibility is completely lost for the forms je, tu, etc. Here is a curious example from a modern play by S. Taylor:
Maude (suspecting). Is there someone you want to marry?
(Sabrina nods) Who is it?
Sabrina (turning to Linus). Him!
Linus. For God's sake, Sabrina, watch your grammar.
Sabrina. It is he!
With the pronoun who the development is partly similar, and partly different. It is similar in the main point: the case difference between who and whom is quite obviously disappearing. But here it is the original objective case form that is giving way, and it is no longer preserved in any specific syntactic function. Thus, the sentence whom did you see? is being superseded by the variant, who
The Pronoun 69
did you see?, and, similarly, who tends to take the place of whom in such sentences as, This is the man who(m) you wanted to see.
Examples of this use are found as early as in Shakespeare, for instance Between who? ("Hamlet"), and also occur in the 18th century, for instance in a novel by Jane Austen in a conversation between educated speakers: But who are you looking for? Are your sisters coming? An example from a modern play: Who were you private secretary to? (TAYLOR)
E. Sapir has devoted several pages of his book on language to a detailed discussion of all factors contributing to the use of who instead of whom in such contexts. 1 Be that as it may, the gradual elimination of the objective form whom is beyond doubt.
Thus the general tendency is clearly towards the disappearance of the opposition between nominative and objective in pronouns.
NUMBER
It ought to be emphasised that what we mean here is the grammatical category of number, and the question is, in what pronouns and to what extent that category is actually found.
, It will be easily seen that the category of number has only a very restricted field in pronouns. It is found in the pronouns this/ these, that / those, other / others (if not used before a noun). We need not dwell here on the very peculiar means which are used to form the plural of this and of that. The question is one of the history of English, rather than of Modern English structure. We can limit ourselves to the statement that the method by which each of the two words forms its plural is quite individual and unanalysable from the viewpoint of the modern language.
As to the pronouns I / we; he, she, it / they, it must be stated that there is no grammatical category of number here. We is not a form of the pronoun I, but a separate word in its own right. In a similar way, they is not a form of he, or she, or it, or of all of them, but a separate word.
There is no grammatical category of number either in the pronouns my / our; his, her, its / their, and mine / ours; his, hers / theirs. E. g., her and their are different words, not different forms of one word.
A peculiar difficulty arises here with reference to the pronouns myself / (ourself), ourselves; yourself / yourselves; himself, herself, itself / themselves.
If we compare the two pronouns myself and ourselves, we shall see at once that the difference between the first elements of the two words is purely lexical (just as in the corresponding words my
1 E. Sapir, Language, 1921, pp. 166—174.
70 The Pronoun and the Numeral
and our), whereas the second elements differ from each other by the same suffix -s that is used to form the plural of most nouns. 1 Thus we are brought to the conclusion that ourselves is essentially a different word from myself.
There are no other grammatical categories in the English pronoun: there is no category of gender. The pronouns he, she, it, and also the pronouns his, her, Us; his, hers; himself, herself, itself, are all separate words. Thus, she is not a form of the word he but a separate word in its own right.