Secondary parts of the sentence. Criteria for distinguishing between secondary parts

The theory of the secondary parts is one of the last developed sections of linguistics. The usual classification of these parts into objects, attributes, and adverbial modifiers is familiar to everyone. Yet it has many weak points. The characteristic features of each of the three types are not clearly defined, and describing a given word or phrase as an object or an attribute in some cases, or again describing it as an object or an adverbial modifier, in others, often proves to be a matter of personal opinion or predilection.

We will now look at the three traditional secondary parts of a sentence (object, attribute, and adverbial modifier) and try to find out on what principles their distinction is based and what objective criteria can be found to identify them.

The object is usually defined in some such way as this: It is a secondary part of the sentence, referring to a part of the sentence expressed by a verb, a noun, a substantival pronoun, an adjective, a numeral, or an adverb, and denoting a thing to which the action passes on, which is the result of the action, in reference to which an action is committed or a property is manifested, or denoting an object of another action.

Take a close look at this definition, which is typical in its way, we shall find that it is based on two principles, namely (1) the relation of the object to a certain part of speech, (2) the meaning of the object, that is the relation between the thing denoted and the action or property with which it is connected.

The first of these principles is syntactical, based on morphology (morphologico-syntactical), the second is semantic.

The first item of the definition practically moans that an object can refer to any part of speech capable of being a part of the sentenced The second item enumerates certain semantic points in the relation between the thing denoted by the object and the action (or the property) with which it is connected.

The usual kind of definition of the attribute is this: It is a secondary part of the sentence modifying a part of the sentence expressed by a noun, a substantival pronoun, a cardinal numeral, and any substantivized word, and characterizing the thing named by these words as to its quality or property.

This definition, as well as that of the object, contains two items: (1) its syntactical relations to other parts of the sentence expressed by certain parts of speech, (2) its meaning.

If we now compare the definition of the attribute with that of the object we shall see at once that there are two main differences between them: (1) the attribute, as distinct from the object, cannot modify a verb, an adjective, or an adverb, and (2) the attribute expresses a property while the object expresses a thing.

They also have something in common: they both can modify a noun, a pronoun, and a numeral.

Now let us consider the definition of an adverbial modifier. It may sound like this: It is a secondary part of the sentence modifying a part of the sentence expressed by a verb, a verbal noun, an adjective or an adverb, and serving to characterize an action or a property as to its quality or intensity or to indicate the way an action is done, the time, place, cause, purpose, or condition, with which the action or the manifestation of the quality is connected. This definition is based on the same principles as two other definitions we have discussed: (1) the syntactical connection of an adverbial, modifier with parts of the sentence expressed by certain parts of speech, (2) the meanings, which in this case are extremely varied, comprising no less than eight different items.

If we now compare the list given for the adverbial modifier with that given for the attribute, we shall find that the only point which they have in common is the verbal noun: for the attribute it says "noun", which of course includes verbal nouns, and for the adverbial modifier it expressly says "verbal noun". Thus the sphere of overlapping between attributes and adverbial modifiers is very limited.

Summing up these comparisons we find that the first item of the definitions leaves room for ambiguity in the following cases: (1) if the part of the sentence which is modified is expressed by noun, its modifier may be either an object or an attribute? (2) if it is expressed by a verbal noun, the modifier may be either an object, or an attribute, or an adverbial modifier; (3) if it is expressed by an adjective, the modifier may be either an object or an adverbial modifier; (4) if it is expressed by a cardinal numeral, the modifier may be either an object or an attribute; (5) if it is expressed by a verb the modifier may be either an object or an adverbial modifier; (6) if it is expressed by an adverb the modifier maybe either an object or an adverbial modifier, too.