Problems of field structure

The problem of the interrelation between grammar and vocabulary is most complex.

If the question arises about the relationship between grammar and vocabulary we generally think of grammar as a closed system, i. e. consisting of a limited number of elements making up this system. The grammatical system of a language falls into subsystems, such as for instance, parts of speech, conjugated verb-forms, prepositions, affixes, etc., in other words, the classes of linguistic units whose exhaustive inventory can be made up as a whole.

Vocabulary on the contrary is not so closed in its character.

When we say that grammar is a closed system, we do not certainly mean that grammar is separated from vocabulary. On the contrary, the grammatical system breaks up into subsystems just owing to its relations with vocabulary, and the unity of lexico-semantic groups is supported by the unity of grammatical forms and meaning of the words of each group. Grammar and vocabulary are organically related and interdependent but they do not lie on one plane. As a bilateral unity of form and content grammar always retains the categories underlying its system.

In actual speech linguistic units of different levels come to correlate as similar in function.

The study of the ways in which languages manage to provide different devices to express a given communicative meaning is one of the most fruitful directions of research receiving increasing attention in modern linguistics. It is on this level of linguistic analysis that we coordinate and deepen our grasp of the language as system. What is expressed by morphological forms may find its expression in lexical devices, or, say, in syntactic structures.

Such is the grammatical treatment of the category of modality in the Russian language made by V. V. Vinogradov who identifies modality as a linguistic category expressed by syntactic, morphological and lexical means ¹.

Correlation in occurrence of different linguistic units in one semantic field makes it possible to suggest that there are certain regularities of their functioning in language activity.

It will be emphasised, in passing, that different linguistic units expressing a common meaning are not quite identical in their semantic value and do not go absolutely parallel in language activity. They rather complete each other.

¹ See: В. В. Виноградов. О категории модальности и модальных словах в русском языке. Труды института русского языка АН СССР, т. 2. М.—Л., 1950, pp. 42—60.

The concept of field structure in grammar is not something quite novel in linguistic studies.

The eminent historian of the French language F. Brunot proposed in his time to teach French grammar by starting from within, from the thoughts to be expressed, instead of from the forms ¹.

Related to this is Сh. Ваllу's concept with emphasis laid on the logical categories and extra-linguistic relations involved in his observations ².

L.V. Š č erba showed a better judgement making distinction between the two aspects of studying syntax: passive and active. The starting point of the former is the form of the word and its meaning. Language is thus studied from within as system. The concept of the active aspect is essentially different.

Identifying notional categories I.I. Meshchaninov lays special emphasis on their linguistic nature which should never be lost sight of³.

In his philosophical discussion of notional categories O. Jespersen first recognises that beside the syntactic categories which depend on the structure of each language as it is actually found, there are some extralingual categories which are independent of the more or less accidental facts of existing languages; they are universal in so far as they are applicable to all languages, though rarely expressed in them in a clear and unmistakable way. But then he goes on to say, that some of them relate to such facts of the world without as sex, others to mental states or to logic, but for want of a better common name for these extralingual categories he uses the adjective notional and the substantive notion.

In other departments it is impossible to formulate two sets of terms, one for the world of reality or universal logic, and one for the world of grammar, and O. Jespersen is thus led to recognise that the two worlds should always be kept apart ⁴.

In finding out what categories to recognise as notional, O. Jespersen points out that these are to have a linguistic significance.

O. Jespersen develops this idea further. The specimens of his treatment given in the Philosophy of Grammar present a preliminary sketch of a notional comparative grammar, starting from С (notion or inner meaning) and examining how each of the fundamental ideas common to all mankind is expressed in various languages, thus proceeding through В (function) to A (form).

Linguistic observations in terms of field structure are of undoubted theoretical interest and have a practical value as relevant to comparative studies of various languages.

Important treatments of the field-theory have been made by A. V. Воndarkо in his studies of the Russian language ⁵.

¹ See: F. Вrunot. La pensé e et la langue. 3e é d. Paris, 1953.

² See: Ch. Bally. La langue et la vie. Paris, 1926.

³ See: И. И. Мещанинов. Понятийные категории в языке. Труды военного института иностр. яз. М., 1945, № 1.

⁴ See: О. Jespersen. The Philosophy of Grammar. London, 1968, pp. 55—56. ⁵ See: А. В. Бондарко. Грамматическая категория и контекст. Л., 1971,

р. 115.

The starting point of his analysis is the principle from meaning to form. Due attention is drawn to functional transpositions of verb-forms and suspension of oppositions in different syntactic environments.

Problems of field-structure in German are discussed in E. V. Guliga, E. I. Shendels'¹ work where we also find acute observations valid for further development of the theory of language.

All the linguistic units functioning in a language to express a given categorial meaning make up the functional semantic field of this category. The morphological devices are naturally primary in importance and make up its highly organised nucleus. All the other constituents are peripheral elements which may be used for different notional purposes, such as: intensity or emphasis of a given meaning, expressive connotation, weakening of meaning, making a given meaning more concrete and more precise, or expressing a new meaning.

The functional-semantic field falls at least into two categories which stand in contrast. Thus, for instance, the time-field in English falls into three " microfields": Present, Past and Future.

The voice-field in Modern English falls into Active and Passive (a binary opposition).

The field of number falls into two microfields: Singular — Plural (oneness — plurality).

In Modern English plurality may be expressed, for instance, by:

1) plural forms of nouns;

2) singular forms of nouns in transposition (implied plurality);

3) inflectional forms of verbs (very few in number);

4) personal and demonstrative pronouns;

5) pronouns of unspecified quantity;

6) numerals;

7) collective nouns and nouns of multitude, e. g.: mankind, peasantry, yeomanry, gentry, crowd, host, etc. or, say, such words as developed a collective signification by metonymy, e. g.: all the world — all the men, the sex — women, the bench — the officials;

8) standardised paired noun-phrases, e. g.: day after day, year after year, question on question, country on country, etc.

It is to be noted at this point that in patterns with " implied" (covert) plurality distinction must be made between:

1) the use of some common nouns in the singular with the implication of plurality, as in to have a keen eye, to keep in hand; trees in leaf, etc.

2) the use of the pronoun one with reference to:

a) several unknown individuals or people in general, e. g.: One should always do one's duty.

b) several known individuals including the speaker, e. g.:

He asked me to review his new novel. Of course one did not like to refuse, but...

Syntactic devices are generally most expressive, they intensify the

¹ See: E. В. Гулыга, Е. И. Шендельс. Грамматико-лексические поля в современном немецком языке. М., 1969.

meaning of plurality and as such are often used for stylistic purposes. A few typical examples are:

Mile on mile, without an end, the low grey streets stretched towards the ultimate deserted grass. (Galsworthy)

Sea on sea, country on country, millions on millions of people, all with their own lives, energies, joys, griefs, and suffering — all with things they had to give up, and separate struggles for existence. (Galsworthy)

The invariant meaning of any given category finds its most " specialised" expression in the morphological category.

A study of linguistic signs in their interrelationship and interdependence leads to significantly increased knowledge of language. A special interest attaches to the correlation between meanings expressed by grammatical forms and those expressed by lexico-grammatical devices to which in our description we shall repeatedly draw the attention of the student.

All these means denoting plurality are essentially different in their linguistic status. Without any frequency counts we may say that some of them are fairly common in every day use, others are used occasionally, according to circumstances. Morphological means to express plurality stand at the centre of this field and are primary in importance, all the rest are its peripheral elements used for different notional purposes.

Pronouns and numerals, for instance, as noun determiners or its substitutes, make the quantitative meaning more concrete.

Collective nouns denote at the same time singular and plural, i. e. a collection of individuals which are viewed as a unit.

Many words which do not themselves denote a plurality of individuals acquire the meaning of a collective in certain contexts, as when, for instance, the bench is used of a body of judges, a town or village in the meaning of its inhabitants.