The problem of words classification into parts of speech is quite an important problem for those who study linguistics or philology as we do. The existence of 4 approaches makes it complicated to determine one part from another when I for example analyze some text for my science research. On the other hand it’s rather beneficial to have an opportunity to choose from 4 approaches because it lets me find the one that suits me well. Personally I consider THE CLASSICAL approach to be unmanageable because of its usage of Latin paradigm for English nouns. It shows that the system doesn’t consider the difference between a synthetic and an analytic language. THE FUNCTIONAL-FORMAL approach looks like a suitable system for a professional scientist. The classification shows all the fine points of language but it’s still a little inconvenient for me due to its complicacy. THE DISRIBUTIONAL approach seems to me extremely complicated and subjective, the classification is almost impossible to learn by heart. This approach can look successful in theory but it’s still inconvenient in practice. I find THE COMPLEX approach suitable for my work under linguistic researches because of its reasonable and assailable classification.
From my point of view the problem of word classification into parts of speech is very complicated but really important for all linguists. As we know there are 4 approaches to the problem and all of them are based on certain principles. And I think that the knowledge of it will be useful for my future research and study. It seems to me that the Classical approach isn’t convenient for English because of Latin is a synthetic language and English is an insolating language that conveys grammatical meaning syntactically as opposed to Latin. The Functional-Formal approach is more understandable than Distributional approach. But it’s disadvantage is that non-structural descriptive grammarians didn’t consider about semantic meaning. I’m afraid that Distributional approach is more complicated and not so convenient for research because of there is a very big amount of functional classes. In my opinion the Complex approach is more suitable for my work because of it is based on the three main criteria: semantic, formal, functional.
In the 19th century a new approach to the problem was introduced by Henry Sweet. He took into account the peculiarities of the English language. This approach may be defined as functional. He took the functional features of words and singled out nominative units and particles. To nominative parts of speech belonged noun-words (noun, noun-pronoun, noun-numeral, infinitive, gerund), adjective-words (adjective, adjective-pronoun, adjective-numeral, participles), verb (finite verb, verbals), while adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection belonged to the group of particles, However, though the criterion for classification was functional, H.Sweet failed to break the tradition and classified words into those having morphological forms and lacking morphological forms, i.e. declinable and indeclinable, that are not relevant for analytical languages.
The inflectional-logical theory of parts of speech was based on Latin grammar. Languages with inflectional grammar are those that use ending systems to reflect gender, case, and/or number, among other things. Inflectional patterns vary depending on the inflectional category a word is in. In accordance with the theory, words were divided into declinable (nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, adjectives) and indeclinable (adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, articles). This classification is relevant for Latin or other languages with developed morphology and synthetic paradigms and hardly can it be applied to the English language because the principle of declinability and indeclinability cannot be applied to analytical languages.
The functional-formal approach of parts of speech was created by Henry Sweet. He, similar to his predecessors, divided words into declinable and indeclinable. To declinables he attributed noun-words (noun, noun-pronoun, noun-numeral, infinitive, gerund), adjective-words (adjective, adjective-pronoun, adjective-numeral, participle), verb (finite form, verbals) and to indeclinable (particle), adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection. Henry Sweet speaks of three principles of classification: form, meaning, and function. However, the result of his classification reveal a considerable divergence between theory and practice: the division of the parts of speech into declinable and indeclinable is a division based on form. Only within the class we can see the operation of the principle of function.
To my mind, Chirles Fries gave a very interesting classification of words into parts of speech. To classify English words, he used three sentences called substitution frames: Frame A (The) concert was good (always) Frame В (The) clerk remembered (the) tax (suddenly) Frame С (The) team went there He also divided words into classes: Class I: water, time, heating, thing, green (of a particular shade), (the) sixth, summer, history, etc.; Class II: felt, arranged, sees, forgot, guess, know, help, forward ‘to send on’; Class III: general, eighth, good; better, outstanding, wide, young’, Class IV: there, here, now, usually, definitely, first, twice. The functional words are subdivided into 15 groups, and as Ch. Fries could not find for them any general identifying characteristics, they are supposed to be recognised and learned as separate words. Charles Fries thought that the positions in the sentences were sufficient for the purpose of the classification of all the words of the English language. I can say that unlike others scholars he described spoken English instead of written English. On the one hand it`s very practical to use these frames, because sentences in these frames are the basis, and we just should to substituted words according their Class. On the other hand this approach is not good for theoretical grammar. Charles Fries used the principle of function in classifying words into parts of speech that`s why his word-classes are deprived of meaning. Secondly, his functional classes are broken into small groups. This is good for practice but bad for theory.
Нечаева Анна Charles Fries rejected the traditional principle of classification of words into parts of speech replacing it with the methods of distributional analisis and substitution. To classify the words, he used 3 sentences called substitution frames. He thought that the position in the sentences were sufficient for the purpose of the classification of all the words of the language. Charles Fries used the principle of function, or combinability. In this classification not all relevant position were tested. His functional classes are splintered.
From my point of view, The Classification of Words in Post-Structural Traditional Grammar is very interesting. First and foremost, by the advent of TG structural linguistics had already exhausted itself, and linguists gradually returned to the problems of synthesis, i.e. to the account of how speakers produce sentences(competence). In a way, TG theorists contributed to the rehabilitation of traditional linguistics by arguing that TG owes more to traditional grammar than to structural grammar, which was of course an exaggeration whose aim was to emphasize the fact that TG had its origins in traditional and universal grammar. In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated according to three criteria: semantic, formal and functional. Let us consider them. The semantic criterion presupposes the grammatical meaning of the whole class of words (general grammatical meaning). The formal criterion reveals paradigmatic properties: relevant grammatical categories, the form of the words, their specific inflectional and derivational features. The functional criterion concerns the syntactic role of a word in the sentence. All three criteria are important. But unfortunately, it was only in Europe that traditional linguists calmly continued to examine their problems.
To my mind, the classical (logical inflectional) principle of words classification still remains one of the most controversial problems in modern linguistics The attitude of grammarians with regard to parts of speech and the basis of their classification varied a good deal at different times. The classical parts of speech theory goes back to ancient times. It is based on Latin grammar. According to the Latin classification of the parts of speech all words were divided dichotomically into declinable and indeclinable parts of speech. This system was reproduced in the earliest English grammars. The first of these groups, declinable words, included nouns, pronouns, verbs and participles, the second – indeclinable words – adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections. I guess that the logical-inflectional classification is quite successful for Latin or other languages with developed morphology and synthetic paradigms but it cannot be applied to the English language because the principle of declinability/indeclinability is not relevant for analytical languages. Generally speaking, the problem of words’ classification into parts of speech is far from being solved and therefore some words cannot find their proper place.
отличная презентация, пожалуй моя любимая)
ОтветитьУдалитьThanks a lot. And still, what's that in it to love it? (That was the presentation that you love, wasn't it?)
ОтветитьУдалитьAnufrienko Oksana
ОтветитьУдалитьThe problem of words classification into parts of speech is quite an important problem for those who study linguistics or philology as we do. The existence of 4 approaches makes it complicated to determine one part from another when I for example analyze some text for my science research. On the other hand it’s rather beneficial to have an opportunity to choose from 4 approaches because it lets me find the one that suits me well.
Personally I consider THE CLASSICAL approach to be unmanageable because of its usage of Latin paradigm for English nouns. It shows that the system doesn’t consider the difference between a synthetic and an analytic language.
THE FUNCTIONAL-FORMAL approach looks like a suitable system for a professional scientist. The classification shows all the fine points of language but it’s still a little inconvenient for me due to its complicacy.
THE DISRIBUTIONAL approach seems to me extremely complicated and subjective, the classification is almost impossible to learn by heart. This approach can look successful in theory but it’s still inconvenient in practice.
I find THE COMPLEX approach suitable for my work under linguistic researches because of its reasonable and assailable classification.
Katya Ursova
ОтветитьУдалитьFrom my point of view the problem of word classification into parts of speech is very complicated but really important for all linguists. As we know there are 4 approaches to the problem and all of them are based on certain principles. And I think that the knowledge of it will be useful for my future research and study. It seems to me that the Classical approach isn’t convenient for English because of Latin is a synthetic language and English is an insolating language that conveys grammatical meaning syntactically as opposed to Latin. The Functional-Formal approach is more understandable than Distributional approach. But it’s disadvantage is that non-structural descriptive grammarians didn’t consider about semantic meaning. I’m afraid that Distributional approach is more complicated and not so convenient for research because of there is a very big amount of functional classes. In my opinion the Complex approach is more suitable for my work because of it is based on the three main criteria: semantic, formal, functional.
Этот комментарий был удален автором.
ОтветитьУдалитьIn the 19th century a new approach to the problem was introduced by Henry Sweet. He took into account the peculiarities of the English language. This approach may be defined as functional. He took the functional features of words and singled out nominative units and particles. To nominative parts of speech belonged noun-words (noun, noun-pronoun, noun-numeral, infinitive, gerund), adjective-words (adjective, adjective-pronoun, adjective-numeral, participles), verb (finite verb, verbals), while adverb, preposition, conjunction and interjection belonged to the group of particles, However, though the criterion for classification was functional, H.Sweet failed to break the tradition and classified words into those having morphological forms and lacking morphological forms, i.e. declinable and indeclinable, that are not relevant for analytical languages.
ОтветитьУдалитьThe inflectional-logical theory of parts of speech was based on Latin grammar. Languages with inflectional grammar are those that use ending systems to reflect gender, case, and/or number, among other things. Inflectional patterns vary depending on the inflectional category a word is in. In accordance with the theory, words were divided into declinable (nouns, pronouns, verbs, participles, adjectives) and indeclinable (adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, interjections, articles).
ОтветитьУдалитьThis classification is relevant for Latin or other languages with developed morphology and synthetic paradigms and hardly can it be applied to the English language because the principle of declinability and indeclinability cannot be applied to analytical languages.
The functional-formal approach of parts of speech was created by Henry Sweet. He, similar to his predecessors, divided words into declinable and indeclinable. To declinables he attributed noun-words (noun, noun-pronoun, noun-numeral, infinitive, gerund), adjective-words (adjective, adjective-pronoun, adjective-numeral, participle), verb (finite form, verbals) and to indeclinable (particle), adverb, preposition, conjunction, interjection. Henry Sweet speaks of three principles of classification: form, meaning, and function. However, the result of his classification reveal a considerable divergence between theory and practice: the division of the parts of speech into declinable and indeclinable is a division based on form. Only within the class we can see the operation of the principle of function.
ОтветитьУдалитьTo my mind, Chirles Fries gave a very interesting classification of words into parts of speech.
ОтветитьУдалитьTo classify English words, he used three sentences called substitution frames:
Frame A (The) concert was good (always)
Frame В (The) clerk remembered (the) tax (suddenly)
Frame С (The) team went there
He also divided words into classes: Class I: water, time, heating, thing, green (of a particular shade), (the) sixth, summer, history, etc.; Class II: felt, arranged, sees, forgot, guess, know, help, forward ‘to send on’; Class III: general, eighth, good; better, outstanding, wide, young’, Class IV: there, here, now, usually, definitely, first, twice. The functional words are subdivided into 15 groups, and as Ch. Fries could not find for them any general identifying characteristics, they are supposed to be recognised and learned as separate words.
Charles Fries thought that the positions in the sentences were sufficient for the purpose of the classification of all the words of the English language. I can say that unlike others scholars he described spoken English instead of written English. On the one hand it`s very practical to use these frames, because sentences in these frames are the basis, and we just should to substituted words according their Class. On the other hand this approach is not good for theoretical grammar. Charles Fries used the principle of function in classifying words into parts of speech that`s why his word-classes are deprived of meaning. Secondly, his functional classes are broken into small groups. This is good for practice but bad for theory.
Нечаева Анна
ОтветитьУдалитьCharles Fries rejected the traditional principle of classification of words into parts of speech replacing it with the methods of distributional analisis and substitution. To classify the words, he used 3 sentences called substitution frames. He thought that the position in the sentences were sufficient for the purpose of the classification of all the words of the language. Charles Fries used the principle of function, or combinability. In this classification not all relevant position were tested. His functional classes are splintered.
From my point of view, The Classification of Words in Post-Structural Traditional Grammar is very interesting.
ОтветитьУдалитьFirst and foremost, by the advent of TG structural linguistics had already exhausted itself, and linguists gradually returned to the problems of synthesis, i.e. to the account of how speakers produce sentences(competence). In a way, TG theorists contributed to the rehabilitation of traditional linguistics by arguing that TG owes more to traditional grammar than to structural grammar, which was of course an exaggeration whose aim was to emphasize the fact that TG had its origins in traditional and universal grammar. In modern linguistics, parts of speech are discriminated according to three criteria: semantic, formal and functional. Let us consider them. The semantic criterion presupposes the grammatical meaning of the whole class of words (general grammatical meaning). The formal criterion reveals paradigmatic properties: relevant grammatical categories, the form of the words, their specific inflectional and derivational features. The functional criterion concerns the
syntactic role of a word in the sentence. All three criteria are important.
But unfortunately, it was only in Europe that traditional linguists calmly continued to examine their problems.
To my mind, the classical (logical inflectional) principle of words classification still remains one of the most controversial problems in modern linguistics
ОтветитьУдалитьThe attitude of grammarians with regard to parts of speech and the basis of their classification varied a good deal at different times. The classical parts of speech theory goes back to ancient times. It is based on Latin grammar. According to the Latin classification of the parts of speech all words were divided dichotomically into declinable and indeclinable parts of speech. This system was reproduced in the earliest English grammars. The first of these groups, declinable words, included nouns, pronouns, verbs and participles, the second – indeclinable words – adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions and interjections.
I guess that the logical-inflectional classification is quite successful for Latin or other languages with developed morphology and synthetic paradigms but it cannot be applied to the English language because the principle of declinability/indeclinability is not relevant for analytical languages.
Generally speaking, the problem of words’ classification into parts of speech is far from being solved and therefore some words cannot find their proper place.