The second participle 1 page

The second participle, that is, forms like invited, liked, written, taken, etc., presents many peculiar difficulties for analysis. In analysing the category of correlation and that of voice in the participle and in stating that the participle has no category of tense, we have so far not mentioned these forms at all.

The Second Participle 188

Now we must give them some special consideration.

First of all we must emphasise that we will analyse the meaning and the use of the second participle when it does not make part of an analytical verb form, whether it be the perfect (have invited, have taken), or the passive voice (was invited, was taken). When the second participle makes part of an analytical form, it loses some of its own characteristics, and indeed we may doubt whether it should still bear the name of participle in those cases.

Again, in analysing the meaning and the functions of the second participle, we must exclude the cases where it has been adjectivised, that is, changed into an adjective, and is no longer a participle, for example, in such phrases as written work, which is used as the opposite of oral work, or devoted friend, where devoted does not designate an action, or, indeed, the result of an action, but a property.

The use of the second participle outside the analytical formations is comparatively limited. We find it either as a predicative in such cases as The door is shut, when it does not denote an action (compare, The door is shut at nine p. m. every day) but a state of things, or as an objective predicative, e. g. He found the door shut, or as an attribute following a noun, more often with some words accompanying it, as in This is the new machine invented by our engineers, and less often an attribute preceding the noun, as in "The Bartered Bride" (the title of Smetana's opera). We can note that the use of second participles as prepositive attributes is on the whole limited in English. For example, the title of the opera just mentioned could not be rendered in English with the help of the participle sold, as this participle cannot be used in that way.

Analysis of the grammatical categories expressed in the second participle is a matter of great difficulty, and so is the problem of finding its place among the other participles.

Let us first consider the problems of aspect, tense, and correlation with reference to this participle. Let us take our examples with intransitive verbs, so that the problem of voice may be left aside for the moment.

It was pointed out long ago that many intransitive verbs have no second participle that could be used outside the analytical forms of the perfect. For instance, such forms as been, laughed, run, sat, lain, wept, etc. can only appear within a perfect form and do not exist as separate participles. A few second participles of intransitive verbs can, however, be used as attributes, e. g. retired in expressions like a retired colonel, or a retired teacher. We may also compare the word runaway (spelt as one word, from the phrase run away), for example, in the expression a runaway horse.

On the whole, then, with intransitive verbs the second participle does not constitute an integral part of the verbal system at all,

134 The Verb: Verbals

and it may be left out of consideration when we analyse that system.

Things are different with transitive verbs. Here, though the use of the second participle as an attribute is limited, there can be no doubt that it exists as a separate form of the verb and not merely as a component of the analytical perfect or passive.

It is also clear that as far as the category of voice goes the past participle of transitive verbs belongs to the passive. We need not illustrate this by examples, since this is common knowledge. It is only necessary to mention the few special cases in which the second participle has no passive meaning in the usual sense, e. g. a well-read man 'one who has read much', not 'one who has been read', or he was drunk, and a few more. These are separate phenomena restricted to a few verbs.

As to aspect, tense, and correlation, the problem appears to be this: Which of these categories find expression in the form of the second participle itself, i. e. do not depend either on the lexical meaning of the verb or on the context? This proviso is necessary, because differences in meaning can be found which do depend on lexical peculiarities of the verb and on the context. We can, for instance, compare such phrases as the following: (1) a young man liked by everybody, (2) a young man killed in the war. It is clear at once that the action denoted by the participle liked is going on, whereas that denoted by the participle killed is finished. This certainly should not be interpreted as two different meanings of the participle as a grammatical form, since it depends on the lexical meaning of the verb (the verb like denotes an emotional attitude, which can last indefinitely, while the verb kill denotes an action which reaches its end and does not last after that). We must then say that the meaning of the form as such is not affected by these differences.

The conclusion about the grammatical categories in the second participle (of transitive verbs) is, then, this. The only category which is expressed in it is that of voice (namely, the passive voice); the other categories, namely, aspect, tense, and correlation (and, of course, mood, person, and number) find no expression in it. Owing to these peculiarities, the second participle occupies a unique position in the verbal system, and it is impossible to find for it a place in a table where special columns or lines are allotted to aspect, tense, and correlation.

As far as voice is concerned, the second participle of transitive verbs (e. g. invited) joins the other passive participles (e. g. being invited and having been invited) as against the active participles inviting and having invited. However, from the formal point of view we run into difficulties here. In all other passive forms, whether finite or non-finite, the category of the passive voice is ex-

The ing-Forms < 185

pressed by the group "be + second participle", whereas the second participle itself, of course, goes without the verb be. We have to choose between accepting this state of things and excluding the second participle from the passive system (that is, if we insist that every passive form must contain the verb be). As this latter alternative appears to be still more undesirable, we shall have to recognise this peculiar position of the second participle among the forms of the passive voice.

THE ing-FORMS

So far we have spoken of the ing -forms as of two different sets of homonymous forms: the gerund (with its distinctions of correlation and voice) and the participle (with its distinctions of correlation and voice). As there is no external difference between the two sets (they are complete homonyms), the question may arise whether there is reason enough to say that there are two different sets of forms, that is, whether it could not be argued that there is only one set of forms (we might then call them ing -forms), which in different contexts acquire different shades of meaning and perform different syntactical functions. Such a view (though without detailed argumentation) was indeed put forward by the Dutch scholar E. Kruisinga.¹ In some passages of his book he merely speaks of "the ing", though in other parts he uses the terms "gerund" and "participle".

It must be said that this is one of the questions which do not admit of a definite solution. The solution largely depends on what view we take of the unity of a grammatical form and on the extent to which we are prepared to allow for shades of meaning in one form (or one set of forms). If we are prepared to admit any amount of variety in this sphere rather than admit the existence of grammatical homonyms, we shall have to develop a detailed theory of the mutual relations between the various shades of meaning that the form (or set of forms) can have. If, on the other hand, we are prepared to admit homonymy rather than let the unity of the form (or set of forms) disintegrate, as it were, in a variety of "shades", we shall be justified in keeping to the traditional view which distinguishes between gerund and participle as between two different, though homonymous, sets of grammatical forms.

The difference between the gerund and the participle is basically this. The gerund, along with its verbal qualities, has substantival qualities as well; the participle, along with its verbal qualities, has adjectival qualities. This of course brings about a corresponding difference in their syntactical functions: the gerund

¹ See E. Kruisinga, A Handbook of Present-Day English, vol. II, p. 55 II,

Chapter XV

THE VERB: POLYSEMANTIC AND HOMONYMOUS FORMS

Modern lexicology has in many cases to solve the problem whether we have to deal with two or more meanings of one word or with two or more different words sounding the same. Such questions have arisen concerning, for example, the nouns hand, head, board, the verbs draw, bear, and a number of other words.

Similar problems confront us in the field of grammar as well. In quite a number of cases we are faced with a choice between two possible interpretations of established linguistic facts, notably in the sphere of verb morphology: is a certain form one grammatical form with two or more different meanings, or two or more different grammatical forms sounding alike?

We have dealt with each of these problems as they arose in the course of our study of the verb system. Now it may prove expedient to cast a look at the problem in its entirety. We will first take up those cases in which there has been a general discussion and both, varying views have found more or less wide support, and then we will pass on to the problems in which one view is more or less prevailing, and only a few dissenting voices are heard.

(1) Is the form knew in the sentence He knew it all along and the form knew in the sentence If he knew this, he would be here the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? The question also applies to forms of the type lived, stopped, told, etc.

(2) Is the form had known in the sentence He had known it all along and the form had known in the sentence If he had known this, he would have come the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? The question also applies to forms of the type had lived, had stopped, had told, etc.

(3) Is the form should come in the sentence I said I should come soon and the form should come in the sentence If I were you I should come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? Is the form would come in the sentence She said she would come soon and the form would come in the sentence If she knew this she would come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?

(4) Is the form should have come in the sentence I thought 1 should have come before he rang up and the form should have come in the sentence If I had known this I should have come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same? Is the form would have come in the sentence He thought he would have come before you rang up and the form would have come in the sentence If he had known this he would have come at once the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?

188 The Verb: Polysemantic and Homonymous Forms

(5) Is the form would come in the sentence If he knew this he would come at once and the form would come in the sentence In those days he would come and sit with us for hours, and tell us about his life the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?

(6) Is the form laughing in the sentence I found a laughing little boy and the form laughing in the sentence He answered by laughing the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?

(7) Is the form having found in the sentence Having found the solution of the problem, he published a paper on the subject and the form having found in the sentence He was proud of having found the solution of the problem the same form, or are they two different forms sounding the same?

Those were questions that had been answered in different ways by different scholars. Now comes a question that has had no special attention focused upon it:

(8) Is the form wrote in the sentence He wrote it and the form wrote in the sentence They wrote it the same form, or are they two homonymous forms sounding the same?

There is a consideration in favour of the view that they are two different homonymous forms; the verb be has different forms for the singular and the plural in the past tense (was, were) — from this fact the inference may be drawn that in Modern English there is the category of number (singular and plural) in the past tense, and consequently in the verbs where no distinction in sound is found between singular and plural, we have to recognise homonymous forms. It may be further argued that in all verbs which admit of a past continuous form, or of a past passive, or of a past continuous passive, that is, of forms derived by means of the verb be, the category of number is found in the past tense: compare, e. g., was writing, were writing, was written, were written, was being written, were being written, or, was driving, were driving, was driven, were driven, was being driven, were being driven, etc.

(9) If the argument laid down in (8) is followed up, it may also be asked whether the forms know (1st person singular) and know (plural) are one form, or different forms sounding alike. In favour of the latter view it may be argued that in the verb be the corresponding forms do not sound the same: am, are, so this verb has a material distinction along these lines, and, consequently, all verbs in which no material distinction is found have homonymous forms. It may further be argued that verbs which have a present continuous, or a present passive, or a present passive continuous, or two, or all of these forms, also show that distinction: compare am driving, are driving; am driven, are driven, am being driven, are being driven, etc.

Invariable Meaning 189

In proceeding now to consider different arguments referring to the nine questions enumerated here, we will first of all point out the problem of various structural meanings inherent in a grammatical form and of an invariable meaning, that is, one to be found in every possible single application of a form. This has been treated in different ways with reference to such questions as the general meaning of a case, for instance of the genitive case in Russian or Latin, etc.

Whether we think it necessary to find an invariable structural meaning which manifests itself in different ways in different applications of a grammatical category, or whether we deny the necessity of such an invariable meaning, is a matter which largely depends on a scholar's theoretical views on the meaning of grammatical categories and grammatical forms in general. We can hardly expect either of these views (for or against an invariable structural meaning for every category and every form) to be definitely proved as the only right one. We will assume that an invariable meaning does exist, and then try to find out what it is in every case.

Starting, then, with the question of polysemy or homonymy of forms like knew or lived, which may either denote a real action in the past, or an unreal supposition in the present or future, we may look for an invariable meaning comprising both these concrete applications. This meaning would seem to be something like "an action not actually happening in the present", or an action removed from present reality, that is, either having occurred in the past and in this way cut off from present reality or else only vaguely supposed, or even definitely unreal, and in this second way cut off from present reality.¹ This would justify the view that knew or lived in all its applications is one and the same form, which we may call past indicative, and which is used in certain syntactical contexts to denote an unreal action in the present or future.

While this way of interpreting facts will probably never be proved to be the only correct one, -there are many arguments in its favour and we will here endorse this view of forms like knew and lived.

If that is accepted, a similar reasoning will hold good concern? ing the forms had known and had lived. The common element of meaning, that is the invariable to be found both in the sentence I had known this before and in the sentence If I had known this 1 should have come may be defined as follows: an action not really

¹ This idea was propounded, in a somewhat different context, by Prof. A. Potebnia with reference to some facts of Slavonic languages; e.g. in Russian the form of the conditional mood сказал бы is a combination of the past tense form сказал with the particle бы, which itself is by origin a past tense form of the verb быть.

140 The Verb: Polysemantic and Homonymous Forms

happening at a given period in the past; the two applications of that common invariable would then result in the following meaning: (a) an action happening before that period of the past which is being considered, and (b) an action merely supposed, and not actually happening in the past. The additional difficulty in this second item is, that everything has to be treated as belonging to the past (in some way or other), whereas with the first item the distinction was between the past and the present.

This approach to things is also possible in the case of our item (3), where the forms in question are, should come and would come, respectively. In trying to arrive at an invariable meaning for these forms, we will look for something which might establish a connection between an action unreal in the present and an action expected to happen at some moment future from the point of view of past time. The invariable in this case may be defined something like this: an action not really happening either in the present or in the specified period of the past; that idea is then substantiated either

(a) as something merely supposed for the present or future, or

(b) as an action viewed from a past viewpoint as happening in the future.

A similar reasoning would of course have to be applied to forms like should have come and would have come, with everything shifted, as it were, one step further back into the past: the invariable in this case would be something like "an action not actually happening either in the past, present, or future", and the applications would be, (a) an unreal action in the past, and (b) an action viewed from a past viewpoint as completed at a certain time in the future. In this last type of forms the past dominates throughout.

Similar considerations will hold good with reference to forms like should be coming, would be coming, should have been coming, would have been coming, which, however, are rarely found in their temporal application (future-continuous-in-the-past, future-perfect-continuous-in-the-past). Everything stated so far would also apply to the corresponding forms of the passive voice, wherever a verb admits of passive forms at all.

The next item, which we gave under number 5, is of a somewhat different character, and presents us with new difficulties. Besides being used to denote an unreal action in the present, and an action expected in the future from a past viewpoint, the phrase would come (in this particular case the verb would is completely dissociated from the verb should) can also express a repeated action in the past. For this problem, there seems to be no convincing way of finding an invariable meaning able to cover both the meaning of unreality in the present and expectation in the future from a past viewpoint. So, unless and until such common ground for an invariable is found, it will be well to say that would come denoting un-

Gerund and Participle 141

reality in the present and expected action in the future from a past viewpoint, on the one hand, and would come denoting a repeated action in the past are two different formations sounding the same. ¹

Now we come to items (6) and (7), concerning the ing -form or ing -forms in their different applications. The traditional view is, that we have here two homonymous forms: the participle (present or perfect) and the gerund (present or perfect). A more recent view, put forward by E. Kruisinga, is that there are not two different forms sounding the same but one form, which he shortly terms "the ing", being used in various ways in the sentence.

It is a peculiar feature of this ing -problem that in some contexts the two "ings" come very close together and additional factors are required to draw a distinction between them. The two "ings" coincide in such sentences as, He was afraid of her knowing the truth,² where the "ing" is a gerund if her is a possessive pronoun, and a participle if her is a personal pronoun in the objective case; also in the sentence He was glad at John's coming the "ing" is a gerund, but if John's is replaced by John, the "ing" seems to be a participle, though this is not acknowledged by all scholars: M. Deutschbein believed the "ing" to be a gerund in both cases.

The question is a very difficult one. Since up to now it has not been possible to find a convincing invariable meaning to cover both participle and gerund, we shall do well again, until such an invariable is discovered, to hold to the traditional view which has it that the participle and the gerund are two essentially different forms sounding the same. This of course applies equally to present and perfect, active and passive participles and gerunds.

The last two items of our list include questions connected with the whole system of grammar and the principles of stating grammatical categories. In item (8) the essence of the problem is this. All Modern English verbs, however many they may be, have no distinction of number in the past tense, with one exception only, the verb be, which distinguishes in the past tense between the singular (was) and the plural (were).³ Should this peculiarity of the verb be bring us to the conclusion that the category of number in the past tense exists in all English verbs, and that, accordingly, all verbs

¹ From the viewpoint of synchronic analysis of Modern English the fact that the source of the auxiliary would is in both cases the same (past tense of will) is of course irrelevant.

² The example is taken from M. Deutschbein, System der neuenglischen Syntax, S. 154.

³ We will for the moment overlook the fact that in non-standard English there is a strong tendency to do away with the distinction and to use the form was without regard to number: I was, he was, we was, you was, they was.

142 The Verb: Polysemantic and Homonymous Forms

except be have here homonymous forms? This is the view held by L. Bloomfield. Bloomfield thinks that the existence of one word of a certain category, which has a certain grammatical distinction, is sufficient reason for stating that all words of that category have that distinction, and all of them but the one in question have homonymous forms. In his own words, "The existence of even a single over-differentiated paradigm implies homonymy in the regular paradigms." ¹

This view, however, is completely arbitrary and unacceptable. If we were to endorse it, we should arrive at very strange conclusions indeed. For example, starting from the fact that two English words which may be used as attributes to a noun, namely the words this and that, have a distinction between singular and plural (they agree in number with their head word, e. g. this street, but these streets, that street, but those streets), we might infer that all words thus used also have the category of number; for example, we should have to say that the word new has a distinction of singular and plural: in the phrase new house the word new is in the singular, but in the phrase new houses it is in the plural; the singular and the plural forms would be homonyms.

Date: 2016-06-07; view: 521; Нарушение авторских прав