The morphemic model of an English word is prefix – root – suffix – inflexion. 

     Paradigmatics and Syntagmatics

     The domain of morphology is the paradigmatics of a word. Morphology studies the forms of words and their paradigms. A  paradigm is a set of forms of a word (a boy-boys-a boy’s-boys’).The  term “paradigm” is used  to designate sets of forms on different linguistic levels . A paradigm on the lexico-semantic level  is  a set of primarily  and secondarily nominative lexico-semantic variants of a word, which constitute its semantic structure  (a head is the top part of your body; your mind; the leader or person in charge ; the top or front of something, etc.). On the level of word-building it is a set of derivatives (psyche-psychedelic-psychiatric-psychiatrist-psychiatry-psychic--psychoanalysis-psychoanalyst-psychoanalyze-psychological-psychologist-psychology-psychosis, etc.). On the syntactic level it is a set of transformations of kernel

sentences (I have a car-I had a car, I shall have a car-Do you have a car- I don’t have a car-my having a car-for me to have a car, etc.).

     The domain of syntax  is the syntagmatics of a word. A syntagm  is a linear sequence of elements (He is a fine boy).

     In a paradigm words are in  paradigmatic relations, they have paradigmatic meanings which  are constant, invariable, subject to no change.  In a syntagm the once paradigmatic meanings are complicated by syntagmatic meanings  which are variable, subject to contextual change. In the syntagm Lovely spring flowers under British bleak skies!( R. Aldington. Death of a Hero) the morpheme –s    along with the paradigmatic meaning of plurality  acquires contextual (syntagmatic) meanings of emotiveness, expressiveness, intensiveness, and evaluation.

Parts of Speech

      Classifications of Parts of Speech.

     Scholars believe that it is impossible to describe a language without describing  word classes.   As language is a structure, words are to be structurally organised. For centuries the writers of grammars distinguished   classes of words which they referred to as parts of speech. The term “parts of speech” was introduced in Ancient Greece. The ancient scholars saw no difference between a word as a vocabulary unit and a word as a functional element of a sentence. The conventional term, being obviously inadequate, still remains  in use, as no better term has been proposed.

     At present there exist different lines of approach: traditional, functional (Prague linguistic school), descriptive (American descriptive linguistics), onomaseological  approach ( the theory of nomination). Each linguistic trend advances its own criteria of classifying words and the number of these classes.

     Traditionalists rely upon meaning as the essential criterion. This criterion is subjective and cannot be absolutely relied upon. In some grammars  an adjective  is defined as an  attribute of substance. But in the   following examples attributes of substances  are expressed by an adverb(The then director. The now president), an infinitive (She is not a woman to drop ), a noun (a space pilot), etc.  So this definition doesn’t work. When this approach is not reliable, traditionalists refer to form or function.   Words were divided dichotomically  into declinables ( nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) and  indeclinables ( articles, particles, prepositions, conjunctions). It is the criterion of form. This criterion underlies the following definition “A noun is a word which forms the plural by adding  -s or its equivalents”. The following  definition of an adverb is based on the functional criterion “An adverb is a word  which modifies a verb, an adjective or another adverb”.

     Prague linguistic school called parts of speech as bundles of morphologically relevant features and described words in terms of their paradigms (sets of all possible forms of a word). It’s a purely formal approach. Form, taken alone, is seldom helpful in English because of the  scantiness of inflexions. It results in the frequency of  homonymy and polysemy (Ship sails today. Flying can be dangerous). Form alone is inadequate as a criterion in English. Words are not easily identifiable  as nouns, verbs,  adjectives, adverbs: N. is a regular (a substantivized  adjective is used as a noun).

     The compromising solution  was offered by H. Sweet and O. Jespersen, a synthetic approach, combining  meaning, form and function. A word is described as belonging to this or that class on the basis of its semantic meaning ( e.g. table names a thing, it denotes thingness), as having some morphological form (table is inflected for the plural by adding –s) and as having peculiar syntactical properties (table occurs in typically n- positions  in a sentence).

     Structuralists (descriptivists) rejected the traditional approach, they preferred to rely only upon the  positional arrangement of  words and their  structural characteristics (types of inflexions and derivational suffixes).  This interpretation is represented by Ch. Frees. He operated with the  artificial structure Woggles ugged diggles (compare it with The Students attended lectures). Intuitively we feel that woggles positionaly and structurally can be likened to a  thing word (a noun); ugged  can be compared with an  action word (a verb); diggles  with a noun. So, he wanted to prove that meanings should be disregarded in classifying words, as it is the arrangements of words and their structural characteristics which are most important for referring words to classes.

     Relying upon the transformational procedure of substitution,  Ch. Fries  classifies words into 4  form  classes, designated by numbers (I, II, III, IV) and 15 function groups of functional words designated by letters (a, b, c,…) He groups words with the help of the diagnostic frames: The concert is good and  The team went there (I II III, I II IV), where I is like  a noun,  II is like a verb, III is like an adjective, IV is like an adverb. Class I includes all words which can be used in this frame (Smth is good; To dance is good)., etc. The positional criterion is supplemented by 7 other criteria( the plural inflection, the use of  the apostrophe ‘s, the use of determiners (articles), etc. Groups of function words are defined by listing. Ch. Fries  was not afraid to set up very small groups of words, such as a group comprising  articles,  groups carrying pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, etc. He  distinguished 154 functional words in English.

Notionals and Functionals

     Both traditionalists and descriptivists divide parts of speech into notionals (major , autosemantic words, variables, semantically full words) and functionals (synsemantic words, invariables, semantically empty words).

     Notionals are  open classes, indefinitely extendable.  It’s impossible to  inventory  all the nouns, verbs, adjectives, etc. It is transposition (conversion) which makes nouns and verbs limitlessly open (I’m wifed, aunted and cousined. There’s no one manning or womaning the camera. I’ve been anniversaried several times). Nouns can be limitlessly verbalized, verbs, adjectives, adverbs, forms of verbs, whole phrases, prefixes and suffixes  can be nominalized ( His life was all blacks and whites. There was smth on it…two somethings actually: a white something and a dark something. What time is it now? – It’s half past now). Lexically full words have a paradigm. They are communicatively important, serve as members of a sentence.

     Functionals are  closed classes, we cannot invent new prepositions and conjunctions. They can be easily  listed. But in reality  the situation is not that rigid. There appear new functionals. Such is  the conjunction like, derived from the  adjective like(Never do like he has done). Such is the intensifiers bloody, that (Why bloody not?  It was not  that good).The form given of the verb to give is often used as a preposition, meaning considering, provided, on account of (Given the circumstances, we could not ask for better treatment). Functionals have no paradigm. They are communicatively unimportant, they are never  members of  a sentence. Their meaning is generalized, contextually dependent.

Heterogeneity

     Parts of speech in traditional interpretation are heterogeneous. Nouns can be distinguished  into those with a  developed paradigm (the plural, the  genitive case,  articles, any function in a sentence), but still there are nouns used  only in the singular or only in the plural, nouns singular in form but plural in combinability( Police are; The New York police is one of the best polices in the world). We find notionals with a developed paradigm, auxiliaries and  modals with a defective paradigm, substitutes (do), link verbs, verbs with a  double syntactic capacity ( Flying can be dangerous; The chicken eats well). Pronouns are heterogeneous: there are pronouns with nounal and  adjectival properties,  etc. Pronouns do not name anything, they only represent. Some pronouns are declinable, but some of them  are indeclinable. They possess properties of both notional and functional words.  According to N. Chomsky,  adverbs are  most heterogeneous.

     Though a greater homogeneity was achieved by Ch. Fries’s classification as  compared with traditional classifications, his  classes of words are still very heterogeneous. Nouns and pronouns are analysed together as they often function in the same way. Substitution is a mechanistic procedure, it can’t be relied upon. There’s much illogical and paradoxical in each class, but each class is communicatively unique and specific. It’s quite natural as a natural language is not a rigid inflexible system. There should be hybrid formations, syncretical phenomena, transitions from class to class.

Field and Periphery

     Some scholars hold that major parts of speech have a field-like structure with the  nucleus and  the  periphery. The nucleus embraces constituents with regular features, that is,  notional words with full paradigms ( the  plural form,  the  singular form, the  genitive case form, the categorical forms of tense, aspect, correlation, voice, mood, etc). The periphery comprises deviated words,  having defective paradigms.

Subcategorization

     The trend among linguists is towards subdivision of major parts of speech. By the method of oppositions and the componential analysis  classes of words are divided into binary groups. Nouns are divided into concrete / concrete/abstract, animate / inanimate, countable / uncountable,  human / nonhuman, person / nonperson,  male/female,etc. Verbs indicate actions, processes, states; each of these classes can be divided into binary groups: concrete / abstract actions, processes, states). By subcategorizing  words  we can improve the Distributional analysis (He reminds me of his father (напоминает отца). He reminds me of his party (напоминает о партии). These are homonymous structures. Semantically they are different, as father is an animate noun (Na), while party is an inanimate noun (Nā).

Onomaseological  approach

     Onomaseology is concerned with the problems of  nomination.  This approach is based on the nominative peculiarities of words. Nominatively, words are divided into the following classes. Identifying words (names) are those which refer to objects  or qualities  they  name. Characterizing ( predicate, qualifying) words  are adjectives, adverbs, verbs. They  have no reference,  they are dependent on  identifying words. On the syntagmatic level they develop the meanings of emotiveness, expressiveness, intensiveness, evaluation. Deictic words (pronouns and adverbs) are  used anaphorically, they represent something. Technical words ( functionals) are prepositions and conjunctions, they are semantically empty.

The Noun

The General Properties of a Noun

     Nouns  constitute the most open class. They have the  meaning of thingness as they denote  substances, beings, phenomena, abstract concepts. Words of other classes can be easily nominalized (substantivized), even  functional words can be nominalized for  the given occasion (There are too many ifs and buts in your answer). Analytical forms can also  be substantivized ( There are too many might-have-beens). Nouns are declinable words: they have inflexions of number and case. They function diversely, even as attributes( He is a  space pilot).

The Category of Gender.

      In Slavic languages it is a full-fledged category which  finds its expression in the  inflexioned feminine,  masculine and  neuter. Inflexions are supported by sound interchange (старик:: старуха).In German it is expressed by articles and suffixes,  in French it is the articles which are the markers of the masculine and the feminine. Gender distinctions in the corresponding languages are illogical.

     In OE gender was a morphological category. In present day English  it is a purely lexico-semantic category, as  there are no grammatical means to express gender  distinctions here. There exists a whole system of lexical and semantic devices to express gender. Word-building processes (derivation, composition) are involved here. Gender distinctions are expressed by compositional models( a he-cat, a she-cat, a tom-cat, a pussy-cat, a he-wolf, a she-wolf, a  man-servant, a lady-driver, etc.), by the derivative model with   the productive  suffix -ess (poetess, huntress, lioness, actress, empress, benefactress, etc. ), by semantic oppositions ( king :: queen, nephew:: niece, husband:: wife, stallion:: mare, etc.), by gender-sensitive pronouns he, she, it (Love is mightier than Philosophy, though He is might. O.Wilde).

     Gender, expressed by gender-sensitive pronouns he, she, it, divides the class of English nouns into non-human (mountain , lake, house, street ), common human (person, child, parent: he is an artist; she is an artist), male human ( man, boy, youth,  husband, father, uncle), female human ( woman, girl, wife, mother, lady, aunt).

     Traditionally  some nouns are referred to as feminine: ships, cars, seas, oceans, the  names of countries and cities( San Francisco was lying on her seven hills).

     Poets and writers are free to ascribe words to any gender ( The soul selects her own society and shuts the door. E. Dickinson. The sun is a huntress young. V.Lindsay). In St.King’s writings we see two moons: a he-moon (a demon-moon) and a she-moon.

     Being a lexico-semantic category,  gender  tends to be grammaticalized. The suffix -ess  seems to be on the way to turning into a regular grammatical  inflexion. We can predict that with the course of time English gender can acquire a new life as a  grammatical category.

The Category of Number

     The category of number is represented by the opposition of  the singular and the plural (table:: tables). Paradigmatically the singular  expresses oneness, the plural expresses  more-than-oneness (multitude, quantity, numerosity). Some scholars believe that the meaning of the  singular form  is that of indiscreteness (нерасчленённость), while    the meaning of the plural form  is that of  discreteness. It is a debated problem as most scholars find the meanings of indiscreteness and discreteness to be  syntagmatic meanings of the plural form.

     Nouns are divided into countables and uncountables. Countable nouns have several ways of building the plural form.  The morpheme of plurality manifests itself in a number of allomorphs( cat:: cats, boy :: boys, brush :: brushes, man :: men, tooth:: teeth, wife:: wives, passer-by:: passers-by, deer :: deer, child :: children, phenomenon::phenomena, datum::data, terminus::termini, etc. ). Words of foreign origin are marked for the singular and the plural( phenomenon :: phenomena), but some of them have got assimilated into English( formula :: formulae – formulas). Uncountable nouns are subdivided according to their meaning and form into  singularia tantum and pluralia tantum. The former are the  words which are outside the sphere of number ( material, collective, abstract nouns). Pluralia tantum nouns indicate more than oneness. There are several varieties of such words: abstract nouns( the beginnings of the world), financial terms ( belongings, savings), objects consisting of two parts(shorts,  trousers, scissors), names of games( billiards, darts), diseases (blues, measles, hysterics), proper and geographical names( The Browns, the Urals, The Apennines, The Alps, etc.).

     The division of nouns  into singularia tantum and pluralia tantum  is justified by meaning, form,  and the combinability of nouns. But meaning and form can be at variance. A noun, singular in form,  can be plural in meaning. In English logical agreement prevails over formal agreement, while in Russian it is quite the opposite. A singular noun, functioning as a subject,  may combine with a plural predicate ( The  police are in the yard. The happy pair were seated opposite each other. The big fish eat the small fish, but the ocean doesn’t care). A plural noun  combines with a singular verb, functioning as a predicate (Physics is a science).

     The distinction into countables and uncountables is relative in English. Countables, contextually, can turn into uncountables and vice versa ( Our cheeses are the best in the world. She has more hair than wit and more faults than hairs. She possessed certain beauties, like her hair). The parallel existence of the words grass – a grass makes some scholars interpret this phenomenon as internal conversion (transition from subclass to  subclass, whereas external conversion  means  transition from class to class: nouns =>verbs, etc.).

     In syntagmatics (contextually) distinctions between the singular form and the plural form can be neutralized when both forms come to designate generalization: I am a poet of the woman the same as the man ( the underlined form represents the generalized singular).

     Along with the paradigmatic meaning of more than oneness the   plural form develops   syntagmatic meanings. In the words tables, behaviours, enthusiasms the morpheme -s is an allomorph of the morpheme of plurality, it’s paradigmatic meaning is that of more than oneness. This meaning remains unchanged in any context ( Different situations require different behaviours). But when this morpheme ( the term morpheme is used roughly here, just for the sake of convenience) is attached to a word in a sentence or a phrase, it can develop additional syntagmatic meanings. It depends on the   context (the immediate environment of the word to which it is attached). It appears along with the paradigmatic meaning which is always preserved in any context. These  additional meanings can be revealed by means of the componential analysis, which is superimposed upon the contextual analysis, and described  in terms of semantic components of discreteness, emotiveness, intensiveness, expressiveness and evaluation (negative or positive) (He was full of attentions to his wife, for a fortnight at least. W. M.Thackeray). In the given sentence we can trace the mechanism of irony: the additional connotative component of negative evaluation in the meaning of the word attentions is in conflict with the positive meaning of this word,  registered in the dictionary.

     We know that when words are combined or juxtaposed there arises between a word and a word, a word and its form  semantic agreement or disagreement. A grammatical metaphor is based on the semantic disagreement of the words combined. Semantic agreement is based on the presence of identical semantic components (semes) in the  words  combined or juxtaposed. Accordingly,  semantic disagreement is based upon the absence of identical semantic components (semes). Semantic disagreement of the words combined or juxtaposed creates a grammatical metaphor (He disliked the enthusiasms of American girls).   The morpheme of plurality and the  word enthusiasm--s have nothing in common,   this word is  beyond the category of number, as it is  uncountable. The additional meanings of emotiveness, intensiveness, expressiveness and evaluation complicate the paradigmatic meaning of “more than oneness” in any artistic text. This syntagnmatic plural is called ”the hyperbolic plural” ( She walks in Beauty, like the night of cloudless climes and starry skies. G.Byron).

     In some instances the  morpheme -s of plurality changes a bit the semantic meaning of the  word it is attached to, so this inflexion is on the way to becoming a suffix { How does  Russian colours look like? (=flag)}.