Курсовая работа: Comparison of nouns in English and Russian languages
Grammarians seem to be divided in their opinion as to the case-system of English nouns. Open to thought and questioning, this problem has always been much debated. The most common view on the subject is that nouns have only two cases: a common case and a genitive or possessive case.[21, p 69] The common case is characterised by a zero suffix (child, boy, girl, student), the possessive case by the inflection [-z] and its phonetic variants [-s], [-iz], in spelling -'s. The uses of the genitive are known to be specific, those of the common case general. In terms of modern linguistics, we can therefore say that both formally and functionally, (he common case is unmarked and the genitive marked.
There are grammarians, O. Curme and M. Deutschbein,for instance, who recognise four cases making reference to nominative, genitive, dative and accusative: the genitive can be expressed by the -'s-inflection and by the of-phrase, the dative by the preposition to and by word-order, and the accusative by word order alone. E.Sonnensсhein insists that English has a vocative case since we may propose an interjection oh before a name. [3p. 35]
It is to be noted that the choice between the two opposite viewpoints as to the category of case in English remains a matter of linguistic approach. From the viewpoint of inflectional morphology the inadequacy of "prepositional declension" is obvious. Using Latin categories which have no relevance for English involves inventing distinctions for English and ignoring the distinctions that English makes.
The meaning of "accusative" in a two-term system nominative — accusative, for instance, is different from the meaning of "accusative" in a four- or five-term system. The term "common case" seems therefore more justified than "the accusative". If we call him an "accusative" in expressions like Iobey him, I am like him, It was on him, the term "accusative" may actually hinder when we translate into another language which has an accusative along with several other cases and in which the word for obey takes the dative, the word for like the genitive and the word on ablative, as they do in Latin.
"Of course, the morphological opposition nominative — accusative must be expressedby something in English. But this "something" is not a morphological opposition, for there is no morphological differentiation between the nominative and the accusative of nouns". [3, 86]
We must not, of course, look at English through the lattice of categories set up in Latin grammar. The extent to which one can remain unconvinced that English has a grammar like Latin is probably the basis of the faulty viewpoint that English has no grammar at all.
Latin distinguishes subject, direct object, indirect object by case-differences (differences in the inflexion of the word) and arrangement is not very important. English also distinguishes subject, direct object, and indirect object, but it does so largely by arrangement, e. g.:
The pupil handed the teacher his exercise.
He bought his little girl many nice toys. [3,89]
With all this, it can hardly be denied that there exist in Modern English prepositional structures denoting exactly the same grammatical relation as, say, the possessive case inflection or word order distinguishing the accusative from the dative. These are the so-called "of-phrase" and "to-phrase", in which the prepositions of and to function as grammatical indicators of purely abstract syntactic relations identical with those expressed by cases. The grammatical analysis of such phrases for their frequency, variety and adaptation must, surely, go parallel with the study of the morphological category of case which in present-day English is known to have developed quite a specific character.
The analytical character of some prepositional phrases in Russian is described by V. V. Vіnоgradоv: "В русском литературном языке с XVII—XVIII вв. протекает медленный, но глубокий процесс синтаксических изменений в системе падежных отношений. Функции многих падежей осложняются и дифференцируются сочетаниями с предлогами. Все ярче обнаруживается внутреннее расслоение в семантической системе предлогов. В то время как одни простые предлоги: для, до, перед, при, под, кроме, сквозь, через, между, а тем более предлоги наречного типа: близ, среди, мимо и т. п. — почти целиком сохраняют свои реальные лексические значения, другие предлоги: а, за, из, в, на, отчасти, над, от, по, про, с, у — в отдельных сферах своего употребления, иные в меньшей степени, иные вплоть до полного превращения в падежные префиксы, ослабляют свои лексические значения, а иногда почти совсем теряют их" [16, pp. 695—700]
It is important to remember that the grammatical content of the possessive case is rather complex. Besides implying possession in the strict sense of the term, it is widely current in other functions.
Compare such patterns, as:
a) my sister's room (genitive of → the room of my sisterpossession)
b) my sister's arrival (subjective → the arrival of my sistergenitive)
c) the criminal's arrest (objective → the arrest of the criminalgenitive)
d) a child's language (qualitative → the childish language a woman's college genitive) → a college for women
e) a month's rent (genitive of →a monthly rent
f)three hours' delay / measure) → a delay for three hours
The same is true of such uses as wife's duty, child's psychology, lawyer's life, man's duty, etc. The genitive of measure or extent is easily recognised as fairly common in expressions of acertain pattern, e. g.: a moment's silence, a day's work, a minute's reflection, to a hair's breadth, etc.
There is no formal difference between subjective and objective genitive, between genitives denoting possession and qualitative genitives, but this kind of ambiguity is usually well clarified by linguistic or situational context. Thus, mother's care may mean "Любовматери" —with reference to some individual, and "материнська любов" in its general qualitative sense. The meaning of the phrase may vary with the context.
The genitive inflection is also used with certain words which otherwise do not conform to noun patterning, as in yesterday's rain, to-day's match, to-morrow's engagement. These are not idioms, with their total lexical meaning fixed, but only fixed patterns or usage.
Limits of space do not permit to take notice of all idiomatic patterns established in this part of English grammar. A few further examples will suffice for illustration. These are, for instance: I'm friends with you, where friends is probably part of the indivisible idiom "be friends with" + + noun/pronoun, used predicatively.
Patterns with "of +genitive" usually have a portative sense denoting "one of", e. g.: Itis a novel of J. London’s (=one of his novels). Cf. It is a novel by J. London. (=a novel written by J. London).
Similarly: Fleur's a cousin of ours, Jon. [3, p.83]
In expressive language this form may become purely descriptive. Endowed with emotive functions in special linguistic or situational context it may weaken its grammatical meaning and acquire subjective modal force denoting admiration, anger, praise, displeasure, etc., e. g.: Margaret ... was taken by surprise by certain moods of her husband's. [2, 37]
The -'s inflection offers some peculiar difficulties of grammatical analysis in idiomatic patterns with the so-called group-genitives, e. g.: Mr. what's-his-name's remark, or He said it in plenty of people's hearing.
There are also patterns like "the man I saw yesterday's son" quoted by H. Sweet. One more example.
The blonde I had been dancing with's name was Bernice something Crabs or Krebs. [2,p. 95]