The definition of pronouns as a separate part of speech has caused many difficulties. More than once in the history of linguistics the very existence of pronouns as a part of speech has been denied. However, attempts of this kind have not proved successful and in present-day grammars, both English and Russian, pronouns are recognized as a part of speech.

Thus, the pronouns I, you, he, etc., though pointing to things (in the widest sense of the word) and in so far resembling nouns, cannot as a rule be modified by adjectives. (Phrases like poor me appear to be rare.) These pronouns differ from nouns in that they cannot be connected with any article, or modified by a prepositional phrase, etc.

We usually find in grammars a classification of pronouns into personal, possessive, interrogative, indefinite, relative, reciprocal, reflexive, demonstrative, conjunctive, defining, negative.

In dealing with the category of case in pronouns, we must bear in mind that they need not in this respect be similar to nouns. Some of them may, and indeed do, have peculiarities which no noun shares.

Some pronouns distinguish between two cases which are best termed nominative and objective (instead of nominative we might also say subjective). These are the following:

Nomin. I, he she (it) we (you) they who

 Obj.   me him her (it) us (you) them whom

The two pronouns in brackets, it and you, might have been left out of the list. We have included them because they share many other peculiarities with the pronouns I, he, she, we, and they. No other pronoun, and, indeed, no other word in the language has that kind of case system.

A certain number of pronouns have a different case system, viz. they distinguish between a common and a genitive case. These are, somebody, anybody, one, another, and a few more.

All other pronouns have no category of case (something, anything, nothing, everything, some, any, no, my, his, etc.; mine, hers, etc.).

The case system in pronouns of the somebody type is identical with that of the nouns of the father type. The case system of the pronouns is quite isolated in the language, and requires special investigation.

It is very well known that the form me, which is an objective case form, is not only used in the function of object (direct or indirect), but also as predicative, in sentences like It is me. The sentence It is I, though still possible, is rarely used: it has acquired a kind of archaic flavour as its stylistic peculiarity and has there­in become inappropriate in colloquial speech. However, in the construction it is... who the form I  is usual: "It's I who am tiresome," he replied. (FORSTER) As to the other pronouns of this group, the sentences It is him, It is her, It is us, It is them, with the objective case form used as a predicative, do occur, but they seem still to have a somewhat careless or "low colloquial" colouring. Here is an example: No, I don't suppose it will prove to be them. (FORSTER) The form me can occasionally be found in the function of sub­ject, provided it does not immediately precede the predicate verb, in the sentence: That's the law of the state, Ham, and there's no me or you can do about it. (E. CALDWELL) The form me could not have been used here if there had not been the second object you in the sentence. This confirms the view that stress plays an important part in determining the use of I or me in such condi­tions. The form her as subject is found, for instance, in the fol­lowing sentence from a short story by the same author. Lujean's the likable kind. You and her will get along just fine before you know it. (E. CALDWELL) It should be noted, however, that the form her is possible here because it is part of the group you and her, and therefore gets some sentence-stress. If a feminine pronoun were to be the only subject of the sentence, the form would have to be she, no matter what the style of the sentence was.

Opinions on the precise stylistic colouring of such sentences differ to some extent. What seems certain here is that the nomina­tive forms I, he, etc. are being gradually restricted to the function of subject, whereas the objective case forms me, him, etc., are taking over all other functions.

With the pronoun who the development is partly similar, and partly different. It is similar in the main point: the case difference between who and whom is quite obviously disappearing. But here it is the original objective case form that is giving way, and it is no longer preserved in any specific syntactic function. Thus, the sen­tence whom did you see?, is being superseded by the variant, who did you see?, and, similarly, who tends to take the place of whom in such sentences as, This is the man who(m) you wanted to see.

Thus the general tendency is clearly towards the disappearance of the opposition between nominative and objective in pronouns.

It will be easily seen that the category of number has only a very restricted field in pronouns. It is found in the pronouns this / these, that / those, other / others (if not used before a noun). We need not dwell here on the very peculiar means which are used to form the plural of this, and of that. The question is one of the history of English, rather than of Modern English structure.

As to the pronouns I / we; he, she, it / they, it must be stated that there is no grammatical category of number here. We is not a form of the pronoun I, but a separate word in its own right. In a similar way, they is not a form of he, or she, or it, or of all of them, but a separate word.

There is no grammatical category of number either in the pro­nouns my / our; his, her, its / their, and mine / ours; his, hers / theirs. E. g., her and their are different words, not different forms of one word.

A peculiar difficulty arises here with reference to the pronouns myself / (ourself), ourselves; yourself / yourselves; himself, herself, itself / themselves.

If we compare the two pronouns myself and ourselves, we shall see at once that the difference between the first elements of the two words is purely lexical (just as in the corresponding words my and our), whereas the second elements differ from each other by the same suffix -s that is used to form the plural of most nouns. Thus we are brought to the conclusion that ourselves is essentially a different word from myself.

There are no other grammatical categories in the English pro­noun: there is no category of gender. The pronouns he, she, it, and also the pronouns his, her, its; his, hers; himself, herself, itself, are all separate words. Thus, she is not a form of the word he but a separate word in its own right.

The numeral

With numerals, even more than with pronouns, it is difficult to keep the strictly grammatical approach and not to let oneself be diverted into lexicological considerations. O. Jespersen has quite rightly remarked that numerals have been treated by grammarians in a different way from other parts of speech. This is what he says, "...the grammarian in this chapter on numerals does what he never dreamed of doing in the two previous chapters (those on nouns and adjectives), he gives a complete and orderly enumeration of all the words belonging to this class."

There are no grammatical categories to be discussed in nu­merals. There is no category of number, nor of case, nor any other morphological category. The numerals are, to all intents and pur­poses, invariable. So there is only the function of numerals to be considered, and also possibilities of their substantivization.

The most characteristic function of numerals is of course that of an attribute preceding its noun. However a numeral can also perform other functions in the sentence (it can be subject, predica­tive, and object) if the context makes it clear what objects are meant, as in: We are seven, Of the seven people I was looking for I found only three.

An ordinal numeral can also be modified by an infinitive de­noting the action in which the object mentioned occupies a definite place; a characteristic example of this usage is, He was the first to come. The numerals, both cardinal and ordinal, share certain peculia­rities of syntactic construction with pronouns. Cf., e. g., five chil­dren, five of the children, five of them; some children, some of the children, some of them; also the first travellers, the first of the travellers, the first of them. This, however, does not seem a suffi­cient reason for uniting pronouns and numerals into one part of speech, and such a union has not so far been proposed.

Functional words

Prepositions. The problem of prepositions has caused very
heated discussions, especially in the last few years. Both the mean­ing and the syntactical functions of prepositions have been the subject of controversy.

1) Meaning. The meaning of prepositions is obviously that of relations between things and phenomena.Form. Prepositions are invariable.

2) Function, (a) Prepositions enter into phrases in which they are preceded by a noun, adjective, numeral, stative, verb or adverb, and followed by a noun, adjective, numeral or pronoun, (b) In a sentence a preposition never is a separate part of it. It goes together with the following word to form an object, adverbial modifier, pre­dicative or attribute, and in extremely rare cases a subject (There were about a hundred people in the hall).

Conjunctions. The problem of conjunctions is of the same
order as that of prepositions, but it has attracted less attention.
Meaning. Conjunctions express connections between things and phenomena.

(1) Form. Conjunctions are invariable.

(2) Function, (a) They connect any two words, phrases or clauses, (b) In a sentence, conjunctions are never a special part of it. They either connect homogeneous parts of a sentence or homoge­neous clauses (the so-called co-ordinating conjunctions), or they join a subordinate clause to its head clause (the so-called subordi­nating conjunctions).

A further remark is necessary here. We have said that prepo­sitions express relations between phenomena, and conjunctions express connections between them. It must be acknowledged that the two notions, relations and connections, are somewhat hard to distinguish. This is confirmed by the well-known fact that phrases of one and the other kind may be more or less synonymous: cf., e. g., an old man and his son and an old man with his son. It is also confirmed by the fact that in some cases a preposition and a con­junction may be identical in sound and have the same meaning (e. g. before introducing a noun and before introducing a subordi­nate clause; the same about after). Since it is hard to distinguish between prepositions and conjunctions as far as meaning goes, and morphologically they are both invariable, the only palpable differ­ence between them appears to be their syntactical function. It may be reasonably doubted whether this is a sufficient basis for consid­ering them to be separate parts of speech. It might be argued that prepositions and conjunctions make up a single part of speech, with subdivisions based on the difference of syntactical functions. Such a view would go some way toward solving the awkward problem of homonymy with reference to such words as before, after, since, and the like. However, since this is an issue for further considera­tion, we will, for the time being, stick to the traditional view of prepositions and conjunctions as separate parts of speech.

Particles. By particles we mean such word as only, solely,
exclusively, even (even old people came), just (just turn the handie), etc. These were traditionally classed with adverbs, from which they, however, differ in more than one respect.

(1) Meaning. The meaning of particles is very hard to define. We might say, approximately, that they denote subjective shades of meaning introduced by the speaker or writer and serving to emphasize or limit some point in what he says.

(2) Form. Particles are invariable.

(3) Function, (a) Particles may combine with practically every part of speech, more usually preceding it (only three), but occa­sionally following it (for advanced students only), (b) Particles nev­er are a separate part of a sentence. They enter the part of the sentence formed by the word (or phrase) to which they refer. (It might also be argued that particles do not belong to any part of a sentence.)

Modal words. Modal words have only recently been sepa­rated from adverbs, with which they were traditionally taken to­gether. By modal words we mean such words as perhaps, possibly, certainly.

(1) Meaning. Modal words express the speaker's evaluation of the relation between an action and reality.

(2) Form. Modal words are invariable.

(3) Function, (a) Modal words usually do not enter any phrases but stand outside them. In a few cases, however, they may enter into a phrase with a noun, adjective, etc. (he will arrive soon, possibly to-night), (b) The function of modal words in a sentence is a matter of controversy. Modal words may also be a sentence in themselves.

Interjections.

(1) Meaning. Interjections express feelings (ah, alas). They are not names of feelings but the immediate expression of them. Some interjections represent noises, etc., with a strong emotional colouring (bang!).

(2) Form. Interjections are invariable.

(3) Function, (a) Interjections usually do not enter into phrases. Only in a few cases do they combine with a preposition and noun or pronoun, e. g. alas for him! (b) In a sentence an inter­jection forms a kind of parenthesis. An interjection may also be a sentence in itself, e. g. Alas! as an answer to a question.

Some modern linguists prefer to avoid this traditional grouping and terminology and to establish a classification of types of words based entirely on their morphological characteristics and on their ability (or inability) to enter into phrases with other words of different types. Thus, for instance the words and and or will fall under one class while the words because and whether will fall under another class.

Thus, these classes are not denoted by special terms, such as "noun" or "adjective"; instead they are given numbers; thus, the words concert and necessity would belong to class 1, the words seem and feel to class 2, etc. Without even going into details, it is easy to see that the number of such classes is bound to be greater than that of the usual parts of speech. For instance, in the classification pro­posed by С.С. Fries there are no less than 19 classes of words.

It must be recognized that classifications based on these prin­ciples yield more exact results than the traditional ones, but the system thus obtained proves to be unwieldy and certainly unfit for practical language teaching. Whether it can be so modified as to be exact and easily grasped at the same time remains to be seen.

References

1. Bloch M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar. - M., 2000. – p.6-26

2. Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики – М., 2000

3. Iofik L.L., Chakhoyan L.P. Readings in the theory of English Grammar

Chapter 2

SYNTAX