Филологические науки/ 3.Теоретические и методологические проблемы  исследования языка

O. S. Demianchuk

Bukovinian State Medical University, Ukraine

Modern approaches to the classification of particles in English language

V. N. Zhygadlo defined particles as uninflected words, clarifying the meaning of other words giving modal or emotionally expressive shades to different words or groups of words [3: 213]. This definition is identical to the definition of N. A. Kobrina: "A particle – is a part of the language, but its meaning is difficult to determine. It stresses or restricts the meaning of another word, phrase or sentence. Particles are uninflected and do not perform any syntactic function in a sentence. They form a coherent whole with the part of a sentence to which they belong (a word or a phrase) [4: 282]".

In modern English grammar, there are quite a large number of classifications of particles. Various classifications of particles appeared from the different views on their main functions. Some scientists point out the emotional meaning, some – logical relations and consider them as the most important for identification, others attach the grammatical meaning. This confusion can be observed partially due to the old tradition, which refers particles morphologically uninflected functional words [1: 171].

As a rule, man can find the following groups of particles in grammar books:

1) restrictive (even, else, only);

2) modal (never, hardly, scarcely);

3) emotional (but, just, simply, still);

4) grammatical (not, to) [1: 170].

This classification is controversial. Grammatical particles are distinguished rather on the base of grammar than on semantic relations. Within the morphological form, "grammar" particles perform the function of indicators and therefore can’t be analyzed independently [1: 170].

M. A. Beliaieva and I. P. Masiuchenko differentiate particles by their meanings to the following groups, for example:

1) excretory and restrictive: even, only, merely, just, alone;
2) reinforcing: even, yet, still, just, simply, never;
3) clarifying: just, right, exactly, precisely [2: 70-73; 5: 256-257].

Given classification implies that one and the same particle can have different meanings and can be included into different groups.

Functional and semantic classification of particles is rather complicated. Traditionally there are emphatically restrictive and identifying particles. But the particles just, for example, can perform all three functions. For example:

(1) It was just a joke.
(2) It is just scandalous.
(3) It is just what I want.

V. N. Zhygadlo identifies four groups of particles due to the shades of meaning:

1) particles, specifying connotations of meaning in the language; to this group
belong:

a) restrictive: only and others;

b) excretory and reinforcing even;

c) clarifying: exactly, etc .;

d) additive particle else;

2) modal particles:

a) negative particle not;

b) negative and reinforcing particles never, not;

3) particles, which make the speech more emotional and expressive: simply, etc.;

4) particle, which perform the formative function: to.

N. A. Kobrina divides particles into six groups according to their meanings:
1) reinforcing particles: all, still, yet. They emphasize the meaning of words (phrases or sentences) which include profitable or provide specific meaning of a notion. These particles generally enhance the comparative degree of adjectives. For example:
They even offered him higher wages.

We had yet another discussion.

Play it yet more softly [4: 285].

2) restrictive particles: only, merely, solely, barely, but, alone. They distinguish a word or a phrase to which they refer or restrict the meaning (notion).
I only wanted to ask you the time.

She is still but a child.

Just, merely, simply are used at the beginning of imperative sentences.
You do not have to be present. Just (merely, simply) send a letter of explanation [4: 285].

3) demonstrative particles: right, exactly, precisely, just. They make the meaning of a word or a phrase more precise.

The room looks exactly as it did when I was here last year.

What exactly do you mean [4: 285]?

4) additive particle else. It is combined with the indefinite, interrogative and negative pronouns, and interrogative adverbs. It indicates a word to which concerns and points out the additive meaning to what has been said.

Something else, nobody else, what else, where else [4: 285].

5) negative particle not.

Not a word was said about it.

Do you want to go? - Not me [4: 286]!

6) copulative particles: also, too, which can function as conjunctions.
Were you at the film? - I was also there.

I went there too [4: 286].

In the 1980s again the question of particles became interesting for researches. Only then the main function of particles was revised. Particles were pursued to express assumptions. This idea was acceptable when the linguists’ attention was drawn to the text with its additional and hidden meanings.

The structure of the particles is not restricted by their size. For example, some linguists have begun to distinguish additive particles (equally, likewise, similarly, etc.), particles of time (already, at last, any longer, so far, still, yet), maximum definite particles (chiefly, especially, essentially, in particular, largely, mainly, notably), and others. These words are defined as particles and retain the characteristics of adverbs – semantic, syntactic and morphological. To some extent the words equally, likewise, similarly can be like particles too, either and also, but they differ because of the level of abstraction and syntactic functions. There is more confusion with the particles of time than with the other groups of particles.

In addition, sometimes particles can be defined as “semantic and grammatical connectors, which combine some of the components of expression and transform it into the semantic and grammatical unity”, it is not surprising, that so-called “discourse markers” (after all, similarly, especially, etc.) were defined as particles [1: 171].

Semantic classification of particles appeared according to the new researches:
1) additive (also, either, even, neither, too), which relate the main component of its complement on the basis of similarity, for example: Jack was not prepared to deliver the report. Linda was not at her best at the meeting either [1: 173].

2) restrictive (alone, barely, hardly, just, merely, only, solely, scarcely, simply), that distinguish the main component of the additional one on the basis of some specific properties, for example: Henry just tried to help! He did not mean to pry into your private life [1: 173]!

3) adversative (but, still, though, yet), that point the contrast between the main component as unexpected, paradoxical meaning, which is the result of the previous additional situation, such as: “I can not see anything in the letter of great interest!”
“Yet there is one point that struck me at once” [1: 174].

4) adversative and negative (never), indicating clearly the contrast between expectations, promises, planned actions, desires and reality, for example: He promised to come back next day but he never did [1: 174].

Semantic division of particles has been made by G. G. Pocheptsov and it is rather wobbly, and in most cases some subtypes are overlap. Thus, clarifying particles even, just and restrictive particle only convey other shades of meaning; still particles exactly, only, solely, barely, merely, alone can be considered as restrictive, exactly, precisely, just, right – as clarifying, but the particles which convey emotional shades, are meaningful and often it is difficult to separate them from adverbs. To this particles G. G. Pocheptsov refers yet, still, simply, only, quite, indeed, well and the [6: 96-97].

Some particles are meaningful and therefore are included into different groups. Native and foreign classifications of particles are in common, according to researchers’ views, particles realize their meanings in adding, restriction and clarification.

REFERENCES:

1. Алєксєєва І. О. Курс теоретичної граматики сучасної англійської мови: навчальний посібник/ І. О. Алєксєєва. – Вінниця: Нова Книга, 2007. – 328 с.

2. Беляева М. А. Грамматика английского язика / М. А. Беляева. – М.: Высшая школа, 1984. – 333 с.

3. Жигадло В. Н., Иванова И. П., Иофик Л. Л. Современный английский язык: Теоретический курс грамматики / В. Н. Жигадло, И. П. Иванова, Л. Л. Иофик. – М.: Литература на иностранных языках, 1956.

4. Кобрина Н. А. Грамматика английского языка: Морфология. Синтаксис. Учебное пособие для студентов педагогических институтов и университетов / Н. А. Кобрина, Е. А. Корнеева, М. И. Оссовская, К. А. Гузеева. – СПб., СОЮЗ, 1999. – 496 с.

5. Масюченко И. П. 222 современного правила англиского языка / И. П. Масюченко. – М.: ЗАО «БАО-ПРЕСС», 2004. – 448 с.

6. Почепцов Г. Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка / Г. Г. Почепцов, И. П. Иванова, В. В. Бурлакова. – М.: Высшая школа, 1981. – 287 с.