An analysis of the pronouns based on more formal considerations can only corroborate the suggested approach proceeding from the principle of functional evaluation. In fact, what is traditionally accepted as case-forms of the pronouns are not the regular forms of productive morphological change implied by the very idea of case declension, but individual forms sustained by suppletivity and given to the speaker as a ready-made set. The set is naturally completed by the possessive forms of pronouns, so that actually we are faced with a lexical paradigmatic series of four subsets of personal pronouns, to which the relative who is also added: I - me - my - mine, you - you - your - yours, ... who - whom - whose – whose. Whichever of the former case correlations are still traceable in this system (as, for example, in the subseries he - him - his), they exist as mere relicts, i.e. as a putrified evidence of the old productive system that has long ceased to function in the morphology of English.
Thus, what should finally be meant by the suggested terminological name "particle case" in English, is that the former system of the English inflexional declension has completely and irrevocably disintegrated, both in the sphere of nouns and their substitute pronouns; in its place a new, limited case system has arisen based on a particle oppositional feature and subsidiary to the prepositional expression of the syntactic relations of the noun.
§ 1. Article is a determining unit of specific nature accompanying the noun in communicative collocation. Its special character is clearly seen against the background of determining words of half-notional semantics. Whereas the function of the determiners such as this, any, some is to explicitly interpret the referent of the noun in relation to other objects or phenomena of a like kind, the semantic purpose of the article is to specify the nounal referent, as it were, altogether unostentatiously, to define it in the most general way, without any explicitly expressed contrasts.
This becomes obvious when we take the simplest examples ready at hand. Cf:.
Will you give me this pen, Willy? (I.e. the pen that I am pointing out, not one of your choice.) -Will you give me the pen, please? (I.e. simply the pen from the desk, you understand which.) Any blade will do, I only want it for scratching out the wrong word from the type-script. (I.e. any blade of the stock, however blunt it may be.) - Have you got something sharp? I need a penknife or a blade. (I.e. simply a blade, if not a knife, without additional implications.) Some woman called in your absence, she didn't give her name. (I.e. a woman strange to me.) - A woman called while you were out, she left a message. (I.e. simply a woman, without a further connotation.)
Another peculiarity of the article, as different from the determiners in question, is that, in the absence of a determiner, the use of the article with the noun is quite obligatory, in so far as the cases of non-use of the article are subject to no less definite rules than the use of it.
Taking into consideration these peculiar features of the article, the linguist is called upon to make a sound statement about its segmental status in the system of morphology. Namely, his task is to decide whether the article is a purely auxiliary element of a special grammatical form of the noun which functions as a component of a definite morphological category, or it is a separate word, i.e. a lexical unit in the determiner word set, if of a more abstract meaning than other determiners.
The problem is a vexed one; it has inspired intensive research activity in the field, as well as animated discussion with various pros and cons affirmed, refuted and re-affirmed.* In the course of these investigations, however, many positive facts about articles have been established, which at present enables an observer, proceeding from the systemic principle in its paradigmatic interpretation, to expose the status of the article with an attempt at demonstrative conviction.
* Different aspects of the discussion about the English articleare very well shown by В A Ilyish in the cited book (p 49 ff.).
To arrive at a definite decision, we propose to consider the properties of the English articles at four successive stages, beginning with their semantic evaluation as such, then adding to the obtained data a situational estimation of their uses, thereafter analysing their categorial features in the light of the oppositional theory, and finally concluding the investigation by a paradigmatic generalization.
§ 2. A mere semantic observation of the articles in English, i.e. the definite article the and the indefinite article a/an, at once discloses not two but three meaningful characterizations of the nounal referent achieved by their correlative functioning, namely: one rendered by the definite article, one rendered by the indefinite article, and one rendered by the absence (or non-use) of the article. Let us examine them separately.
The definite article expresses the identification or individualization of the referent of the noun: the use of this article shows that the object denoted is taken in its concrete, individual quality. This meaning can be brought to explicit exposition by a substitution test. The test consists in replacing the article used in a construction by a demonstrative word, e.g. a demonstrative determiner, without causing a principal change in the general implication of the construction. Of course, such an "equivalent" substitution should be understood in fact as nothing else but analogy: the difference in meaning between a determiner and an article admits of no argument, and we pointed it out in the above passages. Still, the replacements of words as a special diagnostic procedure, which is applied with the necessary reservations and according to a planned scheme of research, is quite permissible. In our case it undoubtedly shows a direct relationship in the meanings of the determiner and the article, the relationship in which the determiner is semantically the more explicit element of the two. Cf.:
But look at the apple-tree! → But look at this apple-tree! The town lay still in the Indian summer sun. →That town lay still in the Indian summer sun. The water is horribly hot. →This water is horribly hot. It's the girls who are to blame. → It's those girls who are to blame.
The justification of the applied substitution, as well as its explanatory character, may be proved by a counter-test, namely, bythechange of the definite article into the indefinite article, or by omitting the article altogether. The replacement either produces a radical, i.e. "non-equivalent" shift in the meaning of the construction, or else results in a grammatically unacceptable construction. Cf.: ...→ Look at an apple-tree! → 'Look at apple-tree! ... →'A water is horribly hot. → 'Water is horribly hot.
The indefinite article, as different from the definite article, is commonly interpreted as referring the object denoted by the noun to a certain class of similar objects; in other words, the indefinite article expresses a classifying generalization of the nounal referent, or lakes it in a relatively general sense. To prove its relatively generalizing functional meaning, we may use the diagnostic insertions of specifying-classilying phrases into the construction in question; we may also employ the transformation of implicit comparative constructions with the indefinite article into the corresponding explicit comparative constructions. Cf.:
We passed a water-mill. → We passed a certain water-mill. It is a very young country, isn't it? → It is a very young kind of country, isn't it? What an arrangement! → What sort of arrangement! This child is a positive nightmare. → This child is positively like a nightmare.
The procedure of a classifying contrast employed in practical textbooks exposes the generalizing nature of the indefinite article most clearly in many cases of its use. E.g.:
A door opened in the wall. →A door (not a window) opened in the wall. We saw a flower under the bush. → We saw a flower (not a strawberry) under the bush.
As for the various uses of nouns without an article, from the semantic point of view they all should be divided into two types. In the first place, there are uses where the articles are deliberately omitted out of stylistical considerations. We see such uses, for instance, in telegraphic speech, in titles and headlines, in various notices. E.g.:
Telegram received room reserved for week-end. (The text of a telegram.) Conference adjourned until further notice. (The text of an announcement.) Big red bus rushes food to strikers. (The title of a newspaper article.)
The purposeful elliptical omission of the article in cases like that is quite obvious, and the omitted articles may easily be restored in the constructions in the simplest "back-directed" refilling procedures. Cf.:
... →The telegram is received, a room is reserved for the weekend. ...→The conference is adjourned until further notice. ... →A big red bus rushes food to the strikers.
Alongside free elliptical constructions, there are cases of the semantically unspecified non-use of the article in various combinations of fixed type, such as prepositional phrases (on fire, at hand, in debt, etc.), fixed verbal collocations (take place, make use, cast anchor, etc.), descriptive coordinative groups and repetition groups (man and wife, dog and gun, day by day, etc.), and the like. These cases of traditionally fixed absence of the article are quite similar to the cases of traditionally fixed uses of both indefinite and definite articles (cf.: in a hurry, at a loss, have a look, give a start, etc.; in the main, out of the question, on the look-out, etc.).
Outside the elliptical constructions and fixed uses, however, we know a really semantic absence of the article with the noun. It is this semantic absence of the article that stands in immediate meaningful correlation with the definite and indefinite articles as such.
As is widely acknowledged, the meaningful non-uses of the article are not homogeneous; nevertheless, they admit of a very explicit classification founded on the countability characteristics of the noun. Why countability characteristics? For the two reasons. The first reason is inherent in the nature of the noun itself: the abstract generalization reflected through the meaningful non-use of the article is connected with the suppression of the idea of the number in the noun. The second reason is inherent in the nature of the article: the .indefinite article which plays the crucial role in the semantic correlation in question reveals the meaning of oneness within its semantic base, having originated from the indefinite pronoun one, and that is why the abstract use of the noun naturally goes with the absence of the article.
The essential points of the said classification are three in number.
First. The meaningful absence of the article before the countable noun in the singular signifies that the noun is taken in an abstract sense, expressing the most general idea of the object denoted. This meaning, which may be called the meaning of "absolute generalization", can be demonstrated by inserting in the tested construction a chosen generalizing modifier (such as in general, in the abstract, in the broadest sense). Cf:.
Law (in general) begins with the beginning of human society. Steam-engine (in general) introduced for locomotion a couple of centuries ago has now become obsolete.
Second. The absence of the article before the uncountable noun corresponds to the two kinds of generalization: both relative and absolute. To decide which of the two meanings is realized in any particular case, the described tests should be carried out alternately. Cf.:
John laughed with great bitterness (that sort of bitterness-relative generalization). The subject of health (in general - absolute generalization) was carefully avoided by everybody. Coffee (a kind of beverage served at the table-relative generalization) or tea, please? Coffee (in general-absolute generalization) stimulates the function of the heart.
Third. The absence of the article before the countable noun in the plural, likewise, corresponds to both kinds of generalization, and the exposition of the meaning in each case can be achieved by the same semantic tests. Cf:.
Stars, planets and comets (these kinds of objects: relative generalization) are different celestial bodies (not terrestrial bodies: relative generalization). Wars (in general: absolute generalization) should be eliminated as means of deciding international disputes.
To distinguish the demonstrated semantic functions of the nonuses of the article by definition, we may say that the absence of the article with uncountable nouns, as well as with countable nouns in the plural, renders the meaning of "uncharacterized generalization", as different from the meaning of "absolute generalization", achieved by the absence of the article with countable nouns in the singular.
So much for the semantic evaluation of the articles as the first stage of our study.
§ 3. Passing to the situational assessment of the article uses, we must point out that the basic principle of their differentiation here is not a direct consideration of their meanings, but disclosing the informational characteristics that the article conveys to its noun in concrete contextual conditions. Examined from this angle, the definite article serves as an indicator of the type of nounal information which is presented as the "facts already known", i.e. as the starting point of the communication. In contrast to this, the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the article introduces the central communicative nounal part of the sentence, i.e. the part rendering the immediate informative data to be conveyed from the speaker to the listener. In the situational study of syntax (see Ch. XXII) the starting point of the communication is called its "theme", while the central informative part is called its "rheme".
In accord with the said situational functions, the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by the definite article is the "thematic" subject, while the typical syntactic position of the noun modified by the indefinite article or by the meaningful absence of the article is the "rhematic" predicative. Cf.:
The day (subject) was drawing to a close, the busy noises of the city (subject) were dying down. How to handle the situation was a big question (predicative). The sky was pure gold (predicative) above the setting sun.
It should be noted that in many other cases of syntactic use, i.e. non-subjective or non-predicative, the articles reflect the same situational functions. This can be probed by reducing the constructions in question on re-arrangement lines to the logically "canonized" link-type constructions. Cf:.
If you would care to verfy the incident (object), pray do so. → If you would care the incident (subject) to be verified, pray have it verified. I am going to make a rather strange request (object) to you. → What I am going to make is a rather strange request (predicative) to you. You are talking nonsense (object), lad. → What you are talking, lad, is nonsense (predicative).
Another essential contextual-situational characteristic of the articles is their immediate connection with the two types of attributes to the noun. The first type is a "limiting" attribute, which requires the definite article before the noun; the second type. is a "descriptive" attribute, which requires the indefinite article or the meaningful absence of the article before the noun. Cf:.