The category of case of the English noun.
boy – boy’s boys – boys’
Approaches to the category of case in English:
English has 2 cases (the limited case theory).
The number of cases in English is more than 2 (the theory of positional cases, the theory of prepositional cases).
There are no cases at all with English nouns.
These approaches are possible due to a difference in the interpretation of case as a grammatical category.
It is based on explicit oppositional approach to the recognition of grammatical categories. H.Sweet, O.Jespersen, Prof. Smirnitski, Prof. Ilyish: Case is a category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things and properties, or actions, and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself (an inflexion or a zero sign). Case can’t be expressed by the phrase preposition+noun or by word order.
Prof.Blokh: Case is an immanent morphological category of the noun manifested in the forms of noun declension and showing the relations of the nounal referent to other objects and phenomena. It is a morphological-declensional form. So, this is the traditional grammar approach.
The theory of positional cases (Nesfield, Deutschbein, Bryant): the unchangeable forms of the noun are differentiated as different cases due to the functional positions occupied by the noun in the sentence.
e.g. Мать(Им.) видит дочь(Вин.). Дочь (Им.) видит мать(Вин.).
e.g. The mother bought her boy a coat: mother – the Nominative case, boy – Dative, coat – Accusative.
e.g. The mother bought a/the coat for her boy: boy – Dative.
Thus, the English noun would distinguish, besides the inflexional Genitive case, also purely positional cases: Nominative, Vocative, Dative and Accusative. The number of cases can be reduced to 3 (M.Bryant): Nominative, Genitive and Objective in accordance with pronouns I – me.
1) Nominative - Bill died.
2) Accusative – John killed Bill.
3) Dative – John gave the book to Tom.
4) Genitive – It was Harry’s pencil.
5) Instrumental – John killed Bill with a knife.
6) Agentive – John was killed by Bill with a knife.
7) Comitative – John went to town with Mary.
The weak point lies in the fact that they substitute the functional characteristics for the morphological features of the word class.
The strong point: it rightly illustrates the fact that the functional meanings can be expressed in language by other grammatical means, in particular, by word-order (rose garden – garden rose).
The theory of prepositional cases (analytical theory or the theory of analytical forms): combinations of nouns with prepositions in certain object and attributive collocations should be understood as morphological case forms. Prepositions - according to Curme – are grammatical elements equivalent to case forms. There can be as many cases as there are prepositions. e.g. of Peter, with Peter, to Peter – of, with, to are lexically empty words like has done.
1. There can be no oppositions, they are synonyms.
2. A paradigm is limited and there are too many prepositions.
3. Prepositions are not empty words; they are relational words (they show relations).
4. Each prepositional phrase would bear then another, additional name of ‘prepositional case’ and the total number will expand greatly.
The theory of possessive postposition: the case category has been destroyed. The –‘s is a syntactical element which is similar to prepositions. But a preposition begins the construction while the element –‘s closes it. So it can be called post-position.
1. This postpositional element may not be applied to all the nouns, but mostly to nouns denoting living beings. The use of –‘s is optional.
2. One and the same element is used both with nouns in the Singular and in the Plural (man-man’s, men-men’s/ boy-boy’s, boys-boys’). This morpheme is not dependent on the meaning of plurality. Number and case are expressed separately. 3. The post-positional element can be applied not only to nouns: yesterday’s lecture, somebody else’s book, Mary and Peter’s parents (Mary’s and Peter’s parents).
4. There are instances of Absolute Genitive: chemist - chemist’s
Weak points: -‘s can be added to phrases, but these are occasional examples. 94% comprise instances where –‘s is added to single nouns. The function of these nouns is always definite – an attribute.
A compromising view: splitting into 2 (Helen’s book and somebody else’s book are 2 different instances). In some examples –‘s is not a case-forming morpheme. We can’t deny that.
What to choose: the theory of limited cases, positional, analytical theories or to deny the existence of the category of case in modern English?
The theory of limited cases may be more seriously justified: Case is a morphological category, revealing relations of the noun in the sentence. These relations must be rendered through the form of the noun itself. All other means (word order or prepositions) are not morphological means. That’s why they can’t be treated as case forms.
If we recognize the existence of cases in English, there is one more problem: terminology. The term Possessive can’t be applied to all the cases, the meaning of the case is broader than pure possession:
e.g. children’s book - destination
Peter’s kindness - a bearer of some quality
Peter’s friend- social relations
a mile’s walk, an hour’s delay – measure, quantity
a chemist’s – locative meaning
Peter’s voice – partitive relations
Peter’s insistence – Subjective Genitive
the Titanic’s tragedy – Objective Genitive
an officer’s cap - qualification
evening’s newspapers, Moscow’s talks, winter’s rest – adverbial relations.