ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
367
THE CATEGORY OF PERSON IN ENGLISH GRAMMAR
Jabborova Aziza Jobirovna
The lecturer of History and Philology department,
Asia International University.
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8300604
Abstract.
This article closely examines the category of person in English
giving examples by some grammarians. It contains information regarding the usage
of this category with verbs in different meanings. It analyzes it by the help of several
stories.
Key words:
verbal inflection, verb, subject, pronoun, possessive determiners,
affix, past tense, future tense, morpheme, present tense, substantival, verbal,
syntagmatic, junctional.
КАТЕГОРИЯ ЛИЦА В АНГЛИЙСКОЙ ГРАММАТИКЕ
Аннотация.
В этой статье подробно рассматривается категория
лица в английском языке, приводятся примеры некоторых грамматистов. Он
содержит информацию об использовании этой категории с глаголами в
разных значениях. Он анализирует это с помощью нескольких историй.
Ключевые слова:
глагольная флексия, глагол, подлежащее,
местоимение, притяжательные определители, аффикс, прошедшее время,
будущее время, морфема, настоящее время, существительное, глагольное,
синтагматическое, соединительное.
Introduction
In English grammar, the category of person identifies the relationship between
a subject and its verb, showing whether the subject is speaking about itself (first
person—I or we); being spoken to (second person—you); or being spoken about
(third person—he, she, it, or they). It is also called a grammatical person.
Personal pronouns are so-called because they are the pronouns to which the
grammatical system of person applies. Reflexive pronouns, intensive pronouns, and
possessive determiners also show distinctions in person.
According to linguistics expert, William O'Grady, Ph.D., "A widely attested
type of verbal inflection in human language involves person—a category that
typically distinguishes among the first person (the speaker), the second person (the
addressee), and the third person (anyone else). In many languages, the verb is
marked for both person and number (singular or plural) of the subject. When one
category is inflected for properties (such as person and number) of another, the first
category is said to agree with the second...
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
368
"Modern English has a [comparatively] impoverished system of person and
number agreement in the verb, and an inflectional affix is used only for the third
person singular in the non-past tense."
In addition to that, the category of person is the system of two member
opposition. It is available only in the Present Tense in singular number. B.
Khaimovich and Rogovskaya state that “the third person with a positive morpheme
being opposed to the first person with a zero morpheme”. In the future tense sh- of
the first person is opposed to w- of the second and third persons.
A similar treatment of the problem is observed in works of L.S. Barkhudarov
, who opposes third person to the common person (1st, 2nd persons) because “almost
all the verbs in the 1st and 2nd persons have a zero marker”.
In grammar, the personal pronouns (I, you, he, she, it, we, you, they) are
grouped into one of the three categories:
The First Person.
This category is used for the point of view of the speaker
or a group that includes the speaker. A basic sentence in the first person would
typically start "I [did something]" or "We [did something]." (In grammar, the first-
person personal pronouns are I, me, we, and us.)
The Second Person
. This category is used for those being spoken to. A basic
sentence in the second person would start "You [did something]." (In grammar, the
second-person pronoun is you.)
The Third Person.
This category is used for everyone else. A basic sentence
in the third person would start "He [did something]", "She [did something]," or
"They [did something]." (In grammar, the third-person pronouns are he, him, she,
her, it, they, and them. The third person also includes all other nouns, e.g., Fritz,
Germans.)
Peculiar subsystems of the category of person in the present tense
In the present tense the expression of the category of person is divided into
three peculiar subsystems:
The first subsystem
includes the modal verbs that have no personal
inflexions: can, may, must, shall, will, ought, need, dare. So, in the formal sense, the
category of person is wholly neutralized with these verbs, or, in plainer words, it is
left unexpressed.
The second subsystem
is made up by the unique verbal lexeme be. The
expression of person by this lexeme is the direct opposite to its expression by modal
verbs: if the latter do not convey the indication of person in any morphemic sense at
all, the verb be has three different suppletive personal forms, namely: am for the first
person singular, is for the third person singular, and are as a feature marking the
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
369
finite form negatively: neither the first, nor the third person singular. It cannot be
taken for the specific positive mark of the second person for the simple reason that
it coincides with the plural all-person (equal to none-person) marking.
The second subsystem – the unique verbal lexeme be.
1 st person singular — am
3 rd person singular — is
2 nd person (without distinction of number)
Plural (without distinction of person) — are
The third subsystem
presents just the regular, normal expression of person
with the remaining multitude of the English verbs, with each morphemic variety of
them. From the formal point of view, this subsystem occupies the medial position
between the first two: if the verb be is at least two-personal, the normal personal type
of the verb conjugation is one-personal. Indeed, the personal mark is confined here
to the third person singular -(e)s (-z, -s, -iz], the other two persons (the first and the
second) remaining unmarked, e.g. comes- come, blows - blow, stops - stop, chooses
- choose.
One does not have to make great exploratory efforts in order to realize that the
grammatical number of the personal pronouns is extremely peculiar, in no wise
resembling the number of ordinary substantive words. As a matter of fact, the
number of a substantive normally expresses either the singularity or plurality of its
referent ("one - more than one", or, in oppositional appraisal, "plural - non-plural"),
the quality of the referents, as a rule, not being re-interpreted with the change of the
number (the many exceptions to this rule lie beyond the purpose of our present
discussion). For instance, when speaking about a few powder-compacts, I have in
mind just several pieces of them of absolutely the same nature. Or when referring to
a team of eleven football-players, I mean exactly so many members of this sporting
group. With the personal pronouns, though, it is different, and the cardinal feature
of the difference is the heterogeneity of the plural personal pronominal meaning.
Indeed, the first person plural does not indicate the plurality of the "ego", it
cannot mean several
I’s.
What it denotes in fact, is the speaker plus some other
person or persons belonging, from the point of view of the utterance content, to the
same background. The second person plural is essentially different from the first
person plural in so far as it does not necessarily express, but is only capable of
expressing similar semantics. Thus, it denotes either more than one listener (and this
is the ordinary, general meaning of the plural as such, not represented in the first
person); or, similar to the first person, one actual listener plus some other person or
persons belonging to the same background in the speaker's situational estimation;
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
370
or, again specifically different from the first person, more than one actual listener
plus some other person or persons of the corresponding interpretation. Turning to
the third person plural, one might feel inclined to think that it would wholly coincide
with the plural of an ordinary substantive name. On closer observation, however, we
note a fundamental difference here also. Indeed, the plural of the third person is not
the substantive plural proper, but the deictic, indicative, pronominal plural; it is
expressed through the intermediary reference to the direct name of the denoted
entity, and so may either be related to the singular
he-
pronoun
,
or the
she-
pronom
,
or
the
it
- pronoun, or to any possible combination of them according to the nature of
the plural object of denotation.
The only inference that can be made from the given description is that in the
personal pronouns the expression of the plural is very much blended with the
expression of the person, and what is taken to be three persons in the singular and
plural, essentially presents a set of six different forms of blended person-number
nature, each distinguished by its own individuality. Therefore, in the strictly
categorial light, we have here a system not of three, but of six persons.
Returning now to the analysed personal and numerical forms of the finite verb,
the first conclusion to be drawn on the ground of the undertaken analysis is that their
intermixed character, determined on the formal basis, answers in general the mixed
character of the expression of person and number by the pronominal subject name
of the predicative construction. The second conclusion to be drawn, however, is that
the described formal person-number system of the finite verb is extremely and very
singularly deficient. In fact, what in this connection the regular verb-form does
express morphemically, is only the oppositional identification of the third person
singular (to leave alone the particular British English mode of expressing the person
in the future).
Discussion
A question naturally arises: What is the actual relevance of this deficient
system in terms of the English language? Can one point out any functional, rational
significance of it, if taken by itself?
The answer to this question can evidently be only in the negative: in no wise.
There cannot be any functional relevance in such a system, if taken by itself. But in
language it does not exist by itself.
As soon as we take into consideration the functional side of the analysed
forms, we discover at once that these forms exist in unity with the personal-
numerical forms of the subject. This unity is of such a nature that the universal and
true indicator of person and number of the subject of the verb will be the subject
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
371
itself, however trivial this statement may sound. Essentially, though, there is not a
trace of triviality in the formula, bearing in mind, on the one hand, the substantive
character of the expressed categorial meanings, and on the other, the analytical basis
of the English grammatical structure. The combination of the English finite verb
with the subject is obligatory not only in the general syntactic sense, but also in the
categorial sense of expressing the subject-person of the process.
An objection to this thesis can be made on the ground that in the text the actual
occurrence of the subject with the finite verb is not always observed. Moreover, the
absence of the subject in constructions of living colloquial English is, in general, not
an unusual feature. Observing textual materials, we may come across cases of
subject-wanting predicative units used not only singly, as part of curt question-
response exchange, but also in a continual chain of speech. Here is an example of a
chain of this type taken from E. Hemingway:
"No one shot from cars," said Wilson coldly.
"I mean chase them from cars."
"Wouldn't
ordinarily," Wilson said.
"Seemed
sporting enough to me though
while we were doing it.
Taking
more chance driving that way across the plain full of
holes and one thing and another than hunting on foot. Buffalo could have charged
us each time we shot if he liked.
Gave
him every chance.
Wouldn't mention
it to any
one though. It's illegal if that's what you mean."
However, examples like this cannot be taken for a disproof of the obligatory
connection between the verb and its subject, because the corresponding subject-
nouns, possibly together with some other accompanying words, are zeroed on certain
syntactico-stylistical principles (brevity of expression in familiar style,
concentration on the main informative parts of the communication, individual
speech habits, etc.). Thus, the distinct zero-representation of the subject does give
expression to the verbal person-number category even in conditions of an outwardly
gaping void in place of the subject in this or that concrete syntactic construction used
in the text. Due to the said zero-representation, we can easily reconstruct the implied
person indications in the cited passage: "I wouldn't ordinarily"; "It seemed sporting
enough"; "It was taking more chance driving that way"; "We gave him every
chance"; "I wouldn't mention it to any one".
Quite naturally, the non-use of the subject in an actual utterance may
occasionally lead to a referential misunderstanding or lack of understanding, and
such situations are reflected in literary works by writers - observers of human speech
as well as of human nature. A vivid illustration of this type of speech informative
deficiency can be seen in one of K. Mansfield's stories:
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
372
"Fried or boiled?"
asked the bold voice.
Fried or boiled?
Josephine and Constantia were quite bewildered for the
moment. They could hardly take it in.
"Fried or boiled
what, Kate?" asked Josephine, trying to begin to concentrate.
Kate gave a loud sniff. "Fish."
"Well, why didn't you say so immediately?" Josephine reproached her gently.
"How could you expect us to understand, Kate? There are a great many things in this
world, you know, which are fried or boiled."
The referential gap in Kate's utterance gave cause to her bewildered listener
for a just reproach. But such lack of positive information in an utterance is not to be
confused with the non-expression of a grammatical category. In this connection, the
textual zeroing of the subject-pronoun may be likened to the textual zeroing of
different constituents of classical analytical verb-forms, such as the continuous, the
perfect, and others: no zeroing can deprive these forms of their grammatical,
categorial status.
Now, it would be too strong to state that the combination of the subject-
pronoun with the finite verb in English has become an analytical person-number
form in the full sense of this notion. The English subject-pronoun, unlike the French
conjoint subject-pronoun
(e.g. Je
vous remercie - "
I
thank you"; but: mon mari et
moi
-
"my husband and
I
"), still retains its self-positional syntactic character, and the
personal pronominal words, without a change of their nominative form, are used in
various notional functions in sentences, building up different positional sentence-
parts both in the role of head-word and in the role of adjunct-word. What we do see
in this combination is, probably, a very specific semi-analytical expression of a
reflective grammatical category through an obligatory syntagmatic relation of the
two lexemes: the lexeme-reflector of the category and the lexeme-originator of the
category. This mode of grammatical expression can be called "junctional". Its
opposite, i.e. the expression of the categorial content by means of a normal
morphemic or word-morphemic procedure, can be, by way of contrast, tentatively
called "native". Thus, from the point of view of the expression of a category either
through the actual morphemic composition of a word, or through its being
obligatorily referred to another word in a syntagmatic string, the corresponding
grammatical forms will be classed into native and junctional. About the person-
numerical forms of the finite verb in question we shall say that in the ordinary case
of the third person singular present indicative, the person and number of the verb are
expressed natively, while in most of the other paradigmatic locations they are
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
373
expressed junctionally, through the obligatory reference of the verb-form to its
subject.
This truth, not incapable of inviting an objection on the part of the learned,
noteworthily has been exposed from time immemorial in practical grammar books,
where the actual conjugation of the verb is commonly given in the form of pronoun-
verb combinations: I read, you read, he reads, we read, you read, they read.
In point of fact, the English finite verb presented without its person-subject is
grammatically almost meaningless. The presence of the two
you's
in practical tables
of examples like the one above, in our opinion, is also justified by the inner structure
of language. Indeed, since
you
is part of the person-number system, and not only of
the person system, it should be but natural to take it in the two different, though
mutually complementing interpretations - one for each of the two series of pronouns
in question, i.e. the singular series and the plural series. In the light of this approach,
the archaic form
thou
plus the verb should be understood as a specific variant of the
second person singular with its respective stylistic connotations.
The exposition of the verbal categories of person and number presented here
helps conveniently explain some special cases of the subject-verb categorial
relations. The bulk of these cases have been treated by traditional grammar in terms
of "agreement in sense", or "notional concord". We refer to the grammatical agree-
ment of the verb not with the categorial form of the subject expressed
morphemically, but with the actual personal-numerical interpretation of the denoted
referent.
Here belong, in the first place, combinations of the finite verb with collective
nouns. According as they are meant by the speaker either to reflect the plural
composition of the subject, or, on the contrary, to render its integral, single-unit
quality, the verb is used either in the plural, or in the singular.
E.g.:
The government
were
definitely against the bill introduced by the opposing
liberal party. The newly appointed government
has gathered
for its first session.
In the second place, we see here predicative constructions whose subject is
made imperatively plural by a numeral attribute. Still, the corresponding verb-form
is used to treat it both ways: either as an ordinary plural which fulfils its function in
immediate keeping with its factual plural referent, or as an integrating name, whose
plural grammatical form and constituent composition give only a measure to the
subject-matter of denotation.
Cf
.:
Three years
have elapsed
since we saw him last.- -Three years
is
a long time
to wait.
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
374
In the third place, under the considered bearding come constructions whose
subject is expressed by a coordinative group of nouns, the verb being given an option
of treating it either as a plural or as a singular.
E.g.:
My heart and soul
belongs
to this small nation in its desperate struggle for
survival.
-
-My emotional self and rational self
have been
at variance about the
attitude adopted by Jane.
The same rule of "agreement in sense" is operative in relative clauses, where
the finite verb directly reflects the categories of the nounal antecedent of the clause-
introductory relative pronoun-subject.
Cf.:
I who
am
practically unacquainted with the formal theory of games can hardly
suggest an alternative solution. - - Your words show the courage and the truth that I
have always felt
was in
your heart
On the face of it, the cited examples might seem to testify to the analysed
verbal categories being altogether self-sufficient, capable, as it were, even of
"bossing" the subject as to its referential content. However, the inner regularities
underlying the outer arrangement of grammatical connections are necessarily of a
contrary nature: it is the subject that induces the verb, through its inflexion, however
scanty it may be, to help express the substantival meaning not represented in the
immediate substantival form. That this is so and not otherwise, can be seen on
examples where the subject seeks the needed formal assistance from other quarters
than the verbal, in particular, having recourse to determiners.
Cf
.:
A full
thirty miles was
covered in less than half an hour; the car could be safely
relied on.
Thus, the role of the verb in such and like cases comes at most to that of a
grammatical intermediary.
From the functional point of view, the direct opposite to the shown categorial
connections is represented by instances of dialectal and colloquial person-number
neutralization.
Cf:.
"Ah! It's a pity
you
never
was trained
to use your reason, miss" (B. Shaw).
"He's been in his room all day," the landlady said downstairs. "I guess
he don't
feel
well" (E. Hemingway). "What are they going to do to me?" Johnny said. -
"Nothing," I said.
"They ain't going
to do nothing to you" (W. Saroyan).
Such and similar oppositional neutralizations of the surviving verbal person-
number indicators, on their part, clearly emphasize the significance of the junctional
aspect of the two inter-connected categories reflected in the verbal lexeme from the
substantival subject.
Conclusion
ISSN:
2181-3906
2023
International scientific journal
«MODERN SCIENCE АND RESEARCH»
VOLUME 2 / ISSUE 8 / UIF:8.2 / MODERNSCIENCE.UZ
375
By making deep research and studying the topic “The category of person in
English grammar “I got chance to learn more and somehow revise it. I can say that
while I was writing this article, I learned a lot of information regarding the topic
“The category of person. At first, I got into trouble, but I did this deep research work
myself.
It should be admitted that writing this article was somehow difficult because
I had not had this kind of deep research before. Moreover, it was very useful for me.
So, having worked on this I gained so much knowledge about grammatical person.
REFERENCES
1.
«ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ГРАММАТИКА (АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК)»
ДЛЯ СПЕЦИАЛЬНОСТИ «СОВРЕМЕННЫЕ ИНОСТРАННЫЕ
ЯЗЫКИ (ПЕРЕВОД)» 1 – 21 06 01-02 Составитель: В. Н. Василина,
старший преподаватель кафедры теории и практики перевода
гуманитарного факультета БГУ
2.
https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/person.
3.
www.studfile.net
4.
https://doclecture.net/1-32751.htm
5.
https://www.grammarbank.com/
6.
https://infopedia.su/15x112f7.html
7.
https://www.englishclub.com/grammar/sentence/category.htm
8.
https://lektsii.org/3-8391.html
9.
https://psj.nsu.ru/english/texts/jack_london/love_of_life.htm
