What is part of speech and why should words be classified?

The division of parts of speech belongs to the grammatical category. At present, Chinese teaching in middle schools adopts the Outline of Teaching Grammar System in Middle Schools (Trial) (referred to as the Outline System), which was formulated by the Middle School Chinese Room of People's Education Publishing House at 1984. Before that, the tentative Chinese teaching grammar system (tentative system for short) was used.

The parts of speech of the abstract system are divided as follows:

Words can be divided into content words and function words. Content words express true meaning, and can be used as components of phrases or sentences, and can generally be independently made into sentences. Content words include nouns, verbs, adjectives, numerals, quantifiers and pronouns. Generally speaking, function words do not express true meaning, but their basic purpose is to express grammatical relations. Function words include adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliary words, exclamations and onomatopoeia.

(1) Nouns are words that indicate the names of people or things.

For example: classmates, friendship, morning, front, etc.

(2) Verbs are words that express actions, behaviors, development and changes, and psychological activities.

For example: go, love, make, can, get up, be, etc.

(3) Adjectives indicate words of nature or state.

For example: beauty, wait.

(4) Numerals are words that represent numbers.

Like a hundred, some, first class.

(5) Quantifiers are words that represent units of people and things or units of actions and behaviors.

For example: ruler, itinerary, etc.

(6) A word whose pronoun acts as a substitute or indicator.

For example: me, what, and so on.

(7) Adverbs are used before verbs and adjectives to indicate actions, behaviors or nature, degree, scope, time, frequency, mood, emotional state, etc.

For example: very, immediately, completely, often, suddenly, unexpectedly, etc.

(8) Prepositions are used before nouns (or phrases) and pronouns, which together indicate the beginning and end, direction, place, time, object and purpose.

For example: from, to, in, to, in accordance with, for, for, than, except, etc.

(9) Conjunctions Conjunction words, phrases and sentences indicate a certain logical relationship.

For example: and, or, and, although, but because, so, only, if, etc.

(10) Auxiliary words are attached to words, phrases and sentences, indicating a certain structural relationship or additional meaning or tone.

For example: yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

An interjection is a word that expresses an exclamation or asks for an answer.

For example: hello, alas, um, etc.

(12) Onomatopoeia is a word that imitates the sound of an object.

For example: bang, bang, flowers, etc.

The structural auxiliary words "di" and "de" can be used as "de", that is, "de" which is both an attribute and an adverbial: (great) people: (brave) progress. However, there be no hard and fast rule. ※. If used alone, it should be used correctly, with "de" as the attribute and "de" as the adverbial.

The tentative system divides Chinese words into two categories: content words and function words. Content words can be used as sentence components, and a word can become a sentence in a certain language environment; Function words don't express true meaning, can't be used as sentence components (only adverbs can be used as adverbials), and can't be used as sentences under any circumstances. Their basic purpose is to express grammatical relations. Content words include nouns (including locative words), verbs (including modal verbs and judgment words), adjectives, numerals, quantifiers and pronouns (including personal pronouns, demonstrative pronouns and interrogative pronouns), while function words include adverbs, prepositions, conjunctions, auxiliary words (including structural auxiliary words, tense auxiliary words and mood auxiliary words) and exclamations, totaling * * * 650.

Characteristics of Chinese part of speech

Next, let's look at the characteristics of Chinese part of speech.

Generally speaking, Chinese parts of speech have two characteristics: first, there is basically no fixed form; Second, the part of speech is very flexible. The first point is self-evident. Mainly look at the second point.

This flower is very beautiful. This is really beautiful.

What do you have to see? Don't be beautiful

I appreciate the beauty of her language. Her beauty shocked the whole world.

This is really a delicious meal!

You can have a good sleep.

The song is beautiful.

A "beauty" can have different functions on different occasions: in the first example, it is a predicate (or a narrow "predicate"). In the second example, it is a verb (predicate) and acts as a predicate directly. In the third example, it is a body word ("noun") that acts as an object or subject. In the fourth example, it is an attribute. In the fifth example, it becomes an adverbial in an overlapping way. In the last example, it is also an adverbial (traditionally called "complement"). So, what part of speech do you mean by "beauty"?

Another example is:

Son, don't be silly.

Generally speaking, "silly" is an adjective, which is mainly used as an attribute or predicative, but it is used in imperative sentences here. Can you still say it's an adjective? It has obviously become a verb. We can even say: don't continue to be stupid. This is a typical verb usage (adverbial before auxiliary word after)!

Another example is:

Swimming is a good exercise.

I like swimming.

I like swimming in the sea.

"Swimming" is generally used as a verb, so traditional grammar only regards it as a verb. For the first sentence, they say "verb as subject", for the second sentence, they say "verb as object", and for the third sentence, they say "verb phrase as object". In my opinion, "swimming" in the first sentence is simply a noun (body word); "Swimming" in the second sentence is also a body word (noun), while the verb phrase in the third sentence is actually a separate part-of-speech phrase (equivalent to a body word-noun whole). Since there is no special part-of-speech sign in Chinese, we'd better judge the part-of-speech simply according to the syntactic function, which is much simpler. If you are in another language, when you are the subject or object, you must not use the predicate form of the verb directly. You must change it into "non-predicate form" (actually, it is a form of body words, such as infinitive, gerund and participle). Saying "verb as subject (or object)" does not conform to the general international practice, not to mention that Chinese part of speech is not innate, so why is it so rigid? ! For the case of a word, it is easy to handle: what kind of components constitute what kind of part of speech, not to mention such absurd words as "verb as subject or object" (and "adjective as subject or object" and so on). For a phrase composed of verbs, if the whole phrase plays the role of a body word, then don't say that the verb phrase is the subject or object, but flexibly change it to "a body part of speech phrase is the subject or object". The lexicalization (or non-predicate) of verbs is particularly obvious in phrases. Of course, phrases are another topic, so I won't discuss them here.

Another example is:

The child is much taller. It is getting dark.

Can you say "tall" and "black" are still adjectives? Obviously, it has also become a verb. The auxiliary word "le" with tense or the adverb "gradually" are obvious verb markers. In a sense, they all represent a process, not a state. "Height" = the longer, the higher; "Black" = black.

It should be said that the adjectives used in imperative sentences have been "verbalized": be careful! Don't be careless, be optimistic! Any higher, I can't see. Put it down. Be enthusiastic! Be modest!

It should be said that the adjectives used after the wishing verb are also verbalized: you have to be fat, so you can't be thin. You must be relaxed and casual. I can't relax! Could you speak a little louder? Can you keep your voice down?

Another example is the so-called "adverb+noun" ("adverb modifies noun"):

There are only two bottles of rice wine, only seven students, the innermost, the first part, the top, about three cars, * * * twenty dollars, another storm, another problem, only five tables, very modern and energetic. ...

In fact, it is not an adverb that modifies nouns at all. In fact, there are three possibilities: first, the so-called "adverb" has become an adjective (attribute) (for example, there are only two bottles of yellow rice wine and only seven students). Only in English is it an adverb and an adjective. The word "only" and "only" here are similar. Similarly, "most" can also be used as an adjective, just like most in English. Second, it is the result of omitting the predicate (for example, about three cars = about three cars; * * * Twenty dollars = * * There are twenty dollars; Another storm = another storm; One more question = one more question; Only five tables = only five tables. Third, the latter "noun" is already an adjective (for example: very modern = very fashionable and modern; Very spirited = very handsome, very chic).

Another example is the question of time and place words (nouns) as adverbials: I have a rest today. I have no classes in the morning. There was a great poet Li Bai in ancient times. Sit inside! See you in Beijing!

In fact, these words have been "adverbized", so they can all be counted as adverbs (according to my new name, they are "adverbs"). For example, in English, today is both a noun and an adverb, depending on how it is used. Can you know what a word is just by its meaning? !

For another example, even the adverb "du" can be changed into other parts of speech.

Is everyone here? Everyone agrees. Don't even want to go.

In this kind of sentence, if we say "Du" is the subject, it is ok, because it can be understood as a pronoun to replace the specific owner (or thing). Of course, it can also be understood as omitting the subject and still using it as an adverb ("Is everyone here?" = "Is everyone here?" "All agree" = "All agree". In English, all is a pronoun and can also be used as an adverb.

Another example: as long as you add a word "di", you can turn nouns, adjectives (definite words) and other parts of speech into adverbs (adverbs): do things rationally, look at problems historically, "inherit, defend and develop Marxism-Leninism creatively and comprehensively" (preface to quotations from Chairman Mao during the Cultural Revolution), tell a story humorously and look at him nervously ... One means adjective (definite word) and the other means adverb (adverb). Chinese also has this suffix, just like -ful (adjective suffix) and -ly (adverb suffix) in English. You can change the part of speech at will through them. On this point, you can refer to my other monograph.

Another example is "five Jin" or "five Jin". This is an example of quantifiers becoming adverbials (one is prepositional adverbial and the other is postpositional adverbial, but the essence is the same, and both modify the predicate "heavy")

For another example, Chinese verbs and prepositions are sometimes difficult to distinguish. Verbs can be used as prepositions, and vice versa, because prepositions are basically evolved from verbs in ancient Chinese. For example, in sentences such as "translate by computer", "speak with your mouth and take notes". We can regard the word "Yong" as a preposition, indicating the meaning of tools and means, and regard the verbs behind as the predicate verbs of sentences. Therefore, it is not necessary to describe this phenomenon as a "continuous verb". This can be proved by replacing it with the out-and-out preposition "one".

……

All these examples can be cited countless times. We can make countless such criticisms and corrections to the traditional Chinese grammar system. In short, we must admit that Chinese parts of speech are changing at any time, and they are particularly flexible and free. From the rigid principle of "semantic-oriented" to the flexible principle of "functional-oriented", many grammatical phenomena can be naturally straightened out and the analysis can be simpler (more general, more able to control ten, hundred, thousand and ten thousand at a time ...).

Of course, there are many words in other languages. But much less than Chinese. Almost every word in Chinese is indefinite. If most words in foreign languages are qualitative, then Chinese is the opposite: most words are indefinite. If foreign language part-of-speech uncertainty is a special phenomenon, then Chinese part-of-speech uncertainty is a common phenomenon. This is the characteristic of Chinese part of speech (if any)! This is also a major feature of Chinese!

Just like polysemy or polysemy, polysemy in Chinese is a very economical pragmatic practice. Polysemy is a common phenomenon in any language, but it is probably not a common phenomenon in any language except Chinese. "More than one word" is so common in Chinese that we can save a lot of trouble! This is the embodiment of China people's wisdom! Polysemy generally does not cause any inconvenience, because with a certain context, the meaning can be determined naturally. The diversity of this word is no exception.

The part of speech of any word is not determined a priori, and it must be determined according to its function in a specific grammatical environment. Of course, this does not mean that we can't infer the part of speech according to the meaning and the word form itself. For example, words with a certain meaning or words that start or end in a certain form generally serve as parts of speech. But these are not absolute standards. If it is useful to know as much as possible about the usage of some words (including part-of-speech features) for learning, then I am afraid this problem can not be solved by grammarians, but by semanticists and lexicologists, which will involve endless practical rules. Grammar can't accomplish this important task, at least not what theoretical grammar should do. Basic grammar or theoretical grammar only provides an "outline" and a basic framework, and it is impossible to solve specific semantic and usage problems from all aspects. From this point of view, it can also be said that the establishment of Chinese scientific grammar system is not infinitely distant or infinitely complicated, and can be completed in a short time.

By the way, the "liberation" in the definition of part of speech has a great benefit to Chinese: to prevent the development of Chinese from being bound by rigid concepts! In the final analysis, the natural development and convention (natural formation) of the language itself are primary, and any artificial regulation is secondary, which is the product of summing up practice. If the regulations go too far, it will inevitably hinder the development of nature and play a negative role. That kind of "grammar" can be the enemy of language! For example, if a word is part of speech, changing its usage is "grammatical error" and "sick sentence". Perhaps, at first, it was a "sick sentence", but gradually with people's universal acceptance, it has become a new language phenomenon, and it is no longer a "sick sentence". For example, "Sudden" is both an adverb and an adjective, while "Sudden" is only an adverb. Why do you say that? That's the conclusion from the language experiment: you can say "mutation", but you can't say "mutation". But, I think, maybe this is just the current usage, and maybe "suddenly" will have both adjectives and adverbs in the future. When most people say "something happened suddenly", it will become an adjective. Maybe! For another example, the word "humor" is originally a transliteration of foreign words, which is supposedly inseparable. But haven't we heard the saying "shut him up" like China? The famous poem "Spring Breeze and Green Willow in the South of the Yangtze River" uses the word "green", which is usually an adjective or noun, as a verb, which is particularly vivid and creative! There are many new words and usages in literature or life. The best way is to adopt an open attitude and let them naturally choose to be eliminated. Excellent creation will naturally stay, and poor vocabulary will naturally be eliminated.

Generally speaking, Chinese part of speech has little meaning, which is determined by the characteristics of Chinese itself. Therefore, it is time to liberate Chinese from the rigid concept of part of speech formed in decades and restore its true colors! Chinese grammar should focus on syntax, not morphology. The definition and analysis methods given in this book are just a reference, so there is no need to stick to this system too much. In particular, don't use morphology to set syntax, don't use "part of speech" to identify whether a sentence is right or not, and judge sentence components. For Chinese, this is an inverted method (although for foreign languages, this may be just right). This basic idea is very important.