Pridevske zamenice ili pridevi?

Abstract

Forms such as ту in „my brother“, this in „this problem“, any in „any reason“ have usually been defined as „adjectives“ in English grammars, just as the analogous Italian forms in „тio fratello“, „questo problema“, „qualsiasi ragione“ are to this day called „aggettivi“ by Italian grammarians. Моre recent studies tend to use the term determiner (It. determinante). In either case, a sharp distinction is drawn between such modifiers and words used in a substantive function, which are called pronouns (It. proпоті). The latter involve either the same forms (This is the problem, I don't have any, It. II problema è questo) or forms with an exclusively „pronominal“ use (The book is тine, It. Non ho niente, Сід ё vero, etc.). This division has already been criticized, more than a half century ago, by distinguished scholars such as Jespersen or, in Italy, Р. G. Goidanich. The present paper attempts to examine the question in the framework of general criteria for the definition of parts of speech. It is found hat: а) Тhe morphemes in question have the same FUNCTION as adјес tives, i.e. they modify nouns (this book : red book). Ноwever, their function in the sentence is not quite the same, since many of them are not used predi catively (The book is red, but not *The book is any) and none is used absolutely (Red zvith shате, the boy said... but not *This zvith sharne, the boу...). b) For the same reason, their DISTRIBUTION is different from that of adjectives. What is even more important, they are almost never used with other determiners (the red book, but not *the this book, *а ту book, although in It il тio libro). с) Their FORМ may be the same as that of adjectives, but there are considerable differences as well (adjectives can be compared, modifying pronouns cannot; in flexional languages, the pronominal and adjectival declensions are never identical). d) The МЕАNING is profoundly different, being „lexical“ in adјес tives, but „structural“ in modifying pronouns: while the former carry their own conceptual content, the latter, like „ordinary“ pronouns, only acquire it in the context, if ever. The adjectives are „full“ words forming an „open class“; the pronouns, modifying or not, form a „closed system“ of „empty“ words. It will be seen that the only ground for defining the morphemes in question as „adjectives“ is their function as modifiers of nouns. This cannot be a sufficient reason, or else, by the same logic, we should be compelled to include ordinary pronouns (those with a substantive function, as I, so— теіhing, etc.) among nouns, and the category of pronouns would disappear altogether! We conclude that modifying pronouns are pronouns and not adjectives (the term „determiner“ is irrelevant here, as it refersto a functional subgroup rather than to a part of speech). There is no reason why a part of speech should not have more than one function (participles, for instance, are verbs with an adjectival or adverbial function) and pronouns may have two: а substantive and a modifying one. It follows that there is more justification for an approach such as that of Serbо-Сroatian grammarians, who speak of „substantive pronouns“ (imeničke zamenice) and „adjectival pronouns“ (pridevske zamenice), than for relegating the latter among adjectives. Such a method is also more economical, as it dispenses with the need to discuss a single form (e.g. this) in two different parts of the grammar.