ФУНКЦИОНАЛЬНО-СЕМАНТИЧЕСКИЙ АНАЛИЗ ПРИЧАСТИЯ I В ДРЕВНЕАНГЛИЙСКИХ ТЕКСТАХ

Introduction

As noted in the Comparative Grammar of Germanic Languages, the system of participles in ancient Germanic languages ​​is represented by the opposition of two participial forms: participle I and participle II [4, P. 273].

In the descriptions of Old English grammar, the participles, like other nonfinite verbal forms, receive little attention. Most often, the presence of forms and their formal signs (endings) are only mentioned, such as in R. Quirk [9, P. 41] or in J. Wright [14, P. 211-212]. Approximately in the same way participles are described by I. Zeevers, who mentions briefly the meanings of participles and indicates their endings relative to individual classes of verbs [11, P. 254-255].

Discussion

In all the ancient Germanic languages, participle I or present participle has a uniform structure in all morphological types of verbs, which is characterized by the indicator -nd-. In Old English, the present participle ends in -ende.

As emphasized by the authors of comparative grammar, the Old German participles are of nominal nature in their origin. A.I. Smirnitsky also indicates that the adjective with the suffix * -nt-, meaning active production of the action, gave the Old English participle I [2, P. 283].

Based on the duality of the participle, some scholars divide the use of the participle into predicative and adjectival. For example, M. Callaway specifies: as a rule, the verbal participle denotes an act in the widest sense, while the adjectival denotes a state [8, P. 142]. Or, in the Comparative English grammar, it is noted that, in general, “participles are divided into participles and verbal adjectives; the former include forms directly related to a tense basis, such as participle I of Germanic languages, in the second, participle, not related to a certain tense basis, such as the German participles II ” [4, P. 279].  M. Callaway also indicates that the past participle is more adjectival than the present participle [8, P. 142). Does it follow from this that participle I has a predicative character?  As M. Callaway continues his reasoning, the present participle, having the supplement with it, is more predicative than the participle without supplement. Consequently, it is not possible to unambiguously and reliably separate the nominal and verbal semantics of the participle. However, it is possible to single out the dominant semantics based on the functions performed by the participle.

The aim of this study is to present the results of the functionally-semantical analyses of participle I in Old English.

Results

All the examples of use of participle I in Old English texts can be divided into two groups [3, P. 20]. The first one includes the cases of use of participle I with the noun (in the pre- or postposition). The second group includes examples of participle I functioning with the verb.

The first group is traditionally referred to as attributive (or non-predicative) use of the participle. In carrying out this function  the participle refers to  the head word, agreeing with it in gender, number and case: swegincga beatendra slecgea ond blawendra byliga «roar of beating sledge hammers and  blowing bellows» [5].

In some examples participle I refers to the head word, but it has an object, and (or) an adverb, thereby forming a structure equivalent to the attributive subordinate clause: Effrem wæs gehaten sum swiþe halig abbod on wæstene wunigende, fela wundra wyrcende «Effrem was named some very holy abbot on dessert dwelling many wonders making» [6].

The second group includes cases of predicative use of the participle, that is, its functioning in the construction "S + V + PI", where V ­ is a finite form of the verb. All finite verbs can be grouped into several lexical-semantic categories (starting with the most numerous):

1. verbs of being: beon «be»;
2. verbs of  motion: cuman «come», becuman «come», gan «go», faran «go» , stondan (standan) «stand», fēran «go, travel»;
3. verbs of speaking: cweðan «say», singan «sing», gebiddan «pray», bēodan «offer, announce»;
4. verbs of  perception: ge-sēon «see», ge-hieran «hear»;
5. other verbs: þolian «suffer, endure», libban «live», witan «know».

In the construction "S + V + PI" participle I can perform the following functions:
1). Attributive function

In this case the participle denotes the attributes of a noun which is the subject of the sentence. As a finite verb we can see most often the verb "to be": Þæt hiera lar wære wæstmberende to Godes willan «that their teaching was fertile to the God’s will» [10]. Sometimes the properties of attributive participle I in the construction “S + V + PI” are highlighted by the use of such adverbs as swiðe «very» and swa «so», indicating a high degree of the properties denoted: wæs swiðe gefeonde «was very glad (rejoicing)», he swiðe wiþwinnende wære «he very opposing was», se cyning swa wære efenblissiende «the king so was rejoicing» [10].

2). Substantive function

Performing this function participle I has the meaning of thingness. We can define the following criteria of substantive functions [1, P. 438-439]:

- Participle I has an object in  Genetive: þe byð kyng ealra kcynga and ealra gesceafta scypend and wealdend «who is the king of all kings and all the creatures of the creator and ruler»;

- Participle I has an attribute which grammatically agrees with the participle: ðæt is ðin waldend þe ðe geworhte «who is thy Lord who created you»
The use of participle I in the substantive function is an integral part of a larger phenomenon - the substantivisation of participle I.

3). In the construction "S + V + PI" participle I can perform the adverbial function. The participle may function as an adverb of manner, time, reason, purpose and condition:

wæs gehwæþer oðrum

lifigende lað.

«each was by the other

loathed while living» [7, lines 814-815].

4). As a part of the construction “S + V + PI” participle I can perform a predicative function and denote a secondary action when the primary is denoted by the finite verb form.

 We can consider the following indicators of the predicative participle function:
- a close connection with the subject of the action: seo papa seonde ða his writ
cwæðend «the Pope sent then his letter, saying this» [12, line 656];
- verbal type of government (the presence of direct and indirect objects and different types of adverbs): nu þu þus rotlice & þus glædlice tu us sprecende eart «now you are so cheerfully and so joyfully to us speaking» [10]; and wæron haligra naman rimende and gebedu singende «and were holy names enumerating and prayers singing» [10];

- clear verbal semantics (denoting  actions).

In combination with the finite verb participle I can be semantically equivalent to the finite form. Such phenomenon is observed in the following cases:
          1) A finite verb and the participle denote two different actions:
And he þa on medmicelre tide micel folc Dryhtne begeat and gestriende þurh his lare «and he then in little time many people to the God turned (and) acquiring through his learning» [10].

2) A finite verb and the participle denote two similar actions, one of which specifies the other: Se hælend cwæð andswariende «The Christ said answering» [13]. In the examples of this group, the participle and the verb are semantically close, and it is quite difficult to determine which element (a finite verb or a participle) is the main one semantically, and which is semantically weakened.

In some cases, the participle and a finite verb are not equal semantically. And  in such examples that is the finite verb which is semantically impaired. Here we can see a partial desemantization of the verbs in a finite form and strengthening of the predicative semantic significance of the participle I.
This can be seen, first, in those cases where the finite verb and the participle are synonymous: hy ðeah forhogiende me forsawon «they still neglecting me despised»; secondly, in numerous examples where the finite verb is one of the forms of the verb “to be”: he swiðe georne wæs þa broðor biddende «he very earnestly was the brother asking» [10].

Conclusion

The analysis of examples described above can allow making the following conclusions. The research shown that the participle I has a dual nature – namely attributive and verbal. There is no doubt that the nominal nature was the primary one, while the verbal was acquired in the process of entering of the participle into the verbal paradigm. Among the facts pointing to the nominal or verbal nature of the participle are the following:

- For a nominal nature of the participle:

1) attributive function of participle I;

2) combinability with nouns (being their attributes) and adverbs of degree (swiðe giemende «very caring»);

3) the existence in the language of the masculine nouns with the meaning of a doer formed from the verb with the suffix -nd: hælend «savior», hæbbend  «owner»;

4) substantivization of participle I (aliesend «Redeemer»);

     - For the verbal nature of the participle:

1. the predicative function of  participle I;
2. verbal government;
3. combinability with the nouns that are the object or subject of the action;
4. combinability with adverbs (well sprecende «speaking well»).