principle of function , or combinability (the position of a word in the
sentence is the syntactic function of word). Being a structuralist, he would not
speak of function: function is meaning while position is not. His classification is
not beyond criticism. First, not all relevant positions were tested. Class 3 words are
said to be used in the position of
good (Frame A). But the most typical position of
these words is before Class l words. If this position had been used by the scholar,
such words as
woolen ,
wooden ,
golden , etc. (i.e. relative adjectives) would have
found their place in the classification. But if he had done it, the classification
would have collapsed, for their position can be filled by other word-classes: nouns,
numerals, pronouns. Second, his functional classes are very much ‘splintered’, i.e.
broken into small groups. This is good for practice but bad for theory, for
theoretical grammar is more interested in uniting linguistic facts than in separating
them. Third, being deprived of meaning, his word-classes are “faceless”, i.e. they
18
have no character. No wonder, other structuralists deemed it necessary to return to
traditional terminology and to use the criterion of form and, additionally, position.