Grammatically relevant subclasses of nouns. The grammatical peculiarities of different groups. Their selectional syntagmatic combinability.

LECTURE 3

NOUN: GENERAL.

GENDER. NUMBER.

1.Noun as the central nominative lexemic unit of language. Categorial meaning of the noun. Formal characteristics of the noun. Syntactic functions of the noun. The noun as an attribute (“the cannon ball problem”).

2.Grammatically relevant subclasses. The grammatical peculiarities of different groups of nouns. Their selectional syntagmatic combinability.

3.The problem of gender category in English. Gender as a meaningful (natural) category and as a formal (arbitrary) category in different languages. Personal pronouns as gender classifiers of nouns. Gender oppositions of nouns. Oppositional reduction; personification.

4.Formal and functional peculiarities of the singular and the plural forms of nouns. Their oppositional presentation.

5.The absolute singular (singularia tantum) number and the absolute plural (pluralia tantum) number. Oppositional reduction of the category for different groups of nouns.

 

Key terms: thingness, “the cannon ball problem”, common noun, proper noun, animate/ inanimate noun, human/non-human noun, countable/uncountable noun, concrete/abstract noun, selectional syntagmatic combinability

- biological sex, gender, gender agreement, formal category, meaningful category, gender classifiers, obligatory correlation, person/non-person nouns, neuter/feminine/masculine nouns, common gender, personification

- the singular/plural, (non-)productive means, (non-) dismembering (discrete, divisible) reflection of the referent, singularia tantum (absolute singular), pluralia tantum (absolute plural), generic use, lexicalization, collective meaning, descriptive plural, repetition plural

 

1. Noun as the central nominative lexemic unit of language. Categorial meaning of the noun. Formal characteristics of the noun. Syntactic functions of the noun. The noun as an attribute (“the cannon ball problem”).

The categorial meaning of the noun is “substance” or “thingness”. Nouns directly name various phenomena of reality and have the strongest nominative force among notional parts of speech: practically every phenomenon can be presented by a noun as an independent referent, or, can be substantivized. Nouns denote things and objects proper (tree), abstract notions (love), various qualities (bitterness), and even actions (movement). All these words function in speech in the same way as nouns denoting things proper.

Formally, the noun is characterized by a specific set of word-building affixes and word-building models, which mark a noun: suffixes of the doer (worker, naturalist, etc.), suffixes of abstract notions (laziness, rotation, security, elegance, etc.), special conversion patterns (to find – a find), etc. As for word-changing categories, the noun is changed according to the categories of number (boy-boys), case (boy-boy’s), and article determination (boy, a boy, the boy). Formally the noun is also characterized by specific combinability with verbs, adjectives and other nouns. The noun is the only part of speech which can be prepositionally combined with other words, e.g.: the book of the teacher, to go out of the room, away from home, typical of the noun, etc.

The most characteristic functionsof the noun in a sentence are the function of a subject and an object, since they commonly denote persons and things as components of the situation, e.g.: The teacher took the book. Besides, the noun can function as a predicative (part of a compound predicate), e.g.: He is a teacher; and as an adverbial modifier, e.g.: It happened last summer. The noun in English can also function as an attribute in the following cases: when it is used in the genitive case (the teacher’s book), when it is used with a preposition (the book of the teacher), or in contact groups of two nouns the first of which qualifies the second (cannon ball, space exploration, sea breeze, the Bush administration, etc.).

The last case presents a special linguistic problem, which is sometimes referred to as “the cannon ball problem”. One aspect of the problem can be formulated in the following way:

- is it a contact group of two nouns or

- is the first word in this phrase an adjective homonymous with a noun?

The arguments which support the former point of view are as follows: - the first word in such contexts does not display any other qualities of the adjective, except for the function, - it can not form the degrees of comparison, - it cannot be modified by an adverb, etc.; besides, - sometimes the first noun in such groups may be used in the plural, e.g.: translations editor. - An additional argument is purely semantic, cf.: a dangerous corner – a danger signal; the adjective dangerous describes the thing referred to by the following noun, so it is possible to ask a question “What kind of …?”, while the noun danger tells us what the purpose of the signal is, so the possible question is “What is it for?”

Another aspect of “the cannon ball problem” is as follows:

- can the components of such contact groups be considered as two separate words, or, as some linguists maintain,

- is it a kind of a compound word?

The arguments which support the former point of view are as follows: - a compound word is a stable, ready-made lingual unit, fixed in dictionaries, while most “noun + noun” groups are formed freely in speech; besides, - they can be easily transformed into other types of word-combinations e.g., prepositional word-combinations: a cannon ball à a ball for cannon, space exploration à exploration of space, etc.; - compound words as a rule need additional transformations which explain their “inner form”, or etymological motivation, e.g.: a waterfall – water of a stream, river, etc., falling straight down over rocks. So, combinations like space exploration are combinations of two nouns, the first of which is used as an attribute of the other. - They may include several noun attributes, especially in scientific style texts, e.g.: population density factor, space exploration programmes, etc.

 

Grammatically relevant subclasses of nouns. The grammatical peculiarities of different groups. Their selectional syntagmatic combinability.

As with any other part of speech, the noun is further subdivided into subclasses, or groups, in accord with various particular semantico-functional and formal features of the constituent words. The main grammatically relevant subclasses of nouns are distinguished in the following correlations.

1) On the basis of “type of nomination” proper nouns are opposed to common nouns. Common nouns present a general name of any thing belonging to a certain class of things, e.g.: river – any river, boy – any boy, while the proper nouns have no generalized meaning; they serve as a label, a nickname of a separate individual being or thing, e.g.: Mississippi, John, New York, etc. This semantic subdivision of nouns is grammatically manifested through the differences in their formal features of the category of article determination and of the category of number. The use of proper nouns in the plural or with the articles is restricted to a limited number of contexts: normally, one cannot use the plural form of the word New York, though it is possible to say There are two Lenas in our group, or The Joneses are to visit us. If proper nouns are used with articles or other determiners and/or in the plural, in most contexts it signifies their transposition from the group of proper nouns into the group of common nouns, e.g.: You are my Romeo!; I can’t approve of young Casanovas like you.

2) On the basis of “form of existence” of the referents animate nouns are opposed to inanimate nouns, the former denoting living beings (man, woman, dog), the latter denoting things and phenomena (tree, table). This semantic difference is formally exposed through the category of case forms, as animate nouns are predominantly used in the genitive case, cf.: John’s leg, but the leg of the table. This subdivision of nouns is semantically closely connected with the next one.

3) On the basis of “personal quality” humananimate nouns (person nouns), denoting human beings, or persons, are opposed to non-human animate and inanimate nouns (non-person nouns), denoting all the other referents. This lexico-semantic subdivision of nouns is traditionally overlooked in practical and theoretical courses on grammar, but it is grammatically relevant because only human nouns in English can distinguish masculine or feminine genders, e.g.: man – he, woman – she, while the non-human nouns, both animate and inanimate, are substituted by the neuter gender pronoun ‘it’. The exceptions take place only in cases of transposition of the noun from one group into another, e.g., in cases of personification, e.g.: the sun - he, the moon - she, etc.

4) On the basis of “quantitative structure” of the referent countable (variable) nouns are opposed to uncountable (invariable) nouns, the former denoting discrete, separate things which can be counted and form discrete multitudes, e.g.: table – tables, the latter denoting either substances (sugar), or multitudes as a whole (police), or abstract notions (anger), and some others entities. This subdivision is formally manifested in the category of number.

Besides the formal features enumerated above, the semantic differences between different groups of nouns are manifested through their selectional syntagmatic combinability; e.g., it is possible to say The dog is sleeping, but impossible to say *The table is sleeping.

 

3. The problem of gender category in English. Gender as a meaningful (natural) category and as a formal (arbitrary довільний, випадковий) category in different languages. Personal pronouns as gender classifiers of nouns. Gender oppositions of nouns. Oppositional reduction; personification.

The category of gender in English is a highly controversial subject in grammar. The overwhelming majority of linguists stick to the opinion that the category of gender existed only in Old English. They claim that, since formal gender markers disappeared by the end of the Middle English period and nouns no longer agree in gender with adjectives or verbs, there is no grammatical category of gender in modern English. They maintain that in modern English, the biological division of masculine and feminine genders is rendered only by lexical means: special words and lexical affixes, e.g.: man – woman, tiger – tigress, he-goat – she-goat, male nurse, etc.

The fact is, the category of gender in English differs from the category of gender in many other languages, for example, in Russian, in French or in German. The category of gender linguistically may be either meaningful (or, natural), rendering the actual sex-based features of the referents, or formal (arbitrary). In Russian and some other languages the category of gender is meaningful only for human (person) nouns, but for the non-human (non-person) nouns it is formal; i.e., it does not correspond with the actual biological sex, cf.: рука is feminine, палец is masculine, тело is neuter, though all of them denote parts of the human body.

In English gender is a meaningful category for the whole class of the nouns, because it reflects the real gender attributes (or their absence/ irrelevance) of the referent denoted. It is realized through obligatory correspondence of every noun with the 3rd person singular pronouns - he, she, or it: man – he, woman – she, tree, dog – it. For example: A woman was standing on the platform. She was wearing a hat. It was decorated with ribbons and flowers… Personal pronouns are grammatical gender classifiers in English.

The category of gender is formed by two oppositions organized hierarchically. The first opposition is general and opposes human, or person nouns, distinguishing masculine and feminine gender (man – he, woman – she) and all the other, non-human, non-person nouns, belonging to the neuter gender (tree, dog – it). The second opposition is formed by the human nouns only: on the lower level of the opposition the nouns of masculine gender and of feminine gender are opposed.

Gender

+ _