Concrete abstract

(observed idea CONCRETE ABSTRACT

& measured) situation light excitement

book, car, elephant remar bread luck

certainty grass happiness

difficulty

? music

? version

Though this classification seems quite logical, sometimes there are no clear-cut boundaries between different subgroups.

Now we take the second criterion, that of form. The number of grammatical categories of the noun varies as the status of different categories poses some problems for grammatical description. On the whole the number of grammatical categories differs from three to one.

The category recognized by all the grammarians is that of number. Modern English like most other languages distinguishes two numbers: singular and plural, i.e. the category of number is expressed by the opposition of the plural form to the singular form of the noun. The plural number shows that more than one object are meant. Thus the opposition is one ÷ more than one. The strong member of the binary opposition is the plural, its productive formal mark is the suffix –(e)s, e.g.: dogs, clocks, boxes. The productive formal mark correlates with the absence of the number suffix in the singular form of the noun. The other non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are

1. Vowel interchange in several old forms (man - men, woman – women, tooth – teeth);

2. The archaic suffix –(e)n supported by the phonemic interchange in a couple of other relic forms (ox – oxen, child – children, brother – brethren).

Plural and singular nouns stand in contrast as diametrically opposite. Instances are not few, however, when their opposition comes to be neutralized. This is to say that there are cases when the numeric differentiation appears to be of no importance at all. Here belong many collective, abstract, and material nouns. If we analyze the meaning of collective nouns, it is evident that they denote at the same time the concepts of plurality and a unity. They may be said to be doubly countable and thus from a logical point of view form the exact contrast to mass nouns: they are, in fact, at the same time singular and plural, while mass words are logically neither. The double-sidedness of collective nouns weakens the opposition and leads to the development of either Pluralia tantum as in: weeds, ashes, embers, etc., or Singularia tantum: wildfowl, clergy, foliage, etc. In some cases usage fluctuates, and the two forms are interchangeable: brain & brains, wage & wages.

The dual nature of collective nouns is shown linguistically in various ways: by the number of the verb or by the pronoun referring to it (My family are early risers, they are already here).

There are also two types of nouns differing from others in the way of number - they do not have the usual two number forms, but only one form: singularia tantum and pluralia tantum. The former have only the singular but no plural. The latter have only the plural and no singular.

Singular only nouns:

1. Proper names.

2. Names of subjects, diseases, and games (physics, mumps, billiards). These nouns are misleading because they look plural.

3. Nouns in a non-count use: e.g. music, homework, snow. Though some nouns can be used in a countable way: They had two beers.

Plural only nouns include:

1. Names of two-part items: scissors, binoculars, jeans.

2. A few dozen names ending in –s: amends, annals, auspices, congratulations, dregs, outskirts, remains, thanks, tropics. In such cases either there is no singular or the singular gives a different sense, e.g.: dregs of beer VS He’s a dreg! (Br E: worthless person).

3. A few nouns that look singular but are always plural, e.g.; vermin, livestock, cattle, poultry, people, folk, police.

Besides, there is a group of double-plural nouns.

1. Mention should be made in this connection of nouns which have two parallel variants in the plural exactly alike in function but different in their stylistic sphere of application: cows & kine (archaic, now chiefly poetic); f oes & fone (arch.), shoes & shoon (arch.) Unproductive archaic elements are sometimes used to create the atmosphere of elevated speech. This may be also traced in other languages (сыны – сыновья).

2. There are also double plurals used with some difference of meaning: brothers (sons of one mother) ÷ brethren (members of one community); geniuses (men of genius) ÷ genii (spirits), clothes (articles of dress) ÷ cloths (kinds of cloth), indexes (tables of contents) ÷ indices (in maths). Double plurals with the differentiation of meaning will be found in other languages as well (зубы – зубья; листья – листы; мужья – мужи; тона – тоны).

3. Very often the plural form, besides its specific meaning may also retain the exact meaning of the singular, which results in homonymy.

· Custom = habit, customs (=1. pl of habit; 2. duties)

· Colour = tint, colours (= 1. pl of tint; 2. flag)

· Effect = result, effects (= 1. results; 2. goods and chattels)

· Manner = mode or way, manners (= 1. modes, ways; 2. behaviour).

4. Morphological variation will be found in nouns foreign in origin. Through the natural process of assimilation some borrowed nouns have developed parallel native forms, as in: formula – formulae, formulas; focus – foci, focuses; stratum – strata, stratums). Foreign plurals are decidedly more bookish than the native ones.

Mention should also be made of the stylistic use of both plural and singular. Patterns like: trees in leaf, to have a keen eye, blue of eye, strong of muscle, will exemplify synecdoche – the simplest case of metonymy in grammar (“pars pro toto”). Compare in Russian: держать ухо востро; наметанный глаз; И слышно было до рассвета, как ликовал француз (М.Ю. Лермонтов).

Expressing plurality will be found in the so called “augmentative” plural, i.e. when the plural forms of material nouns are used to denote large amounts of substance, or a high degree of something: the blue waters of the Mediterranean, the sands of the Sahara desert, the snows of Kilimanjaro (similarly in Russian). Plural forms of abstract nouns will also be used for stylistic purposes: Wilfred has emotions, hates, pities, wants; at least, sometimes (Galsworthy); The look on her face … was full of secret resentments, and longings, and fears (Mitchell, Gone with the wind). In Russian: Повсюду страсти роковые И от судеб защиты нет (Пушкин). Отрады. Знаю я сладких четыре отрады (Брюсов). The same can be observed in French and other languages.

The metaphoric use of the plural of nouns denoting things to be considered unique is also an effective stylistic device: A glare brighter than a dozen suns … (Mitchell, Gone with the wind)[56].

A few nouns have the same form for both singular and plural, even though they are semantically variable, allowing a difference between “one” and “more than one”. They are termed “words without end”. Here belong nouns denoting:

1. Certain animals: sheep, salmon, deer.

2. Nationalities: Portuguese, Swiss, etc.

3. Several nouns expressing quantity: quid (in Br E for pound), pence, etc.

4. A few others: aircraft, hovercraft, offspring, series, species.

Quite naturally there exists a view that not every noun possesses the category of number [Rayevska 1967: 68-73]. Nouns denoting material substances (milk, chocolate, butter, etc.) and names of abstract notions are strictly speaking outside the sphere of number. But in the morphological and syntactic system of the English language a noun cannot stand outside the category of number. If the noun is the subject of the sentence, the predicate verb (if it is in the Present Tense) will have to be either singular or plural. The sign of this kind shows that the noun is in the singular.

***

As for the category of gender, most grammarians consider that in Modern English there is no category of grammatical gender or there is no such grammatical category. Among them there are such linguists as B.A. Ilyish, I.P. Ivanova, B.S. Khaimovich, B.J. Rogovskaya, A.I. Smirnitsky and some others. English nouns can show the sex of their referents lexically: boy – girl, cock – hen, bull – cow, husband – wife, bachelor – spinster, duck – drake etc., or with the help of word-building suffixes: actor – actresses, lion – lioness, tiger – tigress, woman-teacher, tom-cat, he-wolf. The noun does not possess any special gender forms; neither does the accompanying adjective, pronoun or article indicate any gender agreement with the head noun. Gender seems justified to be restricted to those languages that have the precise and mutually exclusive noun-classes marked clearly and formally.

Still some grammarians emphasize the fact that the semantic nature of this category does not in the least make it into non-grammatical. This idea was put forward by M.Y. Blokh. He considers that the category of gender is formed by two oppositions. One opposition functions in the whole set of nouns, dividing them into person (human) nouns and non-person (non human) nouns. The other opposition functions in the subset of person nouns only, dividing them into masculine and feminine nouns. As a result of these oppositions a system of three genders gets its outline: the neuter (non-person) gender, the masculine (masculine person) gender and the feminine (feminine person) gender.

To the group of neuter gender, according to M. Y. Blokh, belong such nouns as: tree, love, cat, society, crowd, etc. (they are non-person nouns). The feminine subclass of person nouns is represented by such nouns as woman, girl, mother, bride, etc. The masculine subclass of person nouns comprises such nouns as man, boy, father, bridegroom, etc.

M.Y. Blokh is not alone in this approach to the category of gender in Modern English. For example, Barbara Strang tries to prove the existence of the grammatical category of gender in Modern English by the possibility of the substitution by pronouns he, she, it indicating different genders (B. Strang. Modern English Structure. London, 1965). Thus the problem of gender remains debatable as long as there is some proof to it.

It should be admitted that there is a certain correlation between certain nouns and pronouns substituting for them. In particular, traditional names of countries correlate with the feminine pronoun (England / Australia and her people). Whereas official, geographic and political names go with the neuter gender (The United Kingdom and its people; The continent of Australia: its climate and natural resources). When different objects are personified in fables, folklore, poetics, the masculine gender is used in case the active, strong side is emphasized, and the feminine gender is used for something resembling a woman in fragility. Thus, in English poetics, Sun = he, Moon = she, Wind, Ocean, River = he; Nature = she; Fear, Love = he; Hope, Mercy = she. Any animal in fairy tales is represented as of masculine gender (Dog, Fish, Horse, Cat, Mouse = he) with an exception of those cases when there are special words for the feminine gender (Lioness = she) or a typical feminine behaviour is underlined, like in Aesop’s fable: Ant = he, grass-hopper = she.

Traditionally names of boats (boat, ship, etc.) and other vehicles especially when they are described emotionally are associated with the feminine gender (Something is wrong with my car, I can’t start her). Nevertheless in neutral contexts the neuter gender is admissible (I saw a car at the curb; its window was broken). Any inanimate object can be perceived as belonging to the feminine gender if it is thought of caressingly and it is acted upon (I am trying to move this cupboard over to the other wall. Just give me a hand with her / with it)[57].

3. The category of case

“ Case is a formal category of the noun which defines its relations to other units” [Longman Grammar 2000: 292]. In Old English there were 4 cases distinguished by inflection: nominative, genitive, dative and accusative. Inflections have been much reduced in present day English, and their role as syntactic signals has to a large extent been taken over by word order and function words. The only remaining case inflection for nouns is the genitive.

A noun that is not marked by a genitive inflection is said to be in the common case. The common case is used in a wide range of syntactic roles and is by far the most frequent form of a noun.

Thus from the point of view of form case is a morphological category, it preserves its syntactic nature from the point of view of its content. This is due to the fact that case indicates relations between the noun and words syntactically connected with it (as compared with such pure morphological categories as Number and Gender).

The English case system is characterized by a number of peculiar features:

1. The case system of nouns does not coincide with the case system of pronouns, which rarely happens in other languages.

2. The genitive use of an English noun depends on the lexical meaning of the noun, which is also characteristic of English only.

3. Nouns in the genitive occur only in the attributive function and only pre-modifying the head word (cf.: the post-modifying position in Russian: дом Петра, чашка молока).

4. English is characterized by the group genitive (somebody else’s child, the Prime Minister of England’s speech).

Another complication is rooted in the diversity of types of genitives that correspond to different meanings conveyed by this form. Longman Grammar offers the following classification:

1. Specifying genitives that specify the reference of the noun phrase in the same way as a determiner: the girl’s face, the artist’s first axiom.

2. Classifying genitives that are close to adjectives: a bird’s nest, children’s clothes.

3. Genetives of time: yesterday’s job, the autumn’s statement.

4. Genetives of measure include:

· genitives of duration (an hour’s discussion, a minute’s hesitation);

· genitives of distance (at arm’s length);

· genitives of value (50 pounds’ worth).

5. Elliptic genitives, or independent genitives: If a car’s dirty, it’s a woman’s (News). Many of them have become conventionalized: Macy’s; Marks & Spencer’s, McDonald’s.

6. Group genitives – when a genitive suffix is attached in the last word of a genitive phrase: Cedric and Jane’s house, the father of five’s case.

7. Double genitive is a special construction that makes it possible for the same head noun to take a specifying genitive and another determiner: a (determiner) bun of Mummy’s (specifying genitive); a good idea of Johnny’s; a friend of ours.

All this leads to a rigorous discussion of the problem of case in English nouns. Historically there are several approaches to the problem under analysis. Their existence is a result of a complex interplay of the factors described above.

The first grammarian who suggested and proved the existence of a two case system in English was H. Sweet. He wrote that if we take into account only the meaning rendered by English nouns in different usage, we are able to distinguish between 5 cases. They will be: Nominative, Genitive, Dative, Accusative and Vocative. But the point is that the factor of meaning taken alone is not sufficient. It is necessary to take into account the factor of form too. In other words there must be some formal sign (an inflexion) of a case. So his idea was that cases must be distinguished on the basis of two criteria – meaning and form. And according to his principle, two cases can be singled out in English – the Possessive case (having the formal sign ‘s) and the Common case (having no such sign). The term Common Case was also introduced by H. Sweet. O. Jespersen also supported this approach.

Nevertheless there are some other approaches to this problem. Thus, G. Curme, a representative of Classical Scientific Grammar, put forward a theory according to which there are four cases in English: Nominative, Accusative, Dative, and Genitive. The cases other than the Nominative are called the oblique cases. These four cases are recognized on the basis of the functions performed by the noun in the corresponding case. M. Deutschbein (1928) stuck to the same argumentation. E. Sonnenschein in “The Soul of Grammar” even insisted that English has the Vocative Case as well since we may prepose the interjection oh before a name.

The traditional approach to the problem of case in English is that there are two cases in English nouns – the unmarked Common Case and the marked, Possessive Case. Nowadays there are a lot of adherents of this theory, e.g. R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, J. Svartvik (A University Grammar of English, 1973), Rodney Huddleston and Geoffrey K. Pullum (A Student's Introduction to English Grammar, 2006). Among Russian linguists there are also supporters of the two-case system. They are A.I. Smirnitsky, L.S. Barkhudarov, V.N. Zhigadlo, I.P. Ivanova, L.L. Ioffic, V.N. Yartseva, M.M. Gukhman, B.A. Ilyish (1971), V.M. Zhirmunsky. One of the clearest and most unambiguous definitions of case was given by B.A. Ilyish: case is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and things or properties or actions, and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This sign is almost always an inflection, and it may also be a zero sign, i.e. the absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another. It is obvious that the minimum number of cases in a given language system is two, since the existence of two correlated elements at least is needed to establish a category. So the viewpoint expressed by B.A. Ilyish is that case is part of the morphological system of a language and consequently he won’t recognize any cases expressed by non-morphological means.

But the two-case system was also criticized and its critics were mostly Russian linguists. They noticed the difficulty in the identification of the meaning of the Common case which is contrary to what can be found in inflected languages. As it is known in inflected languages each case has its own meaning and function. Moreover the cases do not overlap in their meaning and function.

The problem with the Common Case was that when linguists tried to identify the meaning of the Common case in positive terms they found it next to impossible. It turned out that the meaning of the Common case could only be identified in the negative terms – as non-possessive. That was the definition of the Common case given by Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky. But this definition did not satisfy grammarians.

They began to analyze the two-case system from the point of view of their function and they found out that the Common Case does not have specific syntactic function of its own, the Common and the Possessive cases can be interchangeable, e.g. London airport, the Pushkin Museum. Here we have the noun in the Common case in the function typical for the Possessive Case – that of the pre-modifying attribute.

Then the Possessive case was analyzed closely as well and it appeared that it was equally impossible to identify its meaning. In the vast majority of phrases the Possessive Case has the meaning of possession (my father’s book). But this is not the only meaning. It also expresses the meaning of measure (a mile’s distance), local relations (at the baker’s), temporal meaning (a minute’s wait). When analyzed from the functional point of view the Possessive Case appeared not to have a syntactic position of its own. The most typical syntactical function of the Possessive Case is considered to be the function of the pre-modifying attribute (my sister’s pen). But it can be used also in other syntactic functions typical of the Common Case (at my sister’s; My father’s was a difficult problem; a friend of my father’s). All these factors contribute to the complexity of the grammatical content of the Possessive case.

This comparative analysis of the two cases enabled linguists to draw the conclusion that the two cases are not opposed to each other either in their syntactic function (they can perform the same syntactic functions) or in meaning (for the Possessive Case the meaning can be identified as that of possession, but as far as the Common case is concerned, its meaning can be identified only in negative terms).

The first linguist who denied the existence of cases in English was Professor G.N. Vorontsova in 1948. She gave the following reasons for that:

1. The post-modifying element ‘s is but loosely connected with the noun, which finds the clearest expression in its use not only with single nouns, but also with whole word-groups of various status: the man I saw yesterday’s son; the man who had hauled him out to dinner’s head.

2. There is an indisputable parallelism of functions between the possessive post-modifying constructions and the pre-modifying constructions. This can be proved by the corresponding transpositions like: the daughter of somebody else, the head of the man who had hauled him out to dinner, the son of the man I saw yesterday.

Among the proponents of this theory there are such linguists as B.A. Ilyish (1948) and A.M. Mukhin. B.A. Ilyish notes that the ending –s’ is the only remnant of the old case system of English nouns. Its meaning is being revised within the analytical system of the English language. It is turning into a formal particle, a specific equivalent of the preposition of [Ильиш 1948: 100]. This theory is supported by the authors of a University grammar of English published in the GDR in 1977 [English Grammar Leipzig 1977: 63]. They also point out that the Possessive form has a different meaning. As its function is to determine the following noun this form is dealt with as a possessive determiner, and the status of a formant is attached to ‘s.

Nowadays linguists think it more reasonable and convenient for teaching purposes to leave the two-case system of the English noun. Recognizing the existence of two cases in English, linguists are still trying to single out the meanings of the Possessive Case. In their opinion [Гуревич 2003: 9-10] these meanings can boil down to two items:

(1) the meaning of possession that is interpreted in broad terms (John’s house / wife / friend / work) including the designation of the subject of an action (John’s arrival). It’s of interest to note that the English Possessive case does not express the meaning of an object of an action (cf. in Russian: чтение книг). This makes the Possessive form in English devoid of the ambiguous characteristic of the corresponding Russian phrase (приглашение писателя may be both the writer’s invitation and an invitation of the writer).

(2) classifying (descriptive) meaning that displays the similarity of the Possessive Case to adjectives and other noun pre-modifiers: children’s books; an officer’s cap; a bird’s nest.

Mention should be made of the main tendencies in the occurrence of cases in English. First of all, s-genitives are outnumbered by of-phrases in all registers. Secondly, genitives based on nouns with human reference are more common than any other. Dependent genitives are far more common in news than in any other registers (news is followed by fiction, then go conversation and academic prose) as they serve the purposes of journalism well, in allowing the information to be presented in a concise way [Longman Grammar 2000].

3. The syntactic function of the noun

As for the third criterion, that of function, the most characteristic function of the noun is that of the subject and of the object in the sentence, though it can also easily perform other syntactic functions, those of an attribute, adverbial and predicative.

Apart from this, the noun is characterized by some special types of combinability. Of certain interest is the combinability of nouns with other nouns. There is disagreement among linguists on the point of combinability of two (or more) nouns in the Common Case without a preposition. These are such language units as cannon ball, stone wall, apple tree, face value, face control, trade balance, labour movement, labour party, the United Nations Organization, Trade Union, brain storm, toy dog, speech sound, etc. The essence of the problem is whether they are compound words (like motor-car) or word-combinations. And if they are the latter, then what is the first word in the set: a noun or an adjective.

They may be considered compounds when the two nouns express a single idea that is sometimes supported by spelling though fluctuating from solid to hyphenated or even separate:

Cf.: apple tree – apple-tree – appletree

brain storm – brain-storm – brainstorm

brain wave – brain-wave.

Prof. B.A. Ilyish maintains that the first components of the units in question are nouns functionally resembling adjectives.

A.I. Smirnitsky and O.S. Akhmanova regard these units as a kind of unstable compound words easily developing into word-combinations. The first components, they say, are not nouns because

1. They are not used in the plural: a rose garden ÷ a garden of roses.

2. Nouns are used as attributes only in the Possessive Case or with a preposition.

Hence they draw the conclusion that these first components are noun-stems convertible into adjectives.

The complex character of nouns like this is emphasized by N.N. Rayevskaya. She holds that they occupy an intermediate position between nouns and adjectives as on the one hand they are never used predicatively or do not admit of comparison. On the other hand, they have certain characteristic traits of adjectives:

ü Such nouns can be coordinated with adjectives connected by and, or, or by a linking word: the postal and telephone services;

ü They may be placed before the adjective with which they are coordinated: state, country and municipal offices, the evening and weekly papers;

ü They may be modified by adverbs: on merely business grounds, purely family gathering.

B.S. Khaimovich & B.J. Rogovskaya consider the language units like stone wall and the like to be noun word-combinations, the first component being a noun. They give the following reasons for that.

1. The first components of such units do occur in the plural: armaments drive, munitions board.

2. The first components of such formations may have left-hand connections with adjectives (film exchange – new film exchange, wall space – the red wall space), nouns in the Possessive Case (a skin trunk – a cow’s skin trunk), nouns in the Common Case (paper writing – business paper writing), numerals (32 year practice), etc. That proves that they are ordinary nouns and not noun-stems.

3. Practically every noun may be used as the first component of such combinations. This is particularly clear with nouns possessing special stem-building suffixes (education authorities), with proper nouns (the Kennedy airport), or when the first component consists of two nouns connected by a conjunction (Mother and child care).

The discussion of other issues of patterning of nouns in different structures brings about two things, which are worth noting in this respect.

It is important to observe that in certain contexts nouns can weaken their meaning of substance and approach adjectives thus making the idea of qualities of the given substance predominant in the speaker’s mind. Nouns functioning in this position are generally modified by adverbials of degree: more of a realist, more than woman, fool enough, more of a wife, not much of an animal. The use of a noun rather than an adjective is very often preferred as a more forcible expressive means to intensify the given quality. Compare the synonymic sets:

He was quite a success. – He was quite successful.

It was fun. – It was funny.

Such adverbial use is deep-rooted in English grammar; this use is most idiosyncratic in its nature. Patterns of different structural meaning can be singled out:

ü adverbial relations of time: life long, week long, age long;

ü adverbial relations of comparison: straw yellow, silver gray, ash blonde, ice cold, snow white, iron hard, sky blue, dog tired, paper white, pencil thin, ruler straight, primrose yellow, brick red, blade sharp;

ü different degree of quality: mountains high, a bit longer, a trifle easier, a shade darker, ankle deep.

Patterns of this kind are generally used metaphorically and their function is to express intensity and emphasis.

In the grammar of nouns there have also developed interjectional uses which seem to convert nouns into special kind of intensifiers: the hell you say, like hell I wish, I will like hell, how the devil should I know.

Ø Recommended literature:

1. Блох М.Я. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 2008. - С. 55-82.
2. Блох М.Я. Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского языка / М.Я. Блох, Т.Н. Семенова, С.В. Тимофеева. – М.: Высшая школа, 2004. – С. 109-139.
3. Воронцова Г.Н. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. – М.: Издательство литературы на иностранных языках, 1960. – С. 168-183.
4. Иванова И.П., Бурлакова В.В., Почепцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1981. – С. 21-34.
5. Ильиш Б.А. Строй современного английского языка. – Л.: Просвещение, 1971. – С. 36-48.
6. Иофик Л.Л., Чахоян Л.П., Поспелова А.Г. Хрестоматия по теоретической грамматике английского языка. – Л.: Изд-во «Просвещение», 1981. – С. 57-66.
7. Кобрина Н.А. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка: Учебное пособие / Н.А. Кобрина, Н.Н. Болдырев, А.А. Худяков. – М.: Высшая школа, 2007. – С. 10-42.
8. Хаймович Б.С., Роговская Б.И. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1967. – С. 51-75.

Ø Supplementary literature:

1. Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. – М.: Высшая школа, 1975. – С. 71-96.
2. Гуревич В.В. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Сравнительная типология английского и русского языков. – М.: Флинта: Наука, 2003. – С. 8-12.
3. Ильиш Б.А. Современный английский язык. - М.: Издательство литературы на иностранных языках, 1948. – С. 93-102, 108-119.

Дата добавления: 2017-01-14