Lecture 3.

ADJECTIVE

NOUN

ADJECTIVE

General Characteristics

The following features are commonly considered to be characteristic of adjectives.

Meaning:

-                generalized lexico-grammatical primary meaning of non-temporal property, e.g.: black, big, clever, etc.;

-                generalized grammatical secondary meaning of non-temporal prop­erty, e.g.: comfortable, national, graceful, etc.

Combinability with:

-                nouns, mostly in postposition, e.g.:

He was a pleasant fellow (T. Mori);

-                verbs in preposition, e.g.:

/ married young (M. Burgess);

-                adverbs of degree in preposition, e.g.:

... he was a deeply emotional man (S. Sheldon);

-                prepositional combinations in postposition, e.g.:

It is full of clean paper (W. Deeping).

Syntactic functions:

-                attributive;

-                predicative.

In attributive function, the adjective is part of a noun phrase: it generally precedes and modifies the head noun, e.g.:

She had a small child in her arms (W. S. Maugham).

 

Predicative adjectives characterize a noun phrase that is a sepa­rate clause element Predicative adjectives have two syntactic roles: sub­ject predicatives and object predicatives.

Subject predicatives complement a copular verb, characterizing the noun phrase in subject position, e.g.:

She was wonderful to me (D. Robins).

Object predicatives follow a direct object, making a predication about that noun phrase, e.g.:

He made the children happy (R. Quirk et al.).

Predicative adjectives are somewhat more frequent in fiction than in the other registers,

In conversation, attributive and predicative adjectives are both rela­tively rare because conversation is more verbal than nominal.

You got a cold? — No. Just a bit sniffy. Cos I"m — I am cold. And I’ll be all right once I’ve warmed up (D. Crystal, D. Davy).

Morphological structure. As far as their morphological structure is concerned, adjectives fall under simple, derived, and с о m p о u n d_v Simple adjectives have neither prefixes nor suffixes, e. g.: green, high, low, fat, etc.

Derived adjectives have either a prefix or a suffix or both. Derived adjectives are usually formed from nouns and verbs. The most productive adjective-forming suffix is -al, e.g.: international, local, natu­ral, formal, usual, etc.

The derivational suffixes -ent, -ive, and -ous are moderately common, too. Cf.:

different, present, innocent, silent, excellent', active, attractive, expensive, negative, relative', serious, curious, dangerous, famous, nervous, etc.

The derivational suffixes -ate, -ful, and -less are relatively rare in all registers. Cf.:

private, moderate', beautiful, useful', helpless, useless, etc.

Although the suffixes -like and -type are even less common, they have interesting uses. As a matter of fact they retain the meanings of like and type as separate words, and are therefore near the boundary between af­fixation and compounding. Cf.:

business-like, child-like, cat-like, rocklike, sharklike', Hollywood-type, Mr-Smith-type, textbook-type, etc.

Adjectives can be derived from other adjectives by the negative pre­fixes un-, in-, and non-, e.g.: unhappy, inattentive, nonexistent, etc.

In the last three examples, prefixation combines with suffixation.

Often, the difference between the adjective and the participle is not clear-cut. The verbal force of the participle is explicit for the -ing form when a direct object is present, for the -ed form — when a by-agent phrase with a personal agent is present. Cf.:

You are frightening the children (ibid).

The man was offended by the policeman (ibid).

Compound adjectives are made from a combination of more than one word and represent compact, integrated forms of expression, which are not easy to produce ‘online’ except for lexicalized components, such as tongue-tied, old-fashioned, etc. No wonder that compound ad­jectives are common in the written registers, but are relatively rare in conversation.

Formally, compound adjectives take many shapes. Adjectives can be added to other adjectives, e.g.: grayish-blue. Compounds can also be composed of an adjective and a noun, e.g.: full-time. Many adjective compounds involve participial forms, e.g.: highly-educated, good-look­ing, etc. But adverb-adjective sequences constitute by far the most productive type of compound adjectives, especially in news, e.g.: politically- independent, flercely-competitive, etc. Reduplicative compounds are more productive in conversation than in the other registers because they are lexicalized (the two parts rarely occur separately) and because they serve an emotive purpose (they usually play on sounds), e.g.:

wishy-washy — thin and without strength; watery; without de­termination or clear aims and principles; roly-poly — fat and round.

Morphological categories. In Old English, adjectives were inflected for case, gender, number, and degrees of comparison. In Modern English, only qualitative adjectives are marked for the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. Cf.: nice—nicer—nicest]

beautiful—more beautiful—most beautiful.

Classes of Adjectives

According to their meaning and grammatical characteristics, adjectives can be classified into qualitative and relative.

Qualitative adjectives denote qualities of a substance directly, e.g.: small, brown, quick, etc. Most qualitative adjectives have degrees of comparison, e.g.: small—smaller—smallest. From most qualitative ad­jectives adverbs can be formed by the suffix -ly, e.g.: quick—quickly. Qualitative adjectives are used both attributively and predicatively. Cf.: What wonderfully blue eyes you have, Ernest! (O. Wilde) — attribute. They are quite, quite blue (ibid) — subjective predicative.

Relative adjectives express qualities of a substance through their rela­tion to materials (wooden), place (Italian), time (weekly), or action (pre­paratory), i. e. indirectly. Relative adjectives have no degrees of compari­son. They do not form adverbs by the suffix -ly. Relative adjectives are chiefly used as attributes, e.g.:

...he found at the bottom of the box a pair of wooden skates which had been Kate’s when she was a child (A. J. Cronin).

There are no hard-and-fast lines between qualitative and relative ad­jectives. A relative adjective can acquire the meaning of a qualitative ad­jective. Cf.:

wooden walls = walls made of wood (A. S. Hornby); a wooden smile = an inexpressive smile (ibid).

V. N. Zhigadlo, I. P. Ivanova and L. L. Iofik mention also quantitative adjectives. This class comprises such words as many, much, little, and few. Like qualitative adjectives, they have degrees of comparison. Cf.: many, much — more — most, little — less — least, few —fewer —fewest, e.g.:

As opposed to qualitative adjectives, which express qualities of an object directly, and in contrast to relative adjectives, which denote qualities of an object indirectly, the so-called quantitative adjectives characterize the given object numerically, just as numerals do. Thus, it is open to discussion whether many, much, little, few can be consid­ered adjectives

five tables — numeral;

some tables — pronoun;

many tables — the so-called quantitative adjective.

Degrees of Comparison

Linguistic Status of the Category of Degrees of Comparison

The problem of degrees of comparison has given rise to much con­troversy. First of all, there is no unity of opinion concerning the charac­ter of this category in Modern English. Some linguists think that degrees of comparison should be treated as a lexical category. In their opinion, long—longer—longest represent three different words, not forms of one and the same word.

Criticizing this point of view, A. I. Smrnitsky says that long—longer— longest are not different words, but forms of the same word because they have the same stem long and are consequently characterized by identical lexical meaning.

Adjectives that Lack Degrees of Comparison

As a rule, only qualitative adjectives admit of degrees of comparison because they denote properties capable of appearing in different degrees, e.g.: fine—finer—finest.

But some qualitative adjectives stand outside the category of compari­son. They are:

-                adjectives that express the highest degree of a qual­ity, e.g.: supreme, extreme, etc.;

-adjectives having the suffix -ish, e.g.: reddish, whitish, etc.;

-                adjectives with a negative meaning, e.g.: illiterate - Relative adjectives have no degrees of comparison.

Number of Degrees of Comparison

The next question is how many degrees of comparison the English adjective has. With qualitative adjectives, which can denote degrees of a given quality, O.Jespersen; R.Quirk et al give  three types of comparison are possible:

-                comparison to the same degree;

-                comparison to a lower degree;

-comparison to a higher degree [.].

Comparison in relation to the same degree is expressed by as ... as, e.g.:

She's as pretty as her sister (Longman Dictionary of Contempo­rary English).

Comparison in relation to a lower degree is expressed by less and least, e.g.:

H. Sweet, M. Ganshina and N. Vasilevskaya mention only two degrees of comparison, namely the comparative degree and the superlative degree.

However, there is little justification for excluding the so-called posi­tive degree from the classification because although it does not imply any comparison, it forms the basis for comparison. R. Quirk and some other English grammarians call the positive degree the absolute degree.

The comparative degree indicates that the quality is found in the per­son or thing described in a higher degree than in some other person or thing, e.g.:

The man in the middle is stronger than the man on the left (A. S. Hornby).

The superlative degree denotes the highest degree of a quality, e.g.: He is the strongest of the three men (ibid).

Synthetic and Analytical Forms of Degrees of Comparison

The problem of forms of degrees of comparison is also controversial. Monosyllabic adjectives, i. e. adjectives consisting of one syllable, and the disyllabic adjectives ending in -er, -ly, -le, -y, and -w form the compara­tive degree by the suffix -er and the superlative degree — by the suffix -est. Cf.:

The days get longer... (B. Zaffran, D. Krulik).

...these were the longest days of the year (J. Cheever).

The examination was easier than we expected (R. Murphy).

The day we were married was the happiest day of my life (M. Fuchs, M. Bonner). /

This is a synthetic way of forming degrees of comparison. The exist­ence of synthetic forms of degrees of comparison is recognized by the majority of linguists. As to the combinations with more and most, less and least, the question is debatable.

First, we shall discuss the problem of the combinations with less and least, e.g.: less important — least important. To qualify these constructions as analytical degrees of comparison, we must prove that they represent analytical forms of the adjective important. Analytical forms are gener­ally opposed to synthetic forms. As to combinations with less and least, they have no parallel synthetic forms to express a lower degree of this or that quality.

Now we shall take up the problem of the combinations with more and most, e.g.:

Let’s talk about something more interesting (R. Murphy).

He’s the most interesting person I’ve ever met (ibid).

According to V. N. Zhigadlo, I. R Ivanova and L. L. Iofik, they are also outside the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. First, more and most form combinations with adjectives similar to those with less and least: more beautiful — less beautiful, most beautiful — least beauti­ful, e.g.:

Oh, I’m the most sensible person here — and Lucille is the least sen­sible (С. E. Eckersley).

Since the forms less beautiful and least beautiful are not degrees of comparison, the combinations with more and most cannot be considered degrees of comparison either.

Second, combinations with most can be used with the indefinite arti­cle to express a very high degree of quality, e.g.:

A most tragic thing happened to her early in the war (W. Deeping).

Finally, V. N. Zhigadlo, I. P. Ivanova and L. L. Iofik consider it wrong in refer to the forms with more and most to degrees of comparison because mare and most fully retain their lexical meaning. They really do. Cf.: You’ll be more comfortable if you turn the seat down (С. E. Ecker- sley).

They were the most beautiful children she had ever seen (S. Sheldon).

English grammarians do not use the terms synthetic and analytical forms of degrees of comparison. They speak of inflectional and phrasal comparison. The essence of the two sets of terms is the same.

The choice between inflectional and phrasal comparison, as has al­ready been shown, is largely determined by the length of the adjective. Although monosyllabic adjectives normally form the comparative and superlative degrees by inflection, most monosyllabic and disyllabic ad­jectives can also form/their degrees of comparison with more and most. Phrasal forms are usually used for emphasis in spoken English. Cf.:

You should be more proud of the things you’ve already achieved (M. Foley, D. Hall).

I think this is the one she is the most proud of (ibid).

In conversation, adjectives are occasionally doubly marked for degree, carrying both inflectional and phrasal markers. Cf.:

It’s much more warmer in there (D. Biber et al.).

She’s a bit more nicer than Mrs. Jones (ibid).

Irregular Forms of Comparison

Besides the already mentioned synthetic and analytical forms of de­grees of comparison, there are irregular forms. A few adjectives have suppletive forms of comparison that are derived from different roots, e. g.: good—better—best, bad—worse—worst. Cf.:

Is Lucille a good dancer? (С. E. Eckersley).

You’re a much better cook than your mother was, Elizabeth (S. Sheldon).

The best women are divorced... And the best men are married (A.Sillitoe).

A few adjectives have two sets of degrees of comparison, e.g.: old—older—oldest (age in general); old—elder—eldest (age within the family). Cf.:

She is an old woman... (I. Shaw).

His friends were older than Vivian (S. Sheldon).

... White’s was one of the oldest clubs in England... (ibid).

My elder brother was in a car accident last week (M. Swan).

The eldest daughter does all the housework (ibid).

Since the second set of forms (elder— eldest) has a meaning slightly different from the meaning of the positive degree (old), they can hardly be regarded as grammatical forms of degrees of comparison, but should be qualified as separate lexical units which originally were, perhaps, gram­matical degrees of comparison of the adjective old.

Absolute Use of the Superlative Degree

Adjectives in the superlative degree imply limitation, that’s why the noun modified by an adjective in the superlative degree always combines with the definite article or one of the definite determiners, e.g.:

It was one of the worst days for him (N. Hale).

Since adjectives preceded by the definite article are easily sub­stantivized, the superlative degree is often used absolutely, either with the head noun mentioned before or without any noun whatsoever.

Their pool was perhaps the oldest in the country... (J. Cheever).

But if the worst comes to the worst, don’t blame me (ibid).

Substantivization of Adjectives

Adjectives can be substantivized, i.e. become nouns. When adjectives are converted into nouns, they no longer indicate properties of sub­stances, but come to express substances possessing these properties. In I English, the process of substantivization is easier than in Russian due to I he scantiness of inflections. Substantivization can be whole and partial.

Adjectives wholly converted into nouns acquire not only the gram­matical meaning of nouns but also their typical morphological and syn­tactic characteristics:

- ability to form the plural, e.g.:

All natives have good hands and feet (W. S. Maugham);

-ability to be used in the genitive case, e.g.:

He is investigating the ancients’ conception of the universe (R. Quirk et al.);

-ability to be used with the indefinite article, e.g.:

I spoke the language like a native... (W. S. Maugham);

-ability to be modified by an adjective, e.g.:

My uncle is my nearest living relative (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English);

-the functions of subject and/or object in the sentence, e.g.: A native was silently rowing up-stream... (W. S. Maugham) — sub­ject;

The government of the island treated the natives badly (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English) — object.

More often substantivization is but partial. In the case of partial substantivization, adjectives acquire the grammatical meaning of nouns (‘thingness’), the noun combinability with the definite article or some other definite determiner, and the noun functions of subject and/or ob­ject, e.g.:

The poor must stand together everywhere (Th. Dreiser) — subject. ...it seems to me I saw everybody but the dead (S. Bellow) — ob­ject.

However, they lack the grammatical categories of case and number and never combine with the indefinite article.

A. I. Smirnitsky thinks that in order to become a noun, an adjective must acquire number distinctions. That’s why he does not recognize partial substantivization and treats cases like the rich, the poor, etc. as the use of adjectives without nouns.

But the category of number is common only to countable nouns. Uncountable nouns stand outside the category of number. Neverthe­less, nobody denies them the status of nouns. So, the argument of A. I. Smirnitsky is not convincing.

Adjectivization of Nouns

The question of adjectivization of nouns presents a number of difficulties, too. Here we shall deal with such constructions as stone wall, peace talks, etc.

In the opinion of B.A. Ilyish, it is practically impossible to prove whether stone in stone wall is a noun or an adjective.

H. Sweet thinks that the first component in these constructions is a noun because it lacks the category of degrees of comparison. However, many adjectives have no degrees of comparison either.

E. P. Shubin also refers the first component in constructions of the type stone wall to nouns.

The divergence of views, in our opinion, is due to the gradual proc­ess of adjectivization. The latter is reflected in dictionaries. Thus, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English presents family and business as nouns. For silver it has two entries:

silver (n) — a soft whitish precious metal; silver (adj) — made of silver.

Solid and hyphenated compounds of the type everyday, matter-of-fact are qualified there as adjectives.

Only time will show whether all the attributive nouns will turn into adjectives proper, but their adjectivization is an indisputable fact.

It seems reasonable to follow D. Crystal and say that at the present stage nouns, which appear in the position associated with adjectives, form a ‘mixed’ word class.

Problem of Statives

The first grammarian to mention statives in English was B.A. Ilyish. He thinks that words of the category of state, for instance, asleep, alive constitute a separate part of speech because they possess semantic, mor­phological, and syntactic characteristics of their own.

Semantically, he says, statives are marked by the presence of a seme of state, as opposed to adjectives that express non-temporal property, e.g.: ...he had been asleep for some time... (J. K. Jerome), which means that he had been in a state of sleep for some time.

In the opinion of L. S. Barkhudarov, the meaning of state is merely a variety of the meaning of non-temporal property typical of adjectives. So, in his opinion, statives do not differ from adjectives as far as their mean­ing is concerned.

Morphologically, statives seem to stand apart from adjectives, for they have a specific prefix a- and lack the grammatical category of degrees of comparison. On closer inspection, the absence of degrees of compari­son does not prove anything. On the one hand, there are a lot of adjec­tives that stand outside the grammatical category of degrees of compari­son. On the other hand, some of the so-called statives form degrees of comparison just like most qualitative adjectives, e.g.:

The two main meals of the day, lunch and dinner, are both more or less alike (Lingaphone English Course).

As for the prefix a-, the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English regards it as an adjective-forming prefix.

A.               A. Ilyish thinks that statives possess the category of tense. He is asleep, in his opinion, refers to the present tense as opposed to He was asleep, which is past, and to He will be asleep, which is future.

However, this point of view does not seem convincing.

The combinability of statives and adjectives, according to L.S. Bar­khudarov, is also alike. Thus, both adjectives and statives can be modi­fied by adverbs and prepositional combinations. Cf.:

She was very happy (W. S. Maugham).

In a minute she was fast asleep (P. Abrahams).

He was conscious of a sense of adventure (W. Deeping).

Yet he was aware of a sense of unreality (ibid).

The only thing that differentiates statives from adjectives is their syn­detic function in the sentence. Adjectives are generally used both attributively and predicatively, statives — mainly predicatively:

She is aloof from her classmates (S. Sheldon).

...his soul was ablaze with bliss (M. Twain).

I was aware again of that feeling of discomfort (D. du Maurier).

That’s why we shall look upon words with the prefix a- as a specific subclass of adjectives.

 

 NOUN

NOUN

General Characteristics

 

The English noun is a part of speech that is characterized by the fol­lowing features.

Meaning:

-                generalized lexico-grammatical primary meaning of Thingness⁵, e.g.: table, chair, lamp, etc,;

-generalized grammatical secondary meaning of Thingness⁵, e.g.: joy, peace, milk, etc.

Combinability with:

-                verbs, both in preposition and in postposition, e.g.:

He closed the door... (S. Sheldon).

The door closed (I. Murdoch);

-                adjectives, usually in preposition, e.g.:

She was a beautiful girl... (J. Cheever);

-                prepositive nouns, both in the common and in the genitive case, e. g.:

I saw it in the Chicago newspaper (F. S. Fitzgerald).

... and the evenings were long and happy, because Robert’s father was there (N.Hale);

-                prepositive articles and other determiners, e.g.:

Wait a minute (Е/Hemingway).

The father tried his best... (W. C. Williams).

Mv heart sank a little (W. S. Maugham);

-                prepositions, e.g.:

He read a letter from his wife to me (T. Mori).

Syntactic functions:

-                subject, e.g.:

Father decided to take a holiday from his office... (S. Leacock);

-object, e.g.:

You love your parents, don’t you? (J. D. Salinger).

Morphological structure. As far as their morphological structure is concerned, nouns fall under the following types: simple, derived, and compound.

Simple nouns have neither prefixes nor suffixes, e.g.: book, pen, pencil, table, chair, lamp, etc.

Derived nouns have either a prefix or a suffix or both. Noun deriva­tional prefixes typically do not change the word class; i.e. the prefix is attached to a noun base to form a new noun with a different meaning, e.g.:

group — subgroup.

Noun derivational suffixes, on the other hand, often change the word class; i. e. the suffix is often attached to a verb or adjective base to form a noun with a different meaning. Cf.: agree (v) — agreement (n); effective (adj) — effectiveness (n).

There are, however, also many nouns that are derived by suffixes from other nouns, e.g.:

infant (n) — infancy (n).

In compound nouns two or more than two words are combined to form a single noun. In English, compounding is a highly productive proc­ess. Cf.: eye-witness, lamp-post, bigwig, cookbook, rocking-chair, income, self-control, etc.

Practice varies as to whether to represent a compound as two ortho­graphic words, one unbroken orthographic word, or a hyphenated word. Partly this is because there is no clear dividing line between compounds and free combinations.

Compounds are over twice as frequent in news than in conversation. It is not surprising, for the overall frequency of nouns in conversation is much smaller than in news. What is more, the greater variety of com­pound patterns in news fits in with the tendency of this register to use a more varied vocabulary.

‘Noun + noun compounds’ are the most productive type structurally, e.g.: newspaper. The next most common types of compounds are those consisting of ‘adjective + noun’ and those beginning or ending with a particle, e.g.: highway, feedback, outfit.

Morphological categories. Nouns have the morphological categories of case and number.

Category of Case Definition of Case

The notion of case goes back to Ancient Greece.

Nowadays, case is usually regarded as a morphological form of a de­clinable word used to Express a certain meaning or to denote a certain relation to other words [С. T. Onions],

B. A. Ilyish gives another definition. In his opinion, case is a category of the noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and another thing, property, or action. This definition does not stand criticism: being a linguistic notion, case cannot connect objects of extra linguistic reality.

Number of Cases

Linguists are still at variance as to the number of cases in Modem English. Representatives of universal grammar speak of 6 cases.

J.C.Nesfield mentions 5 cases: nominative, vocative, accusative, genitive, and dative remarking at the same time that the genitive is the only case that is now indicated by change of form. The other cases have lost their case inflections and are indicated only by grammatical rela­tion.

When a noun is used as subject, it is said to be in the nominative case, e.g.:

Rain falls (J. C. Nesfield).

When a noun is used for the sake of address, it is said to be in the vocative case, e.g.:

Are you coming, my friend? (ibid).

When a noun is a direct object, it is said to be in the accusative case, e.g.:

Mary took the money (M. Vince, K. McNicholas).

When a noun is an indirect object, it is said to be in the dative case, e.g.:

I gave the boy a penny (J. C. Nesfield).

According to G. Curme, there are 4 cases in Modern English: nomi­native, genitive, dative, and accusative. These cases did exist in Old Eng­lish. In the course of time, however, the original nominative, dative, and accusative coincided in one form that is opposed nowadays to the in­flected genitive.

 Every grammatical category should comprise a limited number of members. If we referred prepositional combinations to case forms, the number of cases would grow immensely, and we would be merely creat­ing the illusion of classification.

The majority of linguists recognize the existence of 2 cases in Mod­ern English: common and genitive. The common case is unmarked both in meaning and in form. It has a very general meaning that is specified by means of word order and prepositions and that may be characterized only negatively as a non-genitive form. It is represented by a zero expo­nent. Nouns in the common case can perform any syntactic function in the sentence. Cf.:

Suddenly the weather changed (L. Untermeyer) — subject.

He touched my hand (G. Jones) — direct object.

The grocer gave the baby a stick of candy... (H. Garland) — non- prepositional indirect object.

Mrs. Hall did not ask about her affairs (H. Garland) — prepositional indirect object.

He was a shy man (B. MacLeverty) — predicative.

She’s in the souvenir shop (English Course) — attribute.

He had not seen Mabel for seven years (W. S. Maugham) — adver­bial.

Genitive Case

Form of the Genitive Case

The genitive case is marked both in meaning and in form. The regu­lar way of forming the genitive case of singular nouns is by adding’s, e.g.: My sister's little girl fell downstairs (J. Cheever).

There are two ways of forming the genitive case of plural nouns. If the plural ends in -s, we just add an apostrophe, e.g.:

Even grandmothers' dreams don't always come true... (D.H. Law­rence).

If the plural does not end in -s, we add's, e.g.:

The children's toys are new (R. Quirk et ah).

Meaning of the Genitive Case

The central meaning of the genitive case is that of possession, e.g.: Vinny would inherit her mother’s money (D. H. Lawrence).

That’s why A. I: Smirnitsky suggests that the genitive case should be called the possessive case.

Types of Nouns Used in the Genitive Case

In Old English, the genitive case was freely formed from all nouns. In Modern English, the genitive case is restricted to the following nouns: -personal names, e.g.:

George Washington's statue (R. Quirk et al.);

-personal nouns,e.g.: the boy's new bicycle (ibid);

-animal nouns, in particular those denoting 'higher animals’, e.g.:

the horse's tail (ibid); the dog's collar (ibid);

-collective nouns, which emphasize the aspect of 'organized individuals’, in particular those denoting authoritative and other organi­zational bodies, e.g.:

the government's economic plans (ibid); the committee's decision (ibid);

-geographical names:

continents: Europe'sfuture (ibid); countries: China's development (ibid); states: Maryland's Democratic senator (ibid); cities and towns: London's water supply (ibid); universities: Harvard's Department of Linguistics (ibid); -locative nouns denoting regions, institutions, heavenly bod­ies, etc. They can be very similar to geographical names, and are often written with initial capital letters, e.g.: the world's economy (ibid); the Club's pianist (ibid); the hotel's entrance (ibid); the school's history (ibid);

-temporal nouns,e.g.: a day's work (ibid); a moment's thought (ibid); today's paper (ibid);

I

- other nouns of 'special relevance to human activity’, e.g.: the mind’s development (R. Quirk et al.); the body’s needs (ibid); my life’s aim (ibid); the book’s true importance (ibid); the novel’s structure (ibid); a word’sfunction (ibid); television’s future (ibid); duty’s call (ibid); the poll’s results (ibid); the treaty’s ratification (ibid).

Use of the Genitive Case

As to its use, the genitive case falls under dependent and independ­ent. Dependent genitives are used with the nouns they modify and come before them, e.g.:

He stared at his aunt’s face (J. C. Oates).

Independent genitives occur without a following head noun. Many independent genitives involve ellipsis. In elliptical genitives, the head noun can be inferred either from the preceding or from the following context. Cf.:

My car is faster than John’s (R. Quirk et al.).

Mary’s was the prettiest dress (ibid).

Choice between S-Genitives and Of-Phrases

The genitive meaning can be rendered by a noun as head of a prepo­sitional phrase with of. The of-phrase is normally used with inanimate concrete nouns, e.g.:

the roof of this house (R. Quirk et al.).

The choice between the s-genitive and the of-phrase, according to the  authors of the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, varies depending upon a number of factors, the most important of which are: register, the type of dependent noun, semantic relations between head and the dependent phrase, the complexity of the dependent phrase, the information status of the dependent phrase, and specific collocations.

Group Genitive

Sometimes the genitive suffix is attached not to the head noun, but lo the last word of a genitive phrase. It is the so-called group genitive. The group genitive is most common with of-phrases and coordinate phrases. Cf.:

the Museum of Modem Art’s Director (R. Quirk et al.); a minute or two’s rest (D. Biber et al.).

Category of Number

From a logical point of view, the distinction is between one and more than one. The corresponding grammatical distinction is between singu­lar and plural, e.g.: a table—tables.

Some linguists say that the essential meaning of the category of number is not that of quantity, but that of discreteness. The plural, ac­cording to them, denotes something consisting of distinguishable parts, e.g.: spectacles, scissors, trousers, etc. [E. A. Korneyeva, N. A. Kobrina, K. A. Guzeyeva, M.I.Ossovskayaj.

These nouns do indicate discrete things consisting of two parts. But we are hardly justified in referring them to the plural number because they have no singular counterparts, and the plural and the singular are cor­relative notions: when there is no singular, we cannot speak about the plural, and vice versa.

So, the generalized grammatical meaning of number is that of quan­tity. In Modern English, it is represented by the opposition ‘oneness (sin­gular) — more than oneness (plural)’.

At first sight, it may seem that the difference between the singular and the plural is not grammatical, but lexical since, for example, table (sin­gular) and tables (plural) denote different objects of extra linguistic real­ity [F. F. Fortunatov]

However, we know that the meaning of a word cannot be identified with the thing it is used to denote. Besides, we should not disregard the fact that the idea of plurality usually has constant grammatical forms of its expression. In English, it is the inflection -(e)s, e.g.: a lamp — lamps, a box—boxes.

(The inflection -es is added after -s, -ss, -ch, -sh, -tch, -x, -z, and -o.)

We can only speak of ‘more than one’, i. e. of the plural, in regard to things, which, without being identical, belong to the same kind [O. Jespersen]. Plurality, thus, presupposes difference, but if the differ­ence is too great, it is impossible to use words like ‘two’ or ‘three’. For instance, a brick and a musical sound are not two.

Some linguists single out two other types of the plural: lexicalized plural and the plural of approximation.

The so-called lexicalized plural either introduces new shades of mean­ing into the singular or comes to render a totally different meaning. Cf.: Tragedy is lack of experience (D. H. Lawrence).

He’s had many odd experiences (R. Quirk et al.).

Colour (цвет) — colours (флаг).

The form of lexicalized plural is identical with that of grammatical plural: -(e)s. But the meaning of lexicalized plural is always different from the corresponding singular. That’s why it should be excluded from the grammatical category of number, for the components of the grammati­cal category of number should be lexically identical.

The plural of approximation, mentioned by O. Jespersen, in our opin­ion, is closer to lexical forms, for though, like grammatical plural, it ends in -(e)s and denotes several objects, the objects do not belong to the same kind, e.g.: There are many things people remember about the sixties (J. C. Richards, J. Hull, S. Proctor), where sixties does not mean 'one sixty + another sixty + ...’, but ‘sixty’ + ‘sixty-one’ + ‘sixty-two’, and so on till ‘sixty-nine’.

There are several irregular ways of forming the plural:

-voicing of final consonants--splural. Some nouns end­ing in -/or -fe form their plurals by changing the ending to -ves, e.g.i a knife— knives.

Others have regular plurals as well, e.g.: a scarf—scarves (scarfs);

-mutation plurals. In a few nouns, the plural is formed by mutation, i.e. a change in the vowel, e.g.: a man —men; a woman — women; a foot—feet; a tooth —teeth, etc.;

- -en plurals, e.g.: an ox—oxen.

Children, the plural of child, combines a vowel change and the irregular ending -en;

-zero plurals. Countable nouns that have the same form for sin­gular and plural are said to have zero plural, e.g.: a sheep—sheep; a deer—deer;

-foreign plurals. In many learned words scholars have intro­duced the plural as well as the singular form from foreign languages, e. g.:

curriculum — curricula] formula — formulae.

There is, however, a strong tendency to inflect such words in the Eng­lish way, especially in everyday speech, e.g.: a formula—formulas.

As regards the category of number, all English nouns can be divided into two classes: countable and uncountable. Countable nouns are those that have the opposition ‘singular—plural’, e.g.: a book—books.

Uncountable nouns do not call up the idea of any definite thing with a certain shape or precise limits. They are either material, e.g.: silver, water, butter, gas, etc., or abstract, e.g.: leisure, music, success, tact, etc.

Singular collective nouns that refer to groups of people (e.g.: family, team, government, etc.) may be treated as either singular or plural. They are treated as plural, especially in British English, when the focus is on the group as individuals. In these cases, a plural verb is used, and the group is referred to by the pronouns they and who, e.g.:

My family arg wonderful. They do all they can for me. I don't know any other family who would do so much (M. Swan).

They are treated as singular when we see the group as an impersonal unit. In these cases, a singular verb is used, and the group is referred to by the pronoun it ^nd the words which and that, not who, e.g.:

The average family (which now consists of four members at most) is a great deal smaller than й used to be (ibid).

In American English, singular verbs are normal with most of collec­tive nouns (though the noun family can have a plural verb).

In British English, they prefer to use a singular verb if it combines with the indefinite rather than the definite article.

Those uncountable nouns that always combine with plural verbs and are substituted by plural pronouns are called Pluralia Tantum. Most Pluralia Tantum end in -s. Cf.:

My trousers are getting too small round the waist (ibid).

The nurse’s wages were good (W. Collins).

Where arg my scissors? (A. S. Hornby).

The sugar-tongs were too wide for one of her hands, and she had to use both in wielding them (Ch. Bronte).

Some Pluralia' Tantum lack the final -s. They include the following nouns:

-                people, e.g.:

Were there many people at the meeting? (Longmap Dictionary of Contemporary English);

-police, e.g.:

The police have caught the murderer (ibid);

-                cattle, e.g.:

All his cattle were grazing in the field (R. Quirk et ah);

-                poultry (farmyard birds), e.g.:

Where are your poultry? (ibid)[1];

-                livestock (animals kept on a farm), e.g.:

Our livestock arg not as numerous as they used to be (ibid);

-                vermin, e.g.:

These vermin cause disease (ibid).

 

 

Category of Gender

Traditionally, gender is defined as a morphological category that finds its expression in special noun inflections of gender and that is closely tied I о the sex of the referent.

There is no unity of opinion concerning the category of gender in Modern English. Old English nouns distinguished 3 grammatical gen­ders: masculine, feminine, and neuter. H. Sweet finds the same 3 gen­ders in Modern English.

Criticizing the conception of H. Sweet, A.I.Smirnitsky emphasizes that in Modern English it is not nouns, but the things they denote that are classified into the so-called genders. For instance, there is no formal difference between the nouns boy and girl. But the noun boy is consid­ered to belong to the masculine gender, the noun girl — to the feminine gender. In other words, gender in Modem English nouns is expressed lexically, by using:

-                totally different nouns, e.g.: father—mother,

son — daughter, uncle—aunt, man —woman', bull—cow, etc;

-derived nouns with masculine and feminine suffixes: -erj-or, -ess, e.g.:

waiter— waitress', actor—actress',

-                compound nouns in -man and -woman, e.g.: policeman —policewoman',

-                a modifier denoting sex, e.g.: boy-friend-girl-friend',

he-goat—she-goaf,

Tom-cat—Pussy-cat, male nurse; female officer, woman doctor, etc.

English speakers use masculine terms more often than feminine terms. There are two reasons for the preference of male terms over female terms.

Gender in Modern English is expressed neither morphologically i. e. by special inflections of gender, nor syntactically, i. e. by forms o; agreement. Gender in Modern English is a purely lexical category.

Semantic Classification of Nouns

The semantic classification of nouns still causes much controversy among linguists. According to W. L. Chafe, the distinction between count­able and uncountable nouns is most important. V. V. Bogdanov takes the opposition ‘animate —inanimate’ as a starting point for his noun classi­fication. We side with Y. S. Stepanov in regarding the relation to extra lin­guistic reality as a basis for a semantic classification of nouns.

At the first stage, in accordance with the presence or absence of di­rect connection with extra linguistic reality, all nouns are divided into those denoting objects and those denoting non-objects, i.e. abstract no­tions. Objects are further subdivided into those having clear-cut bounda­ries and those having no definite boundaries, i.e. material nouns, e.g.: water, milk, sand, etc. Objects having clear-cut boundaries fall into liv­ing and non-living, i.e. things, e.g.:pen, table, chair, etc. Living objects can be animate and inanimate, i.e. plants, e.g.: rose, tulip, lily, etc. Ani­mate living objects either lack person characteristics (animals), e.g.: cat, dog, fox, etc. or possess person characteristics (people).

Nouns denoting things, people, and sometimes plants and materi­als can be classified into two large classes: common, e.g.:pen, cat, boy, rose, water, etc. and proper, e.g.: Britain, Rex, John, Burgundy, etc. Common nouns generally draw a distinction between singularity and plurality. Cf.:

This is a hat. — These are hats (A. S. Hornby).

This is a child. — These are children (С. E. Eckersley).

The only exception is constituted by common material nouns, where the plural suffix, as a rule, introduces a new shade of meaning that is incompatible with the grammatical plural. Cf.:

The water feels very cold on winter mornings... (С. E. Eckersley). Where are we going, Grandpa? — To wash in the waters of bitter­ness (A. J. Cronin).

In common nouns denoting people and sometimes animals, the di­chotomy ‘singularity—plurality’ is supplemented by collective nouns, e.g.: people, police, cattle, etc. Collective nouns denoting people, in the opinion of R. Quirk and his co-authors, possess person characteristics when they combine with plural verbs and/or are substituted by plural pronouns, e.g.:

The committee have met and they have rejected the proposal (R. Quirk et al.).

 

 

---

  

---