2. 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” human animate 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

+ _

Person nouns Non-person nouns

+ -

Feminine nouns Masculine nouns

Gender is a constant feature category: it is expressed not through variable forms of words, but through noun classification; each noun belongs to only one of the three genders.

In addition, there is a group of nouns in English which can denote either a female or a male in different contexts; these nouns can be substituted by either ‘he’ or ‘she’, e.g.: president, professor, friend, etc. They constitute a separate group of nouns – the common gender nouns. For them the category of gender is a variable feature category.

There are no formal marks to distinguish the strong and the weak members in either of the gender oppositions. They can be distinguished semantically:

- nouns of the neuter gender in the upper level of the opposition is more abstract (strong members) compared to masculine and feminine gender nouns; they are the weak member of the opposition and are naturally used in the position of neutralization. For example: The girl was a sweet little thing; “What is it over there: a man or just a tree?”

- On the lower level of the opposition, masculine gender nouns are the weak member of the opposition (compared to feminine – strong members) and can be used to denote all human beings irrespective of sex, e.g.: Man must change in the changing world. When there is no contextual need to specify the sex of the referent, common gender nouns are also neutrally substituted by the masculine pronoun, e.g.: Every student must do his best.

Besides the cases of neutralization, the most obvious examples of oppositional reduction in the category of gender are the cases when the weak member of the opposition, nouns of neuter gender, are used as if they denote female or male beings, when substituted by the pronouns ‘he’ or ‘she’. In most cases such use is stylistically colored and is encountered in emotionally loaded speech. It is known as the stylistic device of personification and takes place either in some traditionally fixed contexts, e.g.: a vessel – she; or in high-flown speech, e.g., Britain – she, the sea – she. In fairy-tales and poetic texts weak creatures are referred to as she, and strong or evil creature as he, e.g.: Death is the only freedom I will know. I hear His black wings beating about me! (Isles)

4. Formal and functional peculiarities of the singular/plural forms of nouns. Their opposition.The absolute singular (singularia tantum), the absolute plural (pluralia tantum). Oppositional reduction of the category for different groups of nouns.

The category of number presents a classic example of a binary privative grammatical opposition. The category of number is expressed by the paradigmatic opposition of two forms: the singular and the plural. The strong member in this opposition, the plural, is marked by special formal marks, the main of which is the productive suffix –(e)s which exists in three allomorphs - [s], [z], [iz], e.g.: cats, boys, roses. The term “productive” means that new nouns appearing in English form the plural with the help of this suffix. Non-productive means of expressing the plural are either historical relics of ancient number paradigms, or borrowed, e.g.: the suppletive forms with interchange of vowels (man – men, tooth – teeth), the archaic suffix –en (ox – oxen), a number of individual singular and plural suffixes of borrowed nouns (antenna – antennae, stratum – strata, nucleus – nuclei, etc.); in addition, a number of nouns have a plural form homonymous with the singular (sheep, fish, deer, etc.). The singular is regularly unmarked (weak member).

The grammatical meaning of the singular is traditionally defined in a simplified way as “one”, and the meaning of the plural – as “many (more than one)”. This is true for the bulk of the nouns, namely those denoting simple countable objects (table – tables). But the noun in the singular can denote not only “one discrete separate object”, but also substances (water), abstract notions (love), units of measure (hour) and other referents. The same applies to the meaning of the plural: plural forms do not always denote “more than one object”, but express some other meanings, such as feelings (horrors of war), sorts of substances (wines), landscape (sands, waters), etc. Thus, the broader understanding of the grammatical meaning of the singular can be defined as the non-dismembering reflection of the referent and the grammatical meaning of the plural as potentially dismembering reflection of the referent; or, in other words, the singular forms of nouns present their referents as indivisible, and the plural forms – as divisible.