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:

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

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

• 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:

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

• 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;

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.