Ministry of higher and secondary education of the republic of uzbekistan karakalpak state university

Lecture 5
Theme: Grammatical categories of the noun.

Problems for discussion:

1. 
   The category of number of the noun.
   
2. 
   The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural
   
   1. 
      the singularia tantum (only singular)
      
   2. 
      the absolute singular
      
   3. 
      the absolute plural
      
3. 
   the category of case of the noun.
   
   1. 
      the “theory of positional cases”
      
   2. 
      the “ theory of prepositional cases”
      
   3. 
      the “limited case theory”.
      

The category of number is expressing by the opposition of the plural form of the noun to the singular form of the noun. The strong member of this binary opposition is plural. The productive formal mark is the suffix –(e)s as presented in the forms dog-dogs, clock-clocks, box-boxes. The semantic content of the unmarked form enables the grammarians to speak of the zero suffix of the singular in English.

Non-productive ways of expressing the number opposition are vowel interchange in several relic forms(man-men, woman-women, tooth-teeth, etc.) the archaic suffix –(e)n supported by phonemic interchange in a couple of other relic forms (ox-oxen, child-children, cow[kou]-kine[kain] (уст. поэт. корова), brother-brethren. Vowel interchange is used in the correlation of individual singular and plural suffixes in a limited number of borrowed nouns (formula – formulae, phenomenon – phenomena).
The semantic nature of the difference between singular and plural may present some difficulty of interpretation. The meaning of the singular will be understood as simply “one”, as opposed to the meaning of the plural as “many” in the sense of “more than one”. This is obvious for such correlation as “book-books’.
However, alongside of these semantically unequivocal correlations, there exist plurals and singulars that can not be fully accounted for by the above ready-made approach. This becomes clear when we take for comparison such forms as potato( one item of the vegetables)- potatoes (food), paper ( material)- papers (notes or documents).
As a result of the comparison we conclude that the broader semantic mark of the plural in the grammatical sense should be described as the potentially dismembering of the structure of the referent, while the semantic mark of the singular will be understood as the non-dismembering reflection of the structure of the referent. It is to be noted that there is some difference between three houses and three hours. Three houses are three are separate objects existing side by side, three hours are a continuous period of time measured by a certain agreed unit of duration.
If we now turn to such plurals as waters (waters of the Atlantic), or snows (the snows of Kilimanjaro, 1939), we shall see that we are drifting further away from the original meaning of the plural number. In the first place, no numeral could be used with nouns of this kinds. We could not say three waters, or three snows. We can not say how many waters when we use this noun in the plural number. Then, what is the real difference in meaning between water and waters, snow-snows. The plural form in every case serves to denote a vast stretch of water (in the arctic regions of Canada), etc.
In the case of the water and waters we can press the point still further and state the water of the Atlantic refers to its physical or chemical properties (eg. The water of the Atlantic contains a considerable portion of salt), and the waters of the Atlantic refers to the geographical idea. And so you see that between the singular and plural an additional difference of meaning has developed. Plural tantum and singularia tantum.
You must also consider here two types of nouns differing from all others in the way of number: they have not got the usual two number forms, but only one form. The nouns which have only a plural and no singular are usually termed “plural tantum” (which is the Latin for “plural only”), and those which have only a singular and no plural are termed “singularia tantum” (the Latin for “singular only”).
Among the plural tantum are nouns trousers, scissors, tongs, pincers, breeches, envirous, outskirts, dregs.

Those nouns include nouns of two types. On the one hand there are the nouns which denote material objects consisting of two halves(trousers, scissors), on the other hand there are the nouns which denote a more or less indefinite plurality (envirous, areas surrounding some place on all side; dregs-various small things remaining at the bottom of a vessel.

Group of pluralia tantum nouns are also some names of sciences, eg.mathematics, physics, phonetics, politics and some names of diseases, eg.measles, mumps, rickets.
The direct opposite of pluralia tantum are the singularia tantum, i.e. the nouns which have no plural form. Eg.milk, butter, quicksilver-these are material substance. The names of abstract notions are peace, usefulness, incongruity. The noun iron, as well as the noun quicksilver, denotes a metal but it may be used in the plural of it enotes several objects made of metal irons.
Collective nouns and nouns of multitude.
Nouns denoting groups of human beings(family,government, party, clergy and also of animals (cattle, poultry), multitude) can be used in two different ways; nouns denote the group of nouns as a whole, and in that case they are treated as singulars and usually termed "collective nouns". Nouns denote the group of nouns as consisting of a certain number of individual human beings (or animals), and in that case they are usually termed "nouns of multitude". Eg.my family is small and my family are good speakers.
It is formulated by M.Y.Blokh that the absolute singular is characteristic of the names of abstract notions such as peace, love, joy, courage, friendship, the names of the branches of professional activity chemistry, architecture, mathematics, linguistics, the names of massmaterials water, snow,steel,hair, the names of collective inanimate objects furniture, machinery, etc.
The use of the absolute plural may be found in M.Y.Blokh's work.². The absolut plural is characteristic of the uncountable nouns which denote objects consisting of two halves trousers, scissors, tongs, spectacles the noun expressing some sort of collective meaning, both concrete and abstract outskirts, clothes, paring contents politics, earnings, tidings cattle,poultry, police, etc, the nouns denoting some diseases measles, mumps, rickets.
Common countable nouns may be used in repitition groups. The nouns in repetition group may themselves be used in the plural or in the singular. Example, there were trees and trees all around us. I lit cigarette aftercigarette. This variety of the absolute plural may be caled "repetition plural".
The problem of case in Modern English nouns is one of the most rexed problems in English grammar. This can be seen from the fact that views on the subject differ widely. The most usual view is that English nouns have two cases: a common case and a gentitive (or possessive) case. Side by side with this view there are a number of others views, which can be classified into two main groups: 1) the number of cases in English is more than two, 2) there are no cases at all in English nouns.
The first of thee can be subdivided into the views that the number of cases in English nouns is three, or four, or five, or even an indefinite quantity.
Before embarking on a detailed study of the whole problem it is advisable to take a look at the essence of the notion of case. Case is the category of a noun expressing relations between the thing denoted by the noun and other things, or properties, or actions and manifested by some formal sign in the noun itself. This sign is always an inflection. Occasionally a case may be denoted by change of the root vowel; in OE the noun man "man" had the form men for its dative case. An inflection may also be a "zero" sign, i.e. the absence of any sign may be significant as distinguishing one particular case from another. Thus case is part of the morphological system of a language.
It will be impossible to accept the theories of those who hold that case may also be expressed by prepositions or by word order. It is the view of some scgolars, mainly German grammarian Max Deutschbein that modern English nouns have four cases, example, nominative, gentitive, dative and accusative, of which the gentitive can be express by the -'s- inflection and by the preposition of, the dative can be expressed by the preposition to and also by word order, the accusative is distinguished from the dative by word order alone.
If we admit that of the pen is a gentitive case and to the pen is a dative case, ther would seem no reason to deny that with the pen is an instrumenal case, in the pen is a locative case, etc. Thus the number of cases in modern English nouns would become indefinitely large.
It seems obvious that the number of cases in modern English nouns can not be more than two (father and father's). The form father's might be allowed to retain it traditional name of gentitive case, while the form father may be termed common case. The term "commoncase" was first used by Henry Sweet in his book "A new English grammar, logical and historical, part I, 1892".
There are special views advanced at various times by different scholrs should be considered as successive stages in the analysis of the case problem.
3. the theory of positional cases is directly connected with the old grammatical tradition. The linguistic formulations of this theory may be found in the works of J.C. Nesfield, M.Deutschbein, M. Bryant and other scholars.
According to the theory of positional cases, the unchangeable form's of the noun are differentiated as different cases by virtue of the functional positionocupied by the noun in the sentence. The English noun, on the analogy of classical Latin grammar, would distinguish, besides the inflectional genitive case, also the non-inflectional case, that is purely positional cases: nominative, vocative, dative and accusative.

1. 
   the nominative case (subject to adverb): rain falls;
   
2. 
   the vocative case address: Are you coming, my friend?
   
3. 
   The dative( indirect object to a verb): I gave John a penny.
   
4. 
   The accusative case (direct object and also objects to a preposition): The man killed a rat The letter was written by Lola.
   

2) The theory of prepositional cases is also connected with the old school grammar teaching. The linguistic formulation of this theory may be found in the works of J.Curme.
according to the theory of pepositional cases, combinations of nouns with prepositions in certain object and attributive collocations should be understood as morphological case form. To these belong, first of all, the dative case (to+noun, for+noun) and the genitive case ( of+noun). These prepositions, according to G. Curme, are "inflexional prepositions", i.e. grammatical elements equivalent to case-forms.
The would be prepositiona; cases are taken as coexisting with positional cases, togehter with the classical inflexional genitive completing the case system of the English noun. 3TThe limited case theory of the English noun recognizes a limited inflexional system of two cases in English.
The limited case theory is at present most broadly accepted among linguists in this country and abroad. It was formulated by such scholars as H.Sweet, O. Jespersen and developed by A.I.Smirnitsky, L.S.Barkhudarov and others.
The limited case theory in its modern presentation is based on the explicit oppositional approach to the recognition of the grammatical categories. In the system of the English case the functional mark is defined, which differntiates the two case forms: the possesive or genitive form as the strong member of the categorial opposition and the common, or "non- genitive " form as the weak member of the categorial opposition.
RECOMMENDED LITERATURE

1. 
   Иванов И.П.,Бурлакова В.В.,Поченцов Г.Г. Теоретическая грамматика современного английского языка. М.,1981.
   
2. 
   Теоретическая грамматика английского языка. Л.,1983
   
3. 
   Ilyish B.A. The structure of Modern English grammar. Leningrad 1971.
   
4. 
   Block M.Y. A course in Theoretical English grammar. M., 1983.
   
5. 
   Rayevska N. Modern English grammar. Part 1. Kiev, 1967