English nouns: definitions and classification

Contact noun attributes forming a string of several words are very characteristic of professional language. E.g.: A number of Space Shuttle trajectory optimisation problems were simulated in the development of the algorithm, including three ascent problems and a re-entry problem (From a scientific paper on spacecraft). The accuracy of offshore tanker unloading operations is becoming more important as the cost of petroleum products increases (From a scientific paper on control systems).

As a part of speech, the noun is also characterised by a set of formal features determining its specific status in the lexical paradigm of nomination. It has its word-building distinctions, including typical suffixes, compound stem models, conversion patterns. It discriminates the grammatical categories of gender, number, case, article determination, which will be analysed below. Subject and the verb in the following sentence: The poor creature was laming. (Not: The tree was laming.)

The human selectional base underlies the connection between the nouns in the following combination: John's love of music (not: the cat's love of music).

The phenomenon of subclass selection is intensely analysed as part of current linguistic research work.

Chapter II. Classification of a noun as a notional part of speech

II.1. Proper nouns

The noun denotes thingness in a general sense. Thus nouns name things (book, table), living beings (man, tiger), places (valley, London, England), materials (iron, oil), processes (life, laughter), states (sleep, consciousness), abstract notions (socialism, joy) and qualities (kindness, courage).

Semantically all nouns fall into proper nouns and common nouns.

A proper noun is the name of a particular member of a class or of a set of particular members. Cf. Smith and the Smiths. The function of a proper noun, or name, is similar to the definite article - both are particularizers: Smith means the man Smith/the Smith man. However, there is a difference between the man Smith / the Smith man and the man: it concerns the mode of naming. In the first case, man is particularized through the use of another name (i.e. Smith) while in the second case man is particularized through the use of a grammatical wordmorpheme, i.e. the definite article. The addition of a proper (i.e. particularizing) name renders the common name (i.e. man) semantically redundant and it is dropped in the surface structure. Another difference concerns the way the two modes of naming solve the problem of the uniqueness of reference: proper names are not always `proper', i.e. they may refer to more than one individual. Consider:

A. There's an Alice on the phone.

B. Is that the Alice you told me about?

A. There's a Broadway in almost every city.

B. The Broadway I'm referring to is in New York City.

This suggests that proper names may function as common names. To put it otherwise, proper names, when they have no unique reference, behave like common names. Such `proper' nouns need particularizing by the definite article, i.e. by a grammatical element that marks the entity denoted by the noun as unique. Proper names `proper' have unique reference and do not need to be particularized by the definite article. The use of the definite article with such nouns can only be accounted for by the fact that as proper names they are still in the making. Consider: London vs. the Thames / the river Thames but not yet Thames. The knowledge of the said peculiarities of proper nouns is directly related to grammar, viz. to the category of determination and to the category of number. The relation of proper nouns to the category of case is not so clear: proper nouns denoting animate entities are used in the genitive while proper nouns denoting inanimate entities may or may not be used so.

The noun denotes thingness in a general sense. Thus nouns name things (book, table), living beings (man, tiger), places (valley, London, England), materials (iron, oil), processes (life, laughter), states (sleep, consciousness), abstract notions (socialism, joy) and qualities (kindness, courage).

Proper nouns are geographical names (New York, the Thames, Asia, the Alps), names of individual (unique) persons (John, Byron, Brown), names of the months and the days of the week (January, Sunday), names of planets (the Moon, the Sun, the Earth), names of ships, hotels, clubs (Shepherd's Hotel), of buildings, streets, parks, bridges (Buckingham Palace, Trafalgar Square, Regent Street, Charing Cross Road, Piccadilly Circus, Kensington Gardens, Hyde Park, Waterloo Bridge), of institutions, organizations, magazines and newspapers (the United Nations, the New Times, the Guardian). They are written with capitals.

Proper nouns as common nouns

Although proper nouns have certain typical features that distinguish them from common nouns, most can also be used as common nouns with certain meanings. For example, given names, such as Jim, are normally proper nouns; one asks “Do you know Jim?”, not *“Do you know the Jim?”. However, one can also use Jim as a common noun meaning “a person named `Jim'”; hence, one asks “Do you know the Jim who works on the third floor?” (=“Do you know the man named `Jim' who works on the third floor?”). The same is true of surnames, which as common nouns are frequently found in the plural, as in the phrase keeping up with the Joneses. Even proper nouns denoting a single entity entity can display this behavior if (for example) the entity can be seen in different ways, or if it changes over time. Hence one might say, for example, “The Europe of 1600 was very different from the Europe we know today.” Interestingly, English's normal spelling patterns for plurals are frequently subverted with proper nouns; for example, two women named Mary are together Marys, not usually Maries.

This is analogous to the use of non-count nouns as count nouns -- for example, one cannot ordinarily speak of two rices, but one can say, “white rice and long-grain rice are two rices grown in the U.S.” -- and of count nouns as non-count nouns -- for example, one cannot ordinarily say a bit of headphone, but one can say, “In his rage, he completely destroyed the headphones, and afterwards there were little bits of headphone scattered across the floor.”

As a further complication, proper nouns or nouns not readily distinguished from proper nouns can be used as non-count nouns, as in: "The living room was too much Mary for Ted to feel comfortable in it."

II.2. Common nouns

A common noun is a common name, i.e. it is the name common to the class as a whole. Similar to proper nouns, common nouns form two grammatically relevant groups: animate and inanimate. Animate common nouns are further subdivided into person and non-person nouns. This subdivision of nouns constitutes the basis for the category of gender in English: person nouns can be either masculine or feminine, while non-person nouns are neuter. Both types of countables - proper and common - serve as a basis for the category of number. The category of case is based on animate nouns.

Common nouns can be classified into nouns denoting objects that can be counted and those that cannot. So there are count and non-count and collective common nouns. The former are inflected for number, whereas the latter are not. Further distinction is into concrete nouns, abstract nouns and nouns of material.

Semantic classification of English nouns is shown in the following scheme:

Concrete nouns semantically fall into three subclasses.

1. Nouns denoting living beings - persons and animals:

boy, girl, dog, cat.

2. Nouns denoting inanimate objects:

table, chair.

3. Collective (собирательные) nouns denoting a group of persons:

family, crowd.

English collective nouns denote only living beings (family, police, clergy, cattle, poultry, etc.) and have two categorical meanings: the first - plurality as indivisible whole and the second - discrete plurality, that is plurality denoting separate beings. In the latter case these nouns are called nouns of multitude. Thus, one and the same noun may be a collective noun proper and a noun of multitude.

The difference in two categorical meanings is indicated by the number of the verb-predicate (singular in the first case and plural in the second), as well as by possessive and personal pronouns. The meaning of the predicate is also important: predicates denoting physiological processes or states, emotional or psychic reactions, states always imply separate beings involved into it. Compare the following examples:

Collective nouns proper	Nouns of multitude
The family was large The cattle is in the mountains The crew on the ship was excellent. The crowd was enormous. The committee was unanimous.	The family were fond of their house. The cattle are grasing there. The crew have taken their posts. The crowd were watching the scene spell-bound. The committee were divided in their opinion.

Discrete plurality is also expressed by substantivized adjectives denoting people:

the helpless, the needy, the poor, the sick, the weary, the rich.



English singular invariable nouns	Uzbek plural invariable nouns
ink cream yeast money hair fruit applause chess	чернила сливки дрожжи деньги волосы фрукты аплодисменты шахматы

There are some nouns which may be classified both as count and non-count. They often have considerable difference in meaning in the two classes.

II.3 Countable and uncountable nouns

We can distinguish two grammatically relevant classes of nouns: countable (discrete) and uncountable.

Uncountable nouns, in contrast to countable nouns, do not denote individuals; they either denote substance as such (material nouns) or concepts, or ideas, which exist in our minds only (abstract nouns). Uncountables, naturally, cannot form the opposition of singular vs. plural within their class: they are singulars only. The other member of the opposition does not exist, or, to put it otherwise, is neutralized. Being singulars only (e.g. Beauty is rare), they do not behave in the same way as countables used in the singular: they do not take a numeral or the indefinite article, e.g. one butter, a butter, one justice, a justice. They also take different quantifiers (i.e. a word which gives an indefinite indication of quantity, distinguished as such from a numeral, which gives a precise indication of quantity). Cf. few children vs. little money; fewer children vs. less money. Uncountables are not primary nouns: they are, as a rule, derived from countable nouns or from other parts of speech - mostly from verbs and adjectives. Let us first consider uncountables derived from countables:

She likes lemon in her tea. vs. Here's a lemon.

I taste onion in the salad. vs. There's a large onion in the salad.

Do you like roast? vs. I'll buy a roast for dinner.

Would you like pie or cake? vs. She made a pie and a cake today.

This table is made of oak. vs. An oak is growing in the field.

However, some such nouns cannot be related to corresponding countables:

Would you like tea?

I smell gas.

Would you like cream in your coffee?

Such nouns as tea, coffee, cream, whiskey, juice, etc. are primaries, i.e.

underived. But they can function as countables:

Would you like a green tea or a black tea?

Would you rather have a Chinese tea?

Our Chinese teas are especially good.

This is a rich heavy tea.

Is it a gas or a liquid ?

When used so, they denote a kind, type, or variety of the substance. These nouns can be turned into countables by using a container word:

He ordered a cup of tea / a glass of milk, whiskey, beer, juice, etc.

The container word may be dropped and we have a tea, a milk, a whiskey, a

beer, a juice. However, such nouns are not countables proper since they function

as units only: a tea means a cup of tea, i.e. tea remains uncountable despite the

form. Cf. a tea/two teas vs. He drinks many teas instead of He drinks a lot of tea.

As already mentioned, the other type of uncountable is nouns derived from verbs and adjectives:

She married him. _ Her marriage to him.

John loves money. _John's love of money.

She is kind. _ Her kindness.

Rose was mad._ Rose's madness.

Similar to material uncountables, abstract uncountables can be turned into either partially countables (e.g. He is sinking into a madness) or full countables (e.g. She moved with languor _ Her movements). The noun a madness is similar in meaning to a green tea - both mean a type of the entity.

To sum up, we can distinguish the following grammatically relevant semantic classes of nouns:

Countables vs. Uncoutables

v v

Proper nouns Derived uncountables

Common nouns Underived uncountables

v

Animate nouns

Inanimate nouns

v

person and non-person nouns

Many non-count nouns combine with a set of nouns showing some part of material or abstract notion. Here are some typical partitives for material and abstract nouns:

In some cases there is no obvious logical reason for the assignment of various English nouns to the count or non-count class. In Uzbek and English the attribution of the corresponding nouns may be different. Here are some cases when the classes of nouns in English and Uzbek do not coincide:

II.4 Nouns of singularly and plural patterns

Pluralia Tantum and Singularia Tantum

We 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 "pluralia 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 pluralia tantum are the nouns trousers, scissors, tongs, pincers, breeches; environs, outskirts, dregs. As is obvious from these examples, they include nouns of two types. On the one hand, there are the nouns which denote material objects consisting of two halves (trousers, scissors, etc.); on the other, there are those which denote a more or less indefinite plurality (e. g. environs'areas surrounding some place on all sides'; dregs 'various small things remaining at the bottom of a vessel after the liquid has been poured out of it', etc.). If we compare the English pluralia tantum with the Uzbek, we shall find that in some cases they correspond to each other (e. g., trousers -- брюки, scissors -- ножницы, environs-- окрестности, etc.), while in others they do not (квасцы -- alum, деньги -- money, etc.). This seems to depend on a different, view of the objects in question reflected by the English and the Uzbek language respectively. The reason why a given object is denoted by a pluralia tantum noun in this or that language is not always quite clear.

Close to this group of pluralia tantum nouns are also some names of sciences, e. g. mathematics, physics, phonetics, also politics, and some names of diseases, e. g. measles, mumps, rickets. The reason for this seems to be that, for example, mathematics embrace a whole series of various scientific disciplines, and measles are accompanied by the appearance of a number of separate inflamed spots on the skin (rash). However, the reasons are less obvious in the case of phonetics, for instance. Now, it is typical of English that some of these pluralia tantum may, as it were, cease to be plural. They may occasionally, or even regularly, be accompanied by the indefinite article, and if they are the subject of a sentence the predicate verb may stand in the singular.

This way of treating pluralia tantum, which would be unthinkable in Uzbek, is of course connected with the structure of English as a whole.

The possibility of treating a plural form as if it were singular is also seen in the use of the phrase the United Nations, which may, when it is the subject of a sentence, have the predicate verb in the singular, e. g. the United Nations is a world organisation.

Examples of a phrase including a noun in the plural being modified by a pronoun in the singular and thus shown to be apprehended as a singular are by no means rare. Here are a few typical examples. I myself still wonder at that six weeks of calm madness. . . (CARY) The unity of the period of time, measured in the usual units of months, weeks, and days, is thus brought out very clearly. Bessie, during that twenty-four hours, had spent a night with Alice and a day with Muriel... (CARY) The unity of the space of time referred to is even more obvious in this example than in the preceding one; twenty-four hours is a commonly received unit of measurement of time (in Uzbek this would be expressed by a single noun -- сутки). The variant those twenty-jour hours would be inappropriate here, as it would imply that the statement was referring to every single hour of the twenty-four taken separately.

This way of showing the unity of a certain quantity of space or time by modifying the phrase in question by a pronoun in the singular, and also (if the phrase be the subject of the sentence) by using the predicate verb in the singular, appears to be a very common thing in present-day English.

The direct opposite of pluralia tantum are the singularia tan-turn, i. e. the nouns which have no plural form. Among these we must first note some nouns denoting material substance, such as milk, butter, quicksilver, etc., and also names of abstract notions, such as peace, usefulness, incongruity, etc. Nouns of this kind express notions which are, strictly speaking, outside the sphere of number: e. g. milk, or fluency. ¹ But in the morphological and syntactical system of the English language a noun cannot stand outside the category of number. If the noun is the subject of a sentence, the predicate verb (if it is in the present tense) will have to be either singular or plural. With the nouns just mentioned the predicate verb is always singular. This is practically the only external sign (alongside of the absence of a plural inflection in the noun itself) which definitely shows the noun to be singular.

Some nouns denoting substance, or material, may have a plural form, if they are used to denote either an object made of the material or a special kind of substance, or an object exhibiting the quality denoted by the noun. Thus, the noun wine, as well as the noun milk, denotes a certain substance, but it has a plural form wines used to denote several special kinds of wine. The noun iron, as well as the noun quicksilver, denotes a metal, but it may be used in the plural if it denotes several objects made of that metal (утюги). The noun beauty, as well as the noun ugliness, denotes a certain quality presented as an object, but it may be used in the plural to denote objects exhibiting that quality, e. g. the beauties of nature; His daughters were all beauties. Many more examples of a similar kind might be found. Accordingly, the nouns wine, iron, and beauty cannot be called singularia tantum, although in their chief application they no more admit of a plural form than milk, quicksilver, or ugliness.

Collective Nouns and Nouns of Multitude

Certain nouns denoting groups of human beings (family, government, party, clergy, etc.) and also of animals (cattle, poultry, etc.)

The question how much? could of course be asked with reference to milk, and the answer might be, a bottle of milk. This would apply to quantity, not to number. With the noun fluency the question how much? can be used in two different ways: either they are taken to denote the group as a whole, and in that case they are treated as singulars, and usually termed "collective nouns" (in a restricted sense of the term); or else they are taken to denote the group as consisting of a certain number of individual human beings (or animals), and in that case they are usually termed "nouns of multitude".

The difference between the two applications of such nouns may be briefly exemplified by a pair of examples: My family is small, and My family are good speakers. It is quite obvious here that in the one sentence the characteristic "small" applies to the family as a whole, while in the other sentence the characteristic "good speakers" applies to every single member of the family ("everyone of them is a good speaker" is what is meant, but certainly not "everyone of them is small"). The same consideration would also apply to such sentences as The cattle were grazing in the field. It is also quite possible to say, Many cattle were grazing in the field, where the use of many (not much) clearly shows that cattle is apprehended as a plural.

The following bit of dialogue is curious, as the noun board, which is the subject of the first sentence, is here connected with a predicate verb in the singular, but is replaced by a plural pronoun in the second sentence: "Does the Board know of this?" "Yes," said John, "they fully approve the scheme." (A. WILSON)

With the noun people the process seems to have gone further than with any other noun of this kind. There is, on the one hand, the noun people, singular, with its plural peoples (meaning 'nations'), and there is, on the other hand, the noun people apprehended as a plural (There were fifty people in the hall) and serving as a kind of plural to the noun person (There was only one person in the hall). People can of course be modified by the words many and few and by cardinal numerals (twenty people).

In the following sentence the word people is even modified by the phrase attribute one or two, although the numeral one in itself could not possibly be an attribute to the noun people in this sense: One or two people looked at him curiously, but no one said anything. (A. WILSON) Strictly speaking we might expect the phrase one man or two people; however, this variant does not appear to be used anywhere. The perfect possibility of the phrase two people appears to be sufficient ground for making the phrase one or two people possible as well.

Recently a peculiar view of the category of number was put forward by A. Isachenko. According to this view, the essential meaning of the category (in nouns) is not that of quantity, but of discreteness (расчлененность). The plural, in this view, expresses fundamentally the notion of something consisting of distinguishable parts, and the meaning of quantity in the usual sense would then appear to be a result of combining the fundamental meaning of the category as such with the lexical meaning of the noun used in the plural. Thus, in scissors the category of plural number, which, in Isachenko's view, expresses discreteness, combines with the lexical meaning of the noun, which denotes an object consisting of two halves, whereas in houses the same meaning of the grammatical category combines with the lexical meaning of the noun, which denotes separate objects not coalescing together, as in the case of scissors. Accordingly, the resulting meaning is that of a number of separate objects, i. e. the plural number in the usual sense of the term. These views put forward by A. Isachenko throw a new light on the problem of number in nouns and certainly deserve close attention. It is yet too early to say whether they can provide a final solution to the complex problem of number in nouns.

English nouns that are inflected for number (count nouns) have singular and plural forms.

Singular denotes one, plural denotes more than one. Most count nouns are variable and can occur with either singular or plural number. In Modern English the singular form of a noun is unmarked (zero). The plural form is marked by the inflexion -(e)s. The spelling and the pronunciation of the plural morpheme vary.

I. Nouns ending in vowels and voiced consonants have the plural ending pronouced as [z]:

bee - bees [bi:z], dog - dogs [d?gz]

II. Nouns ending in voiceless consonants have a voiceless ending:

book - books [buks]

III. Nouns ending in -s, -sh, -as, -ch, -x, -z, (sibilants) have the ending [iz]:

actress - actresses ['жktr?s?z]

bush - bushes ['bu??z]

watch - watches ['wot??zj

box - boxes ['boks?z]

IV. Nouns ending in -o have the ending [z]:

hero - heroes ['h??rouz]

photo- photoes ['foutouz]

The regular plural inflexion of nouns in -o has two spellings; -os which occurs in the following cases:

a) after a vowel - bamboos, embryos, folios, kangaroos, radios, studios, zoos;

b) in proper names - Romeos, Eskimos, Filipinos;

c) in abbreviations, kilos (kilogramme), photos (photograph), pros (professional);

d) also in some borrowed words: pianos, concertos, dynamos, quartos, solos, tangos, tobaccos.

In other cases the spelling is -oes: tomatoes, echoes, Negroes, potatoes, vetoes, torpedoes, embargoes

V. The letter -y usually changes into -i:

sky skies [skaiz]

But the letter -y remains unchanged -ys:

a) after vowels:

days (except in nouns ending in -quy: soliloquy - soliloquies).

b) in proper names:

the two Germanys, the Kennedys, the Gatsbys;

c) in compounds:

stand-bys, lay-bys.

The word penny has two plural forms:

pence (irregular) - in British currency to denote a coin of this value or a sum of money:

Here is ten pence (in one coin or as a sum of money);

pennies (regular) - for individual coins.

Here are ten pennies.

VI. Thirteen nouns ending in -f(e) form their plural changing -f(e) into -v(e): the ending in this case is pronounced [z]:

calf - calves elf - elves half - halves knife - knives leaf - leaves	life - lives loaf - loaves self - selves sheaf - sheaves (снопы) shelf - shelves	thief - thieves wife - wives wolf - wolves

Other nouns ending in -f(e) have the plural inflexion -s in the regular way: proof - proofs, chief - chiefs, safe - safes, cliff - cliffs, gulf - gulfs, dwarf - dwarfs, reef- reefs, grief - griefs; the ending is pronounced [s].

In a few cases both -fs and -ves forms are possible:

scarf - scarfs/scarves,

dwarf - dwarfs/dwarves,

hoof - hoofs/hooves.

VII. Nouns ending in -th after a short vowel have the ending -s [s]:

month -- months [m?nиs].

Nouns ending in -th after a long vowel or a diphthong have [9z] in the plural: baths [ba:рz], paths [paрz], oaths [ouрz].

But: youths [ju:иs], births [b?:иs].

VIII. The plural of abbreviations is sometimes formed in spelling by doubling a letter:

Ms (manuscript) p. (page) Mr (Mister) M.P. (Member of Parliament) M.D. (Doctor of Medicine) Co. (Company)	- MSS - pp. - Messrs ['mes?z] - M.P.s ['em'pi:z] - M.D.s ['em'di:z] - Co.s [kouz]

In a phrase like "Miss Brown" two different forms are used for the plural. We may either say "the Miss Browns" or "the Misses Brown", the latter being generally considered more correct.

Irregular plurals

For historical reasons certain nouns form their plural differently.

1. Seven nouns distinguish plural from singular by vowel change:

man - men woman - women	tooth - teeth foot - feet	goose - geese mouse - mice louse - lice

2. Two nouns have -en to mark the plural:

ox - oxen, child - children.

Brother has two plural forms: brothers and brethren, the latter being used as a religious term or in elevated style to denote people of the same creed, not relations.

3. With some nouns the plural is identical with the singular form (for details see § 176, II):

a) sheep-sheep;

swine - swine;

deer - deer;

grouse - grouse.

This sheep looks small. All those sheep are good.

I bought a grouse (three grouse for dinner).

There're so many fish, they splinter the paddles.

Singular invariable nouns.

1. Here belong all non-count nouns:

a) material nouns - tea, sugar, gold, silver, oil, butter, sail. (As has been mentioned they may become

count nouns with a specific meaning: cheeses - kinds of cheese, beers - portions of beer, as two glasses

or cans of beer, two coffees, icecreams.)

b) absrract nouns - music, anger, foolishness.

2. Proper nouns:

The Thames, Henry.

3. Some nouns ending in -s:

a) news - Here is the 10 o'clock news;

means - by this means (этими средствами)

gallows - They fixed up a gallows (виселицу).

b) some diseases - measles (корь), mumps (свинка), rickets (рахит), shingles (краснуха);

However sometimes the usage varies: Mumps is/are a medical problem.

c) some games - billiards, bowls (гольф), dominoes, draughts (шашки);

But when used attributively no plural is used: a billiard table.

d) some proper nouns - Algiers, Athens, Brussels, Flanders, Marseilles, Naples, Wales, the United

Nations, thе United States.

4. Nouns ending in -ics:

classics, linguistics, mathematics, phonetics, athletics, ceramics, ethics, gymnastics, politics, tactics.

Nouns of this group are occasionally understood as plurals:

Their tactics requires/reguire concentration of troops.

Politics has/have always interested me.

Plural invariable nouns

Plural invariable nouns comprise two types - marked and unmarked plurals.

I. In the first type the form of the noun itself shows plurality. These nouns are rather numerous. Semantically they fall into several groups:

a) names of tools or articles of dress consisting of two equal parts which are joined: bellows, binoculars, breeches, braces, flannels, glasses, pants, pincers, pliers, pyjamas, scales, scissors, shorts, spectacles, suspenders, tights, tongs, trousers, tweeters;

These nouns can be made singular and countable by means of a pair of: a pair of trousers, a pair of scissors. Accordingly they are used with the verb-predicate in the singular (this pair of trousers is ...)

b) miscellaneous nouns: annals, antics, archives, arms, ashes, the Commons (the House of Commons), contents, customs, customs-duty, customs-house, earnings, goods, goods train, greens, holidays, summer-holidays, manners, minutes (of the meeting), outskirts, quarters, headquarters, stairs, suds, surroundings, thanks, troops, wages, whereabouts, the Middle Ages;

c) some proper nouns: the East Indies, the West Indies, the Hebrides, the Highlands, the Midlands, the Netherlands.

Conclusion

To conclude we can say that the noun as a part of speech has the categorial meaning of "substance" or "thingness". It follows from this that the noun is the main nominative part of speech, effecting nomination of the fullest value within the framework of the notional division of the lexicon.

The categorial functional properties of the noun are determined by its semantic properties.

The most characteristic substantive function of the noun is that of the subject in the sentence, since the referent of the subject is the person or thing immediately named. The function of the object in the sentence is also typical of the noun as the substance word. Other syntactic functions, i.e. attributive, adverbial, and even predicative, although performed by the noun with equal ease, are not immediately characteristic of its substantive quality as such. It should be noted that, while performing these non-substantive functions, the noun essentially differs from the other parts of speech used in similar sentence positions. This may be clearly shown by transformations shifting the noun from various non-subject syntactic positions into subject syntactic positions of the same general semantic value, which is impossible with other parts of speech.

When it comes to grammatical categories, the noun in Modern English has only two grammatical categories, number and case. The existence of case appears to be doubtful and has to be carefully analysed.

The Modern English noun certainly has not got the category of grammatical gender, which is to be found, for example, in Uzbek, French, German and Latin. Not a single noun in Modern English shows any peculiarities in its morphology due to its denoting a male or a female being.

Semantically all nouns fall into proper nouns and common nouns. A proper noun is the name of a particular member of a class or of a set of particular members. A common noun is a common name, i.e. it is the name common to the class as a whole. Similar to proper nouns, common nouns form two grammatically relevant groups: animate and inanimate.

We can distinguish two grammatically relevant classes of nouns: countable (discrete) and uncountable. Uncountable nouns, in contrast to countable nouns, do not denote individuals; they either denote substance as such (material nouns) or concepts, or ideas, which exist in our minds only (abstract nouns). Uncountables, naturally, cannot form the opposition of singular vs. plural within their class: they are singulars only.

We 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 "pluralia tantum" (which is the Latin for "plural only"), and those which have only a singular and no plural are termed "singularia tantum".

Summary

I had investigated the noun in my qualification work. I had chosen this theme because I am interested in it and also it is one of the most important part of speech in teaching grammar not only in English but in other languages too. Nouns play great role in the person's speech as it expresses name of things, events, and phenomenon.

In my qualification work I analyzed nouns as a expressions of social power. I used various references to investigate the noun. In my work I had investigated the similarities and differences of grammatical categories of noun in English and in Uzbek languages. Uzbek language as English distinguishes two numbers and the meaning of singular and plural seems to be self-explanatory.

My qualification paper is dedicated to the problems of interrogative sentences in English. It consists of introduction, three chapters, conclusion, and the list of used literature.

In introduction I described the subjects, objects, aims, tasks, the actuality of the work and the theoretical and practical significances of the work.

Chapter I named « The noun as a universal part of speech in the language » is dedicated to the study theoretical points of the problem. The chapter investigates two questions such as definition of noun as a part of speech, morphological and syntactical characteristics of a noun

In the 2^nd chapter named “Classification of a noun as a notional part of speech” the problem of classification of English nouns has been discussed. This chapter embraces such questions as proper nouns, common nouns, countable and uncountable nouns, nouns of singularly and plural patterns.

Practical part of my work consists of lesson plans and exercises directed to teaching nouns, which were widely used in the qualification pedagogical practice at school _____, in Kuylyuk, Tashkent.

In conclusion I summarized the opinions which were made while working on the paper.

The list of used literature is given at the end of the work in alphabetical order.

The List of used literature:

Analyzing English Grammar. Thomas P. Kiammer, Muriel R. Schulz, Angela dela Volpe. Needhan Heights, MA, 2000. P.p. 358.

A New University English Grammar (Грамматика современного английского языка) /Под ред. А.В. Зеленщикова, Е.С. Петровой. - М.: Академия, 2003.- 640 с.

Blokh M.Y. A Course in Theoretical English Grammar.- M.: Высшая школа,2003.-423 c.

Блох М.Я., Семенова Т.Н., Тимофеева С.В. Практикум по теоретической грамматике английского языка. - М.: Высшая школа, 2004. -- 471 c.

Блох М.Я. Теоретические основы грамматики. - М.: Высшая школа,2000. - 425 с.

Бархударов Л.С. Очерки по морфологии современного английского языка. -M., 1975.-352 c.

Бархударов Л.С. Структура простого предложения современного английского языка. М., 1966, 340с

Буранов Ж. Инглиз тили грамматикаси. Тошкент, 1974, 351б Ильинова Е.Ю. Теоретическая грамматика английского языка: пространственное измерение и анализ. - Волгоград: Изд-во ВолГУ, 2002. - 420c

Бархударов Л.С. и др. Грамматика английского языка. М.,1973, 590с.

Блох М.Я. Вопросы изучения грамматического строя языка. М., 1976, 378с.

Бурлакова В.В. Основы структуры словосочетания в современном английском языке. Л., 1975, 235с.

Воронцова Г.Н. Очерки по грамматике английского языка. М., 1960, 345с.

Вейхман Г.А. Новое в английской грамматике: Учебное пособие для институтов и факультетов иностранных языков. - М.: Высшая школа, 1990. - 128 с.

Close R.O. A Reference Grammar for Students of English. Ldn., 1967 (450p)

Deyeva I.M. Lexico-Grammatical Difficulties of English. Leningrad, 1976 (278p)

Francis W.N. The Structure of American English. New York, 1978 (283p)

Hill A.A. Introduction to Linguistic Structures. N.Y., 1958 (435p)

Holman M. Translation or Transliteration? Sofia, 1985 (235p)

Ganshina M.A. English Grammar.Higher School Publishing House, 1964 (548p)

Gordon E.M. A Grammar of Present-day English M., 1974 (437p)

Иофик Л.Л., Чахоян Л.П. Хрестоматия по теоретической грамматике английского языка: Пособие для студентов педагогических институтов и филологических факультетов университетов. - Л.: Просвещение, 1967. - 216 с.

Размещено на Allbest.ru